HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-04 - RESOLUTIONS - PLACERITA SEWER EIR OAK PERMIT (2)fact:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-134
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
PLACERITA CANYON SEWER BACKBONE, FEIR SCH NO. 2002041149,
AND APPROVING MASTER CASE NO. 02-178 FOR OAK TREE PERMIT 02-026
FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE SEWER LINE INTO THE
PROTECTED ZONE OF 39 OAK TREES WITHIN THE
COMMUNITY OF PLACERITA CANYON
THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT: The City Council makes the following findings of
a. The applicant, the City of Santa Clarita Transportation and Engineering Services
has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the installation of a 2.3
mile backbone sewer line which will encroach into the protected zone of 39 oak
trees along the project route. The sewer line will be constructed from the
Master's College and continue northwest along Placerita Canyon Road and
Placeritos Boulevard and along Aden Avenue, Meadview Avenue and Alderbrook
Drive to connect to the City's existing line on San Fernando Road.
b. The Placerita Canyon Sewer Backbone Project is located within the community of
Placerita Canyon, a sub -community of Santa Clarita in Los Angeles County. The
site is bounded by San Fernando Road and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) to
the west, 13th Street, Pine Street and a portion of 12th Street to the south,
Alderbrook Drive and Pepperidge Drive to the east, and Placerita Creek to the
north. The land uses throughout the project site consist of a mixture of residential
and educational uses and will run 2.3 miles through the community to connect to
the existing mainline on San Fernando Road. The Assessor Parcel Numbers
(APNs) are 2834-001-007, 2834-001-012, 2834-001-013, 2834-001-014, 2834-
001 -270,2834 -001 -271,2834 -001 -272,2834 -002 -046,2834 -003-044,2834-004-
045,2834-005-041,2834-012-023,2834-014-043 and 2834-015-021.
C. Placerita Canyon is currently developed with a mixture of single family, multi
family and educational uses. The Placerita Canyon Sewer Backbone Project area
has access through a network of local roadways throughout Placerita Canyon
community.
d. The project consists of the installation of the sewer backbone that would be
provide sewer throughout the Canyon as far east as the Master's College and west
to the edge of the Canyon. The project would provide opportunities for the
Canyon residents to hook into the City's sewer system, in lieu of private septic
Resolution No. 03-134
Page 2
systems. Minimal grading is required as a result of the project and no
development or any other improvements will occur as a result of the project.
e. The installation of the sewer line requires the approval of an oak tree permit for
the encroachment of 39 oak trees throughout the project route.
f. An Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Placerita Canyon Sewer
Backbone Project were circulated in April 2002. Subsequently, a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared by the City's EIR Consultant
(Tetra Tech, Inc.) that addresses the comments received in response to the NOP.
g. On April 22, 2003 Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public
review and comment. The review period closed June 9, 2003. A community
meeting was held during the public comment period on May 12, 2003 to answer
questions about the EIR and to receive public comments. The City also
conducted a project walk with citizens concerned with the proposed project on
Wednesday, May 21, 2003. Staff received written responses from outside
agencies and written comments from members of the public, which are addressed
in the Final EIR. The Final EIR also includes responses to oral comments
received during the community meeting.
h. The EIR identifies issue areas as "Environmental Areas Where No Significant
Impacts Would Occur. These include Land Use and Planning, Population and
Housing, Energy/Mineral Resources, Utilities (Natural Gas, Electricity,
Telephone, and Wastewater), Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Air Quality, Parks
and Recreation, long-term Traffic impacts and long-term Noise
impacts. Although no significant impacts are associated with air quality,
aesthetics, parks and recreation and cultural resources, mitigation measures have
been incorporated. All other issues identified in the Draft EIR are classified as
"Environmental Effects Which Have Been Mitigated to a Level Less Than
Significant." These include Geology, Water Resources/Storm Water
Management, short-term Transportation and Circulation impacts, Biological
Resources, Risk of Upset/Hazards, short-term Noise.
The Final EIR was released for public review on October 3, 2003 and responses
to comments received were mailed to agencies and individuals who submitted
written comments on October 3, 2003.
j. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Placerita Canyon
Sewer Backbone Project on October 28, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The City Council public
hearing was advertised 21 days prior to the hearing in The Signal, through on-site
posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by mail to property owners within 500
feet of the project area.
Resolution No. 03-134
Page 3
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND FINDINGS:
The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita hereby make the following findings of fact:
a. CEQA provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if
there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which
would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects."
(Emphasis added.) The procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist
public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of
proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." (Emphasis
added.) CEQA also provides that "in the event that specific economic, social, or
other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation
measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant
effects."
b. The mandate and principles announced in CEQA are implemented, in part,
through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving
projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect
identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a
written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first
such finding is that "changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the final EIR." The second permissible finding is that "such
changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other
agency." The third potential conclusion is that "specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures
or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." CEQA defines "feasible" to
mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable
period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and
technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor:
"legal" considerations.
C. The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular
alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of
a project. `Feasibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that
desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic,
environmental, social, and technological factors.
d. Where a significant impact can be substantially lessened solely by the adoption of
mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to
consider the feasibility of alternatives with respect to that mitigated impact, even
if the alternative would mitigate the impact in question to a greater degree than
the project as mitigated. (Pub. Resources Code § 21002; Laurel Hills
Resolution No. 03-134
Page 4
Homeowners Association, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at 521; see also Kings County
Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731 [270
Cal.Rptr. 650]; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the
University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403 [253 Cal.Rptr. 426].)
e. CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives,
where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts
that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required,
however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for
modifying the project lies with some other agency. Further, in devising
mitigation measures, "a public agency may exercise only those express or implied
powers provided by law other than [CEQA]." In fashioning mitigation measures,
the lead agency must ensure that the mitigation actually relates to impacts caused
by the project in question; an applicant cannot be required to provide a
generalized public benefit unrelated to project impacts or that would do more than
fully mitigate the impacts.
f. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires decision -makers to
balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental
impacts. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable" by
adopting a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." Should the City Council,
upon independent review of the Final EIR, choose to approve the project, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations should set forth the project benefits or
reasons why the Lead Agency is in favor of approving and weighs these benefits
against the Project's adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR
that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant.
g. CEQA requires that a DEIR be recirculated for additional public review and
comment if: (1) substantial changes in the Draft EIR that would deprive the public
of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental
effect of the project, a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect, or a
feasible project alternative; (2) new information identifies new potential
significant environmental effects or substantially increases the potential severity
of the previously identified significant effects disclosed in the Draft EIR; (3)
mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the Draft EIR that would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment; (4) new information or changes in the Draft EIR
render the Draft EIR so fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature that
meaningful public review and comment would be precluded.
h. CEQA requires that a lead agency exercise independent judgment in reviewing
the adequacy of an EIR and that the decision of a Lead Agency in certifying a
Final EIR and approving a project not be predetermined.
Resolution No. 03-134
Page 5
i. CEQA requires decision -makers to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting
program (MMRP) for those mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR that
would mitigate or avoid each significant effect identified in the EIR and to
incorporate the mitigation monitoring and reporting program including all
mitigation measures as conditions of project approval. The Draft EIR includes an
analysis of the extent to which the proposed project's direct and indirect impacts
will commit nonrenewable resources to uses that future generations will probably
be unable to reverse as required for EIRs.
j. CEQA requires that the responses to comments in the Final EIR must demonstrate
good faith and a well -reasoned analysis, and may not be overly conclusory.
Although new material will be added to the Draft EIR through preparation of the
Final EIR, this new material provides clarification to points and information
already included in the Draft EIR and is not considered to be significant new
information or a substantial change to the Draft EIR that would necessitate
recirculation.
k. The CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15003 (c) and (i)]
note that state courts have held that the EIR is to inform other governmental
agencies and the public generally of the environmental impact of a proposed
project. CEQA does not require technical perfection in an EIR, but rather
adequacy, completeness, and a good -faith effort at full disclosure. A court does
not pass upon the correctness of an EIR's environmental conclusions, but only
determines if the EIR is sufficient as an informational document.
1. Comments received on the Draft EIR during, and even after, the public review
period show that there may be disagreements among experts. The Final EIR will
include additional clarifying narrative and clarifying exhibits for the purpose of
fully disclosing the information sources and reasoning by which levels of impact
and mitigation measures were established in the Draft EIR. Further, the clarifying
narrative and exhibits in the Final EIR serve the purpose of fully disclosing the
information sources and reasoning used by various public and agency Draft EIR
commentors who arrived at divergent conclusions. CEQA provides that
disagreement among experts regarding conclusions in the EIR is acceptable, and
perfection is not required. Also, exhaustive treatment of issues is not required in
an EIR.
SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDINGS REQUIRED BY
CEPA: The City Council does hereby find that the Draft EIR for the Placerita Canyon
Backbone Sewer line and Master Case No. 02-178 for Oak Tree Permit 02-026 identifies and
discloses project -specific impacts and cumulative project impacts. Environmental impacts
identified in the Draft EIR, findings, and facts in support of findings are herein incorporated as
"Findings Required by CEQA" identified as follows:
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
Resolution No. 03-134
Page 6
proposed project will result in the following less than significant impacts and that
mitigation measures and/or changes to the project design will further reduce and
minimize those impacts. Environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR,
findings, and facts in support of findings are herein incorporated as "Findings
Required by CEQA."
AIR QUALITY
No significant impacts related to air quality have been identified, however, the
following mitigation measures are recommended to minimize PM10 emissions.
Mitigation Measure A-1: During operation, water trucks or sprinkler systems
shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp, to prevent dust from
leaving the site. At a minimum, this mitigation shall include wetting down such
areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. Mitigation
Measure A-2: Vehicle speed on disturbed areas shall be no more than 15 miles
per hour. Mitigation Measure A-3: Any imported and stockpiled fill material
shall be covered. All construction trucks transporting materials (soil, gravel) shall
be tarped from the point of origin.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Although no significant impacts to cultural resources have been identified,
Mitigation Measures CR -1 and CR -2 would protect against impacts to any
unknown cultural resources that are unearthed. Mitigation Measure CR -1: In the
event that cultural resources were unearthed during project construction, all earth
disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or
redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the
find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area would
resume. A Tataviam representative would monitor any mitigation work
associated with Native American cultural material. Mitigation Measure CR -2: If
human remains are unearthed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made
the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American
descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage
Commission.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Although no significant long or short-term impacts to parks and recreation have
been identified, Mitigation Measure R-1 would further minimize short-term parks
and recreation effects of the project. Mitigation Measure R-1: Routing of
pedestrian, bicycling and equestrian trail activities during the period of
construction shall be addressed in the Traffic Management Plan for the project.
Notices of alternative routings shall be posted for recreational users to facilitate
continued recreational uses of PCPOA recognized equestrian trails to the degree
Resolution No. 03-134
Page 7
practicable during the construction period. The Plan shall also address the need
for barricades restricting access to the construction site to prevent pedestrians,
bicyclists, and/or equestrians from accidentally entering the site and the use of
lighted barricades or steel plates covering any open trenches to reduce hazards to
pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians.
b. 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 design will minimize or
eliminate those impacts 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."
GEOLOGY
Impact GEO-1: Construction of the sewer line would result in stockpiles of
excavated soil, which has the potential to be transported by wind or water.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Stockpiled soils shall be covered with plastic
sheeting to prevent them from becoming airborne or transported by storm water.
The bottom of all stockpiles will be covered, and absorbent sock booms will be
installed around the stockpile to further prevent erosion and contamination of
storm water runoff. Work shall only be performed in the main channel of
Placerita Creek during the later part of the dry season (July 1 through October 15)
(see Mitigation Measure B-3 for season restrictions on construction in and under
Placerita Creek) and when no water is present. The implementation of these
mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant.
Impact GEO-2: If the sewer line became exposed, the rates and patterns of creek
bed erosion and sedimentation may be impacted. Mitigation Measure GEO-2:
The sewer line at the creek crossing will have a minimum design cover of 8 feet
to ensure that at least 6.5 feet of cover is maintained during a 50 -year storm event.
This depth should prevent failure of the sewer pipe due to exposure from creek
bed scour. In addition, all construction shall be in accordance with of Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works design criteria, Standard
Specifications for Public Works Inspection (BNi Publications, Inc [BNi] 2000),
and other industry standard pipeline design techniques, which will further
minimize the potential for sewer line rupture. Should scour occur and if the creek
is not rebuilt by natural forces (e.g. sediment transportation deposits from
upstream), the creek would be rebuilt by City operations and maintenance staff.
The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact
to less than significant.
Impact GEO-3: The project may result in greater than 10,000 cubic yards of
excavated soil that would require disposal off-site. Mitigation Measure GEO-3:
Suitable excavated soils shall be reused for backfilling the trench. Unsuitable
Resolution No. 03-134
Page 8
materials shall be disposed of off-site according to all applicable regulatory rules
and regulations. Mitigation Measure GEO-4: The trench will be covered at the
end of each work day and during rain events to the extent possible to prevent
accumulation of rain water in the trenches. Mitigation Measure GEO-5: The
vertical and lateral clearances for all underground utilities will be indicated on
plans for the piping alignment. The implementation of these mitigation measures
will reduce the potential impact to less than significant.
WATER RESOURCES AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Impact W-1: If the project construction occurred during a wet season or when
water is in Placerita Creek, the project may result in impacts to the absorption
rates, drainage patterns and surface runoff due to trenching and stockpiling.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Stockpiled soils shall be covered with plastic
sheeting to prevent them from becoming airborne or transported by storm water.
The bottom of all stockpiles will be covered, and absorbent sock booms will be
installed around the stockpile to further prevent erosion and contamination of
storm water runoff. Work shall only be performed in the main channel of
Placerita Creek during the later part of the dry season (July 1 through October 15)
(see Mitigation Measure B-3 for season restrictions on construction in and under
Placenta Creek) and when no water is present. Mitigation Measure GEO-4: The
trench will be covered at the end of each work day and during rain events to the
extent possible to prevent accumulation of rain water in the trenches. Mitigation
Measure GEO-5: The vertical and lateral clearances for all underground utilities
will be indicated on plans for the piping alignment. The implementation of these
mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant.
Impact W-2: The project is located within a flood hazard zone and any
construction occurring during the rainy season could expose the construction crew
to flood hazards. Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Stockpiled soils shall be covered
with plastic sheeting to prevent them from becoming airborne or transported by
storm water. The bottom of all stockpiles will be covered, and absorbent sock
booms will be installed around the stockpile to further prevent erosion and
contamination of storm water runoff. Work shall only be performed in the main
channel of Placerita Creek during the later part of the dry season (July 1 through
October 15) (see Mitigation Measure B-3 for season restrictions on construction
in and under Placenta Creek) and when no water is present. The implementation
of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than
significant.
Impact W-3: If the sewer line were ruptured, it would result in the release of
untreated sewage into Placerita Creek, which could contaminate the surface
waters. Mitigation Measure GEO-2: The sewer line at the creek crossing will
have a minimum design cover of 8 feet to ensure that at least 6.5 feet of cover is
maintained during a 50 -year storm event. This depth should prevent failure of the
sewer pipe due to exposure from creek bed scour. In addition, all construction
Resolution No. 03-134
Page 9
shall be in accordance with of Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
design criteria, Standard Specifications for Public Works Inspection (BNi
Publications, Inc [BNi] 2000), and other industry standard pipeline design
techniques, which will further minimize the potential for sewer line rupture.
Should scour occur and if the creek is not rebuilt by natural forces (e.g. sediment
transportation deposits from upstream), the creek would be rebuilt by City
operations and maintenance staff. The implementation of these mitigation
measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant.
Impact W-4: If trenches and soil stockpiles were present while surface water is
flowing on the project site, there may be an impact to water movement.
Mitigation Measure W-4: All channels that are altered by construction activities
shall be restored to their pre -construction course. Any soil that requires
stockpiling will be stockpiled outside of the creek bed. The implementation of
these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant.
Impact W-5: If the sewer line were ruptured, it could result in the release of
untreated sewage into subsurface soils. The portion of the line that crosses
Placerita Creek is the most vulnerable due to scouring. Untreated sewage could
percolate down and contaminate the alluvial groundwater, impacting the local
groundwater withdrawal by Newhall County Water District. Mitigation Measure
GEO-2: The sewer line at the creek crossing will have a minimum design cover
of 8 feet to ensure that at least 6.5 feet of cover is maintained during a 50 -year
storm event. This depth should prevent failure of the sewer pipe due to exposure
from creek bed scour. In addition, all construction shall be in accordance with of
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works design criteria, Standard
Specifications for Public Works Inspection (BNi Publications, Inc [BNi] 2000),
and other industry standard pipeline design techniques, which will further
minimize the potential for sewer line rupture. Should scour occur and if the creek
is not rebuilt by natural forces (e.g. sediment transportation deposits from
upstream), the creek would be rebuilt by City operations and maintenance staff.
The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact
to less than significant.
Impact SW -1: If hazardous materials associated with equipment maintenance,
repair and fueling are released, it could result in stormwater runoff off-site or into
Placerita Creek. Mitigation SW -1: All equipment maintenance, repair, and
refueling shall be conducted on paved areas. Standard spill prevention measures
such as use of drip pans shall be implemented. All construction materials and
hazardous wastes shall be stored and disposed of properly according to all
applicable regulations. The implementation of these mitigation measures will
reduce the potential impact to less than significant.
Impact SW -2: The proposed project would increase the erosion potential of
soils during construction due to the presence of stockpiled soil, which could result
in sedimentation of Placenta Creek and its tributaries. Mitigation Measure
Resolution No. 03-134
Page 10
GEO-1: Stockpiled soils shall be covered with plastic sheeting to prevent them
from becoming airborne or transported by storm water. The bottom of all
stockpiles will be covered, and absorbent sock booms will be installed around the
stockpile to further prevent erosion and contamination of storm water runoff.
Work shall only be performed in the main channel of Placerita Creek during the
later part of the dry season (July 1 through October 15) (see Mitigation Measure
B-3 for season restrictions on construction in and under Placenta Creek) and
when no water is present. Mitigation Measure GEO-4: The trench will be covered
at the end of each work day and during rain events to the extent possible to
prevent accumulation of rain water in the trenches. The implementation of these
mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant.
Impact SW -3: The project may cause impacts to the biological integrity of
Placerita Creek and its tributaries due to the increased sediment load from soil
stockpiles or the transport of hazardous materials from construction equipment or
maintenance facilities to the creek. Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Stockpiled soils
shall be covered with plastic sheeting to prevent them from becoming airborne or
transported by storm water. The bottom of all stockpiles will be covered, and
absorbent sock booms will be installed around the stockpile to further prevent
erosion and contamination of storm water runoff. Work shall only be performed
in the main channel of Placerita Creek during the later part of the dry season
(July 1 through October 15) (see Mitigation Measure B-3 for season restrictions
on construction in and under Placerita Creek) and when no water is present.
Mitigation Measure GEO-4: The trench will be covered at the end of each work
day and during rain events to the extent possible to prevent accumulation of rain
water in the trenches. The implementation of these mitigation measures will
reduce the potential impact to less than significant.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact T-1: The project would temporarily disrupt the traffic flow because the
roadways through the project site are narrow and would be closed during
construction. Mitigation Measure T-1: A Traffic Management Plan for the
project will be developed which will identify alternative routes and methods to
ensure access to the area for emergency vehicles, residents, and the faculty and
staff of The Master's College. The Plan shall be approved by the Director to
Transportation and Engineering Services or the City Traffic Engineer prior to the
start of construction. No construction shall occur unless the Director or City
Traffic Engineer determines that an acceptable level of access to the area can be
maintained during construction. The implementation of these mitigation
measures will reduce the potential impacts to less than significant.
Impact T-2: Construction of the project could disrupt the response time of
emergency services, including police and fire. Mitigation Measure T-1: A
Traffic Management Plan for the project will be developed which will identify
alternative routes and methods to ensure access to the area for emergency
Resolution No. 03-134
Page 11
vehicles, residents, and the faculty and staff of The Master's College. The Plan
shall be approved by the Director to Transportation and Engineering Services or
the City Traffic Engineer prior to the start of construction. No construction shall
occur unless the Director or City Traffic Engineer determines that an acceptable
level of access to the area can be maintained during construction. The
implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts to
less than significant.
BIOLOGICAL
Impact BIO -1: The project consists of two equipment staging areas. The staging
area on the south side of Placerita Creek is within a coastal sage scrub habitat a
portion of the habitat would be temporarily removed. Mitigation Measure B-1:
Coastal sage scrub habitat that is disturbed by the proposed project shall be
restored on a 1:1 basis. Restoration methods shall be described in a restoration
plan and restoration methods shall consist of seeding or revegetation with
container plants, or a combination of the two. Seed and plant material from native
species shall be purchased from local sources to ensure the integrity of local gene
pools and ensure adaptability of the planted material to the local environment. A
long-term monitoring plan shall also be required to ensure the long-term success
of the coastal sage scrub restoration. The implementation of these mitigation
measures will reduce the potential impacts to less than significant.
Impact B-2: Increased levels of human activity and associated noise generated
during the construction could displace bird species, which could include nest
abandonment, and declines in productivity and reproductive success. Mitigation
Measure B-2: A pre -construction survey for nesting bird species shall be
conducted one week prior to all clearing and grubbing activities for the proposed
project. If any native birds' nests are found, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and California Department of Fish and Game shall be consulted prior to
construction to determine appropriate mitigation measures for the nests. The
implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts to
less than significant.
Impact B-3: The project site consists of some marginal habitat for the arroyo
toad and the construction may result in a disturbance of this habitat, which could
temporarily impact the species. Mitigation Measure B-3: Construction activities
on or under the bed or banks of Placerita Creek shall not occur within the
breeding season of the arroyo toad, March 15th through July 1st, to protect any
individuals of the species that may occur in the project area. All channels that are
altered by construction activities shall be restored to their pre -construction
condition. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the
potential impacts to less than significant.
Impact B-4: If trenching is used to install the sewer line under Placerita Creek,
the project could result in temporary changes in water flow, increased turbidity,
Resolution No. 03-134
Page 12
and alter the channel substrate composition. The changes may impact critical
habitat for the southern steelhead in Placerita Creek and the Santa Clara River.
Mitigation Measure B-4: The jack and bore method shall be used to install the
sewer pipeline under Placerita Creek to minimize impacts to designated critical
habitat for southern steelhead to less than significant levels. In addition, the
sewer line at the creek crossing will have a minimum design cover of 8 feet to
ensure that at least 6.5 feet of cover is maintained during a 50 -year storm event.
This depth should prevent failure of the sewer pipe due to exposure from creek
bed scour. All construction shall be in accordance with of Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works design criteria, Standard Specifications for Public
Works Inspection (BNi Publications, Inc [BNi] 2000), and other industry standard
pipeline design techniques, which will further minimize the potential for sewer
line rupture. Finally, installation of the sewer pipeline under Placerita Creek shall
occur during the later part of the dry season (July 1 through October 15) (see
Mitigation Measure B-3 for season restrictions on construction under Placerita
Creek), in order to prevent erosion and subsequent sedimentation of the creek
during construction. The implementation of these mitigation measures will
reduce the potential impacts to less than significant.
Impact B-5: The proposed project would cross Placerita Creek and other small
tributaries to the creek. A maximum of 0.02 acre of jurisdictional waters of the
United States would be temporarily disturbed by the project. Mitigation Measure
B-5: The jack and bore method shall be used to install the sewer pipeline under
Placerita Creek to minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States.
In addition, a restoration plan shall be prepared to restore disturbed jurisdictional
waters of the United States to pre -construction conditions. Finally, a Nationwide
12 Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a 1601 Streambed
Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game, and a
Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board shall be required for the proposed project. The
implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts to
less than significant.
Impact B-6: Twenty-five coast live oak trees would sustain temporary
encroachment during the construction of the proposed sewer line. Of these, 12
are heritage oak trees. The other fourteen trees (including seven heritage) would
be preserved and would not be affected by the proposed project. Mitigation
Measure B-6: An Oak Tree Permit shall be obtained for the proposed project
following the requirements of the City's Oak Tree Ordinance. In addition, all
mitigation measures and oak tree management and preservation guidelines
recommended in the Oak Tree Report for the proposed project (Land Design
Consultants, Inc. 2003) shall be implemented. These mitigation measures include
the following. Mitigation Measure B-6(1): All work performed shall be in
accordance with applicable ordinances, permits and procedures. Work performed
within the PZs of the trees shall be preceded by not less than 48 hours notice of
same to the City's Oak Tree Specialist and the project's oak tree monitor (certified
Resolution No. 03-134
Page 13
arborist). Mitigation Measure B-6(2): Grading or trenching work in the PZ of the
trees approved for encroachment must be done using hand implements only; the
use of mechanized tools is prohibited except where absolutely necessary (see #3
below). All work conducted within the PZ of the oak trees shall be performed in
the presence of a certified arborist. The PZ shall commence from a point five (5)
feet outside of the dripline and extend inwards to the trunk of the tree. In no case
shall the PZ be less than fifteen (15) feet from the trunk of an oak tree. Sample
construction monitoring worksheets and a compliance inspection log is included
in the Oak Tree Report. Mitigation Measure B-6(3): Where absolutely necessary
and as approved by the City's Oak Tree Specialist, limited mechanized equipment
may be used as follows: an excavator or other mechanized equipment may be set
up outside of the PZ (PZ) of the trees (where feasible) and can reach in under the
canopies to avoid damage to the overhanging limbs. In this instance the following
guidelines should be followed to minimize tearing or shattering roots: within the
PZ, the excavator should carefully work in 2 -inch vertical sections and, where
roots 2 inches or less in diameter are encountered, root pruning with sharp hand
saws, pruning shears, or small hand-held equipment should be conducted to
provide clean cuts to the roots. All roots pruned shall consist of clean, 90 -degree -
angle cuts and shall not be sealed unless directed by the monitoring arborist or the
City's Oak Tree Specialist. Mitigation Measure B-6(4): Removal of the natural
leaf mulch within the PZ of the project oak trees is prohibited. Mitigation
-- Measure B-6(5): Any canopy pruning for structural or clearance purposes,
including deadwooding, shall be performed by or under the direction of a certified
arborist in compliance with the latest ANSI pruning standards (currently ANSI
A300 Pruning Standards — 2001 Edition, available for purchase on-line at
htto://www.isa-arbor.com). Smaller limbs should be tied back out of the way to
avoid unnecessary pruning for equipment clearance. Mitigation Measure B-6(6):
Construction equipment, materials, and vehicles shall not be stored, parked or
operated within the PZ of an oak tree, except on the already improved road base
for work that is being performed at the time in the immediate vicinity or while
using the following guidelines within the PZ: the excavator should carefully work
in 2 -inch vertical sections and, where roots 2 inches or less in diameter are
encountered, root pruning with sharp hand saws, pruning shears, or small hand-
held equipment should be conducted to provide clean cuts to the roots. All roots
pruned shall consist of clean, 90 -degree -angle cuts and shall not be sealed unless
directed by the monitoring arborist or the City's Oak Tree Specialist. Mitigation
Measure B-6(7): Before trenching operations begin, fencing or temporary barriers
should be placed around the trunks of the oak trees to be preserved as the
alignment of the streets and vehicular safety allows. The fencing or barriers
should remain in place until the project is complete so as to insure that diverted
traffic or project equipment will not inadvertently impact the trunks of the
protected trees. Mitigation Measure B-6(8): All work conducted within the PZ of
the oak trees shall verified by the City's oak tree consultant at the conclusion of
the project. Mitigation Measure B-6(9): If the fence is required, signs (minimum 2
feet by 2 feet) must be installed on the fence in four equidistant locations around
the tree and must include the language outlined in Section VII.(C)(1.1)(c) of the
Resolution No. 03-134
Page 14
City of Santa Clarita's Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines. If
required, fences shall remain in place throughout the entire construction period
and may not be removed without obtaining written authorization from the
Planning and Building Services Department. Mitigation Measure B-6(10): Prior to
commencement of grading operations, a pre -construction meeting shall be
conducted with the consulting (monitoring) arborist and the City's Oak Tree
Specialist. Mitigation Measure B-6(11): The applicant's oak tree consultant shall
maintain a monitoring checklist during all encroachment activities. The
monitoring checklist and compliance letter shall be turned into the City
Department of Planning and Building Services at the completion of the project,
confirming adherence to conditions and the applicant's oak tree report. The
implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts to
less than significant.
RISK OF UPSET/HAZARDS
Impact H-1: During the construction phase of the project, hazards impacts could
be generated through the use of common hazardous materials such as diesel fuels
for construction equipment. Mitigation Measure H-1: All construction
equipment shall be repaired and maintained (e.g., oil changes) at least 500 feet
from Placerita Creek and outside of waters of the United States. Refueling or
addition or changing of oil/fluids must occur on paved surfaces only and spill
containment material must be placed around the equipment before fuels (or other
hazardous substances such as oil or brake fluid) are brought in. The
implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to
less than significant
Impact H-2: Exposure of the pipe within the creek, resulting in scour could
result in pipe breakage and the release of untreated sewage into Placerita Creek.
GEO-2: The sewer line at the creek crossing will have a minimum design cover of
8 feet to ensure that at least 6.5 feet of cover is maintained during a 50 -year storm
event. This depth should prevent failure of the sewer pipe due to exposure from
creek bed scour. In addition, all construction shall be in accordance with of Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works design criteria, Standard
Specifications for Public Works Inspection (BNi Publications, Inc (BNi) 2000),
and other industry standard pipeline design techniques, which will further
minimize the potential for sewer line rupture. Should scour occur and if the creek
is not rebuilt by natural forces (e.g. sediment transportation deposits from
upstream), the creek would be rebuilt by City operations and maintenance staff.
The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact
to less than significant.
NOISE
Impact N-1: Construction activities would generate short-term elevated noise
levels. Mitigation Measure N-1: Construction hours shall be limited to the hours
Resolution No. 03-134
Page 15
of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on
weekends, unless traffic volumes or public safety warrant otherwise. City,
county, or state officials shall determine these conditions. Mitigation Measure
N-2: In accordance with the City of Santa Clarita Noise Ordinance, no
construction shall occur on Sundays and/or legally proclaimed holidays.
C. The EIR does not identify any issues areas as "Unavoidable Significant
Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Mitigated to a Level Less Than
Significant." All impacts can be fully mitigated.
d. The EIR identifies issue areas as "Environmental Areas Where No Significant
Impacts Would Occur." These include Land Use and Planning, Population and
Housing, Energy/Mineral Resources, Utilities (Natural Gas, Electricity,
Telephone, and Wastewater), Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Air Quality, Parks
and Recreation, long-term Traffic impacts and long-term Noise impacts. Although
no significant impacts are associated with air quality, aesthetics, parks and
recreation and cultural resources, mitigation measures have been incorporated.
All other issues identified in the Draft EIR are classified as "Environmental
Effects Which Have Been Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant." These
include Geology, Water Resources/Storm Water Management, short-term
Transportation and Circulation impacts, Biological Resources, Risk of
Upset/Hazards, short-term Noise, and are addressed individually above.
SECTION 4. 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 of 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 but would substantially lesson any of the significant impact of the project, and evaluate
the comparative merits of each alternative.
a. Where a significant impact can be substantially lessened (i.e., mitigated to an
"acceptable level") solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the City
Council, in drafting its findings, will have no obligation to consider the feasibility
of alternatives with respect to those impacts that can be mitigated to less than
significant levels, even if an alternative would mitigate such impacts to a greater
degree than the mitigation provided in the proposed Project. (Pub. Resources
Code § 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at
521; see also Kings County Farm Bureau, su ra, 221 Ca1.App.3d at 730-731; and
Laurel Heishts Improvement Association, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 400-403.)
b. The City Council, therefore, in considering project alternatives, need only
determine whether any alternatives are environmentally superior with respect to
those project impacts that remain potentially significant and unavoidable despite
the incorporation of mitigation measures. If any alternatives are superior with
respect to such impacts, the City Council will then be required to determine
whether the alternatives are feasible in attaining most of the basic objectives of
Resolution No. 03-134
Page 16
the project. If the City Council determines that no alternative is both feasible and
environmentally superior with respect to the significant unavoidable impacts, the
City Council may approve the proposed project after adopting a statement of
overriding considerations.
C. Based upon the EIR, the original project poses the no significant unavoidable
impacts. Therefore, the City Council is not required to adopt a statement of
overriding considerations and has no obligation to consider the feasibility of
alternatives as all impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels through
the implementation of mitigation measures.
d. The objectives of the project, as specified in the Draft EIR, are:
• To provide a backbone sewer system in Placerita Canyon as far east as The
Master's College and as far west as two completed residential tracts.
• To allow current and future residents to access the sewer system and to annex
into the Los Angeles County Sanitation District Number 26.
• To have the necessary infrastructure in place to respond to Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board's recommendation that septic system use
be limited in Placerita Canyon because of the area's coarse soils.
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.
C. Alternative A
Three alignments are proposed under Alternative A. All the proposed alignments,
the mainline sewer would be routed through the MWD right-of-way in a northerly
direction, behind the residences on Alderbrook Drive, and across the floodplain
between Alderbrook Drive and San Fernando Road ultimately connecting to the
existing Los Angeles County sewer line.
Alternative A-1 — The sewer line would cross Placerita Creek parallel to the
MWD right-of-way, cross over the MWD Saugus Pipeline on the north side of the
creek, turn northwesterly, and cross the floodplain to the Los Angeles County
Sanitation District (LACSD) sewer connection.
Alternative A-2 — The sewer line would cross over MWD pipeline on the south
side of the creek to San Fernando Road, crossing through small tributaries of the
creek. The sewer line would turn northwesterly and run parallel to the UPRR
tracks and cross Placerita Creek and small tributaries connecting to the LACSD
sewer connection.
Resolution No. 03-134
Page 17
Alternative A-3 - (the proposed project)— is the same route as Alternative A-2,
except the line would cross the floodplain 500 feet south of and parallel to the
Placenta Creek.
f. Alternative B
The sewer line would route along 12th Street out to San Fernando Road, and run
north along San Fernando Road to connect to LACSD sewer connection. This
alternative would require deeper cuts to bury the line beneath the MWD Saugus
Pipeline and the UPRR tracks.
a. Alternative C
Alternative C is similar to Alternative A-3, except it be routed along Alderbrook
Drive, rather than behind the residential properties along Alderbrook Drive. The
mainline sewer line would not travel north along the MWD property, but would
cross the Saugus Pipeline before crossing the floodplain between Alderbrook and
San Fernando Road.
b. No Action Alternative
The proposed sewer line would not be installed in Placenta Canyon. The
Master's College and two residential tract developments would continue to rely
on existing septic systems. However, the canyon would not be able to support the
added use of septic systems and the Los Angeles County Water Quality Control
Board (LARWQCB) has recommended that septic system use be limited in
Placenta Canyon because of the soils. Under this alternative, the quality of
groundwater would become degraded.
C. Analysis of Alternatives
Alternatives B and A-1 would have less severe pre -mitigation impacts than the
proposed project (Alternative A-3). Alternative C would have similar impacts as
the proposed project. With mitigation, the project (Alternative A-3) and all of the .
project alternatives would have less than significant impacts.
Alternative B would meet the project objectives. Under the proposed Alternative
B alignment, the mainline sewer would be routed along 12th Street out to San
Fernando Road, and run north approximately 4,100 feet along San Fernando road
to connect to the LACSD manhole. Alternative B is 1,000 feet longer than the
proposed project (Alternative A-3) or the other alternatives. Under Alternative B,
the sewer line would need to cross beneath the 17 -foot -diameter MWD Foothill
Feeder -Saugus Pipeline. This would require deeper construction of the sewer
line, would require boring and jacking the sewer pipe beneath the UPRR tracks at
the intersection of 13th Street and San Fernando Road and would take
Resolution No. 03-134
Page 18
approximately three months longer than the proposed project. This would affect
MWD's fee -owned property over a longer duration, require greater stockpiling of
soils and be more costly than the other alternatives.
Alternative A-1 would meet the project objectives. Alternative A-1 would
involve construction of the sewer line over a grater length of the Foothill Feeder -
Saugus Pipeline than all of the other alternatives: Although Alternative A-1
impacts less acreage of waters of the United States than the project (Alternative
A-3), because the alignment is closer to Placerita Creek, impacts to water
resources are greater than the project.
Alternative C does not accomplish the project's objectives as well as the project
(Alternative A-3) because it may not be feasible for some of the residents to
hookup to the sewer main. This alternative would take longer (approximately 3
weeks) and be more costly for residents to hookup to the sewer main.
Therefore, Alternative A-3 is the preferred alternative due to its least effect on the
MWD fee owned property, while accomplishing the full project objectives.
SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR: 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 further finds:
a. That the Final Environmental Impact Report for this project is adequate,
complete, and has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
b. That the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Final EIR
in reaching its recommendation to the City Council.
C. 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 approving the project.
d. That, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, the Final
EIR includes a description of each potentially significant impact and rationale for
finding that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect.
e. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081, modifications
have occurred to the project to reduce significant effects based on alternatives
analyzed in the environmental impact report.
f. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091, changes and alterations have been required and
incorporated into the Placerita Canyon Backbone Sewer Backbone project
Resolution No. 03-134
Page 19
entitlements which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects and feasible mitigation measures are made conditions of approval for this
project.
g. That the Final EIR reflects the decision -maker's independent judgment and
analysis.
SECTION 6. CERTIFICATION OF FEIR: Once the City Council has reviewed and
considered the environmental information contained in the Final EIR and determines that it is
adequate and in compliance with CEQA, the City Council should certify the Final EIR.
SECTION 7. OAK TREE PERMIT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and
findings, the City Council hereby determines as follows:
a. The project route will encroach into the protected zones of 39 Coast Live Oak
trees. No oak trees will be removed as part of the project. It is necessary for the
project to encroach into the protected zone of the trees because no alternate route
exists without the presence of oak trees. Upon development of the project route,
the City's Consultants (Tetra Tech and Land Design Consultants) with City staff
reviewed other routes which were more intrusive to the oak trees within the
Canyon.
b. The City of Santa Clarita retained Land Design Consultants to prepare an oak tree
report for the capital improvement project. The general purpose and intent of the
City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance is to preserve oak trees, yet allow for
their encroachment in certain instances where it is necessary to enable reasonable
use of the subject property which in this case is a capitol improvement project for
the Placenta Canyon community. 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 and conditions of approval for oak tree
impacts are consistent with the provisions of the City's Oak Tree Preservation
Ordinance.
SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify
this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken.
Resolution No. 03-134
Page 20
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4`h day of November, 2003.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARTTA )
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 4`h day of November, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Kellar, Ferry, McLean, Smyth
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
DISQUALIFIED COUNCILMEMBERS: Weste
V" � _
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF SANTA CLARTTA )
CERTIFICATION OF
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of the original Resolution No. 03-134, adopted by the City Council of the City
of Santa Clarita, California on November 4, 2003, which is now on file in my office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this _ day of
,20—.
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC
City Clerk
By
Susan Coffman
Deputy City Clerk