Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-08 - RESOLUTIONS - DOWNTOWN NEWHALL SP EIR (2)RESOLUTION NO. 05-133 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DOWNTOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, FEIR SCH #2005021012, (INCLUDES ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM), AND ADOPTION OF A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS THAT WEIGH PROJECT BENEFITS AGAINST THE PROJECT'S SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS FOR MASTER CASE NO. 05-029 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 05-001, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 05-001, ZONE CHANGE 05-001, AND UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 05-001. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. RECITALS. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. An application for Master Case 05-029, the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan, was filed by the project applicant, the City of Santa Clarita on June 8, 2004. The entitlement requests (collectively, "Entitlements") included: L Specific Plan 05-001 to reaffirm the vision of past plans for the Downtown Newhall area, to translate the vision to physical terms, and to provide specific tools and a high level of detail for implementation of physical improvements, including parking. ii. General Plan Amendment 05-001 to modify the existing General Plan land use designations to Specific Plan (SP) and to amend the Circulation Element to change San Fernando Road from a major highway to a local arterial and to change Railroad Avenue from a non Circulation Element Road to a secondary highway. iii. Zone Change 05-001 to change the land use designations of the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan site from Residential Suburban, Community Commercial, Residential Moderate, Open Space, Industrial Commercial, and Residential Medium High to Specific Plan. iv. Unified Development Code Amendment to have this Specific Plan supersede the existing Downtown Newhall Special Standards District. b. The Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project site comprises some 536 acres and is approximately 50 blocks of developed areas generally bound by Newhall Creek -- to the east, 13th Street to the North, Newhall Avenue and William S. Hart Park to the west, and the intersection of Pine Street and San Fernando Road to the south. Resolution No. 05-133 Page 2 of 15 C. Build -out of the Specific Plan could take up to 20 to 25 years. With build -out, an increase of 712 residential units and an increase of 300,000 square feet of commercial buildings are anticipated. d. On June 25, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-98, adopting the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita and certifying the Environmental Impact Report. The City's General Plan presently designates the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project site as Residential Suburban, Community Commercial, Residential Moderate, Open Space, Industrial Commercial and Residential Medium High. e. The majority of the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan site is flat and is developed with residential uses of varying densities and with a commercial corridor fronting San Fernando Road and Lyons Avenue. The project site includes the Janice H. Heidt Metrolink Station. In addition there are industrial, manufacturing and outdoor storage uses in the southeastern portion of the project site. f. 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 Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project. The City's Planning Commission is a recommending body for the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project. The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the project, which determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and that an environmental impact report must be prepared. The Initial Study determined that the following areas must be addressed in the project Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"): air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils/geotechnical, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, noise, population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic and utilities/service systems. g. An initial Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Entitlements was circulated to affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA statutes and the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.), for thirty days, beginning on February 2, 2005, and comments from agencies and the public were received in response. Agencies that received the NOP include, but are not limited to, the County of Los Angeles, Metrolink, California Department of Transportation, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Southern California Association of Governments, County of Los Angeles, SCOPE, law enforcement agencies, school districts, waste haulers, water agencies and transportation agencies serving the Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with the consultation requirements contained in the CEQA statutes and CEQA Guidelines. h. A scoping meeting was held at the City of Santa Clarita City Hall, on February 17, 2005, 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 and in excess of 60 agencies, organizations, or persons were Resolution No. 05-133 Paga 3 of 15 _ notified in advance. Three members of the public attended along with one member of the press. Issues raised were concerns regarding traffic, parking, road improvements, and preservation of historical locations. i. A Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project ("Draft EIR") was prepared and circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, and all issues raised by the Initial Study, and by comments received on the NOP and the Revised NOP have been considered, in compliance with CEQA. The Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR was filed, posted and advertised on June 20, 2005, with a public review period through August 3, 2005, in accordance with CEQA. Written comments received prior to and through August 5, 2005, were accepted for inclusion in the Final EIR Responses to Comments. j. The Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project was duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for each of the Entitlements. The project was advertised in The Signal, through on-site posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first-class mail to property owners within the project area. k. The Planning Commission held duly -noticed public hearings on the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project on June 21, July 19, and August 30, 2005. These hearings were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on August 30, 2005. i. On June 21, staff introduced this project to the Planning Commission and described the Specific Plan's contents, goals and objectives. Staff also provided a brief overview of the DE1R contents and process. This meeting was continued to Tuesday, July 19. ii. On July 19, staff provided the Planning Commission with a detailed summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and with a presentation on the project's traffic study. The Planning Commission received public testimony and discussed project issues with staff. iii. On August 30, staff provided the Planning Commission with the Final EIR which included the Response to Comments and discussed Planning Commission and public issues/concems. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and adopted a resolution with recommendation of project approval to the City Council. 1. The City Council held duly -noticed public meetings on the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project on September 13, October 25, and November 8, 2005. These hearings were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:00 p.m. Resolution No. 05-133 Page 4 of 15 i. On September 13, 2005, this project was introduced to the City Council. At that meeting, the City Council opened the public hearing, received presentations from staff and the consultant, took testimony from the public, closed the public hearing, and directed staff to return to the Council meeting on October 25 with a resolution of project approval, a resolution to certify the Environmental Impact Report, adopt the Statement of Overriding Conditions and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and to introduce an ordinance to enact the zone change and the UDC amendment. ii. On October 25, 2005, the City Council continued this item as Unfinished Business to November 8, 2005. iii. On November 8, 2005, through three separate actions, the City Council: • Adopted a resolution approving the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan; • Adopted a resolution certifying the project's Environmental Impact Report which included a Statement of Overriding Conditions and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and • Introduced an ordinance to enact the proposed zone change and UDC Amendment, and passed the ordinance to a second reading on November 22, 2005. M. The Final EIR, on file in the Planning Division and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit `B," includes the Draft EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, comments on the Draft EIR and responses to written comments on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR was presented to the Council on September 13, 2005. On or before August 20, 2005, a copy of the responses to comments from the Final EIR was sent to each agency and individuals who submitted timely comments on the Draft EIR. The City Council has considered the Final EIR prepared for the project, as well as information provided in staff reports, the amended text of the Final EIR, and information presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council following the close of the Draft EIR public comment period up to, and including, August 30, 2005, prior to approval of the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project. i. The Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project have been prepared and circulated in compliance with CEQA. ii. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts of the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project that cannot be mitigated to less Resolution No. 05-133 Page 5 of 15 than significant levels, and has recommended certification of the Final EIR by Resolution No. P05-34, adopted August 30, 2005. iii. At its hearings on the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project, listed above, the City Council considered staff and consultant presentations, staff reports, information presented to the Commission and to the Council to assist its understanding of the project, the DEIR and public comments, and public testimony on the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project and the Final EIR for the project. iv. Based upon staff and consultant presentations, staff reports, public comments and testimony, the City Council finds that the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan 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 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project anticipates the extension of all utilities and services to the project area as necessary. V. The location of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceeding upon which the decision of the City Council is based on the Master Case 05-029 project file within the Community Development Department and is in the custody of the Director of Community Development. SECTION 2. CEQA FINDINGS. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.) requires decision -makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts may be considered "acceptable" by adopting a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." This statement sets forth the project benefits or reasons why the Lead Agency is in favor of approving the project and weighs these benefits against the project's unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level. b. 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. Resolution No. 05-133 Page 6 of 15 C. 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 a couple 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 that would necessitate recirculation. d. CEQA Guidelines 15003(c) and (i) (California Code of Regulations title 17, sections 15003(c) and (i)) note that state courts have identified 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. A court does not pass upon the correctness of an EIR's environmental conclusions, but only determines if the EIR is sufficient as an informational document. SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CEQA. The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR for Master Case No. 05-029 for Specific Plan 05-001, General Plan Amendment 05-001, Zone Change 05-001 and Unified Development Code Amendment 05-001 identifies and discloses project -specific impacts and cumulative project impacts. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR, findings, and facts in support of findings are herein incorporated as "Findings Required by CEQA" [Exhibit A], and identified as follows: a. The Final EIR identifies issue areas as "Unavoidable Significant Environmental Impacts Which Cannot be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant," Section 1 of Exhibit A. SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan EIR, oral and written testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project and the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan EIR, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council further finds that the Final EIR analyzes a reasonable range of project alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project and would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of each alternative. a. The objectives of the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project, as specified in the EIR, are: Resolution No. 05-133 Page 7 of 15 .— • Design the area such that there is a five-minute walk from center to edge, in order to maximize pedestrian usage. • Provide an interconnected network of multi -modal thoroughfares. • Provide a rich set of public spaces, both thoroughfares that range from lively streetscapes to passages, as well as places of repose, such as plazas. • Provide a mix of residential, retail, and office uses. • Provide a set of community and public facilities that enable the people living there to be civically engaged. • Include educational facilities that promote life-long learning. • Provide immediate public access to nature. • Provide places for recreational activity in plazas and pocket parks. • Provide housing types for people of a variety of incomes and ages. • Provide a landscape in keeping with the climate and culture of Newhall. b. Alternative 1, the No Proiect Alternative. CEQA requires the analysis of the No Project Alternative, which can further be subdivided into two scenarios: the No Project, No Build scenario in which development in the planning area is held static, and the No Project, General Plan build -out scenario, which assumes development of the planning area in accordance with the existing General Plan, including any amendments to date. C. Alternative 2, Commercial -Intensive Scenario. The build -out analyzed in the EIR assumes residential, rather than commercial or office land uses are built wherever allowable, particularly in second stories of the downtown. It is also possible under the Plan for second stories to be developed with commercial, as opposed to residential, in the mixed-use areas. In general, residential land uses produce fewer trips per square foot, but generate greater demand for water, wastewater, and other public services. d. Alternative 3, Dockweiler Extension Alternatives. The traffic study prepared for the Specific Plan identified deficient levels of service for the intersection of Railroad and Lyons Avenues under the 2025 Build Scenario. The deficiency is due in part to the extension of Dockweiler Drive through to Lyons Avenue. The EIR concludes that this is a significant, unmitigable impact. The traffic engineers studied roadway improvements that might improve the operation of the intersection, but gained only incremental improvement, even with multiple lane approaches. The traffic engineers also studied alternative locations for the Resolution No. 05-133 Page 8 of 15 termination of Dockweiler Drive near the planning area. The alternatives studied included terminating Dockweiler at Market Street at Railroad with and without a spur connection to 13th Street at San Fernando. The intent of these alternatives was to attempt to alleviate the level of service deficiency at Railroad/Lyons. e. Environmentally Superior Alternative. Based on the discussion and table in Alternatives Section 7.0 of the Final EIR, assuming all topics are valued the same, the No Project -No Build alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. CEQA states that when the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior, the next most superior alternative should be considered. The next most superior alternative is the Commercial Intensive scenario possible under the plan. f. The City Council has deemed the proposed project as the preferred alternative as it most effectively meets the project objectives of creating a mixed-use, pedestrian -oriented, economic engine designed to revitalize Downtown Newhall. The proposed project provides a greater balance of the live, work and play environment desired by the City Council. The proposed project meets the Council's objective to provide housing types for people of a variety of incomes and ages while providing a set of community and public facilities that enable people living in the project area to be civically engaged. The proposed project implements the goals of the City's Housing Element in greater capacity than the other alternatives. SECTION 5. CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project and the project EIR, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council finds: a. That the Final EIR for the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project is adequate, complete, and has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). b. That the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in reaching its recommendation to the City Council. C. 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 as detailed in Exhibit A. d. That, in accordance with the Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project that avoid or Resolution No. 05-133 Page 9 of 15 substantially lessen the significant environmental effect because feasible mitigation measures included in the MMRP become part of the proposed project. e. That the Final EIR reflects the decision -makers' independent judgment and analysis. f. That a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) has been prepared and is adopted to enforce the mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and project approvals. g. 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 Community Development, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, California 91355. SECTION 6. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project and the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan EIR, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council or on its behalf, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the Council finds that there is substantial evidence that supports the conclusion that the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project will result in community benefits, including specific economic, social, legal, technological, and other benefits, that outweigh the significant effects of the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. a. Significant unavoidable impacts include the following, as further described in Exhibit A hereto: i. Traffic: Cumulative Traffic (at Railroad Avenue and Lyons Avenue at build -out with Dockweiler Drive connection and at the intersection of Railroad Avenue and San Fernando Road). ii. Air Ouality: Short-term impacts during construction and long-term and cumulative impacts associated with project operation. iii. Noise: Short-term outdoor impacts during construction and long-term and cumulative outdoor impacts near the intersection of Lyons Avenue and proposed Main Street associated with project operation. iv. Solid Waste: Short-term impacts during construction and long-term and cumulative impacts associated with project operation. -- b. The benefits of the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project outweigh its significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. These benefits include the following: Resolution No. 05-133 Page 10 of 15 i. The Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project will provide various residential housing opportunities for different economic levels, with a mix of single-family and multi -family residential dwelling units as required by the Housing Element of the General Plan, the housing allocation for the City of Santa Clarita as set forth by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and the City's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) component of the City's Comprehensive Plan prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Affordable housing needs were considered during the development and processing of this project. ii. The Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project will provide significant public benefits, including employment opportunities, increased residential densities in close proximity to transportation corridors and centers. iii. The Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project provides recreational benefits, including recommending a remodeling of the perimeter fencing on Hart Park fronting Newhall Avenue in order to make it more inviting and to make it seem less isolated and more connected to the future downtown urban village. Three new trails to connect to and expand the City's River Trail System are proposed as part of this specific plan to create a more complete system and to provide stronger connections to the suburban and natural surroundings. iv. The Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project provides enhanced landscaping and streetscape amenities along San Fernando Road, Railroad Avenue, Lyons Avenue, and Market Street. V. Other significant benefits of the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project include: 1. A project area such that there is a five-minute walk from center to edge, in order to maximize pedestrian usage. 2. An interconnected network of multi -modal thoroughfares. 3. A rich set of public spaces, both thoroughfares that range from lively streetscapes to passages, as well as places of repose, such as plazas. 4. A mix of residential, retail, and office uses. 5. A set of community and public facilities that enable the people living there to be civically engaged. Resolution No. 05-133 Page 11 of IS 6. Potential for educational facilities. 7. Architectural standards and guidelines to ensure uniform and desirable architectural amenities in the project area. 8. Immediate public access to nature. 9. Places for recreational activity in plazas and pocket parks. 10. A series of economic engines derived from mixed uses and pedestrian orientation. 11. The Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project could add up to 712 residential units over 25 years which will provide a variety of housing opportunities needed to accommodate projected City and regional growth. In addition, the project will provide local jobs and will increase the available commercial footage by 400,000 square feet. 12. Although the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project will generate significant and unavoidable long-term traffic impacts on Lyons Avenue and Railroad Avenue upon build -out with the extension of Dockweiler Drive, these impacts, remaining after imposition of all feasible mitigation measures, are outweighed by the project's benefits, discussed above. Traffic levels on the streets within the project study area are already high in their existing conditions. The project will provide roadway improvements, which will improve service levels along the project area's thoroughfares. Neither the location, nor the physical characteristics of the project site, nor the project's design creates more traffic trips or more traffic congestion than would be created if the project were proposed in a different location. 13. Although the project will generate significant and unavoidable air quality impacts during construction and operation, these impacts, remaining after imposition of all feasible mitigation measures, are outweighed by the project's benefits. The project's significant unavoidable construction impacts will be short-term and mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce the construction emissions to the maximum extent feasible. Although the project will also generate long-term and cumulative impacts associated with project operation, these impacts are overwhelmingly caused by mobile sources that are under the States' control, rather than point or area sources that are under the City's control. The State has adopted voluntary programs and mandatory standards designed to reduce mobile source emissions, including, without limitation, particulate Resolution No. 05-133 Page 12 of 15 matter and NOx emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines, including those used during construction. In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District is actively engaged in studying and implementing new programs to lessen harmful air pollutants from stationary as well as mobile sources. These programs and controls will, over time, improve the air quality generally in the South Coast Air Basin. With the exception of volatile organic compounds emitted from the use of consumer products, the project includes mitigation measures to reduce potential emissions from point and area sources to less than significant levels, and such mitigation measures as are in the City's power to impose have been imposed on mobile source emissions. Given the nature of the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan uses, and with the mitigation imposed, project uses will not generate unusually high levels of air pollutants or hazardous air pollutants. Neither the location, nor the physical characteristics of the project site, nor the project's design creates more air pollution than would be created if the project were proposed in a different location. Moreover, as automobile and truck engineering improves, the emissions generated by those engines will be reduced, as they have been reduced from previous higher levels. Finally, according to a study by Environ International Corporation, of regional ozone and particulate matter trends in the Santa Clarita Valley, the great majority of the ozone and particulate matter pollution in the City and the Santa Clarita Valley as a whole results from emissions outside of the Santa Clarita Valley that are transported into the Santa Clarita Valley by weather conditions; therefore, all of the current uses in the Santa Clarita Valley contribute, in the aggregate, a very small amount of the emissions of these pollutants, and contribute little to the Valley's air quality. 14. Although the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project will create short-term outdoor noise impacts during construction, and long- term and cumulative outdoor noise impacts from mobile sources during project operation, these impacts, remaining after imposition of all feasible mitigation measures, are outweighed by the project's benefits, discussed above. The project's significant unavoidable construction noise impacts will be short-term, and many will be intermittent rather than constant, and mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce the construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible. The project's long-term and cumulative impacts will be caused by mobile sources, rather than stationary sources, and mobile source noise levels on streets within the project study area are already high in their existing condition, and Resolution No. 05-133 Page 13 of Sl in many instances already exceed even conditionally acceptable levels. Neither the location, nor the physical characteristics of the project site, nor the project's design creates more noise impacts than would be created if the project were proposed in a different location. Moreover, as automobile and truck engineering improves, over time, less noise will be generated by those engines. 15. Although the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan project generates short-term solid waste impacts during construction, and long-term and cumulative solid waste impacts associated with project operation, these impacts, remaining after imposition of all feasible mitigation measures, are outweighed by the project's benefits, discussed above. The project's significant unavoidable construction impacts will be short-term, and mitigation measures including recycling and waste collection have been imposed to reduce those impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Recycling will also be required and appropriate recycling containers will be provided during project operation, and recycling is estimated to reduce solid waste generation by at least 50 percent. Neither the location, nor the physical characteristics of the project site, nor the project's design generates greater solid waste impacts than would be created if the project were proposed in a different location. It is also reasonable to assume that new facilities and other options will be created to meet the project -level and cumulative demands and to reap the financial benefits of providing such a service. The project incorporates water quality site design, source control and treatment best management practices (BMPs) as design features, in addition to mitigation measures, to protect the Santa Clara River's surface water quality. SECTION 7. The City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Final EIR SCH No. 2005021012 and 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 adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable. SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this. Resolution. Resolution No. 05-133 Page 14 of 51 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of November, 2005. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARTTA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 8th day of November, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Kellar, Ferry, McLean, Smyth NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Weste ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) 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. 05-133, adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California on November 8, 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 FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CEQA SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Findings are being made pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15091 and 15093 and §21081 of the Public Resources Code, on the Final Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse Number 2005021012. Project files may be reviewed at: City Hall, City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Department, Santa Clarita, California 91355. The EIR is available online at http://www. santa-clarita.conVcityhall/cd/ed/redevel opment/index.as 1.1 Statutory Requirements for Findings CEQA (Public Resources Code §21081) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15091) require that: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identified one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." The findings required shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the lead agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code §21081(b)). Consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines, the Final EIR for the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan identified environmental effects in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. The Final EIR identified certain potentially significant adverse environmental effects of the project. These effects are listed below. The Final EIR also -1- identified mitigation measures, which will reduce or eliminate these potentially significant effects. These mitigation measures are listed below. The determination whether or not to incorporate such mitigation measures and the rationale for such determination are set forth below. In making these findings, not all of the rationale and data contained in the Final EIR have been repeated. The Final EIR and other source documents referenced therein are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full in this document. Except to the extent they conflict with the findings and determinations set forth in this document, the analysis and conclusions of the Final EIR, including the responses to comments and any supplemental responses provided by City staff and consultants in connection with the adoption of the proposed project, are hereby adopted as findings by the City Council. Pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.1(c)(3), the City Council also finds that the FEIR reflects the City Council's independent judgment as the lead agency for the project. 1.2 Organization/Format of Findings Section 2.0 of these findings contains a summary description of the project and related background facts. Section 3.0 identifies the significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level even though all feasible mitigation measures have been identified and incorporated into the project. Section 4.0 identifies the potentially significant effects of the project that were determined mitigated to a less -than -significant level. Section 5.0 identifies the project's potential environmental effects that were determined not to be significant, and, therefore, no mitigation is required. Section 6.0 discusses the feasibility of project alternatives i and mitigation measures. SECTION 2: THE PROJECT The project analyzed in the FEIR consisted of the redevelopment of and ongoing activity in the Downtown Newhall area, pursuant to the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan. 2.1 Downtown Newhall Specific Plan Project Project Summary The City of Santa Clarita has prepared a Specific Plan for Downtown Newhall. The project includes the redevelopment or enhancement of much of the Downtown Newhall area. Specifics of the projects follow: East Newhall. The Plan proposes redevelopment of existing residential areas east of Railroad Avenue. The new housing could consist of duplexes, rowhouses, or courtyard housing, ranging from 1 to 2.5 stories in height. The Specific Plan assumes that a certain percentage of the housing stock would be retained in this area. Revitalization efforts could include street and alley improvements, utilities upgrades, and development of open space and recreational facilities, including a creek walk to be incorporated into Santa Clarita's multi -use trail system. — Transit Facilities and Railroad Avenue. The Specific Plan proposes transit oriented housing, or TOD Housing, which is specifically aimed at the commuter. TOD Housing is typically high -2- density and located near a rail or other major transit line. Specifically, the plan notes the areas fronting Market and Pine Streets, as well as the Metrolink lots, as suitable locations for this type of development. TOD Housing will be between 2 and 2.5 stories in height. In addition to TOD Housing, the proposed Specific Plan includes the following: • Park Once Garage (North) and Park Once Garage (South). The Plan envisions two parking structures, one located at the northern portion of the planning area, and one located towards the southern end of the planning area. The parking structures will each provide 400 spaces in a total of four stories (three visible stories with the fourth on the roof of the garage or below grade), and will be masked by 2 -3 -story mixed-use housing or office development around each garage. • Trails — Creekwalk and Connecting Bridge. The Plan proposes to construct a pedestrian/equestrian bridge across Newhall Creek. The plan also proposes a multi- modal trail along Newhall Creek, connecting to the larger citywide trail system. San Fernando Road Frontage. The majority of the Specific Plan focuses on the area fronting San Fernando Road. In general, the plan proposes redevelopment or enhancement of existing retail and service development to achieve a more mixed-use composition. In addition, the Plan proposes the following: • Main Street Streetscape. • Library. • Museum. • Mercado/Plaza. • Cinema. William S. Hart Park. The Plan proposes to create a more inviting entry and fencing, as well as at least two crossings on Newhall Avenue to facilitate pedestrian access. The Plan also proposes changes to the intersection and alignment of Newhall Avenue and San Fernando Road to ease access to the park. The only change proposed within the Park is the relocation of the Pardee House from Heritage Junction to the southern end of the project area. Creative Industry. South and east of William S. Hart Park, the Plan denotes an area for the development of "creative industry"—supporting land uses. This area is envisioned as providing live -work lofts and display and limited sales space in support of the arts. Buildings would be 1-2 stories tall; the area would accommodate approximately 38 units. Corridor Development. The Specific Plan identifies three corridors adjacent to the downtown: San Fernando Road north of the planning area, San Fernando Road south of the planning area (proposed to be renamed Newhall Avenue), and Lyons Avenue. All of the corridors are slated for more automobile -oriented commercial uses. These areas would be developed to allow "automobile -related development in a way that is consistent with and complimentary to the adjacent Downtown development". Buildings are envisioned as one to two stories tall with little or no housing. -3- Zoning. The Plan proposes to change the zoning in the planning area from the current categories to Specific Plan (SP). This SP zone will have six different land use designations: Urban Center (UC), Urban General 1 (UG -1), Urban General 2 (UG -2), Creative District (CD), Corridor (COR), and Open Space (OS). Buildout Scenario. Table 1. Buildout (2025) Infrastructure Streets. The plan proposes a number of street alignment and performance changes, in addition to streetscape improvements and landscaping. In addition to the measures outlined in Table 3-5, the Specific Plan proposes renaming the section of San Fernando Road from Lyons Avenue to Pine Street to "Main Street" and the portion of San Fernando Road south of the planning area to Newhall Avenue. Table 3-5. Components of the Transportation Plan L" .V 'e d rf tiu urpos �. ilffir) rl` ..V, San Fernando Remove San Stralghten the alignment of San Fernando Slow and calm traffic, create terminus Fernando Road S L" Road Curve Road in a north -south direction Intersection Reconfigure Widen intersection to include additional turn Replace traffic capacity lost on San Lyons Intersection lanes Fernando Road, expedite flow from Avenue/Railroad San Fernando Road to Railroad Avenue Avenue Lyons Reconfigure Reconfigure to 'T' intersection, add curb To ease difficulty in crossing Lyons Avenue/San intersection extensions, crosswalks, median refuges, on foot Fernando Road and small curb radii Intersection Signalized Add pedestrian Add pedestrian countdown signals Improve safety Intersections countdown signals Throughout Planning Area San Fernando Streetscape Convert to two-lane street, add back- Improve pedestrian environment, Road Improvements in/head-out angle parking on both sides, both from an aesthetic and safety curb extensions at comers, new paving perspective, reduce traffic hazards materials, pedestrian -scale light fixtures, associated with parked cars, street furniture, trees, mid -block crossings and driveway access, allow crosswalks, close driveways, replace signal for more parking on -street at San Fernando and Market with a four- way stop San Fernando Reconfigure Left lane on northbound San Fernando will Ease flow of traffic from San Road/ Newhall intersection proceed straight to Newhall, eliminating left- Fernando Road to Newhall Avenue; Avenue turn signal phase; northbound right lane will encourage access and connection to Intersection be directed to San Fernando Road; William S. Hart Park southbound Newhall proceeds straight to San Fernando Road, eliminating right-hand turn lane; operate both halves on single coordinated signal; create entry to William S. Hart Park at western leg Railroad Avenue Add median and Restripe and re -build Railroad Avenue to Provide capacity likely needed in restripe provide four lanes with a tree -lined median; future, maintain business Provide breaks in median for turning accessibility, provide adequate movements at cross streets; remove sidewalk space parking on eastern side; require six foot sidewalk easement from building to curb face Market Street Streetscape New curb extensions, paving materials, Unify route from community center on Improvements pedestrian -scale light fixtures, street the east to the new Plaza on the west furniture and new trees from Race Street to Newhall Avenue San Fernando Reconfigure Minor changes to accommodate restriping Ensure proper function Road/Railroad intersection of Railroad Avenue Avenue -5- Intersection San Fernando Miscellaneous From Railroad Avenue south to Plan Area Improve pedestrian safety, function Road improvements Boundary: minimum 5' sidewalk with and aesthetics landscaped strip buffer, replace existing two-way left turn lane with raised median and trees, with left -turn lanes at Intersections and on -street bicycle lanes; south of Railroad, road is planned to be widened to six lanes, expand right-of-way from 100'to 110' Railroad Tracks Install Bike Path On the east side of the tracks, add an 8' Connect Newhall to City's existing along tracks paved bicycle and pedestrian path, trail network; provide effective barrier switching to the west side north of '" 13 from tracks Street; relocate existing fence Newhall Creek Install Creekside Install new path following the Creek on the Joins the neighborhood to Creekside bicycle/pedestrian Westside. Park, the train station and the City's path pathway system The Master's install new bridge for Provide all-weather bridge connecting the Provide connection to The Master's College to equestrian/pedestrian existing equestrian and pedestrian trail from College and existing recreational Market Street trail the Masters College to Market Street facilities Utilities. The plan includes the following improvements to utilities: Water Supply Infrastructure: Parcel -specific improvements to be determined based on individual project proposals. Sewer Infrastructure: • CD zones: install 2,000 linear feet of 15 -inch pipes along Pine Street to Park Street, crossing San Fernando Road to connect with existing. Storm Drainage Infrastructure • San Fernando Road: install a 24 -inch storm drain (1,200 linear feet) from Lyons Avenue to Market Street. • San Fernando Road: install an 18 -inch storm drain (850 linear feet) from Market Street to 5th Street. Utility Relocation: • Individual Projects (private and public). All new development that is subject to the Specific Plan will comply with the City's requirements for installing such utilities in underground facilities (City of Santa Clarita UDC, Section 17.15.020 D3). 20 • For projects that do not involve private property, as the time comes to modify a portion of the street or streetscape that represents enough for efficiency purposes, the project will comply with the City's requirements for installing such utilities in underground facilities. Landscaping. One of the overarching goals of the proposed Specific Plan is the beautification of the Downtown, in part through a campaign of tree planting. In addition to a street tree plan, the Specific Plan includes planting strategies for proposed walkways, trails, and other areas intended to improve the pedestrian environment. The planting plan emphasizes the use of native and/or climate -appropriate species, and includes measures to promote erosion control. Lighting. The Specific Pian includes measures to ensure lighting is effective for commerce and pedestrians while maintaining the integrity of natural areas adjacent to Downtown. The Downtown Code includes sign lighting standards to minimize light and glare on surrounding right -of way and properties. Demolition. The implementation of the Specific Plan may result in demolition of existing buildings and infrastructure in the planning area. Construction Activities The range of construction activities associated with the project will include: grading and excavation; the extension of water, sewer, gas and electrical service; building construction; the installation of drainage facilities; paving of parking and walkways; installation of landscaping and irrigation facilities; and the installation of exterior lighting. On-site grading and excavation and the design of buildings and other structural foundations will be in accordance with geotechnical engineering investigations where required. The project will be constructed in several phases over 20 — 25 years. The FEIR has been prepared to analyze the potential significant environmental effects of the proposed Downtown Newhall Specific Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council must certify that the FEIR is adequate and complete under CEQA in order for the Council to approve the proposed project. 2.2 Project Objectives The City Council has considered the statement of objectives sought by the project as found in Chapter 3.0 of the FEIR. The City Council hereby adopts those objectives as part of the project. For a detailed discussion of the proposed Specific Plan, the City Council incorporates by reference Chapter 3.0 of the FEIR. 2.3 Project Alternatives The FEIR, Chapter 7, Alternatives, contains an analysis of the alternatives to the project, including the "No Project" alternative. The following alternatives were considered and analyzed in the FEIR: -7- No Project Alternative. CEQA requires the analysis of the No Project Alternative, which can further be subdivided into two scenarios: the No Project, No Build scenario, in which development in the planning area is held static, and the No Project, General Plan Buildout scenario, which assumes development of the planning area in accordance with the existing General Plan, including any amendments to date. Commercial -Intensive Scenario. The buildout analyzed in the EIR assumes residential, rather than commercial or office land uses are built wherever allowable, particularly in second stories of the downtown. It is also possible under the Plan for second stories to be developed with commercial, as opposed to residential, use in the mixed use areas. In general, residential land uses produce fewer trips per square foot, but generate greater demand for water, wastewater, and other public services. Dockweiler Extension Alternatives. The traffic study prepared for the Specific Plan identified deficient levels of service for the intersection of Railroad and Lyons Avenues under the 2025 Build Scenario. The deficiency is due in part to the extension of Dockweiler Drive through to Lyons Avenue. The EIR concludes that this is a significant, immitigable impact. The traffic engineers studied roadway improvements that might improve the operation of the intersection, but gained only incremental improvement, even with multiple lane approaches. The traffic engineers also studied alternative locations for the termination of Dockweiler Drive near the planning area. The alternatives studied included terminating Dockweiler at Market Street at Railroad with and without a spur connection to 13th at San Fernando. The intent of these alternatives was to attempt to alleviate the level of service deficiency at Railroad/Lyons. Alternatives Analysis No Project — No Build The No Project alternative is required by Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines and refers to the potential environmental consequences of not building the proposed Specific Plan. Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed structures would be built, none of the proposed programs would be put in place and the potential adverse impacts associated with development of the project site would be avoided. However, the objectives of the project would not be achieved, which is to redevelop the Downtown Newhall area into an attractive, pedestrian -scale environment drawing on the area's proximity to transit and history. The environment and environmental issues would remain status quo. This alternative would hamper implementation of the City's General Plan and Redevelopment Plan by stopping efforts to revitalize the planning area. Blighting conditions would not be removed. Feasibility: This alternative is not considered feasible, as it would not meet the objectives of the project or the General Plan. The City rejects this alternative. No Project — General Plan Buildout The No Project — General Plan Buildout alternative refers to the potential environmental consequences of continued development of the planning area consistent with the City's General 10 Plan. Under the No Project — General Plan Buildout Alternative, a more modest level of growth would be anticipated. Most impacts would remain similar to the proposed project. Impacts associated with traffic would essentially be a "wash" since as many intersections would be worsened in this scenario as in the project scenario, but in different locations. Impacts associated with air quality are considered worse than the proposed Specific Plan, since the General Plan buildout would not include items such as TOD Housing, mixed-use, and improved pedestrian environments, important to reducing vehicle emissions. Feasibility: This alternative is considered feasible, but does not reduce environmental impacts when compared to the proposed project. Alternative 1— Commercial Intensive Scenario The Commercial Intensive Scenario is possible under the current plan, and assumes commercial development in the second stories of the downtown, as opposed to residential. Most impacts would remain similar to the project analyzed in the EIR, which assumed residential development of upper stories. Impacts are slightly improved over the proposed project, since commercial and office operations typically require fewer public services or water. Feasibility: This alternative is considered feasible, and is possible under the current plan as proposed. Alternative 2 — Dockweiler Extension Alternatives The traffic engineers studied alternative locations for the termination of Dockweiler Drive near the planning area. The alternatives studied included terminating Dockweiler at Market Street at Railroad with and without a spur connection to 13th at San Fernando. The intent of these alternatives was to attempt to alleviate the projected level of service deficiency at Railroad/Lyons. The shift of the Dockweiler termination to a more residential portion of the Downtown Newhall area would increase impacts associated with noise, and air quality, and would worsen intersection operations elsewhere. Feasibility: This alternative is not considered feasible at this time. Mitigated Project The term "Mitigated Project' refers to the project as modified by the mitigation measures identified in the topic sections of this EIR. The conclusion of this EIR is that the recommended mitigation measures reduced the potential environmental impacts associated with the project to a less than significant level, with the exceptions of construction air quality, construction noise, long-term noise along Lyons, level of service at the future Railroad/Lyons intersection with Dockweiler, and solid waste. SECTION 3: SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL AND RELATED MITIGATION MEASURES 91 --- Several of the significant effects were related to regional, cumulative impacts such as air quality and solid waste. The City is limited in its ability to resolve these regional issues. The City can cooperate with the municipality or agency within whose jurisdiction the mitigation must lie, but cannot undertake individually to resolve the problem. Furthermore, since the City has no authority over the funding or timing of the requisite regional mitigation, any measure identified in the EIR which might in fact mitigate impacts, cannot be relied upon as reducing the severity of the impact. In many instances, these impacts are and will continue to be addressed by the respective authorities, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, and the problems will be reduced or eliminated over time. But for the purposes of these findings, the City must pursue overriding considerations with respect to these impacts. The FEIR identified the following significant effects that the City could not mitigate to a less than significant level. 3.1 Transportation and Circulation — Railroad and Lyons 3.1.1 Significant Unavoidable Impacts. The FOR found that under the 2025 Build Alternative, with the extension of Dockweiler into the planning area, the intersection at Lyons and Railroad would degrade to a level -of -service "E" with an ICU increase of 0.28. 3.1.2 Mitigation Measures. City shall monitor intersection performance at Railroad/Lyons. ^- Based on results of monitoring efforts conducted, and eventual formal proposal for Dockweiler Drive, City shall design the intersection at the Dockweiler Drive extension to achieve acceptable levels of service. 3.1.3 Findings. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with operations at the future Railroad/Lyons intersection. However, the mitigation is not sufficient to reduce the impacts of the project to a less -than -significant level. Although the mitigation program proposes monitoring and redesign of the Dockweiler intersection, the City has no information to date that shows a feasible future design is available. Preliminary modeling by the traffic engineers shows that even increasing the Lyons Avenue roadway to nine lanes would not sufficiently alleviate traffic congestion in this area. This conclusion is predicated on many unknowns, however. Information about Dockweiler and the 2025 Scenario is based on the buildout of the City's General Plan, and is conceptual at best. The model layers a number of major roadway projects and counts Specific Plan growth on top of (in addition to) General Plan growth. By assuming the completion of these roadway projects, and that growth occurs as predicted, the model is considered conservative. The EIR therefore proposes monitoring to establish a more realistic baseline for the eventual Dockweiler extension and the determination of impacts and remedies needed for the Lyons/Railroad intersection. However, it remains that there may be no feasible resolution to the projected level of service ._ deficiencies at the intersection. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, overriding considerations shall be adopted for the project. -10- 3.2 Air Quality -- Cumulative 3.2.1 Significant Unavoidable Cumulative Impacts. Based on the information in the FEIR, the project, along with other development in the region, will contribute to existing exceedances of air quality standards. This impact is considered significant, and unavoidable. 3.2.2 Mitigation Measures. The proposed Specific Plan contains strategies intended to reduce reliance on motor vehicles and reduce emissions, including: • Tree planting throughout the planning area • Additional parking for transit users • Mixed-use development near transit • Improvements in traffic flow • Improvements to pedestrian facilities • The construction of multi -modal paths 3.2.3 Findings. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with operational emissions. However, the mitigation is not sufficient to reduce the impacts of the project to a less -than - significant level. Total pollutant load in the air basin is a function of the activities of a number of constituents and communities; the City of Santa Clarita is limited in its ability to resolve the overall problem. The proposed project is consistent with guidelines to reduce motor vehicle emissions, and is a strategy supported by a number of regional agencies, as outlined in the EIR. However, the air basin is currently in non -attainment for some pollutants. Any additional development in the basin, and any additional vc iicle trips, would contribute to the continuation of non -attainment. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, that overriding considerations shall be adopted for the project. 3.3 Noise — Operation — Lyons Avenue 3.3.1 Significant Unavoidable Project and Cumulative Impacts. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan, along with growth predicted for the City under the General Plan, may increase traffic -generated noise from streets on the periphery of the Downtown core, particularly along Lyons Avenue. 3.3.2 Mitigation Measures. The proposed Specific Plan designates tree planting throughout the planning area, benefiting residents and visitors by reducing perception of traffic noise and nuisance. Noise levels at sensitive receptors located along Lyons Avenue shall be monitored as traffic levels increase. If noise increases above acceptable thresholds are discerned, the City shall design and install necessary attenuating features, such as sound walls. -11- "— 3.3.3 Findings. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with cumulative noise levels along Lyons Avenue. However, the mitigation is not sufficient to reduce the impacts of the project to a less -than -significant level. Depending on the noise level at buildout, attenuating features may not be sufficient to reduce noise to acceptable levels. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, overriding considerations shall be adopted for the project. 3.4 Solid Waste - Cumulative 3.4.1 Significant Unavoidable Cumulative Impacts. The amount of solid waste going into landfills will continue to increase with regional growth. Existing facilities have limited capacity which will become constrained over time. 3.4.2 Mitigation Measures. None. 3.4.3 Findings. The City finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures to address this cumulative shortfall. The issue of disposal facility capacity is regional in nature; communities are required to meet the state mandate of 50% diversion, which the City has met for the last reported year. There is sufficient capacity for buildout of the Specific Plan. It is not the jurisdiction of the City to site, permit, or manage solid waste disposal facilities. Therefore, the City has no authority to mitigate cumulative, regionwide shortfalls in capacity. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, overriding considerations shall be adopted for the project. 3.5 Air Quality — Construction, Project Specific and Cumulative 3.5.1 Significant Unavoidable Impacts. Based on the information in the FEIR, the project will result in construction related emissions, including dust and diesel emissions that may exceed applicable air quality thresholds. This impact is considered significant, and unavoidable. 3.5.2 Mitigation Measures. Operations - The City, in consultation with SCAQMD where necessary, shall evaluate, prior to permit issuance, the applicability of the following measures to each particular project, based on site- and project -specific information. • Maintain equipment and vehicle engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturers' specifications. • Suspend use of all construction equipment operations during second stage smog alerts. • Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel- or gasoline -powered generators. • Use methanol- or natural gas -powered mobile equipment and pile drivers and propane- or butane -powered on-site mobile equipment. • Store all volatile liquids in closed containers. -12- • No open burning of debris, lumber or other scrap. • Evaluate, prior to final construction approval, a particular project's risk of releasing significant quantities of diesel particulate emissions, using applicable SCAQMD Guidelines. Projects which exceed acceptable thresholds may be required to install one or more pieces of filtering equipment (diesel particulate filter or diesel oxidation catalyst) and/or use emulsified fuels, on their highest emitting piece or pieces of equipment on site. The project proponent shall consult with City and/or SCAQMD and comply with their recommendations. Dust Control • Water vehicle traffic areas at a minimum twice daily. • Streets adjacent to project site swept as needed. • Exposed areas, new driveways and sidewalks shall be seeded, treated with soil binders, or paved. • Cover stockpiles and trucks hauling soil or other loose materials. • Sweep project area streets at least once daily. • Appoint a dust control monitor to oversee and implement all dust control measures. • The Contractor shall maintain continuous control of dust resulting from construction operations. • When wind conditions create considerable dust, the Contractor shall suspend grading operations, and/or water the exposed areas. • During construction, the amount of disturbed area shall be minimized. • Onsite vehicles speeds reduced to 15 mph or less. 3.5.3 Findings. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with construction air emissions. However, with regards to short-term emissions of dust, diesel particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen from diesel construction equipment and trucks and site disturbance, specific technological, economic, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives or mitigation measures which could reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Additional measures to reduce project -related short-term emissions of oxides of nitrogen and dust (PM10) are beyond the technological, legal, and economic purview of the City Council. Reduction in construction activity would hamper the provision of needed new facilities and improvements. It would result in significantly longer periods of localized disturbance, including noise, emissions, and other impacts. Restricting construction to the extent necessary to avoid short-term air quality impacts is therefore not considered feasible. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, that overriding considerations shall be adopted for the project as stated in Section 8, below. 3.6 Construction Noise 3.6.1 Significant Unavoidable Impacts. Construction activity would temporarily increase ambient noise levels above acceptable levels. 3.6.2 Mitigation Measures Activities 13- All construction activity in the planning area is subject to the City Noise Ordinance. For construction activity, noise attenuation techniques shall be employed as needed. • Group noisy activities together in time, rather than spreading them out intermittantly. Equipment • Equip diesel equipment with factory -recommended exhaust mufflers and steel muffling sleeves. Provide portable noise barriers around jack hammering, and barriers constructed of 3/4 -inch plywood lined with 1 -inch thick fiberglass on the work side. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools, when feasible. Compressor hoods shall be closed while equipment is in operation. Use electrically powered rather than gasoline or diesel powered forklifts. Operations • Keep noisy equipment as far as possible from noise -sensitive site boundaries. • When working in or near occupied buildings, the Contractor is cautioned to keep noise associated with any activities to a minimum. • Designate a haul route and staging plan. 3.6.3 Findings. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with construction air emissions. However, with regards to short-term noise levels, specific technological, economic, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives or mitigation measures which could reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Additional measures to reduce project - related short-term noise are beyond the technological, legal, and economic purview of the City Council. Reduction in construction activity would hamper the provision of needed new facilities` and improvements. It would result in significantly longer periods of localized disturbance, including noise, emission, and other impacts. Restricting construction to the extent necessary to avoid short-term noise impacts is therefore not considered feasible. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, that overriding considerations shall be adopted for the project as stated in Section 8, below. 3.7 Construction Cumulative 3.7.1 Findings. Cumulative impacts would result from the demolition/construction of several structures in the project area at the same time. There is no predicting when projects will occur because they are driven mostly by private owners. In general, the City will need to be aware of the potential for additive construction impacts by tracking building and demolition permits. The mitigation to most cumulative impacts will be coordination among contractors. Air quality impacts, if several projects were underway simultaneously, could result in significant cumulative impacts (Class I). (pg. 5.12-6, Final EIR, Construction Impacts) SECTION 4: EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL -14- The FEIR identified certain potentially significant effects that could result from the project. However, the City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, adoption of the mitigation measures set forth below will reduce those potential significant effects to less than significant levels. 4.1 Geology — Landslide Hazard 4.1.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The proposed pedestrian bridge across Newhall Creek may terminate in an area identified in the Safety Element as posing landslide hazards. 4.1.2 Mitigation Measures. Amend the plan to include a requirement for study of landslide hazards during design of the Newhall Creek Bridge. If hazards are identified, the bridge will be designed to avoid the hazard and/or will comply with the recommendations of a site-specific geotechnical study. 4.1.3 Findings. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and reduces the potential impacts of the project associated with landslide to a less -than - significant level. Consideration and avoidance or mitigation of the landslide hazard during the design of the bridge will ensure the hazard risk is reduced. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR. 4.2 Geology — Liquefaction 4.2.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on the information in the FEIR, the project includes or is proximate to an area at risk of liquefaction. This impact is considered significant, but mitigable. 4.2.2 Mitigation Measures. Utilities and infrastructure improvements proposed for hazard areas (including potential liquefaction zones in the northwestern portion of the planning area) require site-specific geotechnical study prior to final design and compliance with recommendations contained therein. 4.2.3 Findings. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and reduces the potential impacts of the project associated with liquefaction to a less -than - significant level. Compliance with geotechnical investigations will ensure minimization of risks associated with liquefaction during a seismic event. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR. 4.3 Biological Resources — Native Vegetation -15- 4.3.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on the information in the FEIR, bridge construction would result in the loss of native vegetation. This impact is considered significant, but mitigable. 4.3.2 Mitigation Measures. The proposed Specific Plan implements a stormwater management plan that includes the restoration of the riparian habitat along the creek. Prior to final design of either the creekside trail or the multi -modal bridge, the following will occur: 1. An in -season survey shall be conducted, by a qualified biologist/botanist to determine the presence of special status plant species. If it is determined that such plant species are present, the following measures shall be implemented: a. All construction or operational activity in the identified area shall cease until protective measures are put in place. b. Identified plant species shall be removed and relocated under the supervision of the qualified biologist. C. Impacts to Endangered species will be subject to the relevant provisions of the federal and/or State Endangered Species Act. 2. An in -season survey shall be conducted, by a qualified biologist, to determine the presence of special status wildlife species, including nesting birds. If sensitive species or nesting birds are identified, all construction activity in the area shall cease until protective measures are put in place. If impacts to sensitive species cannot be avoided, the project may be relocated to an area where impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level. Impacts to Endangered species will be subject to the relevant provisions of the federal and/or State Endangered Species Act. 3. Copies of all surveys shall be submitted to the ACOE and CDFG. Both agencies shall be notified of all surveys and inspections and shall have the option of attending. Biologist shall file a written report of surveys with either agency if they are not presented on the day of the survey. 4. Final species replacement, habitat restoration, or removal of exotic plants in creekside trail or the multi -modal bridge area shall be reviewed and approved by the ACOE and CDFG. 5. Jurisdictional delineation of wetlands and floodways shall be required where necessary prior to issuance of development permits from the City. 6. All applicable permits shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to construction. Design of creekbed restoration shall be reviewed for consistency with local regulations and environmental sensitivity shall be designed into the project. -16- 7. Riparian habitats disturbed by construction activities shall be replaced by creating riparian habitats of similar functions and values within the planning area, or an approved mitigation site. Any wetland restoration that is required shall be completed at a replacement ratio of 1:1. Restoring any habitat by either creating new habitat or removing exotic species shall follow replacement ratios of 1:1. 8. An approved design of bank restoration shall meet the following criteria: a. Bank restoration and crossing shall be designed with respect to potential long- term impacts; including impediments to flow and erosion. b. Design of bank restoration and crossing shall not impede wildlife movement. Long term impacts to wildlife movement shall be monitored over time to ensure human presence, crossing condition, a restoration continues does not impede natural wildlife movement. C. Design shall be done is such a way that ensures general passibility of fish, animals, and other wildlife that is present both during flows and during dry season. 9. A planting plan that lists all appropriate native plants to be included in revegetation activity of bank restoration shall be developed by a qualified biologist. 10. Erosion control measures shall be designed into bank restoration and bridge design. These design elements shall be in addition to erosion control measures designed for construction activity associated with the bank restoration and bridge development (see Construction Impacts Section 5.12). 11. Lighting of the multi -modal bridge shall be designed in such a way that provides safety for pedestrians and bicyclist, but does not impact the surrounding riparian environment. Optional measures include shielding and controlling direction, amount, number, and type of lighting. 12. Fire setbacks and buffers shall be established to protect surrounding wildlife and habitat from development in the urban environment. 13. When planting natives for fire buffers/setbacks, plant choice shall be chosen based on compatibility with chaparral and riparian scrub. 14. Human access to revegetation and bank restoration areas shall be prohibited and sensitive areas shall be well marked with signage and fencing. 15. Pets and other domestic animals shall be prohibited from entering any revegetation and bank restoration areas. Pets shall be restrained by a leash when using the creekside trail and multi -modal bridge. -17- 4.3.3 Findings. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with native vegetation to a less -than -significant level. Compliance with the mitigation above will ensure identification of sensitive plants, obtainment of proper permits, and restoration of affected native vegetation. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR. 4.4 Biology — Sensitive Species 4.4.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Grading related to bridge construction would result in loss of habitat and may adversely affect sensitive species. This impact is considered significant, but mitigable. 4.4.2 Mitigation Measures. (See 4.3.2) 4.4.3 Findings. The City Council finds that the mitigation measures listed under 4.3.2 are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with drainage and runoff to a less -than -significant level. In -season surveys, among other measures, will ensure identification of sensitive species. Compliance with existing federal and/or state laws will ensure impacts to sensitive species are reduced to a less than significant level. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. 4.5 Biology — Wildlife Movement 4.5.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on the information in the FEIR, bridge security lighting may illuminate the streambed and adversely affect wildlife movement. This impact is considered significant, but mitigable. 4.5.2 Mitigation Measures. Lighting of the multi -modal bridge shall be designed in such a way that provides safety for pedestrians and bicyclist, but does not impact the surrounding riparian environment. Optional measures include shielding and controlling direction, amount, number, and type of lighting. 4.5.3 Findings. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and reduces the potential impacts of the project associated with lighting and wildlife movement. Compliance with mitigation will ensure that light from the bridge does not substantially affect the use of Newhall Creek as a wildlife corridor. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR. 5" 4.6 Biology — Human Activities 4.6.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on the information in the FEIR, wildlife and sensitive plants in natural areas may be impacted by nearby human activities. This impact is considered significant, but mitigable. 4.6.2 Mitigation Measures. 1. Human access to revegetation and bank restoration areas shall be prohibited and sensitive areas shall be well marked with signage and fencing. 2. Pets and other domestic animals shall be prohibited from entering any revegetation and bank restoration areas. Pets shall be restrained by a leash when using creekside trail and multi- modal bridge. 4.6.3 Findings. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with human impacts to biological resources to a less -than -significant level. The mitigation ensures that access to revegetation and restoration areas is limited. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. 4.7 Biology — Cumulative Impacts 4.7.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on the information in the FEIR, cumulative projects could result in habitat loss for wildlife, contribute to the fragmentation of the City, impact surrounding ecosystems, and incrementally degrade habitat quality. This impact is considered significant, but mitigable. 4.7.2 Mitigation Measures. The proposed Specific Plan includes the following enhancement measures: • Use native trees to provide habitat • A Creekside bicycle and pedestrian path • Enhancement of existing equestrian and pedestrian trail • The Street Tree Plan connecting the urban environment with the natural environment • A stormwater project that includes the restoration of the riparian habitat along the creek. See also measures listed under Sections 4.3.2 through 4.6.2. 4.7.3 Findings. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce potential cumulative impacts associated with biological resources to a less - than -significant level. The strategies mentioned and the measures imposed will ensure mitigation of any short and long term impacts by identifying sensitive resources and ensuring avoidance or restoration. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of -19- the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality -- Flooding 4.8.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on the information in the FEIR, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan will result in development within a 100 -year flood hazard area. This impact is considered significant, but mitigable. 4.8.2 Mitigation Measures. 1. Prior to issuance of grading permits for property wholly or partially located within the Flood Hazard Area, developers shall provide the City with required documentation, and pay all required fees. 2. Development within designated flood zone shall ensure that structures are elevated at least one foot above Flood Hazard Area, per City's Floodplain Management policies. 3. Projects modifying the configuration of any floodway shall submit a report prepared by a qualified hydrologist, which identifies impacts and outlines solutions which maintain or replace floodway function and values. 4.8.3 Findings. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with flooding to a less -than - significant level. The mitigation ensures that flood risks are properly investigated and addressed prior to construction, so as to reduce the risk of property damage or loss of life. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality — Drainage 4.9.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on the information in the FEIR, implementation of the Specific Plan will incrementally affect drainage patterns in the area. This impact is considered significant, but mitigable. 4.9.2 Mitigation Measures. The proposed Specific Plan includes a Stormwater Management program (refer to Mitigation Included in Project Description in Section 5.3 of the Final EIR, Hydrology and Water Quality). In the case that the specific stormwater protection measures proposed in the Specific Plan are not feasible at the time construction is proposed, options which achieve the similar or better function or value can be considered. -20- 4.9.3 Findings. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with drainage to a less -than - significant level. The mitigation and project strategies ensure that drainage is addressed areawide and for specific projects, in advance. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR. 4.10 Cultural Resources — Historic Buildings 4.10.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on the information in the FEIR, implementation of the Specific Plan will result in the removal or alteration of buildings deemed potentially eligible for listing as historic resources. This impact is considered significant, but mitigable. 4.10.2 Mitigation Measures. Procedures for future projects: Where a proposed project will result in demolition or alteration of a property included on the Master List (Appendix 5.4, Final EIR, Downtown Newhall Historic Survey and Specific Plan Impact Analysis), a follow-up survey shall be performed to conclusively determine its significance. If the resource is determined to be significant, the following measures shall be implemented: For Historic Buildings or Building Additions: Proponents shall meet with the Historical Society and City architectural review staff or consultant to discuss and address items such as size, bulk, scale, massing, and exterior design elements such that the new or altered structure does not detract considerably from the historic value. All window framing on wood -sided historic buildings shall be wood, not metal. Wood sided historic buildings shall be maintained with a wood exterior. The slope of each hipped or gabled roof on all new buildings or additions shall be compatible with the slope on existing buildings. Metal roofing shall be burnished rather than shiny and shall be installed to be compatible with existing metal roofs in Downtown Newhall. Proposed Renovations of Historic Structures: Renovations to existing historic structures located within the Newhall commercial corridor shall be designated to enhance their function, safety and longevity. Proposed renovations of all buildings identified on the Master List shall use durable, State Historic Building Code compliant materials that fit the period of construction (late nineteenth to mid -twentieth century) and architectural character of the existing buildings. All renovations proposed for buildings fifty years of age or older shall use the State Historic Building Code instead of the Uniform Building Code. Proposed Demolitions: -21- Demolition of historic buildings will be allowed only after a recordation according to Historic American Building Survey (HABS) standards has been completed. Copies of the HABS recordation for each building shall be maintained in the local public library, City of Santa Clarita Planning Division, and at the CSU Fullerton South Central Coast Information Center. These federal recordation standards include large -format photography and measured architectural drawings, along with a professionally prepared historic descriptive text. The HABS requirements are provided at http://www.cr.nps.gov/habshaer/ habs/guidelines/arch-index.htm. No demolition permits will be issued by the City of Santa Clarita until the HABS recordation has been completed. According to the CEQA guidelines, if a project involving significant historical resources follows The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties With Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Standards) (Weeks and Grimmer, 1995), the project is considered to be mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historic resource (PRC Section 15064.5 (b) (3)). The Standards are as follows: 1. A property shall be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. -22- 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The following actions shall be required as mitigation measures, either singly or in combination, whenever preservation, adaptive re -use, or incorporation of historic structures is not reasonably possible: a. Demolition of the historic structure with recordation according to the federal Historic American Building Survey (HABS) standards which include large -format photography. b. Item a plus commemoration of the demolished structure with a display of text and photos designed by a professional historical consultant within the interior of the new building proposed for the site. C. Item a plus commemoration of the demolished structure with a display of text and photos designed by a professional historical consultant on the exterior of the new building proposed for the site. d. Item a plus commemoration of the demolished structure with an enclosed display of text and photos designed by a professional historical consultant on the perimeter of the property at the primary entrance. e. Items b, c, and d plus salvage of significant materials of the historic structure for conservation in the historical display. f. Items b, c, and d plus advertisements for acquisition and relocation of the historic structure with its subsequent rehabilitation and adaptive re -use at its new site. g. Item c plus compatible incorporation of the fagade only of the historic structure into the design of the new building on site. h. Item c plus preservation of the historic structure on site as non -habitable space (used for storage and/or mechanical equipment only). i. Item c plus relocation and preservation of the historic structure on site for use as non - habitable space. j. Item c plus relocation and preservation of the historic structure on site for use as habitable space, including compliance with all State Historic Building Code requirements. -23- -- k. Item j plus rehabilitation and adaptive re -use off-site for use as habitable space, including compliance with all State Historic Building Code requirements. 4.10.3 Findings. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with potential historic buildings to a less -than -significant level. The mitigation ensures that potentially historic structures are properly evaluated and treated throughout the plan implementation. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. 4.11 Cultural Resources — Historic Context 4.11.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on the information in the FEIR, implementation of the Specific Plan will result in changes to the current context of potentially historic structures. This impact is considered significant, but mitigable. 4.11.2 Mitigation Measures. The proposed Specific Plan includes policies that address historic resources: Historic Preservation — The issue of preserving and reinforcing the historic and pedestrian nature of Downtown is fundamental to the success of the revitalization effort. To accomplish this, it will be useful for the City to act on the results of the Historic Resources Survey prepared for this Plan to appropriately inform decisions and actions about future public and private development. See also 4.10.2 of this document. 4.11.3 Findings. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with historic context to a less - than -significant level. The above strategies reflect the central role that history plays in the redevelopment of the downtown, and ensures proper evaluation and treatment of historic structures. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. 4.12 Transportation and Circulation — San Fernando/Railroad 4.12.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on the information in the FEIR, under the 2010 Build scenario, the San Fernando/Railroad intersection would degrade to a level -of -service "D" with an ICU increase of 0.07. This impact is considered significant, but mitigable. 4.12.2 Mitigation Measures. &ZE Construct a second northbound right -turn lane from San Fernando Road onto Railroad Avenue which can be accomplished by retaining the existing right -turn lane, converting existing outside through lane into a second right -tum lane, retaining other existing through lane, and providing another through lane to the south. 4.12.3 Findings. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and reduces the potential impacts of the project associated with San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue to a less -than -significant level. The mitigation ensures that infrastructure improvements are made to provide an acceptable level of service at the intersection. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. 4.13(a) Transportation and Circulation Southbound Interstate 5 Ramp/Lyons Avenue Intersection 4.13(a).1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on the information derived from studies prepared in response to comments from Caltrans, under both 2025 General Plan conditions and the 2025 Build alternative, the Southbound I-5 Ramp/Lyons Avenue intersection would continue to operate at a level -of -service "D". Under the 2025 Build alternative, the intersection's ICU would increase by about 0.04. This impact is considered significant, but midgable. 4.13(a).2 Mitigation Measure. Note: the ultimate geometry of the intersection will be determined by caltrans in the future. The following measure will mitigate the city's portion of the impact to the interchange. Participate in an appropriate shared fee arrangement to modify/improve the operation of the Southbound I-5 Ramp/Lyons Avenue intersection sufficient to address the ICU increase (or other appropriate indicator of intersection operation) and maintain or improve level of service. This will entail future coordination with Caltrans and other participating agencies. 4.13(a).3 Findings. The mitigation ensures that the City addresses projected deficiencies at the intersection. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. The ultimate configuration of the intersection modification is the jurisdiction of Caltrans, and will require a future cooperative effort with all involved parties. 4.13 Transportation and Circulation — Railroad Avenue Bus Access 4.13.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on the information in the FEIR, the project would temporarily close Railroad Avenue's outside northbound travel lane in 2010 and would impact transit operations. This impact is considered significant, but mitigable. 4.13.2 Mitigation Measures. -25- Relonate- the northbound Railroad Avenue bus stop by: a) widening Railroad Avenue to north for a bus zone, or b) reconfiguring the kiss -and -ride lot to the northwest of Railroad Avenue and Market Street. 4.13.3 Findings. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and reduces the potential impacts of the project associated with bus access along Railroad Avenue to a less -than -significant level. The mitigation ensures that infrastructure improvements are made to provide acceptable service levels at this location. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. 4.14 Transportation and Circulation — San Fernando Road/13a` Street 4.14.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on the information in the FEIR, under the 2025 Build scenario, the San Fernando Road/13th Street intersection would degrade to a level -of - service "F" with an ICU increase of 0.08. This impact is considered significant, but mitigable. 4.14.2 Mitigation Measures. Reconfigure the San Fernando/13th intersection's western leg/eastbound approach to consist of one shared left and through lane and one right -turn lane when the land uses served by the intersection are redeveloped. 4.14.3 Findings. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and reduces the potential impacts of the project associated with San Fernando Road/13a' Street operations to a less -than -significant level. The mitigation ensures that infrastructure improvements are made to provide an acceptable level of service at the intersection. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. 4.15 Transportation and Circulation — San Fernando/Railroad 4.15.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on the information in the FEIR, under the 2025 Build alternative, the San Femando/Railroad intersection would degrade to a level -of -service "D" with an ICU increase of 0.20. This impact is considered significant, but mitigable. 4.15.2 Mitigation Measures. Add a second northbound right -tum lane from San Fernando Road onto Railroad Avenue. Accomplished by retaining existing right -turn lane, converting existing outside through lane into a second right -tum lane, retaining other existing through lane, and providing another through lane to the south. Relocate railroad crossing gate assembly and widen San Fernando Road southerly -26- Restripe lanes on San Fernando Road 4.15.3 Findings. The mitigation ensures that the City address projected deficiencies at the intersection. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. 4.16 Air Quality — Parking Structure CO 4.16.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the proposed parking structures may create conditions conducive to pollutant buildup, including CO. This impact is considered significant but mitigable. 4.16.2 Mitigation Measures. Parking structures developed in the planning area shall open on three sides or be provided with mechanical ventilation. Exhaust points of ventilation systems shall be located such that impacts to sensitive receptors are minimized. Parking structure design shall avoid the creation of CO Hotspots from vehicle queuing, by ensuring adequate ingress/egress and ventilation. 4.16.3 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, measures have been incorporated into the project such that air quality impacts in the parking structures are less than significant. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. 4.17 Air Quality - Odors 4.17.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Where residential is located above commercial, odors from commercial uses may pose a nuisance pursuant to Rule 402. This impact is considered significant, but mitigable. 4.17.2 Mitigation Measures. Table 5-1 in the proposed Specific Plan includes a requirement for discretionary review of mixed-use projects where potential compatibility concerns will be addressed. During discretionary review of mixed-use projects involving bars, taverns and nightclubs or personal services such as nail salons, hair salons, and dry cleaners, reviewers shall ensure odors are reduced or eliminated pursuant to AQMD Rule 402. -27- 4.17.3 Findings. The measures ensure that odors from commercial uses in mixed use areas are addressed prior to permitting. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. 4.18 Noise — Parking Structures 4.18.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on the information in the FEIR, noise generated by parking garage activity may adversely impact surrounding uses. This impact is considered significant, but mitigable. 4.18.2 Mitigation Measures. Appropriate acoustical treatments and noise insulation features shall be incorporated into the design of commercial buildings surrounding parking garages, such that interior noise standards of 45 dBA are maintained (refer to Additional Mitigation Measures in Section 5.7, Final EIR, Noise). A detailed acoustical analysis shall be conducted when the potential for interior noise impacts are identified. 4.18.3 Findings. The measure ensures that parking structure noise is addressed in the buildings design. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. 4.19 Noise — Vibration 4.19.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on the information in the FEIR, development near the train station may be exposed to ground vibration and noise. This impact is considered significant, but mitigable. 4.19.2 Mitigation Measures. Outdoor spaces shall generally be designed so that noise from railroad is attenuated through buildings or other intervening structures. 4.19.3 Findings. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and reduces the potential impacts of the project associated with vibration to a less -than - significant level by requiring ongoing coordination with the City. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. 4.20 Noise — Mixed Use No 4.20.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on the information in the FEIR, mixed use projects may expose residential land uses to noise from non-residential uses. This impact is considered significant, but mitigable. 4.20.2 Mitigation Measures. Prior to approval of mixed-use projects involving commercial tenants with nighttime activities the City shall ensure that noise compatibility has been addressed such that applicable standards are met. 4.20.3 Findings. The mitigation ensures that noise is considered in decisions regarding compatibility in mixed use areas. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. 4.21 Aesthetics — Light and Glare 4.21.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project may increase light and glare levels over existing conditions. This impact is considered less than significant. 4.21.2 Mitigation Measures: 1. All parking lot pole lights and streetlights shall be fully hooded and back shielded to reduce the light "spillage" and glare. 2. Prior to development, proposed lighting shall be indicated on site plans that demonstrate that spill-over of lighting would not affect surrounding areas. The lighting plan shall incorporate lighting that directs light pools downward or otherwise shield adjacent areas from glare. Light fixtures that shield excessive brightness at night shall be include in the lighting plans. Non -glare lighting shall be used. 3. Any security lighting shall be screened such that lighting globes are not visible from a distance of more than 20 feet. 4. All street lighting within the planning area shall use cutoff luminaries. This would avoid creating high levels of glare and light pollution for motorist. 5. New development shall incorporate techniques to reduce light and glare, such as use of low reflectivity glass, muted colors for building materials in high visibility areas, and the use of plant material along the perimeter of the structure to soften views. 4.21.3 Findings: The mitigation measures, in addition to strategies laid out in the Specific Plan, ensure that light and glare do not substantially exceed existing levels. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. -29- 4.22 Public Services — Fire 4.22.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, demand for fire service will not exceed service capacity, however, the proposed development poses particular risks for fire service and access. 4.22.2 Mitigation Measures The following measures may apply to specific projects proposed under the plan: Fire Mitigation Measures The proposed development may necessitate multiple ingress/egress access for the circulation of traffic, and emergency response issues. 1. The development of this project shall comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. 2. The property is located within the area described by the Forester and Fire Warden as a Fire Zone 4, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). All applicable fire code, and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire hydrants, fire flows, brush clearance and fuel modification plans, must be met. 3. Specific fire and safety requirements for the construction phase will be addressed at the ._ building and fire plan check. There may be additional fire and life safely requirements during this time. 4. Every building constructed shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by way of access roadways, with an all-weather surface of not less than prescribed width. The roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall when measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. 5. Access roads shall be maintained with a minimum of ten (10) feet of brush clearance on each side. Fire access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance clear -to -sky with the exception of protected tree species. Protected tree species overhanging fire access roads shall be maintained to provide a vertical clearance of 13 feet, 6 inches. 6. Fire Department requirements for access, fire flows and hydrants are addressed during the building permit stage. 7. Fire sprinkler systems are required in some residential and most commercial occupancies. For those occupancies not requiring fire sprinkler systems, it is strongly suggested that fire sprinkler systems be installed. This will reduce potential fire and life losses. Systems are now technically and economically feasible for residential use. 8. The development may require fire flows up to 5,000 gallons per square inch residual pressure for up to a five-hour duration. Final fire flows will be based on the size of the buildings, their relationship to other structures, property lines, and types of construction used. 9. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet in commercial areas and shall meet the following requirements: o No portion of lot frontage shall be more the 200 feet via vehicular access from public fire hydrant. -30- o No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. o Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. o When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 200 feet on, hydrants shall be required at the comer and mid -block. o A cul-de-sac shall not be more than 500 feet in length, when serving and zoned for commercial use. 10. Turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. A fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. 11. All on site driveway/roadways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet, clear - to -sky. The 28 feet width does not allow for parking, and shall be designated as a Fire Lane, and have appropriate signage. The on-site driveway is to be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story of any building. The centerline of the access driveway shall be located parallel to, and within 30 feet of an exterior wall on one side of the proposed structure. 12. The 28 feet in width shall be increased in residential areas to: o Provide 34 feet in width when parallel parking is allowed on one side of the access way. o Provide 36 feet in width when parallel parking is allowed on both sides of the access way. o Any access less than 34 feet in width shall be labeled "Fire Lane" on the final recording map, and final building plans. o For streets or driveways with parking restrictions: the entrance to the street driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be posted with Fire Department approved signs stating "NO PARKING- FIRE LANE" in three inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to endure access for Fire Department use. 13. Driveway width for non-residential developments shall be increased when any of the following conditions will exist: o Provide 34 feet in width, when parallel parking is allowed on one side of the access roadway/driveway. Preference is that such parking is not adjacent to the structure. o Provide 42 feet in width, when parallel parking is allowed on each side of the access roadway/driveway. o Any access way less than 34 feet in width shall be labeled "Fire Lane" on the final recording map, and final building plans. o For streets or driveways with parking restrictions: the entrance to the street driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be posted with Fire Department approved signs stating "NO PARKING- FIRE LANE" in three inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to endure access for Fire Department use. 14. When serving land for residential uses having a density of more than four units per net acre: o A cul-de-sac shall be a minimum of 34 feet in width and shall not be more than 700 feet in length. -31- o A cul-de-sac may be increased to 100 feet in a minimum of 36 feet in width is provided. o A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided at the end of the cul-de- sac. 15. Single family detached homes shall require a minimum fire flow of 1,250 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a two-hour duration. Two family dwelling units (duplexes) shall require a fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a two –hour duration. When there are five or more units taking access to a single driveway the minimum fire flow shall be increased to 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a two-hour duration. 16. Fire hydrant spacing in residential shall be 600 feet and shall meet the following requirements o No portion of lot frontage shall be more the 450 feet via vehicular access from public fire hydrant. o No portion of a structure should be placed on a lot where it exceeds 750 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. o When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 450 feet on a residential street, hydrants shall be required at the corner and mid –block. o Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. 17. A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. 18. Fire Department access shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet, clear -to -sky '— and be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any single unit. If exceeding 150 feet, provide 20 feet minimum paved width "Private Driveway/Fire Lane" clear -to -sky to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the unit. Fire Lanes serving three (3) or more units shall be increased to 26 feet. 19. Streets or driveways within the development shall be provided with the following: o Provide 36 feet in width on all cul-de-sacs where parking is allowed on both sides. o Provide 34 feet in width on cul-de-sacs up to 700 feet in length. This allows parking on both sides of the street. o For streets or driveways with parking restrictions: The entrance to the street driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be posted with Fire Department approved signs stating "NO PARKING- FIRE LANE" in three inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to endure access for Fire Department use. o Turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. 20. All access devices and gates shall meet the following requirements: o Any single gated opening used for ingress and egress shall be a minimum of 26 feet in width, clear -to -sky. o Any divided gate opening (when each gate is used for a single direction of travel- i.e. ingress or egress) shall be a minimum width of 20 feet clear -to -sky. o Gates and/or control devices shall be positioned a minimum of 50 feet from a public right of way, and shall be provided with a turnaround having a minimum of 32 feet of turning radius. If an intercom system is used, the 50 feet shall be measured from the right-of-way to the intercom control device. -32- o All limited access devices shall be of a type approved by the Fire Department. o Gate plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department, prior to installation. These plans shall show all locations, widths and details of the proposed gates. 21. All access devices and gates must comply with California code of Regulations, Title 19, Article 3.05 and Article 3.16. 4.22.3 Findings: The mitigation measures ensure that access and support concerns are addressed in specific projects. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. 4.23 Public Services — Schools, Project and Cumulative 4.231.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on information in the FEIR, the project will generate students in excess of available capacity. This impact is considered significant, but mitigable. 4.23.2 Mitigation Measures Mitigation consists of the application of statutory state and local fees for development. 4.23.3 Findings. As stated in the EIR, mitigation for school impacts is limited by law to the imposition of fees. Accordingly, the City Council finds that the appropriate fees are included, and mitigate impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. 4.24 Construction — Biology 4.24.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on information in the EIR, construction may temporarily disturb biological resources, both directly and indirectly. This impact is considered significant, but mitigable. 4.24.2 Mitigation Measures Creek setbacks, 50 feet from the top of the creek bank unless otherwise authorized by a land use permit (exceptions include the creekside trail). The project proponent shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers prior to finalizing design on the creek walk or crossing. See also 4.3 through 4.7 of this document. 4.24.3 Findings. The mitigation ensures that temporary biological impacts during construction are avoided or minimized. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of -33- �., the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. 4.25 Construction — Hydrology and Water Quality 4.25.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on information contained in the EIR, construction activities will disturb soils and pose a risk of releasing hazardous materials. This impact is considered significant but mitigable. 4.25.2 Mitigation Measures • NPDES permits required for projects in excess of one acre. • Erosion control measures required if run-off impacts creek - straw bales, siltation fences, berms and basins. • Mitigation measures addressed on a project by project basis, depending on size and level of disturbance. 4.25.3 Findings. The mitigation ensures that erosion and water quality impacts during construction are addressed. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. 4.26 Construction — Traffic 4.26.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on information contained in the EIR, construction activities will temporarily disturb traffic patterns and access routes. This impact is considered significant but mitigable. 4.26.2 Mitigation Measures • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. • Provide temporary traffic controls during all phases of construction activities to maintain traffic flow. • Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak hours to the degree practicable. • Establish a haul route. ._. • Consolidate truck deliveries when possible. -34- • Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on and off site. • A circulation plan shall be required on a project by project basis if vehicle and pedestrian routes and residential areas conflict with construction activities. 4.26.3 Findings. The mitigation ensures that construction -related traffic impacts are addressed. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. 4.26 Construction — Hazardous Materials 4.26.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on information contained in the EIR, construction activity may release asbestos, lead, or PCBs. This impact is considered significant but mitigable. 4.26.2 Mitigation Measures The Los Angeles County Fire Department Haz-Mat Division shall review routes for material transport. If hazardous materials are suspected/discovered on project site, the Haz-Mat Division shall be notified and construction activity shall be temporarily suspended. During construction, all project -related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to project sites shall be cleaned up immediately. If hazardous materials are presumed to be present on a demolition site Best Management Practices shall be implemented. 4.26.3 Findings. The mitigation ensures that potential hazardous materials are identified and removed prior to construction, and that incidents during construction are addressed and properly reported. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to §21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR to a less than significant level. SECTION 5: EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE NOT SIGNIFICANT OR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as discussed below, the following impacts associated with the project are less than significant and no mitigation is required. 5.1 Geology and Soils — Project and Cumulative Seismic and Erosion Hazards 99102 5.1.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, development of the proposed project would introduce additional population in a seismically active area, and may increase erosion. 5.1.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.2 Hydrology and Water Quality — Groundwater Recharge 5.2.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project would not result in significant impacts to groundwater recharge. 5.2.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.3 Hydrology and Water Quality — Stormwater Infrastructure 5.3.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, sufficient infrastructure has been identified in the Specific Plan to address increased runoff. 5.3.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, potential impacts to stormwater infrastructure are less than significant and not mitigation is required or recommended. 5.4 Hydrology and Water Quality — Basin Plan Consistency 5.4.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based upon information contained in the FEIR, the project is consistent with the current Basin Plan for the area. 5.4.2 Findings: The City Council finds that based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the project is consistent with the Basin Plan. 5.5 Hydrology and Water Quality — Cumulative Impacts 5.5.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project will not have significant cumulative impacts to hydrology or water quality. 5.5.2 Findings: The City Council finds that based upon substantial evidence in the record, potential cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality are less than significant and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.6 Cultural Resources — Archaeological Resources 5.6.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project not impact archaeological resources. lxbog 5.6.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, impacts associated with archaeological resources are less than significant and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.7 Cultural Resources — Cumulative Historic Impacts 5.7.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project would not result in a significant cumulative impact to historic resources. 5.7.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the project does not have the potential to significantly affect historic resources in the cumulative sense. Mitigation included in the EIR for project -level impacts will be sufficient to address impacts and prevent cumulatively significant impacts. 5.8 Transportation and Circulation — 2010 Parking 5.8.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project will not have an adverse impact on parking supplies. 5.8.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, impacts associated with parking are less than significant and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.9 Transportation and Circulation — AM Peak Hour LOS 5.9.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on area intersections during the 2025 AM Peak Hour. 5.9.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, 2025 AM Peak Hour impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.10 Transportation and Circulation — Alternative Transportation 5.10.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project will not adversely affect alternative transportation. 5.10.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, impacts to alternative transportation are less than significant and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.11 Transportation and Circulation — 2025 Parking 5.11.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project will not have significant adverse impacts on parking supplies in the 2025 scenario. -37- 5.11.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, impacts to parking supplies in 2025 are less than significant and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.12 Air Quality — Consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) 5.12.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project is consistent with the AQMP and would not have significant impacts. 5.12.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the project is consistent with the AQMP for the region. 5.13 Air Quality — Operational Emissions 5.13.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project will not have significant operational impacts on air quality. 5.13.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, operational air quality impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.14 Air Quality — CO Hotspots (Project Buildout) 5.14.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project will not create CO Hotspots. 5.14.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the project will not create CO Hotspots that impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.15 Air Quality — CO Hotspots (Cumulative) 5.15.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, CO Hotspots will not be created under the cumulative, 2025 Scenario. 5.15.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the project will not create CO Hotspots in the cumulative (2025) scenario that impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.16 Air Quality — Toxic Air Contaminants 5.16.1 Potential Significant Impacts. Based on the information in the FEIR, buildout of the plan will not result in, or expose persons to, significant increased risk of exposure to toxic air contaminants. l" 5.16.2 Findings. The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, existing regulations address toxic air contaminants, that impacts are therefore less than significant, and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.17 Aesthetics — Visual Corridors 5.17.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project will not have adverse impacts on visual corridors. 5.17.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the project will not adversely affect visual corridors, that impacts are therefore less than significant, and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.18 Aesthetics — Shading 5.18.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project will not have adverse impacts associated with shading or shadowing. 5.18.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the project will not have adverse effects associated with shading or shadowing, that impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.19 Wastewater — Collection 5.19.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project will not have substantial adverse impacts on wastewater collection facilities. 5.19.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the project will not have adverse effects on wastewater collections facilities, and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.20 Wastewater — Volume and Composition 5.20.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project will not result in wastewater volume or composition that exceeds either the capacity or treatment capabilities of existing infrastructure. 5.20.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the project will not have a significant impact in terms of either wastewater volume or composition and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.21 Wastewater — Cumulative Impacts 5.21.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, cumulative development in the City will not result in significant impacts to wastewater infrastructure. -39- -- 5.21.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the project will not have a significant cumulative impact to wastewater infrastructure and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.22 Water — Supply 5.22.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project will not result in demand which exceeds available supply. 5.22.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the project will not have a significant impact in terms of water supply and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.23 Water — Infrastructure 5.23.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project will not result in deficiencies in infrastructure. Infrastructure adequacy will be addressed on a project -by -project basis in accordance with existing City procedures. 5.23.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the project will not have a significant impact on water supply infrastructure and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.24 Water — Cumulative Impacts 5.24.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, demand from the cumulative development scenario will not exceed supply. 5.24.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, cumulative development will not have a significant impact on water supply and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.26 Public Services — Police Service 5.26.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, demand for police service will not exceed service capacity. 5.26.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the project will not have a significant impact on police service and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.27 Public Services — Parks 5.27.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project will not result in significant impacts to parks. Development will be required to pay standard fees for parks. M 5.27.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the project will not have a significant impact on parks and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.28 Public Services — Solid Waste 5.28.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project will not generate solid waste in excess of existing, available capacity. 5.28.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the project will not have a significant impact on solid waste disposal facilities and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.29 Public Services — Cumulative Impacts, Fire and Police Service 5.29.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, cumulative development will not hamper the fire or police department's ability to respond to events. 5.29.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, cumulative development will not have a significant impact on fire or police services and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.31 Public Services — Cumulative Impacts, Parks 5.31.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR; cumulative development will not have a substantial impact on parks. Developers will continue to be charged standard public service fees for resources such as parks. 5.31.2 Findings. The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, cumulative development will not have a significant impact on parks and no mitigation is required or recommended. 5.32 Construction — Utility Disruption 5.32.1 Potential Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, construction may pose temporary risks to utility infrastructure. 5.32.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, temporary risks to utility infrastructure are less than significant and not mitigation is required or recommended. SECTION 6: SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The following significant, unavoidable cumulative effects were identified for the project. These are discussed above in Section 3. 6.1 Traffic — Railroad and Lyons -41- --- 6.1.1 Cumulative Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project will have significant cumulative impacts on levels of service at the Railroad and Lyons intersection. 6.1.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, cumulative impacts to the Lyons and Railroad intersection cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. The City's findings outlined in Section 3 apply equally to the cumulative effect. The City is providing a statement of overriding considerations with respect to this and other remaining impacts, as state in Section 8, below. 6.2 Air Quality 6.2.1 Cumulative Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project will have significant cumulative impacts on air quality. Refer to Section 3 of this document. 6.2.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, cumulative impacts to air quality cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. The City is providing a statement of overriding considerations with respect to this and other remaining impacts (Section 8 of this document). 6.3 Noise 6.3.1 Cumulative Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project will have significant cumulative noise impacts along Lyons Avenue. Refer to Section 3. 6.3.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, cumulative noise impacts cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. The City is providing a statement of overriding considerations with respect to this and other remaining impacts (Section 8). 6.4 Public Services — Solid Waste 6.4.1 Cumulative Significant Impacts: Based on information contained in the FEIR, the project will have significant cumulative impacts on solid waste disposal facility capacity. Refer to Section 3. 6.4.2 Findings: The City Council finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, cumulative impacts to air quality cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. The City is providing a statement of overriding considerations with respect to this and other remaining impacts (Section 8). SECTION 7: FEASIBILITY OF MITIGATION MEASURES 7.1 Mitigation Measures -42- The City Council has considered all of the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EER for the project. None of the recommended measures within the City's jurisdiction has been rejected by the City Council. SECTION S: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS This section includes findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15093 and 15092. The FEIR identified the following significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level even with incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the final EIR: 3.1 Transportation and Circulation — Railroad and Lyons 3.2 Air Quality — Cumulative 3.3 Noise — Operation — Lyons Avenue 3.4 Public Services — Cumulative Solid Waste 3.5 Construction — Air Quality 3.6 Construction - Noise Having reduced the effects of the proposed project by adopting the other mitigation measures and a program to monitor mitigation measures for certain project -related impacts, and having balanced the benefits of the project against the project's unavoidable adverse impacts, the City hereby determines that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh these remaining adverse impacts based on the following overriding considerations: The proposed project, the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan, implements a number of existing planning documents, including: • The City of Santa Clarita General Plan • Newhall Redevelopment Plan and EIR • SCAG Compass Growth Vision • Downtown Newhall Improvement Program • Portions of the Air Quality Management Plan The intent of the plan is to provide for development built on the fundamentals of mixed-use, traditional neighborhoods, and transit -orientated design. The overall objectives of the Specific Plan are to (1) reaffirm the vision of past plans for the area; (2) translate the vision to physical terms; and (3) provide specific tools and a high level of detail for implementation of physical improvements, including parking. The stated objectives of the plan are 19 -- • Provide a seamless connection to the suburban and natural surroundings of the area • Design the area such that there is a five-minute walk from center to edge, in order to maximize pedestrian usage • Provide an interconnected network of multi -modal thoroughfares • Provide a rich set of public spaces, both thoroughfares that range from lively streetscapes to passages, as well as places of repose, such as plazas • Provide a mix of residential, retail, and office uses • Provide a set of community and public facilities that enable the people living there to be civically engaged • Include educational facilities that promote life-long learning • Provide immediate public access to nature • Provide places for recreational activity in plazas and pocket parks • Provide housing types for people of a variety of incomes and ages • Provide a landscape in keeping with the climate and culture of Newhall • Include sustainability measures that advance the long-term value and viability of the neighborhood. The City of Santa Clarita is a rapidly growing City located in the Santa Clarita Valley in the northeastern corner of Los Angeles County. The City's population is currently 162,900, a number that is expected to grow to over 177,500 in the next five years. The City is expanding its economic base through the development of commercial and industrial businesses, and regional shopping centers, and serves as a base of commute to the Simi Valley and the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Among the objectives of the City's General Plan are policies which encourage logical growth and revitalization of older portions of the City. The portion of the City known as Downtown Newhall has long been recognized as the cultural and historical center of City, housing a number of local events, art events, and historical buildings. The area is increasingly popular with visitors and locals alike, yet it suffers from identified blighting conditions and a relatively high crime rate. The City, throughout its planning documents, has identified the potential for redevelopment of Downtown Newhall, capitalizing on the historic qualities of the area to provide higher quality housing and improved retail and entertainment opportunities. This potential is seen by the benefits of similar redevelopment efforts undertaken at other southern California communities, including Monrovia and Claremont. The City also cooperates with a number of agencies to provide and facilitate transit access and opportunities in the City. Downtown Newhall includes a major transit station, providing park and ride lots, and bus and train transportation. The City must therefore balance the need for transit and related parking with the goals of historic preservation, redevelopment, and creation of a pedestrian -scale environment. This was a central exercise in the formation of the Downtown Specific Plan. The Specific Plan relied predominantly on the concentration of parking into structures located at each end of the Downtown, in lieu of continued development of surface parking lots and on -street parking spaces. Much of the existing surface parking was seen as having prime redevelopment potential for retail and housing. us Based on the Final EIR and other evidence in the record, the City Council has concluded that the benefits of the preferred project include: • The project would result in the removal of identified blighting conditions, including vacancies, crime, and substandard building conditions • The project would unify disparate design in the project area • The project would improve property values Together, the benefits stated above outweigh the significant and unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the project. SAPED\ADVANMDnm Nwh6Sp PIan\PI=ing CommissionTINALPQCEQA RESO).doc -45- EXHIBIT B FINAL EIR DRAFT EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (on file in the Planning Division)