Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-25 - RESOLUTIONS - MC 03-358 KEYSTONE FEIR (2)RESOLUTION NO. 06-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR THE KEYSTONE PROJECT, CERTIFYING FEIR SCH #2004081017, (INCLUDES ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM), AND ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR MASTER CASE NO. 03-358 FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 60258, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03-002, ZONE CHANGE 03-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 03-016, HILLSIDE REVIEW 03-006, OAK TREE PERMIT 03-066 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT, The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: An application for Master Case 03-358, the Keystone project, was filed by the project applicant, Synergy, A Land + Development Company and Brookfield Homes, LLC (the "applicant"), with the City of Santa Clarita on August 26, 2003. The entitlement requests (collectively, "Entitlements") included: i. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 60258 to subdivide the Keystone project site -- into 96 single-family lots, 3 residential development lots, 1 private recreational facility lot, and lots for recreation/parks, junior high school, YMCA, utilities, roadways, manufactured slopes and open space; ii. General Plan Amendment 03-002 to change the land use designation of the project site from Residential Very Low and Industrial Commercial with a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) overlay to Residential Suburban west of the City of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power (DWT) right-of-way and to Residential Moderate east of the DWP right-of-way, maintaining the SEA overlay. In addition, a 0.5 acre lot south of the Santa Clara River would remain as Industrial Commercial (IC) land use designation, with no proposed development and conditions of approval would require the parcel to be dedicated to the City; iii. Zone Change 03-002 to change the land use designation of the project site from Residential Very Low and Industrial Commercial with a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) overlay to Residential Suburban west of the DWP right-of-way and to Residential Medium east of the DWP right-of-way, maintaining the SEA overlay. In addition, a 0.5 acre lot south of the Santa Clara River would remain as Industrial Commercial (IC) land use designation, with no proposed development and conditions of approval would require the parcel to be dedicated to the City; Resolution No. 06-38 Page 2 iv. Conditional Use Permit 03-016 for the approval of the Innovative Application for development on ridgelines, to allow for the YMCA recreational use, and to allow for gate -guarded residential entries; V. Hillside Review 03-006, including an Innovative Application, to develop on land with an average cross slope of ten percent or greater and development on ridgelines classified as secondary; and vi. Oak Tree Permit 03-066 for the removal of 3 of the 8 oak trees, two located off-site and one located on-site. a. The Keystone project is a 246 -acre site located in the central part of the City at the western terminus of Ermine Street, east of Bouquet Canyon Road between Plum Canyon Road to the north and the Santa Clara River and Soledad Canyon Road to the south. A DWP right-of-way bisects the project site. The project proposed the subdivision of the site into 132 lots for a mix of residential (single family and multi -family), recreational, educational, YMCA facility and open space uses. The original proposed project included the development of 979 dwelling units consisting of 96 single-family lots, 216 multi -family apartment units and 667 townhouse units on multi -family development pads, and finished graded lots for a junior high school and 30,476 square foot YMCA facility. The proposal included a trail system that connects to regional trails as well as on-site trails. Access to the site would be provided by the future extension of Golden Valley Road (GVR) from its northern connection at Plum Canyon and southern connection to Newhall Ranch Road. In addition, the project proposed to construct the 1,890 foot extension of GVR west of the project site to connect to Newhall Ranch Road. The project also proposed a connection to Ermine Street. The current zoning for the project site is Residential Very Low (RVL); and Industrial Commercial (IC). The applicant is proposing to change the General Plan Land Use designation and zoning for the site to Residential Suburban (RS) west of the DWP right-of-way and Residential Medium High (RMH) east of the DWP right-of-way. A small 0.5 acre parcel located south of the Santa Clara River will remain designated as IC with no proposed development. The proposed project requires 5.4 million cubic yards (mcy) of grading (plus 1.8 mcy of remedial grading) all of which will be balanced on-site. The grading is required for construction of the project, and the extension of Golden Valley Road west of the project site. b. The project application was deemed complete on January 6, 2004. C, 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 Keystone project site as Residential Very Low and Industrial Commercial with Significant Ecological Area ("SEA") Overlay. Zoning on the Keystone project site is presently Residential Very Low (RVL) and Industrial Commercial (IC). Resolution No. 06-38 Page 3 d. Although the project site is vacant, the site is not in pristine condition as portions have been subject to mining and farming activities in the past. In addition, the site exhibits scars from illegal off-road activity, mostly associated with motorcycles and Quad -runners. Also, the site includes trash, construction debris, abandoned automobile parts and numerous 55 -gallon drums. In addition, a DWP right-of-way bisects the project site. e. The project site comprises approximately 246 acres that include portions of the low-lying Santa Clara River channel and adjacent northeast -southwest trending ridges. Portions of the ridges have been eroded into elevated plateaus. Topographically, the site consists of two steep canyons, three ridgelines (one primary and two secondary) and a series of mesas. The site drains to the south and discharges into the Santa Clara River. The most southeasterly canyon drains portions of the project site, as well as some off-site development to the east. This canyon is steep sided and supports riparian vegetation. The other canyon is the location of the Department of Water and Power property, which includes the transmission lines. This canyon is less steep and supports a coastal sage scrub plan community. The project site includes 8 oak trees consisting of 7 Coast Live Oak and 1 Coast Live Oak/Tucker's Oak hybrid. The proposed development would impact three of the oak trees. 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 Keystone project. The City's Planning Commission is a recommending body for the Keystone project. The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the Keystone 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 Keystone project Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"): geotechnical hazards, flood, traffic/access, air quality, noise, biological resources, land use, water services (including both water demand/supply and water quality), solid waste disposal, education, library services, parks and recreation, fire services, sheriff services, human made hazards, visual resources, population/housing/employment, cultural resources, floodplain modifications and wastewater disposal. 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 August 2, 2004, and numerous 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, the Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region, the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, waste haulers, water agencies and transportation agencies serving the Santa Clarita Resolution No. 06-38 Page 4 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 Council Chambers on August 26, 2004, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper on August 5, 2004, and was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site, in addition to approximately 80 agencies. Approximately 21 people attended the scoping meeting. On April 5, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a site tour of the Keystone project site. j. A Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Keystone 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 have been considered, in compliance with CEQA. The Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR was filed, posted and advertised on July 19, 2005, and the public review period extended for 45 days, from July 19, 2005 through September 1, 2005, all in accordance with CEQA. All written comments received prior to and after September 1, 2005, were accepted for inclusion in the Final EIR Responses to Comments. k. The Keystone 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 1000 feet of the Keystone project area. 1. The Planning Commission held duly -noticed public hearings on the Keystone project on June 7, August 30, September 20, November 15, 2005 and January 17, 2006. These hearings were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. Two of the five public hearings were held for the purpose of providing an opportunity for the Planning Commission and the public to consider focused discussions on the environmental issue areas discussed in the Draft EIR. The June 7, 2005 public hearing was to provide an overview presentation of the proposed entitlements requested. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on January 17, 2005. (i) On June 7, 2005, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the Keystone project, received a presentation on the Keystone project from staff and the applicant, and received public testimony regarding the project. (ii) On August 30, 2005, Planning Commission staff responded to Planning Commission and public issues/concerns, discussed the contents and conclusions of the Draft EIR and made a focused presentation on the Resolution No. 06-38 Page 5 project description and the Draft EIR analyses on Land Use, Hazards, Cultural Resources, Utilities, Geology, Population, Mineral Resources, Energy Conservation and Hydrology and Water Quality, and the applicant presented a revised project description. (iii) On September 20, 2005, Planning Commission staff responded to Planning Commission and public issues/concems, and made a focused presentation on the Draft EIR analyses on Public Services, Air Quality, Noise, Transportation, Biology, Aesthetics and Alternatives. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff to return to the November 15, 2005 meeting with a presentation and discussion on several development alternatives. (iv) On November 15, 2005, Planning Commission staff responded to Planning Commission and public issues/concerns, and presented three development scenarios at the request of the Planning Commission. The three scenarios included the following: 1. Scenario "A" - the applicant's revised project description included a total of 648 residential units (96 single-family lots, 164 detached single family units and 388 for -sale multi -family residential units); a six -acre turn key public park with a zero -depth water feature, dog park, picnic areas and non -programmable sports fields; smaller view parks with access from each of the residential development pads; pedestrian paseos and trails; a 1.5 -acre private recreational facility for the residential uses; Junior High School and YMCA development pads to be deeded to the Hart Union School district and YMCA, respectively; a $2,000,000 contribution to the Hart Union School District for their performing arts program; and a $200,000 contribution to the City for the construction and extension of the multi -use trail east of the project site. 2. Scenario `B" — a Single Family alternative as analyzed in the Draft EIR, included a total of 383 single family residential lots; and Junior High School and YMCA development pads to be offered for sale. 3. Scenario "C" — staff's alternative which includes a total of 499 residential units (96 single-family lots, 223 detached single family residential units and 180 for -sale townhome units); a six -acre turn key public park with a zero -depth water feature, dog park, picnic areas and non -programmable sports fields; smaller view parks with access from each of the residential development pads; pedestrian paseos and trails; a 1.5 -acre private recreational facility for the residential uses; and Junior High School and YMCA development pads to be deeded to the Hart Union School district and YMCA, Resolution No. 06-38 Page 6 respectively; a $2,000,000 contribution to the Hart Union School District for their performing arts program. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare all of the necessary approval documents (resolutions, ordinances, findings of fact, mitigation and monitoring reporting program, conditions, etc.) for development Scenario "C" that proposes 499 residential units, for adoption by the Planning Commission for recommendation of approval to the City Council and to incorporate the following requirements into the conditions of approval for the project. 1. Eliminate the vehicular access from Ermine Street to the project site and construct a cul de sac at the western end of Ermine Street with a pedestrian trail to connect to Golden Valley Road. 2. Provide language requiring the applicant to construct traffic mitigation on Dorothy Street and Steinway Street. 3. Require applicant to inform future residents of the proposed development that the Saugus Speedway may become operational in the future. 4. Include the following project benefits as part of meeting the Innovative Criteria under the Hillside Ordinance. a. Contribution of $200,000 towards the construction of the multi -use trail east of the project site; (v) As a result of comments received from the Planning Commission and its staff, from governmental agencies and from the public, the applicant modified the Keystone project, as shown on the modified vesting tentative tract map/site plan, incorporated herein by this reference, and described above in section "iv.3". As a result of these modifications, the revised site plan is now proposing a total of 499 dwelling units (96 single-family lots, 223 detached single family units and 180 for -sale townhome units). (vi) The Final EIR, incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "B," includes the Draft EIR, comments on the Draft EIR, and the following: responses to written comments on the Draft EIR, responses to public testimony regarding Draft EIR issues raised at the public hearings during the public comment period, modifications to the Draft EIR text, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"). The Draft EIR was presented to the Commission on August 30, 2005 and September 20, 2005 and the remaining Final EIR documents were prepared and provided to the Resolution No. 06-38 Page 7 Planning Commission on January 3, 2006. On January 3, 2006, 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 Planning Commission has considered the Final EIR prepared for the Keystone project, as well as information provided in staff reports, the amended text of the Final EIR, information presented to the Planning Commission from experts, and information presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the Planning Commission following the close of the Draft EIR public comment period up to and including September 1, 2005, prior to recommending approval of the Keystone project. (vii) The Final EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ("MMRP"), and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Keystone project have been prepared and circulated in compliance with CEQA. (viii) The Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts of the Keystone project that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, and has recommended certification of the Final EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ("MMRP"), by Resolution No. P06-02, adopted on January 17, 2006. (ix) At its hearings on the Keystone project, listed above, the Planning Commission considered staff and consultant presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, information presented to the Commission to assist in its understanding of the Keystone project, the Keystone project EIR, and public comments, and public testimony on the Keystone project and the Final EIR for the Keystone project. Based upon the staff and consultant presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, public comments and testimony the Commission finds that the Keystone project, as modified, will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor will the Keystone project be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the project site; nor will the Keystone project jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the project conforms with the zoning ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land uses. The Keystone project proposes the extension of all utilities and services to the project site. Currently, all required utilities and services are available at locations adjacent to the project site. (x) The location of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceeding upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is based on the Master Case 03-358 project file within the Community Resolution No. 06-38 Page 8 Development Department and is in the custody of the Director of Community Development. n. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Keystone entitlements on March 28 and continuing on April 25, 2006. On March 28, 2006, the City Council recommended, and the applicant agreed, to further modify the project, including the following revision: i. Elimination of the Planning Commission recommendation eliminating the connection of Ermine Street to the proposed project, requiring the applicant to provide a connection from the project east to Ermine Street. The Keystone project as modified would thus subdivide 246 acres into 96 single- family lots, 3 development pads for 223 detached single family residential units and 180 townhome units, a Jr. High School lot and YMCA lot, a 6 -acre public park lot, a 1.6 -acre private recreation facility lot, and lots for recreation/parks, utilities, roadways and open space, and consist of 499 residential dwelling units, and approximately 137 on-site acres of open space, including natural and graded lots to be owned and maintained by the HOA. o. All public hearings and meetings on the Keystone project were held by the City Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. All public hearings and meetings on the Keystone project were held by the City Council at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. All public hearings were advertised in the The Signal newspaper, and by direct first- class mail to property owners within 1000 feet of the project area. In addition, the date and time of each public hearing was posted on three signs at the project site. 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 (NVIRP) for those mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR that would mitigate or avoid each significant impact identified in the EIR and to Resolution No. 06-38 Page 9 i incorporate the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, including all mitigation measures, as conditions of project approval. 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 several of the comments received, portions of the Draft EIR have been revised. Although new material has been added to the Draft EIR through preparation of the Final EIR, this new material provides clarification to points and information already included in the Draft EIR and is not considered to be significant new information or a substantial change to the Draft EIR 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. e. Comments received on the Draft EIR both during, and after, the public review period show that there may be disagreements among experts, particularly in the issue areas of air quality and biological resources. The Final EIR includes additional clarifying narrative and clarifying exhibits for the purpose of fully disclosing the information sources and reasoning by which levels of impact and mitigation measures were established in the Draft EIR. Further, the clarifying narrative and clarifying exhibits in the Final EIR serve the purpose of fully disclosing the information sources and reasoning used by various public and agency Draft EIR commentators who arrived at divergent conclusions. CEQA provides that disagreement among experts regarding conclusions in the EIR is acceptable. SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CEQA. The City Council does hereby find that the Final EIR for Master Case No. 03-358 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 60258, General Plan Amendment 03-002, Zone Change 03-002, Conditional Use Permit 03-016, Hillside Review 03-006, and Oak Tree Permit 03-066, 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. Resolution No. 06-38 Page 10 b. The Final EIR identifies issue areas as "Environmental Impacts Which Have Been Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant or That are Not Significant," Section 2 of Exhibit A. C. The Final EIR identifies issue areas as "Environmental Areas Where No Significant Impacts Would Occur (No Mitigation Required)," Section 3 of Exhibit A. d. The Final EIR identifies issue areas as "Cumulative Impacts Which Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level," Section 4 of Exhibit A. e. The Final EIR identifies issue areas as "Cumulative Impacts Which Have Been Mitigated to a Level of Les Than Significant," Section 5 of Exhibit A. f. As issues that are noted in Section 3(c), above, have no significant environmental impacts and have no mitigation, they will have no contribution to cumulative impacts. SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Keystone EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Keystone project and the Keystone EIR, upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and City Council and on its behalf, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and 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 Keystone 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 Keystone project, as specified in the EIR, are: • Land Use Planning 1. Create a new community that allows for residential, educational and fitness facility development, while preserving significant natural resources and open areas. 2. Provide a substantial number of new housing units to accommodate projected regional growth in a location which is adjacent to existing and planned infrastructure, urban services, public transit, transportation corridors, and major employment areas. 3. Cluster development within the site to preserve regionally significant natural resource areas and sensitive habitat. Resolution No. 06-38 Page 11 4. Provide development that is compatible with surrounding communities and land uses. 5. Construct all required on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements in a timely manner in order to provide concurrence of infrastructure availability and to meet the service needs of the project. Provide a coordinated "pay as you go" development that is consistent with surrounding uses. 6. Provide for adequate flood projection for the safety of the public and property. 7. Provide for the long-term maintenance of landscaping, storm drains, etc., that serve the project site. 8. Ensure compatibility with the City's Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan Implementation Ordinance and FEMA requirements. 9. To create small, safe, human scale, residential development enclaves, by incorporating cul-de-sacs and traffic calming measures and avoiding the use of long through streets, to foster closer -knit resident interaction, and to reduce and downplay the dominance of the automobile. 10. Provide a graded and finished lot to the William S. Hart USD for construction of a new junior high school. 11. Provide a graded and finished lot to the YMCA for construction of a new 30,476 square foot YMCA facility. • Economic 1. Develop the site to include housing of varying types, accommodating a range of incomes, and educational and health facility opportunities for the residents of the project as well as the local area. 2. Create an economically feasible project. • Mobility 1. Provide a safe, efficient, and aesthetically attractive street system, which includes pedestrian walkways (sidewalks) with connections to adjoining transportation routes. Resolution No. 06-38 Page 12 2. Provide an efficient street circulation system that minimizes impacts on residential neighborhoods and environmentally sensitive areas. 3. Provide Class I bike facilities and landscaping on new roadways providing access to residential areas. 4. Provide connections to and construct portions of the Santa Clara River Trail, which provides equestrian, pedestrian, and bicycle access to the Valencia Town Center, Valencia Industrial Center, Central Park and commercial core of the Santa Clarita Valley. • Parks and Recreation 1. Provide for the recreational use of open space areas that are compatible with protection of significant natural resources. 2. Provide recreation areas and improvements within the multi -family communities and contribute park fees which satisfy park dedication requirements and meet the recreational needs of local residents. 3. Provide a graded lot for a Junior High School with recreation opportunities. 4. Provide a graded lot for a YMCA fitness facility to be constructed by the YMCA. 5. Provide an extensive system of pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle trails consistent with the City's Santa Clara River Trail plans and the City's Circulation Element. • Resource Conservation Objectives 1. Retain some open areas and their natural vegetation as a wildlife or ecological preserve. 2. Provide a site specific evaluation of the biotic resources of the site in compliance with the provisions of the City's Unified Development Code and General Plan with regard to significant ecological areas and encourage development that protects or enhances those resources, while allowing a reasonable use of the land. Resolution No. 06-38 Page 13 3. Maintain and protect the major areas that possess biotic resources that are uncommon, rare, unique or critical to the maintenance of wildlife. 4. Establish and adequate buffer and mitigation measures to maintain and enhance the habitat value of the area and preserve the river resources. b. Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative. This Alternative is required by the CEQA Guidelines. It compares the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present condition with those that would be generated by the project as proposed. The No Project Alternative that leaves the site in its present condition will generally have reduced environmental impacts, although the alternative would allow continued illegal use of the site, with illegal off-road vehicle use occurring in several portions of the site and illegal squatting and dumping taking place in the vicinity of the southeastern canyon bottom, would be less desirable in terms of the effects to the property and disturbance to the adjacent homeowners, and does not provide the amenities which the proposed project includes; however, this Alternative will not meet the project objectives of constructing a balanced project consisting of a mix of residential uses, a junior high school, YMCA, public park and would not re-create the disturbed secondary ridgelines, within the project area to meet anticipated future demand. C. Alternative B. Current General Plan Land Use and Zoning. This Alternative would consider the potential subdivision of the project site within the Vesting Tentative Tract Map Number 60258 consistent with the current City of Santa Clarita General Plan Land Use and Zoning classification. Under this alternative a total of 78 single-family residential units would be built on a development pad east of the DWP right-of-way adjacent to and taking access from the extension of Golden Valley Road. The alternative would alter the existing eastern secondary ridgeline with the proposed development and roadway, and re-create the ridgeline. The primary ridgeline and the western secondary ridgeline would be preserved under this alternative because no development would be built west of the DWP right-of-way. This alternative would not include a finished development pad for the YMCA or the junior high school. However, since no grading would occur south of Golden Valley Road, the canyon that runs parallel to the Santa Clara River would be preserved. Golden Valley Road would be constructed between the proposed Newhall Ranch Road and the terminus of the roadway north of the project site. Construction of the roadway would also include the 1,890 foot extension west of the project site to connect with Newhall Ranch Road. The limitation of development east of the DWP right-of-way and north of Golden Valley Road would reduce impacts to the biological resources on site. The City required Santa Clara River trail and Class I bike trail would be included with this alternative. Resolution No. 06-38 Page 14 The reduction in the number of housing units would have a corresponding reduction in most impacts that can be measured through the footprint of the development or the number of residents. However, the contribution to fulfill the Southern California Area Governments (SCAG's) projected housing need goals for the region would be substantially less than the proposed project. Visual and agricultural impacts would be similar. This alternative does not meets the project objectives of a balanced community, because, it would provide fewer housing opportunities to meet the anticipated demand for housing in the area, potentially resulting in more dense development elsewhere in the area to match future housing demand. A reduction in housing without a reduction in housing demand also reduces the opportunity for affordable housing throughout the planning area. The elimination of the Junior High School pad and YMCA pad would be a loss for the project, by not providing recreational opportunities and a new junior high school. Active parkland would also be reduced in an amount greater than Quimby Act requirements, reducing recreational opportunities. Although Alternative B is, in balance, environmentally superior to the project, this alternative has been rejected because it would not fully meet project housing objectives by too narrowly limiting housing opportunities on-site and not meet objectives with respect to amount and variety of recreational opportunities. d. Alternative C. Compliance with Noise Setbacks and Preservation of Northern Secondary Rid eg line. The purpose of this Alternative is to reduce future exterior noise levels at several of the buildings proposed along Golden Valley Road that would, under the proposed project, exceed the City standards. The other part of the Alternative is to preserve the secondary ridgeline located west of the DWP right-of-way. Under this Alternative, two of the development pads east of the DWP right-of- way, Pad "C" and Pad "D" on Figure VII -2 of the DEIR, would incorporate noise setbacks from the extension of Golden Valley Road. Pad "C" would have a 100 - foot setback and Pad "D" would have a 105 -foot setback. Implementation of this part of the Alternative would reduce the number of multi -family units under the original application by 50 less units. Preserving the secondary ridgeline west of the DWP right-of-way would eliminate any development west of the DWP right- of-way, resulting in a reduction or elimination of the 96 single family residential units. Implementation of this Alternative would result in a total reduction, from the originally proposed 979 residential units to 833 multi -family units and no single family units. Although this Alternative would eliminate all development west of the DWP right-of-way and would preserve the secondary ridgeline west of the DWP, the project would still alter the secondary ridgeline east of the DWP right-of-way and there would still be development on pad east of the DWP as well as the Junior High School site and YMCA site. The reduction in the number of residential units would also have a corresponding reduction in most other impacts that can be measured through the footprint of development or the number of homes/residents. Resolution No. 06-38 Page 15 _ This alternative somewhat meets the project objective of a balanced community of residential, institutional, and recreational opportunities; however, it provides fewer housing opportunities to meet the anticipated demand for housing in the area, potentially resulting in more dense housing elsewhere in the area to match future demand. A reduction in housing without a reduction in housing demand also reduces the opportunity for various types of housing for different income levels throughout the planning area. Although Alternative C is environmentally superior to the project, this alternative has been rejected because it would not fully meet project housing objectives by too narrowly limiting the housing opportunities on-site and not providing as many housing opportunities as the proposed project. However, the noise setback portion of the Alternative has been incorporated into the revised project of 499 residential units, by providing a 100 - foot setback to the development pad along the extension of Golden Valley Road. e. Alternative D. Reduced Density Alternative. The purpose of this Alternative is to reduce the overall density of the project to 848 residential units. Under this Alternative, the approximate 183 -acre area east of the DWP right-of-way would be developed with fewer multi -family residential units than the proposed project. Alternative D consists of an overall reduced project density consisting of 752 multi -family residential units, representing a 15% decrease in the number of multi -family units. The number of multi -family units built under this alternative is equivalent to the zoning of Residential Moderate, which allows a maximum density of 11 units per acre. Like the proposed project, the 96 single family residential units would be built west of the DWP right-of-way. This alternative would result in a total number of 848 dwelling units for the project. The overall site plan would remain the same as the proposed project. The YMCA and junior high school sites would remain. Grading for Alternative D would not be less than the proposed project, which is 5.4 million cubic yards of earth movement. All trails and roadways would remain as with the proposed project. This Alternative reduces the overall density of the project; however, the reduction does not substantially reduce the amount of earth movement, impact on environmental resources or the overall building envelope. Although Alternative D does reduce density it is not environmentally superior to the project, this alternative has been rejected because it would not fully meet project objectives by too narrowly reducing the housing density on-site and not providing as many housing opportunities as the project. f. Altemative E. Single -Family Detached Condos Density Alternative. This alternative would include the proposed 96 single-family units west of the DWP right-of-way. Under this alternative the same four development pads as the proposed project would be developed with 596 multi -family units in the form of detached single-family condominiums, which represents a reduction in multi- family density by approximately 33 percent. This alternative would include a Resolution No. 06-38 Page 16 total of 692 residential units, which compared to the project total of 979 would be an approximate 30 percent reduction in the overall density. The overall site plan would remain the same as the proposed project. The YMCA and junior high school sites would remain. Grading for Alternative D would not be less than the proposed project, which is 5.4 million cubic yards of earth movement. All trails and roadways would remain as with the proposed project. This Alternative reduces the overall density of the project; however, the reduction does not substantially reduce the amount of earth movement, impact on environmental resources or the overall building envelope. Although Alternative D does reduce density it is not environmentally superior to the project, this alternative has been rejected because it would not fully meet project objectives by too narrowly reducing the housing density on-site and not providing as many housing opportunities as the project. g. Alternative F. Single -Family Alternative. This alternative would substitute the proposed project's 883 multi -family units of four development pads with 287 single-family units. The 96 single-family units proposed west of the DWP right - of way would be included under this alternative, resulting in a total of 383 single- family units. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would reduce project density by approximately 39 percent. The overall site plan would remain the same as the proposed project. The YMCA and junior high school sites would remain. Grading for Alternative D would not be less than the proposed project, which is 5.4 million cubic yards of earth movement. All trails and roadways would remain as with the proposed project. The reduction in the number of housing units would have a corresponding reduction in most impacts that can be measured through the footprint of the development or the number of residents. Visual and agricultural impacts would be similar. This alternative does not meets the project objectives of a balanced community, because, it would not provide a variety in housing types to meet the anticipated demand for housing in the area. A reduction in housing without a reduction in housing demand also reduces the opportunity for affordable housing throughout the planning area. h. Re -Aligned Golden Valley Road Alternative. Development of 96 single-family homes, 667 multi -family condominiums, and 216 multi -family apartments would occur under this alternative, same as under the proposed project. However, Golden Valley Road would be re -aligned from its proposed location to follow a straighter southwest to northeast line with the main portion of this road segment located further north than under the proposed project design. In addition, the multi -family units would be constructed on five super development pads rather Resolution No. 06-38 Page 17 than on four super development pads as under the proposed project. Further, three of these development pads would be constructed south of the proposed re- aligned Golden Valley Road. Golden Valley Road would continue to be the primary access to the Keystone project under this alternative. However, approximately a 2,500 foot portion of Golden Valley Road would have a 7 percent grade, which exceeds the City's grade standards for public streets. All other components of the proposed project site plan would remain the same under this alternative. The YMCA and junior high school sites would remain. Grading for this alternative would not be less than the proposed project, which is 5.4 million cubic yards of earth movement. All trails and roadways would remain as with the proposed project. This Alternative was rejected because the increase in grade percentage in order to re -align Golden Valley Road would be inconsistent with City Standards. Further, Golden Valley Road that will extend through the project site has two fixed points, one at the west end and the other at the north end of the road. The point west of the project site is fixed by the approved Riverpark Tentative Tract Map, where Golden Valley Road will extend from Newhall Ranch Road. The point north of the project site is fixed by the grading and construction of the road in the County of Los Angeles in relation to the 498 unit residential development being constructed by SunCal. i. Elimination of Ermine Street Connection. This alternative would have consisted of the project as proposed except without the public street vehicular connection between Golden Valley Road and Ermine Street. Two possible scenarios could have been examined; one with only emergency access at Ermine Street and the other with no physical connection. For circulation purposes, a connection from Ermine Street to Golden Valley Road would better serve the students and parents for both the junior high school and the elementary school for both the Keystone project and Ermine Street neighborhood residents. From both the William S. Hart School District and the Saugus Unified School District perspective, the connection of Ermine Street to Golden Valley Road is important for circulation purposes to transport students between the two neighborhoods and schools. For these reasons, this alternative with no physical connection of Ermine Street to Golden Valley Road was dismissed as not practical for traffic circulation purposes. j. Off-site Alternatives. Potential alternative project sites in the general vicinity that are similar in acreage and close to existing or planned infrastructure improved are currently proposed for other development and are thus unavailable as true Resolution No. 06-38 Page 18 alternative sites. Potential alternative sites that are beyond existing urbanized areas would induce growth. As such, off-site alternatives are considered infeasible. k. Modification of Project Description Based on Alternatives Discussion. As discussed in Section 1, above, during the Planning Commission consideration of this project, there were extensive discussions regarding the Ermine Street connection, and the number and type of housing units proposed. As a result of those and other comments, the project was modified as provided above in Section 1. These modifications have resulted in a reduction of the number of residential units from 979 to 499 dwelling units (96 Single Family, 223 Detached Single Family and 180 for -sale townhome units). These modifications to the project are a compilation of Alternatives "C" (Noise Setbacks) and "E" (Detached Single -Family). SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Keystone EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Keystone project and the Keystone EIR, upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and on behalf of each, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and to the City Council, the City Council further finds: a. That the Final EIR for the Keystone project is adequate, complete, and has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). b. That the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Final EIR in reaching its conclusions. C. That the Final EIR was presented to the City Council, the decision-making body, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to taking final action to approve the Keystone project. d. That, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, the Final EIR includes a description of each potentially significant impact and rationale for finding that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as detailed in Exhibit A. e. That, in accordance with the Public Resources Code Section 21081, modifications have occurred to the project to reduce significant effects. f. 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 Keystone project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect because feasible mitigation measures including in the MMRP are made conditions of approval for the project. Resolution No. 06-38 Page 19 g. That the Final EIR reflects the decision -maker's independent judgment and analysis. h. 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. i. 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 Keystone Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence, received at the public hearings held on the Keystone project and the Keystone EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, or on behalf of each, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and to the City Council, the City Council further finds that there is substantial evidence that supports the conclusion that the Keystone project will result in community benefits, including specific ecological, economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits, that outweigh the significant effects of the Keystone 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 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: (i) Aesthetics: Both project -level and cumulative impacts due to the conversion of the project site from vacant land to a man-made urban environment, including, without limitation, introduction of residential, institutional, and recreational development and associated infrastructure and lighting. Long-term and cumulative impacts associated with project operation. (ii) Air Quality: Short-term impacts during construction associated with construction -related emissions that exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PM10 during site grading, VOC and NOx during the peak construction phase when the school, YMCA, and first two residential phases are constructed, and NOx during the third residential development phase. Also, project -level and cumulative impacts associated with operation emissions that exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, and CO during both the summertime smog season and wintertime non -smog season. (iii) Noise: Short-term impacts during construction associated with construction -related ambient noise levels that exceed the City standards for daytime noise levels. Also, the original request proposed extension of Resolution No. 06-38 Page 20 Ermine Street to Golden Valley Road. As a result, cumulative impacts associated with operation -related ambient noise levels would permanently be raised by 9.0 dBA CNEL above the existing noise levels along Ermine Street, east of the project site, due to increased traffic as result of the roadway connection to Golden Valley Road. The revised project has eliminated the proposed Ermine Street roadway connection to Golden Valley Road and would include the provision of a cul-de-sac at the current terminus of the street, east of the project site. Therefore, the cumulatively considerable noise impact would be eliminated with the revised project and no statement of overriding considerations would be required for this cumulative impact. (iv) Public Services - Solid Waste: Short-term impacts during construction, as well as project -level and cumulative impacts associated with sending more solid waste to Los Angeles County landfills, further limiting their finite capacities. (v) Transportation/Traffic: Both project -level and cumulative impacts due to the project -generated traffic at nine intersections compared to the No Project Alternative with eight of the nine intersections forecasted to exceed City standards for level of service (LOS) at intersections with LOS "D". b. The benefits of the Keystone project outweigh its significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. These benefits include the following (see also Exhibit A hereto): (i) The project will provide the City with substantial improvements to portions of major highways designated in the City's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. (ii) The Keystone project would contribute $6,981,435 to the City of Santa Clarita's Bridge and Thoroughfare Fee program. This fee shall be paid prior to recordation. (iii) The Keystone 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. Resolution No. 06-38 Page 21 r, The Keystone project will create 499 new housing units, including 96 single-family lots, 223 single-family condominium lots, 180 multi -family residential units, which will provide a variety of housing opportunities needed to accommodate projected City and regional growth, and will in addition provide local jobs through the inclusion of the institutional (Junior High School) and recreational (YMCA center) uses. (iv) The Keystone project will provide these significant public benefits, including employment opportunities and increased residential densities, in close proximity to transportation corridors and centers, as well as an improved circulation network, including the acceleration of improvements to and extension of Golden Valley Road. (v) The Keystone project will preserve and/or dedicate approximately 150.6 acres of open space area, including approximately 17.4 acres of the Santa Clara River, 53.3 acres of natural open space lots, and 79.9 acres of graded lots. (vi) The Keystone project provides public recreational benefits, including the extension of the Santa Clara River Trail. The project will also provide a 6 - acre public park and on-site trails and knoll parks for general public accessibility. The Keystone provides community/fitness facilities opportunities with the dedication of land for the proposed YMCA and Junior High School sites. The Keystone project will also provide additional private recreational facilities available to its multi -family residents. 1. Dedication to the City of Santa Clarita and improvement of a 6 - acre active park that would include non -programmed sports fields, bathrooms, picnic areas, dog park area and a splash pad. 2. Extension of the City's River Trail System of pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian paths extending from west beyond the project site boundaries to connect to the eastern property line of the neighboring Riverpark project to the western end of the project site boundary. In addition, the project would contribute $200,000 to the City of Santa Clarita to be used for the future extension of the trail from the project site's western boundary. 3. Dedication to the City of Santa Clarita of 17.4 acres of the Santa Clara River for protection in perpetuity. 4. Dedication to the City of Santa Clarita of 0.5 acres (zoned IC) south of the Santa Clara River. 5. Dedication to the YMCA of a 4 -acre finished graded lot for construction of a fitness center. Resolution No. 06-38 Page 22 6. Contribution of parkland dedication fees at a rate of 5 acres per 1,000 people. 7. Extension of the Class 1 trail from Newhall Ranch Road along Golden Valley Road connecting to the Golden Valley Road extension north of the project site. (vii) The Keystone project would provide education amenities: 1. Dedication to the William S. Hart School District of a 21 -acre finished graded lot for construction of a junior high school accommodating approximately 1,600 students; 2. Contribution to the William S. Hart School District of 2 million dollars for the Districts performing arts program. (viii) The Keystone project provides enhanced landscaping along Golden Valley Road to further buffer these proposed residential units from roadways, and to reduce the visual impacts of these roadways for the future residents. (ix) The project places these uses in a sensible location for development. The project site is located in an area planned for development in a central portion of the Santa Clarita Valley as well as the City of Santa Clarita that is already surrounded by development or planned development, that is adjacent to or near existing and planned infrastructure, utilities and other urban services, public transit, transportation corridors, and major employment areas. The project site is bound to the north by residential uses under construction, to the east by the westerly extension of Ermine Street, to the south by the Santa Clara River, industrial uses, and the Keystone project site, to the southwest by recently approved residential/commercial development, and to the northwest by existing residential development. (x) The Keystone project has been designed to avoid most impacts to the Santa Clara River and surrounding habitat and to retain mature biological resources. The Keystone project preserves or retains approximately 150.6 acres of open space area, including approximately 17.4 acres of the Santa Clara River, approximately 53.3 acres of natural open space lots, and 79.9 acres of graded lots. The project design preserves four out of the five on- site oak trees and one out of the three off-site oak trees in place. Grading for the project would be balanced on site in terms of cut and fill. The project incorporates water quality site design and planning, source control and treatment best management practices (BMPs) as design features, in addition to mitigation measures. C. The City Council further finds, as follows: Resolution No. 06-38 Page 23 _ The Keystone project is within the level of growth projected for the City and the region by the Southern California Association of Governments, and represents an orderly progression of development that will aid in implementing the region's growth policies. The proposed uses are compatible with existing uses in the area and with the goals and policies of the General Plan, integrating residential and commercial densities appropriate to this area of the City with the preservation of environmental resources. The project, including its housing units and institutional uses (junior high school and YMCA), recreational and open space areas, infrastructure improvements and protection of resources, will improve the regional quality of life by developing an urban area that accommodates a diversity of life styles, preserves and protects open space and natural resources both on and off the project site, provides regional recreational amenities, is aesthetically pleasing, preserves the character of the community, and contributes to the regional circulation with extension of Golden Valley Road. The project was proposed in response to growth demands in the City and in the region, and incorporates all feasible mitigation to reduce its impacts on the environment. If the project were not approved, the housing units that it provides would likely still be needed in some other part of the City and/or the Santa Clarita Valley to help meet projected local and regional growth. (i) Visual Resources: Although the Keystone project creates both a project - level and a cumulative impact due to the conversion of the project site from vacant land to a man-made urban environment, including, without limitation, introduction of residential, institutional, and recreational development and associated infrastructure and lighting, these impacts, which remain after imposition of all feasible mitigation measures, are outweighed by the project's benefits, discussed above. 1. The project site is already surrounded by existing and planned development, and has been planned for dense and intense development. 2. Further, the Keystone project has been designed to be sensitive to its visual impacts. The two most prominent features (the Primary Ridgeline and the eastern portion of the existing southern canyon) on the site will be preserved, and the two Secondary Ridgelines will be re-created and re -aligned. The project site design preserves approximately 150.6 acres of open space area, including approximately 17.4 acres of the Santa Clara River, 53.3 acres of natural open space lots, and 79.9 acres of graded lots, as well as public trails, and neighborhood and private recreational facilities. 3. The project design preserves four out of the five existing on-site ^^ oak trees and one out of the three off-site oak trees in place. Grading for the project would be balanced on site in terms of cut and fill. The project incorporates water quality site design and Resolution No. 06-38 Page 24 planning, source control and treatment best management practices (BMPs) as design features, in addition to mitigation measures. 4. The Keystone site design preserves the Primary Ridgeline located at the northernmost boundary of the project site. The two Secondary Ridgelines would be re-created in similar locations to the existing ridgelines. Landform grading techniques would be implemented creating development pads for the residential, school and YMCA and park sites. The ridgelines would undulate with slopes of various gradients simulating surrounding topography. The slopes include peak elevations similar in height to the existing ridgelines, provide the base or side to the development pads and include berms to camouflage portions of the development. The project site is not visible from the north or west. The site design and grading techniques proposed would be effective in reducing the project's visual impact as seen from locations to the south. These existing ridgelines are not silhouetted against the sky in comparison to the Primary Ridgeline and are not areas of significant ecological, historical or cultural importance. Development on these ridgelines using the grading techniques proposed would not appear different than neighboring properties. The appearance of the re-created ridgelines would not be materially different than appearance of the adjoining ridgeline areas. The grading techniques proposed ensure that the natural character of the ridgelines are preserved. 5. Grading design will be similar to the variations of existing natural slopes within the Keystone project site. Curvilinear street design and cul-de-sacs are used in the single-family residential components of the project to soften graded slopes. 6. The manufactured slopes would be blended into the natural topography, and will be landscaped to foster a natural appearance. Landscaping and grading transitions from developed to natural drainage courses will be consistent and compatible with existing topography. Detention and retention basins would consist of natural vegetation to give appearance of a natural setting. 7. The Keystone project's building setbacks, building heights and compatible structures and building forms will be designed to blend with the surrounding terrain. All residential units will be of standard heights. Building forms will be consistent with the City's Architectural Guidelines. 8. Further reductions in the project's impacts are not feasible without precluding attainment of many of the project's more significant Resolution No. 06-38 Page 25 objectives. Alternative C, Compliance with Noise Setback and Preservation of Northern Secondary Ridgeline Alternative, was analyzed in the Final EIR, but was also found to preclude attainment of two of the project's more significant objectives, as set forth in Section 4, above. (ii) Air Oughty: Using the South Coast Air Quality Management District's emissions thresholds, the project EIR concluded that the project would generate significant and unavoidable air quality impacts during construction and operation, as well as cumulative impacts, primarily from mobile sources. These impacts, remaining after project revisions and imposition of all feasible mitigation measures, are outweighed by the project's benefits, listed above. 1. As described in Section 1, above, the project has been revised. The revisions that primarily affect the project's air quality impacts are the reduction in residential units from 979 to 499. These reductions will reduce the density of development and the number of trips generated by the project and, concomitantly, the mobile source emissions. 2. The project's significant unavoidable construction impacts will be short-term, and the project has been designed with mitigation and mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce the construction emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The project includes the following measures: the Applicant shall include in construction contracts the control measures required and recommended by the SCAQMD at the time of development. Examples of the types of measures currently required and recommended include the following: keep all construction equipment in proper tune in accordance with manufacturer's specifications; use late model heavy-duty diesel -powered equipment at the project site to the extent that it is readily available in the South Coast Air Basin; use diesel -powered equipment that has been retrofitted with after -treatment products (e.g., engine catalysts or cooled exhaust gas recirculation technology) to the extent that it is readily available in the South Coast Air Basin; use low -emission diesel fuel for all heavy-duty diesel -powered equipment operating and refueling at the project site to the extent that it is readily available and cost effective in the South Coast Air Basin (this does not apply to diesel -powered trucks traveling to and from the site); utilize alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) to the extent that the equipment is readily available and cost effective in the South Coast Air Basin; limit truck and equipment idling time to five minutes or less; rely on the electricity so Resolution No. 06-38 Page 26 infrastructure surrounding the construction sites rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent feasible; trucks hauling dirt, sand, gravel or soil are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code; construction access roads to the main roads should be paved to avoid dirt being carried on to the roadway; and a construction relations officer should be appointed to act as a community liaison to oversee on-site construction activity and all emissions and congestion related matters. With the exception of fugitive dust emissions (particulate matter) generated by ground disturbance and the re -entrainment of road dust into the air, which will be primarily controlled through implementation of a dust control plan and compliance with SCAQMD Rules 403 and 1186, the implementation of the above measures will control for the most part emissions from construction equipment (i.e., off-road mobile sources). Although these mitigation measures will significantly reduce these impacts, they will not reduce them to less than significant. Further emission reductions are not possible because these sources are under the State's control, rather than the City's control as are point or area sources. The State has adopted mandatory standards and voluntary programs and mandatory standards designed to reduce emissions from these heavy-duty diesel engines, especially particulate matter and NOX emissions. In addition, the SCAQMD is actively engaged in studying and implementing new programs to lessen harmful air pollutants from mobile sources. These programs and controls have improved the air quality generally in the South Coast Air Basin, and will continue to do so, over time. 3. The project will also generate significant unavoidable long-term and cumulative impacts associated with project operation (i.e., primarily mobile sources) and mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce the operational emissions to the maximum extent feasible. Such mitigation will include: Use light-colored roofing materials in construction to deflect heat away from buildings; use double -paned windows to reduce thermal loss in buildings; install solar panels on roofs to supply electricity for home -heating and cooling systems; and install automatic lighting on/off controls and energy-efficient lighting. The primary source of emissions associated with the Proposed Project is motor vehicles. No mitigation is available on a project -specific basis to reduce the number of vehicle trips to and from the project site and their associated emissions. The State has adopted voluntary programs and mandatory standards designed to reduce mobile Resolution No. 06-38 Page 27 source emissions, including, without limitation, particulate matter and NOx. In addition, the SCAQMD 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 have improved the air quality generally in the South Coast Air Basin, and will continue to do so, over time. Further, as automobile and truck engineering improves, and with the greater restrictions imposed on the emissions from mobile sources, the emissions generated by mobile sources will be reduced, as they have been reduced from previous higher levels. 4. With the exception of volatile organic compounds emitted as a result of 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. Such mitigation measures include: utilize low emission water heaters in residential, school and YMCA buildings; provide energy-efficient natural gas heating and cooking equipment; install ozone destruction catalyst on air conditioning systems, in consultation with the SCAQMD; require the commercial landscapers providing services at the common areas of project site to use electric or battery -powered equipment, or other internal combustion equipment that is either certified by the California Air Resources Board or is three yeas old or less at the time of use, to the extent that such equipment is reasonably available and competitively priced in Los Angeles County. Given the residential nature of the Keystone 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. 5. While the project's operational emissions would be unavoidably significant, it is important to understand that the project site is located in close proximity to job centers, and shopping and recreational amenities, such that the number of vehicle miles traveled to these locations would be reduced. Furthermore, the site is located in close proximity to local transit facilities, as well as to Metrolink, which links the City to many parts of southern California. Further, the project site would include bus stops and tum outs for bus service to the site and include Class 1 bicycle lane on Golden Valley Road connecting to the Class 1 bicycle lane on Newhall Ranch Road as well as connection to the Santa Clara Resolution No. 06-38 Page 28 River multi -use trail — these bicycle lanes provide access to nearby Metrolink as well as local employment and shopping centers. Consequently, because vehicle miles traveled are reduced, air emissions are reduced as well. The project is also consistent with the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan; therefore, based on SCAQMD methods of analysis, its emissions should not jeopardize the long-term attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards in the Santa Clarita Valley and the region. 6. Further, according to a study of regional ozone and particulate matter trends in the Santa Clarita Valley prepared by Environ International Corporation, commissioned by the applicant of the Keystone project, 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. In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District has recently released a study entitled "Santa Clarita Subregional Analysis," which confirms many of these findings, and concludes, inter alia, that emissions transported by weather conditions from the San Fernando Valley and the Los Angeles area dominate local ozone and particulate matter air quality in the Santa Clarita Valley, that emissions from uses in the Santa Clarita Valley contribute only approximately 2 percent to local ozone impact, and that local particulate emissions contribute only approximately 10 percent to the annual average observed PM10 concentrations in the Santa Clarita Valley. (iii) Noise: Although the Keystone project will create short-term outdoor noise impacts during construction, these impacts, remaining after imposition of all feasible mitigation measures, are outweighed by the project's benefits, discussed above. Further, the revised project does not include connection to Ermine Street as did under the Original Project evaluated in the Draft EIR in which cumulative operational noise impacts were identified as considerable for the Ermine Street residents at the project site's eastern boundary. With implementation of the Revised Project with no Ermine Street connection, this cumulatively considerable noise impact would not occur. 1. The project's unavoidable significant construction noise impacts will be short-term, and many will be intermittent rather than constant, and with compliance with the City's noise ordinances and imposition of mitigation measures, construction noise levels will Resolution No. 06-38 Page 29 be reduced to the maximum extent feasible. Further construction - phase noise reductions are not feasible, as these impacts will be caused by the use of heavy construction equipment needed for construction of the project, and no feasible alternative construction equipment is available. 2. The project's long-term impacts to onsite residential buildings along Golden Valley Road will be caused by mobile 'sources, rather than stationary sources. Mitigation measures have been recommended to ensure that future noise levels at the new residential buildings within the project site meet City standards. These measures were identified for the larger project for Lots 97, 98 and 100. The measures include increased setbacks of exterior porches or balconies from Golden Valley road to be estimated at 145 feet or barriers designed and constructed between the buildings and roadway approximately one foot above the roadway grade) and can be earthen berms or solid masonry walls (for Lot 97). Also may include design of buildings not to have balconies facing Golden Valley Road at affected locations for Lots 98 and 100 as identified in the Draft EIR. 3. Alternative C, Compliance with Noise Setbacks and Preservation of Northern Secondary Ridgeline, was analyzed, but did not meet two of the project's more significant project objectives, as set forth in Section 4, above. Further mobile source noise reductions are not possible because these sources are under the State's control, rather than the City's control, and because existing noise levels at the sensitive receptor locations impacted by the project are already experiencing noise above acceptable levels. 4. Given the residential nature of the Keystone uses, and with the mitigation imposed, project uses will not generate significant noise 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 (e.g., development of engines using alternative fuels, development of hybrid and electrical vehicles) and road engineering (e.g., continued use of rubberized pavement) improve, over time, less noise will be generated by mobile sources. (iv) Solid Waste Disposal: Although the Keystone 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 Resolution No. 06-38 Page 30 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. Recycling is estimated to reduce solid waste generation by at least 50 percent. Further solid waste disposal impact reductions are not possible, because these impacts are caused by the limited and finite amount of landfill space currently available in Los Angeles County. However, 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 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. (v) Traffic/Access: Although the Keystone project will generate significant and unavoidable long-term traffic impacts during project operation, these impacts, remaining after imposition of all feasible mitigation measures, are outweighed by the project's benefits, discussed above. 1. Traffic levels on the streets within the project study area are already high in their existing conditions. The project will provide roadway improvements, including the extension of Golden Valley Road to Newhall Ranch Road, which when built will substantially improve the level of service on Soledad Canyon Road. In addition, as stated above, the applicant would contribute $6,981,435 to the City's Bridge and Thoroughfare District to be used to improve traffic flow and minimize traffic congestion along the corridors impacted by project -related traffic, through traffic signal retiming and related infrastructure improvements. 2. Given the primarily residential nature of the Keystone uses, the project will not generate a substantial number of heavy truck or other heavy -vehicle traffic trips. 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. Moreover, through the project's dedication of rights-of-way for Golden Valley Road, and traffic signal mitigation fee, many of these impacts and those of other projects will, over time, be reduced by construction of additional roadway improvements. SECTION 7. The City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Final EIR SCH No.2004081017 and hereby determines that it is adequate and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.). In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 12081 and Resolution No. 06-38 Page 31 CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has considered the project benefits as balanced against the project's unavoidable adverse environmental effects and determine that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects; therefore, the City Council that the unavoidable adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR and associated documents, and adopts the project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). By the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council is certifying the environmental impact report and adopting a SOC that identifies the benefits of the project as balanced against its unavoidable environmental risks, but has not granted any approval or entitlement on this project. SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of April, 2006. MAYOR ATTEST: PAIQITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 25 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Smyth, McLean, Ferry, Weste NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMFMRERS: None DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Kellar � I lk r� 1�" ITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARTTA ) CERTIFICATION OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Resolution No. 06-38, adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California on April 25, 2006, 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 Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (Title 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15091), no public agency shall approve or carry out a project where an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless the public agency makes one or more findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale of each finding. The possible findings, which must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (hereafter, "CEQA Finding 1"). (2) Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency (hereafter, "CEQA Finding 2"). (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR (hereafter, "CEQA Finding 3"). For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a level below significance, the public 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. All Final EIR mitigation measures, as discussed below and as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Exhibit B, following), are incorporated by reference into these findings. In addition, the project revisions set forth in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Sections 6 and 7 (SOC), above, are incorporated by reference into these findings. In accordance with the provisions of CEQA (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines, the City adopts these findings as part of its certification of the Final EIR for the Keystone project. SECTION 1 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL The City Council has determined that, although project design, modifications to the project as originally proposed, EIR mitigation and conditions of approval imposed on the project will either avoid or provide substantial mitigation of the project's identified significant environmental effects, the following environmental effects cannot be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance. Consequently, in accordance with CEQA Guideline 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared to substantiate the City's decision to accept these unavoidable significant effects when balanced against the significant benefits afforded by the project. This section sets forth the significant unavoidable effects of the project, and with respect to each significant impact, identifies one or more of the required CEQA findings, states facts in support of these findings and refers to the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). 1.1 AESTHETICS VISUAL CHARACTER 1.1.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The conversion of the project site from primarily undeveloped land to a man-made environment, including, without limitation, residential, institutional, and recreational development and associated infrastructure and lighting, would, overall, be a significant change from the existing characteristics of the project site. 1.1.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3. 1.1.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts, together with the fact that no feasible mitigation measures are available, indicate that the significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that a significant visual character impact remains and is, thus, unavoidable. The project site is visible to the largest number of viewers from two view corridors: from adjacent residential development to the east and the west and from the existing development located south of the Santa Clara River. The views from these view corridors were analyzed through the use of visual simulations contained in the Final EIR. The project has been designed or mitigated to reduce the majority of its project -level impacts to a less than significant level, as set forth in the Final EIR. However, the conversion of the project site from a primarily undeveloped to a developed urban condition, including, without limitation, residential, institutional, and recreational development and associated infrastructure and lighting would, overall, be a significant change from the existing characteristics of the project site. Proposed development would also introduce sources of outdoor illumination, which do not presently exist; however outdoor lighting, such as streetlights and traffic signals, are essential safety features in development projects that involve new streets and intersections, and cannot be eliminated if the Proposed Project is implemented. _ As described above in the Resolution, the project has been designed in several respects that reduce the project's visual impacts. The project site is not visible from Bouquet Canyon or Plum Canyon. The multiple -family housing would be situated at a substantially lower elevation than the existing homes, and there would be substantial setbacks and landscaping to soften their visual impacts of the project both to neighboring residents and to members of the public generally viewing the project site from these viewing corridors. Further, the project design involves the grading and then re-creating and re -aligning of the two Secondary Ridgelines that are on site. In addition, the project has been modified to reduce the number of residential units from 979 to 499, reducing the amount of development that would be viewed from within the two view corridors. Even with these project modifications, however, views of the existing open space areas from each of the view corridors would still be materially altered due to development of proposed residential, institutional, and recreational uses on a primarily vacant site. Even as designed and modified, the project would result in the conversion of the site from vacant land to a man-made urban environment and the introduction of the Golden Valley Road extension to Newhall Ranch Road, and project -related impacts associated with visual character would be significant and unavoidable. Despite project design and modifications, project -related visual impacts caused by and associated with converting the project site from an undeveloped to a developed urban area cannot be reduced to a less -than -significant level. For the reasons stated here and in the SOC, the remaining unavoidable significant visual impacts are outweighed by the project's benefits and are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations. 1.2 AIR QUALITY CONSTRUCTION AND DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS 1.2.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Using the South Coast Air Quality Management District's emissions thresholds, the EIR concluded that implementation of the Proposed Project would generate significant and unavoidable construction -related emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NO.), and particulate matter (10 micron) (PMio), which would be generated primarily by on-site stationary sources, on- and off-road heavy-duty construction vehicles, and construction worker vehicles. At project build -out, project -related operational emissions of VOC, NO., and CO (carbon monoxide) would be significant and unavoidable, primarily due to mobile source emissions. 1.2.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3. 1.2.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts, together with Mitigation Measures C-1 and C-2, indicate that the significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that certain significant impacts on air quality remain and are unavoidable. Implementation of the Keystone project would generate both construction -related and operation - related pollutant emissions. Construction -related emissions would be generated by on-site stationary sources, on- and off-road heavy-duty construction vehicles, and construction worker vehicles. Operation -related emissions would be generated by on-site and off-site stationary sources and by mobile sources. During the 30 -month construction phase, emissions of particulate matter (10 micron) (PMI()), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and oxides of nitrogen (NO.) and would exceed thresholds of significance recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for approximately 7, 11, and 30 months, respectively. This is due to construction -related emissions exceeding the SCAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PM10 during site grading, for VOC and NOx during the peak construction phase when the school, YMCA, and first two residential phases are constructed, and for NOx during the third residential development phase. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures C-1 and C-2, the construction emissions of PM10,VOC, and NOx would remain significant and unavoidable. At project buildout, operational emissions of CO, VOC, and NOx would exceed SCAQMD thresholds, primarily due to mobile source emissions, during both the summertime smog season and wintertime no -smog season. However, no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the operational emissions significant and unavoidable impact. However, no project land use would be exposed to CO hotspots, and the project would not cause a CO hotspot at other locations with sensitive receptors in the project study area. In addition, population growth attributed to the project is within growth forecasts contained in the Growth Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG), which forms the basis for the land use and transportation control portions of the SCAQMD's 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Because the project is within the growth forecasts for the region, it would, consequently, be consistent with the AQMP, indicating that it would not jeopardize attainment of State and federal ambient air quality standards in the Santa Clarita Valley or throughout the South Coast Air Basin. As described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, the project has been revised. The revisions that primarily affect the project's air quality impacts are the reduction in residential units from 979 to 499. These reductions will reduce the density of development and the resulting number of trips generated by the project and, concomitantly, the mobile source emissions. Even with these project modifications, however, operational source emissions would still exceed SCAQMD thresholds for CO, VOC, and NOx. Even as designed and modified, the project would result in significant more operational emissions (due to significant more daily vehicle trips), and project - related impacts associated with operational emissions of CO, VOC, and NOx would be significant and unavoidable. Feasible mitigation measures, including Mitigation Measures C-1 and C-2, would be implemented, that would reduce construction -related emissions to the maximum extent feasible. However, no feasible mitigation currently exists which would reduce the project's construction - related emissions of PMit, VOC, or NO, to below the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance. In addition, no feasible mitigation exists to reduce the project's operational emissions of CO, VOC, or NO, to less -than -significant levels. Therefore, the project's construction -related and operation -related emissions would be considered unavoidably significant, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be necessary if the City were to approve the project. _ Although the project's operational emissions would be unavoidably significant, the project is located in close proximity to job centers, and shopping and recreational amenities, such that the number of vehicle miles traveled to these locations would be reduced. Furthermore, the site is in close proximity to local transit facilities, as well as to Metrolink, which links the City to many parts of southern California. Reductions in vehicle miles traveled reduce air emissions as well. As noted above, the project is also consistent with the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan; therefore, based on SCAQMD methods of analysis, its emissions should not jeopardize the long- term attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards in the Santa Clarita Valley and the region. For the reasons stated here and in the SOC, the remaining project -related significant and unavoidable air quality impacts associated with both construction and daily operational emissions are outweighed by the project's benefits and are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations. 1.3 NOISE CONSTRUCTION -RELATED 1.3.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Construction of the Keystone project would expose off-site residents to temporary construction noise impacts due to temporary noise levels that exceed the City standards for daytime noise levels at nearby residences. Project construction noise could intermittently exceed the noise limits adopted by the City for residential zones, resulting in temporary, episodic unavoidably significant noise impacts at nearby residences. 1.3.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3. 1.3.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts, together with Mitigation Measure K-1, indicate that the significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that certain significant noise impacts remain and are, thus, unavoidable. The Keystone project is located in the center of the Santa Clarita Valley as well as the City of Santa Clarita and is surrounded by existing residential and commercial development and primary roadway corridors. The Final EIR concludes that the project would generate significant construction noise impacts. Construction of the Keystone project would require site preparation, utility infrastructure installation, and roadway and building construction. Each of these construction phases typically involves the use of heavy-duty equipment, all of which could expose nearby residents to temporary noise impacts. Even with compliance with the City's noise ordinance and imposed mitigation measures, project construction noise could intermittently exceed the noise limits adopted by the City for residential zones, resulting in temporary, unavoidably significant construction noise impacts at nearby residences. While impacts due to project -level construction noise can be controlled or reduced, and have been controlled and/or reduced, through the imposition of Mitigation Measure K-1, they cannot feasibly be reduced to a level less than significant. The construction -related noise impacts will be temporary, and creation of the greatest impacts, from the use of heavy equipment for ground clearing, site grading, roadway and building construction, will also be intermittent rather than constant. For the reasons stated here and in the SOC, the remaining significant and unavoidable construction -related noise impacts, especially due to their temporary nature, are outweighed by the project's benefits and are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations. 1.4 PUBLIC SERVICES SOLID WASTE 1.4.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The project would generate unavoidably significant impacts. Site preparation (vegetation removal and grading activities) and construction activities would generate a total of approximately 7,668 tons, or an average of approximately 3,068 tons per year, of construction wastes over the 2.5 -year buildout of the project, assuming no recycling, or approximately 3,834 tons total over the 2.5 -year build -out period assuming a 50 percent diversion rate due to recycling. The project's construction -related solid waste impact would be considered unavoidably significant. Upon project build -out and assuming that solid wastes from the Proposed Project would not be recycled (a worst-case scenario), the project as originally proposed would have generated a total of 10,839 pounds of solid waste per day, or 1,979 tons per year and for the revised project approximately 4,090 pounds per day or 746 tons per year. Even with mitigation, therefore, the Proposed Project would result in project -related significant and unavoidable impacts until such time as other disposal alternatives adequate to serve existing and future uses for the foreseeable future are found, because landfill space is a finite resource. 1.4.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3. 1.4.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The following facts, together with Mitigation Measures N.3-1 through N.3-17, indicate that the significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that certain significant solid waste impacts remain and are, thus, unavoidable. As stated above, the project -level impacts have been concluded to be significant. Under the City's Model Ordinance, the uses within the project would be required to provide adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials in concert with County -wide efforts and programs to reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills. Although the project as originally proposed would generate about 1,979 tons per year of solid waste (and 746 tons per year for the revised project), it was also assumed that the project would meet the current recycling goals of the community and, in actuality, only generate approximately 990 tons per year due to City diversion rates and a mandate to divert at least 50 percent of potential waste disposal. Recent expansion approvals and proposals for expansion, as described in the Final EIR, at several County landfills compel the conclusion that solid waste disposal facilities and other options will be available in the future, and it is reasonable to assume that new facilities and other options will be created to meet this demand and to reap the financial benefits of providing this service. As discussed in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, the project has been revised in several respects. As pertinent to solid waste impacts, the project has been revised to reduce the number of residential units from 979 to 499. This reduction will result in a reduction to the total construction and operation waste generated by the project; however these reductions would not reduce the project's impacts to a less -than -significant level. While recycling and the imposition of Mitigation Measures K-1 through K-17 can and will reduce the amount of solid waste for which disposal is necessary, these measures cannot reduce the amount of solid waste to a level less than significant because of the finite nature of landfill space. However, for the reasons stated here and in the SOC, the remaining significant and unavoidable project -related construction and operational solid waste impacts are outweighed by the project's benefits and are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations. 1.5 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS) AT INTERSECTIONS 1.5.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. As the Keystone Draft EIR concludes, mitigation to reduce the project's impacts to a less -than -significant level is presently infeasible at nine intersections. Minimal amount of traffic generated by the project would result in significant impacts at these intersections. Implementation of Mitigation Measures (05 through 0-13), which would include the taking of off-site right-of-way, would mitigate traffic impacts associated with those deficient intersections. However, some of those identified intersections are at full build out, which would make the mitigation infeasible, even if the Cross Valley Connector (CVC) road and bridge were constructed and in operation. Therefore, the project -related impacts at these intersections are significant and unavoidable. 1.5.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3. 1.5.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts, together with Mitigation Measures 0-5 through 0-13, indicate that the significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that certain significant traffic impacts remain and are, thus, unavoidable. As indicated in the Keystone Final EIR, at build -out, the Proposed Project development would generate 10,477 average daily trips (ADT). Subsequent revisions to the project described in the Resolution above, primarily the reduction in residential density from 979 units to 499 units, will reduce this ADT by approximately half. Even so, and with implementation of Mitigation Measure 0-5 through 0-14, the traffic impact analysis, using both the City of Santa Clarita performance standards and Congestion Management Program standards, found that the project at build -out would significantly impact the following nine intersections: Existing Intersections • Valencia Boulevard & Magic Mountain Parkway • Bouquet Canyon Road & Soledad Canyon Road • Bouquet Canyon Road & Newhall Ranch Road • Sierra Highway & Placerita Canyon Road • Sierra Highway & Golden Valley Road • Whites Canyon Road & Soledad Canyon Road Future Intersections • Golden Valley Road & Via Princessa • Golden Valley Road & Newhall Ranch Road Freeway On/Off Ramp Intersection • Sierra Highway & SR -14 Southbound Ramps These nine intersections experience a significant impact due to the project -related traffic when compared to the no project scenario, and eight of those intersections are forecasted to exceed LOS D. Two scenarios have been analyzed in the Final EIR in which the planned Cross Valley Connector (CVC) roadway is either not built or is only partially built before the occupancy of the Proposed Project. One scenario examined only construction of the CVC east of Bouquet Canyon road to serve only the neighboring Riverpark project (recently approved by City Council). Keystone traffic would access the site via Golden Valley Road at Plum Canyon Road. The second scenario examined the construction of the CVC to the west of the site for project access (with access as well to Plum Canyon Road on the north) but the bridge over the Santa Clara River is not completed but the Golden Valley Road/Soledad Canyon Road flyover is operational. For both scenarios, the neighboring Riverpark project is built with only 500 residential units. Under the first scenario eight intersections would be significantly impacted, and under the second scenario four intersections would be significantly impacted. The following are the significantly impacted intersections: • McBean Parkway & Newhall Ranch Road (Scenario 2) • Bouquet Canyon Road & Soledad Canyon Road (Scenarios 1 & 2) • Bouquet Canyon Road & Newhall Ranch Road (Scenarios 1 & 2) • Seco Canyon Road & Bouquet Canyon Road (Scenario 1) • Haskell Canyon Road & Bouquet Canyon Road (Scenario 1) • Whites Canyon Road & Soledad Canyon Road (Scenario 1 & 2) • Santa Catarina/GVR & Plum Canyon Road (Scenario 1) • Bouquet Canyon Road & Plum Canyon Road (Scenario 1) • Valley Center & Soledad Canyon Road (Scenario 1) Intersections of particular importance to the project for these scenarios are Bouquet Canyon Road at Plum Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon Road at Newhall Ranch Road. Without the CVC, each of these intersections shows deficiencies without project traffic added. Without the relief provided by the CVC, even a small amount of additional traffic added to these locations will result in a significant impact. Even a minimal amount of traffic from the project site results in significant impacts at the identified locations and that implementation of an early phase of the Keystone project are not feasible without the CVC. The project applicant would contribute $6,981,435 to the City's Bridge and Thoroughfare District to be used to improve traffic flow and minimize traffic congestion along the corridors impacted by project -related traffic, through traffic signal retiming and related infrastructure improvements. For the reasons stated here and in the SOC, the remaining project -related significant and unavoidable impacts related to traffic levels of service at intersections are outweighed by the project's benefits and are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations. SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT HAVE BEEN MITIGATED TO A LEVEL LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL OR THAT ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT The City Council has determined that, where the Final EIR found the project would have potentially significant project -level effects, project revisions, mitigation measures and conditions of approval will substantially mitigate those environmental effects, and that, as a result, those effects have been mitigated to a level less than significant, as follows. This section sets forth the potentially significant effects of the project, and with respect to each such impact, identifies one or more of the required CEQA findings and states facts in support of these findings. 1.6 AESTHETICS LIGHT 1.6.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. New lighting associated with the Proposed Project would not be directly visible from either Plum Canyon or Bouquet Canyon, although an increase in sky "glow" may be detectible from these areas, particularly on cloudy nights. The new lighting could be perceptible from residential areas to the south; however, there is substantial distance (approximately one mile or more) between the project site and the more light sensitive residential areas in the hillsides south of the Santa Clara River. The mitigating effect of this distance would be expected to render this lighting impact less than significant. The existing residential communities adjacent to the east and west sides of the project site would experience the greatest night lighting impact: the conversion of dark nighttime hillsides into an illuminated community. For residents in these areas, the Proposed Project would create new sources of substantial light. Therefore, this impact would be considered significant, and mitigation is required. 1.6.2 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.6.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with lighting would be reduced to a less -than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures B-1 through B-6. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would result in a reduction in lighting, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. 1.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES ,.. Coastal Sage Scrub 1.7.2 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The Proposed Project site includes a total of approximately 100.07 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS). Grading for the Proposed Project would permanently impact 86.00 acres of CSS, which includes 0.70 acres of fuel modification impacts. The remaining 14.07 acres will be retained within Natural Open Space. The total loss represents about 86 percent of this habitat type on the site and would be considered a significant impact prior to mitigation. In addition, The Keystone site is within an area designated as critical habitat for the federally listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher and CSS is considered to be a Primary Constituent Element (PCE) that could provide for breeding, foraging and dispersal for this species. The loss of CSS, because it is within designated critical habitat and would be considered to be a PCE, and the loss would be a significant impact 1.7.3 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.7.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with coastal sage scrub would be reduced to a less - than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure D-1. The project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, would result in a similar development envelope and, therefore, would result in a similar impact related to affected coastal sage scrub as concluded within the Final EIR. Chaparral 1.7.4 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The Proposed Project site includes a total of approximately 85.18 acres of Chaparral. Grading for the Proposed Project would permanently impact 57.85 acres of chaparral, which includes approximately 4.72 acres of fuel modification impacts. The remaining 27.33 acres will be retained within Natural Open Space. The total loss represents about 67.9 percent of this habitat type on the site. While chaparral is widespread and common it has no designation in the California Natural Diversity Database as a special -status habitat. The project site is within an area designated as critical habitat for the federally listed threatened California Gnatcatcher and chaparral is considered to be a Primary Constituent Element (PCE) that could provide for breeding, foraging and dispersal for this species. The loss of chaparral is potentially significant because it is within the designated critical habitat and would be considered to be a PCE. 1.7.5 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.7.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with chaparral would be reduced to a less -than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure D-2. The project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, would result in a similar development envelope and, therefore, would result in a similar impact related to affected chaparral as concluded within the Final EIR. Southern Cottonwood -Willow Riparian Habitat 1.7.7 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The Proposed Project site totals approximately 3.09 acres of southern cottonwood -willow riparian forest. Grading for the Proposed Project would permanently impact 2.44 acres of riparian forest. The remaining 0.65 acres will be retained within Natural Open Space. The loss represents about 78.9 percent of this habitat on the site and would be a significant impact. 1.7.8 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.7.9 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with southern cottonwood -willow riparian habitat would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure D- 3. The project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, would result in a similar development envelope and, therefore, would result in a similar impact related to affected southern cottonwood -willow riparian habitat as concluded within the Final EIR. COMMON WILDLIFE 1.7.10 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Construction activity and grading operations, associated with development of the Proposed Project would temporarily disturb common wildlife species on that occupy the site. Many mobile species (e.g., avifauna) would be expected to relocate to other areas of similar habitat within the vicinity of the site. Because of the relatively common character and widespread distribution of many or most of the wildlife species that would be displaced or lost as a result of construction activities, such impacts are not considered significant. It should be noted that in the absence of mitigation, a number of bird species could be adversely affected as a result of implementation of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project includes removal of mature trees and shrubs from the property. Construction -related activities could result in the direct loss of active nests or the abandonment of active nests by adult birds during the nesting season. The Migratory Bird Treaty and the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the take — defined as destroy, harm, harass, etc.— bird nest with eggs or young. 1.7.11 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.7.12 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with common wildlife would be reduced to a less -than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures D-5 and D-6. The project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, would result in a similar development envelope and, therefore, would result in a similar impact related to affected common wildlife as concluded within the Final EIR. SPECIAL STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES (OAK TREES) 1.7.13 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Of the eight oak trees found within the project study area, five oaks are located within the project site boundaries, east of the LADWP right-of- way. Oak tree number 0-8, within the project site boundaries, would be removed during grading of a slope in Lot 115. The remaining four oak trees (0-3, 0-4, 0-5, and 0-7) that are clustered together immediately adjacent to the right-of-way would be preserved in situ in an open space area not proposed for development. The remaining three oak trees are situated outside the project site boundaries. Two of these trees (0-2 and 0-6) are located in close proximity to the future alignment of the Golden Valley Road extension to Newhall Ranch Road. The project applicant would construct the road as its necessary to provide project site access. One of these trees (0-1) would be preserved in situ as it would not be within the roadway right-of-way. Three oak trees (0-2, 0-6 and 0-8) would be removed by construction of the Proposed Project and the Golden Valley Road extension. 1.7.14 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.7.15 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with oak trees would be reduced to a less -than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure D-4. The project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, would result in a similar development envelope and, therefore, would result in a similar impact related to affected oak trees as concluded within the Final EIR. MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT COMPLIANCE 1.7.16 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Pursuant to the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, it is unlawful to "take" (i.e., capture, kill, pursue, or possess) migratory birds or their nests. Removal of vegetation associated with project implementation should not take place during the nesting season for most birds (January 31 to August 1) and for migratory birds (March 15 — August 15). The loss of an active nest of a migratory bird would be significant. With implementation of the recommended mitigation, this potential impact would be reduced to less - than -significant. 1.7.17 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.7.18 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with Migratory Bird Treaty Act compliance would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures D-5 and D-6. The project revisions described in Section I of the Resolution, above, would result in a similar development envelope and, therefore, would result in a similar impact related to Migratory Bird Treaty Act compliance as concluded within the Final EIR. JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES 1.7.19 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Grading of the project would result in impacts to 1.22 acres of Waters of the United States, which less than 0.01 acre consists of Corps _ jurisdictional wetlands. The loss of 1.22 acres of Waters of the United States is considered a significant impact. Grading for the project would also result in impacts to 4.26 acres of CDFG jurisdictional streambeds and is considered a significant impact. 1.7.20 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.7.21 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with jurisdictional resources would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures D-7 and D-8. The project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, would result in a similar development envelope and, therefore, would result in a similar impact related to jurisdictional resources as concluded within the Final EIR. HABITAT ADJACENT TO SANTA CLARA RIVER RIPARIAN AREA 1.7.22 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Upland habitat within 100 feet from riparian wildlife species is necessary to maintain species diversity within the riparian ecosystem and adequately buffer this ecosystem from adjacent incompatible land uses. Temporary grading would be allowed in the 100 -foot buffer if the area is revegetated with native habitats following completion of grading. With incorporation of native habitat into the 100 -foot buffer area, any impacts to the Santa Clara River would be reduced to less than significant. 1.7.23 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.7.24 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with habitat adjacent to Santa Clara River riparian area would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure D- 9. The project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, would result in a similar development envelope and, therefore, would result in a similar impact related to habitat adjacent to Santa Clara River riparian area as concluded within the Final EIR. COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER HABITAT UNIT 13 1.7.25 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Essentially, the entire Keystone site is located within Critical Habitat Unit 13 for the federally listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher, which was not identified on the site during focused protocol surveys. Nevertheless, the 85.3 acres of CSS and 53.13 acres of chaparral on the site, totaling approximately 138.43 acres, are considered to comprise Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) that could potentially provide for breeding, foraging and dispersal for this species. As noted under plant communities above, the loss of CSS and chaparral, totaling 138.43 acres combined within Critical Habitat Unit 13 would be a significant impact. 1.7.26 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.7.27 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with California Gnatcatcher Habitat Unit 13 would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure D-10 AND D-11. The project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, would result in a similar development envelope and, therefore, would result in a similar impact related to California Gnatcatcher Habitat Unit 13 as concluded within the Final EIR. INCREASED HUMAN AND DOMESTIC ANIMAL PRESENCE -- 1.7.28 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Implementation of the Proposed Project would increase human and domestic animal presence in the area. The River already receives a certain amount of equestrian and off-road vehicle use, as well as domestic animal use, an increase in these uses as a result of project implementation, taken together, could substantially effect the quality of these areas as wildlife habitat, would potentially interfere with movement of wildlife, and would potentially reduce the population of wildlife species, including special -status bird and fish species. Therefore, the increased use of the river areas by humans and domestic animals is considered a significant impact. 1.7.29 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.7.30 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with increased human and domestic animal presence would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures D-12 through D-17. The project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, would result in a similar development envelope and, therefore, would result in a similar impact related to increased human and domestic animal presence as concluded within the Final EIR. LIGHTING AND GLARE 1.7.31 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The development of a residential community and YMCA and junior high school would increase the number of nighttime light and glare sources on the site over current levels, which are relatively low. Because of the potential disruption to breeding and foraging behavior of wildlife species remaining on, and adjacent to, and in proximity to the project site, increased nighttime lighting and glare is considered a potentially significant impact. 1.7.32 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.7.33 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with lighting and glare would be reduced to a less - than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure D-18. The project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, would result in a similar development envelope and, therefore, would result in a similar impact related to lighting and glare potentially disrupting wildlife behavior as concluded within the Final EIR. INCREASE IN POPULATION OF NON-NATIVE SPECIES 1.7.34 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Non-native plant and wildlife species are typically attracted to developed and urban environments and potentially displace native species because of their ability to complete more effectively for resources. However, because various levels of development essentially surround the project site, non-native and urban -adapted plant species already occur on the project site and surrounding area. Consequently, the project is not exposed. Therefore, impacts on the remaining natural areas as result of potential increases in '—' non-native plants and wildlife resulting from project implementation are not expected to be significant. However, incorporation of native planting into buffer areas along the Santa Clara River would ensure that impacts to the river are less than significant. 1.7.35 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.7.36 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with increased population of non-native species would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure D-19. The project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, would result in a similar development envelope and, therefore, would result in a similar impact related to increased population of non-native species as concluded within the Final EIR. 1.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES HISTORICAL RESOURCES 1.8.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. According to the Phase I that was prepared for the project, although no evidence of historical resources was found on the project site, the project site is moderately sensitive for historical resources and unknown resources could be uncovered during project construction. If proper care is not taken during grading and excavation activities, these unknown resources could be damaged or destroyed. Therefore, project impacts on unknown historical resources would be significant. 1.8.2 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.8.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with historical resources would be reduced to a less - than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures E.1-1 through E.1-4. The project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, would result in a similar development envelope and, therefore, would result in a similar impact related to historical resources as concluded within the Final EIR. PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1.8.4 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. One prehistoric archaeological site (CA -LAN - 0295) and two prehistoric isolates have been recorded within a one mile radius of the project site. According to the Phase I that was prepared for the project, the site appears to be clear of any known, potentially significant resources and not likely to yield buried deposits. Given the archaeological -sensitivity of the area, it is possible that during the project's construction phase, unknown prehistoric archaeological resources could be encountered. Without proper care during grading and excavation, unknown resources could be damaged or destroyed. Therefore, project impacts on unknown prehistoric archaeological resources would be significant. 1.8.5 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.8.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with prehistoric archaeological resources would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures E.1-1 through E.1-4. The project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, would result in a similar development envelope and, therefore, would result in a similar impact related to prehistoric archaeological resources as concluded within the Final EIR. HUMAN REMAINS 1.8.7 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. No evidence has been uncovered that the project would disturb any human remains. Contact with the Native American Heritage Commission resulted in no written comments and no specific concerns with respect to potential resources on the site. However, it is possible during the project's construction phase that human remains could be uncovered. Therefore, project impacts on unknown human remains would be significant. 1.8.8 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.8.9 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with human remains would be reduced to a less -than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure E.2-1. The project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, would result in a similar development envelope and, therefore, would result in a similar impact related to disturbance of human remains as concluded within the Final EIR. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1.8.10 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Although earth -moving activities would be relatively short term, some fossil remains, unrecorded fossil sites, associated specimen data, and _ corresponding geologic and geographic site data, and the fossil -bearing strata could be lost. The potential loss of these paleontological resources would be significant. Therefore, project impacts on paleontological resources would be significant. 1.8.11 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.8.12 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with paleontological resources would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures E.3-1 through E.3-7. The project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, would result in a similar development envelope and, therefore, would result in a similar impact related to paleontological resources as concluded within the Final EIR. 1.9 GEOLOGY AND SOILS EARTHQUAKES, LANDSLIDES, MUDSLIDES, GROUND FAILURE, OR SIMILAR HAZARDS 1.9.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The Geologic and Geotechnical Report prepared for the project site determined that impacts exposing people or property to geologic hazards related to earthquakes, landslides/mudslides, ground failure associated with liquefaction, transition lots, groundwater and soil corrosivity would be less than significant with incorporation of the required mitigation measures. 1.9.2 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.9.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with seismic hazards would be reduced to a less -than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures F-1 and F-2. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with seismic hazards, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. WIND OR WATER EROSION OF SOILS 1.9.4 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Wind and water erosion of the project site would increase during construction activities unless mitigated, and this would result in a significant construction -related impact. With proposed mitigation, impacts would be less than significant. Once developed, site erosion and sedimentation would decrease substantially compared to existing conditions because the project site would be covered with non-erosive surfaces, including pavement, structures, and permanent vegetation, all which would reduce the amount of exposed soil subject to wind and water erosion. Also, implementation of the existing provisions in the City's grading requirements for planting and irrigation of constructed slopes in conjunction with drainage recommendations would provide sufficient mitigation against potential erosion within the project site. As a result, long-term project impacts would be less than significant. 1.9.5 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.9.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with soil erosion would be reduced to a less -than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures F-25 through F-30 and F-41. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with soil erosion, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. UNSTABLE EARTH CONDITION OR CHANGES IN GEOLOGIC SUBSTRUCTURE 1.9.7 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Development over the existing undocumented fill would result in a significant geotechnical impact unless mitigated. With proposed mitigation, impacts would be less than significant. 1.9.8 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.9.9 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with soil stability would be reduced to a less -than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures F-3 through F-24 and F-31 through F-40. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with soil stability, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. 1.10 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ROUTINE TRANSPORT, USE OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/RISK OF UPSET 1.10.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The services of properly trained and qualified hazardous waste handlers shall be used to perform hazardous waste cleanup or abatement, transportation and disposal prior to construction and appropriate protocol will be followed to ensure that construction workers are not exposed to toxic substances. Therefore, hazardous materials impacts relative to exposure to hazardous substances during disposal would be less than significant with mitigation. The site assessment report indicated that the former oil well and drill site had been abandoned in 1964 in accordance with applicable regulations. However, the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment report did not map the exact location of the oil well and referred to the area as the "southwest" portion of the site. It is recommended as mitigation that additional environmental assessment be provided documenting the exact location of the oil well. Since the oil well was abandoned in 1964 it is recommended that the well be re -abandoned to current standards. With this mitigation, impacts would be less than significant with regards to the oil well. Based on aerial photography review, farming activity occurred in the late 1920s and continued sometime between the 1950s and 1960s on the southern plateau area east of the LADWP easement. Mining activities for aggregate resources also occurred on the same southern plateau during the 1960s. Approximate cuts appear to have been in excess of 30 feet, but less than 50 feet. There are some fill soils remaining from the mining activities in the southern portion of the southern plateau. Based upon exploration performed by AES, artificial fill up to 14 feet was encountered. No traces of pesticides were identified in the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments for the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. The Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in an accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. The proposed YMCA building, the junior high school and the residential dwelling units would utilize limited quantities of common cleaning and maintenance materials, which would be shipped, stored, used and disposed of in accordance with applicable statutes. Based on the amount expected to be stored, nature of packaging, materials involved, and the Proposed Project's required compliance with applicable regulations, the risk from use of these materials is considered to be low and impacts would be less than significant. 1.10.2 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.10.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final E1R concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials or the risk of upset would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures G-1 and G-2. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials or the risk of upset, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. OTHER PAST USAGE 1.10.4 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. A Phase 1 Site Assessment revealed that a water well was found on the project site, in the area east of the LA DWP easement in the southwestern portion of that area. The presence of the well does not represent a recognized environmental hazardous condition. However, an uncapped or un -abandoned well can serve as a conduit for contaminants to groundwater. The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment recommends that the well be plugged and abandoned in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. With implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be less than significant. 1.10.5 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.10.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with other past usage would be reduced to a less -than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure G-3. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with other past usage, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. 1.11 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY WATER QUALITY STANDARDS/WASTE DISCHARGE 1.11.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The Proposed Project includes a mix of uses all having the potential to directly and indirectly impact water quality through point and nonpoint sources given their proximity to the Santa Clara River. In addition, short-term construction activities also have the potential to cause a variety of water quality impacts. Therefore, project impacts are considered potentially significant and mitigation is required. 1.11.2 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.11.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with water quality standards and waste discharge would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures H- 1 through H-3. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with water quality standards and waste discharge, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. ALTERATION OF EXISTING DRAINAGE AND EROSION 1.11.4 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Two detention basins will be provided on site to offset increases in two year storm flows as a result of project implementation. A reduction in sedimentation and debris production (15,948 cubic yards to 8,401 cubic yards) is a result of reduced erosion of the site due to coverage of much of the development area with pavement, roofs, vegetation, and other non-erosive surfaces. It is also a result of the proposed debris basins that would capture sediment and debris in upstream runoff. With these improvements in place, the project would reduce post -construction impacts on- and off-site erosion, downstream sedimentation, and debris production and transport and, therefore, a less than significant impact. 1.11.5 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.11.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with alteration of existing drainage and erosion would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures H-4 and H-15 through H-18. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with alteration of existing drainage and erosion, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. ALTERATION OF EXISTING DRAINAGE AND FLOODING 1.11.7 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The Proposed Project would make alterations to the existing drainage pattern on the project Site by placing fill in canyons and directing surface runoff into storm drainage facilities. However, all site runoff would continue to flow in approximately the same location as it does currently and would be discharged to the Santa Clara River. Compared to existing site conditions during a 50 -year storm, both burned and burned and bulked volumes would be reduced by approximately 14 percent. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite. 1.11.8 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.11.9 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with alteration of existing drainage and flooding would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure H-5. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with alteration of existing drainage and flooding, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. PROJECT RUNOFF WATER AND STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS/ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF POLLUTED RUNOFF 1.11.10 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The Proposed Project would increase the amount of runoff from those areas of the site that would be covered by roads, buildings, paved parking areas, and other relatively impermeable or impervious features. Burned and bulked flows would be reduced as a result of the proposed upstream debris basins that would capture upstream bulk flows and allow debris to settle out from the runoff before it enters the storm system through the developed portion of the site. As a result, there would be a net decrease in runoff and the project would not result in downstream flooding. Since storm flows from upstream areas would be channeled through the site in facilities designed for the 50 -year capital storm, and since on-site runoff would be accommodated in facilities designed for the 25 -year Urban Design Storm pursuant to LACDPW requirements, no -site or upstream flooding inadequately designed storm drainage facilities would occur. Also, the inclusion of BMPs in the project design can be expected to prevent substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts associated would be less than significant. 1.11.11 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.11.12 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with project runoff water and stormwater drainage systems as well as additional sources of polluted runoff would be reduced to a less -than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures H-7 through H-10. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with project runoff water and stormwater drainage systems as well as additional sources of polluted runoff, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. PROJECT DEGRADATION OF WATER QUALITY 1.11.13 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The Proposed Project has the potential to degrade water quality as a result of onsite sewage generation. The Proposed Project would connect to public sewers and its sewage would be treated by the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System. There would be no onsite sewage disposal and the Proposed Project is not expected to otherwise substantially degrade water quality. 1.11.14 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.11.15 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with project runoff water and stormwater drainage systems as well as additional sources of polluted runoff would be reduced to a less -than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures H-1, H-2, H-6, and H-11 through H-13. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with project runoff water and stormwater drainage systems as well as additional sources of polluted runoff, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. EXPOSURE OF PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO A RISK OF LEVEE OR DAM FAILURE 1.11.16 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. As discussed above, the project site is not in the potential inundation area of an upstream levee or dam. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. 1.11.17 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.11.18 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with exposure of people or structures to a risk of levee or dam failure would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures H-14 and H-16. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with exposure of people or structures to a risk of levee or dam failure, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. 1.12 NOISE OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS ON SITE 1.12.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Future exterior noise levels at most of the proposed land use locations, as well as interior noise levels throughout the project area would not exceed City standards. However, the future exterior noise levels at several of the buildings proposed along Golden valley Road could exceed City standards. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems would be installed for the new buildings within the Proposed Project site. Residential HVAC systems result in noise levels that average between 40 and 50 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the equipment. These noise levels would not exceed the City's exterior noise standards. Future residents of the project site could be exposed to exterior noise levels that exceed City standards. This would be a potentially significant noise impact. 1.12.2 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.12.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with on-site operational noise levels would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures K-2 through K-4. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with on-site operational noise levels, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. 1.13 PUBLIC SERVICES POLICE PROTECTION 1.13.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. During the construction phase, additional LASD's services would be required in the project area, as the project site would increase the number of people on-site from existing demand. This increase in daytime population would vary depending on the type of construction activity (i.e. site grading, construction of structures, infrastructure improvements, etc.). Therefore, during the construction phase, private security patrols would be utilized to protect the project site; thereby, reducing potential demands on the existing LASD's resources. In addition, temporary fencing would also be installed around the construction site to keep out the curious. With implementation of the mitigation measures, no significant short-term construction impacts are anticipated. Assuming a residential density of 3.056 persons per dwelling unit, the Proposed Project would generate a population increase of 2,992 persons. Recreational uses would provide a trail system linking to the Santa Clara River Trail and a YMCA facility and a proposed junior high school would provide additional educational facilities for the existing and proposed residential development. Consequently, an increase in the number of requests for assistance calls for the police services from new homes would be expected. The LASD's resources are already strained by a chronic shortage of uniformed officers, a situation that may not improve in the foreseeable future. The Proposed Project would include significant crime prevention design features and as the project is developed, tax revenues from property and sales taxes would be generated and deposited in the City of Santa Clarita General Fund. A portion of these revenues would then be allocated, in accordance with the City of Santa Clarita and County of Los Angeles contractual service agreement, to maintain staffing and equipment levels for the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Substation in response to related demands. Although the project would increase demands for Sheriff's services, these service demands can be met through the allocation of revenues collected from the project using existing sources. Though the Proposed Project could increase staffing levels at the Sheriff's substation, the increase in staff and equipment would not result in the need to physically alter the physical plant (Santa Clarita Sheriff's Substation), construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain service ratios and response time. Consequently, impacts on the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Substation would be less than significant. 1.13.2 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.13.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final ETR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with police protections services would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures M.1-1 through M.1-6. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with police protection services, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. FIRE PROTECTION 1.13.4 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Construction of the Proposed Project would increase the potential for accidental wildfires from such sources as the operation of mechanical equipment in close proximity to fire -prone vegetation, use of flammable construction materials, and from carelessly discarded cigarettes. In most cases, the implementation of "good housekeeping" procedures by the construction contractors and the work crews would minimize these hazards. Nonetheless, as the Proposed Project's construction -related activities would increase the potential for starting a wildfire, and since LACFD has determined that the development of the Proposed Project would require additional manpower, equipment and facilities, without proper mitigation measures a potentially significant impact would occur. The intensification of land uses combined with the increase in human activity on the project site and due to the location of the project site in an area designated as VHFHSZ would result in an increase in fire hazards and other associated needs for fire protection services. As such, the Proposed Project would meet all applicable County and City fire codes, including those related to commercial, institutional, and residential uses per the LACFD with respect to street width, turning radius and access for emergency vehicles and location and number of fire hydrants. Specifically, the Proposed Project would implement a fuel modification plan. The Fire Department has stated that no fire station is required for development mitigation for this specific project. Nonetheless, based on a preliminary review of the Proposed Project, the LACFD has determined that additional manpower, equipment, and facilities would be needed to serve the Proposed Project in order to maintain adequate staffing and response times. Therefore, without appropriate mitigation measures a potentially significant impact would occur. 1.13.5 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.13.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with fire protections services would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures M.2-1 through M.2-8. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with fire protection services, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. SCHOOLS 1.13.7 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The development of the Proposed Project would bring new students into the Saugus Unified School District (SUSD) and the William S. Hart School District (HUSD), as 979 new dwelling units would be built. As such, 334 additional students associated with the Proposed Project would be generated as a result of project implementation. The schools in the SUSD, which would serve the project site are currently operating under capacity and could accept additional students generated by the Proposed Project without exceeding capacity. Consequently, the project would not require additional facilities, such as additional classrooms, to accommodate its students. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. The junior and high school students, which could possibly be introduced to the HUSD by the Proposed Project would attend schools which are currently over capacity. The School Funding Agreement between the applicant and HUSD would provide a `Fair Share' mitigation -- fee to the HUSD that would ensure adequate school capacity to serve this project. In addition, the Proposed Project proposes to sell a portion of the project site to HUSD for the construction of a junior high school. 1.13.8 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.13.9 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with school services would be reduced to a less -than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure M.3-1. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce the number of total students from 319 to 279, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. PARKS 1.13.10 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Future residents of the project site would increase the demand for recreational facilities and opportunities in the project area. The Keystone project includes active recreational facilities for public use, including ball fields and courts located at the junior high, and trails and open space uses. In addition, each multi -family community would contain active recreation area including swimming pools, children's play areas, etc. However, the project is required to pay Quimby fees that would satisfy the need for any new or physically altered parks or recreational facilities in order to maintain current service ratios. Therefore, project impacts on parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. 3.13.11 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.13.12 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with park services would be reduced to a less -than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure M.5-1. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with park services, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. 1.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS WATER 1.14.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The Water Supply Assessment for the Proposed Project concluded that "there will be sufficient water supply available when The Keystone project is ready for occupancy, in addition to existing and other planned future uses." Therefore, it is anticipated that the future water supplies will meet the demand of the Proposed Project in addition to the existing demand and the associated impact would be less than significant. Nonetheless, mitigation measures are recommended to further reduce the Proposed Project's less -than -significant impact on water supplies and to support the water conservation efforts of the CLWA. The number of water connections that would be added to the existing water supply system in the Santa Clarita Valley is within the growth projections in the 2000 UWMP, as amended. As discussed in the Water Supply Assessment for the Proposed Project, the 2000 UWMP assumed an average growth rate of 2,240 connections per year based on the average growth rate that occurred during the 1990s. The Proposed Project would add approximately 331 residential connections, which is less than the annual average anticipated by the 2000 UWMP and is, therefore, considered to be accounted for in the 2000 UWMP, as amended. 1.14.2 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.14.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with water services would be reduced to a less -than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures N.1-1 through N.1-4. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with water services, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. WASTEWATER 1.14.4 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The amount of construction -related wastewater that would be generated would not have a significant impact on local disposal or treatment facilities due to the expected low volume of waste. Upon completion, the Proposed Project would generate approximately 235,431 gallons of sewage per day. The existing Soledad Canyon trunk line in the project vicinity has a design capacity of 3.9 mgd and currently conveys a peak flow of 2.4 mgd, leaving 1.5 mgd of remaining capacity. Since the Proposed Project would be anticipated to generate 0.24 mgd, the trunk sewer is considered adequate to accommodate flow projections. It is therefore concluded that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the District's trunk sewer. 1.14.5 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.14.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with wastewater services would be reduced to a less - than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures N.2-1 through N.2-3. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with wastewater services, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. SOLID WASTE (SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION) 1.14.7 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Construction of the Proposed Project would be expected to generate approximately 7,668 tons of waste over project build -out. Recycling of construction -related waste materials in compliance with AB 939, assuming a 50% diversion rate, means that approximately 3,438 tons of solid waste over project build -out would go to landfills. The total landfill capacity in Los Angeles County is limited, therefore any addition to the overall waste stream flowing to the County's landfills will hasten the day the County eventually runs out of landfill capacity. Therefore and any additional solid waste from any source may be considered adverse. However, since the addition of the Proposed Project's construction related wastes to the local landfills (i.e. the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, the Antelope Valley Public Landfill I and H and The Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center), estimated to be approximately 4.4 tons per work day, would not cause those landfills to exceed their permitted daily capacity of an aggregate 9,500 tons per day, this impact would be considered less than significant. Because an adequate amount of landfill space has not been ensured to accommodate long-term solid waste disposal at current generation rates, even with mitigation, the Proposed Project's construction -related solid waste impact would be considered significant. 1.14.8 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.14.9 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with solid waste services would be reduced to a less - than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures N.3-1 through N.3-8. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with solid waste services, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. SOLID WASTE (LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL) 1.14.10 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Over the long term the project's 979 residences, Junior High School and YMCA Facility would generate approximately 10,839 pounds of solid waste per day, or 1,979 tons per year. Per AB 939 there is a requirement to reduce the solid waste stream by 50%, which means that approximately 5,419.5 pounds of the Proposed Project's total waste stream (798 tons per year) would be diverted elsewhere than to a landfill (e.g. recycled.) Therefore, the Proposed Project is anticipated to produce approximately 5,419.5pounds per day of solid waste (71 tons total landfill capacity in the County is limited and any addition to the overall waste stream would reduce the County's overall landfill capacity, The Chiquita Canyon Landfill, the Antelope Valley Public Landfill I and H and the Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center have sufficient capacity for their currently projected solid waste intake and the Proposed Project's intake for the foreseeable short-term future. However, because local landfills will eventually reach capacity, the Proposed Project's long-term impact on solid waste facilities would be considered significant. 1.14.11 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.14.12 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with solid waste services would be reduced to a less - than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures N.3-9 through N.3-17. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with solid waste services, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. 1.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS (ADT) 1.15.7 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The Proposed Project would generate approximately 11,005 total average daily trips (ADT). Approximately 1,468 and 1,009 trips would occur in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. 1.15.1 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.15.2 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with generation of daily vehicle trips would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures 0-1 through 0-3. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with generation of average daily trips (ADT) from 11,000 ADT to 7,800 ADT, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. DAILY AND PEAK HOUR TRANSIT TRIPS 1.15.3 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The project would generate approximately 513 total daily transit trips and approximately 51 peak hour transit trips. The City of Santa Clarita does not have level of service standards for transit serve that are applicable to future development. Transit service is evaluated and fueled on an as -needed basis. If additional fixed route service will be needed near the project site in the future, the project should coordinate with the transit provider to identify appropriate bus stop/turnout locations. 1.15.4 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.15.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with generation of daily and peak hour transit trips would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 0- 4. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with generation of daily and peak hour transit trips from 513 to 364 (daily trips) and from 51 to 36 (peak hour trips), which will reduce the project's impacts even further. 1.16 ENERGY CONSERVATION ELECTRICITY 1.16.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Upon full build -out, the Proposed Project is anticipated to consume approximately 17,585 kilowatt hours (kwH) per day. In order to serve the Proposed Project's electricity needs, existing electrical lines in the project area would need to be extended. The SCE has determined that the electrical loads of the Proposed Project are within the parameters of projected load growth for the area and therefore there would be an adequate power supply to serve the Proposed Project. With modern energy efficient construction materials and compliance with Title 24 standards, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the State's energy conservation standards and therefore would not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. 1.16.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.16.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with electricity services would be reduced to a less - than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures P.1-1 and P.1-2. In addition, -- the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce the total kilowatts (kwh) from 17,585 kwh to 10,184 kwh, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. NATURAL GAS 1.16.4 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Upon full build -out, the Proposed Project is anticipated to consume approximately 153,943 cubic feet of natural gas per day. SCG has stated that it can accommodate the natural gas needs of the Proposed Project from existing medium pressure mains and current supply. Natural gas would likely be provided to the project site by providing service extensions from the four -inch medium pressure main in Ermine Street and an additional extension from either Newhall Ranch Road and/or Golden Valley Road. While the extension of natural gas service to the Proposed Project would include expansion of distribution infrastructure and capacity -enhancing alterations to existing facilities, these requirements are not expected to create significant impacts to the physical environment as there would be no disruption in service to existing customers; extension of natural gas mains would be within public right-of-ways and any required road closures would be for a short period of time; and the full cost of the proposed service extensions and the fair share costs of the expansion of the natural gas distribution systems would be borne by the project developer. In addition, the Proposed Project would comply with the standards in Title 24 as they relate to the conservation of natural gas and would use modern energy-efficient construction materials and otherwise comply with the State's energy conservation standards. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. 1.16.5 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.16.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with natural gas services would be reduced to a less- than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures P.2-1 and P.2-2. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce the cubic feet per day (cf/day) from 153,943 cf/day to 109,483, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS WHERE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WOULD OCCUR (NO MITIGATION REQUIRED) The City Council has determined that, where the Final EIR found the project would have no significant project -level or cumulative effects, the project will have no significant project -level or cumulative impacts in the following areas and that, as a result, no mitigation is required: 1.17 AESTHETICS SCENIC VISTAS The Proposed Project would introduce a residential development project with a junior high school site and YMCA site into the scenic vistas of the Santa Clarita Valley. The Proposed Project would provide an innovative and effective strategy for reducing the visual effects of the development. The strategy includes re-created ridgelines which include manufactured berms that have the appearance of natural ridgelines with elevation peaks higher than the development pad areas. Manufactured (or super) slopes would be provided on the project site as previously described. These slopes create the sides to the development pads that include various gradients and curvature, emulating the existing topography. These slopes include peak elevations similar .— in height to the existing ridgelines, provide the base or side to the development pads, and include berms to camouflage portions of the development. As discussed above, the project site is not visible from the north or west and, therefore, would have no visual impact with respect to land uses in those directions. As shown in the view simulations, the site design and grading techniques would be effective in reducing the project's visual impact as seen from locations south of the project site and would minimize the effects of grading to insure that the natural character of ridgelines are preserved. On balance, given the effectiveness with which the project minimizes its visual impacts to the larger community of the Santa Clarita Valley, it is concluded the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Therefore, the Proposed Project's impacts on scenic vistas would be less than significant. SCENIC RESOURCES The major scenic resources on the project site are the Primary and two Secondary Ridgelines and the open space. There are no outstanding scenic trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings on the project site. The project would not affect the Primary Ridgeline and although portions of the secondary ridgelines would be altered, they would be recreated in essentially the same locations, would retain their basic forms and elevations, and would be contour graded to blend back into the natural adjoining hillsides. Large areas of open space would be retained by the Proposed Project, natural areas would be incorporated into the development areas, and much of the proposed development areas would be screened from view by constructed perimeter ridgelines. Project impacts with respect to scenic resources would be less than significant. Based on these facts, the Final EIR concludes that the project will not generate significant impacts with regard to scenic vistas and scenic resources. No mitigation is required. Glare Glare is typically a daytime problem associated with commercial buildings constructed with highly reflective building materials. As a hillside residential development buffered by berms and substantial landscaping, the Proposed Project would not be expected to generate substantial glare. Therefore, glare impacts are expected to be less than significant. No mitigation is required. 1.18 AIR QUALITY AQMP CONSISTENCY Projects that are consistent with the projections of employment and population forecasts identified in the Growth Management Chapter of the RCPG are considered consistent with the AQMP growth projections, since the Growth Management Chapter forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. As discussed in Section V.L. Population and Housing, implementation of the Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population or employment growth beyond current growth projections established by SCAG and would be consistent with the AQMP employment forecasts for the City of Santa Clarita and the Santa Clarita Valley. Therefore it would not jeopardize attainment of State and national ambient air quality standards in Los Angeles County and impacts would be less than significant. LOCALIZED CO CONCENTRATIONS Future CO concentrations near the studied intersections would not exceed the national and State ambient air quality standards for CO. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project and cumulative development would not expose any sensitive receptors located in close proximity to these intersections to substantial pollutant concentrations. This would be a less -than -significant impact regarding the exposure sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS Toxic or carcinogenic air pollutants are not expected to occur in any meaningful amounts in conjunction with operation of the proposed land uses at the project site. Only small quantities of common forms of hazardous or toxic substances, such as cleaning agents, which are typically used or stored in conjunction with residential and educational uses, would be present. Most uses of such substances would occur indoors. Based on the common uses expected on the site, any emission would be minor. Impacts would be a less -than -significant impact regarding the exposure sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. AIRBORNE ODORS Potential operational airborne odors could result from cooking activities associated with the new residential units and school. These odors would be similar to existing residential uses in the local vicinity and would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the new buildings. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project is not expected to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. This is a less -than -significant impact. Project uses are consistent with the types of surrounding uses, as well as with their intensity and density. Project uses, density, and intensity are also consistent with the Valley Center concept. No mitigation is required. 1.19 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES Non -Native Grassland The Proposed Project site totals approximately 18.42 acres of non-native grassland (NNG). Grading for the Proposed Project would permanently impact 10.81 acres of NNG, which includes approximately 1.03 acres for fuel modification. The remaining 7.61 acres will be retained within Natural Open Space. The total loss represents about 58.6 percent of this habitat type on the site. NNG is not considered a PCE of the gnatcatcher Critical Habitat and the loss of NNG would not be considered a significant impact. Residential/Urban/Exotic Non -Habitat Vegetation Association The Proposed Project site totals approximately 34.11 acres of residential/urban/exotic/non- habitat vegetation association. Grading for the Proposed Project would permanently impact 26.64 acres of exotic vegetation, which includes approximately 0.03 acres of fuel modification impacts. The remaining 7.47 acres will be retained within Natural Open Space. The loss represents about 78.1 percent of this habitat type on the site. Residential/Urban/Exotic vegetation is not considered a PCE of the gnatcatcher Critical Habitat and the loss of this type of land cover would not be considered significant. Activelv Scoured Santa Clara River Bottom There are no impacts to Santa Clara River resulting from development. This entire area will be preserved as Natural Open Space. SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE (SPECIES OBSERVED ON SITE) The Western spadefoot toad is a California Species of Special Concern and Federal Species of Concern and a single individual was observed on the project site during the 2003 -focused survey. The area where the single individual was detected is located in an area proposed for development. However, because only a single individual was detected, the potential loss would not be considered a significant impact. ,r The Cooper's hawk is California Species of Special Concern that was occasionally observed foraging or flying over the site. No nesting was detected and potential breeding areas on the site are very limited. Development of the site would not result in significant impacts to the Cooper's hawk. Bell's sage sparrow is a Federal Species of Concern and is still common throughout the region. One location for this species was observed during a number of survey visits. Breeding was not detected. Because this species is still common and only one occurrence would be affected by the project, the potential impact would not be considered significant. The yellow warbler is a California Species of Special Concern that was observed on the site on two occasions. This species is still widespread and common in the region. No breeding was detected. Development of the site would not result in significant impacts to the yellow warbler. The yellow -breasted chat is a California Species of Special Concern that was observed on the site on six occasions. This species is still widespread and common in the region. No breeding was detected. Development of the site would not result in significant impacts to the yellow - breasted chat. The loggerhead shrike is California Species of Special Concern and Federal Species of Concern that was observed onsite on multiple occasions and constitutes a single occurrence. This species is still widespread and common in the region. No breeding was detected. Development of the site would not result in significant impacts to the loggerhead shrike. SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREAS (SEA) No habitat within Santa Clara River SEA will be disturbed or converted to urban uses as result of project implementation resulting in permanent impact. Grading will be occurring in adjacent buffer areas; however, these areas will be planted with native species and will function as buffer areas upon completion of the project. 1.20 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES The Phase I Environmental Site Assessments prepared for the Proposed Project reviewed a database of government -regulated properties having known and/or recognized environmental conditions that have potential environmental concerns in the vicinity of the project. There is a low probability that listed off-site properties in the search vicinity have impacted or are currently impacting the project site. As a result of the low probability of these properties impacting the project site, development of the Proposed Project would result in impacts less than significant. EXPOSURE OF PEOPLE TO POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARDS TRANSMISSION LINE EXPOSURE Typical maximum EMF levels at the edge of a 200 -foot right-of-way for 230 kV transmission lines would be approximately 1.8-3.6 mG. This level is less than the background levels of 0.5 mG to 4.0 mG, which are typically found in the average home. Because there is no established threshold of significance for exposure to EMFs, there would be no significant impact associated with development of the Proposed Project adjacent to SCE transmission easements. The Proposed Project would not expose people, animal, or plant life populations to known health hazards from SCE transmission lines. No significant impacts from EMFs would occur. r 1.21 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES AND GROUNDWATER RECHARGE The Proposed Project would not be supplied with water drawn from either regional or local groundwater sources. Thus, the Proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. As a result, impacts to groundwater supplies would be less than significant. According to the Basin Plan, the project site is not located directly over a regional groundwater basin. Thus, the Proposed Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. As a result, impacts to groundwater recharge would be less than significant. HOUSING WITHINA 100 -YEAR FLOOD HAZARD AREA The project encroaches upon the existing FEMA flood hazard area, but the area that encroaches include only open space areas with no proposed housing. STRUCTURES WITHIN A 100 -YEAR FLOOD HAZARD AREA IMPEDING OR REDIRECTING FLOOD FLOWS The project encroaches upon the existing FEMA flood hazard area, but the area that encroaches include only open space areas with no proposed housing. EXPOSURE OF PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO A SIFNIFICANT RISK OF LOSS, INJURY, OR DEATH INVOLVING FLOODING The project site is located inland from the Pacific Ocean and not in proximity to any large, continuously filled bodies of surface water; therefore, it is not subject to seiche or tsunamis. The site is subject to some debris flows; however, adequate building setbacks from natural slopes and debris control facilities proposed in upstream areas of the site would protect the project development from mudflow hazard. Therefore, project impacts relating to exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding would be less than significant. 1.22 LAND USE AND PLANNING COMMUNITY DIVISION The project site is currently undeveloped and bounded to the north by a residential development currently under construction and to the northwest by an existing residential neighborhood. The City has recently approved a residential and commercial development project to the west. �. Further, the land to the east is currently developed with single-family homes. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not physically divide any established community or uses and impacts would be less than significant. CONFLICT WITH ANY APPLICABLE CONSERVATION PLAN OR NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN The project site boundary includes portions of the Santa Clara River (Lot 123) which is designated as a Significant Ecological Area (SEA)(No. 23). The project applicant does not proposed development within the SEA. Further, there are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans that are applicable to the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or community conservation plan and impacts would be less than significant. CONSISTENCY WITH LAND USE PLANS Citv of Santa Clarita General Plan The proposed Keystone project may be consistent with the RS, RM and IC development standards pertaining to these land use designations subject to approval of the General Plan Amendment (GPA) by City Council. Consistency with City of Santa Clarita General Plan Element Goals and Policies The City of Santa Clarita General Plan contains goals and numerous policies to guide development and uses planned within the City. Existence of an inconsistency between a Proposed Project and an applicable general plan is a legal determination, vested in the City Council and subject to court review if challenged. Inconsistency is not an impact under CEQA — plan inconsistencies in and of themselves are not significant impacts on the environment under CEQA. The City of Santa Clarita General Plan Element Goals and Policies and their applicability to the Proposed Project are discussed in Table V.I-4, which is found in Section V.I, Land Use. Consistencv with the Unified Development Code The proposed Keystone project may be consistent with the RS and RM zones that correspond to the City's General Plan land use designations and the proposed uses are permitted under these districts subject to approval of the Zone Change by City Council. The project would be subject to the general requirements for development and grading under the UDC. 1.23 MINERAL RESOURCES LOSS OF AVAILABIITY OF A KNOWN MINERAL RESOURCE THAT WOULD BE OF VALUE TO THE REGION A small portion of the project site adjacent to the southern site margin is contained within a Mineral Resources Zone -2 (MRZ-2) classification, which includes a project designated approximately 15 -acre open space lot and a 0.55 -acre industrial lot. Neither lot is proposed for development. Given that no development is proposed within the project site land classified as MRZ-2, implementation of the project would not preclude or impede mineral resource extraction from MRZ-2 classified land. Thus, there would be no impact to the availability of known mineral resources. Conversion of the majority of the project site to urban uses would not result in a loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. IMPACTS RELATED TO THE LOSS OF AVAILABILITY OF A LOCALLY -IMPORTANT RECOVERY SITE DELINEATED ON A LOCAL GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN, OR OTHER LAND USE PLAN Though a small portion of the site (approximately 15.5 -acres) is within a mineral resource classification of MRZ-2, the. City's General Plan does not envision the site suitable as conservation for resource recovery. Therefore, project implementation would not result in the loss of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan; thus, no impact would occur. 1.24 NOISE CONSTRUCTION -RELATED GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION Groundbome vibrations levels would not approach the 80 VdB threshold at residences near the project site. This would be a less -than -significant impact regarding the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels. OPERATION NOISE LEVEL OFF SITE Locations in the vicinity of the Proposed Project site could experience slight changes in noise levels as a result of an increase in the on-site population and resulting increase in motor vehicle trips. The Proposed Project would increase local noise levels by a maximum of 0.2 dBA CNEL, which is inaudible/imperceptible to most people and would not exceed the identified thresholds of significance. OPERATIONAL GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION When the Proposed Project is completed and operational, background vibration levels would be expected to average around 50 -VdB, which is substantially less than the 80 VdB threshold for residential buildings. Impacts would be less than significant. 1.25 POPULATION AND HOUSING POPULATION AND HOUSING As the project site is currently undeveloped, the increase in residential population represents a 100% population and housing increase on the project site. This population growth and the addition of dwelling units to the City's housing inventory are not anticipated to be substantial compared to citywide growth projections. The increase in population is considered minimal, as it would represent 1.6% of the City's projected 2010 (the year closest to project build -out) population of 187,795, and 7.9% of the City's in -migration for the period between 2000 and 2010 (32,707 new residents). The Proposed Project would add 96 single-family and 883 multi- family residences to the City's housing inventory. This increase represents 1.6% of projected housing units within the City for 2010 (61,101 units) and 9.6% of the new housing units projected to be added for the period between 2000 and 2010 (10,214 new units). Further, the addition of 979 dwelling units to the City's housing inventory would not exceed the projected growth rates for the City. Impacts relating to population and housing would be less than significant. EMPLOYMENT Construction of the Proposed Project would result in increased employment opportunities during the project's construction period. However, construction workers would likely be drawn from the construction employment labor force already resident in the surrounding communities and it is not likely that construction workers would relocate their place of residence as a consequence of working on the Proposed Project. The Junior High School is expected to have an enrollment of approximately 1,200 students and would be expected to generate 132 net new jobs (though the Hart District anticipates approximately 70 faculty). The YMCA Community / Fitness Center will be housed in an approximately 30,476 square foot facility and would be expected to generate 72 net new jobs. Thus the Proposed Project would generate a total of 204 new jobs. This increase represents 0.36% of projected jobs with in the City for 2010 (57,248 jobs) and 2.67% of the new jobs projected to be added for the period between 2000 and 2010 (7,636 new jobs). Because the Proposed Project would represent only a 0.36% increase in employment opportunities within the City, this increase is not considered to be substantial in terms of employment growth. INDIRECT GROWTH The proposed roadways and other infrastructure associated with the project would not induce growth because they would only serve project residents and would not extend into previously undeveloped areas that would then be made available for future development. As a result, development of the Proposed Project would not indirectly induce substantial population growth and impacts relating to population and housing would be less than significant. HOUSING OR POPULATION DISPLACEMENT The Proposed Project site is currently undeveloped and does not contain any housing or people. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing or replacement of affordable housing. No significant impacts would occur. 1.26 PUBLIC SERVICES POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION (CITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE/EVACULATION PLANS) The primary vehicle access to the project site would be via a major arterial, Golden Valley Road, which would run north -south axis through the site. The roadway will be eventually constructed with a flyover Soledad Canyon Road to connect with Newhall Ranch Road. The project would also include approximately 19 acres of other public streets, including the access roadway to the multi -family lots and the access roadway to the single-family neighborhood including cul-de- sacs. These roadways would provide alternative evacuation routes for the site, thus it is not anticipated that the design of the project would preclude implementation of an evacuation plan, which would provide for the safe movement of future residents. Consequently, no significant impacts are expected to occur. LIBRARIES The Proposed Project would increase the local permanent residential population by 2,992. Using the County Library's planning guidelines of 0.50 square feet of library facilities and 2.75 collection items per capita, the Proposed Project would generate a need for an additional 1,496 square feet of library facilities and 8,228 additional collection items. As discussed above, the Santa Clarita Valley is currently under -served with regard to Library services and development of the Proposed Project would thereby increase the existing need for additional library facilities. If the project generated demand for 1,496 square feet of additional space were translated into new construction of permanent space, this would be the approximate equivalent of three rooms measuring 20' x 20'. The construction of new, permanent space.could be considered an adverse impact under the CEQA Guideline threshold. However, CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301, states that construction on an existing use that totals either 2,500 square feet or 50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition would have a negligible impact on the environment. Therefore, the additional construction of approximately 1,496 square feet on the Jo Anne Darcy Library would have a physically insignificant effect on the environment. For these reasons, the project's impacts on County Library facilities would be less than significant. -- Based on the current library mitigation fee of $677.00 per dwelling unit, the Proposed Project would be required to pay a fee of $662,783.00 ($677.00 x 979 dwelling units = $662,783.00) toward the construction of expanded or new library facilities and the acquisition of additional collection materials. Payment of the library mitigation fee is a requirement of the project by Los Angeles County and the City of Santa Clarita to offset the demand recreated by the project for additional square footage and library collection materials. Impacts would be less than significant. SECTION 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL The City Council has determined that, although modifications to the project as originally proposed, EIR mitigation and conditions of approval imposed on the project will either avoid or provide substantial mitigation of the project's cumulative contribution to identified significant cumulative environmental effects, the following environmental effects cannot be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance. Consequently, in accordance with CEQA Guideline 15093, the SOC has been prepared to substantiate the City's decision to accept these unavoidable significant cumulative effects when balanced against the significant benefits afforded by the project. This section sets forth the significant unavoidable cumulative effects of the project, and with respect to each significant impact, identifies one or more of the required CEQA findings, states facts in support of these findings and refers to the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). 1.27 AESTHETICS VISUAL CHARACTER 1.27.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The Proposed Project and Related Project No. 4 (Riverpark) combined would have the most significant visual changes to the immediate area with respect to visual character due to the proximity of these two projects to each other. Both projects would alter, to varying degrees, Secondary Ridgelines; however, both incorporate site design and grading techniques that would minimize the disruption of the existing view corridors. However, the change in visual character of the sites combined would represent a material change from an undeveloped to a developed environment that would result in a significant cumulative impact. All 12 Related Projects as well as the Proposed Project would be a significant loss of vacant land as viewed from public roadways, and the amount of natural vegetation and landforms would decrease overall. Therefore, an overall change in visual character with development of all 12 Related Projects sites in combination with the Proposed Project would occur, and cumulative impacts associated with visual character would besignificant and unavoidable. 1.27.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3. 1.27.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts, together with the fact that no feasible mitigation measures are available, indicate that the significant cumulative effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that a significant cumulative visual character impact remains and is, thus, unavoidable. Despite project design and modifications, cumulative visual impacts caused by and associated with converting the project site from an undeveloped to a developed urban area cannot be reduced to a less -than -significant level. For the reasons stated here and in the SOC, the remaining unavoidable significant visual impacts are outweighed by the project's benefits and -- are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations. 1.28 AIR QUALITY CONSTRUCTION AND DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS 1.28.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Using the South Coast Air Quality Management District's emissions thresholds, the EIR concluded that implementation of the Proposed Project would generate significant and unavoidable construction -related emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and particulate matter (10 micron) (PM10), which would be generated primarily by on-site stationary sources, on- and off-road heavy-duty construction vehicles, and construction worker vehicles. At project build -out, cumulative operational emissions of VOC, NOx, and CO (carbon monoxide) would be significant and unavoidable, primarily due to mobile source emissions. 1.28.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3. 1.28.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts, together with Mitigation Measures C-1 and C-2, indicate that the significant cumulative effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that certain significant impacts on air quality remain and are unavoidable. Cumulative operation -related emissions would be generated by on-site and off-site stationary sources and by mobile sources associated with the Proposed Project in combination with the Related Projects. At buildout, cumulative operational emissions of CO, VOC, and NOx would exceed SCAQMD thresholds, primarily due to mobile source emissions, during both the summertime smog season and wintertime no -smog season. However, no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the significant and unavoidable cumulative impact associated with operational emissions. Because the Basin is currently in a nonattainment for ozone, CO, and PM10, related projects could exceed an air quality standard or contribute a substantial increase to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. Construction related daily emissions associated with project development would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PM10 during the site grading phase, VOC and NOx during the peak construction phase when the school, YMCA, and first two residential phases are constructed, and NOx during the third residential development phase. Therefore, the emissions generated by project construction would be cumulatively considerable regarding a substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation. Operation of the Proposed Project would also generate operational emissions of VOC, NOx, and CO that exceed the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds. These emissions would, therefore, be cumulatively considerable and significant. The SCAQMD recommends that a project's potential contribution to cumulative impacts should be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project -specific impacts. Therefore, because project -level operational -related CO, VOC, and NO., emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's project -specific thresholds of significance primarily due to mobile emissions, even with all feasible mitigation, the EIR concluded that project implementation would result in a cumulatively significant and unavoidable air quality impact with respect to operational emissions. This conclusion is considered a conservative and "worst-case" approach for assessing the project's cumulative air quality impacts. For the reasons stated here and in the SOC, the remaining significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts associated with construction and daily operational emissions are outweighed by the project's benefits and are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations. 1.29 PUBLIC SERVICES SOLID WASTE 1.29.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The project would generate unavoidably significant cumulative impacts. Site preparation (vegetation removal and grading activities) and construction activities would generate thousands of tons per year, of construction wastes that would be sent to the Los Angeles County landfills. In addition, the cumulative residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational development would also result in thousands of tons per year of operational solid waste reaching the County landfills. Thus, the construction -related and operation -related cumulative impacts associated with solid waste generation would be considered unavoidably significant. Even with mitigation, therefore, the Proposed Project in combination with the related projects would result in cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts until such time as other disposal alternatives adequate to serve existing and future uses for the foreseeable future are found, because landfill space is a finite resource. 1.29.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3. 1.29.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts, together with Mitigation Measures N.3-1 through N.3-17, indicate that the significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that certain significant cumulative solid waste impacts remain and are, thus, unavoidable. As stated above, the cumulative impacts have been concluded to be significant. Under the City's Model Ordinance, the uses within the project and related projects would be required to provide adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials in concert with County -wide efforts and programs to reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills. The Proposed Project and related projects are assumed to meet the current recycling goals of the community. In addition, recent expansion approvals and proposals for expansion, as described in the Final EIR, at several County landfills compel the conclusion that solid waste disposal facilities and other options will be available in the future, and it is reasonable to assume that new facilities and other options will be created to meet this demand and to reap the financial benefits of providing this service. Also as discussed in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, the project has been revised in several respects. As pertinent to solid waste cumulative impacts, the project has been revised to reduce the number of residential units from 979 to 499. This reduction will result in a reduction to the total cumulative construction and operation waste generated; however these reductions would not reduce cumulative impacts to a less -than -significant level. While recycling and the imposition of Mitigation Measures K-1 through K-17 can and will reduce the amount of cumulative solid waste for which disposal is necessary, these measures cannot reduce the amount of cumulative solid waste to a level less than significant, because of the finite nature of landfill space. However, for the reasons stated here and in the SOC, the remaining significant and unavoidable cumulative construction and operational solid waste impacts are outweighed by the project's benefits and are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations. 1.30 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS) AT INTERSECTIONS 1.30.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. As the Keystone Draft EIR concludes, mitigation to reduce the project's cumulative impacts to a less -than -significant level is presently infeasible at nine intersections, and, therefore, the project's cumulative impacts at these intersections are significant and unavoidable. 1.30.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3. 1.30.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts, together with _ Mitigation Measure 0-14, indicate that the significant cumulative effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that certain significant traffic impacts remain and are, thus, unavoidable. The additional cumulative traffic, without the project, would worsen conditions at eight intersections during one or both of the peak -hour periods. With the addition of the project traffic, nine intersections experience a significant impact, and eight of those intersections forecast to exceed LOS "D". The cumulative significantly impacted intersections include: Freeway On/Off RamRIIntersection • Sierra Highway & SR -14 SB Ramps (AM and PM) Existing Intersections • Valencia Boulevard & Magic Mtn Parkway (AM and PM) • Bouquet Canyon Road & Soledad Canyon Road (PM) • Bouquet Canyon Road & Newhall Ranch Road • Sierra Highway & Placerita Canyon Road (AM and PM) • Sierra Highway & Golden Valley Road (AM and PM) • Whites Canyon Road & Soledad Canyon Road Future Intersections • 163. Golden Valley Road & Via Princessa (AM and PM) • 166. Golden Valley Road & Newhall Ranch Road (PM) Therefore, traffic would worsen at these intersections, and the Proposed Project would contribute considerably to the cumulative impact at locations shown to be deficient. Therefore, cumulative traffic impacts on intersections are significant. Similar to the Proposed Project, the related projects would be dependent upon a completed Cross Valley Connector roadway for impacts to be less than significant and for roadway/intersection improvements. The project applicant would contribute $6,981,435 to the City's Bridge and Thoroughfare District to be used to improve traffic flow and minimize traffic congestion along the corridors impacted by project -related traffic, through traffic signal retiming and related infrastructure improvements. For the reasons stated here and in the SOC, the remaining cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts related to traffic are outweighed by the project's benefits and are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations. �. SECTION 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The City Council has determined that, where the Final EIR found the project would have or contribute to potentially significant cumulative effects, project revisions, mitigation measures and conditions of approval will substantially mitigate those, and that, as a result, those effects have been mitigated to a level less than significant, as follows. This section sets forth the potentially significant cumulative effects of the project, and with respect to each such impact, identifies one or more of the required CEQA findings and states facts in support of these findings. 1.31 AESTHETICS LIGHT 1.31.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The Proposed Project represents infill development in an established urban area. There are existing residential communities to the northwest and east of the project site and residential communities under construction to the north (SunCal development) Related Project No. 4, Riverpark, combined with the Proposed Project would have the most significant visual changes to the immediate area with respect to lighting due to proximity to the Proposed Project. However, with implementation of project Mitigation Measures B-1 through B-6, the Proposed Project's incremental contribution to the significant impact with respect to change in lighting would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. 1.31.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.31.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant cumulative impacts associated with light and glare would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of project Mitigation Measures B-1 through B-6. In addition, the project revisions described in Section 1 of the Resolution, above, including, without limitation, reduction of the residential units from 979 to 499, would reduce impacts associated with light and glare, which will reduce the project's impacts even further. For the reasons stated here and in the SOC, the potentially significant lighting impacts would be reduced to a less -than -significant level, due to project mitigation, and as less -than -significant, cumulative lighting impacts would be acceptable. 1.32 NOISE OPERATIONAL 1.32.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Cumulative impacts associated with operational ambient noise levels of the Proposed Project and Related Projects would result due to permanently raised ambient noise levels by 9.0 dBA CNEL above the existing noise levels at nearby residences on Ermine Street. 1.32.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 1.32.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts indicate that the significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that certain significant noise impacts remain and are, thus, unavoidable. The Final EIR concludes that the project would generate significant cumulative operational noise impacts, as after the project is built out, future traffic on the proposed Ermine Street extension off-site and the proposed (as part of the Proposed Project) Golden Valley Road extension through the site would generate noise that would create long-term unavoidably significant long- term mobile source noise impacts on the homes located at the western end of Ermine Street. When such activities occur, noise levels would increase by 9 dBA CNEL above existing noise levels, and cumulative noise impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. After the project is built out, future traffic on the proposed Ermine Street extension off-site and the proposed (as part of the Proposed Project) Golden Valley Road extension through the site would generate noise that would create long-term unavoidably significant long-term mobile source noise impacts on the homes located at the western end of Ermine Street. When such activities occur, on-site noise levels would not exceed the City's 65.0 dBA CNEL standard for residential uses; however, the increase by 9 dBA CNEL above existing noise levels would be considered a cumulatively considerable noise impact. After the Draft EIR was released for public comment, the project was revised to reduce the number of residential units from 979 to 499 and to eliminate the Ermine Street connection, and these revisions have reduced the number of trips associated with project residents and redistributed trips amongst the local street network. Project and related project trips would no longer be distributed along Ermine Street with no connection to Golden Valley Road. With these project modifications, cumulative noise impacts on the homes located at the western end of Ermine Street would no longer be cumulatively considerable but, rather, less than significant. As the Final EIR concludes, during operation of the project, the noise levels that will be experienced by sensitive receptors both on-site and off-site will be generated by mobile sources. As the Final EIR shows, the noise levels that will be experienced by Keystone project residents will be typical of the noise conditions experienced by other sensitive receptors located near other primary roadways, and the Keystone project will add very little to the existing noise levels experienced by sensitive receptors off-site. For the reasons stated here and in the SOC, the cumulatively considerable noise impacts would be reduced to a less -than -significant level, due to project modification, and as less -than - significant, cumulative noise impacts would be acceptable. EXHIBIT B FINAL EIR AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (ON FILE WITH THE PLANNING DIVISION)