HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-13 - RESOLUTIONS - MC 04-444 SOLEDAD VILLAGE (2)RESOLUTION NO. 06-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS FOR THE SOLEDAD VILLAGE PROJECT, CERTIFYING FEIR
SCH #200504110, (INCLUDES ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM), AND ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS AND THE STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR MASTER CASE NO. 04-444 (GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 04-006, ZONE CHANGE 04-004, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 62322 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-021), FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 30 -ACRE
SOLEDAD VILLAGE PROJECT IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does
hereby make the following findings of fact:
a. In 1991, the City Council adopted the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita and
certified the Environmental Impact Report. The City's General Plan presently
designates the subject property as Commercial Office (CO) with a Valley Center
Concept (VCC) overlay. Zoning on the subject property is presently Commercial
Office with a Planned Development (CO -PD) overlay. The VCC overlay encourages
residential development with densities up to 50 units per acre;
b. In 1992, the Planning Commission approved Parcel Map 20838 for the 30 -acre
triangular shaped property at the north side of Soledad Canyon Road between
Bouquet Canyon Road and Golden Valley Road (generally at the intersection of
Soledad Canyon Road and Gladding Way) (APNs: 2849-027-001, 002, 003, 004 &
2849-001-029) (the "subject property"). Improvements completed as part of the
recorded Parcel Map included the following:
1. Construction of a new street entrance at Gladding Way with signal improvements;
2. Grading to recompact unconsolidated soils and importation of earth to create site
pads above the high water flood levels;
3. Construction of buried bank stabilization 40 feet wide and 2,600 feet long along
the southern bank of the Santa Clara River removing the property from the FEMA
100 -yr floodplain and the Santa Clara River SEA; and
4. Construction of a trail system along the northern and southern subject property
boundary.
c. On November 12, 2004, an entitlement application was filed by The Newhall Land
and Farming Company (the "applicant') with the Community Development
Department for Master Case 04-444 on the subject property for the Soledad Village
project. The original entitlement requests (collectively `original project') include the
following:
1. General Plan Amendment 04-006 to change the land use classification from
Commercial Office (CO) with a Valley Center Concept (VCC) overlay to
Commercial Neighborhood (CN) for one acre and Residential Medium High
(RMH) for the remaining 29 -acres. The VCC overlay would be maintained;
2. Zone Change 04-004 to change the zoning designation from Commercial Office
with a Planned Development overlay (CO -PD) to Commercial Neighborhood
(CN) and Residential Medium High (RMH). The PD overlay would be
maintained. The zoning will be consistent with the proposed General Plan
classification;
3. Tentative Tract Map 62322 to subdivide the subject property for 437 residential
units and an 8,000 square foot commercial complex; and
4. Conditional Use Permit 05-021 to implement the Planned Development (PD)
overlay and to exceed a building height of 35 feet.
d. The properties to the north and west are zoned Residential Moderate (RM) and
include the Santa Clara River and the approved Riverpark project which is currently
under development; the properties to the east are zoned Mobile Home Park (MHP)
and Community Commercial (CC) and are developed with mobile home residences
and commercial uses; and the properties to the south (beyond Soledad Canyon Road)
are zoned Open Space (OS), Business Park (BP) and Specific Plan (SP) and are
developed with the railroad, light industrial and office complexes;
e. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of
Santa Clarita is the identified lead agency with the Planning Commission as the
recommending body and the City Council as the decision-making body for the
Soledad Village project. On December 10, 2004, a draft Initial Study was completed,
which determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment
and that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. The Initial Study
determined that the following areas must be addressed in the EIR: aesthetics, air
quality, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, noise, population/housing, public
services, recreation, transportation/traffic, utilities/service systems and mandatory
findings of significance. The Initial Study also identified effects found not to be
significant. These certain impacts of the proposed project were found to be less than
significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or the
absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. In accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15218, Section 9.0 of the Final Soledad Village EIR
2
(inclusive of the November 2005 Draft EIR) identifies those impacts determined to be
less than significant in the Initial Study. They include environmental issue areas in
aesthetics, agriculture resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and
soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and
planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services,
recreation, transportation/traffic and utilities and service systems;
f. On January 6, 2005, the project application was deemed complete;
g. On February 17, 2005, the project went before the City's Development Review
Committee (DRC);
h. On February 22, 2005, the City Council awarded a contract for RBF Consulting (the
"consultant") to complete the EIR for the project;
i. On April 5, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a site tour of the subject
property;
j. On April 18, 2005, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and final Initial Study was
circulated to affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA statutes and the CEQA Guidelines
(Title 14, Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.). Numerous comments from agencies
and the public were received over the thirty day review period, which ended on
May 18, 2005. Agencies that received the NOP include, but are not limited to, the
County of Los Angeles, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa
Monica Mountains Conservancy, South Coast Air Quality Management District, law
enforcement agencies, school districts, waste haulers, water agencies and
transportation agencies serving the Santa Clarita Valley;
k. On May 11, 2005, a Scoping Meeting was held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, 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 April 18, 2005, was mailed to all property owners within 500
feet of the subject property, and was mailed to all affected agencies. A representative
from a nearby property owner was the only member of the public in attendance at this
Scoping Meeting;
1. At the direction of City staff, on November 1, 2005, the applicant prepared a revised
site plan substantially consistent with the Work -Live Unit Alternative identified and
analyzed in the Soledad Village Draft EIR. This revised site plan would modify the
scope of entitlements (collectively "live -work" alternative project) for the project to
the following:
1. General Plan Amendment 04-006 to change the land use classification from
Commercial Office (CO) with a Valley Center Concept (VCC) overlay to
Commercial Neighborhood (CN) for 3.5 acres for the commercial and live -work
91
areas and Residential Medium High (RMH) for the remaining 26.5 -acres. The
VCC overlay would be maintained;
2. Zone Change 04-004 to change the zoning designation from Commercial Office
with a Planned Development overlay (CO -PD) to Commercial Neighborhood
(CN) and Residential Medium High (RMH). The PD overlay would be
maintained. The zoning will be consistent with the proposed General Plan
classification;
3. Tentative Tract Map 62322 to subdivide the subject property for 407 residential
units including 22 live -work units, an 8,000 square foot commercial complex and
various common recreational areas and private roadways; and
4. Conditional Use Permit 05-021 to implement the Planned Development (PD)
overlay, to exceed a building height of 35 feet and to establish 22 live -work units
in the CN zone as outlined in the Unified Development Code (UDC).
m. On November 3, 2005, a Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by
affected government agencies and the public. The Draft EIR addressed all issues
raised by the Initial Study, and by comments received on the NOP, in compliance with
CEQA. The 45 -day review period ended on December 18, 2005. Responses to all
written comments received during the review period were prepared for inclusion in
the Final EIR Responses to Comments;
n. The Planning Commission held duly -noticed public hearings on December 6, 2005,
December 20, 2005 and February 7, 2006, in accordance with the noticing
requirements of the entitlements. The project was advertised in The Signal
newspaper, through on-site posting and by mailing to all property owners within 500
feet of the subject property. The hearings were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. The following occurred at the public hearings:
1. On December 6, 2005, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing, staff
presented both the applicant's original proposal and the staff directed and
recommended revised site plan (substantially consistent with the Work -Live Unit
Alternative analyzed in the Draft EIR) project and received public testimony
regarding the project. At the meeting, the Commission stated it preferred the staff
recommended live -work alternative with additional modifications and directed
staff and the applicant to revise the project accordingly;
2. On December 20, 2005, staff and the consultant presented the Draft EIR, received
comments and questions from the Planning Commission and received public
testimony regarding the project;
3. On February 7, 2006, staff presented a revised project (substantially consistent
with the Work -Live Unit Alternative analyzed in the Draft EIR) which
F1
incorporated the additional Planning Commission's modifications to date, staff
provided responses to all of the Commission's and public's concerns and
questions, and staff distributed the Draft Final EIR. The Commission then closed
the public hearing and directed staff to prepare the necessary documents
recommending approval of the project, the final conditions of approval and the
draft Final EIR. In conceptually approving the revised project, the Commission
made the following significant changes to the project:
a. Reduced the project density from 437 residential units to 407 residential
units;
b. Incorporated 22 live/work units into the project;
c. Added two additional housing types to the project, resulting in a total of
four different housing types;
d. Increased the private recreation areas from 2.5 acres to 3.3 acres through
the addition of a centrally located `village green" and a satellite recreation
facility on the west side of the project;
e. Required the covering of the concrete, trapezoidal channel running parallel
to Soledad Canyon Road;
f. Required the applicant to contribute $300,000 to the City of Santa Clarita
to be used to fund the design of a larger Soledad Canyon Road
transmission line undergrounding program; and
g. Added parkways and sidewalks along most of the project's primary loop
streets.
4. On March 7, 2006, staff presented the necessary approval documents (resolutions,
findings of fact, mitigation and monitoring reporting program and conditions of
approval) for the project (substantially consistent with the EIR's Work -Live Unit
Alternative) as revised by the Planning Commission. By a vote of 5-0 the
Planning Commission recommended certification by the Final EIR as adequate
under CEQA, and approval of the project to the City Council;
o. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Soledad Village project on
April 25, 2006, at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at
6:00 p.m. At this meeting the City Council received a presentation on the Soledad
Village project from staff and the applicant, and received public testimony regarding
the project. Prior to this hearing, the City received two additional comment letters
(California Water Impact Network and Friends of the Santa Clara River) on the
'—� Soledad Village EIR. At the conclusion of the hearing,
5
the City Council closed the public hearing and directed staff to prepare the Final EIR,
including responses to comments, and the necessary approval documents and
continued the item to the May 23, 2006 City Council meeting;
p. At its meeting of May 23, 2006, the City Council continued the Soledad Village
project to its meeting of June 13, 2006. City staff requested the continuance to allow
staff and the EIR consultant sufficient time to respond to the two additional comment
letters received prior to the Council's April 25, 2006 hearing on the project;
q. At its meeting of June 13, 2006, the City Council received public testimony regarding
the Soledad Village Final EIR and adopted all of the necessary approval documents
(resolutions, ordinances, findings of fact, responses to comments, mitigation
monitoring and reporting program, conditions of approval, etc.) for certification of the
Soledad Village Final EIR and approval of the Soledad Village project;
r. The Final EIR, incorporated herein by reference and is on file in the Planning
Division, includes the Draft EIR, comments on the Draft EIR, responses to the
comments, modifications to the Draft EIR text and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP). The Draft EIR identifies various significant
unavoidable impacts necessitating the adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations in compliance with CEQA;
s. The City Council considered staff and consultant presentations, staff reports, applicant
presentations, information presented to the City Council and Planning Commission to
assist in its understanding of the project, the Draft EIR, public comments, public
testimony and the Final ETR at the hearings for the project;
t. The documents and other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the decision of the City Council is based, are located in the Master Case 04-444
project file within the Community Development Department and are in the custody of
the Director of Community Development.
SECTION 2. CEOA FINDINGS. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does
hereby make the following finding of fact:
a. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.)
provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are
feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (CEQA
§ 21002; emphasis added.) The procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist
public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed
projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid
or substantially lessen such significant effects." (CEQA § 21002; emphasis added);
0
b. CEQA also provides that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other
conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures,
individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant
effects. (CEQA § 21002.) CEQA provides that a public agency has an obligation to
balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social
factors and in particular the goal of providing a decent home and satisfying living
environment for every Californian. (CEQA § 21081; CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.
Code of Regulations, § 15021(d).) CEQA requires decision -makers to balance the
benefits of a proposed project against its significant unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts, and, if the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the
significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts may be considered "acceptable" by adopting a "Statement of
Overriding Considerations." (CEQA Guidelines § 15093.) The Statement of
Overriding Considerations must set forth the project benefits or reasons why the Lead
Agency is in favor of approving the project and must weigh these benefits against the
project's adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that cannot be
mitigated to a less -than -significant level;
c. CEQA's mandates and principles are implemented, in part, through the requirement
that agencies adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are
required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a
proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or
more of three permissible conclusions: (1) that "[c]hanges or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR," (2) [s]uch changes or
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency or
can and should be adopted by such other agency," or (3)[s]pecific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final E1R." (CEQA Guidelines § 15091.) CEQA
defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental,
social and technological factors." (CEQA § 21061.1.) CEQA Guideline section
15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations;
d. The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular
alternative promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. "Feasibility"
under CEQA encompasses "desirability" to the extent that desirability is based on a
reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and
technological factors;
e. CEQA requires that the lead agency exercise its independent judgment in reviewing
the adequacy of an EIR and that the decision of a lead agency in certifying a Final EIR
7
and approving a project not be predetermined. The City Council has conducted its
own review and analysis, and is exercising its independent judgment when acting as
herein provided;
f. CEQA requires decision -makers to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting
program (MMRP) for those mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR that
would mitigate or avoid each significant impact identified in the EIR and to
incorporate the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, including all mitigation
measures, as conditions of project approval;
g. CEQA requires that the responses to comments in the Final EIR demonstrate good
faith and a well -reasoned analysis, and not be overly conclusory. In response to
several of the comments received, portions of the Draft EIR have been
revised. Although new material has been added to the Draft EIR through preparation
of the Final EIR, this new material provides clarification to points and information
already included in the Draft EIR and is not considered to be significant new
information or a substantial change to the Draft EIR or to the project that would
necessitate recirculation;
h. CEQA Guidelines section 15003(c) and (i) note that state courts have held that the
purpose of an EIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public generally
of the environmental impacts of a proposed project. CEQA does not require technical
perfection or exhaustive treatment of issues in an EIR, but rather adequacy,
completeness, and a good -faith effort at full disclosure; and
i. Comments received on the Draft EIR both during, and after, the public review period
show that there may be disagreements among experts on several issues, including the
issues of water service and biological resources. The Final EIR includes additional
clarifying narrative text and exhibits for the purpose of fully disclosing the
information sources and reasoning by which levels of impacts and mitigation
measures were established in the Draft EIR. Further, the clarifying narrative text and
exhibits in the Final EIR serve the purpose of fully disclosing the information sources
and reasoning used by various public and agency Draft EIR commentators who
arrived at divergent conclusions. CEQA provides that disagreement among experts is
acceptable regarding the conclusions reached in the EIR.
SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CEOA.
Based on the findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the
entire Soledad Village project Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received
at the public hearings held on the Soledad Village project and the Soledad Village project EIR,
reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and upon studies and
investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and on behalf of each,
the City Council does hereby find that the Final EIR for Master Case No. 04-444 (General Plan
Amendment 04-006, Zone Change 04-004, Tentative Tract Map 62322 and Conditional Use
Permit 05-021) identifies and discloses project -specific impacts and cumulative project
0
impacts. The environmental impacts, mitigation measures and conclusions regarding
environmental impacts after mitigation identified in the Final EIR, and findings, and facts in
support of findings, all set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, are incorporated herein as
"Findings Required by CEQA," 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," as set forth in
Section 1 of Exhibit A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that will avoid or lessen certain of the project impacts, but that will
not avoid or reduce all of the potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. These
remaining significant impacts are balanced against project benefits and are found to be
overridden by the project benefits, as stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations in Section 6, below.
b. The Final EIR identifies issue areas as "Environmental Impacts Which Have Been
Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant," as set forth in Section 2 of
Exhibit A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project that will avoid or reduce these potential impacts to a less -than -significant
level.
c. The Final EIR identifies issue areas as "Environmental Impacts Where No Significant
Impact Would Occur," as set forth in Section 3 of Exhibit A.
d. The Final EIR identifies issue areas as "Cumulative Impacts Which Cannot be
Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant," as set forth in Section 4 of
Exhibit A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project that will avoid or lessen certain of the cumulative impacts, but that will not
avoid or reduce all of the potential cumulative impacts to a less -than -significant
level. These remaining significant impacts are balanced against project benefits and
are found to be overridden by the project benefits, as stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations in Section 6, below.
e. The Final EIR identifies issue areas as "Cumulative Impacts Which Have Been
Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant," as set forth in Section 5 of
Exhibit A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project that will avoid or reduce these potential cumulative impacts to a
less -than -significant level.
f. As issues that are noted in Section 3(c), above, have no significant environmental
impacts and require no mitigation, those issues also will have no contribution to
cumulative impacts.
g. During the course of the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City
Council, the applicant agreed to make changes in the project, as set forth in Section 1,
above, in response to comments and suggestions made by the City Council, Planning
0
Commission, public agencies, and members of the public. These changes have
reduced the number of residential units from 437 to 407, increased the number of
housing types to four, and added a total of 22 live/work units into the
project. Substantial evidence in the record, including, without limitation, the Final
EIR, shows that the analysis of environmental impacts associated with the proposed
project and with the alternatives in the Final EIR, and the mitigation measures
recommended therein, fully analyze and address the environmental issues raised by
the revised project.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 and CEQA §21092.1, on the basis of its
review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City Council further finds that:
1. The project changes made and information added to the Draft EIR during this
process do not constitute significant new information or substantial changes that
would deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial
adverse environmental effect of the project, a feasible way to mitigate or avoid
such an impact that the project's proponents have declined to implement, or a
feasible project alternative;
2. The project changes will not result in new significant environmental effects or
substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects
disclosed in the Draft EIR;
3. The applicant has not declined to adopt any feasible mitigation measures or
alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft EIR that
would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project; and
4. The Draft EIR is not inadequate or conclusory in nature, and meaningful public
review and comment has not been precluded.
h. The NEARP, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, is
required to mitigate project impacts.
SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF
ALTER -NATIVES. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Soledad
Village Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings
held on the Soledad Village project and the Soledad Village EIR and otherwise, upon studies and
investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, and upon reports and other transmittals
from City staff to the City Council, the City Council further finds that the Final EIR analyzes a
reasonable range of project alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of
the Soledad village but would lessen any of the significant impacts of the project, and adequately
evaluates the comparative merits of each alternative.
a. The objectives of the Soledad Village project, as specified in the Final EIR, are:
• Land Use Planning.
10
1. Create a new community that allows for residential, commercial and
recreational development.
2. Provide 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. Provide development that is compatible with surrounding communities and
land uses.
4. Provide for the long-term maintenance of public and recreational facilities
including parks, trails, landscaping, storm drains, etc., that serve the project
site.
5. Create a small, safe, human scale, residential development enclave, by
incorporating 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.
• Economic
1. Develop the site to include housing of varying types, accommodating a range
of incomes, and commercial opportunities for the residents of the project as
well as the local area.
2. Provide a neighborhood commercial element that would provide retail and
services for local residents and area workers.
3. Create an economically feasible project.
• Mobility
1. Provide a safe, efficient, and aesthetically attractive street system, which
includes pedestrian walkways (sidewalks) with connection to adjoining
regional transportation routes.
2. Provide an efficient street circulation system that minimizes impacts on
residential neighborhoods and environmentally sensitive areas.
3. Takes advantage of the adjacent Metrolink commuter rail station and other
transit services.
• Parks and Recreation
11
1. Provide a range of active recreational opportunities, including a recreation
center, tot lots, and access to the Santa Clara River Trail and the Soledad
Canyon multi-purpose trail.
2. Provide passive recreational opportunities such as pocket park areas and
private patios.
• Resource Conservation Objectives
1. To provide a sensitive and protective interface with the Santa Clara River by
utilizing appropriate landscape, bank stabilization, and water quality
treatments.
2. To foster the design and integration of a mutually beneficial relationship
between the natural and built environments, sensitive land use transition
treatments, attractive street scenes, and indigenous architectural and landscape
design guidelines.
These objectives are used as the basis for comparing the project alternatives and
determining the extent that the objectives would be achieved relative to the
proposed project. Only those impacts found significant and unavoidable are
relevant in making the final determination of whether an alternative is
environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. The proposed
project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts in four environmental
issue areas:
• Traffic and circulation -- long term cumulative impacts
• Air quality -- short-term construction impacts (ROC, NOx and PM10 emissions),
and long-term cumulative operational impacts (ROC emissions)
• Noise -- long-term stationary source noise (Saugus Speedway)
• Solid waste -- short-term (construction), long-term (operational), and cumulative
impacts
b. Alternative 1. the No Project/No Development Alternative. The No Project/No
Development Alternative assumes the Soledad Village project would not be
implemented and land uses and other improvements would not be constructed. The
existing project site would remain unaltered and in its current condition. All
infrastructure improvements, including water, wastewater, drainage, and circulation
facilities identified on the Soledad Village Tentative Tract Map would not be
constructed, and the project site's General Plan and zoning designations would not be
changed. No additional entitlements would be required under this Alternative.
12
.r The No Project/No Development Alternative results in fewer impacts to land use,
aesthetics and visual resources, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, hydrology
and water quality, and public services and utilities. However, this Alternative would
result in an increase in impacts regarding population, housing, and employment.
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not implement the overall
objective of the proposed project, which is to achieve the development of an
economically feasible, high quality mix of residential, commercial and recreational
uses with a strong relationship to natural open space and the surrounding community,
and conservation of nearby sensitive natural resources. Under this Alternative, the
proposed residential, commercial and recreational uses would not be
developed. Therefore, none of the project objectives identified above would be met
under the No Project/No Development Alternative.
c. Alternative 2, Reduced Density Alternative. The Reduced Density Alternative would
be similar to the proposed project in terns of land use types, but would provide
multi -family residential units at a lower density. This Alternative would still require
approval of the entitlements required under the proposed project, including the
following: tentative tract map, General Plan Amendment, zone change, and
conditional use permit. The reduced density alternative would retain the 8,000 square
feet of commercial retail uses included in the proposed project, and would provide a
similar proportion of triplex and townhome dwelling units, but the residential portion
of the site would be zoned RM -PD. The RM -PD zone allows for multi -family
residential uses at a maximum density of 11 dwelling units per acre (du/acre). Given
that the Reduced Density Alternative would still include 8,000 square feet of
commercial, a minimum lot size of approximately 1 acre is required for the
commercial uses and associated roadways and setbacks under the CN -PD zone, which
provides for a maximum floor -area ratio (FAR) of 0.375:1. Per the Unified
Development Code (UDC), a conditional use permit is required for all development
within a Planned Development overlay, as well as for architectural elements above the
35 -foot maximum building height within the RM and CN zones. As such, the
remainder of the project site, approximately 29 acres, would be zoned RM -PD,
allowing a density of 319 multi -family dwelling units. As previously indicated, the
proportion of housing types in the residential portion of the project under this
Alternative is anticipated to be comparable to that of the proposed project, yielding
201 townhome units and 118 triplex units. All other proposed facilities,
infrastructure, and amenities would also be provided, to the extent required by the
City or other affected agencies.
The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics and visual
resources, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, and public services and
utilities. However, this Alternative would result in greater impacts to population,
employment, and housing. Impacts related to land use and hydrology and water
13
quality would be comparable to the proposed project. However, significant and
unavoidable impacts would still occur with respect to traffic and circulation, air
quality, noise, and public services and utilities.
The overall objective of the proposed project is to achieve the development of an
economically feasible, high quality mix of residential, commercial and recreational
uses with a strong relationship to natural open space and the surrounding community,
and conservation of nearby sensitive natural resources. Development of this
Alternative would provide 118 fewer housing units than the proposed project. As
such, the Reduced Density Alternative would not accommodate projected growth in
the Santa Clarita Valley to the extent that the proposed project would. Although this
Alternative would generally meet the objectives of the project, it would not provide
the amount of housing as the proposed project, and therefore may not be economically
feasible. Therefore, all of the project objectives identified above would be at least
partially met under the Reduced Density Alternative.
d. Alternative 3, Existing General Plan Alternative. The Existing General Plan
Alternative would eliminate all of the residential uses and dramatically increase the
amount of commercial uses on site relative to the proposed project. Under the
Existing General Plan Alternative, the entire 30 -acre project site would remain
designated and zoned CO -PD with the VCC overlay. This Alternative would still
require approval of a Tentative Tract Map and a conditional use permit, the latter of
which is required for all development within a Planned Development overlay. Under
this Alternative, no residential units would be constructed on-site, but instead the site
would be developed with a mix of office and retail uses. The commercial
development would be comprised of approximately 60 percent office uses (980,100
square feet) and 40 percent retail uses (653,400 square feet), totaling 1,633,500 square
feet, the maximum allowable density under the CO zone, which limits the FAR to
1.25:1. All other facilities, parking, landscaping, and infrastructure would also be
provided, as required for the CO zone per the UDC.
The Existing General Plan Alternative would reduce impacts related to land
use. However, this Alternative would result in greater impacts to population,
employment, and housing, aesthetics and visual resources, traffic and circulation, air
quality, noise, and public services and utilities. Additionally, significant and
unavoidable impacts would still occur with respect to traffic and circulation, air
quality, noise, and public services and utilities.
The overall objective of the proposed project is to achieve the development of an
economically feasible, high quality mix of residential, commercial and recreational
uses with a strong relationship to natural open space and the surrounding community,
and conservation of nearby sensitive natural resources. However, development of this
Alternative would not provide any housing units or recreational facilities. As such,
the Existing General Plan Alternative would not accommodate projected growth in
the Santa Clarita Valley to the extent that the proposed project would. Additionally,
14
this Alternative would not provide housing units as the proposed project, and
therefore may not be economically feasible. Therefore, most of the project objectives
identified above would not be met under the Existing General Plan Alternative.
e. Alternative 4, Work -Live Unit Alternative. Under the Work -Live Alternative, the
proposed project would be modified to provide 22 work -live units in the central
portion of the development. These work -live units would be townhome units, which
would be intended to provide a convenient, innovative form of workforce housing by
allowing homeowners to live and work at home, thereby also reducing vehicle
trips. All other aspects of the project under the Work -Live Unit Alternative would be
similar to the proposed project, with 412 total residential units (including 222
townhomes, 168 triplex units, and 22 work -live units). In addition, the size of the
commercial component will be increased to 16,000 square feet, including 8,000
square feet of first floor retail uses and 8,000 square feet of second -floor office.
The Work -Live Unit Alternative would reduce impacts to traffic and circulation, air
quality, noise, and public services and utilities. This Alternative would result in
impacts comparable to those of the proposed project related to land use; population,
housing, and employment; aesthetics and visual resources; and hydrology and water
quality. However, significant and unavoidable impacts would still occur with respect
to traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, and public services and utilities.
The overall objective of the proposed project is to achieve the development of an
economically feasible, high quality mix of residential, commercial and recreational
uses with a strong relationship to natural open space and the surrounding community,
and conservation of nearby sensitive natural resources. Development of this
Alternative would provide all of the residential, commercial and recreational uses,
including work/live units to foster vehicle trip reduction and other benefits. This
Alternative would be economically feasible, foster a strong relationship with open
space and the surrounding community, and would help conserve sensitive natural
resources. Therefore, all of the project objectives identified above would be met
under the Work/Live Unit Alternative.
f. Environmentally Superior Alternative. The determination of an environmentally
superior alternative is based on the consideration of how the alternative fulfills the
project objectives and how the alternative either reduces significant, unavoidable
impacts or substantially reduces the impacts to the surrounding environment. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6 indicates that if the No Project Alternative is the
environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
In consideration of these factors, the Work -Live Unit Alternative is selected as the
Environmentally Superior Alternative to the original proposed project. The
Work -Live Unit Alternative results in less development and thus reduces the
significant traffic, air, noise, and public services and utilities impacts, though these
15
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, the Live -Work Unit
Alternative meets all of the project objectives, as it provides for development of an
economically feasible, high quality mix of residential, commercial, and recreational
uses with a strong relationship to natural open space and the surrounding community,
and conservation of nearby sensitive natural resources.
The Work -Live Unit Alternative (as revised to reduce the amount of commercial uses
from 16,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet) is also environmentally superior to the
Reduced Density Alternative. Although both Alternatives would require similar land
use entitlements, the Live -Work Unit Alternative is slightly superior because it would
satisfy the General Plan, which identifies the project site for a higher density
residential, whereas the Reduced Density Alternative would not provide as great a
mix of uses or housing types. The housing impacts of the Live -Work Unit Alternative
would be superior to the Reduced Density Alternative in providing housing units
required for the anticipated increase in population in the region. Overall, the impacts
of both Alternatives on aesthetic and visual resources would be generally the
same. The Reduced Density Alternative would generate a total of approximately
3,043 ADTs, as compared to 3,256 ADTs that would be generated by the modified
Work -Live Unit Alternative.
Although both Alternatives would still create significant unavoidable impacts at the
intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon Road, the Reduced
Density Alternative would generate less traffic overall. The construction emissions of
the Reduced Density Alternative would be lower than the modified Live -Work Unit
Alternative, though both Alternatives would still result in significant unavoidable
short-term air quality impacts. Due to the lower number of vehicle trips, the Reduced
Density Alternative would have lower operational emissions than the modified
Live -Work Unit Alternative. Although the construction and mobile -source
operational noise impacts would be slightly less under the Reduced Density
Alternative, both Alternatives would still have significant unavoidable impacts related
to the Saugus Speedway, so the overall impacts would be generally the same. While
impacts related to drainage, hydrology, floodplain and water quality would be
incrementally less under the Reduced Density Alternative than under the Live -Work
Unit Alternative, impacts with both Alternatives would be mitigated to less than
significant, so impacts would be generally the same. Impacts to public services and
utilities can be mitigated to less than significant under both Alternatives, with the
exception of solid waste, which would remain significant and unavoidable under
either Alternative, so the overall impacts would be generally the same. The Reduced
Density Alternative would not meet the project objectives as fully as the Live -Work
Unit Alternative and may not be economically feasible.
Finally, it should be noted that the revised project is substantially consistent with the
Work -Live Unit Alternative Project, which has been identified above as the
environmentally superior alternative.
16
SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Based upon
the above recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the Soledad Village Final
EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received, at the public hearings held on the
Soledad Village project and the Soledad Village Draft EIR and the Final EIR, upon studies and
investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, and upon reports and other transmittals
from City staff to the City Council, the City Council further finds:
a. That the Final EIR for the Soledad Village 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 and reviewed prior to taking final action to approve
the Soledad Village 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 attached hereto. The analyses included in the Final EIR to support each
-- conclusion and recommendation therein is hereby incorporated into these findings.
e. That, in accordance with the CEQA Section 21081, modifications have occurred to
the project to reduce significant effects.
f. That, in accordance with the CEQA Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section
15091, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the Soledad
Village project that avoid or substantially lessen its significant environmental effects
because feasible mitigation measures, including those in the NEVW, are made
conditions of approval for the project.
g. The Statement of Overriding Considerations identifies and weighs the revised
project's significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant
against the community benefits from this revised project, and concludes based on
substantial evidence in the record that the revised project's benefits outweigh its
unavoidable significant impacts.
h. That the Final EIR reflects the decision -maker's independent judgment and analysis.
L That a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (N MRP) has been prepared and
is adopted to enforce the mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and project
approvals.
17
j. The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings on
which this decision is based are under the custody of the City Clerk and are located at
the City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Department, 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 Soledad Village Final EIR, oral and written
testimony and other evidence, received at the public hearings held on the Soledad Village project
and the Soledad Village EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the Planning
Commission and City Council, or 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 there is
substantial evidence that supports the conclusion that the Soledad Village project will result in
community benefits, including specific ecological, economic, legal, social, technical and other
benefits, that outweigh the significant effects of the Soledad Village 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:
1. Traffic and Circulation: Long-term cumulative impacts.
2. Air Quality: Short-term impacts during construction, and long-term and
cumulative impacts associated with project operation.
3. Noise: Stationary source noise (Saugus Speedway).
4. Solid Waste Disposal: Short-term impacts during construction, and long-term and
cumulative impacts associated with project operation.
b. The benefits of the Soledad Village 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):
1. The project will implement the Valley Center Concept of the City's General Plan,
but at the same time provides for development that is well below the maximum
densities/intensities permitted for the site by the General Plan. The project has
been identified in the City's Housing Element as suitable for high density
residential development due to its flat terrain and proximity to the Santa Clarita
Metrolink Station.
2. With four different types of multi -family residential dwelling units, the Soledad
Village project will provide various residential housing opportunities for different
economic levels, 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
M
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 and the
applicant has agreed to provide a workforce housing component in conjunction
with the project.
3. The Soledad Village project will create 407 new housing units including 22
live -work 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 commercial uses.
4. Five percent of the project units (20 units) would be designated as workforce
housing units, for which the purchase price will be reduced by ten percent and
would be targeted to first time buyers with first preference being given to teachers,
nurses and public safety employees who are employed in the Santa Clarita Valley.
5. The Soledad Village project will provide increased residential densities, retail
services and employment opportunities in close proximity to transportation
corridors and centers, including the Metrolink station.
6. The Soledad Village project will enhance the Santa Clara River Trail and trails
along Soledad Canyon Road, provide trail connections between the two through
the interior planning areas, and will construct a pedestrian bridge across Soledad
Canyon Road.
7. The Soledad Village project will cover the existing concrete flood control channel
along the subject property's frontage on Soledad Canyon Road, landscape
medians off-site within Soledad Canyon Road from the project's easterly
boundary to the Soledad Canyon Road, Golden Valley Road flyover, and
contribute $300,000 to the City of Santa Clarita for the establishment of a Soledad
Canyon Road transmission line undergrounding program.
8. 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 City
that is already surrounded by development, that is adjacent to or near existing and
planned infrastructure, utilities and other urban services, . public transit,
transportation corridors, and major employment areas, and that ha's already been
disturbed by grading, agricultural and commercial activities.
9. The Soledad Village project will provide enhanced recreational opportunities for
future residents through the provision of private recreational facilities within the
project.
19
10. The project includes the off-site dedication to the City of Santa Clarita of 12 acres
of land located along the South Fork of the Santa Clara River. The applicant will
receive partial Quimby credit for this dedication. It should be noted that the land
being dedicated is larger than the parkland acreage required for the project under
the City's Quimby ordinance.
SECTION 7. The City Council reviewed and considered the environmental information
contained in the Final EIR SCH No. 2002091081 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 21081 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has considered the project benefits as balanced
against the unavoidable adverse environmental effects and has hereby determined that the project
benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects; therefore, the City Council has
hereby determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental effects are considered
acceptable. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR and associated documents as
adequate under CEQA, and adopts the CEQA Findings contained in this Resolution, including,
but not limited to, the Findings Required by CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A; the project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (SOC).
SECTION 8. By the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council has not granted any
approval of entitlement on this project.
SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify
this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of June, 2006.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
20
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 13th day of June, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCI MEMBERS: McLean, Kellar, Ferry, Smyth, Weste
NOES: COUNCRAIEM 3ERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMBMBERS: None
21
.
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
CERTIFICATION OF
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of the original Resolution No. 06-65, adopted by the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita, California on June 13, 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 Program (NEVW) (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 Soledad Village project.
23
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 Guidelines section 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 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
1.1.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Buildout of the Soledad Village project would result
in significant impacts at the Soledad Canyon Road/Bouquet Canyon Road intersection under
Year 2015 conditions. As the Soledad Village Draft EIR concludes, mitigation to reduce the
project's impacts to a level of insignificance is presently infeasible at the intersection of Soledad
Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon Road, and, therefore, the project impacts at this intersection
are significant and unavoidable.
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
Mitigation Measures TRI and TR2, 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 unavoidable.
According to City of Santa Clarita performance criteria, a significant traffic and
circulation impact would result if: (A) an intersection, under "with project" conditions, is
forecast to operate worse than Level of Service (LOS) D or the existing LOS, whichever is
greater, and (B) the project increases the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) by either .02 or
more if the intersection with the project is forecast to operate at LOS D, or by 0.1 or more if the
intersection with the project is forecast to operate at LOS E or F.
The traffic conditions evaluated in the Soledad Village EIR are based on the Santa Clarita
Valley Consolidated Traffic Model Interim Year (2015) setting. The Interim Year is generally
ten years into the future and includes additional traffic generated by projected ambient growth
during that time frame. As such, the cumulative development anticipated within the project
vicinity has been incorporated into the 2015 traffic projections. As indicated in the Soledad
Village Final EIR, under the interim year (2015) conditions with the project, the intersection of
-- Soledad Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon Road is expected to operate at LOS E in the PM
peak hour. The original proposed project at buildout would be expected to generate 3,926 total
average daily trips (ADTs), with approximately 370 occurring in the PM peak hour. Based on
these ADT, the traffic impact analysis found that the original proposed project would contribute
approximately .01 to the Soledad Canyon Road/Bouquet Canyon Road intersection in the PM
peak hour, thus exceeding the City's threshold of significance and resulting in a significant
impact.
The Soledad Village project is located within the Bouquet Canyon Bridge and
Thoroughfare District (Bouquet B&T District). This district is considered a full -mitigation
district, that is, traffic improvements identified in the district when built out would mitigate
traffic impacts created by planned growth within the district. However, the City has determined
that the affected intersection will be built -out upon completion of intersection improvements
expected to occur in 2006 and future identified circulation improvements within the District that
would relive congestion at this intersection are not planned for construction in the next ten years.
Specifically, the bridge project currently under construction will add a fourth through -lane to
both the northbound and southbound sides of the bridge, as well as the segment of Bouquet
Canyon Road between Soledad Canyon Road and Newhall Ranch Road. However, the bridge
project does not include adding the fourth northbound lane intersection improvement on Bouquet
Canyon Road south of Soledad Canyon Road. This segment was deleted from the bridge project
by the City due to right-of-way constraints from existing uses adjacent to Bouquet Canyon Road.
Based on this determination by the City, the addition of the fourth northbound through -lane,
which required right-of-way on the southeast corner of the intersection along Bouquet Canyon
Road, is infeasible. Therefore, upon completion of these improvements, mitigation that will
reduce the project's impact to a level of insignificance is considered infeasible at the intersection
due to right-of-way constraints from existing uses adjacent to Bouquet Canyon Road. It should
be noted, however, that implementation of Mitigation Measures TR1 and TR2 would improve
the function of the Bouquet Canyon Road/Soledad Canyon Road intersection relative to without -
project conditions, although project impacts would remain significant.
Subsequent revisions to the project as originally proposed, primarily the reduction in
residential density from 437 units to 407 units, will reduce this project's traffic generation to
approximately 3,913 ADT and will incrementally reduce the project's contribution of traffic to
the Soledad Canyon Road/Bouquet Canyon Road intersection. Nevertheless, the revised project
is predicted to contribute .01 to such intersection's PM peak hour ICU,i$.which case the impact
remains significant and unavoidable
For the reasons stated here and in the SOC, the remaining unavoidable significant
impacts on traffic 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
1.2.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Using the South Coast Air Quality Management
District's (SCAQMD) emissions thresholds, the EIR concluded that implementation of the
proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts attributable to construction-
related emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROC), 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, air quality impacts attributable to operational emissions of ROC 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 AQ1 through AQ5, 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.
Construction -Related Emissions
NOx. Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources such
as utility engines, on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and
from the site, asphalt paving, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust
emissions from construction activities envisioned on-site would vary daily as construction
activity levels change. Construction activities associated with new development occurring on the
project site would temporarily increase localized ROC, NOx and PM10 concentrations in the
project vicinity, which could contribute to the continuing violations of the Federal and State
maximum concentration standards.
Equipment exhaust, material transport, and construction crew commutes would generate
gaseous emissions during grading. The SCAQMD has established 1001bs/day as the significance
threshold for NOx emissions from construction activities. On a peak grading day, and as the
project was originally proposed, NOx emissions from construction activities on the project site
would be approximately 173.6 lbs/day, and approximately 104.2 lbs/day on a typical grading
day. Thus, construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in
significant NOx emission impacts. Feasible mitigation measures, including Mitigation Measure
AQ2, would be implemented that would reduce construction -related NOx emissions to the
maximum extent feasible. However, no feasible mitigation currently exists which would reduce
the project's construction -related emissions of NOx to below the SCAQMD's recommended
threshold of significance.
Subsequent revisions to the project as originally proposed that affect the project's air
quality impacts are primarily the reduction in residential units from 437 to 407 (approximately 7
percent). Assuming a proportional reduction of construction activities, NOx emissions on a peak
grading day still would be significant at approximately 161 lbs/day, although NOx emissions
would be reduced below significance with approximately 97 lbs/day on a typical grading day.
PMio. Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with grading, land clearing,
exposure, vehicle and equipment travel on unpaved roads, and dirt/debris pushing. Dust
generated during construction activities would vary substantially depending on the level of
activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions. Sensitive receptors in the project
vicinity and on-site construction workers may be exposed to blowing dust, depending upon
prevailing wind conditions.
Based on the construction estimates, fugitive dust emissions from excavation,
hauling/transport, dumping/reclamation, wind erosion, and miscellaneous activities during
grading days, the uncontrolled PMto emissions attributable to the project as originally proposed
would be 465.5 pounds per day (lbs/day). Feasible mitigation measures, including Mitigation
Measure AQ1, would be implemented that would reduce construction -related PMIo emissions to
the maximum extent feasible. Implementation of the mitigation measure is expected to reduce
fugitive dust emissions from construction activities by approximately 50 percent, to
approximately 232.7 lbs/day. The SCAQMD has established 150 lbs/day as the threshold of
significance for PMIo emissions from construction activities. Thus, after mitigation, construction
activities associated with the proposed project would result in significant PMIo emission impacts.
No feasible mitigation currently exists which would reduce the project's construction -related
emissions of PMIo to below the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance.
Subsequent revisions to the project as originally proposed that affect the project's air
quality impacts are primarily the reduction in residential units from 437 to 407 (a reduction of
approximately 7 percent). Assuming a proportional reduction of construction activities under the
revised project, PMIo emissions after mitigation would be approximately 216 lbs/day, still in
excess of the threshold of significance.
ROC. Architectural coatings emit reactive organic compounds (ROC). At this time there
is no project -specific information available for the types and volumes of architectural coatings
needed for the proposed on-site buildings. Based on the number of proposed on-site buildings
and the square footage of those buildings, the proposed project is expected to result in
architectural coatings -related ROC emissions exceeding the SCAQMD threshold of 75 lbs/day.
Feasible mitigation measures, including Mitigation Measure AQ3, would be implemented that
would reduce construction -related ROC emissions to the maximum extent feasible.
Operation -Related Emissions
ROC. Operational emissions are generated from stationary sources, such as natural gas
usage and consumer products, and primarily from mobile sources. The SCAQMD has
established a daily operational emissions significance threshold for ROC of 55 lbs/day. The
proposed Phase 1 development is estimated to generate 2,257 net total new vehicular trips per
day, resulting in ROC emissions of 34.94 lbs/day in summer and 33.6 lbs/day in winter. After
completion of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 development, the proposed project is estimated to
generate 3,926 vehicular trips per day, resulting in ROC emissions of 61.73 lbs/day in summer
and 58.3 lbs/day in winter. Thus, a significant regional air quality impact would occur with the
implementation of the proposed project from operational ROC emissions.
No feasible mitigation exists to reduce the project's operational emissions of ROC to less
than significant levels. Therefore, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ4 and
AQ5, the project's operation -related emissions of ROC are considered unavoidably significant.
Although the project's operational ROC 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. 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 unavoidable significant
impacts on air quality 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
1.3.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Development associated with the proposed project
could expose project residents to significant temporary and intermittent noise levels from an
existing stationary -source noise generator in the project area, primarily associated with special
events at the nearby Saugus Speedway, thereby resulting in potentially significant noise impacts
to project residents.
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 N11, 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 therefore
unavoidable.
The Saugus Speedway facility is located approximately 1,320 feet to the west of the
Soledad Village project site, directly to the west of the Metrolink Commuter Rail station. The
speedway facility has an area of 35 acres, is zoned Community Commercial (CC) and was
recently included in the City's Mixed Use Overlay zone. These characteristics allow a broad
range of commercial and mixed use projects to potentially be developed on the site. The City is
unaware of any plans to reinstate the racing use at the Saugus Speedway site, or to develop the
site for another use. Despite the implementation of recommended mitigation measures, the
proposed project would result in the potential of temporary unavoidable significant impacts with
regard to exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of guidelines identified in the City's
General Plan. The impact would be caused by automobile racing at the Saugus Speedway site, if
such racing were to occur in the future. Racing has not been conducted at the site since 1994.
However, because racing has been operated in the past and is considered a "worst case" scenario
from a noise perspective, the EIR analyzed noise impacts based upon speedway operation. In the
unlikely event that auto racing is reinstated on the site, that property would likely need some type
of City approval. Noise attenuation (sound wall, etc.) at the Speedway site and limited hours of
operation could be required as part of that approval.
The Saugus Speedway facility is a special event facility used for exhibitions, swap meets,
and special events. Special events include car races, demolition derbies, concerts, circuses,
baseball and football games, fireworks, rodeos, fairs or carnivals. When they do occur at the
speedway, many of these events occur at night. The speedway is often used for filming
purposes, with and without explosions, car crashes, or racing sequences. Although there is no
way to predict noise levels from any one event at the speedway, it is estimated that a racing event
at the speedway would produce a noise level of 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Assuming a
racing event at the Saugus Speedway with a noise level of 95 dBA at 50 feet, given that noise
attenuates at 6 dBA for every doubling of distance, noise levels at the closest proposed
residences (at a distance of approximately 1,320 feet) would be between 65 and 70 dBA.
The City has set noise standards for residential zones of 55 decibels (dBA) at night and
65 dBA during the day. For repetitive impulse noise or steady, whine, screech, or hum noise, the
base noise levels are reduced by 5 dBA. If the noise occurs more than 5 but less than 15 minutes
per hour during the daytime, the above base noise levels are raised 5 dBA. If the noise occurs
more than 1 minute but less than 5 minutes per hour during the daytime, the above base noise
levels are raised by 10 dBA. If the noise occurs less than 1 minute per hour during the daytime,
the above base noise levels are raised by 20 dBA.
Therefore, future residents of the proposed residential uses would experience significant
exterior noise levels for the duration of the event. However, noise from these permitted activities
would be partly "drowned out" by traffic noise on Soledad Canyon Road. Nonetheless, there is a
potential for a significant noise impacts on future project residents from activities from the
speedway when they do occur, particularly during nighttime events when noise sensitivities are
at their greatest. Residents experiencing the greatest amount of noise at the speedway would be
those with residences along the western project boundary. Residents living further away and
shielded by intervening structures would experience less noise. Noise from these activities may
intermittently exceed noise standards and could result in temporary significant noise impacts on
project residents. Mitigation Measure 11 is included to inform future residents of the activities
that can potentially occur at the Saugus Speedway facility, and that these activities may be
audible on a temporary and intermittent basis. However, no mitigation exists that would reduce
this potentially significant temporary, intermittent noise impact to less than significant and, thus,
they would be unavoidable.
For the reasons stated here and in the SOC, the remaining unavoidable significant noise
impacts are outweighed by the project's benefits and are acceptable when balanced against the
specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations.
1.4 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
1.4.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The project would generate unavoidably significant
impacts associated with solid waste disposal. 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 85 to 100 tons of solid waste per year.
Even with mitigation, and as revised, the project would create unavoidable significant 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 SWI through SW11, 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.
The 15 landfills serving Los Angeles County have a total permitted capacity of 810.7
million cubic yards and a remaining capacity of approximately 317.1 million cubic yards.
Currently many jurisdictions, including the County of Los Angeles, are stating that existing local
landfill space may reach capacity in the very near future. The two potential landfills that would
serve the site (Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill and Antelope Valley Public Landfill) have
approximately 57 percent and 46 percent, respectively, capacity remaining.
Site preparation (vegetation removal and grading activities) and construction activities
would generate typical construction debris, including wood, paper, glass, plastic, metals,
cardboard, and green wastes. Construction activities could also generate hazardous waste
products. The wastes generated would result in an incremental and intermittent increase in solid
waste disposal at landfills and other waste disposal facilities within Los Angeles County.
At buildout, the project would generate approximately 85 to 100 tons per year of solid
waste from the proposed residential and commercial uses. This quantity represents the proposed
project's solid waste generation under a worst-case scenario without any recycling activities in
place. However, under the City Model Ordinance, the proposed project would be required to
provide adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials in concert with
countywide efforts and programs to reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills.
Therefore, although the proposed project would generate approximately 85 to 100 tons per year,
it can also be assumed that the project would meet the current recycling goals of the community
and in actuality only generate approximately 43 to 50 tons per year due to the City mandate to
divert at least 50 percent of potential waste disposal.
Assuming a worst-case assumption of 100 tons per year, the proposed project represents
0.005 percent of the daily permitted tonnage at the Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill and 0.02
percent of the daily permitted tonnage at the Antelope Valley Public Landfill.
Since the Draft EIR was circulated, 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 437 to 407. This density reduction has reduced the amount of solid waste generated
during construction and operation of the project, but not to a level less than significant.
Regardless, while recycling and the imposition of Mitigation Measures SWl through SWI l 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.
For the reasons stated here and in the SOC, the remaining unavoidable significant 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.
SECTION 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT HAVE BEEN MITIGATED TO A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL OR THAT ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT
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.
2.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
2.1.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Grading and construction activities would
temporarily alter the existing visual character of the project site and the surrounding area and
introduce nighttime light and glare. Development of the proposed project would alter the
existing visual character and viewshed from surrounding locations and would introduce new
sources of light and glare into the project area. 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.
2.1.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.1.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS.
Existing Conditions
The project site is currently vacant but has been rough graded. As such, the site is
generally void of any vegetation and is relatively flat with little or no topographic relief. A chain
link fence covered with green mesh extends the entire length of the southern project boundary,
which continues around the southeast corner of the project boundary, and then a six-foot high
block wall extends the remainder of the eastern boundary of the project site. Existing on-site
improvements recently constructed with previous approvals include the following:
• A new street entrance (Gladding Way) with signal improvements;
• Grading to re -compact unconsolidated soils and create site pads above high water
flood levels;
• Construction of buried bank stabilization 40 feet wide and 2,600 feet long along the
southern bank of the Santa Clara River; and
• A Class I trail has been constructed along the northern and southern boundary as part
of the buried bank stabilization (Santa Clara River East Trail).
Short -Term Construction Aesthetic, Light and Glare Impacts
During construction, graded surfaces, construction materials, equipment and truck traffic
would be visible. Soil would be stockpiled and equipment for grading would be staged at
various locations throughout the project site. Although construction -related impacts to views are
temporary and generally considered less than significant, with implementation of Mitigation
Measure AES1, pertaining to equipment staging areas and the use of screening, impacts in this
regard are concluded as less than significant.
Lighting during construction of the project would likely be limited to nighttime lighting
necessary for security purposes, which may pose a light and glare impact to the residences
located north of the project site. Although this is considered a short-term impact, Mitigation
Measure AES2 is identified to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Long-term Aesthetic Impacts
Views looking northward from Soledad Canyon Road would include a five-foot
landscape parkway, a ten -foot trail and lodge post and minimum ten -foot landscape and six-foot
high perimeter wall setback. A 30 -foot wide flood channel is located behind the trail along
portions of the western half of the site. This channel will be boxed as part of the project.
Landscaping, primarily groundcover and shrubs, will be placed over this boxed channel. The
second story of the residential units would be visible above the perimeter wall. In addition, the
street setbacks slope upwards, resulting in all the buildings being 10 to 15 feet higher than street
level. The first four residential buildings would be visible at the southeast corner of the project
site, and the approximately 8,000 square foot retail building with signage would be visible on the
northeastern corner of Soledad Canyon Road and Gladding Way. Gladding Way, a two-lane
divided roadway with landscaping on both sides and within the median, would be visible
immediately west of the retail building. Residential buildings would front the remainder of the
project, with an additional driveway approximately 1,000 feet west of Gladding Way.
Views of the project site looking eastward from the intersection of Soledad Canyon Road
and Commuter Way would be partially obstructed by existing fencing and the landscaping that
would be provided along the project boundary. Some of the residential rooflines and buildings
would be visible beyond the landscaping with views of the hillsides in the background. Views
eastward from the Santa Clara River would also be partially obstructed by the six-foot fence and
landscaping that would be provided along the site's western boundary. Along the Santa Clara
River a pedestrian trail has been provided that will include a ranch rail fence along the riverside.
Views from the Santa Clara River located north of the project site would be of the two-
story residential buildings, fronted by mature landscaping trees and the six-foot fence with a
pony wall. The two-story residential buildings would obstruct views of the commercial and
industrial building located south of the project site and partially obstruct views of the hillsides in
the background.
Views from the soccer center and mobile home park, located immediately east of the
project site, would be partially obstructed by the existing block walls that border the eastern
project boundary. A minimum ten -foot buffer along with larger landscaping trees would be
provided on-site near the block walls, which would further work to reduce the visual impact of
the two-story residential buildings. However, three residential buildings would be located at the
northeastern portion of the project site, of which the second stories would be visible above the
block walls. Two open space areas would be provided in between the residential buildings and
the far northeastern portion of the project site, which would be fully landscaped to provide
further visual relief of the residential buildings.
The proposed project would involve developing approximately 30 acres of vacant, graded
land with residential and commercial uses. While the proposed project would result in an
increase in urban development within the project area, it is compatible with the existing and
approved developments located to the north, east and south. The residential uses would be
compatible with the existing mobile home park located to the east and the proposed residential
uses that would be developed as part of the Riverpark project that is located north of the project
site. The retail uses proposed along Soledad Canyon Road would also be compatible with the
recreational and commercial uses located to the east and south of the project site.
In addition, the proposed landscaping plan, pedestrian circulation plan, and open space
plan would provide for an aesthetically pleasing development that would not result in a
degradation of the visual character or quality of the project site. Therefore, long-term aesthetic
impacts for the residential uses would be less than significant, and less than significant for the
commercial uses following implementation of Mitigation Measure AES3 requiring the
commercial site to undergo the City's Development Review process.
The potentially significant long-term aesthetic impacts have been further reduced due to
revisions in the project since the draft EIR was circulated. A number of the revisions positively
impact the long-term aesthetics. A second recreational area has been added on the west end of
the project site and a small landscaped area has been added west of the main recreational
complex, thereby increasing the total private common recreational areas from 3.0 to 3.3 acres. In
addition, new sidewalks and pathways have been added along many interior "loop" streets,
adding green space and shade. As stated above, the existing concrete channel along the
southwestern half of the project site will be covered or "boxed," allowing for additional
landscaping and a wider public trail along the Soledad Canyon Road frontage.
The applicant has submitted colored elevations of all the proposed structures for the
project, which were reviewed for consistency with the City's Architectural Design Guidelines.
The architectural plans meet the following overall objectives:
• Provides various architectural styles, building materials and colors throughout the
project;
• Ensures the architecture is of high quality and includes 360 -degree principles with
adequate building projections and variations;
• Provides further enhanced detail along the elevations facing Soledad Canyon Road,
the interior loop streets and the Santa Clara River;
• Uses "landmark architecture" at the Gladding Way entrance;
• Has the live/work units and commercial center stand out compared to the rest of the
complex;
• Includes treatments to enhance the appearance of elevations with garage doors; and
• The commercial complex will be designed to have a two-story appearance, with
several tower elements, to better integrate with the height of the rest of the
development.
Long -Term Light and Glare Impacts
The proposed project would include lighting for activity areas involving nighttime uses,
lighting around the structures, and lighting for interior of buildings. Residential uses to the east
would experience a change in the amount of light spill or glare with the development of the two-
story residential buildings in the northeastern portion of the project site resulting in potentially
significant impacts to these residential uses. Light and glare from the residential buildings
located along the northern portion of the project site would not impact the proposed residential
uses that would be developed as part of the Riverpark development located north of the project
site, since they would be located on a hill above the project site and buffered by a distance of at
least 100 feet due to the Santa Clara River. However, traffic traversing Soledad Canyon Road
may be significantly impacted by the light and glare associated with residential and commercial
development. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES4 and compliance with the City's
UDC would reduce long-term light and glare to off-site uses to less than significant.
The existing development located to the east and south may also impact the proposed
residential uses on-site. In consideration of the existing urban environment, the existing buffers
and implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, project implementation would not
result in significant light and glare impacts to on-site uses, resulting in less -than -significant on-
site light and glare impacts.
OP► Z[6)6101
2.2.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Project -related grading and construction activities
could result in temporary noise impacts on nearby noise -sensitive receptors. Development of the
proposed project could expose project residents to significant traffic -related noise from Soledad
Canyon Road. 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.
2.2.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.2.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS.
Construction -Related Noise
Short-term, intermittent noise impacts would be associated with construction of the
proposed project. Construction -related noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise
levels in the project area today, but would no longer occur once construction of the proposed
project is completed. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during the construction
of the proposed project:
First, construction crew members commuting to and from work and the transport of
construction equipment and materials to the site for the proposed project would incrementally
increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. There would be a relatively high single -
event noise exposure potential at a maximum level of 87 dBA with trucks passing at 50 feet.
However, the increase due to project -related construction traffic would be small when compared
to the existing traffic volumes on Soledad Canyon Road, and the associated increased noise
levels would not be perceptible. Therefore, short-term construction -related worker commutes
and equipment transport noise impacts would not be significant.
The second type of short-term noise impacts would be caused by excavation, grading,
and erecting of buildings on the project site. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of
which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These
various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site.
Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and
size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of
operation allow construction -related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Typical
maximum noise levels range up to 91 dBA at 50 feet during the noisiest construction phases.
The closest existing residences in the vicinity of the project area are located more than 200 feet
from the project construction areas. There are no intervening structures between these homes
and the project site. Therefore, these closest residences may be subject to short-term noise levels
reaching 79 dBA generated by construction activities near the project boundary. Thus, project
construction noise could temporarily and intermittently exceed the noise limits adopted by the
City for residential zones resulting in potentially significant impacts to these off-site uses.
The imposition of Mitigation Measures N1 through N4 will reduce construction -related
noise impacts on off-site sensitive uses to a less than significant level.
Operational Traffic Noise
Future traffic on Soledad Canyon Road and other streets in the project vicinity would
generate noise that could create significant long-term mobile source noise impacts on the project
dwelling units located directly adjacent to and facing Soledad Canyon Road, as well as the
project's commercial component. It is estimated that the property line of these frontline dwelling
units would be 60 to 70 feet from the centerline of Soledad Canyon Road. Assuming no
shielding is provided between the traffic and the homes, those units would potentially be exposed
to exterior noise levels reaching up to 74 dBA CNEL. If outdoor active use areas (patios,
balconies or decks) are proposed for those units that would face Soledad Canyon Road, sound
barriers would be required to reduce the traffic noise level to the City's exterior noise standard of
65 dBA CNEL. Balconies or decks on the side of the building facing away from Soledad
Canyon Road or outside the 65-dBA CNEL impact zone would not require sound wall
protection. Because no outdoor recreational use areas would be located between these buildings
and the road, noise mitigation for the open space between these buildings and Soledad Canyon
Road is not required.
Internal roadways on-site, including the two driveways, would carry a maximum of
3,926 ADTs. Vehicle speeds on these internal roads are usually under 35 miles per hour (mph)
or slower. However, even with the assumption of a vehicle speed at 45 mph, the 65-dBA CNEL
would be within 24 feet of the roadway centerline, which is within the roadway right-of-way.
No significant traffic noise impacts would occur from traffic on on-site roadways.
The imposition of Mitigation Measure N5 through N10 will reduce potentially
significant operational -related noise impacts to project residents to a level less than significant
level.
2.3 PARKS AND RECREATION
2.3.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. Development of the proposed project would increase
usage of neighborhood and community parks resulting in a potentially significant impact.
2.3.2 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.3.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The City has 24 existing and proposed
parks totaling 307 acres. In addition to developed parks, the City has 9,075 acres of undeveloped
lands that are or will be preserved as open space recreation areas, and approximately 32.1 miles
of trails currently exist within the City limits, with another 13.8 miles under construction as parts
of other developments.
However, based upon the City's standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents,
the City has an existing deficit of approximately 263 acres of parkland to serve its population of
167,954 persons. Even after all proposed parks are constructed, the City will still have a deficit
of approximately 197 acres of parkland.
Section 66477 of the State Government Code allows cities and counties to require, as a
condition of approval of a subdivision, the dedication of land or the payment of a fee in lieu of
dedication, for park and recreational purposes at a minimum of three acres per 1,000 population
(commonly known as the "Quimby Act"). As allowed by the Quimby Act, Chapter 16.15 of the
City's Uniform Development Code (UDC) mandates that for each 1,000 residents in a new
development project, three acres of parkland shall be dedicated, or the equivalent value of park
improvements shall be constructed, or in -lieu fees shall be paid to the City. The proposed project
would result in a population increase of 1,356 persons. Thus, the proposed project would
generate the need for four acres of parkland or equivalent improvements or in -lieu fees.
The City ordinance allows for up to 30 percent credit for private active recreational
facilities. Credit is not given for passive open space or streets. The proposed project includes a
private recreational center on an approximately 14,000 square foot lot located north of the
commercial building. The facilities would include an approximately 1,200 square foot building
(including a community room, restrooms, and pool equipment room), swimming pool, wading
pool, spa, shade structures and a cabana. The project will also include a tot lot on a 4,000 square
foot lot located within the western portion of the project site.
In addition to the City's Quimby Ordinance, Section 17.15.020 of the City's UDC
specifies that multi -family residential developments provide a minimum of 200 square feet of
open area per ground floor unit and 150 square feet per upper -story units. Thus, the proposed
project would provide this required open space (which may be satisfied by any recreational
buildings and structures).
Implementation of Mitigation Measure PRI requires that project -related Quimby Act and
City park requirements be met through a combination of public parkland dedication, in -lieu fees
and active private recreation land and facilities within the project. Therefore, any potentially
significant impacts on parks and recreation would be reduced to a level below significant.
Furthermore, since circulation of the Draft EIR, the project has been revised to reduce the
number of residential units from 437 to 407, resulting in 93 fewer residents, thus reducing the
requirement of parkland by 0.28. In addition, the project revision has increased the common
recreational areas by 0.3 acres and provided an off-site land dedication of 12 acres.
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 effects, the project will have no significant project -level impacts in
the following areas and that, as a result, no mitigation is required:
3.1 LAND USE
Consistency with General Plan
If the requested General Plan Amendment to Residential Medium High (RMH) and
Commercial Neighborhood (CN) is approved, the proposed project would be consistent with the
land use plan contained in the General Plan. The EIR contains a detailed analysis of the
proposed project's consistency with the numerous goals and policies of the General Plan that are
applicable to the proposed project. The proposed project would not conflict with any of the
applicable goals and policies of the General Plan.
Additionally, the project site is located within the City's General Plan Valley Center
Concept Overlay Area, which encourages residential development at higher densities. Finally,
the conversion of the project site to residential land uses is considered appropriate in the City's
General Plan Housing Element, where the site is identified as suitable for residential
development.
Therefore, the land use impacts would be less than significant in this regard. No
mitigation measures are required.
Consistency with Unified Development Code (UDC)
If the requested Zone Change to Residential Medium High (RMH) and Commercial
Neighborhood (CN) is approved, the proposed residential and commercial components of the
proposed project would be in conformance with the applicable permitted uses in those zoning
districts. The proposed Conditional Use Permit development would conform to all applicable
development standards of the UDC, with the exception of 50 -foot building heights, which are
permitted in excess of the 35 -foot building height limit with the issuance of the requested
Conditional Use Permit. No adverse impacts relative to the proposed project's consistency with
the UDC are anticipated. No mitigation measures are required.
Consistency with the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) Regional
Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) and Southern California Compass Growth
Visioning Program
The EIR contains a detailed analysis of the proposed project's consistency with the
numerous policies of the SCAG RCPG that are applicable to the proposed project. Additionally,
the proposed project would be consistent with all applicable strategies of the SCAG Southern
California Compass Growth Visioning Program. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated in
this regard, and no mitigation measures are required.
3.2 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
Housing
The proposed project, as revised, would add a maximum of 407 residential units to the
City's housing inventory. This represents approximately 0.7 percent of the 61,101 projected
housing units within the City for the year 2010. The additional 407 units would increase the
amount of housing supply in the City, which would assist the City in providing additional
housing opportunities. In addition, the proposed project would provide a minimum of five
percent of workforce housing units, offering units at a price approximately 10 percent below
market, which would assist the City in meeting its low/moderate income housing requirement.
Thus, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to create any significant housing
impacts, but instead provide a beneficial impact. Furthermore, the site is currently undeveloped
and the proposed project would not displace existing housing. The proposed project would have
a less than significant housing impact and no mitigation is required.
Employment
The project proposes up to 8,000 square feet of commercial uses plus 22 live/work units.
Using the employment generation factor of 2.36 employees per 1,000 square feet, the
commercial center would generate 19 employees with the live/work units having the potential to
generate up to 22 additional employees. In addition, development of the proposed project would
introduce indirect employment opportunities associated with the residential development, such as
landscapers, maintenance, and security personnel. Given that the City is seeking to expand
employment opportunities within the City, the additional employees are considered to be a
beneficial impact of implementing the proposed project and a beneficial impact to the City.
The jobs/housing ratio for the City in 2000 was 0.99:1, while the projected jobs/housing
ratio for the City in year 2010 would be 0.90:1, indicating that the City will become increasingly
housing rich. The original purpose of achieving jobs/housing balance within the region as
outlined in SCAG's RCPG was to result in balanced development and a reduction in vehicle
miles traveled within a region and, thereby, a reduction in roadway congestion, fuel
consumption, and air emissions. SCAG's jobs/housing goal for the North County is 1.30:1. The
proposed project would contribute to the jobs/housing goal by providing at least 19 employment
positions.
In addition, since the Draft EIR was circulated, the proposed project has been revised in
certain respects. As indicated above, the revision most relevant to employment is the conversion
of 22 residential units to work -live units within the project, which may create up to 22 additional
job opportunities.
Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant employment impact.
Population Growth
Implementation of the proposed project would include 437 residential units, resulting in a
population increase of approximately 1,356 persons, which represents a 0.81 percent population
increase over the City's 2005 population. The proposed project would also include up to 8,000
square feet of commercial uses, which would generate approximately 19 employees.
Employment generated by the proposed project may result in direct population growth, since
future employees (and their families) may relocate to the City. It is assumed that five persons
(25 percent) of the proposed project's new employees would choose to relocate to the City,
creating a demand for five housing units, and a resultant population increase of approximately 15
persons.
Overall, project implementation would result in a direct increase in the City's population
of approximately 1,372 persons, or approximately 0.82 percent of the City's 2005 population.
This population increase does not represent a substantial portion of the projected population for
the City and would not induce substantial growth or concentration of population. The proposed
project would also not cause Santa Clarita Valley to exceed population projections of 243,104
persons by 2010 and 313,290 persons by 2020.
Moreover, since the Draft EIR was circulated, the proposed project has been revised.
The revision most relevant to population is the decrease of residential units from 437 to 407.
Consequently, the revised project would result in a population increase of approximately 1,278
persons (1,263 persons from additional housing and 15 persons from potential employees
relocating to the City), or approximately 0.76 percent of the City's 2005 population, 0.53 of the
City's projected population in 2010, and 0.41 percent of the City's projected population in 2020.
The proposed project would have a less than significant population impact. No mitigation
is necessary.
3.3 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The EIR analyzed whether development associated with Phase I of the proposed project
could result in significant impacts to the function of intersections in the project area for short-
range traffic conditions. Phase I of the proposed project would generate approximately 2,260
vehicle trips per day, with approximately 130 in the AM peak hour and 210 in the PM peak hour.
Although the intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon Road is predicted to
operate at LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour under the short-range
condition, the proposed project is not expected to increase the ICU at that intersection. Three
intersections in the area of the proposed project (Project Driveway 1 & Soledad Canyon Road;
Project Driveway 2 & Soledad Canyon Road; and Golden Valley Road & Valley Center) will be
operating at acceptable LOS under the short-range conditions with the project. The intersection
of Valley Center and Soledad Canyon Road is expected to operate at LOS D in AM peak hour
and LOS C in PM peak hour under short-range conditions with the proposed project, but the
Soledad Village project is not expected to contribute .01 to that impact. Therefore, pursuant to
the City performance standard described in Section 1.1.3, these impacts are less than significant
and no mitigation measures are required.
Under the Interim Year (2015) project buildout scenario, the analysis assumes that the
Cross Valley Connector would be completed independent of the proposed project, which would
serve to improve the overall function of the traffic system in the project area. The four future
intersections (Project Driveway 1 & Soledad Canyon Road; Project Driveway 2 & Soledad
Canyon Road; Golden Valley Road & Valley Center; and Valley Center and Soledad Canyon
Road) will operate at acceptable LOS in the Interim Year with project buildout. Therefore, the
project impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
In addition, the proposed project would result in a substantial reduction in traffic
generation when compared to the commercial office land uses currently allowed by the City's
General Plan, which is the basis for the traffic generation included in the Santa Clarita Valley
Consolidated Traffic Model (SCVCTM) for the project site. The SCVCTM incorporates all
current land use data for planned and pending projects. Because the proposed project would
result in lower traffic generation than that assumed for the site in the SCVCTM, the proposed
project, in conjunction with other cumulative development (as included in the SCVCTM), would
not result in significant cumulative traffic impacts and no mitigation measures are required.
Finally, the Initial Study concluded that the project would have no potential to cause any
of the following impacts:
• Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
• Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., shard curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
• Result in inadequate emergency access.
• Result in inadequate parking capacity.
• Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., but turnouts, bicycle racks).
0 Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists.
-- 3.4 AIR QUALITY
The estimated amount of construction emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and oxides of
sulfur (Sox) would be 77.2 lbs/day and 25.5 lbs/day, respectively. The significance thresholds
for construction emissions established by the SCAQMD are 550 lbs/day of CO and 150 lbs/day
of Sox. Thus, the project's CO and Sox emissions during construction activities would be less
than significant and no mitigation is required.
The SCAQMD operational emissions significance thresholds for NOx, CO, PMIo, and
Sox are 55 lbs/day, 550 lbs/day, 150 lbs/day, and 150 lbs/day, respectively. Operational
emissions for CO, NOx, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and PM10 would be below the SCAQMD daily
emission thresholds after implementation of Phase 1 development and after Phase 2
development. Thus, the project's impacts in that regard would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
Five intersections in the project vicinity that would be most impacted by the project
traffic were selected for CO hot spot analysis. Only one intersection, Bouquet Canyon Road and
Soledad Canyon Road, currently exceeds Federal and State standards for the 8 -hour CO
concentration of 9 parts per million. Due to technological improvements, emissions factors for
vehicle exhaust would decrease for future years. With the proposed project, none of these
intersections will exceed the federal or state standards for one-hour or 8 -hour CO concentration
in either 2008 or 2015. Thus, the project's impacts in that regard will be less than significant and
no mitigation is required.
In addition, population growth attributed to the project is within growth forecasts
contained in the Growth Management Chapter of the SCAG 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). Additionally, the project densities
are well below the permitted densities allowed on the project site based upon the existing zoning
and General Plan land use designations. 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. Thus, the project's impacts in that regard will
be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
3.5 NOISE
Metrolink and Freight Train Related Noise
Railroad -related noise attributable to Metrolink commuter trains and freight trains
contribute to the ambient noise in the project vicinity. Currently, 24 commuter trains pass
through the Metrolink station between 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8 between
7:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Saturdays; Metrolink does not provide service on Sundays. The
Metrolink commuter trains result in a noise level of 63.4 dBA Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL) at 50 feet from the railroad track. Union Pacific operates freight trains on the
same tracks used by Metrolink, and are assumed to produce similar noise levels when passing the
project site, although these trains do not operate on a set schedule. The proposed project site is
approximately 200 feet from the nearest railroad tracks and is projected to be exposed to a 54.4
dBA CNEL noise level from Metrolink commuter trains and Union Pacific freight trains. This
noise level is 15 to 18 dBA lower than the traffic noise on Soledad Canyon Road, which would
"mask" train -related noise. The additional commuter and freight trains noise would not be
measurable (less than 0.2 dBA). No mitigation would be required.
Project -Generated Traffic Noise
Project -related traffic noise increases along roadway segments in the project vicinity
would be mostly minimal and negligible (0.2 dBA or less), and these increases are less than the
3-dBA threshold normally perceptible by the human ear. Therefore, no significant project -
related traffic noise impacts on off-site land uses would occur. No mitigation measures would be
required.
Commercial Use Noise
The proposed commercial uses could increase stationary -source noise in the project area.
The City standard for all commercial uses is 70 dBA at night and 80 dBA during the day, or the
equivalent of 80 dBA CNEL. The proposed commercial uses would generate noise from truck
deliveries, loading/unloading activities, and other activities at the parking lot. These activities
are potential point sources of noise that could affect noise -sensitive receptors adjacent to the
loading areas, such as the proposed residential uses on-site. Noise readings from loading and
unloading at other commercial uses generate a noise level of 75 dBA at 50 feet and are used in
the EIR analysis. Delivery trucks for the proposed on-site uses would result in a maximum noise
similar to noise readings from loading/unloading activities. The closest loading/unloading area
would be more that 200 feet from the nearest homes. The 200 -foot distance would result in a 12-
dBA noise reduction (compared to the levels at 50 feet), to below 63 dBA at ground level at the
nearest residence on-site. The shortest distance from on-site residences to the parking areas of
commercial uses is approximately 50 feet. Representative parking activities, such as customers
conversing and doors slamming, would generate approximately 60 dBA at 50 feet, below the
City standard of 65 dBA. This range of maximum noise levels is lower than the typical exterior
noise standards for commercial uses of 75 dBA during the day and 65 dBA at night and would
not exceed the exterior noise standards at the nearest residences. Therefore, the noise associated
with the proposed commercial uses would not be significant. No mitigation measures would be
required.
3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The proposed project does not require any new bank stabilization. Buried soil cement (a
highly compacted mixture of soil/aggregate, Portland cement, and water) along the Santa Clara
River adjacent to and upstream of the project site has already been installed per a previous
approval and in conformance with the requirements of the Natural River Management Plan for
the Santa Clara River. Runoff from the developed portions of the proposed project would be
discharged to the Santa Clara River through two existing outfalls after passing through the water
quality Best Management Practices (BMPs). To reduce storm flow velocities and prevent
erosion at stormwater discharge points into the Santa Clara River, energy dissipators consisting
of either riprap or other larger reinforced concrete standard impact -type energy dissipators have
been constructed at the two storm drain outlets leading into the river. These energy dissipators
would slow the rate of flow of runoff into the river to prevent erosion of the stream channel.
Project design features (PDFs) for water quality and hydrologic impacts include site
design, source control, and treatment control BMPs in compliance with the Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), which would be incorporated into the proposed project
and are considered a part of the project. Site design and source control BMPs are practices
designed to minimize runoff and the introduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff. Site design
and source control BMPs to be used for the project (e.g., include routing of roof runoff to
vegetated areas, use of native and drought tolerant plans in landscaped areas, and the use of
efficient irrigation systems in common area landscaped areas) are listed in Table 5.7-4 of the
Final EIR.
Treatment control BMPs are designed to remove pollutants once they have been
mobilized by rainfall and runoff. Treatment BMPs to be used for the project are listed in Table
5.7-5 of the Final EIR. As currently planned, stormwater runoff from all urbanized portions of
the proposed project would be routed to bioretention areas and/or vegetated swale treatment
control BMPs. Bioretention areas are vegetated (i.e., landscaped) shallow depressions that
provide for pollutant removal (e.g., filtration, absorption, nutrient uptake) by filtering stormwater
through the vegetation. Vegetated swales are engineered, vegetation -lined channels that provide
water quality treatment by removing pollutants through settling and filtration in the vegetation.
In addition, catch basin inserts would also be used to address trash and petroleum hydrocarbons
in runoff from the commercial area parking lot. Collectively, the water quality treatment control
PDFs would treat the pollutants of concern in runoff from the project site. These treatment
BMPs would address all of the pollutants of concern. The effectiveness of treatment BMPs is
evaluated without taking site design and source control BMPs into account. Therefore, the
analysis is conservative in that it understates water quality controls.
Hydromodification Impacts
Development typically increases impervious surfaces, reducing the capture and
infiltration of rainfall and increasing the percentage of rainfall that becomes runoff during any
given storm. In addition, runoff reaches the stream channel more efficiently due to the
development of storm drain systems, so that the peak discharge rates for rainfall events and
floods are higher for an equivalent event than they were prior to development.
Hydromodification control BMPs are designed to control increases in post -development runoff
flows.
The proposed project's treatment control BMPs described above would also serve as
hydromodification control BMPs. Vegetated swales can provide volume reduction on the order
of 20 to 30 percent through storage, infiltration and evapotranspiration. The proposed project
also includes use of bioretention areas sized to capture and treat 80 percent of the average annual
stormwater runoff. Collectively, these vegetated treatment facilities are expected to provide
significant reduction in wet weather runoff.
The proposed development would create impervious surface over approximately 70
percent, or 21 acres, of the approximately 30 -acre project site. It is estimated that the proposed
project would comprise 0.05 percent of the total impervious area in the watershed above the
project location at ultimate planned buildout for the watershed. The proposed project's treatment
control BMPs would also serve as hydromodification control BMPs. Vegetated swales can
provide volume reduction on the order of 20 to 30 percent through infiltration and evaporation.
The proposed project also includes use of bioretention areas sized to capture and treat 80 percent
of the average annual stormwater runoff from their tributary catchment and would not utilize
underdrains. Using conservative values for volume reduction, the treatment PDFs are estimated
to reduce the increase in average annual stormwater runoff volume by approximately 15 acre-
feet per year, which is 53 percent reduction of the predicted average post -development
stormwater runoff volume. Taking into account volume reductions expected in the proposed
treatment control vegetation swales and bioretention areas, the increase in impervious surface
within the project area is expected to increase average annual stormwater runoff volume from the
project area by approximately 14.3 acre-feet per year. The volume reductions and
hydromodification control achieved by site design measures have not been considered in
calculating the predicted increase in average annual stormwater runoff from the project area due
to development.
The peak flow control standard required by the current Los Angeles County Interim Peak
Flow Standard (i.e., post -development runoff from a 2 -year, 24-hour storm event) would be
achieved through runoff volume reduction occurring in the vegetated swales and bioretention
areas. Additional storage would be provided via oversized pipes if required. To assure that it
complies with any new peak or other design flow standards that may be adopted in the future, the
proposed project would be conditioned to require, as a design feature, sizing and design of the
hydraulic features (i.e., oversized pipes) as necessary to control the post -development runoff
rates as necessary to meet numeric flow criteria that may be adopted from time to time by the
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works under Part 4, Section D.1 of the municipal
separate storm sewer system (MS4) Permit.
Erosion protection would be provided with energy dissipators and bank stabilization at all
storm drain outlets to the Santa Clara River in accordance with the provision of the Natural River
Management Plan for the Santa Clara River.
It is predicted that all dry weather flows would be infiltrated or removed by
evapotranspiration in the open space in the project area.
In addition, the project revisions after circulation of the Draft EIR, particularly the
reduction of the impervious surfaces due to the reduction of the number of residential units from
437 to 407 and the increase of landscaped open space areas, will reduce the project's impacts
even further.
In summary, although proposed project runoff volumes, flow rates, and durations would
increase, potential impacts of hydromodification (i.e., the potential to cause erosion, siltation, or
,. channel instability) would be avoided, minimized, and mitigated by the proposed PDFs to a level
of less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
Groundwater Recharge
The project site is currently graded open space and historically has been used for dry land
farming. As a result, in the existing condition recharge occurs within the project site from
precipitation alone. On the one hand, development of the project site would introduce
impervious surface over approximately 70 percent of the project site, which would tend to reduce
recharge. On the other hand, development of the project site would increase runoff volume
discharged after treatment to the Santa Clara River, whose channel is predominantly natural and
consists of vegetation and coarse-grained sediments (rather than concrete). The porous nature of
the sands and gravels forming the streambed would allow for significant infiltration to occur to
the underlying groundwater. Also, the proposed project would introduce landscaping, irrigation,
and PDFs designed to infiltrate runoff. These project effects would increase groundwater
recharge from the project. On balance, it is likely that the proposed project would result in a
slight net increase in groundwater recharge in the project vicinity.
All of the post -development urban runoff infiltrated into groundwater would have been
treated in PDFs prior to infiltration. Therefore, the slight increase in groundwater recharge is
unlikely to noticeably affect water quality within the groundwater basin.
Based on the PDFs discussed above, the proposed project's impact on groundwater
recharge and quality is considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Operational Surface Water Quality
The Final EIR included results from the water quality model predicting the mean annual
concentrations and load of pollutants of concern under existing condition and developed
condition with PDFs. Bioretention results in a low predicted average annual pollutant load due
to the runoff volume reduction through infiltration of 90 percent of treated flows. Thus, the
predicted post -development runoff concentrations from these areas are greater than runoff treated
in vegetated swales because the concentrations represent mostly the untreated bypass flows,
while the treated flows are mostly infiltrated. Vegetated swale treatment allows for less
concentration due to the higher percentage of treated runoff in combination with untreated
bypassed flows. The modeling results account for pollutant reductions in the bioretention areas
and vegetated swales only and do not account for the pollutant reductions that would occur due
to source control PDFs and parking lot catch basin inserts. Because not all BMPs are modeled,
the model results predict greater water quality impacts than are likely to occur from the project.
With the exception of total suspended solids concentrations and nitrogen compounds
concentrations, concentrations and loads of modeled constituents (e.g., total phosphorus, trace
metals, and chloride) are predicted to increase under proposed conditions when compared to
existing conditions. The modeled concentrations in runoff from developed areas with PDFs are
below all benchmark water quality objectives and criteria and total maximum daily level
(TMDLs) waste load allocations for the Santa Clara River and are addressed by a comprehensive
site design, source control, and treatment control strategy, and compliance with the Standard
Urban Stormwater Management Permit (SUSMP) and the General De -Watering Permit
requirements.
Concentrations of hydrocarbons are expected to increase, while concentrations of
pathogens, pesticides, and trash and debris may or may not increase under proposed conditions
when compared to existing conditions, but none are qualitatively expected to significantly impact
receiving waters due to the implementation of a comprehensive site design and a source control
and treatment control strategy in compliance with the MS4 Permit requirements and the General
De -Watering Permit requirements. Therefore, potential impacts from the proposed project upon
receiving water are not expected to be significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Construction -Related Surface Water Quality Impacts
During the construction phase, primary pollutants of concern include sediment, and other
pollutants associated with building materials such as cement, paint, solvents and hydrocarbons.
Construction phase activities, including site clearing, grading and construction operations, have
the potential to discharge these pollutants downstream during storm events. Compliance with the
State Water Resources Control Board Water Discharge Requirements and General National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Construction Activity, including
preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), during the construction phase
of the project will reduce this potential impact to less than significant. With respect to
construction -related non -storm water discharges (de -watering), BMPs will be implemented in
accordance with the General NPDES Permit for Construction Activity and the General Waste
Discharge Requirements under Order No. R4-2003-0111, NPDES No. CAG994004, issued by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region. On this basis, the impact of
construction -related runoff from the proposed project is considered less than significant and no
additional mitigation measures are required.
Groundwater Quality Impacts
Discharge from the proposed project's developed areas to groundwater would occur at
three locations: (1) through general infiltration of irrigation water: (2) through incidental
infiltration of urban runoff in the proposed treatment control PDFs after treatment, and (3)
infiltration of urban runoff, after treatment, in the project's PDFs, in the Santa Clara River,
which is the primary recharge zone for groundwater in the Santa Clarita Valley. Groundwater
quality would be fully protected through implementation of the project's site design, source
control, and treatment control PDFs prior to discharge of project runoff to groundwater.
The pollutant of concern with respect to groundwater is nitrate -nitrogen plus nitrite -
nitrogen. The Basin Plan groundwater quality objective is 10 mg/L. The predicted nitrate -
nitrogen concentration in runoff after treatment in the project PDFs is 0.8 mg/L. The typical
nitrite -nitrogen concentration in irrigation water supply is 0.63 mg/L. On this basis, the impact
on groundwater quality from the proposed project is considered less than significant and no
additional mitigation measures are required.
3.7 WATER SUPPLY
The Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA) is a public agency that serves an area of 195
square miles in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. The sources of water within CLWA's service
area can be characterized as: (1) local supplies consisting of groundwater and recycled water;
and (2) imported supplies that are transported via the State Water Project (SWP) and consisting
of SWP contract amounts and dry year supplies delivered from groundwater banking programs.
Potential future water sources include acquisition of additional imported water supplies, recycled
water, desalination, storm water runoff, increased dry year Saugus pumping, additional SWP
reliability projects, and conservation.
Since preparation of the Draft EIR for the Soledad Village project, the CLWA, as
required by the California Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act), prepared and adopted
the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (2005 UWMP, November 2005). The 2005 UWMP is
herein incorporated by reference and is included in the Final EIR as Appendix A. As indicated in
the 2005 UWMP, an adequate supply of water is available for all anticipated land uses in the
Santa Clarita Valley from 2005 through 2030, the 25 -year period covered by the Plan. This
includes the water needed to serve the proposed project and all other known proposed cumulative
development. Based on the available information, the conclusion presented in the Draft EIR is
unchanged — an adequate supply of water is available to serve the proposed Soledad Village
project along with all other cumulative development in the Santa Clarita Valley. Therefore,
potential impacts to water resources are less than significant.
Since circulation of the Draft EIR, the project has been revised in certain respects.
Relevant to water supply, the number of residential units has been reduced from 437 to 407.
Using the Santa Clarita Water Division (SCWD) water demand factor of 0.24 acre-feet per year
(AFY) per townhome unit, this revision reduces the project's water demand by an additional 7.2
AFY.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department requires sufficient capacity for fire flows of
5,000 gallons per minute (gpm) at 20 pounds per square inch (psi) for a five-hour duration for
multi -family and commercial uses. The proposed water system would be able to meet both
domestic and fire flow requirements of the project.
Although there would be sufficient water supply to meet the project's water demand and the
project would include development of a distribution system that would provide sufficient
capacity for domestic and fire flow requirements, Mitigation Measures WS1 through WS5 are
recommended in order to ensure impacts to water supply and distribution remain below a level of
significance.
3.8 SCHOOLS/EDUCATION
The project site is located within the Saugus Union School District (Saugus District) and
the William S. Hart Union High School District (Hart District).
In 1997 Saugus District and the applicant entered into an agreement entitled "School
Facilities Funding Agreement Between the Saugus Union School District and the Newhall Land
and Farming Company." Through compliance with the Agreement, the applicant satisfies its
mitigation obligations to the Saugus District by agreeing to provide land, buildings, furnishings,
and equipment necessary to construct new elementary schools to serve students generated by
Newhall Land and Farming developments, including the proposed project. In 1998 the State of
California passed Senate Bill 50 (SB 50) which limits developer fees that may be imposed upon
new development. However, the Agreement is grandfathered for purposes of SB 50 and the
provisions of the Agreement take precedent over any fee limitations imposed by SB 50. The
Agreement would provide funding to ensure that adequate school capacity would be available to
serve the students generated by the project. As a result, no impacts to the Saugus District would
occur and no mitigation measures are required.
In addition, the Hart District and the applicant entered into a School Facilities Funding
Agreement in 1998, which conditionally obligates the Newhall Land and Farming Company to
provide up to three additional junior high schools and two additional high schools. The
Agreement is grandfathered for purposes of SB 50 and the provisions of the Agreement take
precedent over any fee limitations imposed by SB 50. Compliance with the Agreement
constitutes the entire extent of the project applicant's obligation to provide the means necessary
for the Hart District to house students generated by Newhall Land and Farming Company
developments, including the proposed project. The Agreement would provide funding to ensure
that adequate school capacity would be available to serve the students generated by the project.
As a result, no impacts to the Hart District would occur and no additional mitigation measures
are required.
Furthermore, since circulation of the Draft EIR, the project has been revised to reduce the
number of residential units from 437 to 407, which will reduce the number of students generated
by the project by approximately 5 elementary students, 14 junior high students, and 31 high
school students.
3.9 PARKS AND RECREATION
There are 13,296 acres of State and County regional park facilities within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita or its established planning area. The City
planning area encompasses a portion of the 650,000 -acre Angeles National Forest and a portion
of the 311,294 -acre Los Padres National Forest is adjacent to the City's northwestern planning
area boundary. It is anticipated that new residents of the proposed project would use the County,
State and National park facilities. However, the County, State and National parks are in place or
programmed to adequately serve user needs generated by the proposed project. Moreover, user
fees and state and federal taxes that would be paid by residents and businesses located within the
project site would be available for maintenance of these facilities. Consequently, impacts to
County, State and Federal regional parks would be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are required.
In addition to the neighborhood and community parks and open space recreation areas
discussed above, approximately 32.1 miles of trails currently exist within City limits, with
another 13.8 miles under construction as part of other developments. The project would extend
pedestrian trails along the western and southern boundary of the project site as part of the Santa
Clara River Trail system. New residents of the proposed project are expected to use the existing
and proposed trail systems in the Santa Clarita Valley area as they are constructed. The
proposed project will provide primary and secondary trails throughout the project site and a
pedestrian bridge west of the project site, connecting a trail along the Santa Clara River across
Soledad Canyon Road to the Metrolink Commuter Rail station. This feature is considered to be
an important local and regional recreational and scenic amenity of the proposed project. Because
the project's proposed trail alignments would provide linkages to local and regional trails, the
proposed project is considered to have a beneficial impact on the local and regional trail system.
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).
4.1 AIR QUALITY
4.1.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The proposed project would result in criteria
pollutants exceeding the SCAQMD daily emissions thresholds for ROC, NOx, and PM10 during
construction and the emissions threshold for ROC during project operation, which would result
in a significant unavoidable impact relative to air quality. Therefore, emissions associated with
the project would contribute to long-term regional air pollutants. Even though the project is
consistent with the 2003 AQMP, the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is a non -attainment area for
ozone (03) and PM,o. Therefore, the project is considered to result in a significant adverse
cumulative air quality impact under a conservative and "worst case" approach due to SCAB's
nonattainment status for 03 and PMio.
4.1.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3.
4.1.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS.
The following facts, together with Mitigation Measures AQI through AQ5, indicate that
the significant cumulative air quality effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the
extent feasible, but that they remain significant and thus are unavoidable.
The project would result in criteria pollutants exceeding the SCAQMD daily emissions
thresholds for ROC, NOx and PMlo during construction, and the emissions threshold for ROC
during project operations, thereby resulting in significant air quality impacts. While Mitigation
Measures AQ1 through AQ5 would reduce these impacts, the impacts would remain significant
and unavoidable. Therefore, emissions associated with the project would contribute to increased
regional pollutants. The SCAB presently is in nonattainment status for 03 and PM,o. Although
the project is consistent with the 2003 AQMP, under a conservative, worst-case approach, the
project is considered to result in a significant adverse cumulative air quality impact due to
SCAB'S nonattainment status for 03 and PM10. Because mitigation to reduce these impacts to a
level below significant is not feasible, these impacts are significant and unavoidable.
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. The traffic study
included vehicular trips from all present and future projects in the project vicinity. Therefore,
CO hot spot concentrations calculated at those intersections include the cumulative effect. No
significant cumulative CO impacts would occur.
The project is within the growth forecasts for the region. Consequently, it is 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.
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, such as Metrolink, which links the City to
many parts of southern California. Reductions in vehicle miles traveled result in reductions in
air emissions, as well.
Finally, an air quality study undertaken by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District entitled "Santa Clarita Subregional Analysis," 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.
Consequently, even though the project's contribution to existing emissions would not be
cumulatively considerable according to the SCAQMD's approach to analyzing cumulative air
quality impacts, the Final EIR concludes that the project's emissions are conservatively
considered to be cumulatively significant. For the reasons stated here and in the SOC, the
project's unavoidable significant cumulative air quality impacts are outweighed by the project's
benefits and are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal,
social, technological or other considerations.
4.2 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
4.2.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Operation of the proposed project and related
cumulative projects would generate solid waste, thereby increasing the demand for landfill
disposal capacity and incrementally decreasing the capacity and lifespan of landfills.
4.2.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3.
4.2.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS.
The following facts, together with Mitigation Measures SW 1 through SWI I, indicate
that the significant cumulative solid waste disposal effects of the project have been reduced or
avoided to the extent feasible, but remain significant and, thus, are unavoidable.
Development of the proposed project and related cumulative projects would generate
approximately 166 tons of solid waste per day, or 60,590 tons per year. At buildout, without
recycling, the proposed project would generate approximately 100 tons per year or
approximately 17 percent of the cumulative solid waste. This quantity represents cumulative
solid waste generation under a worst-case scenario without any recycling activities occurring.
However, the proposed project and related cumulative projects would be required to comply with
recycling requirements, in support of the City and County efforts and programs to reduce the
volume of waste entering landfills. It is anticipated that the proposed project and related projects
would meet the current recycling goals to divert 50 percent of the solid waste stream from
landfills. As such, it is assumed that only 30,300 tons per year of cumulative solid waste would
require landfill disposal.
While recycling, the imposition of measures similar to Mitigation Measures SWl through
SWll adopted for the project, and the reduction of the proposed project residential density, can
and will reduce the amount of solid waste for which disposal is necessary, these measures cannot
reduce the cumulative amount of solid waste to a level less than significant because of the finite
nature of landfill space. Therefore, until long-term landfill space or other disposal alternatives
are adequate to serve existing and future uses for the foreseeable future, the project's cumulative
solid waste impacts within the City will be considered unavoidably significant. For the reasons
stated here and in the SOC, the remaining unavoidable significant 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.
4.3 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
4.3.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. As discussed in Section 1, above, increased traffic
associated with implementation of the proposed Soledad Village project, along with increased
traffic from other cumulative projects, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to the
northbound approach at the Bouquet Canyon Road/Soledad Canyon Road intersection, for which
there is no feasible mitigation that would reduce the cumulative impact to less than significant.
4.3.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findingl and 3.
4.3.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS.
The facts described in Section 1 support the finding that all applicable mitigation
measures have been imposed, and the proposed project has been down -sized, but there are no
feasible mitigation measures that are available to mitigate the cumulative impact due to right-of-
way constraints.
For the reasons stated here and in the SOC, the remaining unavoidable significant
impacts on agricultural resources 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 THAT HAVE BEEN MITIGATED
TO A LEVEL LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
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.
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 effects, and that, as a result, those
effects have been mitigated to a level less than significant, as follows.
5.1 NOISE
5.1.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Development associated with the project and other
related cumulative projects could result in cumulatively considerable noise impacts to on-site
uses due to increased traffic noise. The City Council has determined that project revisions,
mitigation measures and conditions of approval will substantially mitigate those effects and, as a
result, those effects have been mitigated to a level less than significant, as follows.
5.1.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
5.1.3. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. Under long-term (2030) cumulative with -
project conditions, which are considered worst-case conditions, the proposed on-site uses would
be exposed to potentially significant cumulative traffic noise impacts. Specifically, the 65-dBA
CNEL contour would extend up to 210 feet from the centerline of Soledad Canyon Road east of
Bouquet Canyon Road, and up to 217 feet from the centerline of Soledad Canyon Road west of
Golden Valley Road. However, implementation of mitigation measures N5 through N1 I, which
relate to outdoor active use areas and interior noise, would reduce these increased noise levels to
an acceptable level. Therefore, the potentially significant impacts to proposed on-site uses from
cumulative traffic noise would be mitigated to a level less than significant.
SECTION 6
ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS WHERE NO SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
WOULD OCCUR (NO MITIGATION REQUIRED)
The City Council has determined that, where the Final EIR found the project would not
have or contribute to potentially significant cumulative effects, the project will have no
significant cumulative impacts in the following areas and, as a result, no mitigation is required:
6.1 LAND USE
Development of the proposed project would not result in any cumulative significant land
use impacts as other projects are implemented in the area. Each cumulative project must
undergo the same project review process as the proposed project in order to preclude potential
land use compatibility issues and planning policy conflicts. It is assumed that cumulative
development would progress in accordance with the criteria set forth within the jurisdiction in
which each cumulative project is located. Each cumulative project would be analyzed
independent of other land uses, as well as within the context of existing and planned
developments to ensure that the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan are
consistently upheld. Therefore, development associated with the proposed project and other
related cumulative projects would not result in cumulatively considerable land use and planning
impacts.
6.2 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
Cumulative population, employment and housing growth from implementation of related
projects and the proposed project would be 32,249 persons, 13,983 employees, and 10,393
dwelling units, respectively. The proposed project's anticipated growth of 1,372 persons, 19
employees, and 437 dwelling units would represent approximately 4.3 percent of cumulative
population growth, 0.14 percent of cumulative employment growth, and 4.2 percent of
cumulative housing growth.
According to the significance threshold criteria, it is determined that:
It is assumed that growth associated with the proposed project and related projects
has been included in the growth projections contained in the General Plan.
The buildout of the proposed project and related projects will create jobs and there
will be no net loss of jobs. Cumulative development would not result in a significant
impact relative to the net loss of jobs.
In the course of citywide buildout, existing housing (including affordable housing)
could possibly be displaced. This may occur to make way for new development that
may be more compatible with local land use designations, to replace aging housing,
or for other reasons. Overall, however, the housing stock in the City is expected to
grow considerably and, given the housing needs of the City for housing affordable to
very low and low income families, it can be reasonably assumed that any loss of
affordable housing that may occur would be replaced. Cumulative development
would not result in a significant impact relative to loss of existing affordable housing
stock.
6.3 AESTHETICSNISUAL RESOURCES
The proposed project, in combination with other cumulative projects identified, would
contribute to the continued alteration of the aesthetic character of the Santa Clarita Valley to
suburban in nature. The proposed project and other development in the City would transform the
character of the area by intensifying land uses and adding urban uses in currently undeveloped
areas. The aesthetic, light and glare impacts of individual development projects can often be
mitigated through careful site design, avoidance of significant visual features, compliance with
the City's UDC for lighting impacts, and appropriate building and landscape standards. Through
the implementation of mitigation measures and compliance with the City's UDC, cumulative
long-term aesthetic, light and glare impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. No
mitigation measures are required.
6.4 NOISE
The project's traffic noise contribution at off-site noise sensitive receptor locations would
be 0.2 dB(A) or less, which is less than the 3-dBA threshold normally perceptible by the human
ear. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts on off-site land uses would occur and no
mitigation is required.
Cumulative impacts related to construction activities, stationary source noise, and
Metrolink -related noise would be limited to the specific area within which related cumulative
projects are located. Because noise attenuates with distance, the construction, stationary and
Metrolink related noise effects associated with the project would not be cumulatively
considerable.
6.5 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Because the proposed project includes a number of hydrologic source control PDFs and
all future development within the watershed would be required to implement hydromodification
controls to meet flow criteria that would be adopted by the Los Angeles County Public Works
under Part 4, Section D.1 of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, the
proposed project's contribution to cumulative hydromodification impacts to the Santa Clara
River would be less than significant and consistent with the MS4 Permit.
As previously discussed, the proposed project would contribute only 0.05 percent of the
total potential impervious surface within the watershed at buildout, and includes a number of
hydrologic source control PDFs that would substantially lessen any potential contribution to
cumulative hydromodification impacts to the Santa Clara River. All future development within
the watershed would be required to implement hydromodification controls to meet flow criteria
that would be adopted by the Los Angeles County Public Works under Part 4, Section D.1 of the
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit. On that basis, the proposed project's
contribution to cumulative hydromodification impacts to the Santa Clara River would be less
than significant and consistent with the MS4 Permit.
Urbanization has been accompanied by long-term stability in pumping and groundwater
levels, plus the addition of imported State Water Project water to the Valley, which together have
not reduced recharge to groundwater, nor depleted the amount of groundwater that is in storage
._ within the Valley. On that basis, the cumulative impact on groundwater recharge is considered
less than significant and no additional mitigation measures are required.
As previously discussed, the proposed project's surface runoff water quality and the
proposed project's discharges to groundwater, both during construction and post -development,
are predicted to comply with adopted regulatory requirements that are designed by the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board to assure that regional development does not
adversely affect water quality, including MS4 Permit and SUSMP requirements, General
Construction Permit requirements, General De -watering Permit requirements, and benchmark
Basin Plan water quality objectives, CTR criteria, and TMDLs. Any future urban development
occurring in the Santa Clara River watershed must also comply with these requirements.
Therefore, cumulative impacts on surface- and ground- water quality is considered less than
significant and no additional mitigation measures are required.
6.6 WATER SUPPLY
The cumulative impacts to water availability for the Santa Clarita Valley were analyzed
under three future water supply and demand scenarios.
Scenario 1: Existing development within the Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA)
service area, plus near-term projections, plus the project (referred to as the "SB 610 Water
Supply Scenario"). Although an SB 610 water supply assessment is not required for the Soledad
Village project, this scenario was analyzed for informational purposes and is based on the 2005
Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) prepared for the Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA)
service area, which includes the Soledad Village project site. Under this scenario, as illustrated
in Table 5.8-4 of the Final EIR, if projected imported and local supplies are developed as
indicated, future water supplies would exceed estimated demand by 21,690 to 33,670 acre-feet
(AF) in multiple dry years. Thus, under this scenario, there will be a sufficient water supply
available at the time the Soledad Village project is ready for occupancy to meet the needs of the
project, as well as the needs of existing and other planned future uses, and no significant
cumulative water supply impacts would occur.
Scenario 2: Existing development within the CLWA service area, plus Development
Monitoring System projections, plus the project (referred to as the "DMS Build -Out Scenario
2015"). Under this scenario, as illustrated in Table 5.8-5 of the Final EIR, future water supplies
would exceed estimated demand by 31,747 AF in average years, 24,609 AF in a single dry year,
and 24,159 AF in multiple dry years. Thus, there is an adequate supply of water expected in
both average and dry years, and no significant cumulative water supply impacts would occur
under this scenario.
Scenario 3: Buildout within the CLWA service area by 2030, plus active pending General
Plan Amendment requests, plus the project (referred to as the "Santa Clarita Valley 2030 Build -
Out Scenario"). Under this scenario, as illustrated in Tables 5.8-6 and —7 of the Final EIR, future
water supplies would exceed estimated demand by 22,630 AF during average years and 7,380-
20,470 AF during dry conditions. Thus, under this scenario, there are adequate water supplies
for the project, with no significant cumulative water supply impacts occurring in either average
or dry years.
Because cumulative water supplies exceed demand, cumulative development (including
the proposed Soledad Village project) would not result in significant cumulative impacts on
Santa Clarita Valley water resources. Additionally, development of the project site and other
sites proposed for development in the Santa Clarity Valley would not result in significant
cumulative impacts to the groundwater basin with respect to aquifer recharge. This is due to the
fact that urbanization in the Santa Clarita Valley has been accompanied by long-term stability in
pumping and groundwater levels, plus the addition of imported SWP water to the valley, which
together have not reduced recharge to groundwater, nor depleted the amount of groundwater that
is in storage within the valley.
Since circulation of the Draft EIR, CLWA has prepared and adopted the 2005 UWMP.
As indicated in the 2005 UWMP, an adequate supply of water is available for all anticipated land
uses in the Santa Clarita Valley from 2005 to 2030, the 25 -year period covered by the UWMP.
Based on the available information, the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR are unchanged —
an adequate supply of water is available to serve the proposed Soledad Village project along with
other cumulative development in the Santa Clarita Valley. Therefore, cumulative impacts to
water resources remain less than significant.
6.7 SCHOOLS/EDUCATION
The school funding agreements that the project applicant has entered into with the
respective school districts would ensure that the project will not contribute to cumulative
_ education impacts. Assuming the education impacts of each new project are mitigated through
school facilities funding agreements, developer fees, or other mechanisms, cumulative impacts
on schools caused by other future residential development would be mitigated to less than
significant.
6.8 PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of Santa Clarita's park dedication requirement for new subdivisions is
applicable to the proposed project and related projects in the City that include residential
development. The City requires that land be dedicated, or equivalent fees be paid, for
neighborhood and community park or recreational purposes at the rate of three acres per 1,000
persons residing within the project. The expected cumulative population growth associated with
the proposed project and related cumulative projects of 32,020 persons would create the need for
an additional 96 acres of parkland. The proposed project includes private recreational areas and
2.33 acres of open space, some or all of which would count towards park dedication
requirements. As to the related cumulative projects, the actual park dedication calculations and
credit determinations would be based on the subdivision maps submitted for each residential
development. Given compliance with park dedication requirements and/or fees, as applicable,
cumulative parks and recreation impacts would be less than significant.