HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-13 - RESOLUTIONS - ENVIRON ANALYSIS MASTERS (2)RESOLUTION NO. 09-5
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FOR THE MASTER'S COLLEGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT, CERTIFYING THE FEIR
SCH #2006101171, (INCLUDES ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM), AND ADOPTING THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR MASTER CASE NO. 04-496 (MASTER PLAN 07-001,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 04-009, ZONE CHANGE 04-006, TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 66503, RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 07-001, HILLSIDE
REVIEW 04-010, OAK TREE PERMIT 04-050), FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE MASTER'S COLLEGE MASTER PLAN 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 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 associated Environmental Impact Report. The City's General Plan
presently designates the project site as Private Education (PE), RL (Residential Low),
OS (Open Space), RS (Residential Suburban), and SP — OS (Specific Plan — Open
Space). Zoning on the project site is Private Education (PE), RL (Residential Low),
OS (Open Space), RS (Residential Suburban), and SP — OS (Specific Plan — Open
Space).
b. On December 10, 2004, an entitlement application was filed by The Master's College
(the "applicant") with the Community Development Department for Master Case
04-496 on the subject site for Master's College Master Plan project. The original
entitlement requests (collectively "original project") include the following:
10 -year Master Plan: To provide a conceptual land use plan, development
regulations, design guidelines and programs to ensure that the college campus is
developed in a manner consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
City, TMC and the community.
2. General Plan Amendment (GPA): (1) To amend the land use designations of two
areas of the project site from RL (Residential Low) to PE (Private Education) and
from PE to RM (Residential Moderate); (2) to amend the Circulation Element to
designate Dockweiler Drive as a four -lane secondary highway and define the
specific alignment as shown on TTM 66503.
3. Zone Change (ZC): To amend the zoning of two areas of the project site from RL
(Residential Low) to PE (Private Education) and from PE to RM (Residential
Moderate).
4. Tentative Tract Map (TTM): To subdivide 81.55 acres, south of Placenta Canyon
Road, into 28 lots and two public roadways. The 28 lots would include five
college lots, 17 multi -family lots (for 54 multi -family air space units), two
Homeowner Association lots, three open space lots that include Creekview Park
to be dedicated to the City, and one water quality basin lot.
5. Conditional Use Permit (CUP): To permit the proposed residential buildings to
have up to three stories.
6. Ridgeline Alteration Permit (RAP): To develop or grade on the upper two-thirds
of the overall height of a significant ridgeline.
7. Hillside Review Permit (HR): To develop on land with an average cross slope of
ten percent or greater.
8. Oak Tree Permit (OTP): To permit the removal of 121 healthy oaks and encroach
on 97 oaks of the 439 oak trees located on site. No heritage oaks would be
removed as part of this project.
C. Surrounding land uses include single-family residences in Placerita Canyon located to
the north, east and west which is zoned RL (Residential Low). Also located to the
west of the project site is property owned by MWD and Placerita Baptist Church,
which is zoned OS (Open Space) and RL, respectively. Also located to the east of the
project site are the Hidden Knoll and Vista residential communities, which are zoned
RS (Residential Suburban) and RM (Residential Moderate). Located to the south of
the project site (Creekview Park) are single-family residences in Downtown Newhall,
which is zoned SP (Specific Plan).
d. 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
Master's College Master Plan project.
e. On May 27, 2005 and April 13, 2006, the project went before the City's Development
Review Committee (DRC).
f. On December 15, 2005, the City Council awarded a contract for Impact Sciences (the
"consultant") to complete the EIR for the project.
g. On October 4, 2006, the project application was deemed complete.
1
2
h. On October 30, 2006, 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. A revised Initial Study, which included an
expansion of an adjacent water tank and a request for a conditional use permit for
increased residential height to three stories, was completed on May 21, 2007. The
Initial Studies determined that the following areas must be addressed in the EIR:
aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, fire services, sheriff
services, transportation and circulation, hydrology and water quality, land use and
planning, noise, population and housing, water services, solid waste, and wastewater
disposal and mandatory findings of significance.
On November 1, 2006, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and 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
November 30, 2006. 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.
j. On November 30, 2006, 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 November 10, 2006, was mailed to all property owners within
1,000 feet of the subject property, and was mailed to all affected agencies.
k. On May 21, 2007, a Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) and 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
June 20, 2007. 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.
1. The City and the EIR consultant developed five project alternatives as part of
preparing the Draft EIR, including: 1) no project alternative; 2) ridgeline alternative;
3) reduced development/oak tree alternative; 4) single-family alternative; and
5) existing general plan/zoning designation alternative.
in. On May 20, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted a site tour of the subject
property.
3
n. A Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Master's College Master Plan project
("Draft EIR) was prepared and circulated for review and comment by affected
governmental agencies and the public and all issues raised by the Initial Study, and by
comments received on the NOP and the Revised NOP have been considered, in
compliance with the CEQA. The Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the
Draft EIR was filed, posted and advertised on July 7, 2008, and the public review
period ran for 45 days, from July 7, 2008 through 5:00 p.m. on August 21, 2008, all
in accordance with CEQA. After release of the Draft EIR for public comment, the
Draft EIR's Biological Resources section was revised due to the identification of 51
additional Coast Live oak trees on the project site, and a revised Notice of
Availability/Notice of Completion was filed, posted and advertised on
August 12, 2008, and the public review period for that revised section extended for 45
days, from August 12, 2008 through September 26, 2008. All written comments
received during the review period were accepted for inclusion in the Final EIR
Responses to Comments.
o. The Planning Commission held duly -noticed public hearings on July 1, 2008,
July 29, 2008, September 2, 2008, and November 4, 2008 in accordance with the
noticing requirements of the entitlements. The project was advertised in The Signal
newspaper, through on-site posting at three locations, and by mailing to all property
owners within 1,000 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 July 1, 2008, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing, received
City staff's presentation summarizing the proposed project and project
description, and received public testimony regarding the project;
2. On July 29, 2008, staff and the EIR consultant presented the Draft EIR, received
comments and questions from the Planning Commission and received public
testimony regarding the project;
3. On September 2, 2008, City staff provided answers to questions that were raised
by the Commission on July 29, 2008 and received direction on final project
issues. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to work with City staff
to return on November 4, 2008 with a revised site plan which incorporates the
Commission's suggested modifications to date, with responses to all of the
Commission's and public's concerns; and
4. On November 4, 2008, staff presented a revised site plan of the 42 single-family
dwelling unit alternative (generally consistent with the single-family alternative
outlined in the Draft EIR) which incorporated the additional Planning
Commission's modifications. Staff also 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. Lastly, staff
presented the necessary approval documents (resolutions, findings of fact,
rd
mitigation and monitoring reporting program and conditions of approval) for the
42 single-family dwelling unit alternative project as revised by the Planning
Commission.
p. On October 3, 2008, the applicant submitted a revised site plan and project
description that incorporates the Planning Commission's comments from the
September 2, 2008 meeting and that is similar to the single-family alternative
identified and analyzed in the Draft EIR.
Thus, the final, revised site plan and project includes 42 single-family, two-story
residential condominium units on Deputy Jake Drive, which would be extended with
a cul-de-sac adjacent to the existing portion of Deputy Jake Drive. The proposed
extension of Deputy Jake Drive would connect to the existing portion of Deputy Jake
Drive by way of a Fire Department access lane. In addition, the revised project
would not grade within a 20 -foot setback area adjacent to the existing residences
along Deputy Jake Drive, thereby preserving seven oak trees that are proposed for
removal in the original project. The other three components of the proposed project
(the 10 -year Master Plan, the proposed Dockweiler Drive extension, and the
dedication of open space) were unchanged from the original project. Therefore, the
scope of the revised entitlements (collectively "42 single-family dwelling unit
alternative" project) were modified to exclude the conditional use permit request for
height and include the following:
1. 10 -year Master Plan: To provide a conceptual land use plan, development
regulations, design guidelines and programs to ensure that the college campus is
developed in a manner consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
City, TMC and the community.
2. General Plan Amendment (GPA): (1) To amend the land use designations of two
areas of the project site from RL (Residential Low) to PE (Private Education) and
from PE to RM (Residential Moderate); (2) to amend the Circulation Element to
designate Dockweiler Drive as a four -lane secondary highway and define the
specific alignment as shown on TTM 66503.
3. Zone Change (ZQ: To amend the zoning of two areas of the project site from RL
(Residential Low) to PE (Private Education) and from PE to RM (Residential
Moderate).
4. Tentative Tract Map (TTM): To subdivide 81.55 acres, south of Placenta Canyon
Road, into 13 lots and one public roadway. The 13 lots would include five
college lots, one residential lot (for 42 single-family air space units), two
Homeowner Association lots, three open space lots that include Creekview Park
to be dedicated to the City, one water quality basin lot, and one private road lot.
5. Ridgeline Alteration Permit (RAP): To develop or grade on the upper two-thirds
of the overall height of a significant ridgeline.
5
6. Hillside Review Permit (HR): To develop on land with an average cross slope of
ten percent or greater.
7. Oak Tree Permit (OTP): To permit the removal of 114 healthy oaks and encroach
on 97 oaks of the 439 oak trees located on site. No heritage oaks would be
removed as part of this project.
q. On November 4, 2008, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 5-0, recommended
certification of the Final EIR as adequate under CEQA, and approval of the project,
as revised by the Planning Commission, to the City Council.
The City Council -held a duly noticed public hearing on The Master's College Master
Plan project and Final EIR on January 13, 2009, at City Hall, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:00 p.m. At this meeting the City Council received a
presentation on The Master's College Master Plan project from staff and the
applicant, and received public testimony regarding the project. At the conclusion of
the hearing, the City Council closed the public hearing 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 Master's College Master Plan Final EIR and for approval of
The Master's College Master Plan project.
The Final EIR, incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B, includes the Draft EIR,
comments on the Draft EIR, responses to public testimony regarding issues raised at
the public hearings and during the public comments period, 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.
The Final EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"), and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations for The Master's College Master Plan project
have been prepared and circulated in compliance with CEQA.
u. The City Council considered staff and consultant presentations, staff reports,
applicant presentations, information presented to the Council to assist in its
understanding of the project, the Draft EIR, public comments, public testimony and
the Final EIR at the public hearings for the project; and
v. The location of the documents and other materials, which constitute the record of
proceeding upon which the decision of the City Council is based on the Master Case
04-496 project file within the Community Development Department and is in the
custody of the Director of Community Development.
SECTION 2. CEQA FINDINGS. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does
hereby make the following findings of fact:
0
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.);
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 EIR." (CEQA Guidelines § 15091.) CEQA
defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental,
social and technological factors." (CEQA § 21061.1.) CEQA Guideline
Section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations;
d. The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular
alternative promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. "Feasibility
7
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 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; and
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.
SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CEQA.
Based on the findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without, limitation, the
entire Master's College Master Plan project Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other
evidence received at the public hearings held on The Master's College Master Plan project and
The Master's College Master Plan 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 04-496 (Master Plan 07-001, General Plan Amendment 04-009,
Zone Change 04-06, Tentative Tract Map 66503, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 07-001, Hillside
Review 04-010, and Oak Tree Permit 04-050), identifies and discloses project -specific impacts
and cumulative project impacts. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR, findings,
and facts in support of findings are herein incorporated as "Findings Required by CEQA"
referred to as Exhibit A, and identified as follows:
1
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
Impacts Would Occur," as set forth in Section 3 of Exhibit A.
d. 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.
e. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit B 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 Master's College
Master Plan Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public
hearings held on The Master's College Master Plan project and The Master's College Master
Plan 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 Master's College Master Plan project
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 Master's College Master Plan project are specified in the Final
EIR. 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 of
inferior to the proposed project. The proposed project would result in significant and
unavoidable impacts in five environmental issue areas:
1. Visual Resources -- short-term (construction), long-term (operational), and
cumulative impacts.
0J
2. Air Quality -- short-term construction impacts ' NOX, PM10, and PM2.5
emissions).
3. Biology -- cumulative impacts.
4. Noise -- short-term (construction).
5. Solid Waste -- short-term (construction), long-term (operational), and cumulative
impacts.
b. Alternative 1 — No Project Alternative. The No Project/No Development Alternative
assumes The Master's College Master Plan 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
Master's College Tentative Tract Map (TTM 66503) 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.
The No Project Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts
identified in the Environmental Impact Analysis of the DEIR and all other identified
significant impacts, and therefore is considered environmentally superior.
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the objectives
established for the project. The land use, circulation, and pedestrian objectives set by
The Master's College for the campus would not be achieved because the Master Plan
would not be implemented. Without the connection of Dockweiler Drive and Deputy
Jake Drives, the objectives of providing an efficient east -west connection through
Newhall, a secondary emergency access roadway and redirecting campus away from
Placerita Canyon Road would not be met. The accommodation of projected regional
growth in a location proximal to existing and planned infrastructure and services and
in a manner that preserves sensitive habitat would not be accomplished as TTM
66503 would not be approved. Lastly, the open space and recreation objectives
associated with the Creekview Park and adjacent Open Space Dedication project
component would not be attained.
c. Alternative 2 — Ridgeline Alternative. The Ridgeline Alternative is defined as a
reconfigured Master Plan that does not include development within the Hilltop
Campus and relocates all land uses proposed in the Master Plan to the North and
Valley Campus areas. The Ridgeline Alternative also includes the Creekview Park
and adjacent Open Space Dedication and water tank replacement as proposed. The
reconfigured Master Plan would include a total of 128,638 square feet of new
building space, including 20,138 square feet of additions to existing buildings. The
MacArthur Chapel and dormitory would be reduced to 35,000 and 13,500 square feet,
respectively. Additionally, the overall classroom space would be reduced to 60,000
10
square feet. Dockweiler Drive and Deputy Jake Drive would not be extended under
the Ridgeline Alternative and Tentative Tract Map 66503 would be revised to exclude
the 54 multi -family dwelling units. Under the Ridgeline Alternative, none of the
proposed grading on the ridgeline would occur, with the exception of pad preparation
for the future water tank replacement. Under this alternative, construction would only
occur on developed portions of The Master's College campus.
The Ridgeline Alternative would avoid the impact to visual resources during
construction, operation, and under a cumulative scenario; the air quality impact
during construction; and the biological resources impact during operation and under a
cumulative scenario. This alternative would substantially reduce the noise impact
during construction and construction, operation, and cumulative solid waste impacts.
Traffic impacts would be significant under the Ridgeline Alternative when compared
to less than significant under the project as proposed. While impacts would be less
than significant without mitigation under both scenarios, the effect on geology and
soils, hydrology and water quality, fire services, sheriff services, water, and
wastewater services would be less under this alternative. Impacts associated with
land use and planning would be comparable to the proposed project. When
considering population and housing, the proposed project is preferable. As a new
significant impact to traffic would occur under the Ridgeline Alternative, the
proposed project would be environmentally superior.
Many of the objectives associated with the Master Plan and objectives established for
the Creekview Park and adjacent Open Space component would be achieved while
the objectives for the Dockweiler Drive and Deputy Jake extensions and Tentative
Tract Map 66503 components would not be met.
d. Alternative 3 — Reduced Development/Oak Tree Alternative, The Reduced
Development/Oak Tree Alternative includes a modified Master Plan which reduces
proposed classroom buildings 41 and 42 from 60,000 to 30,000 square feet each and
a reduction in the proposed dormitory building 44 from 120 to 60 beds. Additionally,
the proposed chapel would be reduced in size from 55,000 to 35,000 square feet and
constructed approximately 50 to 75 feet to the east of the location as proposed in the
Master Plan. This alternative includes the extension of Dockweiler Drive and the
Creekview Park and adjacent Open Space Dedication component as proposed, but
excludes the extension of Deputy Jake Drive and condominium units. Under the
Reduced Development/Oak Tree Alternative, the total graded area would be reduced
from 48.9 acres as proposed to 33.7 acres. Additionally, grading under this
alternative would involve movement of approximately 0.8 million cubic yards of soil
when compared to 1.2 million cubic yards under the project as proposed. Up to 39
oak trees of the 79 proposed for removal would be preserved under this alternative
due to relocation of the chapel and because Deputy Jake would not be extended.
Additionally, because of the elimination of Deputy Jake Drive and the proposed
condominiums, an additional 24 of the 42 mitigation oaks, that are a part of the
Hidden Knoll subdivision, would be preserved.
11
The Reduced Development/Oak Tree Alternative would not avoid any identified
significant impacts. This alternative would substantially reduce the construction,
operation, and cumulative solid waste impacts; and project -level and cumulative
biological resources impacts. Construction, operational, and cumulative visual
resources impacts; air quality and noise impacts during construction; would be
comparable to the proposed project under this alternative. While impacts would be
less than significant without mitigation under both scenarios, the effect on geology
and soils, hydrology and water quality, sheriff services, fire services, transportation
and circulation, water services and wastewater would be less under this alternative.
Impacts associated with land use and planning would be comparable to the proposed
project. When considering population and housing, the proposed project is
preferable. Overall, the Reduced Development/Oak Tree Alternative would be
environmentally superior to the proposed project.
Objectives established for the Dockweiler Drive and Deputy Jake Extensions and
Creekview Park and adjacent Open Space components would be achieved while the
objectives for the Tentative Tract Map 66503 components would not be met.
Additionally, the Master Plan objective of maximizing the number of residents living
on campus would not be achieved under this alternative.
e. Alternative 4 — Single Family Alternative. The Single-family Alternative includes the
Master Plan and Creekview Park and adjacent Open Space components as proposed
with the Tentative Tract Map 66503 component modified to include 21 two-story
single-family homes instead of the 54 condominium units. Dockweiler Drive would
be extended as proposed. Access to the 21 single-family homes would be provided
via a roadway off of Dockweiler Drive, which would end in a cul-de-sac near the
existing terminus of Deputy Jake Drive. The single-family lots would cover 4.7 acres
resulting in an overall graded area of 48.9 acres under this alternative. Additionally,
grading under the Single-family Alternative would involve movement of
approximately 1.2 million cubic yards of soil, which is equivalent to that under the
project as proposed.
The Single-family Alternative would not avoid any identified significant and
unavoidable impacts. Short term construction impacts to visual resources, air quality,
noise, and solid waste; operational and cumulative visual resources impacts; and
impacts to biological resources would be comparable to the proposed project. While
impacts would be less than significant without mitigation under both scenarios, the
effect on transportation and circulation, water services, and wastewater would be less
under this alternative. Similarly, the operational and cumulative solid waste would be
less under this alternative as less solid waste would be generated, though the impact
would remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative. Impacts associated
with geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, and
sheriff services would be less than significant, which is comparable to the proposed
project. When considering population and housing, the proposed project is
preferable. Also, when considering fire services, the proposed project is preferable,
because due to the increased intensity of land use on Deputy Jake Drive under the
12
proposed project or the Single-family Alternative, the Los Angeles County Fire
Department is requiring this roadway to provide thru access to connect to the existing
portion of Deputy Jake Drive. Overall, the Single-family Alternative would be
environmentally superior to the proposed project. Objectives associated with each
project component would be met under Single-family Alternative.
The final, revised site plan with the Planning Commission's recommendations is
similar to the Single-family Alternative with a few modifications. These changes
include 42 single-family, two-story residential condominium units on Deputy Jake
Drive, which would be extended with a cul-de-sac adjacent to the existing portion of
Deputy Jake Drive. The proposed extension of Deputy Jake Drive would connect to
the existing portion of Deputy Jake Drive by way of a Fire Department access
lane. In addition, the revised project would not grade within a 20 -foot setback area
adjacent to the existing residences along Deputy Jake Drive, thereby preserving seven
oak trees that are proposed for removal in the original project and in the Single-family
Alternative.
f. Alternative 5 — Existing General Plan/Zoning Alternative. The Existing General
Plan/Zoning Alternative would not include the proposed General Plan Amendments
and Zone Changes for the portion of the College north of Placeritos Boulevard from
RL (Residential Low) to PE (Private Education) and the area between the proposed
Dockweiler Drive extension and Metropolitan Water District property from PE to the
RM (Residential Medium) designation. Additionally, under this alternative, the
Circulation Element would not be amended and the extension of Dockweiler Drive
would remain as a Major Highway in the General Plan. Under the Existing General
Plan/Zoning Designation Alternative, the Tentative Tract Map 66503 component
would not be implemented and a modified Master Plan would place two 30,000
square -foot classroom buildings where the 54 condominium units are
proposed. Overall, new campus building space would be equivalent to the project as
proposed but would include four 30,000 square -foot classroom buildings rather than
two 60,000 square -foot classroom buildings. Alternative 5 would not include
residential units. This alternative would include the Creekview Park and adjacent
Open Space component as proposed and the extension of Dockweiler Drive as a
Major Highway with the extension of Deputy Jake Drive. Under the Existing General
Plan/Zoning Designation Alternative, the total graded area would be 48.9 acres,
which is equivalent to that under the project as proposed. Additionally, grading under
this alternative would involve movement of approximately 1.2 million cubic yards of
soil, which is equivalent to that under the project as proposed.
The Existing General Plan/Zoning Designation Alternative would not avoid any
identified significant and unavoidable impacts. Short-term construction impacts to
visual resources, air quality, noise, and solid waste; operational and cumulative visual
resources impacts; and impacts to biological resources would be comparable to the
proposed project. While impacts would be less than significant without mitigation
under both scenarios, the effect on transportation and circulation, water services, and
wastewater would be less under this alternative. Similarly, the operational and
13
cumulative solid waste impacts would be less under this alternative as less solid waste
would be generated, though the impact would remain significant and unavoidable
under this alternative. Impacts associated with hydrology and water quality, land use
and planning, sheriff services, and fire services would be less than significant, which
is comparable to the proposed project. When considering fire services, the proposed
project is preferable. However, when considering geology and soils, the proposed
project is preferred because additional keystone walls, in addition to those proposed
with the project, would be required because Dockweiler Drive would be extended as a
major highway under this alternative. Overall, the Existing General Plan/Zoning
Designation Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project.
Objectives associated with the Creekview Park and adjacent Open Space component
would be met. The Master Plan objective of locating campus functions, buildings and
campus furniture to encourage interchange and discourage isolation; the Dockweiler
Drive and Deputy Jake extensions objective of providing an efficient east -west
connection through Newhall would be met; however, the objectives established for
the Tentative Tract Map 66503 component would not be met.
g. 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 Ridgeline Alternative would have the least
impact overall by avoiding short-term construction impacts to visual resources,
substantially reducing short-term construction impacts to air quality and noise and the
operational impact to visual and biological resources. However, even though the
open space component objectives would be met, the majority of the objectives
established under the Master Plan; the objectives for the Dockweiler Drive and
Deputy Jake Drive extensions; and Tentative Tract Map 66503 would not be achieved
under the Ridgeline Alternative.
SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Based upon
the above recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, The Master's College
Master Plan Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received, at the public
hearings held on The Master's College Master Plan project and The Master's College Master
Plan 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 Master's College Master Plan project is adequate,
complete, and has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
14
b. That the Planning Commission 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 Master's College Master Plan 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
Master's College Master Plan project that avoid or substantially lessen its significant
environmental effects because feasible mitigation measures, including those in the
MMRP, 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.
i. That a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) has been prepared and
is adopted to enforce the mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and project
approvals.
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 Master's College Master Plan Final EIR, oral
and written testimony and other evidence, received at the public hearings held on The Master's
College Master Plan project and The Master's College Master Plan 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
15
conclusion that The Master's College Master Plan project will result in community benefits,
including specific ecological, economic, legal, social, technical and other benefits, that outweigh
the significant effects of The Master's College Master Plan project on the environment that
cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant.
a. Significant unavoidable impacts include the following, as further described in
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
1. Visual Resources: short-term (construction), long-term (operational), and
cumulative impacts.
2. Air Quality: short-term construction impacts (NOX, PM10, and PM2.5
emissions).
3. Biolo : cumulative impacts.
4. Noise: short-term (construction).
5. Solid Waste: short-term (construction), long-term (operational), and cumulative
impacts.
b. The benefits of The Master's College Master Plan 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 proposed Master's College Master Plan project will create 163 new long-term
employment opportunities at the college for staff and faculty positions, such as
professors, custodians, as well as temporary employment opportunities during
construction, and will add to the 304 people currently employed by The Master's
College, creating a positive economic benefit to the community and improving the
jobs/housing ratio.
2. The proposed Master's College Master Plan project will create 42 new housing
units which will provide a variety of housing opportunities needed to
accommodate projected City and regional growth.
3. The proposed Master's College Master Plan project will provide the City with
substantial improvements to portions of major highways designated in the City's
Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
4. The proposed Master's College Master Plan project will provide other
traffic/circulation benefits which include:
a. Redirecting campus access and traffic through the new Dockweiler entry and
away from Placerita Canyon;
16
b. Restrict dormitory parking access to the new Dockweiler entry; and
c. Provide a secondary emergency access roadway for canyon residents.
5. The Master's College Master Plan project will enhance the existing equestrian
trail along the western boundary of the College property by constructing an
equestrian tunnel underneath the extension of Dockweiler Drive. The project also
provides trail connections between Creekview Park and the City's Community
Center. The project applicant would also contribute 50% of the construction costs
of a future bridge over Newhall Creek which would connect the College and
Placerita Canyon to the Community Center and Newhall.
6. The Master's College Master plan would respect the surrounding context and
environment by:
a. Improving campus grounds and buildings while respecting the goals of the
Placerita Canyon Special Standards District;
b. Placing buildings, support structures and lighting to minimize impact to
adjacent residences;
c. Directing pedestrian and vehicular traffic to minimize disruption to adjacent
neighborhoods and preserve and maintain the rural quality of the Canyon; and
d. Developing a natural theme for the physical improvement of the campus.
7. The project would provide numerous pedestrian benefits which include:
a. Create a comprehensive pedestrian network linking all areas of the campus;
b. Encourage pedestrian routes away from Placerita Canyon Road and Quigley
Canyon Road; Provide clearly demarcated, well lit pedestrian routes that are
safe;
c. Respect the neighbors and rural character of the Canyon; and
d. Provide equestrian connections as identified in the Placerita Canyon Special
Standards District.
8. The dedication of approximately 20.5 acres of land to the City of Santa Clarita for
preservation/conservation and future open space/parks purposes. This includes
the dedication of the 5 -acre Creekview Park and a portion of Newhall Creek to the
City.
9. Upgrade an aging college campus to meet current codes by:
17
a. Replacing a campus -wide septic system as necessary with the public sewer;
b. Improving fire and life safety by upgrading buildings and constructing a
secondary access;
c. Modernizing buildings to provide full accessibility and seismic safety while
minimizing hazardous materials; and
d. Adhering to community design standards.
1'0. The removal of parking and older buildings along Placenta Canyon Road to allow
for the creation of a large green -space and garden area.
11. Respect the surrounding community context and environment by:
a. Placing buildings, support structures and lighting to minimize impact to
adjacent residences; and
b. Directing pedestrian and vehicular traffic to minimize disruption to adjacent
neighborhoods and preserve and maintain the rural quality of the Canyon.
12. Establish architectural design guidelines and development standards for the
College campus that ensures compatible development and complementary
architecture to the surrounding neighborhoods and the Placerita Canyon Special
Standards District. The project would provide architecturally enhanced building
elevations for new campus buildings while upgrading the architectural quality of
the existing college campus.
SECTION 7. The City Council reviewed and considered the environmental information
contained in the Final EIR SCH No. 2006101171 and hereby determines that it is adequate and
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code,
Section 21000 et seq.). In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 12081 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has considered the project benefits as balanced
against its unavoidable adverse environmental effects and hereby determines that the benefits
outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects; therefore, the City Council 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.
1
1
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of January, 2009.
41" e " S
ec.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOSfANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sharon L. Dawson, MMC, 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 January, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Weste, McLean, Ender, Kellar, Ferry
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
19
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. 09-5, adopted by the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita, California on January 13, 2009, 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, MMC
City Clerk
By
-Susan-Caputo,-CMC-
Deputy
Susan_Caputo,CMC_Deputy City Clerk
1
1
EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION 09-5
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 environmental
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 I").
(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 (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 (Statement of
Overriding Considerations), 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
Master's College Master Plan project.
1
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/or conditions of approval imposed on the
project will either avoid or provide substantial mitigation of the project's identified significant
environmental effects, the following environmental effects cannot be feasibly mitigated to a level
of insignificance. Consequently, in accordance with CEQA Guideline 15093, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations has been prepared to substantiate the City's decision to accept these
unavoidable significant effects when balanced against the significant benefits afforded by the
project.
This section sets forth the significant unavoidable effects of the project and, with respect
to each significant impact, identifies one or more of the required CEQA findings, states facts in
support of these findings and refers to the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC).
1.1 VISUAL RESOURCES
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL
1.1.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The conversion of the project site from primarily
undeveloped land to a man-made environment, including without limitation, educational,
residential, and recreational development and associated infrastructure and lighting, would,
overall, be a significant change from the existing characteristics of the project site. The overall
change in visual character is considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
1.1.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3.
1.1.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts, together with the
fact that no feasible mitigation measures are available, indicate that the significant effects of the
project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that a significant visual character
impact remains and is, thus, unavoidable.
The project site is visible to the largest number of viewers from two view corridors: from
adjacent residential development to the north (Placenta Canyon Community) and to the south
(East Newhall). The views from these view corridors as well as four others were analyzed
through the use of visual simulations contained in the Final EIR. The project has been designed
or mitigated to reduce many of its project -level impacts to a less than significant level, as set
forth in the Final EIR. However, the conversion of the project site from a primarily undeveloped
to a developed urban condition, including, without limitation, educational, residential, and
recreational development and associated infrastructure and lighting would, overall, be a
significant change from the existing characteristics of the project site. Proposed development
would also introduce sources of outdoor illumination, which do not presently exist; however
outdoor lighting, such as streetlights and traffic signals, are essential safety features in
development projects that involve new streets and intersections, and cannot be eliminated if the
Proposed Project is implemented.
2
As described above in the Resolution, the project has been designed in several respects that
reduce the project's visual impacts. The proposed Master Plan includes development standards
and design guidelines which are designed to integrate the changes proposed to campus with the
character of the surrounding communities and the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District.
The proposed residential component of the project has been revised to consist of two-story,
single-family residential condominiums, consistent in height and in use to the adjacent single-
family residences. The project has also been modified to reduce the number of residential units
from 54 units to 42 units. The architecture of the proposed residences would be reviewed by the
City's Planning Division to ensure architectural compatibility with surrounding land uses.
Despite the project modifications, however, views of the existing ridgeline and open space areas
from each of the view corridors would still be materially altered due to development of proposed
educational, residential, and recreational uses on a primarily vacant site. Even as designed and
modified, the project would result in the conversion of the site from vacant land to a man-made
urban environment, the Dockweiler Drive extension, and other project -related impacts associated
with visual character that would be significant and unavoidable.
Despite project design and modifications, project -related visual impacts caused by and associated
with the alteration of the ridgeline and converting the project site from an undeveloped to a
developed urban area cannot be reduced to a less -than -significant level. For the reasons stated
here and in the SOC, the remaining unavoidable significant visual impacts are outweighed by the
project's benefits and are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic,
legal, social, technological or other considerations.
CUMULATIVE
1.1.4 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The project site is located within Placerita Canyon
in Santa Clarita. In combination with other development identified in Santa Clarita Valley
Cumulative Build -Out Scenario list, the proposed project would contribute to the ongoing
modification of the Santa Clarita Valley to a suburban environment. Cumulative development
would alter the character of the valley by intensifying land use and introducing urban land uses
to undeveloped areas. The overall change in visual character and increase in light and glare
throughout the valley is considered a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
1.1.5 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3.
1.1.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts, together with the
fact that no feasible mitigation measures are available, indicate that the significant effects of the
project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that a significant cumulative
visual character impact remains and is, thus, unavoidable.
Cumulative development would alter the character of the valley by intensifying land use and
introducing urban land uses to undeveloped areas. While aesthetic, light, and glare impacts can
often be mitigated through a variety of measures, the overall change in visual character and
increase in light and glare throughout the valley is considered a significant and unavoidable
cumulative impact.
Despite project design and modifications, visual impacts caused by and associated with the
3
alteration of the ridgeline and converting the project site from an undeveloped to a developed
urban area in combination with other development identified in the SCV Cumulative Build -Out
Scenario list cannot be reduced to a less -than -significant level. For the reasons stated here and in
the SOC, the remaining unavoidable significant visual impacts are outweighed by the project's
benefits and are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal,
social, technological or other considerations.
1.2 AIR QUALITY
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
1.2.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Short-term construction impacts to air quality
would occur because NOx and PM1o, emissions generated during the first phase of project
construction would exceed regional South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
emissions thresholds. Additionally, a localized air quality impact would occur as project
construction would result in PM10 and PM2.5 emissions that exceed the localized significance
thresholds at nearby sensitive receptors. The construction -related impacts to air quality are
considered significant and unavoidable with implementation of this project.
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 5.2-1 through 5.2-9, 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 thus unavoidable.
Implementation of The Master's College Master Plan project would generate construction -
related air pollutant emissions. Construction -related emissions would be generated by on-site
stationary sources, on- and off-road heavy-duty construction vehicles, and construction worker
vehicles. During project construction, emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and respirable
particulate matter (PM,o) would exceed the thresholds of significance for regional impacts
recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). In addition, a
localized air quality impact would occur as project construction would result in PM10 and PM2 5
emissions that exceed the localized significance thresholds at nearby sensitive receptors.
Mitigation measures 5.2-1 through 5.2-9 would be implemented that would reduce construction -
related emissions to the maximum extent feasible. However, no feasible mitigation exists that
would reduce the project's construction -related emissions of NOx, PMio, or PM25 to below the
SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance or the localized significance thresholds.
Therefore, the project's construction -related emissions would be considered significant and
unavoidable.
The relevant SCAQMD criteria were used to assess cumulative air quality impacts. Based on this
analysis, cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant given the cumulative
project thresholds of significance found in the SCAQMD's California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook.
2
For the reasons stated here, in the Alternatives 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 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CUMULATIVE LOSS OF COASTAL SAGE SCRUB
1.3.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The principal direct impact of implementation of
the proposed project is to convert approximately 43.5 acres of the project site (about 70 percent)
from an undeveloped to a developed condition. A total net loss of 43.5 acres of wildlife
habitat/natural open space as a result of conversion of undeveloped property to a developed
condition will occur. Significant impacts would occur to one special -status plant community,
coast prickly pear succulent scrub, and 14 potentially occurring special -status wildlife species.
With the implementation of recommended mitigation measures, project -level impacts to
biological resources would be less than significant. However, the cumulative loss of coastal sage
scrub habitat in the Santa Clarita region is considered significant and unavoidable with
implementation of this project.
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 Measures 5.3-1 through 5.3-18, indicate that the significant effects of the project have
been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that a significant impact to the coastal sage
scrub habitat remains and is, thus, unavoidable.
The proposed project would contribute to the projected urban development in the region.
Increasing urbanization of the area will impact biological resources by reducing total habitat
area. The project site is currently surrounded by development on all sides and Newhall Creek is
the only natural corridor to other undeveloped habitats. The proposed project would temporarily
impact this corridor, adjacent to Newhall Creek, with the installation of stormwater pipes and a
basin. However, once the stormwater facilities are installed, this creek corridor would remain as
open space, and therefore the project would not independently have a significant impact on
regional open space.
The loss of approximately 36 acres of sage scrub and chaparral habitat and two acres of coast
live oak woodland, while somewhat isolated from other larger habitat areas, contributes to the
cumulative loss of this habitat for a variety of common and special -status wildlife species,
including the potential foraging coastal California gnatcatcher, within the region. Consequently,
the loss of this habitat as a result of implementation of the proposed project and other related
projects within the City of Santa Clarita represents a significant cumulative impact.
Although Mitigation Measure 5.3-1 requires the restoration of disturbed coastal sage scrub and
chaparral communities on a 1:1 ratio (therefore, 22.6 acres of coastal sage scrub and 14.5 acres
of chaparral) to compensate for the loss of coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats on the
project site, the project still contributes to the cumulative loss of these plant communities and
5
open space in the Santa Clarita region. There is no mitigation that would reduce the significance
of this cumulative impact to the coastal sage scrub habitat and open space. The remaining
cumulative significant and unavoidable impact to the coastal sage scrub habitat 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 NOISE
CONSTR UCTION-RELATED NOISE
1.4.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Construction of the proposed project would require
site preparation, utility infrastructure installation, and roadway and building construction. Each
of these construction phases typically involves the use of heavy-duty equipment, all of which
would expose off-site residents, students, employees, and visitors to temporary noise impacts.
Construction noise would intermittently exceed the noise limits adopted for residential zones in
Section 11.44.040 of the Noise Ordinance, resulting in temporary, unavoidably significant noise
impacts at nearby residences.
1.4.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings, 1 and 3
1.4.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts, together with
Mitigation Measures 5.7-1 through 5.7-5, indicate that the significant effects of the project have
been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that certain significant noise impacts
associated with construction -related noise remain, and are thus, unavoidable. All other impacts
related to noise are either at less than significant levels or can be reduced to less than significant
levels with the imposition of mitigation measures.
Noise levels from grading, utility infrastructure installation and other construction activities for
the project may periodically exceed suggested maximum noise levels. Compliance with the
City's construction hour requirement along with implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.7-1
through 5.7-3 would reduce construction noise impacts, but not to less than significant levels.
For the reasons stated here, in Alternatives of the EIR, and in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, the remaining project -related significant and unavoidable impacts related to
construction noise cannot feasibly be reduced to a level less than significant, except under EIR
Alternative One (No Project Alternative), which would not achieve any of the project objectives.
In comparison with the other project alternatives, a significant construction -related noise impact
would occur under each alternative. The project -related significant and unavoidable construction
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.
1.5 SOLID WASTE
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL
1.5.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The project would generate unavoidably significant
impacts. 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
m
would not be recycled (a worst-case scenario), the project as originally proposed would have
generated a total of 118 tons of solid waste per year. The project even with mitigation and as
revised 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.
1.5.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3.
1.5.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The following facts, together with
Mitigation Measures 5.11.2-1 through 5.11.2-18, 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.
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 118 tons per year of solid waste from the
proposed college and residential. This quantity represents the proposed project's solid waste
generation under a worst-case scenario without any recycling activities in place. However, 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 118 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 59 tons per year
due to the City mandate to divert at least 50 percent of potential waste disposal.
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 54 multi -family units to 42 single-family units. This density reduction has reduced the
amount of solid waste generated during construction and operation of the project, as stated
above, but not to a level less than significant. Regardless, while recycling and the imposition of
Mitigation Measures 5.11.2-1 through 5.11.2-18 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.
CUMULATIVE
1.5.4 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Cumulative development within the Santa Clarita Valley
area would generate 393,455 tons per year of solid waste, as well as hazardous waste. The
project's 118 tons per year (without recycling) would represent 0.03 percent of this valley -wide
total. Land suitable for landfill development or expansion is quantitatively finite and limited.
7
Until other disposal alternatives that will be adequate to serve existing and future uses for the
foreseeable future are found and because landfill space is a finite resource project, the potential
project and cumulative solid and hazardous waste impacts are considered unavoidably significant
for projects of this size.
1.5.5 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3.
1.5.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The following facts, together with Mitigation
Measures 5.11.2-1 through 5.11.2-18, 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.
Cumulative development within the Santa Clarita Valley area would generate 393,455 tons per
year of solid waste, as well as hazardous waste. The project's 118 tons per year (without
recycling) would represent 0.03 percent of this valley -wide total. Land suitable for landfill
development or expansion is quantitatively finite and limited due to numerous environmental,
regulatory, and political constraints. This is not to say, though, that alternative solid waste
disposal technologies that could substantially reduce landfill disposal will not be developed and
legislatively approved in the future; given the market forces that drive the solid waste industry, it
seems reasonable to assume they will. However, until other disposal alternatives that will be
adequate to serve existing and future uses for the foreseeable future are found and because
landfill space is a finite resource project, the potential project and cumulative solid and
hazardous waste impacts are 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.
1
E
SECTION 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT HAVE BEEN MITIGATED TO A LEVEL
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT OR THAT ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT
The City Council has determined that, where the Final EIR found the project would have
potentially significant project level effects, project revisions, mitigation measures and conditions
of approval will substantially mitigate those environmental effects, and that, as a result, those
effects have been mitigated to a level less than significant, as follows.
This section sets forth the potentially significant effects of the project and, with respect to each
such impact, identifies one or more of the required CEQA findings and states facts in support of
these findings.
2.1 VISUAL RESOURCES
LIGHT AND GLARE
2.1.1 POTENTIAL 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 Planning Commission has determined that,
where the Final EIR found the project would have potentially significant project -level effects,
project revisions, mitigation measures and/or 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. The Final EIR concludes that
potentially significant impacts associated with short-term and long-term light and glare will be
reduced to a less than significant level with project revisions, mitigation measures, and/or
conditions of approval.
Construction activities would be restricted to the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday
through Friday, and between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturday, consistent with the provisions
of the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code (UDC). Therefore, construction would occur
during daylight hours except during winter when construction may occur for up to 2 hours after
sunset. Any lighting required after sunset would be directed so as not to impact surrounding uses.
Additionally, while some building materials such as glass would be involved when constructing
proposed buildings, such materials would not represent a source of substantial glare.
With respect to long-term light and glare, the proposed Master Plan includes a campus lighting
strategy that is designed to preserve the rural character of the canyon; minimize light pollution
and any negative effects on surrounding residential neighborhoods and provide adequate lighting
to maintain a safe and secure environment throughout campus. The campus lighting strategy
0
would comply with the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District and would be reviewed and
approved by the City of Santa Clarita prior to implementation. Light fixtures would be shielded
and directed downward to avoid light spill into sensitive areas. In addition, proposed landscaping
would include many of the trees currently on the project site and the addition of many new trees.
Trees have the effect of screening the light created by campus uses from outside receptors. Due
to the lighting measures and tree presence, the proposed project is not expected to create a
significant new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area. Therefore, the uses proposed by the Master Plan would not generate a
substantial source of light within the project site or surrounding area.
2.2 NOISE
OPERATIONAL TRAFFIC
2.2.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. As the project builds out, on- and
off-site noise impacts would result from project -generated traffic. Development of the proposed
project would expose project residents to potentially significant traffic -related noise from
Dockweiler Drive and Deputy Jake Drive. The City 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. The proposed project is projected to
generate approximately 1,884 new vehicle trips per day on local roadways, including Dockweiler
Drive, Placerita Canyon Road, Placeritos Boulevard, 12th Street, Newhall Avenue, Lyons
Avenue, and Sierra Highway when fully operational. Post -project, interim year, on- and off-site
traffic noise levels were projected using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model.
Implementation of the proposed project, including the Dockweiler Drive and Deputy Jake Drive
extensions, would result in a noise increase of less than one decibel along most roadway
segments analyzed. A reduction in noise level would occur along Placenta Canyon Road west of
the site and along 12th Street due to a redistribution of traffic as a result of the roadway
extension. Noise levels along the Dockweiler Drive extension east of The Master's College
campus would increase by at least 4 decibels, but the noise increase would not be significant
because it would not meet the criteria for off-site noise impact significance.
Construction of the 42 condominium units would occur in the future between the Dockweiler
Drive and Deputy Jake Drive extensions. The proposed project includes the extension of
Dockweiler Drive to the western boundary of Master College's property. Other proposed
projects within the City include the further extension and connection of Dockweiler Drive to
eventually allow traffic movement from Sierra Highway to Interstate 5. Therefore, traffic
conditions and potentially significant mobile source noise impacts to the proposed condominium
units cannot be predicted at this time. Mitigation Measures 5.7-4 and 5.7-5 would require further
analysis of the ambient noise environment at the time the condominium units are constructed and
the implementation of noise insulation features and balcony design and orientation, which would
10
result in interior and exterior noise levels at the condominium units within the levels identified in
the Noise Ordinance. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.7-4 and 5.7-5 would reduce
potentially significant impacts to a level of less than significant.
2.3 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)
2.3.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. At buildout, the Master Plan and 42
condominium unit project components would generate an additional 1,884 average daily trips
(ADT) to the college campus. The Master's College Master Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
prepared for the project, using both the City of Santa Clarita performance standards and
Congestion Management Program standards, found that the project at buildout would
significantly impact the intersection at Sierra Highway and Placerita Canyon Road. The City 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.
2.3.2 FINDING. City adopts Finding 1,
2.3.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with intersection level of service at the intersection of Sierra
Highway and Placerita Canyon Road will be reduced to a less than significant level with
implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.10-1 through 5.10-3. These mitigation measures
include adding a separate northbound right -turn lane to Sierra Highway, reconfiguring the two
westbound (Placenta Canyon Road) through lanes to a shared through/left-/right-turn lane and
adding a dedicated right -turn lane, modifying the traffic signal for split phasing for Placerita
Canyon Road approaches and providing right -turn overlap phasing for northbound (Sierra
Highway) right turns. Project conditions of approval, including payment of Bridge and
Thoroughfare fees will also reduce project impacts to less than significant.
2.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS
2.4.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. The project site is located in an active
seismic area and the project site experienced strong ground motion during 1971 Sylmar and 1994
Northridge earthquakes. Earthquakes would be experienced in the future and impacts would be
potentially significant. The project site has a 10 percent chance in 50 years (475 year return
period) of experiencing accelerations of 0.75g for alluvium conditions and 0.78g for soft rock
conditions based on a predominant earthquake of magnitude 6.6 (Mw) at a distance of 2 km from
the site. Ground accelerations that exceed 0.65g have the potential for moderate to heavy
damage. Construction of the proposed project would expose people and property to these
hazards; therefore, impacts would be significant. The City 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.
2.4.2 FINDING. The City adopts Finding 1.
2.4.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. Proposed structures would be required to
be designed, engineered, and constructed to meet all applicable local and state seismic safety
requirements, including those of the Uniform Building Code. Given compliance with applicable
seismic safety requirements, impacts on the proposed development from seismic groundshaking
would be less than significant. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts
associated with seismic groundshaking will be reduced to a less than significant level with
implementation of the mitigation measures in the Final EIR.
EXPANSIVE MATERIALS
2.4.4 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. The soils and sediments from both
Saugus and Pacoima Formations are present on site. Fine-grained units of the Saugus Formation
are known to have significant expansion potentials when exposed to water. In addition, artificial
fill, slopewash, and alluvium deposits present at the site may contain material with significant
expansion potential. Typically, soil, slopewash (colluvium), fill, and alluvial deposits reduce in
volume (shrink) by up to about 10 percent when excavated and subsequently recompacted. In
contrast, Pacoima Formation and Saugus Formation bedrock typically increases in volume (bulk)
by up to about 10 percent when excavated and recompacted. Based on the above discussion,
impacts would be significant. The City 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.
2.4.5 FINDING. The City adopts Finding 1.
2.4.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with expansive soils will be reduced to a less than significant level
with implementation of the mitigation measures in the Final EIR.
2.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLANT COMMUNITIES
Sage Scrub and Chaparral Series
2.5.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. The majority of the project site
consists of various series of the coastal sage scrub and chaparral communities, which have the
potential to support many of the special -status wildlife species that may occur on the site.
Approximately 58 percent of these sage scrub and chaparral series found on the project site
would be cleared and graded during project construction. None of these series is classified as a
special -status community by California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and none is
protected specifically by the Santa Clarita General Plan policies. However, these series do have
the potential to provide habitat for certain reptilian and mammalian California Species of Special
12
Concern. These series also have the potential to provide foraging habitat for white-tailed kite,
Cooper's hawk, loggerhead shrike, and northern harrier, and both foraging and nesting habitat
for Southern California rufouscrowned sparrow, Bell's sage sparrow, and Swainson's hawk, all
California Species of Special Concern. More than half of this habitat would be impacted by
project implementation. Because these sage scrub and chaparral habitats have the potential to
support special -status wildlife and more than half of these habitats would be cleared and graded
for project construction, the project's impacts to these plant communities would be significant.
The City 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.
2.5.2 FINDING. The City adopts Finding 1.
2.5.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with sage scrub and chaparral would be reduced to a less -than -
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3-1. The replacement of coastal
sage scrub and chaparral habits on site and/or restoration of these communities on available off-
site property on a 1:1 ratio would reduce this impact to less than significant.
Coast Live Oak Woodland
2.5.4 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. Nearly 13 acres of Coast Live Oak
Woodland are present at the bottom of the southern slopes and among the existing campus
structures on the project site. The Coast Live Oak Woodland has the potential to support several
California Species of Special Concern. Project implementation would impact two acres, or 17
percent of this habitat type. Policy 3.2 of the Santa Clarita General Plan encourages the
preservation of oak woodlands through the Section 17.17.090, Oak Tree Preservation, of the City
of Santa Clarita UDC. The California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection considers stands of
oak trees with a canopy cover of 10 percent or more to be significant.' The project site contains a
cover of 11 percent oak woodland, and therefore the impact to this oak woodland would be
considered significant. The City 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. In addition,
the final, revised project as recommended by the Planning Commission would not be grading a
20 -foot -wide area adjacent to the existing residences on Deputy Jake Drive that would preserve
seven oaks that the original project would remove.
2.5.5 FINDING. The City adopts Finding 1.
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant
impacts associated with coast live oak woodland would be reduced to a less -than -significant
level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3-5. The implementation of an approved oak
tree planting plan would mitigate for impacts to oak woodlands on-site, because more than two
acres of oak woodland would be created in remaining open space areas as part of the oak tree
planting plan. The replacement of oak trees removed from the project site with approved
13
replacement oaks in accordance with the oak tree mitigation plan for the project would reduce
this impact to less than significant.
Coast Prickly Pear Succulent Scrub
2.5.6 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. A small area (0.09 acre) in the
northwestern portion of the project site consists of Coast Prickly Pear Succulent Scrub, which is
designated as a sensitive plant community by CDFG. This vegetation type has the potential to
support San Diego desert woodrat, a California Species of Special Concern. Because CDFG has
classified Coast Prickly Pear Succulent Scrub as a sensitive plant community and project
construction would eliminate this plant community from the project site, this impact would be
significant. The City 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.
2.5.7 FINDING. The City adopts Finding 1.
2.5.8 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with coast prickly pear succulent scrub would be reduced to a less -
than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3-2. The replacement of the
coast prickly pear succulent scrub community on a 1:1 ratio on the project site would reduce this
impact to less than significant.
Scalebroom Scrub
2.5.9 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. There are 3.34 acres of Scalebroom
Scrub along Newhall Creek. This community is considered a sensitive natural community by the
CDFG. The proposed storm drain system included within the Master Plan would impact 0.05
acre of this plant community, which constitutes 1.5 percent of the community on the project site.
Of the 0.05 -acre impact, only 0.003 acre would be permanently impacted by the construction of a
stormwater basin and swale entering Newhall Creek. The remaining 0.04 acre of Scalebroom
Scrub to be impacted would be temporarily impacted by trenching and laying pipes for
stormwater conveyance and considered significant impact. The City 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.
2.5.10 FINDING. The City adopts Finding 1.
2.5.11 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with Scalebroom Scrub would be reduced to a less -than -
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3-3.
Non -Native Grassland
14
1
2.5.12 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. The majority_ of vegetation on site
consists of the Non -Native Grassland community, dominated by exotic annual grasses. More
than 13 of the nearly 25 acres of non-native grassland on the site would be impacted by the
proposed project. The California Species of Special Concern that may occur in the sage scrub
and chaparral habitats may also forage in the Non -Native Grassland. The coastal California
gnatcatcher, a federal Threatened species, could forage in the Non -Native Grassland as well, but
the sage scrub habitat is more significant to the gnatcatcher than the grassland habitat. Non -
Native Grassland is not native to the project area and is not listed as a sensitive community, but it
still has the potential to support special -status species, and therefore the project's impact to this
community is considered significant. The City 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.
2.5.13 FINDING. The City adopts Finding 1.
2.5.14 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with non-native grassland would be reduced to a less -than -
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3-7.
COMMON WILDLIFE
2.5.15 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. Construction activity and grading
operations of the proposed project would disturb and/or threaten the survival of common wildlife
species on the site. Some species would be expected to relocate to other areas of similar habitat
within the local area. Although some loss of common wildlife is expected during construction of
the proposed project, because of the relatively common occurrence of these common wildlife
species that would be displaced or lost, project implementation is not expected to cause a current
wildlife population on or adjacent to the project site to drop below self-sustaining levels.
Therefore, impacts to common reptile, amphibian, or mammal species would be less than
significant. However, common native bird species are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act and the California Fish and Game Code, which prohibit the take (defined as destroy, harm,
harass, etc.) of bird nests with eggs or young. Forty avian species were observed on the site
between the general biological survey and the coastal California gnatcatcher survey, and these
species could be adversely affected, if nesting, as a result of implementation of the proposed
project. Implementation of the proposed project would impact bird nesting habitat as it involves
the removal of mature trees and shrubs from the property. Construction -related activities could
result in the direct loss of active nests or the abandonment of active nests by adult birds during
that year's nesting season. The loss of active nests of native birds would be a significant impact,
according to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. The City
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.
2.5.16 FINDING. The City adopts Finding 1.
15
2.5.17 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with common wildlife would be reduced to a less -than -significant
level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3-4.
SPECIAL -STATUS WILDLIFE
Amphibians and Reptiles
2.5.18 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. The silvery legless lizard, coast
horned lizard, coast patch -nosed snake, and coastal western whiptail, all California Species of
Special Concern, have the potential to occur on the project site within the coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, and oak woodlands. These suitable habitats are located within the project impact area.
Because of their sensitivity status, the loss of individuals of these species within the project site
would be considered a potentially significant impact. The City 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.
2.5.19 FINDING. The City adopts Finding 1.
2.5.20 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with amphibians and reptiles would be reduced to a less -than -
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3-7.
Birds
2.5.21 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. Vegetation clearing and grading
within sage scrub and chaparral habitat and removal of mature trees, if conducted during the
nesting season of certain special -status bird species, could result in the direct loss of active nests,
including eggs, young, or incubating adults, which would be considered a potentially significant
impact. The City 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.
2.5.22 FINDING. The City adopts Finding 1.
2.5.23 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with certain special -status birds would be reduced to a less -than -
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3-4.
Mammals
2.5.24 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. The southern grasshopper mouse and
San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit, both California Species of Special Concern, have the potential
to inhabit the open, sparse coastal sage scrub found on the project site. The dense areas of
chaparral and sage scrub, especially where coast prickly pear grows, are suitable habitats for the
16
San Diego desert woodrat, also a California Species of Special Concern. Because of their
sensitivity status, the loss of individuals of these species within the project site would be
considered a potentially significant impact. The City 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.
2.5.25 FINDING. The City adopts Finding 1.
2.5.26 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with mammals would be reduced to a less -than -significant level
with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3-7.
JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES
2.5.27 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. A swale will be installed to convey
stormwater into Newhall Creek from the project's planned stormwater system. In addition, the
small ephemeral drainages that drain runoff from the steep slopes of the site into Newhall Creek
are within the project impact area and may fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Army
Corps of Engineers (ACOE); CDFG, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
The loss of any habitat under the jurisdiction of ALOE, CDFG, and RWQCB would be subject
to the regulatory and permitting authority of these agencies, and would be mitigated under the
direction of these agencies. The project's impacts to Waters of the US under ACOE jurisdiction
and riparian habitat under CDFG jurisdiction would be considered potentially significant. The
City 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.
2.5.28 FINDING. The City adopts Finding 1.
2.5.29 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with regard to jurisdictional resources would be reduced to a less -
than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3-8.
INCREASED HUMAN AND DOMESTIC ANIMAL PRESENCE
2.5.30 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. Implementation of the proposed
project would increase human and domestic animal presence in the area. Increased recreational
and other human activity around these habitats could displace a number of wildlife species,
increase the amount of refuse and pollutants in the area, compact soils, and trample ground -
dwelling flora and fauna. Increased human activities adjacent to Newhall Creek could also deter
some animals, especially larger more secretive mammal species, such as coyote, from utilizing
these habitats. Increased use of the site by domestic animals can disturb nesting or roosting sites
and disrupt the normal foraging activities of wildlife in adjacent habitat areas. Should this
activity occur frequently, and over a long time period, these disturbances may have a long-term
effect on the behavior of both common and special -status animals and can result in their
17
extirpation from the area. The City 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.
2.5.31 FINDING. The City adopts Finding 1.
2.5.32 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with increased human and domestic animal presence would be
reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3-9.
INCREASE IN POPULATION OFNON-NA TIVE SPECIES
2.5.33 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. After project completion, a number of
non-native plant and wildlife species (e.g., tamarisk, giant cane, salt cedar, European starlings,
house sparrows, etc.) that are more adapted to urban environments are expected to increase in
population and potentially displace native species because of their ability to compete more
effectively for resources. Non-native plants tend to be more adaptable to urban settings and
adjacent open space areas and can out -compete native plants for available resources. The City
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.
2.5.34 FINDING. The City adopts Finding 1.
2.5.35 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with increase in population of non-native species would be
reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3-10.
INCREASED LIGHT AND GLARE
2.5.36 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. The expansion of the College and
development of a residential community would increase the number of nighttime light and glare
sources on the site over current levels. Nighttime illumination is known to adversely affect some
species of animals in natural areas. Nighttime light can disturb breeding and foraging behavior
and can potentially alter breeding cycles of birds, mammals, and nocturnal invertebrates. Light
could deter some animal species, especially the larger mammals, from using Newhall Creek as a
wildlife movement corridor. If uncontrolled, such light could adversely impact the composition
and behavior of the animal species that occur in these areas. The project would bring
development closer to the creek and increase nighttime lighting and glare, which would be a
potentially significant impact to the Newhall Creek corridor. The City 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.
2.5.37 FINDING. The City adopts Finding 1.
Wo
1
2.5.38 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with increased light and glared would be reduced to a less -than -
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3-11.
19
SECTION 3
ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS WHERE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
WOULD OCCUR AND NO MITIGATION REQUIRED
The City Council has determined that, where the Final EIR found the project would have
no significant project -level or cumulative effects, the project will have no significant project -
level or cumulative impacts in the following areas and that, as a result, no mitigation is required.
3.1 LAND USE
SANTA CLARITA GENERAL PLAN
The City of Santa Clarita General Plan is the primary policy -planning document that guides land
uses in the City. Proposed development projects must be consistent with the General Plan in
order to be approved, and therefore must serve to directly implement the goals, policies, and
objectives of the General Plan.
The project proposes a General Plan amendment for that portion of the college north of
Placeritos Boulevard from RL (Residential Low) to PE (Private Education), which is consistent
with the land use designation for the College south of Placeritos Boulevard; and for the 4.7 -acre
area south of the proposed Dockweiler Drive extension, where 42 condominium units are
proposed for future construction, from PE to RM (Residential Moderate). The project also
proposes a General Plan amendment to the circulation element by downgrading the classification
of Dockweiler Drive from a major highway to a secondary highway designation.
If the requested General Plan Amendment to the Land Use and Circulation elements of the
General Plan is approved, the proposed project would be consistent with the land use plan and
the circulation element 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. Therefore, the proposed project would be
consistent with the applicable goals and policies of all the General Plan elements, and impacts
would be less than significant in this regard. No mitigation measures are required.
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
If the requested zone changes for that portion of the college north of Placeritos Boulevard from
RL (Residential Low) to PE (Private Education) and for the 4.7 -acre area south of the proposed
Dockweiler Drive extension from PE to RM (Residential Moderate) is approved, the proposed
residential and college components of the proposed project would be in conformance with the
applicable permitted uses in those zoning districts.
Pursuant to UDC Section 17.03.025 (Master Plans), permitted and conditionally permitted uses
may be included in an application for a Master Plan. This section also lists findings that are
required for approval of a Master Plan. According to Section 17.03.060 (Development Review),
through the development review process, the Director of Community Development will ensure
20
that development of Master Plan facilities comply with the approved Master's College Master
Plan, the provisions of the UDC and with the General Plan. Conditional approval of the other
proposed project entitlements ensures the project's consistency with the UDC. Thus, no adverse
impacts relative to the proposed project's consistency with the UDC are anticipated. No
mitigation measures are required.
3.2 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
EMPLOYMENT
The proposed Master Plan would result in the need for 25 additional faculty and 83 staff
members on The Master's College campus. Based on City projections, employment within the
City of Santa Clarita will reach 61,973 in 2020. Additional faculty and staff resulting from
Master Plan implementation would represent 0.2 percent of the total project employment growth
through 2020. Construction associated with all project components would also generate
temporary jobs periodically through buildout. This increase in employment is considered
minimal and would not induce substantial population growth within the City. Project impacts
would be less than significant. The project requires no mitigation.
POPULATION
Implementation of the proposed Master Plan would include the development of a new 27,000 -
square -foot dormitory building which would provide 120 beds for students, and expansion of two
existing dormitory buildings, which would provide an additional 80 beds. Assuming one person
per bed, the new and expanded dormitories would increase the on -campus residential population
by 200 students, resulting in a total resident student population of 906. In addition to the
proposed dormitory rooms, the Master Plan sets a student enrollment cap of 1,700 students,
which would be reached incrementally over the 10 -year Master Plan buildout. Based on a current
student enrollment of approximately 1,100, at Master Plan buildout the project would introduce a
population increase of 600 to the City of Santa Clarita. While The Master's College requires that
all unmarried students who are not living with their parents reside on campus, it is unlikely that
all 600 additional students would live within the City of Santa Clarita. Therefore, this analysis
considers a worst-case scenario. In addition, the project would involve site preparation for the
future construction of 42 condominium units. Assuming an average household size of 3.087
persons, these 42 condominium units would result in a population increase of 130. Other project
components, including the extension of Dockweiler and Deputy Jake Drives, removal of a 0.75 -
million -gallon water tank followed by installation of a 5.0 -million -gallon water tank, and the
dedication of 20.5 acres of vacant land for parkland/open space purposes would not generate a
resident population. In total, the project would result in an increase to the population of the City
of Santa Clarita of 730.
According to SCAG projections, the City of Santa Clarita would have a population of 210,220
persons by the year 2020, representing growth of 59,132 over the year 2000 population.
Population growth associated with the proposed Master Plan and 42 condominium units would
account for 1.1 percent of projected growth within the City through year 2020. This increase in
population is considered minimal and would not induce substantial population growth within the
City. Project impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
21
CUMULATIVE
Implementation of cumulative projects, including the proposed project, would result in additional
population and employment opportunities throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. Cumulative
population, employment, and growth from implementation of related projects and the proposed
project would increase to total of 443,658 persons, 145,176 dwelling units, and 146,485 jobs in
the Valley. The proposed project's anticipated growth of approximately 108 employees would
represent less than 0.4 percent of cumulative employment growth. As such, population and
employment impacts require no mitigation, would be less than significant and not cumulatively
exceed official regional projections.
3.3 SHERIFF SERVICES
CITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE/EVACUATION PLANS
Upon buildout, student, staff, and faculty populations on The Master's College campus and
residents within the 42 condominium units would increase above current levels. These
populations would be subject to potential emergencies (e.g., earthquake, fire, etc.). The other
project components including the extension of Dockweiler Drive and Deputy Jake Drive, would
not generate a resident population which would decrease the officer to population ratio. In
compliance with the state's Standard Emergency Management System, the City includes campus
evacuation within its adopted Emergency Management Plan. The Emergency Management Plan
would be updated to reflect the extension of Dockweiler and Deputy Jake Drives in addition to
the relocation of the main campus entrance to Dockweiler Drive and all on -campus circulation
modifications. With the update of the City Emergency Management Plan, impacts to emergency
response/evacuation plans would be less than significant.
New resident and daytime populations at the project site and in the Santa Clarita Valley would
increase under the Santa Clarita Valley Cumulative Build -Out Scenario. These new populations
would be subject to the same potential hazards as existing City residents. The City's Emergency
Evacuation Plans will be amended periodically to provide for the safe evacuation of all Valley
residents and employees and assure that no significant cumulative impacts would occur relative
to emergency evacuation in the event of a natural or man-made disaster.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF
The County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department would have the responsibility to provide
general law enforcement, including traffic control and enforcement, for the project site under the
existing contract between the City and the County. Demands for Sheriff's Department services in
the project area would increase above current levels upon buildout of the project. However, it is
also expected that the number of calls received and the type of incidents at the project site as it
builds out would be similar in frequency and character to those currently experienced. When
considering the proposed 42 condominium units and assuming all 600 additional students would
live on or near campus and do not currently live in the Sheriff's Department service area, the
officer to population ratio would decrease by less than 1 percent. The other project components
would not generate a resident population which would decrease the officer -to -population ratio.
22
The City of Santa Clarita has adopted developer fees for all new construction within the area
served by the Santa Clarita Sherriff s Station, which will provide funding for additional law
enforcement resources to serve the project area. Additionally, The Master's College Campus
Security would respond to all calls for service that do not involve a convictable offense of a
misdemeanor or felony by a student, faculty, staff or community member or other threats outside
of Campus Security capabilities. As current response times are considered adequate and The
Master's College Campus Security would continue to handle many of the calls for service
generated on campus, and with the payment of city -mandated developer fees, project impacts
would be less than significant.
The total residential population within the Valley under the Santa Clarita Valley Build -Out
Scenario would be 435,291 persons. With the project, assuming all additional 600 students
would reside on or near campus and the population increase associated with the multi -family
residences, the total resident population in the Valley would be 435,958 persons. Using the
desired officer -to -population ratio of one officer per 1,000 persons, Valley buildout (exclusive of
the project) would require a total of 435 sworn officers, or approximately 264 more sworn
officers than currently work in the Valley. The addition of funding as a result of cumulative
development would provide for needed equipment and additional officers to maintain existing
adequate response times. This level of service would be maintained, as each project will be
funded by the City of Santa Clarita through developer fees. Therefore, cumulative impacts to
sheriff services would be less than significant.
CALIFONNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
Upon buildout, demands for CHP services on highways in the unincorporated areas surrounding
the project site could potentially increase due to vehicular traffic generated by additional
students, staff and faculty commuting to and from The Master's College and 42 condominium
units. However, the CHP has indicated that it would not be affected by the proposed project.
Therefore, impacts to the CHP are considered less than significant.
Through increased revenues generated by cumulative development (via motor vehicle
registration fees paid by new residents and businesses), funding for additional staffing and
equipment could be allocated by the state CHP office to the Santa Clarita Valley Station to meet
future demands. As the revenue base and method of funding allocation that are in place as of this
writing provide for adequate CHP service in the area, it is anticipated that the current level of
service would be provided in the future through these same funding sources and allocation
methods. In light of this information, no significant cumulative impacts on CHP services are
anticipated.
3.4 FIRE SERVICES
OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
The operational phase of the proposed project would not present special fire protection
problems; however, the intensification of land uses combined with the increase in human activity
on the project site would result in an increased demand for fire protection services, including
paramedic services. Based on a preliminary review of the proposed project, the Fire Department
23
has stated that the development would increase service demands on the existing fire protection
resources in an area where additional manpower, equipment, and facilities are currently needed.
In response to increasing demands for new facilities, equipment, and staffing created by new
development, the County of Los Angeles has implemented a Developer Fee Program to fund the
purchase of station sites, the construction of new stations, and the funding for new equipment.
The Developer Fees, which are currently $0.93 per square foot of new development (all land
uses), are adjusted annually by the County in order to maintain adequate levels of service and are
collected at the time building permits are issued. It is expected that fees collected from the
project applicant would adequately fund fire service demanded by the proposed project. This fee,
or an in -lieu donation, constitutes mitigation of growth impacts. In addition, tax revenues would
provide for the operation and staffing of the fire stations. Finally, the project would be required
to meet City/County codes and requirements relative to providing adequate fire protection
services to the site during both the construction and operational stages of the project. As a result,
operation of the project would not diminish the staffing or the response times of existing fire
stations in the Santa Clarita Valley, and would not create a special fire protection problem on the
site that would result in a decline in existing services levels in the Valley. Impacts to the Fire
Department during project operation would be less than significant.
Fire Department access would be improved by the proposed extension of Dockweiler and
Deputy Jake Drives because new site access points would be provided. These roadway
extensions would result in additional emergency access points and would better accommodate
Fire Department vehicles and equipment. Additionally, emergency access and service circulation
would be provided at the east end of campus, east of the main campus entry to access the secure
dormitory parking area and off of the proposed roundabout near the proposed chapel. The
emergency, access road proposed at the east end of campus would address the community
concern of access out of Placerita Canyon in the event of an emergency. Access from the canyon
would be provided through the existing Reese Center parking lot and a control gate would be
used to prevent cut through traffic. Emergency access impacts would be less than significant.
WILDLAND FIRE HAZARDS
The ridgeline within the southern portion of the project site is vegetated with many plant
communities that represent a wildland fire hazard and the project site is within a Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone. Characteristics of the project site which contributed to this designation
include the limited access via Placerita Canyon Road and the topography and vegetative cover of
the ridgeline. The proposed project would reduce the severity of these characteristics by grading
the ridgeline for the extension of Dockweiler Drive as a new access road. Given compliance with
all proposed state, City and County requirements related to land management within a Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zone, including the preparation of a Fuel Modification Plan, the project
would not diminish the staffing or the response times of existing fire stations in the Santa Clarita
Valley, nor would it create a special fire protection requirement on the site that would result in a
decline in existing services levels in the Valley. Therefore, impacts related to wildland fire
hazards would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE
24
In order to analyze the cumulative impacts of this project in combination with other expected
future growth, the amount and location of growth expected to occur in addition to that of the
project were predicted. Excluding the project, total residential population within the Valley under
this Build -Out Scenario would be 435,291 persons. With the project, assuming all additional 600
students would reside in Santa Clarita and the population increase associated with the single
family residences, the total resident population in the Valley would be 435,958 persons.
Assuming the addition of 730 residents resulting from Master Plan implementation and the 42
condominium units, the proposed project would represent less than 1 percent of the total resident
population under the Build -Out Scenario. Other project components would not generate a
resident population. Increases in development in the project vicinity, including the project, could
result in an increase in the average response time for fire protection services, particularly for
non -emergency calls. There would be a cumulative impact on fire services if the proposed
project and other projects failed to comply with state, County and City regulations. However,
compliance with state, City and County fire codes, standards and guidelines, and incorporation of
conditions of approval, would reduce fire protection impacts to a less than significant level.
Moreover, increased cumulative development demands would be met by increases in staffing
and equipment, which would be funded by developer fees and increased taxes paid by new
development. Therefore, cumulative impacts on fire protection are considered to be less than
significant.
3.5 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
STORMWA TER R UNOFF AND DRAINA GE
The impervious areas for the project site would increase after project buildout. Additionally, the
volume of surface water runoff during the 10-, 25-, and 50 -year storm events would also
increase. Although the project would increase the amount of impervious area on the project site,
the project provides for the use of on-site detention basins to capture increased stormwater and
surface water flow that would result from increased impervious areas. These detention basins
would reduce the velocities of stormwater flow and retain excess stormwater on site. Therefore,
impacts related to stormwater runoff would be less than significant.
The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area. Drainage pattern changes would be restricted to the project site and would not change the
course of Newhall Creek. While the project involves the movement of 1.2 million cubic yards of
soil, graded areas would be paved or landscaped and, therefore, the proposed project would not
result in modifications to existing landforms that would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on or off site. Additionally, the project applicant would be required to secure an NPDES permit
in accordance with the provision set forth in the California Statewide General Permit No.
CAS000001 and regulated by the State Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB). The project
applicant would also be required to develop and implement a SUSMP under the provisions set
forth by the Los Angeles RWQCB. Impacts related to drainage patterns and erosion would be
less than significant.
WA TER QUALITY
25
Stormwater from the proposed project would be managed in accordance with the requirements
established by the City and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD). During
construction, the applicant will be required to obtain a NPDES permit and prepare a SUSMP to
manage surface water flows and reduce impacts. BMPs set forth by the most recent version of
the SUSMP for Los Angeles County and Cities in Los Angeles County would be implemented.
The project would not result in significant and adverse increase in flow velocity or volume of
storm water runoff. The project would result in increased surface water flows. However, these
would incrementally increase (less than 15 cfs during the 50 -year event) and would be controlled
through the use of on-site features including detention basins and swales. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
The proposed project is upstream for areas within Placerita Canyon that currently extract
groundwater for beneficial use. The proposed project includes features, that would reduce and/or
eliminate potential contaminants from surface water flows (such as grease and oils from street
and parking areas) from entering the groundwater system. While the proposed project would
result in increased development north of Newhall Creek, the project would not result in impacts
to the creek that would impair water quality or cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage
systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALITY
Impacts resulting from cumulative development within the Eastern Subarea of the Santa Clara
River Hydrologic Area would include increased runoff from development. As such, increased
surface water flows into the Santa Clara River would result. However, all projects would be
required to implement measures to reduce flows and impacts. All projects would be required to
comply with the Statewide General NPDES Permit. Depending upon size (larger or smaller than
1 acre), the specific requirements of either Phase I or Phase lI of the NPDES Storm Water
Program would apply. Additionally, projects in Los Angeles County would be required to
develop and implement a SUSMP in accordance with the County's 2000 SUSMP manual. With
the implementation of conditions of approval, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3.6 WATER SERVICES
WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND
The project site is served by the Newhall County Water District (NCWD), which is one of four
water purveyors within the Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA). Implementation of the
proposed Master Plan and 42 condominium units would pose an overall increased water demand
of 26.46 acre-feet per year (afy) within the NCWD service area. Other project components,
including the extensions of Dockweiler and Deputy Jake Drives and the dedication of 20.5 acres
of vacant land for future parkland/open space purposes would not generate a water demand. The
existing 0.75 -million -gallon water tank would be upgraded as part of the project with the
installation of a 5.0 -million -gallon water tank in order for NCWD to adequately serve existing
and future water needs. The proposed 5.0 -million -gallon water tank would be managed and
operated by the NCWD to serve surrounding land uses including the proposed project. NCWD
has projected that total water demand within its service area would increase by 9,966 acre-feet
between 2005 and 2030. Over this 25 -year period, the proposed project would require
W
1
approximately 1,587 acre-feet. The water demand by the proposed project is accounted for
within NCWD and CLWA projections. Since the NCWD and CLWA have indicated that there
are enough supplies available to meet projected demand through 2030, the proposed project
would have a less than significant impact to water services. Additionally, as the CLWA would
have sufficient supply to serve the Santa Clarita Valley at buildout, cumulative impacts would be
less than significant.
3.7 WASTEWATER
Implementation of the proposed Master Plan and 42 condominium units would pose an overall
increased wastewater generation of approximately 67,464 gallons per day within the SCVSD
service area. The Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District (SCVSD) is served by two wastewater
treatment plants with a current combined treatment capacity of 28.1 million gallons per day
(mgd). Since the plants currently treat only 21.1 mgd, the plants have sufficient capacity to
accommodate the project -generated wastewater increase. Therefore, the proposed project would
-have a -less -than significant -impact -to -wastewater services.
CUMULATIVE WASTEWATER
The cumulative increase in wastewater generation in the Santa Clarita Valley would exceed the
SCVSD's future treatment capacity of 34.1 mgd. If buildout of the Santa Clarita Valley was
permitted without provision of additional treatment capacity, significant wastewater disposal
impacts would occur. However, since the SCVSD would not issue connection permits if
treatment capacity is not available, no significant cumulative wastewater impacts would occur.
27
EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION 09-5
FINAL EIR AND
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(On file in the Planning Division)
AND
Available at: http://www.santa-clarita.com/cityhall/cd/planning/masters.asp
i
1