Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-24 - RESOLUTIONS - CVC EIR CERTIFICATION (2)RESOLUTION NO. 05-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR THE CROSS VALLEY CONNECTOR GAP CLOSURE PROJECT, CERTIFYING FEIR SCH #2002121059, (INCLUDES ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM), AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS THAT WEIGHS PROJECT BENEFITS AGAINST THE PROJECT'S SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: fact: 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 construction of Newhall Ranch Road from the existing terminus of Copperhill Drive/Rye Canyon west to the Interstate 5 (I-5)/State Route 126 interchange. b. The Cross Valley Connector is an 8'/2 mile road that connects the I-5 and State Route 14 through the City of Santa Clarita. The Cross Valley Connector is included in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The complete Cross Valley Connector was analyzed at a program level in the City of Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment Environmental Impact Report (1997). C. The project consists of the closure of a gap in the Cross Valley Connector. The project design is consistent with the specification in the City's Circulation Element. The project includes construction of an 8 lane (four in each direction), 160 -foot wide, 1.6 mile extension of Newhall Ranch Road from Copper Hill Drive/Rye Canyon Road to just east of the Interstate 5/State Route 126 interchange, including sidewalks, a raised and landscaped median, landscaped parkways, streetlights, curb and gutter, and a Class I bike path. Construction of the project would entail excavation and grading, utility relocation including the relocation of a debris basin, road paving, and miscellaneous finish work. d. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City of Santa Clarita is the identified lead agency, and the City Council is the decision- making body, for the project. An initial Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the project was circulated to approximately 95 agencies, organizations and individuals, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15375 et seq.), for thirty days, beginning on December 11, 2002. Resolution No. 05-59 Page 2 Subsequently, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared by the City's EIR Consultant (Jones and Stokes) that addressed the comments received in response to the NOP. e. A scoping meeting was held at the City of Santa Clarita City Council Chambers on December 19, 2002, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in the Signal Newspaper on October 12, 2002 and was provided in the NOP. Approximately six people attended the scoping meeting. f. The City of Santa Clarita prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project ("Draft EIR") that addressed, inter alia, all issues raised by the Initial Study and by comments received on the NOP and the Revised NOP, and circulated the Draft EIR, for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA. The City filed, posted and advertised the Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR on January 20, 2005. On December 21, 2004 Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public review and comment. The review period closed January 20, 2005. A public meeting was held during the public comment period on January 5, 2005 to answer questions about the EIR and to receive public comments. No members of the public, organizations, or responsible agencies attended the public meeting. All comments on the DEIR were received and addressed in the Final EIR. g. The Final Environmental Impact Report (April 2005) (Final EIR), on file in the Planning Division as Exhibit "A," includes the Draft EIR, comments on the Draft EIR and project, responses to written comments on the Draft EIR and project and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") provided as Exhibit `B". The Final EIR was released for public review on April 14, 2005 and responses to comments received were mailed to each agency and all individuals who submitted timely comments on the Draft EIR. h. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to discuss the Cross Valley Connector Project and the Final EIR for the project on April 26, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The City Council public hearing was advertised on March 21, 2005 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. The City Council has considered all comments received on the Final EIR and the project received at the April 26, 2005 hearing. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Cross Valley Connector Project and the Final EIR for the project on May 24, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The City Council public hearing was advertised on April 21, 2005 in The Signal, through on-site posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by mail to property Resolution No. 05-59 Page.3 owners within 500 feet of the project area. The City Council has considered all comments received on the Final EIR and the project received at the May 24, 2005 hearing. j. The City Council has considered the Final EIR prepared for the project, as well as information provided in the agenda and staff reports, the text of the Final EIR, information presented to the City Council from experts, and information presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the City Council following the close of the Draft EIR public comment period and prior to the close of the public hearing before the City Council, prior to certification of the Final EIR. k. The project will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor will the project be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the project site; nor will the project jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the project conforms with the zoning ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 1. The documents and other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the decisions of the City Council are based are contained in the project file located within the Building and Engineering Department. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND FINDINGS: The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita hereby makes the following findings of fact: a. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.) 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[.]" (CEQA § 21002; 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." (CEQA § 21002) b. 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 thereof." (CEQA § 21002.) CEQA provides that a public agency has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors and in particular the goal of providing a decent ._. home and satisfying living environment for every Californian. (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regulations, § 15021(d).) CEQA requires decision - makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, and, if the benefits of a proposed Resolution No. 05-59 Page 4 project outweigh the significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts may be considered "acceptable" by adopting a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." (CEQA Guidelines § 15093.) The Statement of Overriding Considerations must set forth the project benefits or reasons why the Lead Agency is in favor of approving the project and must weigh these benefits against the project's adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level. C. CEQA's mandates and principles are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions: (1) that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR," (2) [s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency," or (3)[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines § 15091.) CEQA defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." (CEQA § 21061.1.) CEQA Guideline section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. d. The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. "Feasibility under CEQA encompasses "desirability" to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. e. 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 Homeowners Association, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at 521; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Ca1.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]). f. 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 Resc"ition No. 0559 Page -5 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. g. CEQA requires decision -makers to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for those mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR that would mitigate or avoid each significant impact identified in the EIR and to incorporate the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, including all mitigation measures, as conditions of project approval. h. CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5 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. i. CEQA requires that the responses to comments in the Final EIR demonstrate good faith and a well -reasoned analysis, and not be overly conclusory. In response to several of the comments received, portions of the Draft EIR have been revised. Although new material has been added to the Draft EIR through preparation of the Final EIR, this new material provides clarification to points and information already included in the Draft EIR and is not considered to be significant new information or a substantial change to the Draft EIR or to the project that would necessitate recirculation. j. CEQA requires that the lead agency exercise its independent judgment in reviewing the adequacy of an EIR and that the decision of a lead agency in certifying a Final EIR and approving a project not be predetermined. The City Council has conducted its own review and analysis, and is exercising its independent judgment when acting as herein provided. k. CEQA Guidelines section 15003(c) and (i) note that state courts have held that the purpose of an EIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public generally of the environmental impacts of a proposed project. CEQA does not require technical perfection or exhaustive treatment of issues in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good -faith effort at full disclosure. Resolution No. 05-59 Page 6 SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDINGS REOUIRED BY CE A: Based on the findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the project and the project EIR, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council does hereby find that the Final EBR for Cross Valley Connector Gap Closure Project — Newhall Ranch Road — Copper Hill Drive/Rye Canyon Road to I-5 identifies and discloses project -specific impacts and cumulative project impacts. Environmental impacts, mitigation measures and conclusions regarding environmental impacts after mitigation identified in the Final EBR, and findings, and facts in support of findings, all set forth herein or in Exhibits A and B, on file in the Planning Division, are incorporated herein as "Findings Required by CEQA", and identified as follows: a. The EIR identifies "Environmental Areas Where No Significant Impacts Would Occur." The City Council has determined that, where the Final EBR found the project would have no significant project -level or cumulative effects, the project will have no significant project -level or cumulative impacts in the following areas and that, as a result, no mitigation is required: land use and planning, population and housing, utilities, police and fire, school, parks, scenic vistas and view, visual quality, community character and resources, light, shade and glare, historical resource, water supply, flood hazards and drainage, erosion, local operational air quality, and energy impacts. b. The City Council finds that the proposed project will result in the following less than significant project -level or cumulative impacts and find that mitigation measures and/or changes to the project design included in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan will further reduce and minimize those impacts. POLICE AND FIRE DURING CONSTRUCTION No significant impacts during either operation of construction of emergency access or operations have been identified; however, the following mitigation measure has been included to further ensure that construction impacts on emergency operations will be less than significant. Mitigation Measure FP -1: The City and contractor shall consult with the Los Angles Sheriff's Department (LASD), California Highway Patrol (CHP), and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACOFD) prior to start of construction to ensure that any potential disruption to emergency services response time is minimized and adequate access to the project site is maintained during construction. The Traffic Management Plan shall also be developed in consultation with the emergency services providers. Although no significant impacts to fire protection services are anticipated, the following mitigation measure has been included to minimize wildfire hazards. 3asWutian 05-59 Rap-7 Mitigation Measure FP -2: Brush shall be cleared a minimum of 30 feet (9 meters) from the roadway, as required by LACOFD, to decrease the risk of wildfires near the roadway. TRAFFIC DURING CONSTRUCTION Although no significant traffic impacts during construction have been identified, the following mitigation measure has been included to minimize disruptions during construction. Mitigation Measure T-1: A Traffic Management Plan shall be developed by the City prior to construction to ensure that impacts and disruption to circulation and access are minimized during construction. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Although no significant hydrology of water quality impacts have been identified during construction or operation, the following mitigation measures have been included to minimize potential impacts to water quality during construction. Mitigation Measure WQ-1: A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan/Water Pollution Control Plan (SWPPP/WPCP) shall be developed by the City. The SWPPP/WPCP shall include design and construction BMPs in accordance with Caltrans' SWPPP/WPCP manual guidelines, Caltrans' Statewide Permit (CAS000003, Order No. 99-06-DWQ), and the General Permit for Construction Activity (CAS000002, Order No. 99 08-DWQ). The Caltrans manual outlines six categories for construction BMPs: temporary soil stabilization, temporary sediment control, wind erosion control, tracking control, non-stormwater management, and waste management and materials pollution control. A short list of possible BMPs from each category that may be used for construction of the proposed project include: Temporary soil stabilization: sandbag barriers, straw bale barriers, sediment traps, and fiber rolls; Temporary sediment control: hydraulic mulch, hydroseeding, and geotextiles; Wind erosion control: portable water and straw mulch; Tracking control: street sweeping and entrance/outlet tire washing; Non-stormwater management: clear water diversion and dewatering; and Waste management and materials pollution control: vehicle and equipment cleaning, concrete waste management, and contaminated soil management. Mitigation Measure WQ-2: Treatment BMPs developed by the City and approved by Caltrans shall be incorporated in the project design. BMPs could include a combination of the following treatment BMPs: biofiltration: swales and strips, infiltration basins, detention devices, traction sand traps, dry -weather flow diversion, and gross solids removal devices. Resolution No. 05-59 Page 8 HAZARDOUS WASTE/MATERIALS Although no significant hazardous waste/materials impacts have been identified during construction or operation, the following mitigation measures have been included to minimize potential impacts of any residual pesticides in soils during construction. Mitigation Measure HM -1: Soils on the site shall be sampled and analyzed for pesticides. Mitigation Measure HM -2: A groundwater sample shall be collected and analyzed for general screening purposes and for volatile organic compounds. Mitigation Measure HM -3: If site sampling detects hazardous materials at levels exceeding regulatory limits, a plan shall be developed, in conjunction with appropriate regulatory agencies, to determine the extent of contamination and to identify methods and procedures for treatment and/or removal of hazardous materials. The plan shall comply with all local, state, and federal requirements for treatment, removal, transport, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HM -4: A contingency plan shall be developed and in place during project construction in the event that unidentified underground storage tanks, hazardous materials, petroleum hydrocarbons, or hazardous or solid wastes are unexpectedly encountered during construction. This contingency plan shall address underground storage tank decommissioning, field screening and materials testing methods, mitigation and contaminant management requirements, and health and safety requirements for construction workers. CONSTRUCTION NOISE Although no significant noise impacts have been identified during construction or operation, the following mitigation measures have been included to minimize potential impacts during construction. Mitigation Measure N-1: The project shall follow standard noise abatement regulations as specified by the City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 11.44.080, which restricts construction activities within 300 feet of residentially zoned property to weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Mitigation Measure N-2: The construction contractor shall install and maintain effective mufflers on construction equipment. Mitigation Measure N-3: The construction contractor shall locate equipment and staging areas as far from buildings as possible. Resolution No. 05-59 Page 9 Mitigation Measure N-4: idling of equipment. OAK TREES The construction contractor shall limit unnecessary The project may result in the removal of up to two oak trees subject to the City's Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance. Neither of these trees is a Heritage Oak. Loss of the two oak trees would be a less than significant impact, as the Ordinance allows for the removal of up to three non -heritage oak trees. Eight trees will be preserved on-site. The following mitigation measures, consistent with the City's Oak Tree Ordinance have been included to minimize impacts. Mitigation Measure V-3 - Removed Trees: If preservation of Trees #7 and #8 identified in the Oak Tree Report is not possible, the following measures will mitigate their loss in accordance with the City's oak tree ordinance: (1) Plant replacement oak trees on-site in a number that equals the value of the removal trees in accordance with the requirements outlined in Section VII of the City's Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines." These requirements include, but are not limited to the following: (a) Replacement trees shall consist of Valley Oak (Q. lobata) trees or other City pre -approved oak species. (b) The size of the replacement trees shall be 24 -inch box or greater and shall be consistent with the specifications outlined in Section V(2.2) of the Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines. (c) The exact number of replacement trees shall be determined by the cost of the largest, readily -available nursery stock oak trees (including delivery and planting). The total replacement cost of the mitigation trees shall equal the cost of the replacement value associated with the removal tree as determined by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Valuation guidelines. The ISA estimated replacement value of Trees #7 and 8, is $7,100. (2) Replacement trees shall be planted on-site in the road right-of-way on the north facing slopes or around the new debris/detention basis. (3) Replacement trees shall be planted in accordance with the procedures established in Section V(5) of the Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines. (4) Unless waived by the Department of Community Development, a refundable security deposit in an equal amount to the cost of the replacement trees shall be deposited in trust with the City of Santa Clarita (prior to the issuance of the oak tree permit) to guarantee the implementation of Section 10.3. The deposit shall be refunded upon satisfactory completion of these conditions. (5) Maintenance of the mitigation trees shall be the responsibility of the City of Santa Clarita. Maintenance shall comply with the guidelines outlined below under the subheading "Oak Tree Management & Preservation Guidelines". (6) In the event that replacement trees cannot be planted on-site, the applicant may pay a fee or donate boxed trees to the City or other public agency to be used elsewhere in the City. Such fee or boxed trees shall be of equivalent value to any and all oak trees removed from the property. Resolution No. 05-59 Page 10 Mitigation Measure V-4 - Preserved Trees: Eight surveyed oak trees will be preserved on-site with or without encroachment into their canopy and/or protected zone. Therefore, special care must be taken during construction to protect the trees and their immediate environment. Implementation of the following measures is proposed to insure that the preserved trees will not be adversely affected by project development. (1) All work performed shall be in accordance with applicable ordinances, permits and procedures. Work performed within the protected zones 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 arborist). (2) Boring equipment, hand trenching or "grading" to required depths should be utilized within the protected zone (PZ) of trees where the encroachment is 15 feet or less from the trunk to avoid the roots. (3) Trenching or "grading" work in the PZ of the trees approved for encroachment greater than 15 feet away from the trunk should be done using hand implements where feasible; the use of mechanized tools is prohibited except where absolutely necessary (see #4 below). (4) 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 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 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, 900 -angle cuts and shall not be sealed unless directed by the monitoring Arborist or the City's Oak Tree Specialist. (5) All work conducted within the protected zone of the oak trees shall be performed in the presence of a certified arborist or other City -approved oak tree monitor. The protected zone 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 protected zone be less than 15 feet from the trunk of an oak tree. (6) Removal of the natural leaf mulch within the protected zone of the project oak trees is prohibited. (7) 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 http://www.isa-arbor.com). Smaller limbs should be tied back out of the way to avoid unnecessary pruning for equipment clearance. (8) Construction equipment, materials, and vehicles shall not be stored, parked or operated within the protected zone of an oak tree. (9) All work conducted within the protected zone of the oak trees shall verified by the City's oak tree consultant at the conclusion of the project. (10) If the fence is required, signs (minimum 2'x2') 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). If required, fences shall remain in place throughout the entire construction period and may not be removed without obtaining written authorization from the Department of Community Development. (11) Prior to commencement of work in the PZ of any lilloskuia Na: 05-59 pugm 1.I oak tree, a pre -construction meeting shall be conducted with the consulting (monitoring) arborist and the City's Oak Tree Specialist. C. The EIR identifies areas of potential project impacts and prescribes mitigation measures to minimize and/or eliminate those impacts. This section sets forth the potentially significant effects of the project and with respect to each such impact, identifies one or more of the required CEQA findings and states facts in support of these findings. The City Council has determined that, where the Final EIR found the project would have potentially significant project -level effects, project revisions, mitigation measures and conditions of approval will substantially mitigate those environmental effects, and that, as a result, those effects have been mitigated to a level less than significant, as follows. ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact: The proximity of the project site to the Santa Clara River, as well as Native American archaeological sites, suggests that Native American cultural resources may be present in some locations of the ADI. If construction activities disturb or destroy any important archaeological resources that are encountered, the impact would be significant under CEQA. .— Mitigation Measure AR -1: A certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge in cultural resources shall monitor all project - related ground disturbing activities. Monitoring may be reduced, at the discretion of the certified archaeological monitor, if it is discovered, based on additional research or initial monitoring, that areas to be disturbed by grading are subsequently determined to have a low potential to contain archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure AR -2: If buried cultural resources are uncovered during construction, the resident engineer shall halt all work in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the archaeological resource. Mitigation Measure AR -3: Provisions for the disposition of recovered prehistoric artifacts shall be made in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans. Mitigation Measure AR -4: In the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery, the steps and procedures specified in Health and Safety Code 7050.5, State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 shall be implemented. _ Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Resolution No. 05-59 Page 12 Fact in Support of the Finding: Native American cultural resources may be present in some locations of the ADI. The measures listed above will avoid or mitigate to a less than significant level project -related adverse impacts to archaeological resources that may be encountered during construction of the proposed project. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact: Results of previous paleontologic studies in the vicinity of the proposed project alignment indicate that the alignment crosses surface sediments mapped as the Saugus Formation, overlain in some areas by a thin veneer of recent alluvium. Therefore, there is a high probability that unique paleontological resources are present on the project site. If resources are encountered and destroyed during project -related, ground -disturbing construction -period activities, the impact would be significant under CEQA. Mitigation Measure PR -l: Excavation shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologic monitor in areas (i.e., Saugus Formation) identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils and samples of sediments as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. The resident engineer shall temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units, previously described, are not found to be present or, if present, are determined by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. Mitigation Measure PR -2: If paleontological resources are uncovered during construction of the proposed roadway, recovered specimens shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Identification shall include an assessment by a qualified paleontologist to determine if a recovered specimen qualifies for protection as a unique or "historical resource" under Section 15064.5 of the Public Resources Code. Mitigation Measure PR -3: If paleontological resources are uncovered during construction of the proposed roadway, unique specimens worthy of preservation shall be curated into a professional, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable storage. Mitigation Measure PR -4: If paleontological resources are uncovered during construction of the proposed roadway, a report of findings, with an appended itemized inventory of specimens, shall be prepared. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City, would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. Rtsolutim-Ift 6&59 Page -13 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Fact in Support of the Finding: There is a high probability that unique paleontological resources are present on the project site. If resources are encountered and destroyed during project -related, ground -disturbing construction - period activities, the impact would be significant under CEQA. The measures listed above will ensure that potential impacts to any unique paleontologic resources that may be present would be reduced to a level of insignificance under CEQA. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impacts: The eastern portion of the alignment is within an area that may be susceptible to liquefaction according to the California Division of Mines & Geology Seismic Hazard Map for the Newhall Quadrangle (CDMG 1998). Ninyo & Moore performed a liquefaction analysis based on the surface and subsurface information gathered from exploratory borings which indicates that the site is likely to experience liquefaction during strong seismic shaking, which would cause damage to the proposed road improvements. According to CDMG Seismic Hazard Maps, the western portion of the proposed road alignment is prone to potential earthquake -induced landslides. In light of the steep, southerly dipping bedding and the weak beds of the Saugus Formation at the site, slope stability hazards could have a significant impact on the proposed roadway. The alluvial deposits underlying the alignment are expected to be unconsolidated and locally loose, reflecting a depositional history without substantial loading. These soils pose the risk of adverse settlement under static loads imposed by the new roadway fill. Laboratory testing and a review of previous studies conducted by Ninyo & Moore as part of the Geotechnical Evaluation indicate that onsite soils may exhibit a low to medium potential for expansion. If clayey or expansive soils along the alignment are encountered during earthwork, mitigation may be required. Thus, expansive soils, if present, could have a significant effect on the proposed roadway. Based on laboratory tests conducted by Ninyo & Moore for the Geotechnical Evaluation, the site soil/bedrock materials may be considered to be severely corrosive to ferrous metals. Mitigation Measure GS -1: Construction and design of the proposed project shall adhere to the recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation (May 2003) Resolution No. 05-59 Page 14 prepared by Ninyo & Moore for the proposed project. The Geotechnical Evaluation prescribes methods, techniques, and specifications for site preparation, treatment of undocumented fill and/or alluvial soils, fill placement on sloping ground, fill characteristics, fill placement and compaction, temporary excavations and shoring, permanent slopes, treatment of expansive soils, pavement design, and treatment of corrosive soils. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Fact in Support of the Finding: The geologic and seismic hazards described above can be mitigated by employing sound engineering practice in the design and construction of the new road and associated improvements. The mitigation measure will ensure no unavoidable significant adverse impacts occur. IMPACTS TO WETLANDS AND WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND VEGETATION Impact Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.: The proposed project would result in the permanent loss of 8.15 acres (3.26 hectares) of the total 12.72 acres (5.09 hectares) determined to be streambeds and adjacent riparian habitat subject to CDFG jurisdiction. The 8.15 acres (3.26 hectares) includes 3.07 acres (1.23 hectares) of the debris basin; 1.20 acres (0.48 hectares) of drainages, and 3.88 acres (1.55 hectares) of adjacent riparian habitat. Thus, a CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required prior to project grading. This would be a significant impact under CEQA. Impact Vegetation: Construction of the proposed Build Alternative would result in the removal of plant communities within the project limits. The majority of project impacts (36.12 acres of the total 49.15 acres [14.45 hectares of the total 19.66 hectares]) would occur on graded, burned, ruderal (weedy), or disturbed habitats. Native plant communities in the project impact area include chaparral (0.54 acre [0.22 hectare]), high scrub (4.90 acres [1.96 hectare]), low scrub (0.003 acre [0.0012 hectare]), riparian woodland (1.43 acres [0.57 hectare]), mixed woodland riparian scrub (5.25 acres [2.1 hectares]) and scrub with non- native grass (0.91 acre [0.36 hectare]). The loss of scrub and chaparral habitats in the project area would not be considered significant because they are not of high quality. However, the loss of 6.68 acres (2.67 hectares) of riparian woodland and mixed woodland riparian scrub would be considered a significant impact under CEQA. Although the quality of these woodland habitats is declining due to previous drainage diversions, these habitat types are rare in the Santa Clarita Valley. Dust and erosion impacts on plant communities in the project vicinity would be significant in the event that the project does not comply with air quality regulations and with Best Management Practices. Rtso:No. 05-59 Page 15 Mitigation Measure WW -1: Prior to any project grading or grubbing in the riparian habitat of the project area, the City shall consult with ACOE and CDFG regarding impacts on riparian woodland and mixed wood] and/ripari an scrub habitat. Consultations with ACOE to obtain a Section 404 permit (404 permit) and with CDFG to obtain a CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) will require the development of a mitigation plan to offset impacts on riparian habitat. The details of the plan, replacement ratios, and the location of the mitigation site will be determined during consultation with CDFG and ACOE and with participation and input from Caltrans. The mitigation agreement shall be obtained prior to construction contractors bidding on the project. Several options exist for riparian restoration. Opportunities for onsite mitigation are limited; thus, CDFG and ACOE will determine whether mitigation will consist of (1) offsite mitigation through habitat restoration or enhancement, (2) offsite mitigation through eradication of non-native invasive vegetation in riparian habitats of the Santa Clara River or other nearby riparian area, or (3) payment to a conservation agency for restoration in a riparian habitat mitigation bank. Alternatively, CDFG and ACOE may decide upon a combination of two or more of these options to fully mitigate project impacts on riparian habitat. The mitigation plan will include details for each of the following, depending upon the mitigation option selected. Mitigation options are summarized in Table 3-2 in Section 3-1.13 of the EIR/EA. Mitigation Ratios: The riparian habitat in the project area has declined in quality due to diversion of its upstream water sources. Mitigation ratios will depend upon the selected mitigation option. Appropriate ratios for mitigation will be determined during permitting consultations with CDFG and ACOE. However, based upon a field meeting with CDFG and ACOE on June 30, 2003, preliminary recommended ratios for offsite restoration or mitigation banking are identified in Table 3-3 in Section 3-1.13 of the EIR/EA. Restoration S ecialist (Options 1 and Q: The restoration specialist shall be selected by the City and CDFG. The restoration specialist shall have demonstrated experience in the successful restoration of riparian habitats in southern California. If the restoration plan includes eradication of non-native invasive species, the restoration specialist shall demonstrate experience in successful removal of non-native invasive species from southern California riparian habitats. Site Selection (Options 1 2. and 3): A mitigation site will be selected by CDFG and ACOE. Option 1, offsite mitigation, would require selection of a riparian area suitable for habitat restoration or enhancement and currently or subsequently protected by an entity such as the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy or a Los Angeles County park, such as Whitney Canyon or Ellsmere Canyon. The restoration site shall be at a location that will not be used for future roadway or other infrastructure projects and can be protected over the long-term. The site must also support existing hydrology suitable for supporting self-sustaining riparian habitat. The restoration must comprise a total of 22.19 acres (8.9 hectares). Option 2 would entail selection of r a nearby riparian area inundated with non-native vegetation in the Santa Clara River or other nearby riparian habitat. Option 3, mitigation banking, would require designation by CDFG and ACOE of an appropriate mitigation bank, as well as the determination of the amount of funding to be provided to the bank by Resolution No. 05-59 Page 16 the City to fully mitigate project impacts on riparian habitat and provide for mitigation monitoring and maintenance. Selection of Plant Palettes (Option 1): The plant palette shall include appropriate trees, understory, and early - successional species native to the Santa Clarita area. Quantities. Container Sizes, Planting Patterns, Origins (Option 1): Seed quantities, plant container sizes, and planting patterns shall be specified, as appropriate. To the extent feasible, plants and seeds used in the restoration plans shall be collected from the project site or elsewhere in the Valley, as near to the site as possible. The use of locally native plantings will increase the chances of success and maintain the genetic integrity of the local ecosystem. If eradication of non-native invasive species is selected as (one of) the mitigation option(s), this section shall detail the types and approximate numbers of individuals of each non-native species to be removed. Quantities of riparian trees to be replaced shall consider ratios required by CDFG for riparian trees, as follows. The inventory of riparian trees identified 59 trees with dbh 3 inches (8 centimeters) or greater. Per CDFG, riparian trees shall be replaced at the following ratio: from 24 to 36 inches (60 to 91 centimeters) at 20:1, from 12 to 24 inches (30 to 61 centimeters) at 15:1, from 5 to 12 inches (12.7 to 30.5 centimeters) at 10:1, and less than 5 inches (12.7 centimeters) dbh at 5:1. Based on this data, tree replacement would include 570 Fremont's cottonwood, 95 arroyo willow, 40 California sycamores, and 40 valley oaks, a total of 745 trees. Specifications for planting patterns and methods for riparian trees will be detailed in this section. Timing for Restoration/Eradication (Options 1 and 2): The restoration specialist shall determine the methods to be used, including timing of site preparation, planting, and/or of eradication of exotic (non-native) invasive species, in consultation with CDFG. For best results, seeding and planting should take place after the onset of the rainy season and prior to March 31. Riparian woodlands may achieve good results with installation at other times of the year. Eradication would be most effective if conducted early in the spring prior to seed set by non-native invasive species. Mycorrhizal Fungi (Option 1): In order to improve the ability of the planted material to compete with non-native forbs and grasses, mycorrhizal innoculum shall be specified for all container plants known to benefit from this symbiotic association. Site Preparation (Options 1 and 2): Methods to prepare the site for planting shall be specified, including consideration of soil requirements (e.g., soil type, compaction, etc.) and weed control prior to planting (if needed). If eradication of non-native invasive species is selected as (one of) the mitigation option(s), this section shall detail protective measures to be implemented to avoid impacts on native riparian plant and wildlife species during the eradication process. Methods for Seeding Planting or Eradication (Options 1 and 2): Methods for installing seeds and plants shall be specified (hand seeding, hydroseeding, etc.), as well as planting methods for container plants. If eradication of non-native invasive species is selected as (one of) the mitigation option(s), this section shall detail methods to be used for eradication, such as by mechanical means, by hand, and/or by an herbicide approved by CDFG/ACOE. Irrigation (Option 1): The restoration specialist shall determine and specify the need, frequency, and duration for irrigation of riparian restoration sites and specific irrigation equipment as well as Resolution No. 05-59 Page 17 installation and removal methods. Maintenance (Options 1 and 2): Maintenance of all plantings or of the actions required to remove exotic species will be the responsibility of the City and shall include any activities required to meet the performance standards set forth in the restoration plan. A minimum of 5 years of maintenance shall be required unless the plan's long-term performance standards are satisfied in less than 5 years. Monitoring (Options 1 and 2): The City shall be responsible for monitoring the restoration site or eradication site for a minimum of 5 years or until all of the project's long-term performance standards are met. The site monitor shall be a biologist, native landscape horticulturist, or other professional qualified to 1) assess the performance of the planting or eradication effort, 2) recommend corrective measures, if needed, and 3) document wildlife use of planting or eradication areas over time. The site monitor shall be selected by the City and approved by CDFG. Performance Standards (Options 1 and 2): Short-term (e.g., 90 -day and 180 -day) and long-term (e.g., 3 -year and 5 -year) performance standards shall be set for the restoration or eradication area(s), consistent with the goal of establishing self-sustaining riparian habitat that supports native plant and wildlife species. The plan shall specify appropriate corrective actions to be taken if the site monitor determines that any restoration or eradication area is not meeting the performance standards set for the plan. If performance standards cannot be achieved due to adverse soil or other unmanageable site conditions, an alterative or auxiliary plan may be submitted to the City and CDFG. CDFG performance standards for riparian trees present in the project impact area are provided in Table 3-4 in Section 3-1.13 of the EIIUEA. Documentation (Options 1 and 2): The monitoring results shall be reported at least annually to the City and CDFG, as well as to ACOE and RWQCB. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Fact in Support of the Finding: Implementation of the proposed mitigation measure requiring replacement habitat that will ensure no net loss would reduce construction impacts to a less than significant level. WILDLIFE Impact Wildlife: More mobile species such as birds may be affected by project construction including construction noise. Removal or destruction of one or more active nests of native birds, whether nest damage was due to tree removal or to other construction activities, would be considered a violation of the MBTA and a significant impact under CEQA. Mitigation Measure W-1: Construction activities that result in grading or in the removal of shrubs or trees shall be initiated during the nonbreeding season for birds (approximately September 1 through February 15, if feasible). Portions of Resolution No. 05-59 Page 18 the project area where construction is scheduled to take place during the nesting season (February 16 though August 31) shall be grubbed and graded to remove any potential nesting habitat for birds, per the certification of a qualified ornithologist, prior to February 15. This will avoid violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. If construction activities cannot avoid the bird breeding season, the City shall retain the services of a qualified ornithologist to conduct a survey of the construction zone. The ornithological survey may require 2 to 4 days to complete, depending upon the extent of the project area scheduled for grubbing, grading, or other construction activities. The survey shall occur not more than 1 week prior to the initiation of those construction activities to minimize the potential that bird nests are not initiated after the survey and prior to construction. If the ornithologist detects any occupied nests of native birds within the construction zone, the City shall conspicuously flag off the area(s) supporting bird nests, providing a minimum buffer of 100 feet (30 meters) between the nest and limits of construction. The construction crew shall be instructed to avoid any activities in this zone until the bird nest(s) is/are no longer occupied, per a subsequent survey by the qualified ornithologist. Also see Mitigation Measure TE -2 for mitigation for the impact on the San Diego desert woodrat and Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow due to loss of scrub habitat. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final E1R. Fact in Support of the Finding: Implementation of the proposed mitigation measure would reduce construction impacts to wildlife to a less than significant level by avoiding impacts to nesting birds. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES Impact: Two special -status plant species were found in the project area, the slender mariposa lily, and the Peirson's morning-glory. For the slender mariposa lily, Carl Wishner, botanist, estimated that up to 2,600 individuals occur in the project area. This represents a substantial population, and removal of this population during project construction would represent a significant impact on a species considered special -status. Mitigation Measure TE -1: The City shall successfully replace the slender mariposa lily population; this could occur in the mitigation area for replacement of scrub habitat (see TE -2 below). The mitigation site(s) shall be selected by a biologist with demonstrated expertise in the ecological requirements for the slender mariposa lily and approved by the City and CDFG. The same or another biologist shall then be selected by the City and CDFG to oversee implementation Resolution No. 05-59 Page 19 .... of the measures below. The biologist shall possess documented successful experience in implementing and maintaining successful mitigation for the slender mariposa lily or other special -status plant species that are annuals and found in sage scrub habitat. Following site selection (again, this can be a site within the mitigation site for sage scrub specified in Avoidance Measure TE -2), the biologist shall implement and/or oversee the following measures: Seed Collection: Sufficient seed to produce a minimum of 2,600 surviving slender mariposa lily plants 3 years after planting shall be collected and cleaned as necessary. Caltrans recommends collecting over two seasons from the project area, if project schedule allows. Collected seed must be sufficient to allow for expected seed inviability and seedling mortality. Seeds shall be stored by a qualified nursery or institution with appropriate storage facilities. If seasonal constraints prohibit the collection of sufficient seeds from the project site prior to project grading, seeds shall be collected from slender mariposa lily populations within a 10 -mile (16 -kilometer) radius of the project site to ensure adaptation to local conditions. If sufficient seed cannot be collected, a seed augmentation (seed collection followed by germination and growing of plants in a greenhouse) program shall be conducted by a nursery with experience in successful seed augmentation of native annual southern California plants. Site Preparation: The top 3 inches (8 centimeters) of topsoil from areas on the project site that support slender mariposa lily shall be scraped and stockpiled at the selected mitigation site(s). Prior to topsoil spreading, soil testing and site preparation measures deemed appropriate by the biologist shall be implemented at the mitigation site where the seeds shall be planted. The biologist shall recommend and oversee soil remediation measures as necessary or select other area(s) of the mitigation site more appropriate for planting. The topsoil shall be spread in the selected mitigation site(s) as approved by the biologist. Sixty (60) percent of the slender mariposa lily seeds shall be spread in the fall following soil preparation. Forty (40) percent of the seeds shall be stored as above for subsequent seeding if necessary. Selection of Contractor: The biologist shall also participate in selecting the contractor(s) to prepare the site; conduct the planting; and protect, maintain and monitor the mitigation site. The contractor(s) shall have documented experience in implementing successful mitigation for sensitive plants of sage scrub habitats. Maintenance. Monitoring, and Reporting: A detailed maintenance and monitoring program shall be developed by the biologist. The program shall include specific performance criteria, measures to effectively evaluate performance criteria, and detailed descriptions of maintenance appropriate for the mitigation site, including regular weeding of invasive and/or non-native species that may compete for survival with slender mariposa lily seedlings. The program shall also detail provisions for monitoring the mitigation site(s) over a 5 -year period and annual reporting requirements. Annual reports shall be submitted to the City and CDFG. The maintenance and monitoring program shall also include provisions that provide the biologist full authority to suspend any operation on the mitigation site that is, in the biologist's opinion, not consistent with the measures included herein or with the maintenance and monitoring program. Any disputes regarding the consistency of an action with Resolution No. 05-59 Page 20 the measures outlined herein or with the maintenance and monitoring program shall be resolved by the City and CDFG. Performance Criteria: The performance criteria in the maintenance and monitoring program shall include requirements for a minimum of 60 percent germination of the project site's population within 1 year of planting. The performance criteria shall also include percent cover, density, and seed production requirements. These criteria shall be developed by the biologist following habitat analysis of the mitigation site(s) and detailed in the maintenance and monitoring plan. The maintenance and monitoring plan shall specify that monitoring reports be submitted to Caltrans. Site Protection: A permanent protective fence approved by the biologist shall be erected around the slender mariposa lily mitigation site(s) if the site(s) are adjacent to public access areas in order to ensure protection of the mitigation site(s). The fence shall be maintained and repaired as necessary over the 5 -year monitoring period. Remedial Measures: If the germination goal of 60 percent is not achieved following the first season, remediation measures shall be implemented prior to seeding with the remaining 40 percent of seed. Remedial measures would include soils testing, control of invasive species, soil amendments, and physical disturbance (to provide seed scarification) of the planted areas by raking or similar actions. Additional measures may be suggested as determined necessary by the biologist. Impact: The following special -status wildlife species may occur in, or make use of, the project area: coast homed lizard, ferruginous hawk, northern harrier, Cooper's hawk, sharp -shinned hawk, merlin, white-tailed kite, California horned lark, loggerhead shrike, western yellow warbler, southern California rufous - crowned sparrow, Bell's sage sparrow, San Diego desert woodrat, San Diego jackrabbit, and special -status bat species. However, potential habitat in the project area is very limited for most of these species. The only special -status species expected to occur on a regular basis, or that were observed in the project area, include the southern California rufous -crowned sparrow and San Diego desert woodrat (western yellow warbler was observed but is not expected to breed in the project area). These species occur in chaparral and scrub habitats. Such habitats are still widespread in parts of southern California but are very limited now in the Santa Clarita Valley. The project would result in the removal of 0.54 acre (0.22 hectare) of chaparral and 4.90 acres (1.98 hectares) of scrub habitats that support these and other special -status species. This would be a significant impact under CEQA. Mitigation Measure TE -2: The City shall prepare and implement a restoration plan for scrub habitat in the vicinity of the project or, if possible, within the limited extent of remaining open space. The plan shall be prepared by a restoration specialist with demonstrated successful experience in restoration of coastal sage scrub in southern California. The restoration plan shall include the following components, in consultation with CDFG: Selection of a Mitigation Site: Criteria to select an appropriate mitigation site shall be discussed. It is possible that mitigation can occur onsite in the graded or disturbed habitat Resolution No. 05-59 Page 21 adjacent to existing areas of scrub, provided that soil, slope, and other characteristics are deemed suitable by the restoration specialist to support scrub habitat. Mitigation could include enhancement of existing degraded coastal sage scrub or replacement of coastal sage scrub on graded slopes. Conditions on the mitigation site, including descriptions of the composition of coastal sage scrub habitat to be removed and the condition of the mitigation site, shall be discussed in this section. Objectives of Miti ag tion: This section shall discuss mitigation ratios, habitat goals, and performance standards. Replacement ratios may vary, depending upon whether scrub habitat shall be entirely replaced in an area that currently supports no coastal sage scrub habitat or if an existing area of degraded scrub will be enhanced or whether a combination of these two types of mitigation will occur. Habitat Restoration Implementation Guidelines: This section shall include site preparation (weed control, erosion control, irrigation), planting specifications (plant palettes and rates for seeding and container planting), site preparation and the use of mycorrhizal fungi, irrigation, habitat maintenance guidelines, and a 5 -year monitoring and maintenance program to document attainment of required performance standards, including documentation of use of the mitigation site by special -status wildlife species. The plan shall include sufficient detail to allow the project landscape architect to translate into landscape drawings and specifications. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Fact in Support of the Finding: Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures above would reduce construction impacts on special -status plant species and wildlife species and habitat to a less than significant level through replacement of the plant population and replacement of the wildlife habitat. d. The EIR identifies four impacts as "Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant." These include: impacts to the roadway segment of Copper Hill Drive north of Newhall Ranch Road, impacts to the intersection of the I-5 SB ramps and SR126 in the AM and PM peak periods, impacts to the intersection of Newhall Ranch Road and Copper Hill Drive/Rye Canyon Road during the PM peak period, and peak -day and peak -quarter NOx and PM10 air emissions during construction. Where feasible, mitigation measures were included in the EIR to lessen impacts, but impacts remain significant after mitigation. Additional mitigation of these impacts is economically, legally, socially, technologically or otherwise infeasible or is within the responsibility or jurisdiction of another public agency. All other _ project impacts can be fully mitigated. Consequently, in accordance with CEQA Guideline 15093, the SOC has been prepared to substantiate the City's decision to accept these unavoidable significant effects when balanced against the significant benefits afforded by the project. This section sets forth the significant unavoidable Resolution No. 05-59 Page 22 effects of the project and with respect to each significant impact, identifies one or more of the required CEQA findings, states facts in support of these findings and refers to the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). All other project impacts can be fully mitigated. "WRa ISy Impact: The proposed project could result in significant localized traffic impacts at the intersection of I-5 southbound ramps and SR 126 in the AM and PM peak hours. Mitigation Measure T-2: Westbound SR 126 shall be restriped by the City from three through lanes to four through lanes. Implementation of this mitigation measure would improve the LOS at this intersection to D in both peak traffic hours, with a resulting V/C ratio of 0.90 in the AM peak hour and a V/C ratio of 0.89 in the PM peak hour. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available. Impact: The proposed project could result in significant localized traffic impacts at the intersection of Copper Hill Drive/Rye Canyon Road and Newhall Ranch Road in the PM peak hour. No feasible mitigation is available. Impact: One of seven existing roadway segments analyzed in the traffic study, Copper Hill Drive north of Newhall Ranch Road, could experience a significant traffic impact due to an increase in traffic volumes and worsening of an existing LOS F condition. No feasible mitigation is available. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Fact in Support of the Finding: The proposed project could result in unavoidable significant adverse traffic impacts at the intersection of Copper Hill Drive/Rye Canyon Road and Newhall Ranch Road in the PM peak hour. Additionally, one of the seven existing roadway segments in the study area, Copper Hill Drive north of Newhall Ranch Road, could experience an unavoidable significant adverse traffic impact as a result of increased traffic volumes. Operating conditions at other roadway segments and intersections in the study area, however, would improve as a result of the proposed project. No feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that would fulfill the project objectives have been identified to reduce these significant impacts to a less than significant level. As detailed in the Resolution No. 05-59 Page 23 Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Section 5, long-term project area -wide traffic benefits would outweigh these limited localize traffic impacts. AIR QUALITY Impact: Construction activities for the proposed project (grading, earthmoving, unpaved roads, etc.) could result in fugitive dust emissions. Without mitigation, NOx and PM10 emissions would be significant under CEQA on the peak construction day and in the peak. Large operators, those with an exposed area exceeding 100 acres (250 hectares), are required to file a fugitive dust emissions control plan with the SCAQMD prior to initiating grading. The area disturbed or exposed by the proposed project would total approximately 50 acres (124 hectares). The project would qualify as a Medium Operation under Rule 403 if all 50 acres (124 hectares) were to be exposed at one time but would not have to file a plan unless the SCAQMD is under a contingency order issued by the EPA. The project would conform to Caltrans construction requirements, as specified in the Caltrans Standard Specifications. Section 7-1.01F (Air Pollution Control) of the Specifications states: "The Contractor shall comply with all air pollution control regulations ordinances and statutes which apply to any work performed pursuant to the contract, including any air pollution control rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes, specified in Section 11017 of the Government Code." The SCAQMD has prepared a Rule 403 Implementation Handbook to assist project applicants in complying with the rule. The Handbook provides a choice of options to control specific fugitive dust sources, including earthmoving, disturbed surface areas, unpaved roads, open storage piles, and paved road trackout. The following measures, as recommended by the SCAQMD in the Rule 403 Implementation Handbook, for minimizing the impacts shall be implemented. They would reduce PM10 emissions by at least 50 percent. Mitigation Measure AQ -1: Best Available Control Measures for High -Wind Conditions: Cease all active operations; OR Mitigation Measure AQ -2 - Apply water to soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving such soil. Mitigation Measure AQ -3 — Disturbed Surface Areas: On the last day of active operations prior to a weekend, holiday, or any other period when active operations will not occur for not more than four consecutive days: apply water with a mixture of chemical stabilizer diluted to not less than 1/20 of the concentration required to maintain a stabilized surface for a period of 6 months; OR Mitigation Measure AQ -4 — Apply chemical stabilizers prior to wind event; OR — Mitigation Measure AQ -5 — Apply water to 0 unstabilized disturbed areas 3 times per day. If there is any evidence of wind driven fugitive dust, watering frequency is increased to a minimum of four times per day; OR Mitigation Measure AQ -6 - Take the actions specified in AQ -25 below; OR Mitigation Measure AQ -7 — Utilize any combination of control actions 1B, 2B, and 3B such that, in total, these actions apply to all disturbed surface areas. Resolution No. 05-59 Page 24 Mitigation Measure AQ -8 — Unpaved Roads: Apply chemical stabilizers prior to wind event, OR Mitigation Measure AQ -9: Apply water twice per hour during active operation; OR Mitigation Measure AQ -10: Stop all vehicular traffic. Mitigation Measure AQ -11 — Open Storage Piles: Apply water twice per hour during active operation; OR Mitigation Measure AQ -12: Install temporary coverings. Mitigation Measure AQ -13 — Paved Road Track -out: Cover all haul vehicles; OR Mitigation Measure AQ -14: Comply with the vehicle freeboard requirements of Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code for both public and private roads. Mitigation Measure AQ -15: Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA as equivalent to the methods specified above may be used. Dust Control Actions for Exemption from Paragraph (d)(4): Table 2 in Rule 403 list actions that would exempt applicants from Paragraph (d) (4), which requires simultaneous sampling of upwind and downwind conditions on high-volume particulate samplers to insure that PM10 levels do not exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter. Those applicable to the South Coast Air Basin are shown here. Mitigation Measure AQ -16 — Earth Moving (Except Construction): Maintain soil moisture content at a minimum of 12 percent, as determined by ASTM method D 2216, or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer, the California Air Resources Board, and the U.S. EPA. Two soil moisture evaluations must be conducted during the first three hours of active operations during a calendar day, and two such evaluations each subsequent 4 -hour period of active operations; OR Mitigation Measure AQ -17: For any earth -moving that is more than 100 feet from all property lines, conduct watering as necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in length in any direction. Mitigation Measure AQ -18- Earth Moving: Construction fill areas: Maintain soil moisture content at a minimum of 12 percent, as determined by ASTM method D2216, or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer, the California Air Resources Board, and the U.S. EPA. For areas which have optimum moisture content for compaction of less than 12 percent, as determined by ASTM Method 1557 or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer and the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. EPA, complete the compaction process as expeditiously as possible after achieving at least 70 percent of the optimum soil moisture content. Two soil moisture evaluations must be conducted during the first 3 hours of active operations during a calendar day, and two such evaluations during each subsequent 4 -hour period of active operations. Mitigation Measure AQ -19 — Earth Moving: Construction cut areas and mining operations: Conduct watering as necessary to prevent visible emissions from extending more than 100 feet beyond the active cut or mining area unless the area is inaccessible to watering vehicles due to slope conditions or other safety factors. Mitigation Measure AQ -20 — Disturbed Surface Areas (except completed grading areas): Apply dust suppression in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface. Any areas which cannot be stabilized, as evidenced by wind driven fugitive dust must have an application of water at least twice per day to at least 80 percent of the unstabilized area. Mitigation Measure AQ -21 — Disturbed Surface Areas: Completed Grading Areas: Apply chemical stabilizers within five working Resolution No. 05-59 Page 25 days of grading completion; OR Mitigation Measure AQ -22: Take actions AQ -23 or AQ -24 specified for inactive disturbed surface areas. Mitigation Measure AQ -23: Inactive Disturbed Surface Areas: Apply water to at least 80 percent of all inactive disturbed surface areas on a daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust, excluding any areas which are inaccessible to watering vehicles due to excessive slope or other safety conditions; OR Mitigation Measure AQ -24: Apply dust suppressants in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface; OR Mitigation Measure AQ -25: Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21days after active operations have ceased. Ground cover must be of sufficient density to expose less than 30 percent of unstabilized ground within 90 days of planting, and at all times thereafter; OR Mitigation Measure AQ -26: Utilize any combination of control actions AQ -23, AQ -24, and AQ -25 such that, in total, these actions apply to all inactive disturbed surface areas. Mitigation Measure AQ -27- Track -out Control Options: - Pave or apply chemical stabilization at sufficient concentration and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface starting from the point of intersection with the public paved surface, and extending for a centerline distance of at least 100 feet and a width of at least 20 feet. Mitigation Measure AQ -28: Pave from the point of intersection with the public paved road surface, and extending for a centerline distance of at least 25 feet and a width of at least 20 feet, and install a track -out control device immediately adjacent to the paved surface such that exiting vehicles do not travel on any ._ unpaved road surface after passing through the track -out control device. Mitigation Measure AQ -29: Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA as equivalent to the methods specified above may be used. Gaseous (VOC) Emissions: The following minimization measure, which would reduce equipment emissions by 10 percent, shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure AQ -30: Turn off equipment when not in use for longer than 5 minutes. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Fact in Support of the Finding: All feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce construction air quality impacts. Although air pollutants during construction would be substantially lessened, emissions of PM10 and NOX would remain significant and unavoidable. As detailed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Section 5, long-term project area -wide air quality benefits would outweigh these limited short-term construction impacts. e. The City Council has determined that, although modifications to the project as originally proposed, EIR mitigation and conditions of approval imposed on the project will either avoid or provide substantial mitigation of the project's Resolution No. 05-59 Page 26 cumulative contribution to identified significant cumulative environmental effects, the following environmental effects cannot be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance: cumulative water and electrical demand impacts. Where feasible, mitigation measures were included in the EIR to lessen impacts, but impacts remain significant after mitigation. Additional mitigation of these impacts is economically, legally, socially, technologically or otherwise infeasible or is within the responsibility or jurisdiction of another public agency. All other project impacts can be fully mitigated. Consequently, in accordance with CEQA Guideline 15093, the SOC has been prepared to substantiate the City's decision to accept these unavoidable significant cumulative effects when balanced against the significant benefits afforded by the project. This section sets forth the significant unavoidable cumulative effects of the project and with respect to each significant impact, identifies one or more of the required CEQA findings, states facts in support of these findings and refers to the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). CUMULATIVE WATER Impact: The study area for cumulative water supply impacts would consist of the area served by the water suppliers in the project area. The project site is currently within the Valencia Water Company service area. The Valencia Water Company obtains water from local groundwater wells and the Castaic Lake Water Agency. The Valencia Water Company serves a portion of the City and the unincorporated communities of Castaic, Newhall, Saugus, Stevenson Ranch, and Valencia. Valencia Water Company supplies water to approximately 25,286 service connections. Castaic Lake Water Agency is the purveyor of water to Valencia Water Company and the Newhall County Water District. The Castaic Lake Water Agency obtains water from local groundwater supplies and the State Water Project. Cumulative growth and development in the City and in the areas served by the project's water providers could substantially increase water demand. Landscaping associated with the proposed project would consume an estimated 42,375 gallons of water per day. Although the Valencia Water Company has indicated that there is a sufficient supply of water to meet the proposed project's needs, cumulative development could require the development of new water supply facilities and infrastructure, the construction of which could have significant impacts on the environment. Consequently, the incremental impact of the proposed project could contribute to a cumulatively considerable water supply impact. However, it should be noted that landscaping for the proposed project would include drought -tolerant plants, which require less water than other types of vegetation. Additionally, the Urban Water Management Plan 2000 (prepared by Black and Veatch Engineers for Castaic Lake Water Agency, Valencia Water Company, Newhall County Water District, Santa Clarita Resolution No. 05-59 Page 27 Water Company, and Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 36) discusses the possibility of increasing the use of reclaimed water in the water service area to further reduce water supply needs. Finding: 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. 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. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: All feasible measures have been identified to mitigate the proposed project's incremental contribution to cumulative water and electricity impacts. Specifically, landscaping for the project will be done using drought tolerant plants. Further measures to mitigate the cumulative impacts of other related development in the project area are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. CUMULATIVE ELECTRICITY DEMAND Impact: The proposed project would include approximately 206, 30 -foot concrete streetlights with 6 -foot mast arms and 22,000 -lumen high-pressure sodium lamps. The streetlights, which would consume an estimated 180,456 kilowatts of electricity per year, would be owned and maintained by Southern California Edison. Planned and pending development in Santa Clarita would cumulatively increase the demand for electrical power. It is possible that new or improved electrical transmission facilities (e.g., transmission lines and towers, substations, transformers) would be required to meet this increased demand and maintain an adequate level of service. Construction of these facilities could have a significant impact on the environment depending on their location, characteristics, sensitivity of affected resources, etc. Consequently, the incremental impact of the project on electrical supplies could contribute to a cumulatively considerable electricity supply impact. Finding: 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. 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. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Resolution No. 05-59 Page 28 Facts in Support of the Finding: Further measures to mitigate the cumulative impacts of other related development in the project area are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. f. In addition, applicable mitigation measures from the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Circulation Element Amendment have been included in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the project, to further reduce impacts. SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF 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 adequately evaluates the comparative merits of each alternative. The City Council further finds, as follows: 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, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at 730-731; and Laurel Heights 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 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 would result in the following significant unavoidable impacts: (1) impacts to the roadway segment of Copper Hill Drive north of Newhall Ranch Road, (2) impacts to the intersection of the I-5 SB ramps and SR126 in the AM and PM peak periods, (3) impacts to the intersection of Newhall Ranch Road and Copper Hill Drive/Rye Canyon Road during the PM peak period, and (4) peak -day and peak -quarter NOx and PM10 emissions during construction. Therefore, the City Council is required to adopt a statement of Resolution No. 05-59 Page 29 overriding considerations and has any obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives as all impacts can not be mitigated to less than significant levels through the implementation of mitigation measures. d. The proposed project is the closure of one of the gaps in the Cross Valley Connector, a roadway included in the City's adopted Circulation Element Amendment. The adopted objectives of the Circulation Element Amendment (per City Resolution 97-113) were to: • identify the primary east—west corridor alternatives to an extension of SR 126; • remove SR 126 as a limited -access expressway from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways; • identify the existing and planned standards for major, secondary, and limited secondary highways in the City; • identify the primary features of the City's transit system; • reduce the level of vehicular trips in general and, specifically, the use of autos for drive -alone trips; • identify alternative commute options, including Metrolink, commuter buses, park-and-ride, and telecommuting; • encourage land use planning that supports these mobility goals; and establish mobility corridors within the City. In 1997, an EIR was prepared for the City's Circulation Element Amendment. That EIR addressed, at a program level, seven alternatives to the SR 126 Expressway, which included in the City's first Circulation Element adopted in 1991. The key difference among the alternatives was the approach to providing a route across the Santa Clarita Valley, connecting I-5 and SR 14. The seven alternatives included: • The Existing Planned Circulation System (Alternative 1) - This alternative examined the circulation system planned in the 1991 Circulation Element except that the SR 126 Expressway was downgraded to an eight -lane major arterial known as Newhall Ranch Road. It also considered planned transit improvements included in the City's Transportation Development Plan, as well as the trip -reducing effects of implementing various proposed City TDM policies. • The Newhall Ranch Road Reduction (Alternative 2) - This alternative was identical to Alternative 1 except that the eastward extension of Newhall Ranch Road would be reduced to six lanes in width and would end at Golden Valley Resolution No. 05-59 Page 30 Road rather than at SR -14 and Newhall Ranch Road. Like Alternative 1, this alternative considered planned transit improvements included in the City's Transportation Development Plan, as well as the trip -reducing effects of implementing various proposed City TDM policies. • The Golden Valley Network (Alternative 3) - This alternative is identical to Alternative 2 except that it would provide a continuous east—west throughway between I-5 and SR 14 along Newhall Ranch Road, Santa Clarita Parkway, and Golden Valley Road. Like Alternatives 1 and 2, this alternative considered planned transit improvements included in the City's Transportation Development Plan, as well as the trip -reducing effects of implementing various proposed City TDM policies. • Augmented Newhall Ranch Road Reduction (Alternative 4) - This alternative considered the roadway system and TDM policies of Alternative 2 but allowed the augmentation of six -lane arterials with additional right- and left -tum pockets at heavily congested intersections. Both existing and new intersections could be augmented under this alternative. • Augmented Golden Valley Road Network (Alternative 5) - This alternative considered the roadway system and TDM policies of Alternative 3 but, like Alternative 4, allowed the augmentation of six -lane arterials with additional right- and left -turn pockets at heavily congested intersections. Both existing and new intersections could be augmented under this alternative. • Newhall Ranch/Reduced Trip (Alternative 6) - This alternative examined the roadway network of Alternative 2 in combination with a set of aggressive TDM measures designed to reduce citywide trips to maximum extent feasible. The aggressive TDM measures included a range of approaches above and beyond those envisioned in Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, including the use of City and business -sponsored financial incentives and disincentives to encourage the use of alternatives to the single -passenger automobile. • Golden Valley/Reduced Trip (Alternative 7) - This alternative examined the roadway network of Alternative 3 in combination with the same aggressive TDM measures that would be applied as part of Alternative 6. On September 30, 1997, the Santa Clarita City Council adopted Resolution 97-113, approving the removal of SR 126 from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, selecting Alternative 4 (Augmented Newhall Ranch Road Reduction) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures, and adopting the amendments to the Circulation Element. The City Council also certified the EIR for the Circulation Element Amendment and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (see Appendix E of the EIRXA) for the measures specified in the Circulation Element EIR (Resolution 91-143). r Resolution No. 05-59 Page 31 e. The project is consistent with the design and routing for the Cross Valley Connector included in the adopted Circulation Element Amendment, and analyzed at a program level in the FEIR for the Circulation Element Amendment. The objectives of the Cross Valley Connector Gap Closure project, as specified in the Draft EIR, are: • to develop a transportation facility consistent with the 1997 Circulation Element Amendment that would accommodate planned and projected growth; • to improve access to major regional industrial and commercial centers in the project area; • to reduce out -of -direction travel and vehicle miles traveled, thereby reducing pollutant emissions and energy consumption; and • to improve intraregional travel by improving east—west mobility. 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. Project Study Report Alternatives A Project Study Report Equivalent completed in 2001 for the proposed project evaluated two alternatives, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Alternative 1 was identified as the preferred alternative by the City and is the proposed project evaluated in detail in the EIR. Both Alternatives 1 and 2 proposed the construction of a new 160 -foot wide (49 -meter wide) road with eight traffic lanes (four in each direction), sidewalks, a raised and landscaped median, landscaped parkways, streetlights, curb and gutter, and a Class I bike path. However, the portion of the Alternative 2 alignment east of the Southern California Edison overhead transmission lines would be located slightly (approximately 60 feet) north of the Alternative 1 alignment. This alternative would not require acquisition of a small piece of property from Southern California Edison at the existing substation. However, it would result in the removal of a heritage oak tree located approximately 1,900 feet west of Copper Hill Drive/Rye Canyon Road. For this reason, this alternative was withdrawn from consideration for detailed evaluation in the EIR. With the exception of the impacts to the heritage oak tree and Southern California Edison substation property, the impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed project. The Project Study Report Equivalent also analyzed a four -lane facility (two lanes _ in each direction) as an interim phasing alternative. Full right-of-way (for an ultimate eight -lane facility) would be acquired and graded and the four -lane roadway would be constructed on one side of the graded ultimate right-of- way. However, the traffic study conducted in support of the Project Study Report Resolution No. 05-59 Page 32 Equivalent did not recommend this alternative because it would not provide acceptable levels of service and would be overwhelmed by traffic demand after a short time. Also, the total cost of the ultimate (eight -lane) roadway would be increased by the remobilization of construction activity and replacement of temporary paving at transitions and in the median area when the balance of improvements would be constructed. Maintenance of temporary drainage facilities and water quality features would be an additional cost until the full roadway was built out. For these reasons the Project Study Report alternatives were not evaluated further in the EIR. g. No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative is evaluated in the EIR. Under this alternative the proposed project would not be constructed. Newhall Ranch Road would terminate, as it currently does, at Copper Hill Drive/Rye Canyon Road and would not be extended to the west to connect to the I-5/SR 126 interchange. h. Six -Lane Alternative The EIR includes evaluation of one roadway alternative, the Six -Lane Alternative. Under this alternative, Newhall Ranch Road would be six lanes wide (three lanes in each direction) from Copper Hill Drive/Rye Canyon Road to just east of I-5. By decreasing the number of lanes, the footprint of the roadway and the area disturbed during construction would be reduced, resulting in fewer or less extensive impacts in some areas than the proposed eight -lane project. i. Analysis of the Alternatives Although the No Project Alternative would not result in any of the adverse construction or operational impacts that would result from the project, it would not fulfill the project objectives or provide the benefits of the proposed project. Local and intraregional access would not be improved, vehicle miles traveled and associated air quality impact reductions would not be achieved, and traffic circulation would not be improved. The resulting additional congestion increased future air pollution and fuel consumption could have an adverse effect on the economic development in the Santa Clarita Valley. The Six Lane Alternative would not be consistent with the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, which identifies the section of Newhall Ranch Road from I-5 to Rye Canyon Road/Copper Hill Drive as an eight -lane major arterial. The Six -Lane Alternative could result in slightly fewer or less extensive impacts than the proposed project in the following areas: archaeological resources, geologic/soils/seismicity, paleontological resources, hazardous wastes, construction air quality, noise, and biological resources. All of these impacts, Resolution. No_. 0Y`59 Page 33 however, with the exception of construction air quality, can be mitigated to a level of insignificance under both the Six -Lane Alternative and the project. Additionally the Six -Lane Alternative could result in increased traffic congestion, operational air quality impacts, and energy consumption compared to the proposed Build Alternative. This alternative is therefore environmentally inferior to the project and would not obtain all of the project objectives, as would the project. Therefore, the proposed project which has been developed based on two-tiered screening of alternatives which occurred first as part of the evaluation of the Circulation Element Amendment options and selection and adoption of the Circulation Element Amendment approach, and then through the Project Study Report process, is the preferred alternative due to its ability to achieve greater benefits and accomplish the full project objectives while having similar post - mitigation impacts as the Six Lane Alternative, and only slightly greater short- term construction air quality impacts. SECTION 5. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS: 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 that the project will have significant unavoidable effects but that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects: a. The EIR identifies four project impacts as "Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant." These include: (1) impacts to the roadway segment of Copper Hill Drive north of Newhall Ranch Road, (2) impacts to the intersection of the I-5 SB ramps and SR126 in the AM and PM peak periods, (3) impacts to the intersection of Newhall Ranch Road and Copper Hill Drive/Rye Canyon Road during the PM peak period, and (4) peak -day and peak -quarter NOx and PM10 air emissions during construction. In addition, the EIR identified two cumulative impacts which cannot be mitigated to a level that is Less Than Significant: water and electrical use. b. The benefits of the project outweigh its significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. These benefits include the following: (i) Implementation of the proposed Cross Valley Connector Gap Closure Project would fulfill the objectives of the project to: (1) develop a transportation facility consistent with the 1997 Circulation Element Amendment that would accommodate planned and projected growth; (2) reduce out -of -direction travel and vehicle miles traveled, thereby reducing pollutant emissions and energy consumption; (3) improve access to major regional industrial and commercial centers in the project area; and (4) improve intraregional travel by improving east -west mobility. Resolution No. 05-59 Page 34 (ii) The proposed project is consistent with the Circulation Element Amendment adopted by the City in 1997 and the Element's goals to identify a primary east - west corridor alternative to the extension of SR 126 and to establish mobility corridors within the City. The proposed eight -lane facility would meet the City's "major highway" standards and would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate future levels of traffic that could occur with buildout under the City's General Plan. (iii) The Santa Clarita Valley is experiencing widespread growth in terms of both population and new jobs. This growth, along with the general patterns of development and the lack of alternative east—west routes due to natural (e.g., valley canyons, Santa Clara River) and man-made barriers, has resulted in traffic congestion on the City's existing primary east—west roadway, Soledad Canyon Road. This trend is expected to continue into the future, with generally declining levels of service on area roadways, slower traffic speeds, and increased commute times. Currently, many travel trips in the east—west direction are made on the longer routes of I-5 and SR 14 because of congestion on Soledad Canyon Road. Although I-5 and SR 14 are the primary routes serving the region, they are more efficient in moving traffic in the north—south direction. This results in more vehicle miles traveled, causing additional congestion on the freeway system, more air pollution in the region, and increased energy consumption. The Cross Valley Connector Gap Closure Project would substantially reduce out -of -direction travel and improve intraregional travel by improving east—west mobility. The potential project area traffic benefits are illustrated in Table 2-16 of the Final EIR. As shown in this table, with implementation of the proposed project, traffic conditions under five of the seven existing roadway segments analyzed would improve, conditions on one roadway segment would remain the same, and conditions would worsen at one segment. (iv) The Cross Valley Connector Gap Closure Project would also provide multi- modal access to the county's fourth-largest industrial park, the Valencia Commerce Center, and the Valencia Industrial Center and Rye Canyon Business Park (see Figure 1-1 in the Final EIR/EA). Access to these centers is presently restricted and circuitous. There are currently 26,000 persons employed in the Valencia Industrial and Commerce centers, and an additional 7,000 employees are anticipated at buildout. Rapid business growth, as well as residential growth in the surrounding area, will result in deteriorating traffic conditions without the proposed project. Local access to the Valencia Commerce Center and adjacent commercial and industrial areas is vital to the continued economic vitality of the region. The corridor would also provide improved access to I-5, SR 126, and Ventura County. Resolution No. GIF -5 -5- P -ape 35 (v) Improved access may also have a beneficial effect on community character and cohesion benefits and will improve emergency response time. (vi) The improvement in overall traffic flow on the roadway system resulting from the project and more direct cross valley route should result in a reduction in vehicle miles traveled as compared to without project levels resulting in regional air quality benefits and long-term energy (reduced gas consumption) benefits. (vii) The proposed project also includes the extension of the Bouquet Canyon Trail, which is a Class I bike path, west from its current terminus at Rye Canyon Road to just east of the I-5/SR 126 interchange. The bike trail is consistent with the Master Plan of Bikeways in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, which shows a future bikeway continuing along the length of Newhall Ranch Road to the Ventura County border to the west. Completion of the proposed bike trail would improve access for bicyclists to the major industrial and commercial centers in the area. By providing a convenient and accessible alternative means of travel to the automobile, the proposed bike path could further reduce congestion, energy consumption, and air pollutants in the project area and City. ^, (viii) Construction of the proposed project would create temporary jobs during design and construction phases of the project over the course of the next several years. These jobs would bring a boost to the local economy by way of increased consumer spending in the area and additional tax revenue. (ix) The proposed project would include sidewalks, a raised and landscaped median, landscaped parkways, streetlights, curb and gutters, and a Class I bike path. These project features and the proposed roadway could improve the appearance of the area, which currently consists of land disturbed by previous grading at either end of the alignment, overhead power lines, a debris basin, open space, and dirt/gravel roads providing access to adjacent industrial uses. These improvements would be visually and physically consistent with land use and roadway improvements to the east, northeast, south and west thereby creating a more visually coherent landscape. SECTION 6. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL E1R: 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 E1R in reaching its conclusions. Resolution No. 05-59 Page 36 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. The analyses included in the Final EIR to support each conclusion and recommendation therein is hereby incorporated into these findings. e. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081, modifications have occurred to the project to reduce significant effects. f. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the Cross Valley Connector Gap Closure project entitlements which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects and feasible mitigation measures including those in the MMRP, are made conditions of approval for the project. g. The Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Section 5 identifies and weighs the project's significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant against the community benefits from this project, and concludes based on substantial evidence in the record that the project's benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant impacts. In compliance with CEQA Section 15093, the City Council has considered the project benefits in Section 5 as balanced against the unavoidable adverse environment effects in Section 4 and hereby determines that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects; therefore the City determines that this resolution comprises a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) that considers the project benefits in light of significant adverse project impacts and the adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable. h. That the Final EIR reflects the decision -maker's independent judgment and analysis. i. That a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (NMMP) has been prepared and is adopted to enforce the mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and project approvals. j. 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, Department of Building and Engineering, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, California 91355. Resolution No. 05-59 Page 37 SECTION 7. The City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Final E1R SCH No. 2002121059 and hereby determines that it is adequate and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.). In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 12081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has considered the project benefits as balanced against its unavoidable adverse environmental effects and hereby determines that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects; therefore, the City Council determines that the unavoidable adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR and associated documents, and adopts the project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). By the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council is certifying the environmental impact report and adopting a SOC that identifies the benefits of the project as balanced against its unavoidable environmental risks, but has not granted any approval or entitlement on this project. SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of May, 2005. MAYOR ATTEST: 44 CITY CLERK Resolution No. 05-59 Page 38 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 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 24th day of May, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Weste, Kellar, Ferry, McLean, Smyth NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY CLERK ^" STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ss. 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. 05-59, adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California on May 24, 2005, 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 EXHIBIT A FINAL EIR On file in the Planning Division. IWg1411:30IV, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM On file in the Planning Division.