HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-26 - AGENDA REPORTS - VISTA CYN ANNEX (2)r
r
Agenda Item: 12.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by: Jeff Hogan
DATE: April 26, 2011
SUBJECT: THE VISTA CANYON ANNEXATION PROJECT, INCLUDING
THE ANCILLARY ANNEXATION AREA (PORTIONS OF SAND
CANYON, FAIR OAKS RANCH, AND JAKES WAY)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council receive the staff report and public testimony;
2. City Council close the public hearing;
3. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Vista Canyon project and
the Ancillary Annexation Area through the adoption of two Resolutions (one for Vista
Canyon and one for the Ancillary Annexation Area), which includes the adoption of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CEQA Findings, and Statement of
Overriding Considerations;
4. Adopt a Resolution (including the Final Conditions of Approval) that approves General
Plan Amendment 07-001A, Specific Plan 07-001, Tentative Tract Map 69164,
Conditional Use Permit 07-009, and Oak Tree Permit 07-002;
5. Adopt a Resolution approving General Plan Amendment 07-001 B for the Ancillary
Annexation Areas (Jakes Way, Fair Oaks Ranch, portions of Sand Canyon);
6. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to submit an application
to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requesting: (a) annexation of
approximately 2,442 acres of land to the City of Santa Clarita for the Vista Canyon, Jakes
Way, Fair Oaks Ranch, and portions of Sand Canyon areas, andl(b) a simultaneous and
corresponding Sphere of Influence Amendment;
N�. Rem l�lo . I !
Ordinance passed to � tqo 11-2 FSO
Second readio Q'0 r 1 o � _ i9
��.
�� Pir on -6-7 -dA
7. Introduce and pass to second reading an Ordinance approving Prezone 07=001A for the
Vista Canyon project; and
Introduce and pass to second reading an Ordinance approving Prezone 07-001 B for the
Ancillary Annexation Areas (Jakes Way, Fair Oaks Ranch, portions of Sand Canyon).
BACKGROUND
The Vista Canyon project was last considered by the City Council on March 22, 2011. At the
March 22 meeting, the City Council continued the public hearing, conceptually approved the
project subject to the revisions and requirements enumerated below, and directed staff to prepare
all of the necessary documents (e.g., ordinances, resolutions, CEQA Findings, Final EIR
(including the mitigation and monitoring reporting program), conditions, etc.) for the Council's
consideration at the April 26, 2011 Council meeting.
It should also be pointed out that the April 2011 Final EIR, inclusive of the Draft EIR and
responses to comments, was distributed to the City Council, public agencies and persons who
commented on the EIR on April 14, 2011, in advance of this public hearing.
City Council Modifications
As directed by the Council, a revised land plan has been prepared and includes the following
modifications:
• The River Corridor in Planning Areas 1 and 2 has been increased by an average of 100
feet, except for the area around the water reclamation plant, which is located outside of
the California Department of Fish and Game's jurisdiction.
• The length of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge has been increased from 650 to 750 feet.
• Remove development from Planning Area 4 (Mitchell Hill), resulting in no development
north of the Santa Clara River. City staff recommends that the River Education Center be
moved to the Oak Park.
• Relocate the Town Green from its location on the previous tentative tract map (near the
railroad right-of-way) to a location near the southern Vista Canyon Road Bridge abutment
adjacent to the Santa Clara River Corridor.
• Eliminate the residential overlay, thereby permitting a maximum of 1,100 residential
units and 950,000 square feet of commercial floor area.
Additionally, per the Council's direction, the following requirements have been incorporated into
the Vista Canyon project's Final Conditions of Approval (COA) — Exhibit D of the Vista
Entitlement Resolution.
Require that project lighting be decorative and down lit, including along roadways and
the Vista Canyon Road Bridge. (PL8 - Page 28 of COA)
Require the project's Landscape Maintenance District to pay for ongoing maintenance of
2
the Oak Park, River Corridor, and Mitchell Hill Open Space (including the Mitchell
Family cemetery)., (SD4 — Page 47 of COA)
• Require that the slope of the buried bank stabilization in the area of the animal movement
corridor not exceed a grade of 2.5:1 in order to provide access for wildlife to enter into
the River. The condition also requires that a qualified biologist prepare an animal
movement corridor plan that addresses corridor design, including a Lost Canyon Road
undercrossing. (PL 11 — Page 29 of COA)
• Require that no lighting be permitted on Lost Canyon Road from La Veda Avenue to a
point 300 feet from the eastern project boundary due to the animal movement corridor.
(EN50 — Page 37 of COA)
• Require that a conservation easement be recorded over the animal movement corridor
on-site and that the applicant work with City staff and use their best efforts to acquire an
off-site conservation easement on the property directly to the south to preserve the animal
corridor through the project site and to the south. (PR2 and PR3 — Page 50 of COA)
• Require that no lighting be permitted on the trail adjacent to the wildlife corridor in the
Oak Park or on the Santa Clara River Trail. (PR25 — Page 53 of COA)
• Require that prior to the issuance of the 150th occupancy permit in Planning Area 3 of the
project, the applicant shall secure easements and construct a minimum 12' wide stabilized
decomposed granite trail connecting the Santa Clara River Trail on the south side of the
River to Sand Canyon Road. This trail shall be located adjacent to the River, to the north
of the two homes located along this portion of Lost Canyon Road. No flood protection
improvements will be required for this trail. If the applicant is unable to secure
easements for this trail, the applicant shall construct a minimum 8' wide stabilized
decomposed granite trail along the north side of Lost Canyon Road to the satisfaction of
the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services. (PR23 — Page 53 of COA)
• Require that the applicant provide a total of $300,000.00 in funding to the City to be used
for the construction of the Sand Canyon Trail from Lost Canyon Road to Roadrunner
Avenue and for unconstructed portions of the trail from Roadrunner Avenue to Sultus
Street. The payment would be paid in two installments. (PR27 — Page 53 of COA)
• Require the applicant to use its best efforts, working with City staff, to acquire a 20 -foot
wide trail easement off-site on the property to the south of the existing railroad
undercrossing. (PR28 — Page 53 of COA)
• Require the applicant to use its best efforts, working with City staff, to acquire an off-site,
20 -foot wide trail easement on the property to the south of the existing railroad
undercrossing to ensure necessary easements to connect the Fair Oaks Ranch/Golden
Valley trail .system and the City's proposed trail at the western terminus of Roadrunner
Avenue to the Vista Canyon trail systema (PR28 — Page 53 of COA)
• Require the applicant to construct the Vista Canyon loop trail, from the project's eastern
boundary to the existing railroad undercrossing, with decomposed granite or similar
surface at a width of 20 feet. (PR29 — Page 54 of COA)
• Require the applicant to construct the Vista Canyon loop trail, from the existing railroad
undercrossing to Vista Square, with decomposed granite or similar surface at a minimum
width of 12 feet. (PR30 — Page 54 of COA)
• Require the applicant to pay all costs associated with completing the restoration of the
Mitchell Family cemetery (fencing, seating, landscaping, interpretive signage, extension
3
of electricity and water, and trail). (PR31 — Page 54 of COA)
• Require the applicant to work with City staff on a recreational amenity plan for the
Mitchell Hill Open Space. This plan shall include site security improvements and the
construction of an unimproved access (decomposed granite or similar surface) from Vista
Canyon Road to the Mitchell Hill Open Space. Once a mutually acceptable plan is
identified, the applicant shall construct the improvements in accordance with the Plan.
The applicant shall receive PDF credit for construction costs associated with the
implementation of this Plan. (PR32 — Page 54 of COA)
• Require the applicant to construct the Roundabout option at the Lost Canyon Road/Sand
Canyon Road intersection. (EN49 — Page 37 of COA)
• Require the applicant to fund a crossing guard for one full year following the completion
of the roundabout improvement at Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. (PL13 —
Page 29 of COA)
Annexation Timeline
If the City Council approves the recommended action, City staff would then proceed to work on
submitting all of the necessary documentation to LAFCO for the annexation of Vista Canyon,
Fair Oaks Ranch, Jakes Way and portions of Sand Canyon. It would be anticipated that
annexation could take up to one year which results in these areas being annexed into the City in
Spring/Summer 2012.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Other action as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
Overall, annexation of Fair Oaks Ranch, Jakes Way, portions of Sand Canyon, and the Vista
Canyon project would generate a neutral/no net fiscal impact on the City of Santa Clarita.
Anticipated public service expenditures (such as Parks and Recreation, Sheriff, and Community
Preservation) would be managed so as not to exceed the future projected revenues generated
from these communities, thus there would not be a negative impact to the City's General Fund.
Revenues from this annexation include property taxes, permit fees, sales tax on retail/leases,
transient occupancy taxes, and other taxable activities offsetting the cost of providing public
services to these communities.
ATTACHMENTS
Colored Illustrative Map of Vista Canyon
FINAL Vista Ordinance
FINAL Vista Ordinance EXHIBIT A PREZONE MAP
FINAL AAA GP Resolution
�f
FINAL AAA EXHIBIT A GP MAP
FINAL AAA Ordinance
FINAL AAA ORDINANCE EXHIBIT A PREZONE MAP
FINAL LAFCO App Resolution
FINAL LAFCO RESO EXHIBIT A MAP
FINAL AAA CEQA Reso
FINAL Vista Entitlement Resolution
FINAL Vista Entitlement Exhibit A GP Map
FINAL Vista CEQA Resolution
Specific Plan available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Final EIR/Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Tentative Tract Map available in the City Clerk's Reading File
5
m
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING PRE -ZONE 07-OOIA (MASTER CASE 07-127) FOR THE 185 -
ACRE VISTA CANYON PROJECT, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF SAND
CANYON ROAD AND STATE ROUTE 14, ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following findings
of fact:
a. An application for Master Case 07-127, the Vista Canyon project, was filed by the
project applicant, Vista Canyon, LLC (the "applicant"), with the City of Santa Clarita
on June 29, 2007. The original entitlement requests (collectively, "Entitlements")
include:
1. Annexation 07-002A to annex (and amend the City's Sphere of Influence to
include) the Vista Canyon site, an approximately 185 -acre site that is
generally located southwest of Sand Canyon Road and, State Route 14 ("SR -
14") in the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County,
2. Pre -zone 07-OOIA to pre -zone the Vista Canyon site to Specific Plan ("SP")
Specific Plan 07-001 to adopt a Specific Plan that includes entitlements for
1,117 dwelling units (96 single-family detached, 1,021 multi -family attached),
646,000 square feet of commercial office, 164,000 square feet of retail, and a
200-ro6m hotel. A residential overlay within the Specific Plan would permit
the conversion of up to 250,000 square feet of the commercial office area to
233 additional multi -family attached dwelling units, permitting development
of the project site with up to 1,350 dwelling units and 700,000 square feet of
commercial area.
4. General Plan Amendment 07-001A to amend the General Plan Land Use Map
and Circulation Element in order to designate the Vista Canyon site as SP,
revise the Significant Ecological Area ("SEA") overlay to correspond to the
area proposed as Specific Plan -Open Space ("SP -OS"), and establish the
alignment and roadway classification for Lost Canyon Road and Vista Canyon
Road.
Tentative Tract Map 69164 to subdivide the 185 -acre project site into 162
lots. In addition, each individual dwelling or commercial unit would have the
ability to be subdivided.
Ordinance No.
Page No. 2
6. Conditional Use Permit 07-009 to allow for the import of up to 500,000 cubic
yards of dirt to accommodate the development within the Vista Canyon site.
7. Oak Tree Permit 07-019 to allow for the removal of 10, four of which are
heritage size, of the 41 oak trees located within the Specific Plan site. The
request would also permit the encroachment into the protected zone of 10 oak
trees, and pruning or trimming of seven of these 10 oak trees. Implementation
of three of the four Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road intersection options
could require an additional oak tree removal and/or up to two additional oak
tree encroachments.
As discussed at length below, the original Vista Canyon project has been revised
since the initial 2007 application for the Entitlements. As a general matter, the
modifications to the project reduce the amount and extent of site development,
thereby reducing environmental impacts and avoiding the creation of new impacts.
b. The City of Santa Clarita is also concurrently processing under Master Case 07-127 a
separate application to annex the Ancillary Annexation Area ("AAA") to the City of
Santa Clarita. The AAA includes unincorporated County of Los Angeles property
adjacent to and surrounding the Vista Canyon project site, specifically Fair Oaks
Ranch (approximately 1,082 acres), Jakes Way (approximately 260 acres), and
portions of Sand Canyon (915 acres).
C. As indicated in Paragraph (a), above, the project originally proposed to develop 1,117
dwelling units (96 single-family residential lots and 1,021 attached condominiums
(up to 579 of these attached condominium units may be rented or leased)), and up to
950,000 square feet of commercial and medical office, retail, theater, restaurant, and
hotel uses within four Planning Areas ("PA"). A residential overlay within the
corporate office campus site would have allowed for the conversion of up to 250,000
square feet of office floor area to 233 attached residential units. If implemented, this
conversion would have permitted a maximum of 1,350 residential units and 700,000
square feet of commercial floor area. The original project also included a new Multi -
Modal Transit Station ("Transit Station"), consisting of a Metrolink Station and Bus
Transfer Station. As originally proposed, there would also be approximately 18 acres
of parks/recreation facilities, including the Oak Park, Town Green, Community
Garden, River Education/Community Center, up to six private recreation facilities,
and trails. Further, the original project also included approximately 10 acres of
proposed public streets, including the extension of Lost Canyon Road from Fair Oaks
Ranch to Vista Canyon Road and the construction of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge
to connect Lost Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road.
d. The Vista Canyon site primarily is surrounded by residentially -developed land.
Residential development, commercial development and SR -14, are located to the
north of the project site. The Colony Townhomes, a multi -family residential
community, is directly west of the project site. The Fair Oaks Ranch community,
Ordinance No.
Page No. 3
•which is comprised of single-family and multi -family residential units, an elementary
school; and community park, lies to the south and west. The existing Metrolink rail
line is located to the south of the project site. The La Veda and Lost Canyon
residential areas, which consist of homes, and a public and private elementary school,
lie to the east. The Santa Clara River bisects the Vista Canyon site.
e. The project site is presently located in unincorporated Los Angeles County, directly
adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita. The Los Angeles County Land Use Map (as
amended through May 13, 2003) designates the project site as M (Industry) and W
(Floodplain/Floodway). The property is currently zoned M-1.5 (Light Industrial), A-
1-1 (Light Agriculture — 1 acre minimum lot size), R -A-8,000 (Residential
Agriculture — 8,000 square foot minimum lot size), and A-1-10,000 (Light
Agriculture — 10,000 square foot minimum lot size). Under the existing County4ight
industrial zoning designation of M-1.5 and taking into account parking and
landscaping requirements, the project site could be developed with approximately 1.0
million square feet of light industrial uses. The agricultural and residential zoned
portions of the project site could be developed with approximately 170 single-family
residential units.
f.. On June 25, 1991, the City Council adopted the City of Santa Clarita General Plan via
Resolution No. 91-98. The City's General Plan presently designates the Vista
Canyon project site as Business Park with portions of the site covered by a SEA
overlay. The City's General Plan Land Use Concept identifies the project site as a
"major sub -center" with Business Park/Office Uses.. Under the Business Park .
designation and taking into account City parking and landscaping requirements, the
project site could be developed with approximately 4.35 million square feet of
business park floor area.
g. The County of Los Angeles and City of Santa Clarita are presently completing One
Valley One Vision ("OVOV") — a joint effort, initiated in 2000, between the City and
County to create guidelines for the future growth and development of the Santa
Clarita Valley while also preserving natural resources. The jurisdictional planning
boundaries established in OVOV include the City and its four communities
(i.e., Canyon.Country, Newhall, Saugus and Valencia), and the County communities
of Stevenson Ranch, Castaic, Val Verde, Agua Dulce, and the future Newhall Ranch.
The draft OVOV Land Use Plan (dated October 2008) issued by the County
designates the project site as UR2 (Urban2 - five dwelling units per acre) with an
SEA overlay over portions of the site. Under this draft land use designation, the
project site could be developed with up to 700 residential units. However, various
goals and policies within OVOV encourage transit oriented development ("TOD")
through the permitting of higher densities and intensities, and would allow for mixed-
use, compact development in close proximity to new or existing rail stations and/or
multi -modal transit facilities. As proposed, the Vista Canyon project includes a new
Transit Station.
Ordinance No.
Page No. 4
h. The Vista Canyon site was originally a portion of Mitchell Ranch, which was first
settled in 1860 by Thomas Mitchell. Thomas Mitchell was born in Virginia,
subsequently moving to Texas where, in 1852, he served under Sam Houston in the
Texas Mounted Volunteers. He went to California shortly thereafter, spending
approximately eight years in the northern California mining districts. In 1860, he
moved to the Santa Clarita Valley to start a cattle "ranch. Initially, he transported a
dismantled miner's cabin down from Tehachapi and erected it on the property, more
specifically in the southeastern portion of the project site. A few years later he
married Martha Taylor and built a more commodious adobe, about 40 feet from the
original cabin. The adobe was 60 by 45 feet in size and redwood shingled.
Eventually, Mitchell increased his holdings to nearly a thousand acres, on which he
raised cattle, produced honey, and farmed. With increasing population, and thus
children, in the valley, the Sulphur Springs School District was founded, circa 1872.
The school opened initially in the kitchen of Mitchell's adobe, was taught by Mrs.
Mitchell, and was the first school building in the Santa Clara Valley area. Circa 1885,
the student population had outgrown the single room and a wooden schoolhouse was
constructed at Sulphur Springs, on land donated by Mitchell. The Sulphur Springs
school location is directly east of the project site. Mitchell also built a two-story
home on the project site in 1888, then using the adobe as a guesthouse. Bricks from
the adobe were eventually removed from the property and the school/adobe was
reassembled at Heritage Junction in Hart Park in Newhall.
In addition to the original miner's cabin, adobe, two-story wooden house, and likely a
number of outbuildings, a family cemetery was also present on the Mitchell Ranch.
This was used to inter the Mitchell family, and their friends and neighbors. None of
the buildings referenced above remain on the Vista Canyon site. The cemetery,
however, is still present and would be preserved and enhanced by the project.
Presently, the project site is comprised primarily of undeveloped, highly disturbed
land, including various utilities, and an equipment storage yard and a single-family
residence located on the western side of the project site, and the Mitchell family
cemetery located on the small elevated terrace on the northeastern portion of the
project site.
i. The project site is irregularly shaped, and includes the sandy bottom of the ephemeral
Santa Clara River, a small elevated terrace on the northeastern portion of the project
site, and a larger elevated terrace that forms the southern half of the project site.
These terraces drain towards the River. Elevations on the project site range from a
high of 1,555 feet above sea level at the northeastern portion of the site, to a low of
1,465 feet above sea level in the middle of the Santa Clara River.
j. Environmental conditions on the project site have been altered substantially by
existing and historical uses of the property, including outdoor storage, agricultural
cultivation, grading, utility construction and maintenance, and residential uses.
Unauthorized dumping also has occurred on the project site. There is little remaining
16
Ordinance No.
Page No. 5
natural vegetation remaining with the exception of a vegetated area on the
southeastern portion of the project site that includes oaks and introduced grasses.
k. The Vista Canyon project concentrates development on the flatter, disturbed, elevated
terraces on the project site, and as revised would preserve a River corridor averaging
over 800 feet in width. The majority of oak trees on the project site would be
preserved and incorporated into the project.
1. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA;" Pub.
Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the City of Santa Clarita is the lead agency and the
City Council is the decision-making body for the Vista Canyon project. The City's
Planning Commission is a recommending body for the Vista Canyon project.
in. The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the Vista Canyon project,
which determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment
and that an environmental impact report ("EIR") must be prepared. The Initial Study
determined that the following areas must be addressed in the EIR for the Vista
Canyon project: geotechnical hazards, flood, traffic/access, air quality, noise,
biological resources, land use, water services (including both water demand/supply
and water quality), solid waste disposal, education, library services, parks and
recreation, fire services, sheriff services, human made hazards, visual resources,
population/housing/employment, cultural resources, agricultural resources, Santa
Clara River corridor, wastewater disposal, global climate change and utilities.
n. An initial Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Entitlements was circulated to
affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), for thirty days, beginning on July 11, 2007. A revised
NOP, reflecting various modifications made to the project was circulated, pursuant to
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, for thirty days, beginning on February 26,
2008. And, yet another revised NOP, reflecting the inclusion of the AAA, was
circulated, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, for thirty days,
beginning on October 1, 2009. Agencies that received the NOPs include, but are not
limited to, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control
Board, California Department of Fish and Game, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, waste haulers,
water agencies and transportation agencies serving the Santa Clarita Valley in
accordance with CEQA's consultation requirements. Numerous comments from
public agencies, organizations, and members of the public were received in response
to the NOPs.
o. A scoping meeting was held at the City of Santa Clarita Century Conference Room
on February 27, 2008, 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 February 6, 2008, and was mailed to all property owners within 1,000
feet of the project site, in addition to approximately 80 agencies. Approximately 25
people attended the scoping meeting.
Ordinance No.
Page No. 6
p. On July 20, 2010, at 3:30 p.m., the Planning Commission conducted a site tour of the
Vista Canyon project site.
q. The City of Santa Clarita prepared a Draft EIR (October 2010; SCH No.
2007071039) for the Vista Canyon project that addressed all issues raised by the
Initial Study and in comments received on the NOPs. The Draft EIR was circulated
for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in
compliance with CEQA. Specifically, the Notice of Availability/Notice of
Completion for the Draft EIR was filed, posted and advertised on October 19, 2010,
and the 45 -day public review period ended on December 3, 2010, 5:00 p.m. in
accordance with CEQA.
r. The City also prepared a Planning Commission Final EIR (February 2011; SCH No.
2007071039). The Planning Commission Final EIR complied with all applicable
CEQA requirements, and contained responses to all oral and written comments
received prior to January 18, 2011. The Planning Commission Final EIR also
contained a description of modifications to the Vista Canyon project made in
response to public comment, City staff recommendations, and Planning Commission
direction; copies of all comment letters received on the project; revised pages of the
Draft EIR; and, additional supporting materials in appendices. Notice of the Planning
Commission Final EIR's availability was sent to commenting agencies, organizations
and persons on February 4, 2011.
S. The Planning Commission held duly -noticed public hearings on the Vista Canyon
project on October 19, November 2, and December 21, 2010, and February 15, 2011.
These hearings were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at
7:00 p.m. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on December 21,
2010.
On October 19, 2010, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the
Vista Canyon project; received a presentation from staff on the Vista Canyon
Specific Plan; received a Draft EIR presentation from staff on several sections
(Geotechnical Hazards, Land Use, Solid Waster Disposal, Education Services,
Library Services, Fire Services, Sheriff Services, Human -Made Hazards,
Population, Housing and Employment, Cultural Resources, Agricultural
Resource, Utilities, and Ancillary Annexation Areas); received a presentation
from the applicant, and received public testimony regarding the project.
ii. On November 2, 2010, City staff responded to questions posed by the Planning
Commission and pubic on issues related to Schools, Traffic, Grading, Solid Waste
and Annexation. City staff also made a presentation on various Draft EIR
Sections (Flood, Traffic and Access, Air Quality, Noise, Biological Resources,
Water Services, Water Quality, Parks and Recreation, Visual Resources, River
Corridor, Wastewater . Disposal, Global Climate Change, and Project
Ordinance No.
Page No. 7
Alternatives). The Planning Commission also received a presentation from the
applicant and received public testimony regarding the project.
iii. On December 21, 2010, City staff responded to questions and issues raised by the
Planning Commission related to Flood, Traffic, Air Quality, Noise, Biological
Resources, Water Services, Water Quality, Parks and Recreation, Visual
Resources, River Corridor, Wastewater Disposal, Global Climate Change, and
Project Alternatives. In addition, the Planning Commission considered potential
site plan modifications, noise-, dust- and traffic -related conditions, and additional
public testimony on the project. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning
Commission directed staff and the applicant to bring back a site plan reflecting
various project modifications (detailed below), and directed staff to incorporate
the following specific requirements into the revised site plan and/or conditions of
approval for the project:
Elimination of the 26 single-family lots located in the area adjacent
to the existing La Veda neighborhood. Elimination of these lots
increased the size of the proposed Oak Park to over 10 acres,
eliminated the removal of one heritage oak tree, and allowed for
the preservation and enhancement of the north/south animal
movement corridor from the Santa Clara River through the project
site to undeveloped land to the south. This project revision
incorporated aspects of Draft EIR Alternative 5 (Open Space
Corridor).
2. Selection of the "Roundabout" (Intersection Design Option 3) at
the Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road intersection.
3. Removal of the properties south of Placerita Canyon Road from
the AAA, with the exception of the City's Walker Ranch Open
Space property. Removal of these properties reduced the size of
the Sand Canyon annexation area from 1,723 acres to 915 acres.
4. Require, as a condition of approval, the project applicant to
minimize potential dust and vibration impacts associated with
project -related construction to the existing La Veda neighborhood.
5. Require, as a condition of approval, the project applicant to retain a
qualified biologist to prepare an animal movement corridor plan,
which would address corridor design, specifications for an
undercrossing under Lost Canyon Road, and plant materials for the
corridor.
6. Require, as a condition of approval, the project applicant to
construct an eight -foot tall wall/berm in locations along- the
southerly Metrolink right-of-way adjacent to the proposed station
to reduce train -related noise to off-site properties.
13
Ordinance No.
Page No. 8
7. Require the applicant to fund a crossing guard for a temporary time
period after the completion of the intersection improvements at
Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road.
t. On February 15, 2011, the modified site plan, Planning Commission Final EIR
(February 2011), resolutions and conditions of approval were presented to the
Planning Commission. The Commission also received public testimony regarding
the project. As a result of the project modifications made during the proceedings
before the Planning Commission, the revised site plan recommended by the Planning
Commission proposes a total of 1,091 residential units (1,324 under the residential
overlay), 950,000 square feet of commercial floor area (700,000 square feet under
the residential overlay), .Transit Station, a 10 -acre neighborhood park and other
recreational amenities.
U. At the conclusion of the February 15, 2011 public hearing, the Planning Commission
voted to recommend that the City Council certify the Planning Commission Final EIR
(see Resolution No. P11-02) and approve the Vista Canyon project as revised (see
Resolution No. P11-01). The Planning Commission also recommended that the City
Council adopt (i) a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts.of the
Vista Canyon project that cannot be mitigated to less -than -significant levels, and (ii)
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting.Plan ("MMRP") (see Resolution No. PI1-
02).
The Planning Commission considered the Draft EIR (October 2010) and Planning
Commission Final EIR (February 2011) prepared for the Vista Canyon project, as
well as information provided in staff reports, presented to the Planning Commission
from experts, and presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the
Planning Commission following the close of the Draft EIR public comment period up
to January 18, 2011, prior to recommending approval of the Vista Canyon project.
V. Following the February 15, 2011 hearing, the City prepared the Final EIR (April
2011; SCH No. 2007071039). The Final, EIR contained copies of all late written
comment letters; responses to all oral and written comments received on or after
January 18, 2011 and prior to April 8, 2011; and, a description of additional
modifications to the Vista Canyon project made in response to public comment, City
staff recommendations, and City Council direction (see Paragraph (v), below).
Notice of the Final EIR's availability was provided on April 15, 2011 to commenting
agencies, organizations and persons.
W. The City Council subsequently held duly -noticed public hearings on the Vista
Canyon project on March 22 and April 26, 2011. These hearings were held at City
Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:00 p.m. The City Council closed
the public hearing on April 26, 2011.
i. On March 22, 2011, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the Vista
Canyon project. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council directed staff
Ordinance No.
Page No. 9
and the applicant to bring back a site plan and conditions reflecting various
project modifications (detailed below), and directed staff to incorporate the
following specific requirements into the revised site plan and/or conditions of
approval for the project:
1. Increase the length of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge over the
Santa Clara River from 650 feet to 750 feet.
2. Increase the River Corridor width in PA -1 and PA -2 by an average
of 100 feet (excepting the proposed water reclamation plant, which
is located in an area outside of California Department of Fish and
Game's jurisdiction). With this modification, the average width of
the River Corridor on the project site would be over 800 feet. This
change requires the redistribution of residential and commercial
land uses in PA -1 and PA -2.
3. Eliminate commercial development within PA -4 (Mitchell Hill),
resulting in no commercial or residential development north of the
Santa Clara River Corridor.
4. Relocate the Town Green in PA -2 from its present location
adjacent to the Metrolink right-of-way and Transit Station to a
location near the southern abutment of the Vista Canyon Road
Bridge. This relocation would locate the Town Green along the
Santa Clara River directly north of the office and hotel buildings
located to the east of Vista Canyon Road.
5. Eliminate the residential overlay and establish a residential and
commercial development cap on the project of 1,100 residential
units and 950,000 square feet of commercial floor area.
6. Add the following conditions to the project:
a. Require the staff and applicant to work together on a
Recreational Amenity Plan for the Mitchell Hill Open
Space. The plan would include site security improvements
and the construction of unimproved access (decomposed
granite or similar surface) to the Mitchell Hill Open Space.
The applicant shall also construct improvements identified
in the approved Recreational Amenity Plan. The applicant
shall receive Park Development Fee (PDF) credit for the
constructed improvements.
b. Require the applicant to pay all costs and complete the
restoration of the Mitchell Family cemetery, including the
extension of water and electricity to the cemetery.
1,5
Ordinance No.
Page No. 10
C. Require the project's Landscape Maintenance District to
pay for ongoing maintenance of the Oak Park, River
Corridor and Mitchell Hill Open Space (including the
Mitchell Family cemetery).
d. Require the applicant to provide $300,000 in funding to be
used for the City's construction of the Sand Canyon Road
Trail from Roadrunner Avenue to Lost Canyon Road, and
un -constructed portions of the Sand Canyon trail between
Roadrunner Avenue and Sultus Street.
e. Require that project lighting be decorative and down lit,
including along public roadways and the Vista Canyon
Road Bridge.
f. Require that no lighting be permitted on Lost Canyon Road
from La Veda Avenue to a point 300 feet from the eastern
project boundary due to the animal movement corridor.
g. Require that no lighting be permitted on trails adjacent to
the animal movement corridor or along the Santa Clara
River.
h. Require that the applicant use its best efforts, working with
City staff, to acquire an off-site, 20 -foot wide, trail
easement to be located on the property to the south of the
existing railroad undercrossing to allow for the connection
of the Vista Canyon trail system to the Fair Oaks
Ranch/Golden Valley trail system and to the City's trail
system at the western terminus of Roadrunner Avenue.
i. Require that the project's loop trail, from the project's
eastern boundary to the existing railroad undercrossing, be
decomposed granite (or similar surface) at a width of 20
feet.
j. Require that the project's loop trail, from the existing
railroad undercrossing to Vista Square, be decomposed
granite (or similar surface) at a width of 12 feet.
k. Require that the slope of the bank stabilization in the area
of the animal movement corridor not exceed a grade of
2.5:1 to provide access for wildlife to enter into the River.
1. Require that a conservation easement be recorded over the
animal movement corridor on-site and that the applicant
working with City staff use their best efforts to acquire a
Ordinance No.
Page No. 11
conservation easement off-site on the property directly to
the south to preserve the animal corridor through the
project site and to the south.
With these additional modifications incorporated, the Vista Canyon project would
result in the following land uses:
A maximum of 1,100 residential units.
2. A maximum of 950,000 square feet of commercial floor area.
3. A Transit Station, consisting of a Metrolink Station and Bus
Transfer Station.
4. A water reclamation plant.
5. Various infrastructure, recreation and open space improvements,
including streets, utilities, the Oak Park, Town Green, Community
Garden, up to six private recreational areas, the River Corridor and
Mitchell Hill Open Space area.
ii. On April 26, 2011, the City Council received public testimony, closed the public
hearing, certified the Final EIR, and adopted all of the necessary approval
documents (e.g., resolutions and ordinances) for approval of the project. The City
also passed Pre -zone 07-OOIA Ordinance to a second reading on May 10, 2011.
Such pre -zoning would become effective upon annexation and designated upon
the Zoning Map incorporated within and part of Title 17 of the City's Unified
Development Code.
X. The Final EIR, incorporated herein by reference, includes the Draft EIR (October
2010), Planning Commission Final EIR (February 2011), and Final EIR (April 2011).
The Final EIR has been prepared and circulated in compliance with CEQA. The City
Council has considered the Final EIR prepared for the Vista Canyon project, as well
as information provided in staff reports,, presented to the City Council from experts,
and presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the City Council
following the close of the Draft EIR public comment period, prior to recommending
approval of the Vista Canyon project.
y. Based upon the Final EIR, staff and consultant presentations, staff reports, applicant
presentations, and public comments and testimony, the City Council finds that the
Vista Canyon project, as modified, will not adversely affect the health, peace,
comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor will the Vista Canyon project
be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the
vicinity of the project site; nor will the Vista Canyon project jeopardize, endanger or
otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the
project conforms with the zoning ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land
uses. The Vista Canyon project proposes the extension of all utilities and services to
Ordinance No.
Page No. 12
the project site. Currently, all required utilities and services are available at locations
adjacent to the project site.
Z. Additionally, the City Council finds that all public hearings pertaining to the Vista
Canyon project were duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for
each of the Entitlements. The project was advertised in The Signal, through on-site
posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first-class mailing to property
owners within 1,000 feet of the Vista Canyon project site and AAA. In addition, the
date and time of each public hearing was posted on three signs at the project site, as
well as eight off-site signs.
aa. The location of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is based for the Master Case
07-127 project file is with the Community Development Department; the record
specifically is in the custody of the Director of Community Development.
bb. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090, 65391,
and 65854 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the hearing, and upon the
study and investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council further
finds as follows:
a. The purpose of the proposal is to pre -zone the subject project site with City of Santa
Clarita zoning consisting of SP (Specific Plan) in conjunction with General Plan
Amendment 07-001A, approved under separate resolution, prior to annexation.
b. That the pre -zone has been reviewed for consistency with the City's proposed General
Plan Amendment 07-001 A.
C. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090 and
65091 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed.
SECTION 3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS. The
City Council does hereby make the following findings of facts:
a. On April 26, 2011, the City Council certified the Final EIR (SCH No. 2007071039)
by separate resolution for Master Case 07-127, which was prepared in compliance
with CEQA. For purposes of this finding, the Final EIR is comprised of the Draft
EIR (October 2010), Planning Commission Final EIR (February 2011), and Final EIR
(April 2011).
SECTION 4. FINDINGS FOR PRE -ZONE. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the
City Council hereby finds as follows:
Ordinance No.
Page No. 13
a. Pre -zoning is required under Section 56375(a)(3) of the Government Code in that,
prior to the Local Agency Formation Commission taking an action on an annexation,
the subject site must be pre -zoned by the annexing city;
b. Pre -zone 07-00IA, and specifically its proposed amendment of the City of Santa
Clarita Zoning Map, is consistent with existing development and/or existing
development entitlements for the subject site; and
C. Pre -zone 07-OOIA is consistent with the objectives of the Unified Development Code
in that it implements the goals and objectives of the General Plan and guides the
future growth of the City in that it meets the development policies of the City of Santa
Clarita.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby introduces and passes to second reading, this ordinance
approving Pre -zone 07-001 A as described herein and shown on attached Exhibit A.
Ordinance No.
Page No. 14
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the
same to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 20
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Kevin Tonoian, Acting City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Ordinance No. was regularly introduced and placed upon its first
reading at the regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 20
That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly passed and. adopted at the regular meeting of the City
Council on the day of , 20 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
20
Ordinance No.
Page No. 15
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
CERTIFICATION OF
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE
I, Sarah P. Gorman, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of the original Ordinance No. 10- , adopted by the City Council of the City
of Santa Clarita, CA on , 20_, which is now on file in my office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this day of
.20
Kevin Tonoian
Acting City Clerk
By
Susan Caputo
Deputy City Clerk
SACD\CURREN71!20007\07-127 (Vista Canyon)\City Council\FINALCCDOCUMENT\FinalCCVistaOrdinance
a /
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PREZONE 07-001B (MASTER CASE 07-127) FOR THE
APPROXIMATELY 2,257 -ACRE ANCILLARY ANNEXATION AREA (FAIR OAKS
RANCH/JAKES WAY/PORTIONS OF THE SAND CANYON COMMUNITIES),
GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE EXISTING EASTERLY BOUNDARY
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does -hereby make the following findings
of fact:
a. The Ancillary Annexation Area ("project") is generally located south of State
Route 14, west of Sand Canyon Road, and north of Placenta Canyon Road.
b. The project consists of approximately 2,257 acres of land within the Fair Oaks
Ranch, Jakes Way and portions of the Sand Canyon communities contiguous to
the limits of the City of Santa Clarita.
C. The Fair Oaks Ranch portion of the project consists of approximately 1,082 acres
and is predominately built out. This master -planned residential community, with
varying residential product types (including single- and multi -family attached
units), presently includes a total of 1,670 residential units. The area also includes
an elementary school, park and several private recreational facilities. There are
approximately 500 approved residential units left to be constructed in Fair Oaks
Ranch, and construction is ongoing.
d. The Jakes Way portion of the project consists of 3,225 multi -family residential
units on approximately 260 acres. The majority of the Jakes Way area is built
out. However, there is undeveloped property directly south of the western portion
of the Vista Canyon project site that could be developed with up to 436,000
square feet of business park uses under the City's existing General Plan land use
designation.
The Sand Canyon portion of the project is predominately rural and consists of 96
large -lot, single-family homes on approximately 915 acres. A majority of the
Sand Canyon area is built out; however, it is estimated that up to 150 additional,
single-family units could be constructed on vacant or underutilized properties
within this area under the City's existing General Plan land use designation and
taking into account environmental constraints.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
f. Surrounding land uses consists of developed land uses, which include residential
and commercial uses. Golden Valley Ranch (a residential and commercial
development) and portions of the Angeles National Forest are located to the
south; the Metrolink right-of-way, SR -14 and Vista Canyon property are located
to the north; the exiting Sand Canyon community is located to the east; and,
Sierra Highway and various residential and commercial uses are located to the
west.
g. Prezone 07-001 B proposes to amend the City's Sphere of Influence, and prezone
the Fair Oaks Ranch area (1,082 acres) to SP (Specific Plan); Jakes Way area
(260 acres) to RM (Residential Moderate) and BP (Business Park); and, portions
of the Sand Canyon area (915 acres) to RE (Residential Estate) and OS (Open
Space).
h. In October 2009, the City of Santa Clarita circulated a Notice of Preparation
("NOP") for the project.
A Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR;" State Clearinghouse No.
2007071039) for the project was prepared and circulated from October 19, 2010
to December 3, 2010. The Draft EIR addressed all comments and concerns
submitted in response to the NOP.
j. A Final EIR for the project was prepared, and responded to all written and oral
comments provided in response to the environmental analysis presented in the
Draft EIR.
k. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings on the project
on October 19, 2010; November 2, 2010; December 21, 2010; and February 15,
2011. The public hearings were held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At the hearings, the Planning Commission considered
staff presentations, staff reports, the Draft EIR, and public testimony on the
project. On February 15, 2011, the Planning Commission recommended that the
City Council approve Prezone 07-00113.
1. On March 22, 2011, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the
project, commencing at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, located at 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, City of Santa Clarita. The City Council opened the public hearing,
received public testimony and continued the item to the meeting of April 26,
2011. The March 22, 2011 public hearing was advertised in The Signal
newspaper on March 1, 2011; additionally, direct first-class mailings to property
owners of the subject site were provided, and seven signs were posted throughout
the project site.
in. On April 26, 2011, the City Council received public testimony, closed the public
hearing, certified the Final EIR (SCH No. 2007071039) for the project, and
passed the Prezone 07-001 B Ordinance to a second reading on May 10, 2011.
Ordinance No.
Page 3
n. Such prezoning would become effective upon annexation of the project site, and
designated upon the Zoning Map incorporated within and part of Title 17 of the
City's Unified Development Code.
o. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the decision of the City Council is based in this matter are on file within the
Community Development Department and are in the custody of the Director of
Community Development.
P. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090,
65391, and 65854 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly
followed.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the March 22 and April
26, 2011 hearings, and upon the study and investigation made by the City Council and on its
behalf, the City Council further finds as follows:
The purpose of the proposal is to prezone the subject project site with City of
Santa Clarita zoning consisting of the following: Fair Oaks Ranch area (1,082
acres) to SP (Specific Plan); Jakes Way area (260 acres) to RM (Residential
Moderate) and BP (Business Park); and portions of the Sand Canyon area (915
acres) to RE (Residential Estate) and OS (Open Space). This prezone would be
made in conjunction with General Plan Amendment 07-001 B, approved under
separate resolution, and prior to annexation.
b. The prezone has been reviewed. for consistency with the City's proposed General
Plan Amendment 07-001B.
Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090 and
65091 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed.
SECTION 3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS. The
City Council does hereby make the following findings of facts:
a. On April 26, 2011, the City Council certified the Final EIR (SCH No.
2007071039) by separate resolution for Master Case 07-127 (General Plan
Amendment 07-00113, Annexation 07-002B and Prezone 07-00113). The Final
EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA"). Additionally, the Final EIR has been reviewed and considered by the
City Council, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Based
on the Final EIR and the entire record of proceeding, there is no substantial
evidence that prezoning the Ancillary Annexation Area will have a significant
effect on the environment. Most of the project area is built out. As such, the
proposed changes to the land use designations in the built out portion of the
project area and the re -assignment of those areas to a different land use
Z;�S
Ordinance No.
Page 4
jurisdiction, practically speaking, would not result in any potentially significant
environmental impacts.
Also, additional environmental review would be required before most of the currently
undeveloped portions of the project area could be built out. The subsequent
environmental review processes would evaluate impacts and identify mitigation measures
in detail in light of the availability of specific proposed development plans. At this point,
however, it is not known whether, when or how the undeveloped portions of the project
area would be built out. Accordingly, in some respects, it is difficult to forecast the
indirect environmental impacts of the project. That being said, design -level mitigation
measures would be identified, as necessary and feasible, during the subsequent project -
level environmental review that would be undertaken in conjunction with any additional
development in the project area, and specifically the Sand Canyon and Jakes Way areas.
SECTION 4. FINDINGS FOR PREZONE. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the
City Council hereby finds as follows:
a. Prezoning is required under Section 56375(a)(3) of the Government Code in that,
prior to the Local Agency Formation Commission taking an action on an
annexation, the subject site must be prezoned by the annexing city;
b. Prezone 07-00113, and specifically its proposed amendment of the City of Santa
Clarita Zoning Map, is consistent with existing development and/or existing
development entitlements for the subject site; and
C. Prezone 07-001B is consistent with the objectives of the Unified Development
Code in that it implements the goals and objectives of the General Plan and guides
the future growth of the City in that it meets the development policies of the City
of Santa Clarita.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby introduces and passes to second reading, this ordinance
approving Prezone 07-001 B as described herein and shown on attached Exhibit A.
Ordinance No.
Page 5
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the
same to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 20_
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Kevin Tonoian, Acting City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Ordinance No. was regularly introduced and placed upon its first
reading at the regular meeting of the City Council on the day of '20
That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at the regular meeting of the City
Council on the day of , 20_ by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
Ordinance No.
Page 6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
CERTIFICATION OF
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE
I, Kevin Tonoian, Acting City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a
true and correct copy of the original Ordinance No. 10-_, adopted by the City Council of the
City of Santa Clarita, CA on , 20, which is now on file in my office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this day of
.20
Kevin Tonoian
Acting City Clerk
By
Susan Caputo
Deputy City Clerk
S:\CD\CURREN1'\!20007\07-127 (Vista Canyon)\City CouncilTINALCCDOCUMENTS\AAA Ordinance
L
arzl�A
RESOLUTION NO. 11-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-001B
(MASTER CASE 07-127) FOR THE APPROXIMATELY 2,257 -ACRE ANCILLARY
ANNEXATION AREA (FAIR OAKS RANCH/JAKES WAY/PORTIONS OF THE SAND
CANYON COMMUNITIES), GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE EASTERLY
BOUNDARY OF 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. The Ancillary Annexation Area ("project") is generally located south of State Route
14, west of Sand Canyon Road, and north of Placerita Canyon Road.
b. The project consists of approximately 2,257 acres of land within the Fair Oaks
Ranch, Jakes Way and portions of the Sand Canyon communities contiguous to the
limits of the City of Santa Clarita.
The Fair Oaks Ranch portion of the project consists of approximately 1,082 acres and
is predominately built out. This master -planned residential community, with varying
residential product types (including single- and multi -family attached units),
presently includes a total of 1,670 residential units. The area also includes an
elementary school, park and several private recreational facilities. There are
approximately 500 approved residential units left to be constructed in Fair Oaks
Ranch, and construction is ongoing.
d. The Jakes Way portion of the project consists of 3,225 multi -family residential units
on approximately 260 acres. The majority of the Jakes Way area is built out.
However, there is undeveloped property directly south of the western portion of the
Vista Canyon project site that could be developed with up to 436,000 square feet of
business park uses under the City's existing General Plan land use designation.
e. The Sand Canyon portion of the project is predominately rural and consists of 96
large -lot, single-family homes on approximately 915 acres. A majority of the Sand
Canyon area is built out; however, it is estimated that up to 150 additional, single-
family units could be constructed on vacant or underutilized properties within this
area under the City's existing General Plan land use designation and taking into
account environmental constraints.
f. Surrounding land uses consists of developed land uses, which include residential and
commercial uses. Golden Valley Ranch (a residential and commercial development)
30
Resolution No. 11 -
Page 2
and portions of the Angeles National Forest are located to the south; the Metrolink
right-of-way, SR -14 and Vista Canyon property are located to the north; the exiting
Sand Canyon community is located to the east; and, Sierra Highway and various
residential and commercial uses are located to the West. .
g. General Plan Amendment 07-001 B proposes to amend the land use designations for
the Fair Oaks Ranch area (1,082 acres) to SP (Specific Plan); Jakes Way area (260
acres) to RM (Residential Moderate) and BP (Business Park); and, portions of the
Sand Canyon area (915 acres) to RE (Residential Estate) and OS (Open Space). The
project site is shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
h. In October 2009, the City of Santa Clarita circulated a Notice of Preparation ("NOP")
for the project.
A Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR;" State Clearinghouse No. 2007071039)
for the Vista Canyon project and AAA project was prepared and circulated from
October 19, 2010 to December 3, 2010. The Draft EIR addressed all comments and
concerns submitted in response to the NOP.
A Final EIR for the project was prepared, and responded to all written and oral
comments provided in response to the environmental analysis presented in the Draft
EIR.
k. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings on the AAA
project on October 19, 2010; November 2, 2010; December 21, 2010; and February
15, 2011. The public hearings were held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At the hearings, the Planning Commission considered staff
presentations, staff reports, the Draft EIR, and public testimony on the AAA project.
On February 15, 2011, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
approve General Plan Amendment 07-001 B.
1. On March 22, 2011, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the.
project, commencing at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard,
City of Santa Clarita. The City Council opened the public hearing, received public
testimony and continued the item to the meeting of April 26, 2011. The March 22,
2011 public hearing was advertised in The Signal newspaper on March 1, 2011;
additionally, direct first-class mailings to property owners of the subject site were
provided, and seven signs were posted throughout the project site.
On April 26, 2011, the City Council closed the public hearing, certified the Final EIR (SCH
No. 2007071039) for the project, and approved Master Case 07-127, which includes General
Plan Amendment 07-001 B.
3)
Resolution No. 11 -
Page 3
in. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the decision of the City Council is based in this matter are on file within the
Community Development Department and are in the custody of the Director of
Community Development.
n. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090, 65391,
and 65854 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS. The City
Council does hereby make the following findings of facts:
a. On April 26, 2011, the City Council certified the Final EIR (SCH No. 2007071039)
by separate resolution for Master Case 07-127 (General Plan Amendment 07-001B,,
Annexation 07-002B and Prezone 07-OO113). The Final EIR was prepared in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Additionally,
the Final EIR has been reviewed and considered by the City Council, and reflects the
independent judgment of the City Council. Based on the Final EIR and the entire
record of proceeding, there is no substantial evidence that General Plan Amendment
07-001 B will have a significant effect on the environment. Most of the project area
is built out. As such, the proposed changes to the land use designations in the built
out portion of the project area and the re -assignment of those areas to a different land
use jurisdiction, practically speaking, would not result in any potentially significant
environmental impacts.
Also, additional environmental review would be required before most of the currently
undeveloped portions of the project area could be built out. The subsequent environmental
review processes would evaluate impacts and identify mitigation measures in detail in light
of the availability of specific proposed development plans. At this point, however, it is not
known whether, when or how the undeveloped portions of the project area would be built
out. Accordingly, in some respects, it is difficult to forecast the indirect environmental
impacts of the project. That being said, design -level mitigation measures would be
identified, as necessary and feasible, during the subsequent project -level environmental
review that would be undertaken in conjunction with any additional development in the
project area, and specifically the Sand Canyon and Jakes Way areas.
SECTION 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and
findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
a. General Plan Amendment 07-001 B is consistent with the goals, policies and
objectives of the General Plan in that the proposed land use change is consistent with
existing development and/or existing development entitlements for the subject site;
b. General Plan Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Land Use Element
32-
Resolution No. 11 -
Page 4
of the City's General Plan and its development policies. More specifically, the Land
Use Element Policy 4.15 states, "Maintain or enhance the character of the various
communities through compatible land use standards and design guidelines, while
promoting an overall identity to the Santa Clarita Valley" (L-31). This proposed land
use designations comply with this policy as the designations will bring the developed
area into compliance with the City's Unified Development Code and General Plan;
General Plan Amendment 07-OOIB complies with Section 65358(b) of the
Government Code in that the Land Use Element has been amended no more than four
times in the current calendar year; and
d. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any, received at the public hearing,
and upon studies and investigations made by the City Council and on its behalf, the
City Council further finds and determines that this proposal is consistent with the
City's General Plan.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby approves Master Case 07-127, which includes General Plan
Amendment 07-OOIB (herein included as Exhibit A) to amend the General Plan Land Use Map for
the area known as the Ancillary Annexation Area (i.e., Fair Oaks Ranch/lakes Way/portions of the
Sand Canyon communities).
SECTION 5. This Resolution will take effect upon the adjournment of the City Council's April 26,
2011 City Council hearing. The change to the City's General Plan contemplated herein will take
effect upon adjournment of the hearing and simultaneously with any other changes to the General
Plan approved by the City Council at the same April 26, 2011 hearing, such that all changes to the
General Plan approved on April 26, 2011 shall constitute one amendment to the General Plan for
purposes of Government Code section 65358.
W-1
Resolution No. 11 -
Page 5
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record
to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 2011.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Kevin Tonoian, Acting City Clerk, of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. was regularly introduced and passed at a regular meeting of the
City Council on the day of , 2011 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
\\CITYHALL2\Dept\CD\CURRENTI!2007\07-127 (Vista Canyon)\City CouncikFINALCCDOCUMENTS\AAAResolution.GPA
iii
RESOLUTION NO. 11-
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO AMEND THE
CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND ANNEX CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY TO
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA (MASTER CASE NO. 07-127)
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese -
Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of
the California Government Code, for an amendment to the City's Sphere of Influence and annexation
of approximately 2,442 acres of unincorporated Los Angeles County territory;
WHEREAS, the City's short form designation for this proposal is Annexation 07-002A & B
(Master Case 07-127);
WHEREAS, the unincorporated territory is inhabited and contiguous to the City's existing
boundaries. A map of the unincorporated territory relative to the City's existing boundaries is set
forth in Exhibit A, which is attached;
WHEREAS, the unincorporated territory includes the areas known as the Vista Canyon site,
Fair Oaks Ranch community, Jakes Way community, and portions of the Sand Canyon community;
WHEREAS, no terms or conditions are requested by the property owners of • the
unincorporated territory at this time;
WHEREAS, the reasons for this proposed annexation are to: (i) create a logical extension of
the City's boundaries, (ii) respond to the property owners' request for local representation, and (iii)
promote the efficient provision of municipal services to the unincorporated territory; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita has considered all evidence, oral
and documentary, and is advised of the foregoing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita;
California, does hereby determine and find as follows:
SECTION 1. This Resolution of Application is hereby adopted by the City Council, and the
Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County ("LAFCO") is hereby requested to
initiate proceedings to amend the City's Sphere of Influence, annex the unincorporated territory
shown in Exhibit A, which is incorporated by this reference, to the City of Santa Clarita (according
to the terms and conditions stated above, if any), with notice and hearing by the LAFCO, and in the
manner provided by the Cortese -Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.
3 (�
Resolution No.
Page 2
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby directs and authorizes the City Manager, or designee,
to file the application with the LAFCO to annex the subject site to the City of Santa Clarita on behalf
of the City Council. The application shall comply with all of the LAFCO's application filing
requirements, including (but not limited to) the submittal of an application form, legal description of
the unincorporated territory, radius map, fees, environmental documents, and prezoning ordinance.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby directs and authorizes the City Clerk of the City of
Santa Clarita to forward a certified copy of this Resolution with applicable fees and other
information as required by Section 56383 of the Government Code to the Executive Officer of the
LAFCO.
37
Resolution No.
Page 3
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and certify this
record to be a full, true, correct copy of the action taken.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 120_
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Kevin Tonoian, Acting City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa
Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 2011 by
the following vote of Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
11
RESOLUTION NO. I I -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH
NO. 2007071039) FOR THE ANCILLARY ANNEXATION AREA PROJECT (FAIR OAKS
RANCH, JAKES WAY, PORTIONS OF SAND CANYON) (MASTER CASE NO. 07-127:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-001 B, PRE -ZONE 07-001 B, ANNEXATION 07-002B)
THE. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact:
a. The City of Santa Clarita is proposing, under Master Case 07-127 (General Plan Amendment
07-001B, Pre -zone 07-00113, Annexation 07-002B), to annex the Ancillary Annexation Area
("AAA") to the City of Santa Clarita. The AAA site includes unincorporated County of Los
Angeles property, specifically Fair Oaks Ranch (approximately 1,082 acres), Jakes Way
(approximately 260 acres), and portions of Sand Canyon (915 acres).
b. The AAA project proposes the following land use/zoning designations: (1) Fair Oaks Ranch
would be designated for "SP" (Specific Plan); (2) Jakes Way would be designated for "RM"
(Residential Moderate) and "BP" (Business Park); and, (3) Sand Canyon would be
designated for "RE" (Residential Estate) and "OS" (Open Space).
c. The objectives of the proposed AAA project are two -fold: (1) to logically extend the City's
physical boundary and municipal service area within an area presently bounded on the north,
east and west by the City's jurisdictional lands; and, (2) to limit development in undeveloped
portions of the AAA site to no . more than what is permitted by the City's land use
designations and zoning.
d. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA;" Pub. Resources
Code, §21000 et seq.), the City of Santa Clarita is the lead agency and the City Council is the
decision-making body for the AAA project. The City's Planning Commission is a
recommending body for the AAA project.
e. A Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the AAA was circulated, pursuant to CEQA and the
State CEQA Guidelines, for thirty days, beginning on October 1, 2009. Agencies that
received the NOP include, but are not limited to, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game, South
Coast Air Quality Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, waste
haulers, water agencies and transportation agencies serving the Santa Clarita Valley in
accordance with CEQA's consultation requirements. Numerous comments from public
agencies, organizations, and members of the public were received in response to the NOPs
YO
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 2 of 75
£ The City of Santa Clarita prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (`BIR") (October
2010; SCH No. 2007071039) for the Vista Canyon project and the AAA project that
addressed all issues raised by the Initial Study and in comments received on the NOP. The
subject Draft EIR also separately considers the environmental impacts of the Vista Canyon
project, which is being processed under Master Case 07-127, as well. Please see Resolution
Nos. I1-_ and 11-_, certifying the EIR for the Vista Canyon project, and approving the
related project entitlements. The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by
affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA. Specifically, the
Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR was filed, posted and
advertised on October 19, 2010, and the 45 -day public review period ended on December 3,
2010, 5:00 p.m. in accordance with CEQA.
g. The City also prepared a Planning Commission Final EIR (February 2011; SCH No.
2007071039). The Planning Commission Final EIR complied with all applicable CEQA
requirements, and contained responsesto all oral and written comments received prior to
January 18, 2011. The Planning Commission Final EIR also contained a description of
modifications to the AAA project made in response to public comment, City staff
recommendations, and Planning Commission direction; copies of all comment letters
received on the AAA project; revised pages of the Draft EIR; and, additional supporting
materials in appendices. Notice of the Planning Commission Final EIR's availability was
sent to commenting agencies, organizations and persons on February 4, 2011.
h. The Planning Commission held duly -noticed public hearings on the AAA project on October
19, November 2, and December 21, 2010, and February 15, 2011. These hearings were held
at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. The Planning
Commission closed the public hearing on December 21, 2010.
i. On October 19, 2010, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing; received a
Draft EIR presentation from staff, and, received public testimony regarding the project.
ii. On November 2, 2010, City staff responded to questions posed by the Planning
Commission and pubic on issues related to annexation. The Planning Commission also
received public testimony regarding the Vista Canyon project.
iii. On December 21, 2010, Planning Commission considered potential AAA project
modifications, and additional public testimony on the project. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff to incorporate the following revision
into the AAA project:
1. Removal of the properties south of Placerita Canyon Road from the AAA, with the
exception of the City's Walker Ranch Open Space property. Removal of these
properties reduced the size of the Sand Canyon annexation area from 1,723 acres to 915
acres.
q I
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 3 of 75
iv. On February 15, 2011, the revised Vista Canyon project and AAA project, Planning
Commission Final EIR (February 2011), resolutions and conditions of approval were
presented to the Planning Commission. The Commission also received public testimony
regarding the project.
At the conclusion of the February 15, 2011 public hearing, the Planning Commission
voted to recommend that the City Council certify the Planning Commission Final EIR
(see Resolution No. P 11-02) and approve the AAA project as revised (see Resolution No.,
P11-03).
The Planning Commission considered the Draft EIR• (October 2010) and Planning
Commission Final EIR (February 2011) prepared for the AAA project, as -well as
information provided in staff reports, presented to the Planning Commission from
experts, and presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the Planning
Commission following the close of the Draft EIR public comment period up to January
18, 2011, prior to recommending approval of the AAA project.
i. Following the February 15, 2011 hearing, the City prepared the Final EIR (April 2011; SCH
No. 2007071039). Among other things, the Final EIR contained copies of all late written
comment letters; and, responses to all oral and written comments received on or after January
18, 2011 and prior to April 8, 2011. Notice of the Final EIR's availability was provided on
April 15, 2011 to commenting agencies, organizations and persons.
j. The City Council subsequently held duly -noticed public hearings on the AAA project on
March 22 and April 26, 2011. These hearings were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:00 p.m.
k. On April 26, 2011, the City Council received public testimony, closed the public hearing,
certified the Final EIR, and adopted all of the necessary documents (e.g., resolutions and
ordinances) for approval of the AAA project.
1. The Draft EIR (October 2010), Planning Commission Final EIR (February 2011), and Final
EIR (April 2011) have been prepared and circulated in compliance with CEQA.
in. Based upon the Draft EIR (October 2010), Planning Commission Final EIR (February 2011),
and Final EIR (April 2011), staff and consultant presentations, staff reports, applicant
presentations, and public comments and testimony, the City Council finds that the AAA
project, as modified, will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of
persons residing in the area; nor will the AAA project be materially detrimental to the use,
enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the project site; nor will the AAA
project jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or
general welfare since the project conforms with the zoning ordinance and is compatible with
surrounding land uses.
04W
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 4 of 75
n. Additionally, the City Council finds that all public hearings pertaining to the AAA project
were duly noticed. The project was advertised in The Signal, through on- and off-site
posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first-class mailing to property owners
within 1,000 feet of the AAA project site.
o. The location of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings
upon which the decision of the City Council is based for the Master Case 07-127 project file
is with the Community Development Department; the record specifically is in the custody of
the Director of Community Development.
SECTION 2. CEQA REQUIREMENTS. The City Council does hereby make the following
findings of facts:
a. CEQA 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[.]" (Pub. Resources Code,
§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. (Pub. Resources Code, §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. (Pub.
Resources Code, §21081; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §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. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 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) "[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
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 5 of 75
(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."
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §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, legal and technological factors. (Pub. Resources Code,
§21061.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15364.);
d. The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative
promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. "Feasibility" under CEQA, then,
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 a condition 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. State 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. CEQA FINDINGS. The City Council does hereby find that:
a. The Final EIR (SCH No. 2007071039) for Master Case 07-127 has been prepared in
compliance with CEQA, has been reviewed and considered by the City Council, and reflects
the independent judgment of the City Council.
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 6 of 75
b. The Final EIR for Master Case 07-127, which consists of the Draft EIR (October 2010),
Planning Commission Final EIR (February 2011), and Final EIR (April 2011), identifies and
discloses project -specific impacts and cumulative project impacts attributable to the AAA
project. 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 .15
c. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record of proceeding, there is no substantial evidence
that the AAA project will have a significant effect on the environment. That is, the Final EIR
did not identify one or more significant environmental effects for the AAA project.
Therefore, neither Public Resources Code section 21081 nor CEQA Guidelines section
15091 require the City to make findings. Nonetheless, as indicated in Paragraph (b),
immediately above, findings have been prepared and included as Exhibit "A." Findings
specific to the AAA project are included in Section 6.0 of Exhibit "A."
d. In determining that the AAA project's environmental impacts would not be significant, at
least two factors are important to keep in mind:
i. Most of the AAA is built out. As such, the proposed changes to the land use designations
in the built out portion of the AAA and the re -assignment of those areas to a different
land use jurisdiction, practically speaking, would not result in any potentially significant
environmental impacts.
ii. Additional environmental review would be required before most of the currently
undeveloped portions of the AAA could be built out; the subsequent environmental
review processes would evaluate impacts and identify mitigation measures in further
detail due to the preparation of specific development plans.
At this point, it is not known whether, when or how the undeveloped portions of the AAA
would be built out. Nonetheless, in some instances, the imposition of existing regulatory
standards and development fees would effectively ensure that impacts are not significant.
In other instances, however, it is difficult to forecast the environmental impacts of the
annexation.. That being said, design -level mitigation measures would be identified, as
necessary and feasible, during the subsequent project -level environmental review that
would be undertaken in conjunction with any additional development in the AAA, and
specifically the Sand Canyon and Jakes Way areas.
e. The Final EIR considered the environmental implications of the CEQA-mandated "no
project" alternative. However, that alternative likely would result in similar impacts as the
proposed AAA project because neither scenario would preclude additional development;
rather, both scenarios would allow for additional development to be proposed and
corresponding environmental review to be undertaken.
f. The Final EIR also found that no alternative locations to the proposed AAA project, which
represents a logical extension of the City's physical boundary and municipal service area,
exist.
Master Case No: 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 7 of 75
SECTION 4. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Based upon the
above recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the Final EIR, oral and written
testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the AAA project and the
Final EIR, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, and upon reports and other
transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council finds the following:
a. That the Final EIR for the AAA project is adequate, complete, has been prepared in
accordance with CEQA, and should be certified on that basis.
b. That the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Final EIR in reaching
its conclusions.
c. That the Final EIR was presented and reviewed prior to taking final action to recommend
certification of the Final EIR and approval of the AAA project.
d. That CEQA findings are not required by law as no significant environmental impacts are
anticipated to result from the AAA project.
C. That the Final EIR reflects the decision -maker's independent judgment and analysis.
f. 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 5. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR (SCH
No. 2007071039), and hereby determines that it is adequate and in compliance with CEQA. The
City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR (Exhibit B) and associated documents, including the
CEQA Findings (Exhibit A).
SECTION 6. By the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council has not granted any approval
or entitlement on this project.
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 8 of 75
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this
record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 2011.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Kevin Tonoian, Acting City Clerk, of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. was regularly introduced and passed at a regular meeting
of the City Council on the day of , 2011 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
I/
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 9 of 75
Exhibit A To Resolution No.
Master Case 07-127: Findings Required By CEQA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
Public Resources Code section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 require that the
lead agency, in this case the City of Santa Clarita ("City"), prepare written findings for identified
significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding.
Specifically, State CEQA Guidelines. section 15091 states, in part, that:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified
which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public
agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects accompanied
by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as
identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such 'changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes
have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such
other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
final EIR.
In accordance with Public Resource Code section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines section
15093, whenever significant impacts cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the
decision-making agency is required to balance, as applicable, the benefits of the project against
its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the
benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects
may be considered "acceptable."
The Final EIR for the Vista Canyon project identified potentially significant effects that could
result from project implementation. The City finds that the inclusion of certain mitigation
measures as part of the project approval will reduce most, but not all, of those effects to less -
than -significant levels. Those impacts that are not reduced to less -than -significant levels are
identified and overridden due to specific project benefits.
m6f
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 10 of 75
As required by CEQA, the City, in adopting these findings, also adopts a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program ("MMRP") for the project. The City finds that the MMRP, which is
incorporated by reference and made a part of these findings, meets the requirements of Public
Resources Code section 21081.6 by providing for the implementation and monitoring of
measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of the project.
In accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City adopts these findings as part
of its certification of the Final EIR for the project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21082. 1, subdivision (c)(3), the City also finds that the Final EIR reflects the City's independent
judgment as the lead agency for the project.
1.2 ORGANIZATION/FORMAT OF FINDINGS
Section 1.0 contains a summary description of the project and background facts relative to the
environmental review process. Section 2:0 identifies the significant impacts of the project that
cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level (even though all feasible mitigation measures
have been identified and incorporated into the project), while Section 3.0 identifies the
potentially significant effects of the project that will be mitigated to a less -than -significant level
with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. Section 4.0 identifies the project's
potential environmental effects that were determined not to be significant. Section 5.0 discusses
the feasibility of the project alternatives. And, Section 6.0 addresses the environmental impacts
associated with the Ancillary Annexation Area (AAA).
1.3 SUMMARY OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As revised, the project would include development of the approximately .185 -acre Vista Canyon
project site with a maximum of 1,100 dwelling units, and up to 950,000 square feet of
commercial and medical office, retail, theater, restaurant and hotel uses within three Planning
Areas (PA).
The project also includes approximately 21 acres of parks/recreation facilities, including the
approximately 10 -acre Oak Park/River Education Center proposed for dedication to the City.
Other recreational facilities include the Community Garden, Town Green and up to six private
recreational facilities. Further, there are approximately 10 acres of proposed public streets,
including the extension of Lost Canyon Road from Fair Oaks Ranch to Vista Canyon Road and
the construction of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge to connect Lost Canyon Road and Soledad
Canyon Road.
The applicant also is proposing construction of a water reclamation plant (WRP), located
adjacent to the western project boundary and directly north of Lost Canyon Road, which would
provide recycled water for use in the project's landscaped areas and toilets within public
restroom areas in commercial areas of the project. Additionally, the project also includes a
Multi -Modal Transit Station, comprised of a Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station.
�f9
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 11 of 75
Finally, the City proposes to annex various properties surrounding and including the Vista
Canyon site, all of which currently are located under the jurisdiction of the County of Los
Angeles. In total, the AAA includes approximately 2,257 acres, including the Fair Oaks Ranch
(approximately 1,082 acres), Jakes Way (approximately 260 acres), and portions of the Sand
Canyon (approximately 915 acres) communities.
For a detailed discussion of the project description and setting, please see Section 1.0, Project
Description, of the EIR.
1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The project objectives include the following:
Land Use Planning Objectives
1. Create a new transit -oriented community with interrelated neighborhoods that allows for
residential, retail/commercial, office, hotel, and recreational uses, while preserving 'and
enhancing significant natural and historical resources.
2. Provide a sensitive and protective interface with the Santa Clara River by utilizing
appropriate setback, grading, landscape, . buried bank stabilization, and water quality
treatments.
3. Provide development and transitional land use patterns that do not conflict with surrounding
communities and land uses.
4. Arrange land uses to reduce vehicle miles traveled and energy consumption, and to
encourage the use of transit.
5. Design neighborhoods to create a unique identity and sense of place.
6. Design neighborhoods to locate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses in close
proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit, and trails.
7. Provide a rich set of public spaces, including roadways that range from lively streetscapes to
pedestrian passages.
8. Implement sustainable development principles, including greater energy efficiency, waste
reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, use of water efficiency measures, and use of
recycled materials and renewable energy sources.
9. Create and enhance opportunities for non -vehicular travel and encourage pedestrian mobility
by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential neighborhoods to
nearby schools, neighborhood parks, trail systems, neighborhood retail/commercial and
adjacent park and recreation areas.
50
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 12 of 75
10. Foster the design and integration of a mutually beneficial relationship between the natural
and built environments, and implement sensitive land use transition treatments, attractive
streetscapes, and high quality design themes.
11. Provide a meandering trail with public access adjacent to the Santa Clara River Corridor.
12. Integrate a new community into the City's existing and planned circulation network.
13. Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting
streetscapes.
14. Facilitate the expansion of transit facilities by providing property and participate in the
funding of a new City/Metrolink transit center and associated facilities, and direct pedestrian
access to such facilities from the Specific Plan's commercial, retail, office, and residential
areas.
15. Provide neighborhood parks and improvements that offset park dedication requirements and
meet the recreation needs of local residents.
Economic Objectives
1. Enhance and augment the housing market by providing a variety of housing types and
densities to meet the varying needs of future residents.
2. Adopt development regulations that provide flexibility to respond and adjust to changing
economic and market conditions.
3. Provide a tax base to support public services and infrastructure.
4. Provide a project jobs/housing balance of at least two jobs for every one residential unit.
5. Adopt development regulations and guidelines that allow site, parking and facility sharing,
and other innovations that reduce the costs of providing public services.
Resource Conservation Objectives
1. Restore and minimize impacts to important biotic resources.
2. Maintain the use of the Santa Clara River as a major east/west open space corridor.
3. Establish a Santa Clara River Corridor and adopt measures to maintain, enhance, and protect
important river habitat values and functions.
4. Provide native revegetation of river and setback areas when temporarily disturbed due to
development activities.
5. Minimize impacts to the Santa Clara River and its resources.
S/
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 13 of 75
6. Minimize impacts to oak trees and incorporate, where possible, oak trees into public spaces.
The City has considered the statement of the objectives sought by the project as found in Section
1.0, Project Description, of the EIR. The City adopts these objectives as part of the project.
1.5 INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Preliminary environmental review of the Vista Canyon project was conducted by the City's
Community Development Department. In the initial Notice of Preparation (NOP) and subsequent
revised NOPs, the City determined that the proposed Vista Canyon project may have potentially
significant effects on several environmental impact categories, including: (a) hazards
(geotechnical, flood, and noise); (b) resources (water quality, air quality, biological, cultural
resources, agricultural resources, and visual resources/aesthetics); (c) services
(transportation/circulation, sewage disposal, education, fire/sheriff and utilities); and (d) other
categories (general, environmental safety/hazardous materials, land use and demand for new
recreation facilities).
The initial NOP was circulated for a 30 -day review period from July 11, 2007 to August 10,
2007. Revised NOPs were circulated from February 26, 2008 to March 21,-2008, and October 1,
2009 to November 2, 2009, due to revisions to the project. These NOPs were circulated pursuant
to the requirements of the State CEQA Guidelines in order to solicit input from responsible and
interested public agencies and the community regarding the content of the EIR. In addition, to
facilitate local participation, the City held a scoping meeting on the project and solicited
suggestions from the public and other agencies on the scope and content of this Draft EIR. The
meeting took place at the Century Room at the Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, on February 27, 2008.
In response to the NOPs and scoping meeting, comment letters and other input were received
from interested agencies, organizations and others, copies of which are presented in Appendix I
to the Draft EIR. Based on the results of the City's NOPs and scoping efforts, the following
Environmental Impact Report:
1. Geotechnical Hazards
2. Flood
3. Traffic and Access
4. Air Quality
5. Noise
6. Biological Resources
7. Land Use
8. Water Service/Water Quality
9. Solid Water Disposal
10. Education
11. Library Services
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 14 of 75
12. Parks and Recreation
13. Fire Services
14. Sheriff Services
15. Human -Made Hazards
16. Visual Resources
17. Population, Housing and Employment
18. Cultural Resources
19. Agricultural Resources
20. Santa Clara River Corridor Analysis
21. Wastewater Disposal
22. Global Climate Change
23. Utilities
24. Ancillary Annexation Area
1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The City prepared the EIR in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The EIR
is a full -disclosure informational document which informs public agency decision -makers and
the public of the significant environmental effects of the project. Possible ways to minimize
significant effects are identified in the EIR and reasonable alternatives to the project are
evaluated.
The EIR is intended as a "project EIR" under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. A project
EIR is typically prepared for a specific construction -level project. (See State CEQA Guidelines
§15161.) Under CEQA, a project EIR "should focus primarily on the changes in the
environment that would result from the development project ... [and] examine all phases of the
project including planning, construction, and operation." (Ibid.)
The Draft EIR (October 2010) was made available to the public for review and comment for a
45 -day period. The review and comment period began on October 20, 2010 and concluded on
December 3, 2010. Additionally, the Planning Commission's Final EIR (February 2011) was
made available to the public on February 4, 2011. Finally, responses to all comments included in
the Final EIR (April 201 f) were distributed by the City on April 15, 2011.
Copies of the Draft EIR (October 2010) were available for public review at the following
locations: (a) City of Santa Clarita City Hall, Community Development Department, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355; (b) Los Angeles County Library,
Canyon Country Branch, 18601 Soledad Canyon Road, Santa Clarita CA 91351; and (c)
www.s rit t_cc � l s iii_ T. The Planning Commission's Final EIR (February 2011) and
the Final EIR (April 2011) also were available at the Community Development Department and
on the City's website.
53
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 15 of 75
All comment letters, including late comment letters, received in response to the Draft EIR were
reviewed and are included in the Final EIR, along with written responses to each of the
comments. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15132, the Final EIR for the
project consists of. (i) the Draft EIR; (ii) comments received on the Draft EIR; (iii) a list of the
persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; (iv) written responses
to significant environmental issues raised during the public review and comment period and
related supporting materials; and, (v) other information contained in the administrative record.
2.0 FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE
PROJECT
This section identifies the significant unavoidable impacts that require a statement of overriding
considerations to be issued by the City if the project is approved. Based on the substantial record
evidence, the following impacts have been determined to fall within this "significant unavoidable
impact" category.
2.1 Traffic And Access
2.1:1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts
The existing plus project scenario would result in significant impacts at nine study intersections,
but no freeway segments or roadways. Implementation of the mitigation measures listed below,
as well as the prior completion of the Cross Valley Connector, effectively mitigates and reduces
the impacts at these nine intersections to a level below significant.
Phase 1 (2012) of the project would cause significant impacts at five study intersections, but no
freeway segments. Implementation of the mitigation measures listed below would reduce these
impacts to less -than -significant levels at four of the five intersections. At one of the intersections
(Sand Canyon Road/Lost Canyon Road), the project would have a temporary significant and
unavoidable impact because the recommended improvement would not be completed until after
completion of Phase 1.
Project build -out (2015) would cause significant impacts at eight study intersections.
Implementation of the mitigation measures listed below would reduce these impacts to less -than -
significant levels at all eight intersections. The project also would significantly impact one SR -
14 segment, Sand Canyon Road to Soledad Canyon Road. However, because there are neither
planned and programmed improvements for SR -14, nor an established funding program, the
project's payment of an in -lieu fee to Caltrans would not fully mitigate the identified impact.
Under long-range cumulative conditions (2030), the project would cause significant impacts
along Soledad Canyon Road between Sierra Highway and Golden Valley Road. No feasible
improvements, however, are available as this arterial already is constructed to its ultimate width.
The Circulation Element in the City's General Plan recognizes that, in some cases, street
improvements to accommodate additional traffic are not capable of being implemented due to
right-of-way limitations and existing development. The project also would significantly impact
one SR -14 segment (Sand Canyon Road to Soledad Canyon Road). As noted above, because
there are neither planned and programmed improvements for SR -14, nor an established funding
program, the project's payment of an in -lieu fee to Caltrans would not fully mitigate the
identified impact.
5V
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 16 of 75
2.1.2 Mitigation Measures
4.3-1. Prior to the completion and occupancy of project Phase 1, the project applicant shall
convert the westbound left -turn lane on Soledad Canyon Road onto the SR -14
southbound on-ramp from a permitted to protected signal phase, and retime this traffic
signal and the adjacent Sand Canyon Road/Soledad Canyon Road signal to optimize
traffic flow.
4.3-2. Prior to the completion and occupancy of project Phase 1, the project applicant shall take
those steps necessary that result in retiming.the traffic signals at the Via Princessa/SR-14
SB ramps and Via Princessa/SR-14 NB ramps intersections to optimize traffic flow.
4.3-3. Prior to the completion and occupancy of project Phase 1, the project applicant shall
install a westbound right -turn overlap arrow at the Via Princessa/Lost Canyon Road
intersection.
4.3-4. Prior to project completion and full occupancy (beyond Phase 1), the project applicant
shall construct the following improvements at the Sand Canyon Road/Soledad Canyon
Road and SR -14 SB Ramps/Soledad Canyon Road intersections:
• Restripe Soledad Canyon Road to include a third through lane in each
direction from just east of the SR -14 ramp intersection to west of the Sand
Canyon Road intersection.
• Install a right -turn overlap arrow on the northbound Sand Canyon Road
approach to Soledad Canyon Road.
• Retime and optimize operations of both traffic signals based on the revised
lane geometrics and signal phasing.
4.3-5. Prior to the completion and full occupancy of the project (beyond Phase 1), the project
applicant shall install Intersection Design Option No. 3, as described below, at the Sand
Canyon Road/Lost Canyon Road intersection.
• Option 3 (Roundabout) — this design option (see Exhibit 4.3-18 and 4.3-18a)
would include the installation of a "roundabout" or traffic circle at the
intersection. This option would involve the relocation of the intersection to the
north and west to adhere to northbound "line of sight" requirements. Right-of-
way acquisition would be necessary on all four corners; most of it would
come from the northwest corner (which is presently vacant). Encroachment
within the protected zone of the heritage oak tree located along the eastern
edge of Sand Canyon Road would still occur, consistent with the existing
condition. From a traffic operational standpoint, this design option would be
the best of the four, improving the future LOS F under the existing design to
an LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM. peak hour even with
future growth (including the Vista Canyon project).
ss
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 17 of 75
4.3-6. Prior to project completion and full occupancy (beyond Phase 1), the project applicant
shall construct the following improvements at the Soledad Canyon Road/Lost Canyon
Road intersection:
Install a traffic signal with signal equipment placed in locations that
accommodates the planned restriping of the road to six lanes.
• Construct an exclusive right -turn lane on the eastbound Soledad Canyon Road
approach, consistent with the condition of approval previously placed on the
undeveloped parcel adjacent to this intersection.
• Construct two left -turn lanes and one right -turn lane (with a right -turn overlap
phase) on the Vista Canyon Road approach. Each lane should provide 125 feet
of storage.
• Lengthen the westbound left -turn lane on Soledad Canyon Road from 140 feet
to 200 feet to accommodate the projected 95th percentile vehicle queue of 140
feet and to provide opportunities for deceleration.
4.3-7. Prior to project completion and full occupancy (beyond Phase 1), the project applicant
shall construct the following improvement at the Via Princessa/Lost Canyon Road
intersection:
• Restripe the southbound approach to include a second left -turn lane.
4.3-8. Prior to project completion and full occupancy (beyond Phase 1), the project applicant
shall construct the following improvement at the Soledad Canyon Road/Sierra Highway
intersection:
• Install a right -turn overlap arrow on the southbound Sierra Highway approach
to Soledad Canyon Road.
4.3-9. The applicant shall execute and adhere to the terms of the mitigation agreement with
Caltrans to minimize the project's impacts to SR 14.
2.1.3 Findings
Based on the explanation provided in Section 2.1.1, and even with implementation of the
mitigation measures identified in Section 2.1.2, the City finds there are no feasible mitigation
measures that will reduce the following significant impacts to a level below significant:
temporary impacts to the Sand Canyon Road/Lost Canyon Road intersection during Phase I
(2012); impacts to the Sand Canyon Road to Soledad Canyon Road segment of SR -14 at project
build -out (2015) and during long-range cumulative conditions (2030); and, impacts to the
Soledad Canyon Road segment between Sierra Highway and Golden Valley Road under long-
range cumulative conditions (2030). Therefore, these impacts must be considered unavoidably
significant even after implementation of all feasible transportation/circulation mitigation
measures. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), the City has
determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and the identified traffic and access impacts are
thereby acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
5�
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 18 of 75
However, the City also finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and
will reduce the project's other potential traffic -related impacts to intersections, freeways and
roadways to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public
Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091,
subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
that mitigate or avoid these potentially significant traffic -related impacts of the project identified
in the Final EIR.
2.2 AIR QUALITY
2.2.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts
Construction -related emissions, which occur on- and off-site, include 'all emissions associated
with the construction equipment, grading and demolition activities, as well as worker trips, on -
road diesel trucks, and architectural coating. Based on air quality modeling utilizing
conservative data inputs prepared by a qualified environmental consultant, construction -related
emissions would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for VOCs, NOx, PM2.5 and PM10,
and would exceed the localized significance thresholds for NO2, PM2.5, and PM10.
Operational emissions would be generated by both stationary and mobile sources as a result of
normal day-to-day activity on the project site. Based on air quality modeling, operational
emissions also would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for VOCs, NOx, CO, and PM10
during the summer and winter.
Finally, the project also would result in regional emission levels that are cumulatively
considerable for VOCs, NOx, CO, PM2.5, and PM10 in light of its exceedances of the above -
referenced SCAQMD thresholds.
2.2.2 Mitigation Measures
4.4-1 The project applicant shall prepare a Construction Traffic Emission Management Plan to
minimize emissions from vehicles including, but not limited to, scheduling truck
deliveries to avoid peak hour traffic conditions, consolidating truck deliveries, and
prohibiting truck idling in excess of 5 minutes, and ensuring that all off-road equipment is
compliant with the CARB's in -use off-road diesel vehicle regulation and SCAQMD Rule
2449.
4.4-2 The project contractor shall use electric or alternative fueled mobile equipment for on-site
uses instead of diesel equipment if suitable equipment is commercially available and the
necessary power and refueling infrastructure can reasonably be installed on site.
4.4-3 The project contractor shall maintain construction equipment by conducting regular tune-
ups according to the manufacturers' recommendations.
4.4-4 The project contractor shall use electric welders to avoid emissions from gas or diesel
welders if suitable equipment is commercially available and the necessary power
infrastructure can reasonably be installed on site.
S7
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 19 of 75
4.4-5 The project contractor shall use on-site electricity or alternative fuels rather than
diesel -powered or gasoline -powered generators if suitable equipment is commercially
available and the necessary power and refueling infrastructure can reasonably be installed
on site.
4.4-6 Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
4.4-7 Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction
to maintain smooth traffic flow.
4.4-8 Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement 'of construction trucks and equipment on- and
off-site.
4.4-9 Schedule construction activities that affect- traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak
hour to the extent practicable.
4.4-10 Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas.
4.4-11 Consistent with measures that other lead agencies in the region (including Port of Los
Angeles and Port of Long Beach) have enacted, require all on-site construction equipment
to meet U.S. EPA Tier 2 or higher emissions standards according to the following:
• April 1, 2010 to December 31, 2011: All off-road diesel -powered construction
equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet Tier 2 off-road emissions
standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with the
BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the
contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be
achieved by a Level 2 or Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly
sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
• January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014: All off-road diesel -powered construction
equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions standards. In
addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with the BACT devices
certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall
achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a
Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined
by CARB regulations.
• Post -January 1, 2015: All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment
greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 4 off-road emissions standards, where
available. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with the
BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the
contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be
achieved by a Level 2 or Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly
sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 20 of 75
• A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and
CARB or AQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization
or each applicable unit of equipment.
4.4-12 The project constructor shall limit PM10 and PM2.5 fugitive dust emissions by
implementing the following measures:
• Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit the construction site onto
paved roads or wash off trucks or any equipment leaving the site each trip;
• Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds (as
instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph;
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered;
• Pave road and road shoulders;
• Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible;
• Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil is carried onto adjacent public
paved roads (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water); and
• Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning
on-site construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM 10
generation.
4.4-13 The project constructor shall limit VOC emissions by implementing the following
measures:
• Use coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than required under
SCAQMD Rule 1113;
• Constructionibuild with materials that do not require painting;
• Require the use of pre -painted construction materials; and
• Contractors shall use varying -pressure -low-volume (HPLV) paint applicators or
other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency.
2.2.3 Findings
Although the above -enumerated mitigation measures would reduce the magnitude of impacts, the
City finds there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the identified significant
impacts to a level below significant. Therefore, these impacts must be considered unavoidably
significant even after implementation of all feasible air quality mitigation measures. Pursuant to
Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), the City has determined that specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives
s
9
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 21 of 75
identified in the EIR and the identified air quality impacts are thereby acceptable because of
specific overriding considerations.
2.3 Nom
2.2.3 Unavoidable Significant Impacts
Construction of the project would require site preparation, grading, and the construction of
roadways, infrastructure, and buildings. Each of these construction activities typically involves
the use of heavy-duty equipment, all of which could expose off-site residents and other noise
sensitive receptors to temporary, but significant and unavoidable noise impacts due to the
exceedance of noise standards set forth in the Noise Element of the City's General Plan.
Construction activities also would result in vibration impacts. Since ground -borne vibration
could be generated during construction in excess of the Federal Transit Administration vibration
standards, impacts to on-site sensitive uses (i.e., residential) would be significant and
unavoidable.
Traffic associated with the project also would contribute to a cumulatively considerable noise
increases along SR -14, but not other local roadways. This noise increase would significantly
impact off-site sensitive receptors located adjacent to or near to portions of SR -14.
2.2.3 Mitigation Measures
4.5-1 Pursuant to Section 11.44.080 of the City's Noise Ordinance, construction work shall
occur within 300 feet of occupied residences only between the hours of 7:00 AM and
7:00 PM Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturday. No
construction work shall occur on Sundays, New Year's Day, Independence Day,
Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, Memorial Day, and Labor Day.
4.5-2 The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that the following
construction best management practices (BMPs) be implemented by the construction
contractor to reduce construction noise and vibration levels:
• Two weeks prior to the commencement of construction, notification must be
provided to surrounding land uses of the project site disclosing the construction
schedule, including the various types of activities that would be occurring
throughout the duration of the construction period.
• Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry
standards and in good working condition.
• Place noise- and vibration- generating construction equipment and locate
construction staging areas away from sensitive uses, where feasible (particularly
away from the residential uses located north and east of the project site).
• Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel
equipment, where feasible.
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 22 of 75
• Construction -related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor
vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more
than 30 minutes.
• Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job
superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow for
surrounding owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. If the job
superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take
appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting party.
Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction
documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Santa Clarita prior to issuance
of the grading permit.
2.3.3 Findings
Although the above -enumerated mitigation measures would reduce the magnitude of
construction -related impacts, the City finds there are no feasible mitigation measures that will
reduce the identified significant noise and vibration impacts to a level below significant.
Therefore, these impacts must be considered unavoidably significant even after implementation
of all feasible noise mitigation measures. Further, no feasible mitigation exists to reduce the
cumulative noise impacts along SR -14 to a level below significant. Pursuant to Public Resources
Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), the City has determined that specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the
EIR and the identified noise impacts are thereby acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
2.4 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
2.4.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts
The project would generate solid waste, including hazardous waste, requiring disposal during the
construction and operational phases. As an adequate amount of landfill space has not been
identified to accommodate long-term solid waste generation at current disposal rates, project -
and cumulative -level impacts would be significant. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that it is
reasonable to assume that the market forces that drive the waste disposal industry will put
pressure on the industry and governmental agencies to continually identify new economically
feasible means of waste disposal in the future.
2.4.2 Mitigation Measures
4.9-1 Recycling/separation areas will be located in close proximity to dumpsters for non-
recyclables, elevators, loading docks, and primary internal and external access points.
4.9-2 Recycling/separation areas will not conflict with any applicable federal, state, or local
laws relating to fire, building, access, transportation, circulation, or safety.
4.9-3 Recycling/separation areas will be conveniently located for those persons who deposit,
collect, and load the recyclable materials.
4.9-4 Recycling containers/bins will be located so as to not block access to each other.
61
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 23 of 75
4.9-5 Yard waste will be reduced through the use of xeriscaping techniques and the use of
drought -tolerant and native vegetation in common area landscaping, wherever possible.
4.9-6 For commercial developments and residential buildings having five or more living units,
no refuse collection or recycling areas will be located between a street and the front of a
building.
4.9-7 On-site trash compactors will be installed for non-recyclables in all restaurants/food
services areas.
4.9-8 The project will comply with City recycling requirements, including the number and
location of recycling and waste bins.
4.9-9 First-time buyers and businesses will receive educational material on the City's waste
management efforts. Educational material shall be passed to consecutive buyers using the
CC&Rs.
4.9-10 The applicant shall comply with all applicable state, regional, and local regulations and
procedures for the use, collection, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes.
4.9-11 During construction, recycling bins for glass, metals, paper, wood, plastic, greenwastes,
and cardboard will be placed on site to ensure their use by construction workers and will
be trucked to recycling/processing facilities.
4.9-12 In construction specification and bid packages, building materials made of recycled
materials will be required, to the extent possible and feasible.
2.4.3 Findings
Although the above -enumerated mitigation measures would reduce the magnitude of solid waste -
related impacts, the City finds there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the
identified impacts to a level below significant. Therefore, these impacts must be considered
unavoidably significant even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. Pursuant
to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), the City has determined that specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives
identified in the EIR and the identified solid waste disposal impacts are thereby acceptable
because of specific overriding considerations.
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 24 of 75
3.0 FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT BUT MITIGATED IMPACTS
This section identifies significant adverse impacts of the project that require findings to be made
under Public Resources Code section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091. Based
on substantial record evidence, the City finds that adoption of the mitigation measures set forth
below will reduce the identified significant impacts to less -than -significant levels.
3.1 GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS
3.1.1 Potential Significant Impacts
Topographic changes attributable to various grading activities on the project site would occur to
accommodate the proposed project. However, mitigation measures specifying the grading
techniques would ensure that impacts due to earth movement are less than significant. These
same mitigation measures would reduce liquefaction impacts to a level below significant by
requiring that potentially liquefiable soil layers be overlain by non -liquefiable soils of sufficient
thickness, and construction -related erosion impacts to a less -than -significant level. (Of note, the
project would result in a long-term decrease in on-site erosion and would not increase wind and
water erosion due to the placement of non-erosive surfaces on the site.)
Due to its location, ground shaking on the project site is anticipated. In order to lessen impacts
associated with ground shaking, building design and construction would adhere to the California
Building Code; City of Santa Clarita Building Code, and pertinent professional engineering
standards. In addition, Mitigation Measure 4.1-22 requires compliance with Section 1613 of the
International Building Code. Compliance with the referenced standards would ensure that
impacts attributable to strong seismic ground shaking are reduced to a less -than -significant level.
Finally, impacts attributable to lateral spreading, differential settlement, corrosive soils,
expansive soils, and subsidence would be reduced to a level below significant through the
implementation of various mitigation measures.
3.1.2 Mitigation Measures
4.1-1 Grading: The applicability of the preliminary recommendations for foundation and
retaining wall design shall be confirmed at the completion of grading. Paving studies and
soil corrosivity tests shall be performed at the completion of rough grading to develop
detailed recommendations for protection of utilities, structures, and for construction of
the proposed roads.
4.1-2 Site Preparation: Prior to performing earthwork, the existing vegetation and any
deleterious debris shall be removed from the site. Existing utility lines shall be relocated
or properly protected in place. All unsuitable - soils, uncertified fills, artificial fills,
slopewash, upper loose terrace deposits, and upper loose alluvial soils in the areas of
grading receiving new fill shall be removed to competent earth materials and replaced
with engineered fill. The depth of removal and recompaction of unsuitable soils is noted
in the Project Geotechnical Report. Any fill required to raise the site grades shall be
properly compacted.
63
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 25 of 75
4.1-3 Removal Depths: The required depth of removal and recompaction of the existing
compacted fill or natural soils are indicated in the Project Geotechnical Report. Deeper
removals shall be required if disturbed or unsuitable soils are encountered during project
grading as directed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant. After excavation of the upper
natural soils on hillsides and in canyons, further excavation shall be performed, if
necessary, and as directed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant, to remove slopewash
or other unsuitable soils. Additional removals will also be required for transition lots (a
transition lot occurs on a graded pad where relatively shallow or exposed bedrock
materials and compacted fills soils are both present on a lot.) and where expansive
bedrock occurs as directed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant. The Project
Geotechnical Consultant may require that additional shallow excavations be- made
periodically in the exposed bottom to determine that sufficient removals have been made
prior to recompacting the soil in-place. Deeper removals may be required by the Project
Geotechnical Consultant based on observed field conditions during grading. During
grading operations, the removal depths shall be observed by the Project Geotechnical
Consultant and surveyed by the Project Civil Engineer for conformance with the
recommended removal depths shown on the grading plan.
4.1-4 Material for Fill: The on-site soils, less any debris or organic matter, may be used in the
required fills. Any expansive clays shall be mixed with non -expansive soils to result in a
mixture having an expansion index less than 30 if they are to be placed within the upper 8
feet of the proposed rough grades. Rocks or hard fragments larger than 4 inches shall not
be clustered or compose more than 25 percent by weight of any portion of the fill or a lift.
Soils containing more than 25 percent rock or hard fragments larger than 4 inches must
be removed or crushed with successive passes (e.g., with a sheepsfoot roller) until rock or
hard fragments larger than 4 inches constitute less than 25 percent of the fill or lift.
4.1-5 Oversized Material: Rocks or hard fragments larger than 8 inches shall not be placed in
the fill without conformance with the following requirements: Rock or material greater
than 8 inches in diameter, but not 'exceeding 4 feet in largest dimension shall be
considered oversize rock. The oversize rocks can be incorporated into deep fills where
designated by the Project Geotechnical Consultant. Rocks shall be placed in the lower
portions of the fill and shall not be placed within the upper 15 feet of compacted fill, or
nearer than 15 feet to the surface of any fill slope. Rocks between 8 inches and 4 feet in
diameter shall be placed in windrows or shallow trenches located so that equipment can
build up and compact fill on both sides. The width of the windrows shall not exceed 4
feet. The windrows shall be staggered vertically so that one windrow is not placed
directly above the windrow immediately below. Rocks greater than 1 foot in diameter
shall not exceed 30 percent of the volume of the windrows. Granular fill shall be placed
on the windrow, and enough water shall be applied so that soil can be flooded into the
voids. Fill shall be placed along the sides of the windrows and compacted as thoroughly
as possible. After the fill has been brought to the top of the rock windrow, additional
granular fill shall be placed and flooded into the voids. Flooding is not permitted in fill
soils placed more than 1 foot above the top of the windrowed rocks. Where utility lines or
pipelines are to be located at depths greater than 15 feet, rock shall be excluded in that
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 26 of 75
area. Excess rock that cannot be included in the fill or that exceeds 4 feet in diameter
shall be stockpiled for export or used for landscaping purposes.
4.1-6 Import Material: Import material shall consist of relatively non -expansive soils with an
expansion index less than 30. The imported materials shall contain sufficient fines
(binder material) so as to be relatively impermeable and result in a stable subgrade when
compacted. The import material shall be free of organic materials, debris, and rocks
larger than 8 inches. A bulk sample of potential import material, weighing at least
25 pounds, shall be submitted to the Project Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours in
advance of fill operations. All proposed import materials shall be approved by the Project
Geotechnical Consultant prior to being placed at the site.
4.1-7 Compaction: After the site is cleared and excavated as recommended, the exposed soils
shall be, carefully observed for the removal of all unsuitable material. Next, the exposed
subgrade soils shall be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches, brought to above optimum
moisture content, and rolled with heavy compaction equipment. The upper 6 inches of
exposed soils shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density
obtainable by the ASTM D 1557-02 Method of Compaction. After compacting the
exposed subgrade soils, all required fills shall be placed in loose lifts, not more than 8
inches in thickness, and compacted to at least 90 percent of their maximum density. For
fills placed at depths greater than 40 feet below proposed finish grade a minimum
compaction of 93 percent of the maximum dry density is required. The moisture content
of the fill soils at the time of compaction shall be above the optimum moisture content.
Compacted fill shall not be allowed to dry out before subsequent lifts are placed. Rough
grades shall be sloped so as not to direct water flow over slope faces. Finished exterior
grades shall be sloped to drain away from building areas to prevent ponding of water
adjacent to foundations.
4.1-8 Shrinkage and Bulking: In computing fill quantities, about 10 to 15 percent shrinkage of
the upper 5 feet is estimated for on-site natural alluvial soils, slopewash, and unsuitable
soils. That is, it will require approximately 1.15 cubic yards of excavated alluvium to
make 1 cubic yard of fill compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density. About 10
percent shrinkage of the alluvium between depths of about 5 to 10 feet is estimated, as
well as 5 percent shrinkage below a depth of about 10 feet. Additional loss of material
.may be due to stripping, clearing, and grubbing. A bulking value of about 5 to 10 percent
is anticipated for materials generated from the bedrock when placed as compacted fill.
The removal of oversize material generated by excavation of the bedrock may affect
volume losses.
4.1-9 Temporary Slopes: For purposes of construction, the soils encountered at the site shall
not be expected to stand vertically for any significant length of time in cuts 4 feet or
higher. Where the necessary space is available, temporary unsurcharged embankments
may be sloped back at a 1:1 without shoring, up to a height of 45 feet in competent
bedrock with favorable bedding. Where any cut slope exceeds a height of 50 feet within
competent bedrock, a bench at least 10 feet wide shall be located at mid -height. Within
alluvial or compacted fill material, temporary excavations may be made at a 1.25:1 cut to
65
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 27 of 75
a height of 25 feet. If the. temporary construction embankments are to be maintained
during the rainy season, berms are recommended along the tops of the slopes where
necessary to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope
faces. Where sloped embankments are used, the tops of the slopes shall be barricaded to
prevent vehicles and storage loads within 5 feet of the tops of the slopes. A greater
setback may be necessary when considering heavy vehicles, such as concrete trucks and
cranes; in this case, the Project Geotechnical Consultant shall be advised of such heavy
vehicle loads so that specific setback requirements can be established. All applicable
safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA regulations, shall be met.
4.1-10 Permanent Slopes: Permanent cut and fill slopes may be inclined at 2:1 or flatter. The
current bulk grading plan indicates that the steepest slope to be constructed at the site
during grading will be 2:1.
4.1-11 Proposed Cut Slopes: Cut slopes proposed for the rough grading of the subject site have
been designated as shown in the Project Geotechnical Report. Each cut slope is discussed
with specific recommendations presented in the "Slope Stability Analyses" section of the
Project Geotechnical Report. All grading shall conform to the minimum
recommendations presented in the Project Geotechnical Report. If these slopes are
modified from those that are discussed in the Project Geotechnical Report, the
modifications shall be reviewed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant to ascertain the
applicability of project recommendations or to revise recommendations. The cut slope
designation, gradient, and proposed mitigation are summarized in the Project
Geotechnical Report.
4.1-12 Fill Slopes: If the toe of a fill slope terminates on natural, fill, or cut, a keyway is required
at the toe of the fill slope. The keyway shall be a minimum width of 12 feet, be founded
within competent material, and shall extend a horizontal distance beyond the toe of the
fill to the depth of the keyway. The keyway shall be sloped back at a minimum gradient
of 2 percent into the slope. The width of fill slopes shall be no less than 8 feet and under
no circumstances shall the fill widths be less than what the compaction equipment being
used can fully compact. Benches shall be cut into the existing slope to bind the fill to the
slope. Benches shall be step-like in profile, with each bench not less than 4 feet in height
and established in competent material. Compressible or other unsuitable soils shall be
removed from the slope prior to benching. Competent material is defined as being
essentially free of loose soil, heavy fracturing, or erosion -prone material and is
established by the Project Geotechnical Consultant during grading.
Where the top or toe of a fill slope terminates on a natural or cut slope and the natural or
cut slope is steeper than a gradient of 3:1, a -drainage terrace with a width of at least 6 feet
is required along the contact. As an alternative, the natural or cut portion of the slope can
be excavated and replaced as a stability fill to provide an all -fill slope condition.
When constructing fill slopes, the grading contractor shall avoid spillage of loose
material down the face of the slope during the dumping and rolling operations.
Preferably, the incoming load shall be dumped behind the face of the slope and bladed
no-
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 28 of 75
into place. After a maximum of 4 feet of compacted fill has been placed, the contractor
shall backroll the outer face of the slope by backing the tamping roller over the top of the
slope and thoroughly covering all of the slope surface with -overlapping passes of the
roller. The foregoing shall be repeated after the placement of each 4 -foot thickness of fill.
As an alternative, the fill slope can be over built and the slope cut back to expose a
compacted core. If the required compaction is not obtained on the fill slope, additional
rolling will be required prior to placement of additional fill, or the slope shall be
overbuilt and cut back to expose the compacted core.
4.1-13 Slope Planting: In order to reduce the potential for erosion, all cut and fill slopes shall be
seeded or planted with proper ground cover as soon as possible following grading
operations in accordance with Section 7019 of the County of Los Angeles Building Code,
1999, or latest edition. The ground cover shall consist of drought -resistant, deep -rooting
vegetation. A landscape architect shall be consulted for ground cover recommendations,
plant selection, installation procedures, and plant care requirements.
4.1-14 Subdrains: Canyon subdrains are required to intercept and remove groundwater within
canyon fill areas. All subdrains shall extend up -canyon, with the drain inlet carried to
within 15 feet of final pad grade. Specific subdrain locations and recommendations shall
be provided as part of the future rough grading plan review.
4.1-15 Bedrock shall be over -excavated to a minimum depth of 5 feet below lots and streets.
Bedrock shall be overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed soil subgrade
areas receiving pavement or hardscape improvements.
4.1-16 Mint Canyon Formation bedrock materials exposed at pad grade may contain expansive
claystone beds that could cause differential expansion. Therefore, within building areas at
locations where expansive Mint Canyon Formation units are exposed at pad grade, it is
required that the bedrock be removed and recompacted to a depth of at least 8 feet -below
the proposed final pad elevations or 5 feet below the bottom of proposed footings,
whichever is greater. The soils generated by these over -excavations shall be mixed with
non -expansive soils to yield a relatively non -expansive mixture.. Shall the resulting fill
soil still be expansive, special construction techniques such as pad subgrade saturation or
post -tensioned slabs may be required, at the discretion of the Project Geotechnical
Consultant, to reduce the potential for expansive soil related distress.
4.1-17 To reduce the potential for cracking and differential settlement, the portion of the lot in
bedrock shall be over -excavated to a depth of at least 5 feet below the proposed finished
pad elevation; or 3 feet below the bottom of proposed footings, whichever is greater. The
over -excavation shall extend at least 5 feet laterally beyond the building limits. Where
removal and recompaction for potentially expansive soils or bedrock is also required, it is
recommended that the 8 -foot removals be performed as described in the "Expansive
Bedrock" section of the Project Geotechnical Report.
Foundation and floor slabs for structures located within a transition zone shall also
contain special reinforcement as designed by the Project Structural Engineer. Continuous
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 29 of 75
footings located across the transition zone and 20 feet on either side of the contact shall
incorporate a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one at the top and one at the bottom.
Floor slabs located across the transition zone and 20 feet on either side of the contact
shall have a minimum slab thickness of at least 4 inches and shall contain as a minimum
No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on center. As an alternative, post -tensioned
floor slabs may be used.
4.1-18 General: Residential and commercial buildings up to three stories in height may be
supported on continuous or individual spread footings established in properly compacted
fill. The following recommendations shall be considered preliminary since fill will be
used in some lots to raise the site grade and the final design values will depend upon the
engineering characteristics of the fill soil. The preliminary design values are based upon
the site investigation, experience with the soils in the area, and the site preparation and
grading recommendations for this project.
4.1-19 Bearing Capacity: It is assumed that the proposed buildings will be founded at
approximately final planned grades, with column loads less than 100 kips, and have
normal floor loads with no special requirements. Individual column pads or wall footings
for buildings shall have a width of at least 12 inches and be placed at a depth of at least
18 inches below the lowest final adjacent grade.
Structures may be placed on spread footings designed using a bearing value of 2,000.
pounds per square foot (psf). The recommended bearing value is a net value, and the
weight of concrete in the footings may be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The
weight of soil backfill may be neglected when determining the downward loads from the
footings. A one-third increase in the bearing value may be used when considering wind
or seismic loads.
While the actual bearing value of the fill placed at the site will depend on the materials
used and the compaction methods employed, the quoted bearing value will be applicable
if acceptable soils are used and are compacted as recommended. The bearing value of the
fill shall be confirmed during grading.
4.1-20 Lateral Resistance: Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction and by the passive
resistance of the soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.4 applied to the dead loads may be
used between the footings, floor slabs, and the supporting soils. The passive resistance of
properly compacted fill soils may be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a
fluid with a density of 2.50 pcf. The frictional resistance and the passive resistance of the
soils may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance.
4.1-21 Foundation Observations: To verify the presence of satisfactory soils at foundation
design elevations, the excavations shall be observed by the Project Geotechnical
Consultant. Excavations shall be deepened as necessary to extend into satisfactory soils.
Where the foundation excavations are deeper than 4 feet, the sides of the excavations
shall be sloped back at 0.75:1 or shored for safety. Inspection of foundation excavations
ME
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 30 of 75
may also be required by the appropriate reviewing governmental agencies. The contractor
shall be familiar with the inspection requirements of the reviewing agencies.
4.1-22 Under Section 1613, "Earthquake Loads" of the International Building Code (IBC), the
following coefficients and factors apply to the seismic force design of structures on the
project site.
Latitude
34.41599
Longitude
-118.4342
Site Class
D
Ss
1.810
SI
0.673
SMs
1.810
SMI
1.009
SDs
1.207
SDI
0.673
The parameters were determined using the Ground Motion Parameter Calculator
(Version 5.0.8) at the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards
website.
4.1-23 General: Backfill placed behind retaining walls shall be compacted to a minimum of 90
percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. When backfilling
behind walls, it is required that the walls be braced and heavy compaction equipment not
be used closer to the back of the wall than the height of the wall.
4.1-24 Lateral Earth Pressures: For design of non -building retaining walls, where the surface of
the backfill is level and the retained height of soils is less than 15 feet, it may be assumed
that drained, non -expansive soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a
fluid with a density of 35 pcf. Where the surface of the backfill is inclined at 2:1, it may
be assumed that drained soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a
fluid with a density of 47 pcf.
In addition to the recommended earth pressures, the walls shall be designed to resist any
applicable surcharges due to any nearby foundations, walls, storage or traffic loads. A
drainage system, such as weepholes or a perforated pipe shall be provided behind the
walls to prevent the development of hydrostatic pressure. Recommendations for wall
drains are presented as follows.
If a drainage system is not installed, the walls shall be designed to resist an additional
hydrostatic pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 60 pcf against
the full height of the wall. In addition to the recommended earth and hydrostatic
pressures, the upper 10 feet of walls adjacent to vehicular traffic areas shall be designed
to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf. This pressure is based on an assumed 300
psf surcharge behind the walls due to normal traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least 10
feet from the walls, the traffic surcharge is not required.
6
9
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 31 of 75
4.1-25 Wall Drainage: A drainage system shall be provided behind all retaining walls or the
walls shall be designed to resist hydrostatic pressures. Retaining wall backfill may be
drained by a perforated pipe installed at the base and back side of the wall. The
perforated pipe shall be at least 4 inches in diameter, placed with the perforations down,
and be surrounded on all sides by at least 6 inches of gravel. The pipe shall be installed to
drain at a gradient of between 0.5 to 1 percent and shall be connected to an outlet device.
A filter fabric such as Mirafi 140 or equivalent shall be placed on top of gravel followed
by a minimum 2 -feet thick compacted soil layer. Alternatively, the filter fabric and gravel
is not required when using a continuous slotted pipe and graded sand which conforms to
Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) "Fl " Designated Filter Material.
The backside of the wall shall be waterproofed. A 6 -inch vertical gravel chimney drain,
Miradrain, or equivalent, shall be. placed behind retaining walls and extend to within 18
inches below the top of the wall backfill to provide a drainage path to the perforated pipe.
The top of the vertical drain shall be capped with 18 inches of on-site soils.
The drainage system shall be observed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant prior to
backfilling the retaining wall. Inspection of the drainage system by the City of Santa
Clarita will also be required.
4.1-26 General: The proposed development includes a proposed buried soil cement channel
liner. Detailed construction plans for the soil cement channel liner are not yet available
and will be geotechnically reviewed in a future report to ensure consistency with the
findings in the Project Geotechnical Report. The following preliminary recommendations
can be used in the planning of the proposed bank protection. The grading
recommendations presented in the preceding sections are also applicable to the proposed
channel lining. Overexcavation of the natural soils is not expected to be required for the
lining, though existing fill soils shall be excavated and replaced with compacted fill. The
backcut for the channel lining may be sloped back at 1.25:1. Concrete lined and
soil -cement channel liners may be inclined , at 1.5:1 or flatter. Grouted and ungrouted
rip -rap liners may be inclined at 2:1 or flatter.
4.1-27 Soil Cement: It is expected that portions of the on-site alluvial soils will be suitable for
use in soil -cement. For estimating purposes, a cement content of 8 to 12 percent, by
weight, may be used. To determine the actual required cement content, the granular soils
that are to be used in a soil -cement channel lining shall be stockpiled. Representative
samples of the stockpiled material shall be mixed with varying amounts of cement,
compacted, and cured for different time intervals. Based on the results of unconfined
compression tests. on the samples of the soil -cement mixtures, the Project Geotechnical
Consultant shall determine during grading activities the percentage of cement content to
be used during construction. This testing shall take place when soil intended for soil
cement manufacture has been stockpiled on site. The soil -cement shall be placed in layers
not more than 8 inches in thickness and shall be compacted to at least 95 percent of the
maximum dry density at a moisture content of no more than 2 percent over optimum for
the soils. The placement of the soil -cement shall be performed under the observation of
qO
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 32 of 75
the Project Geotechnical Consultant, who shall perform sieve analyses, compaction,
unconfined compression, and moisture -density tests.
4.1-28 The Vista Canyon Road Bridge shall be constructed to extend the existing Lost Canyon
Road across the Santa Clara River. Final construction plans shall be reviewed to ensure
consistency with the Project Geotechnical Report. It is anticipated that the bridge will be
founded on driven or cast -in -drilled -hole piles at bents and abutments.
4.1-29 The grading operations shall be observed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant. The
Project Geotechnical Consultant shall, at a minimum, have the following duties:
• Observe the excavation so that any necessary modifications based on
variations in the soil/rock conditions encountered can be made;
• Observe the exposed subgrade in areas to receive fill and in areas where
excavation has resulted in the desired finished subgrade. The representative
shall also observe proof -rolling and delineation of areas requiring
overexcavation;
• Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import soils for fill placement; collect
and submit soil samples for required or recommended laboratory testing
where necessary;
• Observe the fill and backfill for uniformity during placement;
• Test fill for fielddensity and compaction to determine the percentage of
compaction achieved during fill placement;
• Geologic observation of all cut slopes, keyways, backcuts and geologic
exposures during grading to ascertain that conditions conform to those
anticipated in the report; and
• Observe benching operations; observe canyon cleanouts for subdrains, and
subdrain installation.
3.1.3 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce these
potential geotechnical hazard -related impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels.
Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision
(a)(1), and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant
geotechnical hazard -related impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
`71
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 33 of 75
3.2 FLOOD
3.2.1 Potential Significant Impacts
Project -related increases in sedimentation and debris production, erosion and sedimentation
during construction could result in a potentially significant impact; mitigation is recommended to
reduce impacts to a level below significant.
3.2.2 Mitigation Measures
4.2-1 During all construction phases, temporary erosion control shall be implemented to retain
soil and sediment on the project site, and the bank stabilization areas, as follows:
• Re -vegetate exposed areas as quickly as possible;
• Minimize disturbed areas;
• Divert runoff from downstream drainages with earth dikes, temporary drains,
slope drains, etc.;
• Reduce velocity through outlet protection, check dams, and slope
roughening/terracing;
• Implement dust control measures, such as sand fences, watering, etc.;
• Stabilize all disturbed areas with blankets, reinforced channel liners, soil
cement, fiber matrices, geotextiles, and/or other erosion resistant soil
coverings or treatments;
• Stabilize construction entrances/exits with aggregate underdrain with filter
cloth or other comparable method;
• Place sediment control BMPs at appropriate locations along the site perimeter
and at all operational internal inlets to the storm drain system at all times
during the rainy season (sediment control BMPs may include filtration devices
and barriers, such as fiber rolls, silt fence, straw bale barriers, and gravel inlet
filters, and/or with settling devices, such as sediment traps or basins); and/or
• Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges (e.g., pipe flushing, fire
hydrant flushing, and over -watering during. dust control, vehicle and
equipment wash down) from the construction site through the use of
appropriate sediment control BMPs.
4.2-2 All necessary permits, agreements,. letters of exemption from the USACE and/or the
CDFG for project -related development within their respective jurisdictions must be
obtained prior to the issuance of a grading permit, which permits grading within their
respective jurisdictions.
00—
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 34 of 75
4.2-3 By October 1st of each year, a separate erosion control plan for construction activities
shall be submitted to the local municipality describing the erosion control measures that
will be implemented during the rainy season (October 1 through April 15).
4.2-4 A final developed condition hydrology analysis (LACDPW Drainage Concept Report
[DCR] and Final Design Report [FDR]) shall be prepared in conjunction with final
project design when precise engineering occurs. This final analysis will be completed to
confirm that the final project design is consistent with the approved drainage concept and
this analysis. Those final calculations shall establish design features for the project that
satisfy the criterion that post -development peak stormwater runoff discharge rates,
velocities, and duration in natural drainage systems mimic pre -development conditions.
All elements of the storm drain system shall conform to the policies and standards of the
LACDPW, Flood Control Division, as applicable.
4.2-5 Final project hydrology and debris production calculations shall be prepared by a project
engineer to verify the requirements for debris basins and/or desilting inlets consistent
with the approved drainage concept and this analysis.
3.2.3 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce these
potential flood -related impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the
City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State
CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant flood -related
impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.1.1 Potential Significant Impacts
The project would significantly impact the following vegetation communities: coast live oak
associations; cottonwood associations; big sagebrush associations; riparian scrub; alkali rye
series; and, alluvial scrub (terrace). Additionally, because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the
California Fish and Game Code prohibit the take of bird nests with eggs or young, the project
could significantly impact the active nests of common bird species. The project also could
significantly impact the slender mariposa lily, Plummer's mariposa lily, oak trees, and special -
status wildlife.
The project could result in indirect impacts to biological resources attributable to increased
human and domestic animal presence along the River Corridor, increased populations of non-
native species, increased light and glare, stormwater runoff, and construction -related activities.
The project also would result in cumulative impacts attributable to reductions in total habitat
area, limitation of species diversity, restriction of animal movement corridors, and overall loss of
sensitive vegetation communities, wildlife habitat, and open area in the Santa Clarita Valley.
However, with implementation of the mitigation measures enumerated below, as well as those
identified for water quality, all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project would be
reduced to a level below significant.
'73
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 35 of 75
3.3.2 Mitigation Measures
4.6-1 The applicant shall mitigate for alkali rye at a ratio of 0.5:1 through on-site habitat
restoration. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, the applicant shall
provide to the City Community Development Department for review and approval a
detailed mitigation and monitoring plan for the restoration of alkali rye. The mitigation
plan shall encompass comparable general habitat attributes and acreage of useable
wildlife habitat on the subject property (approximately 0.35 acres), and include
documentation to monitor the success of the restoration through performance standards
over a five-year period. The proposed mitigation site would be in natural areas within or
adjacent -to the Oak Park or other suitable open space areas within the project site.
The applicant shall implement the Lily Plan, 2009, that includes salvaging and re-
establishment of slender mariposa population on the mitigation site designated in the
plan.
If discovered during pre -construction surveys, the applicant shall prepare and implement
a Plummer's mariposa lily mitigation plan that would include salvaging and re-
establishment of Plummer's mariposa population on an on-site mitigation sites
designated in the plan.
4.6-2 The applicant shall mitigate for the loss of riparian scrub and big sagebrush scrub through
implementation of the Wetlands Plan, 2009 to the satisfaction of the City's Community
Development Department.
4.6-3 All stream flows traversing a construction site or temporary access road shall be diverted
around the site and under access roads (using a temporary culverts or crossings that allow
fish passage). A temporary diversion channel shall be constructed using the least
damaging method possible, such as blading a narrow pilot channel through an open sandy
river bottom. The removal of wetland and riparian vegetation to construct the channel
shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. The temporary channel shall be connected
to a natural channel downstream of the construction site prior to diverting the stream. The
integrity of the channel and diversion shall be maintained throughout the construction
period. The original stream channel alignment shall be restored after construction,
provided suitable conditions are present at the work site after construction. Any
temporary stream diversion plan shall be consistent with the USACE and CDFG permits
required for project implementation.
4.6-4 A qualified biologist shall be present when any stream diversion takes place, and shall
patrol the areas both within, upstream, and downstream of the stream diversion work
area. Under no circumstances shall the unarmored threespine stickleback be collected or
relocated, unless USFWS personnel or their agents implement this measure or authorized
by USACE in a subsequent Clean Water Act section 404 permit or streambed alteration
agreement issued by CDFG.
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 36 of 75
4.6-5 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall employ a qualified biologist to
implement the Spadefoot Plan, 2009, with review and oversight provided by the City
Planning Department. Any substantive revisions to or deviations from the Spadefoot
Plan, 2009, shall be provided to CDFG for consideration and input.
4.6-6 Sixty days prior to grading activities, a qualified biologist shall contact CDFG and
consult with CDFG staff regarding the timing of pre -construction surveys. In any event,
no later than thirty days prior to grading activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a
survey within appropriate habitat areas to capture and relocate individual silvery legless
lizard, coastal western whiptail, rosy boa, San Diego banded gecko, San Bernardino
ringneck snake, coast horned lizard, coast patch -nosed snake, and San Diego black -tailed
jackrabbit in order to avoid or minimize take of these sensitive species. Individuals shall
be relocated to nearby undisturbed areas with suitable habitat, as identified by the
qualified biologist in consultation with CDFG staff. Results of the surveys and relocation
efforts shall be provided to the City with a copy to CDFG. Collection and relocation of
animals shall only occur with the proper scientific collection and handling permits.
4.6-7 Beginning 30 or more days prior to the removal of any suitable riparian habitat that will
occur during the riparian bird breeding and nesting season of March 15th through
September 1st, the applicant shall arrange for weekly bird surveys to detect the above
riparian bird species in the habitats to be removed, and any other such habitat within 300
feet of the construction work areas. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist using CDFG or USFWS survey protocols. The surveys shall continue on a
weekly basis, with the last survey being conducted no more than 7 days prior to the
initiation of construction work.
If an active nest is found, clearing and construction within 300 feet of the nest shall be
postponed until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, and when there is no
evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Limits of construction to avoid a nest site shall.
be established in the field with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction
personnel shall be instructed on the ecological sensitivity of the area.
Results of the surveys, including surveys to locate nests, shall be provided to the USACE
and CDFG. The results shall include a description of any nests located and measures to
be implemented to avoid nest sites.
4.6-8 Signage shall be installed along the River Corridor indicating that no pets of any kind are
allowed within the preserved River Corridor.
4.6-9 Fencing of sufficient height and design (i.e., ranch -rail) shall be constructed between the
edge of developed areas and the River Corridor to deter humans and pets from entering
habitat areas within the River Corridor.
Locally indigenous native shrubs shall be planted along the fence to further deter access.
Final fence design shall be approved by the City Planning Department. Fencing shall not
be placed within the USACE or CDFG jurisdictional areas of the site.
X15
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 37 of 75
The potentially palette of local indigenous native plant species to be used along the fence
include the following, observed on site during the course of biological surveys:
California juniper, blue elderberry, four -wing saltbush, quailbush, skunk bush, California
sagebrush, Great Basin sagebrush, coyote bush, mulefat, white -stem rabbitbrush, thick -
leaf yerba santa, bladderpod, cane cholla, coastal prickly pear, coast live oak, golden
currant, chaparral currant, black sage, western sycamore, California buckwheat, thick -
leaf ceanothus, wedgeleaf ceanothus, chamise, Fremont's cottonwood, Gooding's
willow, arroyo willow, and Whipple's yucca.
4.6-10 Human access into the River Corridor shall only occur in designated locations (i.e.,
existing and future trails). All motorized vehicles and off -trail bike riding shall be
prohibited from entering the preserved River Corridor with the exception of authorized
emergency or maintenance- vehicles, and signs shall be posted along the River Corridor
prohibiting such uses.
4.6-11 Prohibitions against human, domestic animal, and motorized vehicle/bike entry into the
River Corridor shall be established by ordinance or recorded CC&Rs.
4.6-12 Interpretative signs shall be constructed and placed in appropriate areas, as determined by
a qualified biologist, that explain the sensitivity of natural habitats and the need to
minimize impacts on these natural areas. The signs will state that the River Corridor is a
protected natural area and that all pedestrians must remain on designated trails, all pets
are to be restrained on a leash, and that it is illegal to harm, remove, or collect native
plants and animals. The project applicant shall be responsible for installation of
interpretive signs and fencing along the River Corridor.
4.6-13 A qualified restoration specialist shall ensure that the proposed landscape plants will not
naturalize and cause maintenance or vegetation community degradation in open -space
areas of the project site. Container plants to be installed within public areas shall be
inspected by a qualified restoration specialist for the presence of disease, weeds, and
pests, including Argentine ants. Plants with pests, weeds, or diseases shall be rejected. In
addition, landscape plants shall not be on the Cal -IPC California Invasive Plant Inventory
(http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php). Except as required for fuel modification,
irrigation of perimeter landscaping adjacent to the River Corridor with native plant
communities shall be limited to temporary irrigation (i.e., until plants become
established).
4.6-14 The applicant shall be responsible for weeding all restoration/enhancement sites to
prevent an infestation of perennial non-native invasive weeds. All perennial, non-native
invasive weed species (e.g., arundo, pampas grass, fennel, perennial pepperweed, castor
bean, tamarisk, etc.) shall be controlled for a period of 5 years after the initial vegetation
community restoration, or until the 5 -year success criteria described in the Wetlands Plan,
2009, are met. The cover of annual, non-native plant species at the mitigation sites shall
not exceed the requirements of the Wetlands Plan, 2009, at any time during the period of
documenting successful restoration.
76
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 38 of 75
4.6-15 Waste and recycling receptacles that discourage foraging by wildlife species adapted to
urban environments shall be installed in common areas and parks throughout the project
site.
4.6-16 All bridge, street, residential, and parking lot lighting shall be downcast luminaries or
directional lighting with light patterns directed away from the River Corridor. Similarly,
all lighting immediately adjacent to the Santa Clara River, Oak Park, and designated
mitigation areas .for biological resources shall be shielded. CC&Rs shall require that
exterior lighting within the residential areas adjacent to the River Corridor be limited to
low luminosity and/or shielded. °
4.6-17 The following guidelines shall be followed to minimize impacts on remaining biological
resources on site as a result of construction and grading activities and to ensure that
potential impacts on these resources will remain less than significant:
A qualified biologist shall be retained as a construction monitor to ensure that incidental
construction impacts on biological resources are avoided, or minimized, and to conduct
pre -grading field surveys for special -status plant and wildlife species that may be
destroyed as a result of construction or site preparation activities. Responsibilities of the
construction monitor include the following:
• The construction monitor shall attend pre -grade meetings to ensure that
timing/location of construction activities do not conflict with mitigation
requirements (e.g., seasonal surveys for plants and wildlife).
• Mark/flag the construction area in the field with the contractor in accordance
with the final approved grading plan. Haul roads and access roads shall only
be sited within the grading areas analyzed in the project EIR.
• Supervise cordoning of preserved natural areas that lie outside grading areas
identified in the project EIR (e.g., with temporary fence posts and colored
rope).
• Conduct a field review of the staking (to be set by the surveyor) designating
the limits of all construction activity. Any construction activity areas
immediately adjacent to riparian areas or other special -status resources may be
flagged or temporarily fenced by the monitor, at his/her discretion.
• Conduct meetings with the contractor and other key construction personnel
describing the importance of restricting work to designated areas. The monitor
should also discuss procedures for minimizing harm or harassment of wildlife
encountered during construction.
• Periodically visit the site during construction to coordinate and monitor
compliance with the above provisions.
r7�
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 39 of 75
4.6-18 Construction personnel shall be prohibited from entry into areas outside the designated
construction area, except for necessary construction related activities, such as surveying.
All such construction activities shall be coordinated with the construction monitor.
4.6-19 Construction activities shall be limited to the following areas of temporary disturbance:
• an 85 -foot -wide zone that extends into the river from the base of the rip -rap or
gunite bank protection where it intercepts the river bottom;
• 100 feet on either side of the outer edge of the Vista Canyon Road -bridge and
the haul route (located within bridge zone);
• 50 -foot -wide corridor for all utility lines; and
• 20 -foot -wide temporary access ramps and roads to reach construction sites.
The locations of these temporary construction sites and the routes of all access roads
within CDFG or USACE jurisdiction shall be shown on maps submitted to the CDFG
and USACE. Any variation from these limits shall be noted, with a justification for a
variation. The construction plans should indicate what type of vegetation, if any, would
be temporarily disturbed, and the post -construction activities to facilitate natural
revegetation of the temporarily disturbed areas. The boundaries of the construction site
and any temporary access roads within the riverbed shall be marked in the field with
stakes and flagging. No construction activities, vehicular access, equipment storage,
stockpiling, or significant human intrusion shall occur outside the work area and access
roads.
4.6-20 Equipment shall not be operated in areas of ponded or flowing water within CDFG or
USACE jurisdiction unless there are no practicable alternative methods to accomplish the
construction work, and only after prior approval by the CDFG and the USACE. Approval
shall be acquired by submitting a request to CDFG and USACE no later than 30 days
prior to construction. The request must contain a biological evaluation demonstrating that
no sensitive fish, amphibians, or reptiles are currently present, or likely to be present
during construction, at the construction site or along access roads.
4.6-21 Temporary sediment retention ponds shall be constructed downstream of construction
sites that are located in River Corridor under the following circumstances:
• the construction site contains flowing or ponded water that drains off site into
the undisturbed streamflow or ponds; or
streamflow is diverted around the construction site, but the work is occurring
in the period November 1st through April 15th when storm flows could
inundate the construction site.
The sediment ponds shall be constructed of riverbed material and shall prevent
sediment -laden water from reaching undisturbed ponds or streamflows. To the extent
possible, ponds shall be located in barren or sandy river bottom areas devoid of existing
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 40 of 75
riparian scrub, riparian woodland, or aquatic habitat. The ponds shall be maintained and
repaired after flooding events, and shall be restored to pre -construction grades and
substrate conditions within 30 days after construction has ended at that particular site.
The location and design of sediment retention ponds shall be included in the Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (S WPPP) prepared by the applicant for all construction
activities that require a NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit.
4.6-22 Installation of bridges, culverts, or other structures shall not impair movement of fish and
aquatic life. Bottoms of temporary culverts shall be placed at or below channel grade.
Bottoms of permanent culverts shall be placed below channel grade.
4.6-23 Water containing mud, silt, or other pollutants from construction activities shall not be
allowed to enter a flowing stream or be placed in locations that may be subject to normal
storm flows during periods when storm flows can reasonably be expected to occur.
4.6-24 Vehicles shall not be driven or equipment operated in areas of ponded or flowing water,
or where wetland vegetation, riparian vegetation, or aquatic organisms may be destroyed,
except as otherwise provided for in the CWA section 404 permit or CDFG 1603
agreement.
4.6-25 Silt settling basins, installed during the construction process, shall be located away from
areas of ponded or flowing water to prevent discolored, silt -bearing water from reaching
areas of ponded or flowing water during normal flow regimes.
4.6-26 If a stream channel has been altered during the construction or maintenance operations,
its low flow channel shall be returned as nearly as possible to pre -project topographic
conditions without creating a possible future bank erosion problem, or a flat wide channel
or sluice like area.
4.6-27 Temporary structures and associated materials not designed to withstand strong seasonal
flows shall be removed to areas above the high water mark before such flows occur.
4.6-28 Staging and storage areas for construction equipment and materials shall be located
outside of the CDFG or USACE jurisdiction.
4.6-29 Any equipment or vehicles driven or operated within or adjacent to the River Corridor
shall be checked and maintained daily, to prevent leaks of materials that if introduced to
water could be deleterious to aquatic life.
4.6-30 Stationary equipment such as motors, pumps, generators, and welders which may be
located within the River Corridor construction zone shall be positioned over drip pans.
No fuel storage tanks shall be allowed in the River Corridor.
4.6-31 The applicant shall use best efforts to ensure that no debris, bark, slash sawdust, rubbish,
cement or concrete or washing thereof, oil, petroleum products, or other organic material
from any construction, or associated activity of whatever nature, shall be allowed to enter
9
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 41 of 75
into, or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into, watercourses
included in the permit. When construction operations are completed, any excess materials
or debris shall be removed from the work area.
4.6-32 No equipment maintenance shall be done within or near the River Corridor where
petroleum products or other pollutants from the equipment may enter this area.
4.6-33 As the project reach of the Santa Clara River typically has no surface flows, any water
diversions shall utilize:
• Pilot channels constructed to divert flows around work areas shall be sized to
maintain existing water velocities, with wide, shallow channels being utilized.
The channel should be kept as small as possible, extending no more than 25
feet upstream and downstream of the work area. Construction of pilot
channels should start downstream. Once water is diverted into the new
channel, the original channel should be visually inspected and any stranded
animals shall be removed and returned to the water downstream of the
diversion. Once the diversion is no longer needed, the area shall be restored as
closely as possible to its original configuration.
• The use of a pump to divert flows around a work site is also acceptable. The
pump must have at least a 0.25 -inch screen. Water should be discharged
downstream, within 25 feet of the work area. Any dams installed across
flowing water for the diversion shall be removed upon completion of
construction and the area shall be restored as closely as possible to its original
configuration.
• The Operator shall alert the USACE and the Department of work to be
performed at least two weeks in advance of the work. If the work may
adversely impact Endangered species, the USACE, the Department and the
City shall meet in the field to resolve the issue. The City may contact the
USACE and the Department to identify areas of potential Endangered species
habitat. If the USACE and the Department believe the work may adversely
impact Endangered species or its habitat resources or the City wishes to
consult with the USACE and the Department, a field meeting will be
scheduled. At the field meeting, the USACE and the Department will provide
information regarding Endangered or Threatened species that could be
impacted by the project. If take of an Endangered species will occur, the
appropriate Endangered species permits will be required. To the extent that a
USFWS Section 7 and a CDFG Section 2081 Memorandum of Agreement
have been completed for the species present, the mitigation measures shall be
implemented and construction may proceed as outlined in these documents.
• Standard dust control measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts on
nearby plants and wildlife. This includes replacing ground cover in disturbed
areas as quickly as possible; watering active sites at least twice daily;
suspending all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds (as
164
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 42 of 75
instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph; and restricting traffic speeds on all
unpaved roads to 15 mph or less in areas within 200 feet of vegetation.
• Upon completion of construction, the contractor shall be held responsible to
restore any haul roads and access roads that are outside of approved grading
limits. This restoration shall be done in consultation with the construction
monitor.
4.6-34 If the Oak Tree Permit is approved by the City Council, the applicant shall have
permission to remove the following oak trees on the project site (Heritage Trees are in
bold): No. 4, No. 25, No. 26, No. 27, No. 28, No. 29, No. 30, No. 31, and No. 32.
If approved by the City Council, the applicant shall have permission to encroach into the
protected zone of the following oak trees (Heritage Trees are shown in bold): No. 1, No.
3, No. 33, No. 34, No. 38, No. 47, No. 50, No. 52, and No. 71. If approved by the City
Council, the applicant shall have permission to trim livewood in excess of 2 inches in
diameter of the following trees: No. 1, No. 3, No. 33, No. 34, No. 38, and No. 52.
If approved by the City Council, the applicant shall have permission to encroach within
the protected zone of the following off-site oak trees (Heritage Trees shown in bold):
Tree No. 25B (Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road Option 3 - encroachment and
trimming)
Tree No. 45 (Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road Option 3 — encroachment and
trimming) .
4.6-35 The applicant and all their contractors shall be in compliance with the City of Santa
Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and Preservation and Protection Guidelines at all times
throughout the project. Failure to comply with these requirements shall be considered
non-compliant and may result in the issuance of a Stop All Work notice, construction
delays and additional fees.
4.6-36 The applicant and all their contractors shall adhere to all recommendations issued by the
applicant's Arborist of Record (AOR) both during on-site monitoring as well as those
listed within the project's oak tree reports and addendums. Failure to comply with these
recommendations shall be considered non compliant and may result in the issuance of a
Stop All Work notice, construction delays and additional fees.
4.6-37 Mitigation for the oak tree impacts referenced above shall include dedication to the City
of Santa Clarita of the 2 -acre oak tree preserve located adjacent to the Oak Park.
Dedication of this 2 -acre property to the City shall occur in conjunction with dedication
of the Oak Park. A deed restriction shall be recorded over this 2 -acre preserve restricting
its use to open space only and prohibiting any future development or grading. Signage
shall be posted along the trail adjacent to the preserve indicating that this area is an oak
tree preserve/mitigation area.
Fal
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 43 of 75
Additionally, the applicant shall be required to plant mitigation oak trees on this 2 -acre
parcel as well as,a portion of the Town Green parcel to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development. The oak preserve and Town Green shall be the primary oak
mitigation areas for the project. Secondary oak tree mitigation or planting areas shall
include trail corridors throughout the project site. Group plantings of native oaks are
encouraged in areas that will accommodate the trees for future growth. Examples are
passive parks, break areas, open landscape areas, new trails and the entrance to
commercial and residential portions of the project.
The planting of on-site mitigation oak trees referenced above shall be equal to or exceed
the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) dollar value of all oak trees proposed for
removal, presently estimated at $404,990 (includes the oak trees on-site). Prior to the
issuance of grading permits and the start of any construction, the applicant shall be
required to bond for the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) dollar value of all
oak trees proposed for removal.
4.6-38 Prior to the issuance of grading permits and the start of any construction, the applicant
shall have all required protective fencing installed around the oak trees. Oak trees that are
proposed for encroachment shall have the protective fence placed at the furthest point
away from the trunk that will allow for the necessary construction. All remaining oak
trees shall have the fence installed at the protected zone located 5feet out from edge of
dripline.
4.6-39 Protective fencing shall consist of 5 -foot standard chain link material supported by steel
post driven directly into the ground and evenly spaced at 8 feet on center. 36 -inch silt
fencing shall be installed at the base of all protective fencing and be maintained in good
repair throughout all phases of construction.
4.6-40 A maximum of one non-gated3-foot-wide opening shall be left open on the opposite side
of construction to allow for required monitoring by City staff and the applicant's Arborist
of Record. Openings shall be spaced every 100 feet or at a rate of one per tree.
4.6-41 The applicant shall be required to install proper signage that reads "THIS FENCE IS
FOR THE PROTECTION OF OAK TREES AND SHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR
RELOCATED WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION BY THE CITY
ARBORIST".
4.6-42 The applicant shall be required to submit a copy of all future site plans including but not
limited to grading plans, street improvement plans, construction plans and landscape
plans to the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Specialist. All site plans shall require written
approval from the City's Urban Forestry Division.
4.6-43 Any oak tree approved for relocation (presently Tree No. 31 is proposed for relocation)
shall be completed by an approved qualified tree relocating company.
S�-
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 44 of 75
4.6-44 Any oak tree proposed for relocation shall be considered a removal. Any oak tree that has
been approved for relocation shall require an up to 90 day side box waiting period before
bottom roots may be removed. The final waiting period shall be established by the
Arborist of Record and the City's Oak Tree Specialist.
4.6-45 Any oak tree which has been approved for relocation shall require a minimum five year
mitigation period, which shall include the submittal of all maintenance and monitoring
records completed on the tree. Monitoring reports shall be submitted at the end of each
month for the first two years, quarterly (four times per year) for the following two years
and biannually for the final year. The bond (based upon a value equivalent to the oak
tree's ISA value) for the relocated tree will not be exonerated until the completion of the
required mitigation period.
4.6-46 The applicant shall be required to incorporate large scale trees,. which include 48 inch and
60 inch box trees into its mitigation plan. This may also include the installation of
specimen size trees that range from 72 inch box in size up to 84 inch box trees.
4.6-47 Mitigation oak trees may include the following native species of oak; Coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia), or Canyon oak (Quercus chrysolepis). Incorporating additional native
species in areas immediately adjacent to where established oak trees are present, may
have a negative impact on the existing oak trees and is not permitted.
4.6-48 The applicant shall comply with all additional requirements of the project's adopted oak
tree permit.
4.6-49 An integrated pest management plan that addresses the use of pesticides, (including
rodenticides and insecticides) on site within the River Corridor, including buried bank
stabilization areas, will be prepared prior to the issuance of building permits for the initial
tract map. The plan will implement appropriate Best Management Practices to avoid and
minimize adverse effects on the natural environment, including vegetation communities,
special -status species, species without special status, and associated habitats, including
prey and food resources (e.g., insects, small mammals, seeds). Potential management
practices include cultural (e.g., planting pest -free stock plants), mechanical (e.g.,
weeding, trapping), and biological controls (e.g., natural predators or competitors of pest
species, insect growth regulators, natural pheromones, or biopesticides), and the judicious
use of chemical controls, as appropriate (e.g., targeted spraying versus broadcast
applications). The plan will establish management thresholds (i.e., not all incidences of a
pest require management); prescribe monitoring to determine when management
thresholds have been exceeded; and identify the most appropriate and efficient control
method that avoids and minimizes risks to natural resources. Preparation of the CC&Rs
for each tract map shall include language that prohibits the use of anticoagulant
rodenticides in the project site.
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 45 of 75
3.3.3 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce these
potential biota -related impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the
City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State
CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant biota -related
impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
3.4 WATER QUALITY
3.3.2 Potential Significant Impacts
The project would generate pollutants typical of urban residential and commercial areas during
construction, and after the site is built out and occupied. However, like other development in the
Santa Clarita Valley, the project would be required to satisfy all applicable regional and local
water quality requirements, including those of the SWRCB, LARWQCB, NPDES program,
County of Los Angeles, and City of Santa Clarita. Taking into account the project's non-
structural and structural (treatment) PDFs, and accounting for the applicable regulatory
requirements, water quality impacts would be less than significant.
Specifically, based on a quantitative assessment, the project would not significantly impact
stormwater runoff volumes, or loads of total suspended solids, total phosphorous, nitrogen
compounds, metals, and chloride. Based on a qualitative assessment, the project also would not
result in significant impacts attributable to turbidity, pathogens, hydrocarbons, pesticides, trash
and debris, methylene blue activated substances, cyanide. The project also would not result in
significant 'impacts attributable to bioaccumulation, dry weather runoff, groundwater quality,
groundwater recharge, and hydromodification.
As all cumulative projects within the tributary watershed and other undeveloped areas of the City
are required to meet the same or similar general water quality requirements as the project, and
any other site-specific requirements that the LACDPW Flood Control Division and LARWQCB
require, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts.
3.4.2 Mitigation Measures
4.8.1-1 The project applicant shall be required to implement all Project Design Features (PDFs),
as outlined in Subsection 5 (Project Design Features) of this section.
3.4.3 .Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce the
potential water quality -related impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly,
the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and
State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant water
quality -related impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 46 of 75
3.5 FIRE SERVICES
3.3.2 Potential Significant Impacts
First, due to the lack of on-site fire equipment access and water lines, construction activities
would result in a significant impact on fire protection. Second, the project would result in
significant impacts relative to fire protection absent compliance with all applicable regulatory
requirements due to access, water supply, topography, and vegetative cover constraints. The
project, however, would not impact the staffing, equipment and facilities levels of the Los
Angeles County Fire Department with payment of the enacted mitigation fees, which currently
are $0.99 per square foot (effective March 1, 2010). The project also would not result in
cumulatively considerable impacts because increased cumulative development demands would
be met by increases in staffing and equipment funded by developer fees and increased tax
revenues, and because compliance with all applicable fire codes, standards and guidelines would
be required.
3.5.2 Mitigation Measures
Access Requirements
4.13-1 Due to the size of the proposed development the applicant shall provide multiple means
of access as required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
4.13-2 Access shall be provided onto the project site as noted on the tentative tract map.
4.13-3 Access to the proposed project site shall comply with Section 503 of the Fire Code,
which requires all weather access. All weather access pay require paving.
4.13-4 Fire Department Access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any exterior
portion of all structures. On-site vehicular access shall be required for any building
exceeding 150 feet from the public street.
4.13-5 Where driveways extend further than 150 feet and are of single access design,
turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the
final tract map. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to insure
their integrity for Fire Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be
provided for driveways that extend over 150 feet in length.
4.13-6 Private driveways shall be indicated on the final tract map as "Private Driveway and Fire
Lane" with the widths clearly depicted and shall be maintained in accordance with the
Fire Code. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted by the County
of Los Angeles Fire Department prior to the commencement of construction.
4.13-7 Vehicular access shall be provided and maintained serviceable to all fire hydrants
throughout the construction period of the proposed project.
4.13-8 For buildings that are less than three stories in height and/or less than 35 feet in height, an
unobstructive driveway with a minimum width of 26 -feet, clear -to -sky, shall be posted
with a sign that reads, "No Parking — Fire Lane."
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 47 of 75
4.13-9 For buildings that are more than three stories and/or 35 feet or greater in height, an
unobstructive driveway with a minimum width of 28 -feet, clear -to -sky, shall be posted
with a sign that reads, "No Parking — Fire Lane." The centerline of the access roadway
shall be located parallel to and within 30 -feet of the exterior wall on at least one side of
each proposed building.
4.13-10 For each building to be developed in Planning Area's 1 and 2, access shall be required
to within 150 feet of all exterior portions of the building with a minimum driveway
width of 28 feet, clear -to -sky, and shall be posted with a sign that reads, "No Parking —
Fire Lane."
4.13-11 The center -line of the access roadway shall be located parallel to and within 30 feet of
the exterior wall on at least one side of each proposed building.
4.13-12 For streets or driveways separated by an island and that provide a minimum
unobstructive driveway width of 20 -feet, clear -to -sky, shall be posted with a sign that
reads, "No Parking — Fire Lane." This requirement shall also be implemented for the
eastern connection to Lost Canyon Road.
4.13-13 All Fire Department turnarounds shall be clearly identified and shall be posted with a
sign that reads, "No Parking — Fire Lane."
4.13-14 Additional access issues shall. be addressed with the submittal of the revised plans
during building plan check with consultation between the client and the Los Angeles
County Fire Department.
4.13-15 The project applicant shall provide Los Angeles County Fire Department or City
approved street signs and building access numbers prior to occupancy of the buildings
on the project site.
Water System Requirements
4.13-16 The project construction engineer shall provide water mains, fire hydrants and fire
flows as required by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, for all land uses on
the tract map, and shall be recorded as so.
4.13-17 The project construction engineer ensure that fire flow requirements for Planning Area
1 is 3,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for three hours. All
proposed structures and buildings shall be constructed to be fully fire sprinklered and
have a minimum of Type V-1 hour construction or greater.
4.13-18 The project construction engineer shall ensure that fire flow requirements for Planning
Area 2 is 3,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for three hours. All
proposed structures and buildings shall be required to be fully fire sprinklered and have
a minimum of Type V-1 hour construction or greater.
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 48 of 75
4.13-19 The project construction engineer shall ensure that fire flow requirements for Planning
Area 3A and 3B is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for two
hours. All proposed structures and buildings shall be required to be fully sprinklered
and have a minimum of Type 1-V construction or greater. The exact fire flow, with a
possible flow reduction, shall be determined during the building plan process.
4.13-20 The project construction engineer shall ensure that fire flow requirements for Planning
Area 3C and 3D is 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for two
hours.
4.13-21 The project construction engineer shall ensure that fire flow requirements for Planning
Area 4 is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per. square inch for two hours. All
proposed structures and buildings shall be fully fire sprinklered and have a minimum of
Type V-1 hour construction or greater. The exact fire flow, with a possible flow
reduction, shall be determined during the building plan process.
4.13-22 The project construction engineer shall ensure that the required fire flow for private on-
site hydrants is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch and that each
private on-site hydrants must be capable of flowing 1,250 gallons per minute at 20
pounds per square inch with two hydrants flowing simultaneously, one of which shall
be the furthest from the public water source.
4.13-23 The project construction engineer shall install 59 public fire hydrants. The location for
the on-site fire hydrants shall be determined during building plan check..
4.13-24 All fire hydrants shall measure 6 -inches by 4 inches by 2.5 inches brass or bronze, and
conform to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal standard. All on-site
hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 -feet from a structure or protected by a two
hour rated firewall.
4.13-25 All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and approved by the County of Los
Angeles Fire Department prior ton Final Map approval.
Additional Information Requirements
4.13-26 Considering that the project site is located within the area described by the Fire
Department as "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" (formerly Fire Zone 4), the
client shall develop and submit to the County of Los Angeles Fire Department a Fuel
Modification Plan prior to final map approval. Any questions regarding the content of
the Fuel Modification Plan shall be addressed to the Fuel Modification Unit, Fire
Station #32,605 North Angeleno Avenue, Azusa, CA 91702-2904, phone (626) 969-
5205.
162
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 49 of 75
Submittal Requirements
4.13-27 The project applicant shall submit a minimum of four copies of the water plans
indicating the public fire hydrants to be installed to the Fire Department's Land
Development Unit for review prior to final tract map approval.
4.13-28 The project applicant shall submit to the Fire Department's Land Development Unit for
review if any changes to the tentative tract map occur.
4.13-29 The project construction engineer shall submit the building construction plans to the
Fire Department's Engineering Unit -Santa Clarita, (661) 286-8821.
Forestry Division — Other Environmental Concerns Requirements
4.13-30 The project applicant shall comply with Fuel Modification requirements as indicated in
Mitigation Measure 4.13-26.
3.5.3 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the
potential fire services -related impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly,
the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and
State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant fire
services -related impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
3.6 SHERIFF SERVICES
3.3.2 Potential Significant Impacts
Construction of the project would increase both the incidence of petty crimes on the site and
construction traffic on SR -14 and surrounding roadways, which may potentially delay
emergency vehicles traveling through the area. However, by retaining the services of a private
security company to patrol the project construction site, and by implementing a construction
traffic control plan, any potentially significant construction -related impacts to law enforcement
services would be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
Operationally, the project would increase the demand for law enforcement and traffic -related
services both on the project site and within the local vicinity in terms of the number of personnel
and the amount of equipment needed to adequately serve the project site at buildout.
Additionally, significant public safety impacts could arise as a result of project design, landscape
materials, and building orientation. However, payment of the law enforcement facilities fees and
new tax revenues would mitigate impacts to the Sheriff Department to a less -than -significant
level: Further, measures requiring that adequate public safety concepts be incorporated into the
building design would mitigate impacts to law enforcement. Thus, the project would not
contribute to any cumulatively considerable impacts to sheriff services.
1Mi
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 50 of 75
3.6.2 Mitigation Measures
4.14-1 During construction, the project applicant, or its designee, shall retain the services of a
private security firm to patrol the project site.
4.14-2 Prior to construction activities, the project applicant shall have a construction traffic
control plan approved by the City of Santa Clarita.
4.14-3 As final development plans are submitted to the City of Santa Clarita for approval in the
future, the Sheriff Department design requirements that reduce demands for service and
ensure adequate public safety shall be incorporated into the building design. The design
requirements for this project shall include:
• Proper lighting in open areas and parking lots;
• Sufficient street lighting for the proposed project's streets;
• Good visibility of doors and windows from the streets and between buildings
on the project site; and,
Building address numbers on both residential and commercial/retail uses are
lighted and readily apparent from the streets for emergency response agencies.
4.14-4 Project design shall include, to the extent feasible, low -growing groundcover and shade
trees, rather than a predominance of shrubs that could conceal potential criminal activity
around buildings and parking areas. .
4.14-5 The project applicant, or designee, shall pay the City's law enforcement facilities impact
fee in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit.
3.6.3 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the
potential sheriff services -related impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels.
Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision
(a)(1), and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant
sheriff services -related impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
3.7 HUMAN -MADE HAZARDS
3.7.1 Potential Significant Impacts
The existing on-site debris piles potentially contain metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons,
volatile organic compounds and pesticides. In addition, the historic use of the project site by the
Southern Pacific Railroad indicates that a portion of the site may be affected by metals,
herbicides, petroleum hydrocarbons, and other contaminates associated with rail operations. The
existing on-site residence could contain asbestos and lead, and the historic agricultural activities
present the potential for on-site residential pesticides and agricultural chemicals to be present. In
summary, absent mitigation, demolition, grading and construction activities associated with
F6*i*A
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 51 of 75
project implementation could result in the release of potentially hazardous materials to the
environment.
3.7.2 Mitigation Measures
4.15-1 Prior to grading, areas of the project site indicated on Figure 4.15-1 shall be sampled for
the presence of metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, and
pesticides. If the presence of hazards is identified, the area(s) shall be remediated in
accordance with federal and state law prior to grading of that portion of the project site.
4.15-2 Prior to demolition activities, an asbestos survey shall be conducted by a qualified
environmental professional to determine the presence or absence of, asbestos at the
existing, on-site, single-family residence. The survey shall be submitted to the City of
Santa Clarita. If present, asbestos, removal shall be performed by a State -certified
asbestos containment contractor in accordance with the Toxic Substance Control Act (15
U.S.C. Section 2601 et. seq.).
3.7.3 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the
potential human -made hazards impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels.
Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision
(a)(1), and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant
human -made hazards impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
3.8 VISUAL RESOURCES
3.8.1 Potential Significant Impacts
During the construction phase, nighttime lighting would be maintained on the project site for
security purposes. This light could generate spillover onto adjacent residential properties, which
would be significant absent mitigation. Light spillover also could occur once the project is
operational due to the potential for gaps in intervening buildings and landscaping, and glare
could result absent the use of low -reflective building materials.
3.8.2 Mitigation Measures
4.16-1 The project applicant, or designee, shall require that the use of nighttime lighting during
project construction be limited to only those features on the construction site requiring
illumination.
4.16-2 The project applicant, or designee, shall require that all security lights be properly
shielded and projected downwards during construction, such that light is directed only
onto the worksite.
4.16-3 The project applicant, or designee, shall require that all outdoor lighting along the project
site boundary consist of low -intensity downlights, or be equipped with louvers, shields,
hoods or other screening devices.
0
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 52 of 75
4.16-4 The project applicant, or designee, shall require that all outdoor lighting along the project
site boundary be projected downwards to illuminate the intended surface and minimize
light spillover and glare generation.
4.16-5 The project applicant, or designee, shall require that only low -reflective building
materials be used on building exteriors.
3.8.3 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the
potential light and glare impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the
City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State
CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant light and glare
impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.9.1 Potential Significant Impacts
Although most of the site is being preserved as part of the project's Oak Park, a data
recovery/salvage excavation program is required to lessen impacts to Site VC -2/H, the Mitchell
family homestead. Finally, mitigation is required to avoid the disturbance of human remains,
including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. With implementation of the mitigation
measures identified in Section 3.9.2, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
impact.
3.9.2 Mitigation Measures
4.18-1 Site VC -2/H contains the remains of the Mitchell family homestead, which may contain
important subsurface archeological deposits. A Phase III data recovery (salvage
excavation) program shall be conducted on Site VC -2/11 prior to grading activities.
4.18-2 In the event that cultural resources are found during construction, activity shall stop and a
qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the resources. If the find is
determined to be a historical or unique archaeological resource, contingency funding and
a time allotment sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures or
appropriate mitigation will be made available. Construction on other parts of the project
site may proceed in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21083.2(i).
4.18-3 If, during any phase of project construction, there is the discovery or recognition of any
human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps,
which are based on Public Resources Code section 5097.98 and State CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.5(e), shall be taken:
1. There will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably
susceptible to overlying adjacent human remains until:
a. The Los Angeles County Coroner is contacted to determine that no investigation of the
cause of death is required; and
b. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American:
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 53 of 75
(i) The Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24
hours;
(ii) The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it
believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American; and
(iii)The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the Project applicant for
means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and
any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98,
or,
2. Where the following conditions occur, the project applicant, or its designee, shall rebury the
Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the
property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
a. The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendant
or the most likely descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after
being notified by the Commission;
b. The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or
c. The project applicant, or its designee, rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and
mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures
acceptable to the project applicant.
3.9.3 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the
potential impacts to cultural resources to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds
that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State CEQA
Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant cultural resources -
related impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
3.10 SANTA CLARA RIVER CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
3.10.1 Potential Significant Impacts
Based on detailed biota surveys, the existing SEA/FEMA overlay boundary does not correspond
to the sensitive riparian and jurisdictional resources within the project site. Therefore, the project
requests a GPA, which would revise both the land use designation for the project site to SP and
adjust the existing SEA/FEMA overlay boundary to correspond to the area to be designated SP -
OS.
The project's impacts to biological resources (e.g., certain special -status amphibians, reptiles,
birds and mammals) within the existing SEA/FEMA overlay area would be significant absent
adoption of the mitigation measures below, which minimize impacts to jurisdictional and
sensitive riparian -associated resources on site and ensure project compatibility with ongoing
ecological functions of the post -project SEA/FEMA overlay area. Additionally, the mitigation
measures identified for biological resources, flood, and water quality also would assist in
ensuring that impacts to the River Corridor are not significant.
Of note, the project's development footprint corresponds to and preserves and enhances the
sensitive biological and jurisdictional resources present within the River Corridor, and is
designed to: (a) be compatible with the sensitive biological resources present, including the set
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 54 of 75
aside of undisturbed areas; (b) maintain the Santa Clara River watercourse in a natural state; (c)
provide east -west and north -south wildlife movement areas within the River Corridor; (d)
preserve adequate buffer areas between the project -related development and sensitive natural
resources; and, (e) ensure that roads and utilities are designed to reduce or avoid impacts to
sensitive biological and jurisdictional resources. As such, the project is consistent with the
City's SEA development compatibility criteria, as set form in the Municipal Code at section
1.7.15.020(K)(1)(2).
Also, based on the CRAM Report prepared for the project, the contemplated habitat restoration,
creation and enhancement activities within and adjacent to the reach of the River within the
project site would result in a regional increase of jurisdictional resource functions and provide
for an ecologically meaningful resource to existing riparian resources.
Finally, in light of the project's compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the
project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to the River Corridor.
3.10.2 Mitigation Measures
4.20-1 The project applicant shall implement the Wetlands Plan, 2009, in order to:
(a) Satisfy the mitigation requirements of local, state, and federal agencies for
wetland and riparian habitat;
(b) Create or restore riparian and riverine vegetation communities suitable for
nesting, foraging, and breeding by native animal species;
(c) Create or restore vegetation communities to be compatible with the fluvial
morphology and hydrology of the stream channel corridor;
(d) Create or restore vegetation communities to be consistent with adjacent,
existing riparian vegetation communities; and
(e) Create or restore vegetation communities to be self-sustaining and functional
beyond the- maintenance and monitoring period.
In implementing the Wetlands Plan, 2009, the applicant shall implement the
maintenance activities during the specified monitoring, the monitoring plan
for the mitigation areas, the reporting requirements, and the contingency
measures specified in that plan. The applicant also must satisfy the
performance standards and success criteria set forth in that plan. The
maintenance and monitoring will be subject to approval of the City's
Community Development Department.
In conjunction with implementation of the Wetlands Plan, 2009, permanent impacts
within the California Department of Fish and Game's jurisdictional delineation limits
shall be restored with similar habitat at the rate of one acre replaced for one acre lost.
4.20-2 Prior to grading and construction activities, a qualified biologist shall be retained to
conduct a worker environmental awareness program for all construction/contractor
personnel. A list of construction personnel who have completed training prior to the start
of construction shall be maintained on site and this list shall be updated as required when
new personnel start work. No construction worker may work in the field for more than
I3
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 55 of 75
five days without participating in the program. The qualified biologist shall provide
ongoing guidance to construction personnel and contractors to ensure compliance with
environmental/permit regulations and mitigation measures. The qualified biologist shall
perform the following:
• Provide training materials and briefings to all personnel working on site. The
material shall include but not be limited to the identification and status of
plant and wildlife species, significant natural plant community habitats (e.g.,
riparian), fire protection measures, and review of mitigation requirements;
• A discussion of the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, other state or federal
permit requirements and the legal consequences of non-compliance with these
acts;
• Attend the pre -construction meeting to ensure that timing/location of
construction activities do not conflict with other mitigation requirements (e.g.,
seasonal surveys for nesting birds, pre -construction surveys, or relocation
efforts);
• Conduct meetings with the contractor and other key construction personnel
describing the importance of restricting work to designated areas. Maps
showing the location of special -status wildlife or populations of rare plants,
exclusion areas, or other construction limitations (e.g., limitations on
nighttime work) will be provided to the environmental monitors and
construction crews prior to ground disturbance;
• Discuss procedures for minimizing harm to or harassment of wildlife
encountered during construction and provide a contact person in the event of
the discovery of dead or injured wildlife;
• Review/designate the construction area in the field with the contractor in
accordance with the final grading plan;
• Ensure that haul roads, access roads, and on-site staging and storage areas are
sited within grading areas to minimize degradation of vegetation communities
adjacent to these areas (if activities outside these limits are necessary, they
shall be evaluated by the biologist to ensure that no special -status species
habitats will be affected);
• Conduct a field review of the staking (to be set by the surveyor) designating
the limits of all construction activity;
• Flag or temporarily fence any construction activity areas immediately adjacent
to riparian areas;
94
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 56 of 75
• Ensure and document that required pre -construction surveys and/or relocation
efforts have been implemented; and
• Be present during initial vegetation clearing and grading.
4.20-3 Prior to construction the applicant shall develop a relocation plan for coast horned lizard,
silvery legless lizard, and other special -status reptile species. The plan shall include, but
not be limited to, the timing and location of the surveys that would be conducted for each
species; identify the locations where more intensive efforts should be conducted; identify
the habitat and conditions in the proposed relocation site(s); the methods that would be
utilized for trapping and relocating the individual species; and provide for the
documentation/recordation of the species and number of the animals relocated. The plan
shall be submitted to the City 60 days prior to any ground disturbing activities within
potentially occupied habitat.
The plan shall include the specific survey and relocation efforts that would occur for
construction activities during the activity period of the special -status species (generally
March to November) and for periods when the species may be present in the work area
but difficult to detect due to weather conditions (generally December through February).
Thirty days prior,, to construction activities in coastal scrub, chaparral, oak woodland,
riparian habitats, or other areas supporting these species, qualified biologists shall
conduct surveys to capture and relocate individual coast horned lizard, silvery legless
lizard, and other special -status reptile species in order to avoid or minimize impacts to
such species. The plan shall require a minimum of two (2) surveys conducted during the
time of year/day when each species is most likely to be observed. Individuals shall be
relocated to nearby undisturbed areas with suitable habitat. If construction is scheduled to
occur during the low activity period (generally December through February), the surveys
shall be conducted prior to this period if possible. The qualified biologist will be present
during ground -disturbing activities immediately adjacent to or within habitat that
supports populations of these species. Clearance surveys for special -status reptiles shall
be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the initiation of construction each day.
Results of the surveys and relocation efforts shall be provided to City in an annual
mitigation status report..
4.20-4 Within 30 days of ground -disturbing activities associated with construction or grading
that would occur during the nestingibreeding season of native bird species potentially
nesting on site (typically March through August in the project region, or as determined by
a qualified biologist), the applicant shall have surveys conducted by a qualified biologist
to determine if active nests of bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
and/or the California Fish and Game Code are present in the disturbance zone or within
300 feet of the disturbance zone. Pre -construction surveys shall include -nighttime surveys
to identify active rookery sites. The total number of surveys shall be determined by the
on-site qualified biologist based on the construction/grading schedule.
55
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 57 of 75
If active nests are found, clearing and construction wiihin 300 feet of the nest shall be
postponed or halted, at the discretion of the biologist in consultation with CDFG; until the
nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and there is no
evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest
shall be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers and
construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. The biologist
shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities
will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts to these nests
occur. Results of the surveys shall be provided to CDFG in an annual mitigation status
report.
4.20-5 Thirty days prior to construction activities in grassland, scrub, oak woodland, riverbank,
or other suitable habitat, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey within the proposed
construction disturbance zone and within 200 feet of the disturbance zone for San Diego
black -tailed jackrabbit and other special -status mammals.
If San Diego black -tailed jackrabbits or other special -status species are present, non -
breeding mammals shall be flushed from areas to be disturbed. Occupied dens,
depressions, nests, or burrows shall be flagged and ground -disturbing activities avoided
within a minimum of 200 feet during the pup -rearing season (February 15 through July
1). This buffer may be reduced based on the location of the den upon consultation with
the City and CDFG. Occupied maternity dens, depressions, nests, or burrows shall be
flagged for avoidance, and a biological monitor shall be present during construction. If
unattended young are discovered, they shall be relocated to suitable habitat by a qualified
biologist. The applicant shall document all San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit identified,
avoided, or moved and provide a written report to the City with a copy to CDFG.
3.10.3 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the
potential impacts to the Santa Clara River Corridor to less -than -significant levels in conjunction
with those feasible mitigation measures also adopted for impacts to biological resources, flood
and water quality. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State' CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1),
changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or
avoid potentially significant River Corridor -related impacts of the project identified in the Final
EIR.
3.11 WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
3.11.1 Potential Significant Impacts
Although construction -related impacts would be less than significant, the operational phase of
the project could result in significant impacts to wastewater disposal facilities absent evidence
that adequate capacity and infrastructure is available to serve the project. As the project would
construct a WRP to accommodate the projected wastewater produced by the contemplated land
uses, potential impacts to wastewater disposal would be less than significant. Additionally, the
project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact because safeguards are in place to
ensure that no wastewater disposal connection permits are issued absent evidence of adequate
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 58 of 75
capacity. Nonetheless, the mitigation measures below are provided to ensure that such impacts
are not significant and the facilities provided by the project comply with pertinent requirements
of the City, California Department of Public Health, and County of Los Angeles Department of
Public Health - Environmental Health Division.
3.11.2 Mitigation Measures
4.21-1 Upon completion of the WRP, the applicant shall dedicate the WRP property to the City
of Santa Clarita.
4.21-2 A 395,411 gallon per day water reclamation plant shall be constructed on the Vista
Canyon Specific Plan site, pursuant to local, regional, state and federal design standards
(as applicable), to serve the Vista Canyon Specific Plan. The project applicant shall
assign the responsibility for ownership, operation, and maintenance of the water
reclamation plant to the City of Santa Clarita.
4.21-3 All facilities of the sanitary sewer system, including the siphon, will be designed and
constructed for maintenance by the City of Santa Clarita in accordance with the
applicable manuals, criteria, and requirements.
4.21-4 The project applicant shall require construction contractors to provide portable, on-site
sanitation facilities that will be serviced by approved disposal facilities and/or treatment
plants.
4.21-5 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall obtain a "will -serve"
letter from the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County verifying that
treatment capacity is adequate.
4.21-6 All local wastewater lines within the project boundaries are to be constructed by the
project applicant and dedicated to the City of Santa Clarita Transportation and
Engineering Services Department.
4.21-7 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall pay applicable
wastewater connection fees.
4.21-8 Prior to issuance of the first occupancy and the use or installation of any recycled water
infrastructure, plans must be submitted to the State of California Department of Public
Health and to the County Department of Public Health -Environmental Health Division
for review and approval.
3.11.3 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the
potential impacts to wastewater disposal to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the City
finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State CEQA
Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant wastewater disposal -
related impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
9
�
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 59 of 75
4.0 FINDINGS ON LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
4.1 GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS
4.1.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
The project would be served by a WRP and the existing sewage conveyance system; therefore,
the project would not be located on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Additionally, construction of the proposed
project would not alter any significant landforms, or destroy, cover or modify any unique
geologic or physical feature(s). The project site also is not located in an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active faults are located on the site; therefore, impacts due
to rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant. Additionally, the project
site is relatively flat and presently not susceptible to any forms of slope instability or landslide.
The project's cumulative geotechnical hazard impacts also would be less than significant
because, generally speaking, impacts related to geotechnical hazards are site specific and limited
to the development areas within a project site. Additionally, buildings and facilities proposed
under other projects are required to be sited, designed, and constructed in accordance with
geotechnical, geologic, and seismic building codes.
4.1.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.1.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced
geotechnical hazards.
4.2 FLOOD
4.2.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
While the project would include development of the storm drain system and have pre -defined
outlets to the Santa Clara River, existing drainage patterns would not be significantly altered and
no impacts would occur with respect to discharge changes. More specifically, no significant
impacts to the River's fluvial or vegetation area would occur as a result of the project's flood
protection improvements. Additionally, there are no increases in the water surface elevation
beyond the limits of the project site resulting from project implementation, and those that occur
on site are minor, localized, and accommodated by the flood protection improvements. Finally,
the flood protection improvements only would result in localized, minor changes in bed riverbed
adjustment values; this is not considered a significant impact.
The project also would not significantly impact on-site drainage, particularly due to its inclusion
of energy dissipaters at the on-site storm drain outlets. Additionally, the project's compliance
with all FEMA requirements, as well as the County of Los Angeles' QCAP requirements,
ensures that impacts attributable to floodplain modifications will not be significant. In that
regard, the project would raise portions of the project site to elevations above the existing FEMA
maximum flooding elevation and construct buried soil cement bank protection along the River
Corridor to protect the site from erosion. And, the post -project runoff discharge quantities would
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 60 of 75
decrease, as compared to the existing conditions, due to the provision of water quality/debris
basins that would capture upstream bulk flows and allow debris to settle out.
The project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding for the reasons enumerated in the previous paragraphs. The project also
would not result in a substantial alteration of existing drainage patterns in such, a manner as to
result in substantial erosion or siltation, and would not significantly impact the fluvial
characteristics or mechanics of the Santa Clara River.
Finally, compliance with all applicable regulations ensures that the project would not result in
cumulatively considerable impacts to flood, particularly as other projects within the City of Santa
Clarita and County of Los Angeles would be subject to the same general requirements as the
project.
4.2.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.2.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced
flood impacts.
4.3 TRAFFIC AND ACCESS
4.3.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
Based on the Parking Demand Analysis (2010), a copy of which is included in Appendix 4.3 of
the Draft EIR, the project would not result in significant impacts to parking. Additionally, the
project would not significantly impact the transit and pedestrian/bicycle systems, as the project
would replace a temporary Metrolink rail station with a permanent facility, construct a bus
transfer station, and provide new bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Finally, the project would
generate an average of 58 vehicle miles traveled per household per day, which is within the
lower range of the estimated statewide range of 55 to 65.
4.3.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant. Nonetheless, the following mitigation
measure is included to ensure that parking -related impacts remain less than significant.
4.3-10 The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Vista Canyon Parking Demand
Analysis.
4.3.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced
traffic and access matters, but that the above mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the
project to ensure that such impacts remain below a level of significance.
9q
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 61 of 75
4.4 AIR QUALITY
4.4.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
Because the project would not increase the population figures over those that have been planned
for the area and would be consistent with the AQMP forecasts and emission reduction strategies
for the area, the project would neither interfere with the attainment of federal or state ambient air
quality standards nor result in population increases within the area in excess of those projected
by SCAG.
Also, under worst-case conditions, future CO concentrations at studied intersections would not
exceed state or federal standards; therefore, the project would not result in significant CO hotspot
impacts to sensitive receptors.
Neither the project's residential and commercial uses, nor the WRP would create an
objectionable odor that could impact sensitive receptors. The project also would not have on-site
hazardous materials that could result in an accidental release of toxic air emissions or acutely
hazardous materials posing a threat to public health and safety. Similarly, although the WRP
could potentially emit toxic air contaminant emissions during the wastewater treatment process,
the facility would employ a mechanical system that would collect emissions and direct them to a
biological or chemical air treatment unit prior to exhausting to the atmosphere.
Finally, the project is not anticipated to expose sensitive receptors to substantialincreases in
health risks and pollutant concentrations relative to the general population, and would not emit
carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants that individually or cumulatively exceed the maximum
individual cancer risk of 10 in 1 million.
4.4.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant. .
4.4.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced
air quality matters.
4.5 NOISE
4.5.1. Less Than Significant Impacts
Noise generated by mobile sources during the project's construction phase, and specifically truck
traffic and worker traffic, would not be significant. Additionally, construction -related vibration
impacts attributable to pile drivers, bulldozers, and loaded haul trucks would not significantly
impact off-site sensitive receptors.
As for operational -related impacts, the project would not increase noise levels at an increment of
3 dB(A) or greater along the modeled roadway and freeway (SR -14) segments. Therefore,
project -level impacts to on- and off-site sensitive receptors would be less than significant relative
to mobile source noise.
/0.0
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 62 of 75
The project also would not result in significant noise impacts attributable to the Union Pacific
Railroad/Metrolink rail line as residential units would be at a sufficient distance from the tracks.
Relatedly, it is important to note that the project would not result in an increase in noise levels
associated with the railroad tracks, which already are in place.
In an effort to further assess the post -project ambient noise levels, City staff directed the
environmental consultant to complete additional analysis utilizing measurements from the on-site
monitoring location closest to Fair Oaks Ranch that account for the project applicant's
commitment to construct an eight -foot tall berm/wall along the southern boundary of the future
Metrolink Station to further reduce noise levels. Existing noise levels at the on-site measurement
location (approximately 60 feet from the railroad tracks) are 60 db(A) CNEL. The project would
increase those noise levels at that location to 67 db(A) CNEL due to project operation (vehicle
traffic, Metrolink Station, stationary noise sources, etc.). The closest homes in Fair Oaks Ranch
to the Metrolink Station, however, are approximately 300 feet away. At 300 feet, the post -
project db(A) CNEL would be 63.5. At 400 feet, the db(A) CNEL would be 59.6. Construction
of the eight -foot tall berm/wall along the southern boundary of the railroad right-of-way adjacent
to the Metrolink Station would further reduce ambient noise at off-site locations, including Fair
Oaks Ranch. Specifically, -with the berm/wall, the db(A) CNEL would be 58.2 at 300 feet and
57.5 at 400 feet; these levels are well within the City's noise guidelines.
Point source noise impacts. attributable to the land uses contemplated for the project site also
would be less than significant and within the range of acceptable noise levels permitted by
community standards.. And finally, the project would not result in unacceptable interior noise
levels at on- or off-site residential uses.
4.5.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.5.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced
noise matters.
4.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.6.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
The project would not significantly impact the following vegetation communities: California
sagebrush - California buckwheat series; Chamise series; Elderberry series; Mixed native and
non-native series; Mulefat series; Saltgrass; Non-native annual grassland - ruderal series; Yerba
santa series; and, Disturbed. The project also would not significantly impact common wildlife
reptile, amphibian, or mammal species. Further, the Peirson's morning-glory, a special -status
plant species that has been observed on site, would not be significantly impacted. Finally, the
project would not significantly impact wildlife movement.corridors due to the preservation and
enhancement of north -south and east -west corridors.
/01
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 63 of 75
4.6.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.6.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced
biota matters.
4.7 LAND USE
4.7.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
As the site is mostly vacant, the project would neither disrupt nor physically divide an
established community. Also, there are no habitat conservation plans or natural community
conservation plans applicable to the project site; therefore, no conflict would result with respect
to such types of plans. Additionally, the project is generally consistent with all applicable goals,
policies and/or requirements of the City's existing General Plan, proposed OVOV General Plan,
and Unified Development Code, as well as SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan and Compass
Growth Visioning.
4.7.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.7.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on land use; therefore, no
mitigation is required.
4.8 WATER SERVICE
4.8.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
The proposed project's water demand would be met by relying on three primary sources of water
supply: groundwater from the Alluvial aquifer; SWP water; and, recycled water from the WRP.
Based on an evaluation of the project's water demand (including the Vista Canyon WSA) and
the supplies of the local water purveyor, an adequate supply of water is available to serve the
project, and the project would not create, or contribute to, any significant project -specific or
cumulative water supply impacts in the Santa Clarita Valley. Supplying water to the project also
would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies, or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge.
4.8.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant. Nonetheless, the following mitigation
measures are included in order to contribute to a reduction in the project's demand for potable
water, and to ensure that adequate water supplies are available to serve the project at the time of
construction.
4.8-1 The proposed project shall implement a water recycling system in order to reduce the
project's demand for imported potable water. The project shall install a distribution
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 64 of 75
system to deliver recycled water to irrigate land uses suitable to accept reclaimed water,
pursuant to Los Angeles County Department of Health Standards. Uses include retail,
office, and commercial spaces. Such uses shall be dual -plumbed to receive recycled water
for toilet facilities.
4.8-2 Landscape concept plans shall include a palette rich in drought -tolerant and native plants.
4.8-3 Water conservation measures as required by the State of California shall be incorporated
into all irrigation systems.
4.8-4 In conjunction with the submittal of applications that permit construction, and prior to
approval of any such permits, the City of Santa Clarita shall require the applicant of the
permit to obtain written confirmation from the retail water agency identifying the
source(s) of water available to serve the project concurrent with need.
4.8-5 Prior to commencement of use, all uses of recycled water shall be reviewed and approved
by the State of California Health and Welfare Agency, Department of Health Services.
4.8-6 Prior to the issuance of building permits that allow construction, the applicant of the
project shall finance the expansion costs of water service extension to the project through
the payment of connection fees to the appropriate water agency(ies).
4.8.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on water service, but that
the above mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project to ensure that such impacts
remain below a level of significance.
4.9 EDUCATION
4.9.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
The project would generate additional elementary, junior high, and high school students that
would be accommodated by the Sulphur Springs Union School District and William S. Hart
Union High School District. However, implementation of the School Facilities Mitigation
Agreement between the Sulphur Springs Union School District and the applicant, and the
Agreement for Fair Share Funding of School Facilities between the William S. Hart Union High
School District and the applicant would ensure all project impacts are at a level below
significant. Additionally, because of the referenced mitigation agreements and because similar
mechanisms would likely be utilized for each new residential development in the Santa Clarita
Valley, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to education.
4.9.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.9.3 Findings
The City finds that, with implementation of the referenced mitigation agreements, the project
will have a less -than -significant impact on education.
la3
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 65 of 75
4.10 LIBRARY SERVICES
4.10.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
The project would generate the need for additional items (e.g., books, magazines, periodicals,
audio, video, etc.), square feet of library facilities, and public access computers, based on the
County of Los Angeles Public Library's service level guidelines. However, payment of the
City's adopted library impact fee of $718.00 per new residential dwelling unit (as of February
2010) would ensure that the proposed project would not significantly impair library services.
Similarly, because the proposed project and any future development would be required to pay the
City's library impact fee, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact.
4.10.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.10.3 Findings
The City finds that, with payment of the requisite library impact fees, the project will have a less -
than -significant impact on library services.
4.11 PARKS AND RECREATION
4.11.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
The project incorporates approximately 21 acres of formal active/passive park or recreational
uses, including the approximately 10 -acre Oak Park/River Education Center, both of which are
proposed for dedication to the City. Other recreational facilities include the Community Garden,
Town Green, up to six private recreational facilities and project trails. The project trails extend
over 4 miles both on and off the project site, including significant extensions of the Santa Clara
River Trail. In summary, the project satisfies the City's parkland standards through a
combination of parkland, private recreation facilities and payment of fees and, therefore, would
not result in significant unavoidable impacts to local parks and recreation facilities. The project
also would not significantly impact regional, state or federal parks or trail systems. Similarly,
because the proposed project and any future development would be required to meet the City's
parkland requirements by providing either the dedication of land, payment of in -lieu fees, or
construction of park amenities (or a combination thereof), the project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact.
4.11.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant. Nonetheless, the following mitigation
measures are included in order to ensure that the project will not significantly impact parks and
recreational facilities.
4.12-1 Consistent with the Vista Canyon Specific Plan, development of the project shall provide
the following parks and open areas: .
• Ten acres of public parkland with improvements, including the Oak Park and
the River Education Center;
• Up to six private recreation facilities and over 4 miles of trails; and
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 66 of 75
• Dedication of the Santa Clara River Corridor on site.
4.12-2 The project applicant, or its designee, will meet City parkland requirements by providing
either the dedication of land, payment of in -lieu fees, construction of park amenities, or
any combination of the three as approved by the Director of Parks, Recreation and
Community Services, prior to issuance of building permits.
4.11.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on parks and recreation,
but that the above mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project to ensure that such
impacts remain below a level of significance.
4.12 SHERIFF SERVICES
4.12.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
The project would increase demands for CHP services in the project area. However, through
increased revenues generated by the project (via motor vehicle registration and drivers license
fees paid by new on-site residents and businesses), the project would generate more than
sufficient funding for the additional staffing and equipment would needed to serve the project
area, including future demands. This funding can and should be allocated to the CHP by the state
CHP for the Santa Clarita Valley station to meet project demands. Therefore, project- and
cumulative -level impacts to the CHP would be less -than -significant.
The project also would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because the project contains multiple
evacuation routes, which would provide for the safe movement of residents and employees.
4.12.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.12.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced
sheriff services.
4.13 HUMAN -MADE HAZARDS
4.13.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
The project would result in the buildout of both residential and general commercial uses. These
land use types would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Similarly, the project's residential and
commercial uses would not result in the emission of hazardous emissions or handling of
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or
proposed school.
Additionally, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project site also is not located within 2
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 67 of 75
miles of a public use airport or the vicinity of a private airstrip. Accordingly, the project would
not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
Because the project site is not in the vicinity of any electrical transmission lines, gas lines, or oil
pipelines, the project would not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards.
The project also would not result in significant impacts attributable to oil production operations
(as the site is not within the designated boundaries of an oil or gas field), underground storage
tanks, transmission line exposure, or adjacent properties.
Finally, as human -made hazards present site-specific issues, no cumulative impacts are
anticipated.
4.13.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.13.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will result in less -than -significant impacts attributable to the
above -referenced human -made hazards.
4.14 VISUAL RESOURCES
4.14.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
Although the project would alter existing short-range views, the project would not obstruct
public views of scenic resources. For example, the Santa Clara River, the site's major scenic
resource, would continue to be visible from SR -14, which offers the most prominent views of the
project site and supports the largest viewing audience among the local vantage points. Further,
due to the distance between SR -14 and the development area; the structures would not be
visually prominent from SR -14.
The project also would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
identified ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway as there are no designated state scenic highways in the Santa Clarita Valley. Further,
although the visual character of the project site and surrounding areas would change (due to the
transition of a predominantly vacant site to a developed state), the visual impacts resulting from
build -out of the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the project site and its surroundings.
Relatedly, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable development as it is located
in an area largely surrounded by existing, approved and planned development. Further, the
project would be visually consistent with the existing adjacent development, such as the Colony
Townhome and Fair Oaks Ranch communities.
4.14.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 68 of 75
4.14.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced
visual resources.
4.15 POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT
4.15.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
The project would not induce substantial population growth in an area either directly or
indirectly. The project also would not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing
and, therefore, would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Finally, the project would be consistent with SCAG's jobs/housing goal of 1.5:1 via its inclusion
of commercial, office, retail and hotel uses.
4.15.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.15.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on population, housing,
and employment.
4.16 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
4.16.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
The project site consists of approximately 185 acres of land that is designated as "Other Land"
by the California Department of Conservation; in other words, the project site does not contain
any "Prime Farmland," "Unique Farmland," or "Farmland of Statewide Importance."
Accordingly, the project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use. The project site
also in not part of a Williamson Act contract, and would not conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use if the requested zone change is approved.
The project site is not zoned for forestland or timberbland, and would not result in the loss or
conversion of forestland. This is consistent with the Land Cover Map developed by the USDA
Forest Service and CalFire, which classifies the project site as urban land and not forest land.
Also, as the project site is generally bordered on all sides by existing or planned urban
development, the project would not involve other changes in the existing environment that would
result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural land uses or forestland to non -forest uses.
Finally, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to agricultural
resources and forestland.
4.16.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.16.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on agricultural resources.
/0 7
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 69 of 75
4.17 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
4.17.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
Although the project would increase the existing on-site emission levels, based on a GHG
emissions estimate considering nine source types, and accounting for various "green" PDFs (e.g.,
20 percent exceedance of Title 24 for all residential and non-residential structures; provision of
Energy Star major appliances, where feasible; renewable electricity equivalent to an 80,000
square foot photovoltaic system; solar heating for pools), the project would not result in a
significant impact to global climate change because it would be consistent with AB 32, the State
of California's only codified GHG emissions reduction mandate. Additionally, the project
generally is consistent with various plans, policies and regulations that result in GHG emission
reductions, such as Title 24 and SB 375, and GHG emission reduction strategies recommended
by the California Attorney General and Climate Action Team. On this basis, the project also
would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to climate change.
4.17.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.17.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on global climate change.
4.18 UTILITIES
4.18.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
Electricity and natural gas demand associated with the project's construction phase is not
anticipated to be significant. Additionally, at build -out, the project would result in an eleven
percent reduction in electricity demand and a sixteen percent reduction in natural gas demand
because all residential and non-residential structures would exceed the 2008 Title 24 standards
by 20 percent. Finally, the extension of electric, natural gas, and communication infrastructure
would not result in significant impacts due to the project's compliance with applicable standards
issued by the City, SCE, SCGC, and AT&T. For these same reasons, the project also would not
result in a cumulatively considerable impact to utilities.
4.18.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.18.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on utilities.
5.0 FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
5.1 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives section of the Final EIR contains an analysis of alternatives to the project,
including the "No Project" alternative. (For a detailed discussion of these alternatives, please see
Section 6.0, Alternatives, of the EIR.) Based on the analysis, the City finds as follows:
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 70 of 75
(a) Alternative 1, The No Project Alternative
Description: This alternative is required by the State CEQA Guidelines and compares the
impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present condition with those that would be
generated by the proposed project. Under this alternative, no development would occur, and the
existing storage yard and residence would remain on a portion of the site.
Environmental Effects: This alternative is environmentally superior to the project since most of
the environmental effects of the project would not occur.
Relation to Project Objectives: This alternative would not attain the basic objectives of the
project, as defined in Section 1.4, above. That said, some of the resource conservation
objectives would be avoided through the complete avoidance of direct and indirect
environmental impacts.
Feasibility: This alternative is infeasible because it would not attain the basic project objectives,
and would not provide any of the project benefits.
(b) Alternative 2, Proposed County Land Use Designation (OVOV)
Description: This alternative would develop a project allowed by Los Angeles County's
proposed land use designations for the site, as defined in the General Plan Update (OVOV). The
proposed designation would permit approximately 700 residential units on the project site; a 5 -
acre neighborhood park and up to two private recreation areas also would be provided. However,
no commercial or transit uses would be constructed as part of this alternative. Additionally, this
alternative would not include the WRP or Vista Canyon Road Bridge. Consistent with OVOV,
Lost Canyon Road would be extended as a major highway from Fair Oaks Ranch to Jakes Way,
and then as a secondary highway from Jakes Way to Lost Canyon Road at La Veda Avenue.
Environmental Effects: This alternative would result in less impacts than the project in 12
categories, greater impacts in 5 categories, and similar impacts in 7 categories. In general, this
alternative is considered the "environmentally superior" alternative for purposes of CEQA.
Relation to Project Objectives: This alternative would not fully meet or impede the following
project objectives, which are defined in Section 1.4, above: Land Use Planning Objectives 1, 4,
6, 7, 9, and 14; and, Economic Objectives 1, 3, and 4.
Feasibility: This alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy numerous project
objectives, and would not provide all of the project benefits.
(c) Alternative 3, Existing City of Santa Clarita General Plan Designation
Description: This alternative would develop a project allowed by the City of Santa Clarita's
existing General Plan land use designation for the site (i.e., Business Park (BP)). Under the BP
designation, the site could be developed with approximately 4.35 million square feet of light
industrial/business park uses. This alternative would include construction of the Vista Canyon
Road Bridge, Metrolink Station, and Bus Transfer Station. Lost Canyon Road would be extended
from Fair Oaks Ranch to Lost . Canyon Road at La Veda Avenue as a major highway. This
alternative would not include any parks or recreation facilities.
l09
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 71 of 75
Environmental Effects: This alternative would result in less impacts than the project in 8
categories, greater impacts in 8 categories, and similar impacts in 8 categories. Therefore, this
alternative is not environmentally superior to the project.
Relation to Project Objectives: This alternative would not fully meet or impede the following
project objectives, which are defined in Section 1.4, above: Land Use Planning Objectives 1, 3,
5, 6, 9, and 14; and, Economic Objectives 1.
Feasibility: This alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy numerous project
objectives, and would not provide all of the project benefits.
(d) Alternative 4, Reduced Development Footprint (Relocation of Southerly. Bank
Stabilization)
Description: This alternative generally would move the bank stabilization on the south side of
the River Corridor back by an average of 100 feet, thereby increasing the width of the River
Corridor as compared to the proposed project. The Vista Canyon Road Bridge length would be
extended from 650 to 800 feet. The residential overlay also would be eliminated, reducing the
number of residential units from a maximum of 1,324 to 1,091. Lost Canyon Road would be
extended from Fair Oaks Ranch to La Veda Avenue in a design (with traffic calming) similar to
the proposed project. All other components of the project would be incorporated into this
alternative.
Of note, since preparation of the Draft EIR, the City Council has revised the proposed project in
a manner that is consistent with certain aspects of this alternative. For example, the bank
stabilization on the south side of the River Corridor within PA -1 and PA -2, excepting the WRP,
has been moved back by an average of 100 feet. Additionally, the residential overlay has been
eliminated, and the length of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge has been extended from 650 to 750
feet.
Environmental Effects: This alternative would result in less impacts than the project in 14
categories, greater impacts in one category, and similar impacts in 9 categories. Therefore, this
alternative is considered to be environmentally superior to the project.
Relation to Project Objectives: This alternative would not fully meet or impede the following
project objective, which is defined in Section 1.4, above: Economic. Objective 2.
Feasibility: This alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy one of the project
objectives.
(e) Alternative 5, Open Space Corridor
Description: This alternative would create a north/south open space corridor from and through
the project site to undeveloped properties to the south, and would not include development in
PA -4 (Mitchell Hill). The alternative also would eliminate the extension of Lost Canyon Road to
La Veda Avenue; Lost Canyon Road would terminate in the project site, though the alternative
would still extend trail improvements from the project site along the north side of Lost Canyon
//D
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 72 of 75
Road to Sand Canyon Road. The alternative would increase the size of Oak Park (which would
include both active and passive areas) and would remove one less oak tree, as compared to the
project. In comparison to the project, 32 single-family units would be eliminated. All other
components of the project would be incorporated into this alternative.
Of note, since preparation of the Draft EIR, the City Council has revised the proposed project in
a manner that is consistent with certain aspects of this alternative. For example, a north/south
open space corridor has been created through the elimination of 26. single-family lots originally
proposed.in the area adjacent to the existing La Veda neighborhood. As a result, the size of Oak
Park has been increased. Additionally, the proposed project has eliminated commercial
development in PA -4.
Environmental Effects: This alternative would result in less impacts than the project in 12
categories, greater impacts in one category, and similar impacts in 11 categories. Therefore, this
alternative is considered to be environmentally superior to the project.
Relation to Project Objectives: This alternative would not fully meet or impede the following
project objectives, which are defined in Section 1.4, above: Land Use Planning Objective 12;
Economic Objective 2.
Feasibility: Components of this alternative were implemented by the Planning Commission (i.e.,
elimination of 26 single-family lots, increased size of Oak Park, and removal of one less oak
tree). However, full implementation of this alternative is infeasible because it would not fully
satisfy two of the project objectives.
(f) Alternative 6, Lost Canyon Road Alignment
Description: This alternative would extend Lost Canyon Road from Fair Oaks Ranch to
La Veda Avenue in an alignment running parallel and adjacent to the southerly bank
stabilization. Lost Canyon Road would be constructed to serve as a secondary highway to
the Vista Canyon Road Bridge, and as a collector through the eastern portions of the
project site. All other components of the proposed project would be incorporated into this
alternative.
Environmental Effects: The environmental impacts of this alternative would be similar to the
impacts of the project, with the exception of traffic/circulation, which would be slightly greater
than the project. Accordingly, the alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the
project.
Relation to Project Objectives: This alternative would not fully meet or impede the following
project objective, which is defined in Section 1.4, above: Land Use Planning Objective 3.
Feasibility: This alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy one of the project
objectives, and would not provide all of the project benefits.
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 73 of 75
5.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVES
Alternative sites of generally the same size within or directly adjacent to the City in the
eastern Santa Clarita Valley do not exist, are presently being utilized for other purposes,
or are the subject of other development proposals. The project involves development of a
transit -oriented, mixed-use community in an infill site, generally surrounded on all sides
by development with the necessary infrastructure adjacent to the project site. A multi-
modal transit station (Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station) would be developed as
part of the project. There are no potential alternative project sites in the local vicinity that
are similar in acreage, are close to existing or planned infrastructure improvements, and
are adjacent to the Metrolink rail line. Potential alternative sites that provide access to
similar infrastructure and alternative transit are located beyond existing urbanized areas
and, therefore, would induce growth in these non -urban areas.
6.0 ANCILLARY ANNEXATION AREA
To preface, no findings are required relative to the AAA by Public Resources Code section
21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091 as the EIR did not identify one or more significant
environmental effects for the City's proposed annexation of these properties. Nonetheless,
information regarding the environmental analysis for the AAA contained in the EIR is presented
below.
First, most of the AAA is built out. As such, the proposed changes to the land use designations
in the built out portion of the AAA and the re -assignment of those areas to a different land use
jurisdiction, practically speaking, would not result in any potentially significant environmental
impacts.
Second, additional environmental review would be required before most of the currently
undeveloped portions of the ancillary annexation area could be built out; the subsequent
environmental review processes would evaluate impacts and identify mitigation measures in
further detail than provided in this section due to the preparation of specific development plans.
At this point, it is not known whether, when or how the undeveloped portions of the ancillary
annexation area would be built out. Nonetheless, in some instances, the imposition of existing
regulatory standards and development fees would effectively ensure that impacts are not
significant. In some instances, however, it is difficult to forecast the environmental impacts of
the annexation.
That being said, design -level mitigation measures would be identified, as necessary and feasible,
during the subsequent project -level environmental review that would be undertaken in
conjunction with any additional development in the AAA, and specifically the Sand Canyon and
Jakes Way areas. It is reasonable to assume and recommend at this juncture that further
development in the AAA utilize mitigation measures comparable to those recommended for the
Vista Canyon project due to the similar nature of the development types.
The CEQA-mandated "no project" alternative likely would result in similar impacts as the
proposed AAA, as neither would preclude additional development; rather, both scenarios would
allow for development to be proposed and corresponding environmental review to be
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution "
Page 74 of 75
undertaken. Also, no alternative locations to the proposed AAA, which represents a logical
extension of the City's physical boundary and municipal service area, exist.
113
Master Case No. 07-127
AAA CEQA Resolution
Page 75 of 75
EXHIBIT B
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Ily
RESOLUTION NO. I I -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA.CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MASTER CASE 07-127 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-
001A, SPECIFIC PLAN 07-001, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 69164, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 07-009, OAK TREE PERMIT 07-019) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND
ANNEXATION OF THE 185 -ACRE VISTA CANYON.PROJECT INTO 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. An application for Master Case 07-127, the Vista Canyon project, was filed by the
project applicant, Vista Canyon, LLC (the "applicant"), with the City of Santa Clarita
on June 29, 2007. The original entitlement requests (collectively, ".Entitlements")
include:
Annexation 07-002A to annex (and amend the City's Sphere of Influence to
include) the Vista Canyon site, an approximately 185 -acre site that is
generally located southwest of Sand Canyon Road and State Route 14 ("SR -
14") in the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County.
2. Pre -zone 07-OOIA to pre -zone the Vista Canyon site to Specific Plan ("SP").
Specific Plan. 07-001 to adopt a Specific Plan that includes entitlements for
1,117 dwelling units (96 single-family detached, 1,021 multi -family attached),
646,000 square feet of commercial office, 164,000 square feet of retail, and a
200 -room hotel. A residential overlay within the Specific Plan would permit
the conversion of up to 250,000 square feet of the commercial office area to
233 additional multi -family attached dwelling units, permitting development
of the project site with up to 1,350 dwelling units and 700,000 square feet of
commercial area.
4. General Plan Amendment 07-001A to amend the General Plan Land Use Map
and Circulation Element in order to designate the Vista Canyon site as SP,
revise the Significant Ecological Area ("SEA") overlay to correspond to the
area proposed as Specific Plan -Open Space ("SP -OS"), and establish the
alignment and roadway classification for Lost Canyon Road and Vista Canyon
Road.
5. Tentative Tract Map 69164 to subdivide the 185 -acre project- site into 162
lots. In addition, each individual dwelling or commercial unit would have the
ability to be subdivided.
115
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 2 of 64
6. Conditional Use Permit 07-009 to allow for the import of up to 500,000 cubic
yards of dirt to accommodate the development within the Vista Canyon site.
Oak Tree Permit 07-019 to allow for the removal of 10, four of which are
heritage size, of the 41 oak trees located within the Specific Plan site. The
request would also permit the encroachment into the protected zone of 10 oak
trees, and pruning or trimming of seven of these 10 oak trees. Implementation
of three of the four Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road intersection options
could require an additional oak tree removal and/or up to two additional oak
tree encroachments.
As discussed at length below, the original Vista Canyon project has been revised
since the initial 2007 application for the Entitlements. As a general matter, the
modifications to the project reduce the amount and extent of site development,
thereby reducing environmental impacts and avoiding the creation of new impacts.
b. The City of Santa Clarita is also concurrently processing under Master Case 07-127 a
separate application to annex the Ancillary Annexation Area ("AAA") to the City of
Santa Clarita. The AAA includes unincorporated County of Los Angeles property
adjacent to and surrounding the Vista Canyon project site, specifically Fair Oaks
Ranch (approximately 1,082 acres), Jakes Way (approximately 260 acres), and
portions of Sand Canyon (915 acres).
C. As indicated in Paragraph (a), above, the project originally proposed to develop 1,117
dwelling units (96 single-family residential lots and 1,021 attached condominiums
(up to 579 of these attached condominium units may be rented or leased)), and up to
950,000 square feet of commercial and medical office, retail, theater, restaurant, and
hotel uses within four Planning Areas (PA). A residential overlay within the corporate
office campus site would have allowed for the conversion of up to 250,000 square
feet of office floor area to 233 attached residential units. If implemented, this
conversion would have permitted a maximum of 1,350 residential units and 700,000
square feet of commercial floor area. The original project also entailed a new Multi -
Modal Transit Station ("Transit Station), consisting of a Metrolink Station and Bus
Transfer Station. As originally proposed, there would also be approximately 18 acres
of parks/recreation facilities, including the Oak Park, Town Green, Community
Garden, River Education/Community Center, up to six private recreation facilities,
and trails. Further, the original project also included approximately 10 acres of
proposed public streets, including the extension of Lost Canyon Road from Fair Oaks
Ranch to Vista Canyon Road and the construction of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge
to connect Lost Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road.
d. The Vista Canyon site primarily is surrounded by residentially -developed land.
Residential development, commercial development and SR -14, are located to the
north of the project site. The Colony Townhomes, a multi -family residential
community, is directly west of the project site. The Fair Oaks Ranch community,
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 3 of 64
which is comprised of single-family and multi -family residential units, an elementary
school, and community park, lies to the south and west. The existing Metrolink rail
line is located to the south of the project site. The La Veda 'and Lost Canyon
residential areas, which consist of homes, and a public and private elementary school,
lie to the east. The Santa Clara River bisects the Vista Canyon site.
e. The project site is presently located in unincorporated Los Angeles County, directly
adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita. The Los Angeles County Land Use Map (as
amended through May 13, 2003) designates the project site as M (Industry) and W
(Floodplain/Floodway). The property is currently zoned M-1.5 (Light Industrial), A-
1-1 (Light Agriculture — 1 acre minimum lot size), R -A-8,000. (Residential
Agriculture — 8,000 square foot minimum lot size), and A-1-10,000 (Light
Agriculture — 10,000 square foot minimum lot size). Under the existing County light
industrial zoning designation of M-1.5 and taking into account parking and
landscaping requirements, the project site could be developed with approximately 1.0
million square feet of light industrial uses. The agricultural and residential zoned
portions of the project site could be developed with approximately 170 single-family
residential units.
f. On June 25, 1991, the City Council adopted the City of Santa Clarita General Plan via
Resolution No. 91-98. The City's General Plan presently designates the Vista
Canyon project site as Business Park with portions of the site covered by a SEA
overlay. The City's General Plan Land Use Concept identifies the project site as a
"major sub -center" with Business Park/Office Uses. Under the Business Park
designation and taking into account City parking and landscaping requirements, the
project site could be developed with approximately 4.35' million square feet of
business park floor area.
g. The County of Los Angeles and City of Santa Clarita are presently completing One
Valley One Vision ("OVOV") — a joint effort, initiated in 2000, between the City and
County to create guidelines for the future growth and development of the Santa
Clarita Valley while also preserving natural resources. The jurisdictional planning
boundaries established in OVOV include the City and its four communities
(i.e., Canyon Country, Newhall, Saugus and Valencia), and the County communities
of Stevenson Ranch, Castaic, Val Verde, Agua Dulce, and the future Newhall Ranch.
The draft OVOV Land Use Plan (dated October 2008) issued by the County
designates the project site as UR2 (Urban2 - five dwelling units per acre) with an
SEA overlay over portions of the site. Under this draft land use designation, the
project site could be developed with up to 700 residential units. However, various
goals and policies within OVOV encourage transit oriented development ("TOD")
through the permitting of higher densities and intensities, and would allow for mixed-
use, compact development in close proximity to new or existing rail stations and/or
multi -modal transit facilities. As proposed, the Vista Canyon project includes a new
Transit Station.
09
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 4 of 64
h. The Vista Canyon site was originally a portion of Mitchell Ranch, which was first
settled in 1860 by Thomas Mitchell. Thomas Mitchell was born in Virginia,
subsequently moving to Texas where, in 1852, he served under Sam Houston in the
Texas Mounted Volunteers. He went to California shortly thereafter, spending
approximately eight years in the northern California mining districts. In 1860, he
moved to the Santa Clarita Valley to start a cattle ranch. Initially, he transported a
dismantled miner's cabin down from Tehachapi and' erected it on the property, more
specifically in the southeastern portion of the project site. A few years later he
married Martha Taylor and built a more commodious adobe, about 40 feet from the
original cabin. The adobe was 60 by 45 feet in size and redwood shingled.
Eventually, Mitchell increased his holdings to nearly a thousand acres, on which he
raised cattle, produced honey, and farmed. With increasing population, and thus
children, in the valley, the Sulphur Springs School District was founded, circa 1872.
The school opened initially in the kitchen of Mitchell's adobe, was taught by Mrs.
Mitchell, and was the first school building in the Santa Clara Valley area. Circa 1885,
the student population had outgrown the single room and a wooden schoolhouse was
constructed at Sulphur Springs, on land donated by Mitchell. The Sulphur Springs
school location is directly east of the project site. Mitchell also built a two-story
home on the project site in 1888, then using the adobe as a guesthouse. Bricks from
the adobe were eventually removed from the property and the school/adobe was
reassembled at Heritage Junction in Hart Park in Newhall.
In addition to the original miner's cabin, adobe, two-story wooden house, and likely a
number of outbuildings, a family cemetery was also present on the Mitchell Ranch.
This was used to inter the Mitchell family, and their friends and neighbors. None of
the buildings referenced above remain on the Vista Canyon site. The cemetery,
however, is still present and would be preserved and enhanced by the project.
Presently, the project site is comprised primarily of undeveloped, highly disturbed
land, including various utilities, and an equipment storage yard and a single-family
residence located on the western side of the project site, and the Mitchell family
cemetery located on the small elevated terrace on the northeastern portion of the
project site.
The project site is irregularly shaped, and includes the sandy bottom of the ephemeral
Santa Clara River, a small elevated terrace on the northeastern portion of the project
site, and a larger elevated terrace that forms the southern half of the project site.
These terraces drain towards the River. Elevations on the project site range from a
high of 1,555 feet above sea level at the northeastern portion of the site, to a low of
1,465 feet above sea level in the middle of the Santa Clara River.
j. Environmental conditions on the project site have been altered substantially by
existing and historical uses of the property, including outdoor storage, agricultural
cultivation, grading, utility construction and maintenance, and residential uses.
Unauthorized dumping also has occurred on the project site. There is little remaining
IIS
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 5 of 64
natural vegetation remaining with the exception of a vegetated area on the
southeastern portion of the project site that includes oaks and introduced grasses.
k. The Vista Canyon project concentrates development on the flatter, disturbed, elevated
terraces on the project site, and as revised would preserve a River corridor averaging
over 800 feet in width. The majority of oak trees on the project site would be
preserved and incorporated into the project.
1. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA;" Pub.
Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the City of Santa Clarita is the lead agency and the
City Council is the decision-making body for the Vista Canyon project. The City's
Planning Commission is a recommending body for the Vista Canyon project.
in. The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the Vista Canyon project,
which determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment
and that an environmental impact report ("EIR") must be prepared. The Initial Study
determined that the following areas must be addressed in the EIR for the Vista
Canyon project: geotechnical hazards, flood, traffic/access, air quality, noise,
biological resources, land use, water services (including both water demand/supply
and water quality), solid . waste disposal, education, library services, parks and
recreation, fire services, sheriff services, human made hazards, visual resources,
population/housing/employment, cultural resources, agricultural resources, Santa
Clara River corridor, wastewater disposal, global climate change and utilities.
n. An initial Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Entitlements was circulated to
affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), for thirty days, beginning on July 11, 2007. A revised
NOP, reflecting various modifications made to the project was circulated, pursuant to
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, for thirty days, beginning on February 26,
2008. And, yet another revised NOP, reflecting the inclusion of the AAA, was
circulated, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA. Guidelines, for thirty days,
beginning on October 1, 2009. Agencies that received the NOPs include, but are not
limited to, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control
Board, California Department of Fish and Game, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, waste haulers,
water agencies and transportation agencies serving the Santa Clarita Valley in
accordance with CEQA's consultation requirements. Numerous comments from
public agencies, organizations, and members of the public were received in response
to the NOPs.
o. A scoping meeting was held at the City of Santa Clarita Century Conference Room
on February 27, 2008, 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 February 6, 2008, and was mailed to all property owners within 1,000
feet of the project site, in addition to approximately 80 agencies. Approximately 25
people attended the scoping meeting.
I�9
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 6 of 64
p. On July 20, 2010, at 3:30 p.m., the Planning Commission conducted a site tour of the
Vista Canyon project site.
q. The City of Santa Clarita prepared a Draft EIR (October 2010; SCH No.
2007071039) for the Vista Canyon project that addressed all issues raised by the
Initial Study and in comments received on the NOPs. The Draft EIR was circulated
for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in
compliance with CEQA. Specifically, the Notice of Availability/Notice of
Completion for the Draft EIR was filed, posted and advertised on October 19, 2010,
and the 45 -day public review period ended on December 3, 2010, 5:00 p.m. in
accordance with CEQA.
r. The City also prepared a Planning Commission Final EIR (February 2011; SCH No.
2007071039). The Planning Commission Final EIR complied with all applicable
CEQA requirements, and contained responses to all oral and written comments
received prior to January 18, 2011. The Planning Commission Final EIR also
contained a description of modifications to the Vista Canyon project made in
response to public comment, City staff recommendations, and Planning Commission
direction; copies of all comment letters received on the project; revised pages. of the
Draft EIR; and, additional supporting materials in appendices. Notice of the Planning
Commission Final EIR's availability was sent to commenting agencies, organizations
and persons on February 4, 2011.
S. The Planning Commission held duly -noticed public hearings on the Vista Canyon
project on October 19, November 2, and December 21, 2010, and February 15, 2011.
These hearings were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at
7:00 p.m. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on December 21,
2010.
On October 19, 2010, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the
Vista Canyon project; received a presentation from staff on the Vista Canyon
Specific Plan; received a Draft EIR presentation from staff on several sections
(Geotechnical Hazards, Land Use, Solid Waster Disposal, Education Services,
Library Services, Fire Services, Sheriff Services, Human -Made Hazards,
Population, Housing and Employment, Cultural Resources, Agricultural
Resource, Utilities, and Ancillary Annexation Areas); received a presentation
from the applicant, and received public testimony regarding the project.
ii. On November 2, 2010, City staff responded to questions posed by the Planning
Commission and pubic on issues related to Schools, Traffic, Grading, Solid Waste
and Annexation. City staff also made a presentation on various Draft EIR
Sections (Flood, Traffic and Access, Air Quality, Noise, Biological Resources,
Water Services, Water Quality, Parks and Recreation, Visual Resources, River
Corridor, Wastewater Disposal, Global Climate Change, and Project
lao
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 7 of 64
Alternatives). The Planning Commission also received a presentation from the
applicant and received public testimony regarding the project.
iii. On December 21, 2010, City staff responded to questions and issues raised by the
Planning Commission related to Flood, Traffic, Air Quality, Noise, Biological
Resources, Water Services, Water Quality, Parks and Recreation, Visual
Resources, River Corridor, Wastewater Disposal, Global Climate Change, and
Project Alternatives. In addition, the Planning Commission considered potential
site plan modifications, noise-, dust- and traffic -related conditions, and additional
public testimony on the project. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning
Commission directed staff and the applicant to bring back a site plan reflecting
various project modifications (detailed below), and directed staff to incorporate
the following specific requirements into the revised site plan and/or conditions of
approval for the project:
1. Elimination of the 26 single-family lots located in the area adjacent
to the existing La Veda neighborhood. Elimination of these lots
increased the size of the proposed Oak Park to over 10 acres,
eliminated the removal of one heritage oak tree, and allowed for
the preservation and enhancement of the north/south animal
movement corridor from the Santa Clara River through the project
site to undeveloped land to the south. This project revision
incorporated aspects of Draft EIR Alternative 5 (Open Space
Corridor).
2. Selection of the "Roundabout" (Intersection Design Option 3) at
the Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road intersection.
3. Removal of the properties south of Placerita Canyon Road from
the AAA, with the exception of the City's Walker Ranch Open
Space property. Removal of these properties reduced the size of
the Sand Canyon annexation area from 1,723 acres to 915 acres.
4. Require, as a condition of approval, the project applicant to
minimize potential dust and vibration impacts associated with
project -related construction to the existing La Veda neighborhood.
5. Require, as a condition of approval, the project applicant to retain a
qualified biologist to prepare an animal movement corridor plan,
which would address corridor design, specifications for an
undercrossing under Lost Canyon Road, and plant materials for the
corridor.
6. Require, as a condition of approval, the project applicant to
construct an eight -foot tall wall/berm in locations along the
southerly Metrolink right-of-way adjacent to the proposed station
to reduce train -related noise to off-site properties.
/al
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 8 of 64
7. Require the applicant to fund a crossing guard for a temporary time
period after the completion of the intersection improvements at
Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road.
t. On February 15, 2011, the modified site plan, Planning Commission Final EIR
(February 2011), resolutions and conditions of approval were presented to the
Planning Commission. The Commission also received public testimony regarding the
project. As a result of the project modifications made during the proceedings before
the Planning Commission, the revised site plan recommended by the Planning
Commission proposes a total of 1,091 residential units (1,324 under the residential
overlay), 950,000 square feet of commercial floor area (700,000 square feet under the
residential overlay), Transit Station, a 10 -acre neighborhood park and other
recreational amenities.
U. At the conclusion of the February 15, 2011 public hearing, the Planning Commission
voted to recommend that the City Council certify the Planning Commission Final EIR
(see Resolution No. P11-02) and approve the Vista Canyon project as revised (see
Resolution No. P11-01). The Planning Commission also recommended that the City
Council adopt (i) a Statement of Overriding- Considerations for those impacts of the
Vista Canyon project that cannot be mitigated to less -than -significant levels, and (ii)
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ("MMRP") (see Resolution No. P11-
02).
The Planning Commission considered the Draft EIR (October 2010) and Planning
Commission Final EIR (February 2011) prepared for the Vista Canyon project, as
well as information provided in staff reports, presented to the Planning Commission
from experts, and presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the
Planning Commission following the close of the Draft EIR public comment period up
to January 18, 2011, prior to recommending approval of the Vista Canyon project.
V. Following the February 15, 2011 hearing, the City prepared the Final EIR (April
2011; SCH No. 2007071039). The Final EIR contained copies of all late written
comment letters; responses to all oral and written comments received on or after
January 18, 2011 and prior to April 8, 2011; and, a description of additional
modifications to the Vista Canyon project made in response to public comment, City
staff recommendations, and City Council direction (see Paragraph (w), below).
Notice of the Final EIR's availability was provided on April 15, 2011 to commenting
agencies, organizations and persons.
w. The City Council subsequently held duly -noticed public hearings on the Vista
Canyon project on March 22 and April 26, 2011. These hearings were held at City
Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:00 p.m. The City Council closed
the public hearing on April 26, 2011.
i. On March 22, 2011, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the Vista
Canyon project. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council directed staff
and the applicant to bring back a site plan and conditions reflecting various
M
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 9 of 64
project modifications (detailed below), and directed staff to incorporate, the
following specific requirements into the revised site plan and/or conditions of
approval for the project:
1. Increase the length of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge over the
Santa Clara River from 650 feet to 750 feet.
2. Increase the River Corridor width in PA -1 and PA -2 by an average
of 100 feet (excepting the proposed water reclamation plant, which
is located in an area outside of California Department of Fish and
Game's jurisdiction). With this modification, the average width of
the River Corridor on the project site would be over 800 feet. This
change requires the redistribution of residential and commercial
land uses in PA -1 and PA -2.
3. Eliminate commercial development within PA -4 (Mitchell Hill),
resulting in no commercial or residential development north of the
Santa Clara River Corridor.
4. Relocate the Town Green in PA -2 from its present location
adjacent to the Metrolink right-of-way and Transit Station to a
location near the southern abutment of the Vista Canyon Road
Bridge. This relocation would locate the Town Green along the
Santa Clara River directly north of the office and hotel buildings
located to the east of Vista Canyon Road.
5. Eliminate the residential overlay and establish a residential and
commercial development cap on the project of 1,100 residential
units and' 950,000 square feet of commercial floor area.
6. Add the following conditions to the project:
a. Require the staff and applicant to work together on a
Recreational Amenity Plan for the Mitchell Hill Open
Space. The plan would include site security improvements
and the construction of unimproved access (decomposed
granite or similar surface) to the Mitchell Hill Open Space.
The applicant shall also construct improvements identified
in the approved Recreational Amenity Plan. The applicant
shall receive .Park Development Fee (PDF) credit for the
constructed improvements.
b. Require the applicant to pay all costs and complete the
restoration of the Mitchell Family cemetery, including the
extension of water and electricity to the cemetery.
�a3
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 10 of 64
C. Require the project's Landscape Maintenance District to
pay for ongoing maintenance, of the Oak Park, River
Corridor and Mitchell Hill Open Space (including the
Mitchell Family cemetery).
d. Require the applicant to provide $300,000 in funding to be
used for the City's construction of the Sand Canyon Road
Trail from Roadrunner Avenue to Lost Canyon Road, and
un -constructed portions of the Sand Canyon trail between
Roadrunner Avenue and Sultus Street.
e. Require that project lighting be decorative and down lit,
including along public roadways and the Vista Canyon
Road Bridge.
f. Require that no lighting be permitted on Lost Canyon Road
from La Veda Avenue to a point 300 feet from the eastern
project boundary due to the animal movement corridor.
g. Require that no lighting be permitted on trails adjacent to
the animal movement corridor or along the Santa Clara
River.
h. Require that the applicant use its best efforts, working with
City staff, to acquire an off-site, 20 -foot wide, trail
easement to be located on the property to the south of the
existing railroad undercrossing to allow for the connection
of the Vista Canyon trail system to the Fair Oaks
Ranch/Golden Valley trail system and to the City's trail
system at the western terminus of Roadrunner Avenue.
i. Require- that the project's loop trail, from the project's
eastern boundary to the existing railroad undercrossing, be
decomposed granite (or similar surface) at a width of 20
feet.
j. Require that the project's loop trail, from the existing
railroad undercrossing to Vista Square, be decomposed
granite (or similar surface) at a width of 12 feet.
k. Require that the slope of the bank stabilization in the area
of the animal movement corridor not exceed a grade of
2.5:1 to provide access for wildlife to enter into the River.
1. Require that a conservation easement be recorded over the
animal movement corridor on-site and that the applicant
working with City staff use their best efforts to acquire a
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 11 of 64
conservation easement off-site on the property directly to
the south to preserve the animal corridor through the
project site and to the south.
With these additional modifications incorporated, the Vista Canyon project would
result in the following land uses:
A maximum of 1,100 residential units.
2. A maximum of 050,000 square feet of commercial floor area.
3. A Transit Station, consisting of a Metrolink Station and Bus
Transfer Station.
4. A water reclamation plant.
Various infrastructure, recreation and open space improvements,
including streets, utilities, the Oak Park, Town Green, Community
Garden, up to six private recreational areas, the River Corridor and
Mitchell Hill Open Space area.
X. On April 26, 2011, the City Council received public testimony, closed the public
hearing, certified the Final EIR, and adopted all of the necessary approval documents
(e.g., resolutions and ordinances) for approval of the project. The Draft EIR (October
2010), Planning Commission Final EIR (February 2011), and Final EIR (April 2011)
have been prepared and circulated in compliance with CEQA.
y. Based upon the Draft EIR (October 2010), Planning Commission Final EIR (February
2011), and Final EIR (April 2011), staff and consultant presentations, staff reports,
applicant presentations, and public comments and testimony, the City Council finds
that the Vista Canyon project, as modified, will not adversely affect the health, peace,
comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor will the Vista Canyon project
be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the
vicinity of the project site; nor will the Vista Canyon project jeopardize, endanger or
otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the
project conforms with the zoning ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land
uses. The Vista Canyon project proposes the extension of all utilities and services to
the project site. Currently, all required utilities and services are available at locations
adjacent to the project site.
Additionally, the City Council finds that all public hearings pertaining to the Vista
Canyon project were duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for
each of the Entitlements. The project was advertised in The Signal, through on-site
posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first-class mailing to property
owners within 1,000 feet of the Vista Canyon project site and AAA. In addition, the
date and time of each public hearing was posted on three signs at the project site, as
well as eight off-site signs.
rM
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 12 of 64
aa. The location of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is based for the Master Case .
07-127 project file is with the Community Development Department; the record
specifically is in the custody of the Director of Community Development.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS. The
City Council does hereby make the following findings of facts:
a. On April 26, 2011, the City Council certified the Final EIR (SCH No. 2007071039) by
separate resolution for Master Case 07-127, which was prepared in compliance with
CEQA. For purposes of this finding, the Final EIR is comprised of the Draft EIR
(October 2010), Planning Commission Final EIR (February 2011), and Final EIR (April
2011).
SECTION 3. FINDINGS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-00IA. Based on the
above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire
Vista Canyon EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings,
reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council,
and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City Council, and on
behalf of each, the City Council finds, as follows:
a. Following approval of General Plan Amendment 07-OOIA to the Land Use Element
Land Use Map, the Vista Canyon project is consistent with the General Plan Specific
Plan designation for the project site.
Furthermore, General Plan Amendment 07-OOIA is consistent with the City's General
Plan, as documented in the Vista Canyon EIR. Section 4.7 (Land Use) of the Vista
Canyon EIR contains a detailed analysis documenting the project's consistency with the
City's General Plan.
b. The proposed General Plan Amendment 07-OOIA is in compliance with Section
65358(b) of the Government Code in that the Land Use Element has been amended no
more than four times in the current calendar year.
c. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any, received at the public hearing, and
upon studies and investigations made by the City Council, the City Council further
finds and determines that this proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan.
SECTION 4. FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 07-001. Based on the above findings of fact
and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Vista Canyon EIR, oral
and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other
transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies
and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and on behalf of
each, the City Council finds, as follows:. .
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 13 of 64
a. The Vista Canyon Specific Plan would promote and protect the public health, safety
and welfare.
b. The Vista Canyon Specific. Plan would implement the objectives and policies of the
General Plan.
c. The Vista Canyon Specific Plan would safeguard and enhance environmental
amenities, such as oak trees and significant ridgelines, and enhance the quality of
development.
d. The Vista Canyon Specific Plan would attain the physical, social and economic
advantage resulting from comprehensive and orderly planned use of land resources.
e. The Vista Canyon Specific Plan would lessen congestion and assure convenience of
access; secure safety from fire, flood and other dangers; provide for adequate light, air,
sunlight and open space; promote and encourage conservation of scarce resources;
facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; attain a
desirable balance of residential and employment opportunities; and expedite the
provision of adequate and essential public services.
f. The Vista Canyon Specific Plan would facilitate development within the City in
accordance with the General Plan by permitting greater flexibility and, consequently,
more creative and imaginative designs for large-scale development projects than
generally are possible under conventional zoning regulations.
g. The Vista Canyon Specific Plan would promote more economical and efficient use of
the land while providing a harmonious variety of housing choices and commercial and
industrial activities, a high level of urban amenities and preservation of natural and
scenic qualities of open space.
h. The Vista Canyon Specific Plan would provide a process for initiation, review and
regulation of large-scale comprehensively planned communities that affords the
maximum flexibility to the developer within the context of an overall development
program and specific, phased development plans coordinated with the provision of
necessary public services and facilities.
SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 69164. Based on the above findings
of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Vista Canyon
EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and
other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon
studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and on
behalf of each, the City Council finds, as follows:
a. The Vista Canyon project, together with the provisions for its design and improvements,
is consistent with the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan, as amended by General Plan
1a�
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 14 of 64
Amendment 07-001A, and the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code, as amended by
Pre -zone 07-00 IA.
The project, as revised, proposes to develop 1,100 dwelling units, and up to 950,000
square feet of commercial and medical office, retail, theater, restaurant, and hotel uses
within three PAs. The project would result in the construction of a new Transit Station,
which is comprised of both a Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station. There would
also be approximately 21 acres of parks/recreation facilities, including the Oak Park,
Town Green, Community Garden, private recreation facilities, and project trails. Up to
six private recreational facilities would be constructed throughout the project. Further,
there are approximately 10 acres of proposed public streets, including the extension of
Lost Canyon Road from Fair Oaks Ranch to Vista Canyon Road and the construction of
the Vista Canyon Road Bridge to connect Lost Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road.
All of the proposed uses listed above are not uses known to create public health
problems.
The proposed project design has been reviewed by the appropriate City departments and
external agencies, including the Los Angeles County Fire Department, for compliance
with applicable codes and regulations. Conditions of approval and mitigation measures
have been placed on the project to ensure compliance with state and local regulations.
Additionally, the design of the subdivision and types of improvements are not likely to
cause serious health problems.
b. The Vista Canyon project site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed.
Development within the site will be concentrated within three adjacent PAs. The project
is designed to deliver a premier mixed-use, transit -oriented neighborhood to the eastern
Santa Clarita Valley. The project will create a unique, environmentally sensitive
neighborhood where people can live, work, play and shop. The project's design includes
a new Transit Station to facilitate transit use and reduced automobile trips. Additionally,
the project creates a one -of -a -kind opportunity for new employment in the eastern Santa
Clarita Valley with premier office, retail and residential uses integrated within a street
system oriented around a "Main Street."
The Vista Canyon project has been designed to preserve the Santa Clara River corridor
with over 50% of the site being dedicated to open space or recreation. Over four miles of
trails would be constructed by the project including significant extensions of the Santa
Clara River Trail.
Residential neighborhoods have been located on the project site in areas that are in close
proximity to regional roadways, transit, recreation and commercial uses.
Development within the PAs has also,been designed to preserve most of the oak trees on-
site and preserve a river corridor with an average width of over 800 feet. Of the 41 oak
trees on-site, nine will be removed, and one of those will be relocated on site.
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 15 of 64
The Vista Canyon project site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
With approval of the General Plan Amendment 07-OOIA and Pre -zone 07-00IA, the
proposed project is appropriate for the subject property.
The project site consists of approximately 185 acres, directly adjacent to the City of Santa
Clarita. The project site is surrounded by developed land uses, which are primarily
residential and commercial development. The project site is located between the
Metrolink rail tracks and SR -14. Existing roadways provide access to the project site.
From the west is Lost Canyon Road (a major highway), which presently terminates just
beyond the Metrolink right-of-way. Access from the east also is provided by Lost
Canyon Road, which presently terminates directly west of La Veda Avenue. Access to
the north would be from Soledad Canyon Road (a major highway) via the proposed Vista
Canyon Road.
The project site is characterized by generally flat land on elevated terraces along both
sides of the Santa Clara River. The site includes a reach of the Santa Clara River
between Lost Canyon Road to the west and La Veda Avenue to the east. Surface flows
within this portion of the Santa Clara River are seasonal, generally occurring during the
winter months after periods of heavy rainfall. Additionally, the project site, including
this reach of the River, has been disturbed by various utility easements, illegal dumping
and unauthorized off-road vehicles.
Under the existing County light industrial zoning designation of M-1.5 and taking into
account parking and landscaping requirements, the project site could be developed with
approximately 1.0 million square feet of light industrial uses. The agricultural and
residential zoned portions of the project site could be developed with approximately 170
single-family residential units. Industrial development of the property would not be
compatible with surrounding primarily residential land uses.
Project development would occur primarily in the flat, disturbed, elevated terraces along
the River and will be concentrated around the project's proposed Metrolink and bus
transfer stations. The City's General Plan strongly encourages the development of
transit -oriented, mixed-use projects that reduce vehicle trips and encourage pedestrian
mobility. Additionally, the project would provide a diversity of housing types oriented
around services, transit and employment and recreational uses, while preserving and
enhancing the Santa Clara River corridor.
d. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish and
wildlife or their habitat.
The potential environmental impacts of the Vista Canyon project are analyzed in detail in
the EIR. The project includes many measures specifically designed to avoid
/a9
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 16 of 64
environmental impacts and to reduce the level of potential biological impacts to less than
significant. In fact, all of the project's biological impacts have been reduced to a less -
than -significant level due to project design and imposition of mitigation measures.
The project tailors its development to the site's physical features to minimize impacts to
the site's significant natural topographic prominent feature (Santa Clara River). Over
50% of the project site would be preserved as open space or recreational uses, including
preservation and enhancement of the Santa Clara River corridor through the project site.
Additionally, the' project has been modified to pull back a majority of the bank
stabilization in PA -1 and PA -2 an average of 100 feet, extend the Vista Canyon Road
Bridge from 650 to 750 feet in length, and preserve and enhance a north/south animal
movement corridor through the project's proposed Oak Park. The majority of oak trees
located on-site would be preserved by the project.
e. The design of the subdivision and types of improvement will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision.
Adjacent properties can be accessed from the surrounding system of public streets and
roads. The Vista Canyon project site will be served by an internal street system with
primary access from Lost Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road (via Vista, Canyon
Road). The project would also include over four miles of trails, including significant
extensions of the Santa Clara River Trail on both sides of the River.
SECTION 6. FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-009. Based on the above
findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Vista
Canyon EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings,
reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council,
and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and
on behalf of each, the City Council finds, as follows:
a. That the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the Vista
Canyon project are in accordance with the purpose of the City's Unified Development
Code, the purpose of the zones in which the project site is located, the City's General
Plan, as amended by General Plan Amendment 07-001A, and the development policies
and standards of the City.
The Vista Canyon Specific Plan includes, residential, commercial, transit, open space and
recreational uses that are consistent with the proposed General Plan land use designations
and pre -zoning for the project site, as amended. Compliance with the Specific Plan zone
and the project's Specific Plan is required as a condition of project approval.
b. That the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be
compatible with and will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent
uses, residents, buildings, structures, or natural resources, with consideration given to:
ria
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 17 of 64
i. Harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density;
ii. The availability of public facilities, services, and utilities;
iii. The harmful effect, if any, upon desirable neighborhood character;
iv. The generation of traffic and the capacity and physical character of surrounding
streets;
v. The suitability of the site for the type and intensity of use or development which is
proposed;
vi. The harmful effect, if any, upon environmental quality and natural resources.
The conditional use permit is necessary to permit the import of up to 500,000 cubic yard
of dirt to the project site to implement the Specific Plan.
The Vista Canyon project is in harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density with
adjacent uses. As revised, development within the site will be concentrated within three
Planning Areas as follows:
• PA -1, located near the westerly project boundary, would include up to 480 multi-
family, attached units. These multi -family units would be located adjacent to
existing multi -family neighborhoods to the west. Three private recreational
facilities, trails, water quality improvements, surface and structure parking also
would be located in PA -1. The maximum building height in PA -1 is 50 feet
(excluding architectural elements, which can extend up to 60 feet). The project's
water reclamation plant would also be located in PA -1. Building heights would be
compatible with adjacent attached residential neighborhoods to the west.
• PA -2, located in the center of the project, includes 325 attached residential units,
646,000 square feet of office space, 164,000 square feet of retail space and a 200 -
room hotel. Up to four parking structures, the Transit Station, Vista Square and
the Town Green would be located within PA -2. PA -2 includes a unique mix of
office, retail and residential uses within a street system oriented around a "Main
Street." All residential structures within PA -2 would have a maximum height of
50 feet (excluding architectural elements, which can extend up to 60 feet). The
vast majority of commercial structures in PA -2 would be limited to a maximum
height of 55 feet (architectural elements could extend up to 66 feet). The office
buildings located at the intersection of Lost Canyon Road and Vista Canyon Road
and along Vista Canyon Road would vary in height from 50 feet to 95 feet (not
including architectural elements). The two, six -story office buildings are located
approximately 900 feet from the existing Fair Oaks neighborhood and 2,000 feet
from the La Veda Avenue neighborhood. The Specific Plan would also permit
the transfer of up to 81 residential units from PA -2 to PA -3.
• PA -3 is located in the southeast portion of the project site and includes 295
residential units, which can either single-family or multi -family units. PA -3 also
includes the project's primary private recreational facility and the 10 -acre Oak
Park (including the River Education Center). Building heights in PA -3 would be
limited to 35 feet, consistent with existing residential development to the east.
13i
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 18 of 64
The residential structures in PA -3 would be separated from the La Veda Avenue
neighborhood by the Oak Park and would be located approximately 450 feet from
the nearest existing home.
Public facilities, services and utilities are available to the Vista Canyon project and the
provision of these facilities, services and utilities will not adversely affect or be
detrimental to adjacent residents, buildings, structures, or natural resources. The project
site is in a sensible location for development. The project site is located in an area
surrounded by development is adjacent to existing infrastructure, utilities and other urban
services, public transit, and transportation corridors. The site has already been disturbed
and a portion of the site is being presently used for residential and storage uses. The
project includes mitigation measures and recommended conditions of ' approval that
provide for the coordination of public infrastructure development with development of
the site.
The Vista Canyon project has been designed to preserve the Santa Clara River corridor
and to provide extensive open space and recreational areas. Over 50% of the project site
would be retained as open space or recreational uses including the Santa Clara River
Corridor, Oak Park, Town Green, Community Garden and up to six private recreational
areas.
The Vista Canyon project is compatible with and will not adversely affect or be
materially detrimental to adjacent residents due to the generation of traffic and physical
character of surrounding streets. Vehicular access to and from the Specific Plan site
would be from four existing roadways. Primary access to the site would be from: (a)
Soledad Canyon Road, via the new Vista Canyon Road Bridge, to the north; (b) the
westerly Lost Canyon Road within Fair Oaks Ranch which would be extended into the
project site; (c) Jakes Way, which would be extended easterly from its present terminus
to Lost Canyon Road; and, (d) secondary access via Lost Canyon Road, from its present
terminus near La Veda Avenue would be extended into the site as a residential connector
with extensive Access to the Vista Canyon project The EIR includes all feasible
mitigation to minimize or reduce traffic impacts.
The Vista Canyon site is suitable for the type and intensity proposed and will not
adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent residents or uses. Under the
existing County light industrial zoning designation of M-1.5 and taking into account
parking and landscaping requirements, the project site could be developed with
approximately 1.0 million square feet of light industrial uses. The agricultural and
residential zoned portions of the project site could be developed with approximately 170
single-family residential units. Industrial development of the property would not be
compatible with the surrounding land uses, which are predominately residential.
Project development would occur primarily in the flat, elevated terraces along the River
and will be concentrated around the project's Transit Station. The City's General Plan
strongly encourages the development of transit -oriented, mixed-use projects that reduce
vehicle trips and encourage pedestrian mobility. Additionally, the project would provide
132-
Mastef Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 19 of 64
a diversity of housing types oriented around services, transit and employment and
recreational uses, while preserving and enhancing the Santa Clara River corridor.
The Vista Canyon project will be compatible with and not adversely affect or be
materially detrimental to adjacent residents, buildings, structures, or natural resources
with consideration given to the harmful effect of the project on the environment and
natural resources. The potential environmental impacts of the Vista Canyon project are
analyzed in the EIR. The project includes many mitigation measures specifically
designed to avoid environmental impacts, or to reduce the level of potential impacts to
less than significant. Of the project's potential impacts, the majority are either less than
significant or have been reduced to a less -than -significant level through imposition of
feasible mitigation measures. Compliance with the conditions of approval and the
mitigation measures contained in the MMRP for the Vista Canyon project ensures that
the project will be compatible with and that it will not be materially detrimental to
adjacent uses, residents, buildings, structures, or natural resources.
c. That the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use
and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
The Vista Canyon project's potential impacts on the public health, safety and general
welfare and on properties or improvements in the vicinity were analyzed in the EIR.
Those impacts were either less than significant or were significant but reduced to a level
below significant through mitigation. The project site will not contain uses that will be
engaged in hazardous activities or that will be permitted to emit substantial amounts of
hazardous contaminants or pollutants into the air or water. The EIR found that the
proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the project's proposed
uses and the conditions under which they would be operated or maintained would not be
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
d. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the City's
Unified Development Code, except for an approved variance or adjustment.
The Vista Canyon project includes a Specific .Plan. The Vista Canyon Specific Plan
establishes the development plans, development regulations, design guidelines, and
implementation program necessary to achieve orderly and compatible development of
Vista Canyon. The Specific Plan has been prepared in conjunction with a pre -zone
request to designate the project site as SP. The City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code,
section 17.16.030, establishes provisions for the SP zone and the project is consistent
with those provisions. Therefore, the proposed project, with an approved General Plan
Amendment, Pre -zone, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, and Oak
Tree Permit is consistent with the objectives of the Unified Development Code, the
General Plan, and development policies of the City of Santa Clarita.
133
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 20 of 64
SECTION 7. FINDINGS FOR OAK TREE PERMIT 07-019. Based on the above findings of
fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Vista Canyon EIR,
oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other
transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies
and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and on behalf of
each, the City Council finds, as follows:
a. The condition or location of the oak tree(s) requires cutting to maintain or aid its health,
balance or structure.
As described in the oak tree reports and addenda prepared for the proposed project, 41
oak trees exist on project site. Of these oaks, the majority would not be removed. Nine
oaks are proposed for removal and nine would be would be encroached upon. Of the
removals, three would be heritage oaks. Two off-site oak trees would he encroached
upon, one for the extension of a multi-purpose trail along Lost Canyon Road and the
other for "roundabout". intersection improvements at Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon
Road.
The proposed removals and encroachments are necessary in order to grade and develop
the project site under the Specific Plan. With regard to pruning and cutting of oak
trees, remaining oak trees which require clearance pruning necessary for oak tree
preservation during construction shall be completed in the presence of the project
arborist and/or by an .approved qualified tree trimming contractor with ISA certified
staff. This will ensure that pruning take place as necessary and under the supervision of
a licensed arborist.
b. The condition of the tree(s) with respect to disease, danger of falling, proximity to
existing lots, pedestrian walkways or interference with utility services cannot be
controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures
and practices.
Project grading and implementation requires the removal of nine on-site oak trees to
allow reasonable use of the property. All of the oak trees proposed for removal are
located in PA -2 on a small hill that is being cut as part of project improvements. The
removal of these oaks could not be remedied with any reasonable preservation or
preventative practices.
c. It is necessary to remove, relocate, prune, cut or encroach into the protected zone of an
oak tree to enable reasonable use of the subject property which is otherwise prevented
by the presence of the tree and no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to
the unique physical development constraints of the property.
The Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance is intended to prevent uncontrolled and
indiscriminate destruction of oak trees. Development on the Vista Canyon project site
has been designed to avoid or minimize removals of and encroachments to the 41
protected oak trees on-site, 21 of which are heritage oaks as defined by the City. The
13q
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 21 of 64
majority of oaks on-site occur in two locations, the first being the proposed Oak Park
and the second on a small hill located in the middle of the project site. Due to Vista
Canyon's design, 15 of the oak trees, which are located within the proposed Oak Park,
will not be affected by development. The nine oak trees proposed for removal are all
located on the small hill within the middle of the project site. Three of these trees are
heritage oak trees. Due to the trees being located on the side of the hill, relocation of
eight of the nine trees is not feasible. One of the trees is proposed for relocation. The
request would also permit encroachment into the protected zone of nine oak trees on-
site, as well pruning or trimming of seven of these nine trees. Off-site, encroachment
would occur on two oak trees related to project trail and roadway improvements.
Alternatives to avoid these trees would require a substantial modification to the project
design and would result in the loss of the Transit Station and a majority of the project's
office and retail uses. Therefore, it is necessary to remove, prune and encroach into the
protected zone of oak trees to enable the reasonable use of the subject property that is
otherwise prevented by the presence of the trees and no reasonable alternative can be
accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints of the property.
d. The approval of the request will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general
purpose and intent of the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance.
The Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance is intended to prevent uncontrolled and
indiscriminate destruction of oak trees. Development on the Vista Canyon project site
has been designed to avoid or minimize removals of and encroachments to the 41
protected oak trees on-site, 21 of which are heritage oaks as defined by the City. Please
see discussion related to finding a. above.
The approval of the requested Oak Tree Permit would not conflict with the general
purpose and intent of the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance or with the adopted policies
of the General Plan. The proposed oak tree removals are necessary in order to
construct the necessary project improvements.
To mitigate for impacts to oak trees as a result of the proposed project, the applicant is
required to mitigate for the entire ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) dollar
value as required by the EIR. Adherence to the mitigation measures in the EIR ensures
consistency with the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance.
e. No heritage oak tree shall be removed unless one or more of the above findings are
made and the decision maker also finds that the heritage oak tree's continued existence
would prevent any reasonable development of the property and that no reasonable
alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical constraints of the property.
It shall further be found that the removal of such heritage oak tree will not be
unreasonably detrimental to the community and surrounding area.
As described in.the oak tree reports and addenda prepared for the proposed project, 41
oak trees exist on project site, including 21 heritage -sized oak trees. Of these oaks, the
majority would not be removed. The nine oak trees proposed for removal are all
/35
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 22 of 64
located on the small hill within the middle of the project site. Three of these trees are
heritage oak trees. Alternatives to avoid these trees would require a substantial
modification to the project design and would result in the loss of the Metrolink station,
bus transfer station and a majority of the project's office and retail uses. Therefore, it is
necessary to remove, prune and encroach into the protected zone of oak trees, including
heritage oak trees, to enable the reasonable use of the subject property that is otherwise
prevented by the presence of the trees and no reasonable alternative can be
accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints of the property.
SECTION 8. WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT. Pursuant to California Water Code Section
10911, the City Council hereby determines that, based on the above findings of fact and recitals
and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Vista Canyon EIR, oral and written
testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from
City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies and investigations
made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, including, without limitation, the water
supply assessment prepared for the project and attachments thereto, projected water supplies will
be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the Vista Canyon project, in addition to existing and
planned future uses.
SECTION 9. The City Council hereby approves Master Case 07-127, which consists of: General
Plan Amendment 07-OOIA (amending the General Plan Land Use Map (Exhibit A) and
Circulation Element in order to designate the Vista Canyon site as SP, revising the Significant
Ecological Area ("SEA") overlay to correspond to the area proposed as Specific Plan -Open
Space ("SP -OS"), and establishing the alignment and roadway classification for Lost Canyon
Road and Vista Canyon Road), Specific Plan 07-001 (Exhibit B — Incorporated by Reference),
Tentative Tract Map 69164 (Exhibit C — Incorporated by Reference), Conditional Use Permit 07-
009, and Oak Tree Permit 07-019 for the development and annexation of Vista Canyon Project,
into the City of Santa Clarita, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit D).
This Resolution will take effect upon the adjournment of the City Council's April 26, 2011 City
Council hearing. The change to the City's General Plan contemplated herein will take effect
upon adjournment of the hearing and simultaneously with any other -changes to the General Plan
approved by the City Council at the same April 26, 2011 hearing, such that all changes to the
General Plan approved on April 26, 2011 shall constitute one amendment to the General Plan for
purposes of Government Code section 65358.
SECTION 10. 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.
/3�
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 23 of 64
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 2011.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Kevin Tonoian, Acting City Clerk, of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. was regularly introduced and passed at a regular meeting
of the City Council on the day of , 2011 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
/3%
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 24 of 64
EXHIBIT A
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
ATTACHED
FM401161
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 25 of 64
EXHIBIT B
SPECIFIC PLAN
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
/�fD
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 26 of 64
EXHIBIT C
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 69164
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 27 of 64
EXHIBIT D
FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL CONDITIONS
GC 1. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the
applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant.
The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or
its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this
Project by the City, which action is provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37.
In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City
shall promptly notify the applicant, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense,
the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless
the City. Nothing contained in this Condition prohibits the City from participating in the
defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both of the following occur: 1) The City
bears its own attorney's fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith.
The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement
is approved by the applicant.
GC2. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the
approvals granted by the City. Any modifications shall be subject to further review by
the City.
GC3. It is further declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof is
violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the City may commence
proceedings to revoke this approval.
PLANNING DIVISION
PL1. The approval of Tentative Tract Map 69164, and other accessory entitlements, shall
expire if a Tract Map is not recorded within two (2) years from the date of conditional
approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the City of
Santa Clarita's Unified Development Code (UDC).
PL2. The applicant may file for a one-year extension of the approved project during the initial
two-year approval, prior to the date of expiration. If such an extension is requested, it
must be filed no later than 60 days prior to expiration.
PL3. The applicant shall sign and have notarized the attached Acceptance Form. This form
shall be returned to the City's Planning Division.
PL4. The applicant shall be granted approval to construct the proposed project in accordance
with the approved Specific Plan. The applicant shall comply with all of the requirements
of the Specific Plan, including the project's Sustainability Plan. All buildings and
1�
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 28 of 64
parking areas and other site improvements and elements are subject to the approval of a
Development Review and approval of the Director of Community Development to ensure
conformance with the Specific Plan and all relevant development codes unless otherwise
stated in the Specific Plan.
PLS. All mitigation measures identified in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) for the project shall be considered conditions of approval and
implemented in conformance with the approved MMRP.
PL6. Prior to project grading the City shall hire a mitigation monitoring consultant to ensure all
mitigation measures are completed in conformance with the requirements of the EIR.
All costs associated with this mitigation monitoring consultant shall be borne by the
applicant.
PL7. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Department of Community
Development, in writing, of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or
change in the status of the developer, within 30 days of said change.
PL8. Decorative, downward directed lighting shall be used throughout the project, including
public roadways and the Vista Canyon Road Bridge to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development.
PL9. When grading or other construction activities occur within the project's boundaries the
applicant shall be required to apply sufficient quantities of water or a stabilizing agent to
minimize the generation of visible dust plumes. Additionally, prior to initiating grading
or other construction activities within 2,500 feet of the western property lines for La
Veda Avenue, the applicant shall send a letter to each of the La Veda Avenue property
owners identifying a contact person, their phone number and e-mail address to file dust
complaints related to project grading. The applicant shall promptly respond, within one
business day, to these complaints and use its best efforts to resolve them. In the event a
verifiable and measurable impact is visible at a homeowner's property, developer shall
immediately remedy the situation at its own cost and expense. The applicant and
homeowners shall work together in a reasonable manner to resolve any complaints or
concerns.
PL10. The portion of the project site adjacent to La Veda Avenue is proposed for the
development of a trail, the extension of Lost Canyon Road, and the Oak Park. The
project applicant shall be required to minimize, to the extent feasible, the use of loaded
trucks or heavy excavating equipment within 300 feet of residences located along La
Veda Avenue. If it is necessary to use heavy equipment within 300 feet of these
residences, the applicant shall provide advanced notice to the residents advising that there
will be the potential for construction activity. Additionally, the project applicant shall
install vibration monitors along the project boundary with the residences along La Veda
Avenue to ensure that peak particle velocity (PPV) does not exceed 0.2 PPV at the
project boundary. A PPV equal to or greater than 0.2 PPV which is equal to or greater
then a vibration at a magnitude of 2.0 inches per second has the potential to cause
/Y3
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 29 of 64
superficial damage to structures. The vibration monitors will be maintained in proper
calibration and these records will also be made available to the City on a monthly basis.
The results of these vibration monitors shall be made available to the City on a monthly
basis.
The following two vibration "action level" threshold values will be used:
• "warning" vibration threshold value of 0.2 inches per second PPV,
• "stop work" vibration threshold value of 0.5 inches per second PPV,
These are described below.
The vibration "warning" threshold level is 0.2 inches per second PPV. If this level is
exceeded then the situation will be reviewed to identify the potential cause.
• The vibration "stop work" threshold is 0.5 inches per second PPV. This threshold
level is the U.S. Bureau of Mines vibration criteria to avoid possible cosmetic damage
to structures with concrete foundations, timber framing. The potential causes of such
vibration will be reviewed and possible mitigation methods investigated.
Prior to initiating grading activities the applicant agrees to record (via videotape or digital
technology) the existing condition of the properties and exteriors of the structures along
La Veda Avenue, where expressed permission is granted to enter such properties. The
applicant will make available copies of these recordings to the City. A copy of each
recording will also be sent to each corresponding property owner.
If damage is documented to a respective property as evidenced by the vibration monitors
or the recordings, the applicant shall remedy the situation in a timely manner at its own
cost and expense. The work will be performed by a licensed Contractor or other
individual agreeable to both parties.
PL11. The project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to prepare an animal movement
corridor plan which will address corridor design, specifications for an undercrossing
under Lost Canyon Road, and plant materials. for the north/south corridor extending from
the Santa Clara River to undeveloped properties to the south on a portion of the Oak
Park. The slope of the bank stabilization in the area of the animal movement corridor
shall not exceed a grade of 2.5:1 to provide access for wildlife to enter into the River
Corridor.
PL12. As shown on TTM 69164, the project applicant shall construct an eight -foot tall
wall/berm in locations along the southerly Metrolink right-of-way adjacent to the
proposed Metrolink Station to reduce train related noise to off-site properties.
PL13. For a full school year following the completion of the intersection improvements at Lost
Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road, the applicant shall fund a crossing guard at the
intersection during morning and afternoon hours (prior to and after school being in
session) to the satisfaction of the City's Directors of Community Development and Public
Works.
/q4
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 30 of 64
ENGINEERING DIVISION
General Requirements
EN 1. At issuance of permits or other grants of approval, the applicant agrees to develop the
property in accordance with City codes and other appropriate ordinances such as the
Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit Ordinance,
Mechanical Code, Unified Development Code, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance,
Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and Fire Code.
EN2. Prior to issuance of building permits, a Tract Map prepared by or under the direction of a
person licensed to practice land surveying in the State of California shall be filed in the
Office of the County Recorder, in compliance with applicable City of Santa Clarita,
County of Los Angeles, and State of California Codes.
EN3. Prior to Tract Map approval, the applicant shall record a reciprocal access easement and
maintenance agreement for all shared driveways and drive isles within the project site, as
directed by the City Engineer.
EN4. Prior to Tract Map approval, the applicant shall remove existing structures.
EN5. Prior to Tract Map approval, the applicant shall quitclaim or relocate easements running
through proposed structures, as directed by the City Engineer.
EN6. At map check submittal, the applicant shall provide a preliminary Tract Map guarantee.
A final Tract Map guarantee is required prior to Final Tract Map approval.
ENT Prior to final map approval, the applicant must inform the City if they intend to file
multiple final maps. The boundaries and phasing plan of these maps shall be designed, as
directed by the City Engineer and the Director of Community Development.
EN8. Prior to final map approval, the applicant is tentatively required to grant easements on the
final map (or if located outside the map boundary, the applicant shall grant easements by
means of separate document). The easements shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer.
EN9. Prior to the sale of any proposed lot, the applicant shall establish a Property/Home
Owners' Association (POA/HOA), or similar entity, to ensure the continued maintenance
of all shared/common lots and drainage devices not transferable to the County Flood
Control District.
EN10. Prior to the sale of any proposed lot, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City
Engineer and the City Attorney for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for
this development. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the City Attorney's review
and approval fee. The CC&Rs shall include a disclosure to comply with the Geologist's
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 31 of 64
recommendations in the Geology Report concerning restrictions on watering, irrigation,
and recommend plant types.
ENI I. This tentative map approval is subject to the applicant's acceptance of the following
conditions for acquisition of easements/right-of-way:
A. The applicant shall secure, at the applicant's expense, sufficient title, or interest in
land to permit construction of any required off-site improvements.
B. If the applicant is unable to acquire sufficient title or interest to permit
construction of the required off-site improvements, the applicant shall notify the
City of this inability not less than six months prior to approval of the Tract/Parcel
Map. In such case, the City may thereafter acquire sufficient interest in the land,
which will permit construction of the off-site improvements by the applicant.
C. The applicant shall pay all of the City's costs of acquiring said off-site property
interests pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5. Applicant shall pay such
costs irrespective of whether the Tract/Parcel Map is recorded or whether a
reversion occurs. The cost of acquisition may include, but is not limited to,
acquisition prices, damages, engineering services, expert fees, title examination,
appraisal costs, acquisition services, relocation assistance services and payments,
legal services and fees, mapping services, document preparation, expenses, and/or
damages as provided under Code of Civil Procedures Sections 1268.510-.620 and
overhead.
D. The applicant agrees that the City will have satisfied the 120 -day limitation of
Government Code Section 66462.5 and the foregoing conditions relating thereto
when it files its eminent domain action in superior court within said time.
E. At the time the applicant notifies the City as provided in "B" hereinabove, the
applicant shall simultaneously submit to the City in a form acceptable to the City
all appropriate appraisals, engineering specifications, legal land descriptions,
plans, pleadings, and other documents deemed necessary by the City to
commence its acquisition proceedings. Said documents must be submitted to the
City for preliminary review and comment at least 30 days prior to the applicant's
notice described hereinabove at "B"
F. The applicant agrees to deposit with the City, within five days of request by the
City, such sums of money as the City estimates to be required for the costs of
acquisition. The City may require additional deposits from time -to -time.
G. The applicant shall not sell any lot/parcel/unit shown on the Tract/Parcel Map
until the City has acquired said sufficient land interest.
Jy
�
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 32 of 64
H. If the superior court thereafter rules in a final judgment that the City may not
acquire said sufficient land interest, the applicant agrees that the City may initiate
proceedings for reversion to acreage.
The applicant shall execute any agreements mutually agreeable prior to approval
of the Tract/Parcel Map as may be necessary to assure compliance with the
foregoing conditions.
Failure by the applicant to notify the City as required by `B" hereinabove, or
simultaneously submit the required and approved documents specified in
"E" hereinabove, or make the deposits specified in "F" hereinabove, shall
constitute applicant's waiver of the requirements otherwise imposed upon the City
to acquire necessary interests in land pursuant to Section 66462.5. In such event,
subdivider shall meet all conditions for installing or constructing off-site
improvements notwithstanding Section 66462.5.
EN12. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall provide a Will Serve Letter stating that
Community Antenna Television service (CATV) will be provided to this project.
EN 13. Prior to building final, the applicant is required to install distribution lines and individual
service lines for Community Antenna Television service (CATV) for all new
development.
EN14. Prior to Tract Map approval, the applicant shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit
the erection of building(s) and other structures within open space/common lots.
Grading, Drainage & Geology Requirements
EN 15. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan consistent
with the approved tentative map, oak tree report and conditions of approval. The grading
plan shall be based on a detailed engineering geotechnical report specifically approved by
the geologist and/or soils engineer that addresses all submitted recommendations.
EN 16. The project includes an import of up to 500,000 CY of dirt.
A. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for this project, the applicant shall submit a
copy of the grading permit for the export site and an exhibit of the proposed haul
route. The applicant is responsible to obtain approval from all applicable agencies
for the dirt hauling operation.
B. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements for the dirt hauling
operation:
Obtain an encroachment permit for the work.
2. The hours of operation shall be between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm.
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 33 of 54
Provide non-stop street sweeping service on all City streets along the haul
route during all hours of work to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4. Provide traffic control and flagging personnel along the haul route to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
C. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall pay a Haul Route
Pavement Repair Security Cash Deposit (Deposit) of $100,000, which may be
increased or decreased based upon an estimated cost to complete the repairs of
streets damaged during the dirt hauling operation. The limits and scope of the
repairs shall be determined by the City Engineer. In order to receive a refund of
the Deposit, the applicant or subsequent property owners shall complete the
pavement repairs to the satisfaction of the City Engineer within one year from the
completion of the dirt hauling operation. If the pavement repairs are not
completed within one year, the City may use the Deposit to complete the repairs.
Any funds remaining at the completion of the repairs will be refunded to the
applicant. If the Deposit is insufficient to complete the repairs, the City shall seek
additional funds from the applicant.
D. Prior to issuance. of building permits, the applicant shall repair any pavement
damaged by the dirt hauling operation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The
limits of the road repairs shall be consistent with the approved haul route.
EN17. Prior to storm drain plan approval, the applicant shall obtain written approval from the
Los Angeles County Flood Control District of all easements needed for future
maintenance by the District.
EN18. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall obtain approval of a drainage concept study
for the proposed public storm drain system from the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works, Land Development Division.
EN 19. Prior to issuance of grading permits affecting MTA right-of-way, the applicant shall
submit written approval from Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) for the
proposed construction and the proposed drainage facilities within MTA right -of- way.
EN20. Prior to issuance of grading permits affecting Caltrans right-of-way, the applicant shall
submit written approval from Caltrans for the proposed construction within Caltrans
right -of- way.
EN21. Maintenance responsibilities for all slopes, retaining walls, drainage devices, and SUSMP
devices/systems not transferable to the County Flood Control District shall be the
responsibility of the POA/HOA.
EN22. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a notarized Letter of Permission for
grading over all easements.
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 34 of 64
EN23. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a notarized Letter of Permission for
grading outside of the property lines/tract boundary from the adjacent property owner(s).
EN24. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a notarized Acceptance of Drainage
Form from adjacent property owners if drainage is being diverted to an adjacent property.
EN25. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall record in the Office of the County
Recorder slope easements from adjacent property owners, as directed by the City
Engineer.
EN26. Prior to issuance of grading permits in jurisdictional areas, the applicant shall acquire
permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game,
and the Regional Water Control Board for any work within any natural drainage course:
A copy of the permits, or a response letter from each agency indicating a permit is not
required, shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of grading permits.
EN27. Prior to the City's release of any bond monies posted for the construction of storm drain
infrastructure, the applicant or subsequent property owners shall be responsible for
providing all required materials and documentation to complete the storm drain transfer
process from the City of Santa Clarita to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District.
The applicant or subsequent property owners shall also be responsible for providing
regularly scheduled maintenance of the storm drain infrastructure, as directed by the
City Engineer, until such time that full maintenance is assumed by the Flood Control
District.
EN28. Prior to recordation of the Tract Map, the applicant shall form an assessment district to
,finance the future ongoing maintenance and capital replacement of SUSMP
devices/systems identified on the project's approved storm drain plan. The applicant shall
cooperate fully with the City in the formation of the assessment district, including,
without limitation, the preparation of the operation, maintenance, and capital replacement
plan for the SUSMP devices/systems and the prompt submittal of this information to City
for review and approval. The applicant shall pay for all costs associated with the
formation of the assessment district. SUSMP devices/systems shall include but are not
limited to catch basin inserts, debris excluders, biotreatment basins, vortex separation
type systems, and other devices/systems for stormwater quality. The applicant shall be
responsible for the maintenance of all SUSMP devices/systems until the district has been
established.
EN29. Prior to Tract Map approval, the applicant shall place a note on the map, prohibiting the
lot owners within this development from interfering with the established drainage and
from erecting concrete block walls or similar solid constructions, except as approved by
the City Engineer.
EN30. This project is a development planning priority project under the City's NPDES
Municipal Stormwater Permit as a development with 10 or more dwelling units, a
commercial development greater than one acre in size and a parking lot 5,000 square feet
/�9
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 35 of 64
or more or with 25 or more parking spaces. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the
applicant shall have approved by the City Engineer, an Urban Stormwater Mitigation
Plan (USMP) that incorporates appropriate post construction best management practices
(BMPs), maximizes pervious surfaces, and includes infiltration into the design of the
project. Refer to the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) guide for
details.
EN31. This project will disturb one acre or more of land. Therefore, the applicant must obtain
coverage under a statewide General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit (General
Permit). In accordance with the General Permit, the applicant shall file with the State a
Notice of Intent (NOI) for the proposed project. Prior to issuance of grading permit by the
City, the applicant shall have approved by the City Engineer a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall include a copy of the NOI and shall
reference the corresponding Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number issued by
the State upon receipt of the NOI.
Flood Plain/Hazard Area Requirements
EN32. The project is located in FEMA Flood Zone (A) in accordance with the Federal Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS).
A. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant shall have approved by the City
Engineer and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, a floodplain
analysis for FEMA flood zone(s) on the property. The floodplain analysis shall
analyze the 100 -year storm event and the proposed improvements shall contain
the more critical storm event. The study shall analyze upstream and downstream
of the proposed project to a point where the post -development flows and
velocities equal the pre -development flows and velocities. The design of the bank
protection and/or levee shall meet the design requirements of CFR Title 44
Chapter 65. 10, as applicable.
B. The applicant is required to comply with FEMA requirements to revise the Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRMS). Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant
shall complete a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR). Prior to building
final, the applicant shall complete a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
Street Improvement Requirements
EN33. All streets shall be designed and built in accordance with the Specific Plan and City street
design criteria; construction shall be completed prior to building final.
EN34. Prior to any construction (including, but not limited to, drive approaches, sidewalks, curb
and gutter, etc.), trenching or grading within public or private street right-of-way, the
applicant shall submit a street improvement plan consistent with the approved Specific
Plan and the conditions of approval and obtain encroachment permits from the
Engineering Division.
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 36 of 64
EN35. Prior to building final, all new and existing power lines and overhead cables less than 34
KV within or fronting the project site shall be installed underground.
EN36. Prior to street plan approval, the applicant shall submit a street tree location plan to the
City's Urban Forestry Division for review and approval. The location of the street trees
shall not conflict with sewer or storm drain infrastructure. The plan shall include
proposed sewer lateral locations and storm drain infrastructure for reference.
EN37. Prior to the Tract Map being filed with the County Recorder, the applicant shall not grant
or record easements within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for
dedication for public streets or highways, access rights, building restriction rights, or
other easements; unless subordinated to the proposed grant or dedication. If easements
are granted after the date of tentative map approval, subordination must be executed by
the easement holder prior to the filing of the Tract Map.
EN38. Prior to Tract Map approval, the applicant shall dedicate sidewalk easements sufficient to
encompass ADA requirements for sidewalks installed with drive approaches in
accordance with the current City standard APWA 110-1, Type C, or equivalent.
EN39. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall construct street pavement in
accordance with one of the following options:
A. The applicant shall construct the full pavement section including the final lift of
asphalt to finish grade in conformance with the design TI. Prior to building final,
the applicant shall refurbish the pavement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
B. The applicant shall construct a pavement section that is a minimum of 1'/z" lower
than finish grade, in conformance with the design TI. Prior to building final, the
applicant shall refurbish the pavement, and complete the final lift of asphalt to
meet finish grade to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
EN40. Prior to Tract Map approval, the applicant shall acquire and dedicate to the City the right-
of-way required for all street improvements as identified in the Traffic Study, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
EN41. Prior to building final, the applicant shall construct full street improvements as shown in
the Specific Plan within the affected portion of the project site, as well as the required
offsite street improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
EN42. Prior to issuance of the 300th building permit or equivalent trip generation, the applicant
shall submit a bridge design plans for the Vista Canyon Bridge to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. The bridge plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
/s/
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 37 of 64
EN43. The Vista Canyon Road Bridge shall be constructed and operational by the 680th
occupancy or equivalent trip generation in the project to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
EN44. Prior to building final, the applicant shall construct the final lift of asphalt on all public
streets using asphalt rubber hot mix (ARHM) in accordance with section 302-9 of the
latest edition of the Standards and Specifications for Public Works Construction and City
Standards. The design of the ARHM shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer.
EN45. Prior to Tract Map approval, the applicant shall pay fees for signing and striping of
streets as determined by the City Engineer or shall prepare signing and striping plans for
all multi -lane highways/roadways within or abutting the project, as directed by the
City Engineer.
EN46. Prior to building final, the applicant shall install mailboxes and posts in accordance with
the City's standards, and secure approval of the U.S. Postal Service prior to installation.
EN47. Prior to building final, the applicant shall construct wheelchair ramps at intersections, as
directed by the City Engineer.
EN48. Prior to building final, the applicant shall repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter and
sidewalk, and refurbish the half section of pavement on streets within or abutting the
project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
EN49. The applicant shall construct Intersection Design Option 3 ("Roundabout") at the
intersection of Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road to the satisfaction of the Director
of Public Works.
EN50. No roadway lighting shall be permitted on Lost Canyon Road from the project's eastern
boundary to a point 300 feet from the project's eastern boundary due to the animal
movement corridor. No street parking will be permitted in this area.
Sewer Improvement Requirements
EN51. Prior to Tract Map approval, the applicant shall dedicate all necessary sewer easements.
The sewer plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles County Department
of Public Works (Sewer Maintenance Division), Los Angeles County Sanitation District,
and the City Engineer.
EN52. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall construct main -line sewers with
separate laterals to serve each lot/parcel.
152-
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 38 of 64
EN53. The main -line sewers located in the public/private streets shall be a publicly maintained.
All other sewer lines shall be privately maintained.
EN54. Prior to recordation of the Tract Map, the applicant shall form an assessment district to
finance the future ongoing operation, maintenance and capital replacement of the
proposed sewer treatment facility and the percolation ponds. The applicant shall
cooperate fully with the City in the formation of the assessment district, including,
without limitation, the preparation of the operation, maintenance, and capital replacement
plan for the proposed sewer treatment facility and the percolation ponds and the prompt
submittal of this information to City for review and approval. The applicant shall pay for
all costs associated with the formation of the assessment district. Timing of the turnover
of the water reclamation plant to the City and potential reimbursement costs from District
funds to the applicant will be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public
Works.
EN55. The applicant shall secure permits from the California Department of Health and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (Los Angeles Region) for the operation of the
project's water reclamation plant and use of recycled water within the project site.
EN56. Prior to Tract Map approval, the applicant shall dedicate all necessary easements for the
sewer treatment facility and percolation ponds. The sewer treatment plans and reports
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
EN57. Prior to the first building occupancy, the applicant shall construct the sewer treatment
facility and the percolation ponds.
EN58. Prior to final map recordation the applicant shall enter into an agreement with Newhall
County Water District ("NCWD") to establish easements and/or convey fee property to
NCWD (at no cost to NCWD) within the Mitchell Hill open space area the project to
facilitate future sewer related improvements. The agreement shall be to the satisfaction
of the City's Director of Public Works.
EN59. The project proposes to connect to the existing Newhall County Water District sewer in
Soledad Canyon Road. The applicant shall secure approval from Newhall County Water
District for this connection.
EN60. Prior to Tract Map approval, the applicant shall send a print of the land division map to
the County Sanitation District with the'request for annexation in writing.
EN61. Prior to sewer plan approval, the applicant shall provide a sewer area study in accordance
with City policies for review and approval by the City Engineer.
EN62. Prior to first building final, the applicant shall construct all sewer upgrades in accordance
with the approved sewer area study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
/53
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 39 of 64
Bonds, Fees and Miscellaneous Requirements
EN63. Prior to issuance of encroachment permits for public improvements (Street, Sewer, Storm
Drain, Water), the applicant, by agreement with the City Engineer, shall guarantee
installation of the improvements through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or
any other acceptable means. Building final shall be withheld if the improvements are not
completed.
EN64. Prior to Tract Map approval, the applicant shall amend the Eastside B&T District to
include Lost Canyon Road and the Vista Canyon Road Bridge.
EN65. Prior to Tract Map approval, the applicant shall pay the applicable Bridge and
Thoroughfare (B&T) District Fee to implement the Circulation Element of the General
Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this project.
This project is located in the Eastside B&T District. The current rate for this District is
$16,850. The B&T rate is subject to change and is based on the rate at the time of
payment.
Standard B&T Fee Calculation:
Commercial = the gross acres x the district rate ($17,190) x 5.0 = $ until June 30, 2011.
Single Family = the number of units x the district rate ($17,190) _ $ until June 30, 2011.
Townhouse = the number of units x the district rate ($17,190) x 0.8 = $ until June 30,
2011.
EN66. Prior to Tract Map approval, the applicant shall pay street maintenance fees to cover the
cost of one-time slurry seal of public streets within the development.
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION
TE 1. Adequate sight visibility is required at all intersections (street -street intersections or
driveway -street intersections) and shall follow the latest Caltrans manual for applicable
requirements. Adequate sight visibility (including corner sight visibility) shall be
demonstrated on the final map and grading plan. All necessary easements for this purpose
shall be recorded with the final map. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to
issuance of first building permit.
TE2. All private driveways and roadways shall intersect with a public street at 90 degrees or as
close to 90 degrees as topography permits (no less than 80 degrees). This shall be shown
on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit.
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 40 of 64
TE3. All driveways shall have a minimum stacking distance of.
• 20 feet from face of curb off of residential local collectors.
• 40 feet from face of curb off of secondary or major highways.
• 100 feet from face of curb off of secondary or major highways with a potential traffic signal.
TE4. No access will be permitted within curb return. This shall be included as a note on all
applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit.
TE5. Minimum width of all interior driveways and drive aisles shall be a minimum of 26 feet
and shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit.
TE6. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy permit, the applicant shall obtain
approval from the L.A. County Fire Department for any private driveway sections.
TE7. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy permit, the applicant shall post "No
Parking— Fire Lane" signs along all driveways with a curb -to -curb width of less than 34
feet. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit.
TE8. The location, width and depth of all project driveways shall conform to the approved site
plan. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building
permit. No additional driveways shall be permitted.
TE9. Any dead-end drive aisles shall have a hammerhead or turn -around area to facilitate
vehicular movements. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of
first building permit.
TE10. The site shall be designed to adequately accommodate all vehicles (e.g. automobiles,
vans, trucks) that can be expected to access the site. This includes, but is not limited to,
adequate maneuvering areas around loading zones and parking spaces, and appropriate
turning radii.
TE 11. No single family or detached condominium residential driveways shall be permitted
along residential collector streets, residential roadways with greater than 60 -foot right-of-
way, or along residential roadways projected to carry over 2,000 vehicles per day (per
UDC Section 16.07.020). Such a restriction is subject to the discretion of the City
Engineer.
TE12. Any gates on private residential streets shall be designed and located to provide adequate
stacking and turn -around areas. Prior to issuance of the first residential building
occupancy permits, the design for all residential gates shall be submitted to the City
Engineer prior to approval and subject to Los Angeles County Fire Department approval.
The necessary right-of-way shall be dedicated prior to map recordation. All residential
gates on private streets shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to approval.
/sS
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 41 of 64
TE13. The project applicant shall implement the mitigation measures identified in the Traffic
Section of the Final EIR.
TE 14. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy permit, the applicant shall pay a traffic -
signal timing fee for the update of the traffic -signal timing at up to 20 intersections in the
surrounding area. The cost is $4,000 per intersection ($80,000 total). This fee shall be
used to improve traffic flow and minimize traffic congestion along the corridors impacted
by project -related traffic, through traffic signal retiming and related infrastructure
improvements.
TE15. The Vista Canyon Ranch EIR concludes that the Vista Canyon Ranch project will have a
significant unavoidable cumulative impact on a segment of Soledad Canyon Road
(between Sierra Highway and Soledad Canyon Road). This roadway segment is
constrained by right-of-way limitations and presently cannot be widened. In lieu of
mitigating impacts on this segment, the applicant has agreed to prepare a corridor study
for Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road (from the northbound SR -14 on-ramp
to the Sand Canyon Bridge over the Santa Clara River). The corridor study shall include,
but not be limited to, an analysis of the following potential improvements: 1) traffic
signal operations (adaptive signal systems, ATSAC-type systems); 2) public transit
operation (bus turnouts, bus stop locations); 3) striping improvements to enhance
capacity; 4) access management - median modifications (potential closures or turn
restrictions); 5) alternative modes of transportation (identify gaps in the corridor that
impede non -motorized travel); 6) incorporate/promote Non -Motorized Plan.
TE16. Prior to issuance of the first commercial building occupancy permit, the applicant shall
provide a travel demand management (TDM) plan for approval by the Director of Public
Works and the Director of Community Development. Programs in the TDM plan shall
include, but not be limited to, carpooling, vanpooling, public and/or private transit,
alternative work hours, walkibike to work and telecommuting. The TDM plan shall
contain trip reduction goals and programs/incentives in an effort to meet those goals.
Specific measures may include bicycle racks and bicycle lockers at key locations within
the .project, showers and change facilities within non-residential buildings, direct and
convenient pedestrian connections to public streets and transit stops, and conveniently -
located information kiosks providing current transit information (e.g. transit maps,
schedules, etc.). In addition, the applicant shall include applicable global change
strategies as indicated in the March 2006 Climate Action Team Report to Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature from Cal EPA within the TDM plan. The
applicant shall submit an annual report on the TDM program to the City.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
BSI. At the time of application for a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Building
and Safety Division the following construction documents for plan review:
A. Two sets of plans that include architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical and
plumbing plans.
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 42 of 64
B. Two sets of truss drawings & calcs, if used.
C. One set structural calculations, energy calculations and a copy of the soil report.
BS2. All buildings and structures shall comply with the detailed requirements of the 2007
California Building (CBC), Mechanical (CMC), Electrical (CEC) and Plumbing (CPC),
2008 Energy Codes, and the 2008 City of Santa Clarita amendments to the California
codes. A copy of the City amendments (including structural amendments) are available
at the Building and Safety public counter and on the city website at www.santa-
clarita.com.
BS3. All new buildings will require a soils and geology investigation report. The report shall
be formally submitted to the Development Services Division (Engineering) for review
and approval. Include one copy of the report to building and safety when the plans are
submitted for review.
BS4. Prior to issuance of building permits the following shall be completed regarding grading:
A. Obtain a grading permit and perform rough grading and/or recompaction.
B. A final compaction report and a Pad Certification shall be submitted to and
approved by the Development Services Division (Engineering).
BSS. The project shall fully comply with the disabled access requirements as specified for
Housing Accessibility per chapter 11 A and for public accommodations in Chapter 11 B of
the California Building Code. The Federal ADA requirements are not reviewed by
California jurisdictions. However, ADA compliance is the responsibility, of the owner,
architect and contractor.
BS6. The applicant shall show the disable access requirements including site accessibility
information and details on the architectural plans (vs. the civil plans) which will be
reviewed by the Building and Safety division. Civil plans used for grading purposes are
not reviewed or approved for site accessibility requirements.
BS7. Residential accessibility requirements shall apply to apartment buildings containing 3 or
more dwelling units and condominium buildings containing 4 or more condos. All
ground floor single -story units and all units within an elevator building shall comply with
chapter 11A of the California Building Code. All common use areas, such as recreation
areas, pools, walkways, etc shall be made accessible for the disabled with a path of travel
to the public way and at least one disabled accessible parking space.
BSB. Accessibility requirements now apply to multi -story dwelling units, such as townhomes
(formally exempt). At least 10% of such multi -story units on a single parcel or site shall
be accessible which includes an accessible path to the primary level entrance, all ground
floor requirements, and at least one accessible bathroom on the primary entry level. All
public and common use areas such as recreation areas, pools, walkways, etc shall be
made accessible for the disabled with a path of travel to the public way and at least one
disabled accessible parking space.
M
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 43 of 64
BS9. Prior to submitting plans to Building and Safety, please contact Deanna Hamrick, (661)
255-4935, for project addressing.
BS10. For an estimate of the building permit fees and the backlog time for plan review, please
contact the Building and Safety division directly.
BS 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, additional clearances from agencies will be required
from:
A. William S. Hart School District and appropriate elementary school district,
B. Castaic Lake Water Agency,
C. L. A. County Fire Prevention Bureau,
D. L: A. County Sanitation District,
E. L. A. County Environmental Services (Health Dept. for restaurants),
F. L. A. County Environmental Programs (Industrial Waste),
G. State of California Division of Oil and Gas.
An agency referral list is available at the Building and Safety public counter.
BS12. The site plan submitted to building and safety shall show all lot lines, any easements,
restricted use areas, flood hazard areas, etc. Any construction proposed in an easement
shall obtain the easement holders written permission.
BS13. The submitted plans to building and safety shall have a Building Code Analysis
containing the following minimum information: types of construction, occupancy groups,
occupant loads, a floor area justification (including any area increases from frontage
and/or fire sprinklers), height of building, number of stories, summary of the fire rated
walls, occupancy separations (or non -separated uses), identify any accessory occupancies
and incidental uses, and all other related data.
BS14. The footings for all new buildings and other structures, including retaining walls and
fences, shall be setback from any adjacent ascending or descending slopes. See section
1805.3 CBC and/or the Slope Setback handout.
BS15. The California Plumbing Code (CPC) shall be used to determine the minimum number of
plumbing fixtures.. Horizontal drainage piping shall have a minimum slope of 1/4" per
foot, or 2%, to the point of disposal. (CPC sec 708.0) Slopes shallower than 2% will not
be approved by the Building Official.
BS16. The project is located within the city's Fire Zone and shall comply with the City's Fire
Hazard Zone requirements. See the city's website at www.santa-clarita.com.
BS17. For all non-residential buildings, please provide a means of egress plan indicating the
occupant load of all rooms and the means of egress system.
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 44 of 64
BS18. For any Medical Office Building or future medical tenants that will be a licensed medical
clinic shall comply with OSHPD 3 requirements and must be identified as such at the
time of plan submittal of those buildings or tenant improvement plans.
BS19. For any Medical Office Building or future medical tenants that will be providing
outpatient services or services to the mobility impaired, additional accessible parking
spaces shall be required per Section 1129B.2 of CBC.
BS20. Each separate detached structure, such as trash enclosures, fences, retaining walls, shade
structures require separate applications and building permits. These other structures need
not be on separate plans, but may be part of the same plans for the main project.
BS21. Each tenant space in a multiple tenant building will be required to obtain a separate
certificate of occupancy from the Building and Safety Division prior to occupancy.
BS22. The Building and Safety Division has begun scanning plans for permanent storage.
Please incorporate the following information into the plans on the full size sheets:
A. The Plan Check Number, Sheet Title, and the Sheet Number of the Total Number
of Sheets shall be located in the lower right hand corner of each sheet of the plans.
B. A copy of the Planning Conditions.
C. The Recommendation Section of the Soils/Geology Report.
D. ICC, ICBO, UL and other outside testing agency reports when those reports
contain information required by the contractor for construction or installation of
items or materials that are not otherwise shown or detailed on the plans.
E. The Truss drawing layout. (if used)
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
ESI. Based on the square footage of the proposed buildings on the submitted plans, the
applicant shall provide sufficient trash enclosures for the following planning areas:
PA -1
Buildings -1, 2A, 2B, and 3
• For Multi -Family Developments, the City Standard is one three -yard recycling bin
and one three -yard trash bin for the first 10 units with one three -yard recycling bin
and one three -yard trash bin for each 10 units thereafter. Always round up to an even
# of bins. Bins should be arranged in solid waste enclosures large enough to house
either two or four bins. Half of the bins in each enclosure should be reserved for
recycling.
• An underground parking structure is an inappropriate location for the bins unless it
provides a minimum of 20 feet overhead clearance.
PA -2
Mixed Use Buildings- 5A, 6A, 6B
►S�
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 45 of 64
• These buildings must have separate trash enclosures for commercial and residential
use. Having separate enclosures will allow the City's Commercial and Residential
Franchised haulers to provide the appropriate services to their customers. Every
effort shall be made to plan for adequate space to accommodate the franchised
haulers.
• The trash enclosures for the commercial portion of this Mixed -Use Project must have
two 3 -yard bins for the first 10,000 sq.ft. and 1 for each additional 20,000. Always
round up to an even # of bins.
• Projects shall be designed in such a manner so that trash vehicles will not need to
back-up as part of the normal trash collection process.
• The trash enclosures for the residential portion of this project must meet the City
Standard of housing one 3 yard recycling bin and one 3 yard trash bin for each 10
units. Bins should be arranged in solid waste enclosures large enough to house the
bins. Half of the bins in each enclosure should be reserved for recycling.
• The Residential and Commercial trash enclosures should be shown on the site plan
with dimensions, consistent with the surrounding architecture and shall be
constructed with a solid roof. Remember to incorporate the size of the bins you
choose to use when designing enclosures. The enclosures shall be located to provide
convenient pedestrian and collection vehicle access.
• An underground parking structure is an inappropriate location for the bins unless it
provides a minimum of 20 feet overhead clearance.
Commercial Buildings- 5B, 6C, 8, 9A, 9B, 10A, 1 IA, 1113, 12A, 12B, 13A, 13B, 14
• For Commercial and Industrial Developments, the City standard is to have a
minimum of two three -yard bins for the first 10,000 square feet and one bin for each
additional 20,000 square feet. Always round up to an even # of bins.
• The enclosures to house the bins should be shown on the site plan with dimensions,
consistent with the surrounding architecture and shall be constructed with a solid
roof. The enclosures shall be located to provide convenient pedestrian and collection
vehicle access.
• An underground parking structure is an inappropriate location for the bins unless it
provides a minimum of 20 feet overhead clearance.
Multi -Family Buildings- Bldg 4, Bldg 7,
• For Multi -Family Developments the appropriate level of collection services will be
determined by the number of number of units. The City Standard is one three -yard
recycling bin and one three -yard trash bin for the first 10 units with one three -yard
recycling bin and one three -yard trash bin for each 10 units thereafter. Always round
up to an even # of bins. Bins should be arranged in solid waste enclosures large
enough to house either two or four bins. Half of the bins in each enclosure should be
reserved for recycling.
• An underground parking structure is an inappropriate location for the bins unless it
provides a minimum of 20 feet overhead clearance.
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 46 of 64
PA -3A
• All single family residential dwellings shall be designed with space provided for three
90 -gallon trash bins.
PA -3B
• All single family residential dwellings shall be designed with space provided for three
90 -gallon trash bins.
PA -3C
• All single family residential dwellings shall be designed with space provided for three
90 -gallon trash bins.
PA -3D
• All single family residential dwellings shall be designed with space provided for three
90 -gallon trash bins.
• Projects shall be designed in such a manner so that trash vehicles will not need to
back-up as part of the normal trash collection process. This issue needs to be
addresses at the end of the street in Lot 119.
ES2. All new construction projects valuated greater than $500,000.00 must comply with the
City's Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance.
ES3. If the project is valuated above $500,000.00 the applicant shall:
• Divert a minimum of 50 percent of the entire project's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.)
waste and 50 percent of the remaining C&D materials.
• Have a Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (C&DMMP)
approved by the Environmental Services Division prior to obtaining permits.
• Submit a deposit of three percent of the estimated total project cost or $50,000.00,
whichever is less. The deposit will be returned to the applicant upon proving that 50
percent of the inert and remaining C&D waste was diverted.
ES4. All projects within the City that are not self -hauling their waste materials must use one of
the City's franchised haulers for temporary and roll -off bin collection services. Please
contact Environmental Services staff for a complete list of franchised haulers in the City.
SPECIAL DISTRICTS/ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SD 1. The applicant shall annex the property into the City's Streetlight Maintenance District
(SMD) for the operations and maintenance of streetlight and traffic. signals. A minimum
of 120 days is required to process the annexation, with must be completed prior to final
map approval or build permit issuance, whichever occurs first. Should efficient street
lighting technologies like convection or LED be in use by Southern California Edison,
the applicant agrees to install such reduced energy lighting technology.
SD2. The applicant shall annex into the City wide Open Space Preservation District at the time
of annexation.
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 47 of 64
SD3. Should the City become responsible for channels, devices or drainage areas which have
the purpose of dealing with ground, nuisance or storm water, the applicant shall form a
Drainage Benefit Assessment District (DBAA) for the maintenance of repair of channels,
devices or drainage areas.
SD4. All landscape required under these conditions and within the public rights of way, the
Oak Park or where a landscape easement exists shall be maintained by the Landscape
Maintenance District (LMD). The applicant shall form a new City LMD zone to be for
the maintenance and repair of the landscape. In addition, this LMD shall include
maintenance of the Mitchell Hill Open Space (including the cemetery) and the River
Corridor.
SD5. Areas to be landscaped include: medians, parkways, side panels, open areas, the Oak
Park; Mitchell Hill cemetery and roundabouts. Features within these areas could include
but not be limited to: landscaping, planting, shrubbery, trees, grass, other ornamental
vegetation, irrigation systems, hardscapes, and fixtures; statuary, fountains and other
ornamental structures and facilities: public lighting facilities; facilities which are
appurtenant to any of the foregoing or which are necessary or convenient for the
maintenance or serving thereof, including, gutters, wall sidewalks, or paving or water
irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities; and park or recreation improvement, including
but not limited to playground equipment, play courts, public restroom and paseos/trails.
SD6. The applicant shall submit landscaping 80% plans for areas to be maintained by LMD to
the Special Districts Office for approval for the entire project prior to issuance of building
permits.
SD7. Should the project's development be phased, the applicant shall submit completed
landscaping plans to the Special Districts Office for the phase under development before
the building permit is issued for that phase. If a phased development approach is not
pursued, the developer shall submit completed landscaping plans to the Special Districts
Office for the entire development before the first building permit is issued.
SD8. All improvements to be maintained by the LMD shall be installed in accordance to LMD
standards or by approval of the Landscape Maintenance District Administrator.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
FDL Access shall comply with Section .503 of the Fire code, which requires all weather access.
All weather access may require paving.
FD2. Fire Department Access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any exterior
portion of all structures.
FD3. Where driveways extend further than 150 feet and are of single access design,
turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 48 of 64
final map. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed and maintained to insure there
integrity of Fire Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be
provided for driveways that extend over 150 feet in length.
FD4. Private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "Private Driveway and Firelane"
with the widths clearly depicted and shall be maintained in accordance with the Fire
Code. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to
construction.
FD5. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to
all required fire hydrants. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and
accepted prior to construction.
FD6. This property is located within the area described by the Fire Department as "Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zone, " (formerly Fire Zone 4). A "Fuel Modification Plan," shall
be submitted and approved prior to final map clearance, (Contract Fuel Modification
Unit, Fire Station #32, 605 North Angeleno Avenue, Azusa, CA 91702-2904, Phone
(626) 969-5205, for details).
FD7. The applicant shall provide the Fire Department or City with approved street signs and
building access numbers prior to occupancy.
FD8. The applicant shall provide water mains, fire hydrants and fire flows as required by the
County of Los Angeles Fire Department, for all land shown on map which shall be
recorded.
FD9. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 3500 gallons per minute
at 20 psi for a duration of 3 hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. 2
Hydrant(s) flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow.
FD10. The required fire flow for private on-site hydrants is 2500 gallons per minute at 20 psi.
Each private on-site hydrant must be capable of flowing 1250 gallons per minute at 20
psi with two hydrants flowing simultaneously, one of which must be the furthest from the
public water source.
FDI 1. Fire hydrant requirements are as follows:
A. Install 59 public fire hydrants.
FD 12. All hydrants shall measure 6"x4"x2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA
standard C503 or approved equal. All on-site hydrants shall be installed a minimum of
25' feet from a structure or protected by a two (2) hour rated firewall.
A. Location: As per map on file with the office. The location of the on-site fire
hydrants will be based on further development of each lot.
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 49 of 64
FD 13. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted or bonded for prior to
Final Map approval. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable
throughout construction.
FD14. Additional water system requirements will be required when this land is further
subdivided and/or during the building permit process.
ADDITIONAL ACCESS REQUIREMENTS
FD 15. Due to the size of the proposed development, multiple means of access points are
required.
FD16. On-site vehicular access is required for any building exceeding 150 feet from the public
street.
FD17. For buildings that are less than three stories and/or less than 35 feet in height, the
applicant shall provide a minimum unobstructive driveway width of 26 feet, clear -to -sky,
to be posted "No Parking -Fire Lane."
FD 18. For buildings that are more than three stories and/or 35 feet or greater, the applicant shall
provide a minimum unobstructive driveway width of 28 feet, clear -to -sky, to be posted
"No Parking -Fire Lane." The center -line of access roadway shall be located parallel to
and within 30 feet of the exterior wall on at least one side of each proposed building.
FD 19. For streets or driveways separated by an island, the applicant shall provide a minimum
unobstructive driveway width of 20 feet, clear -to -sky, to be posted "No Parking -Fire
Lane." This includes the eastern connection to Lost Canyon Road.
FD20. The Fire Department Turnarounds shall be clearly identified, posted and red curbed "No
Parking -Fire Lane.
FD21. Additional access issues will be addressed with the submittal of the revised plans and
during building plan check.
ADDITIONAL WATER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
FD22. The Fire Flow Requirement for Planning Area 1 is 3500 GPM at 20 PSI for 3 hours. All
proposed structures and buildings are required to be fully fire sprinklered and have
minimum of Type V-1 hour construction or greater.
FD23. The Fire Flow Requirement for Planning Area 2 is 3500 GPM at 20 PSI for 3 hours. All
proposed structures and buildings. are required to be fully fire sprinklered and have
minimum of Type V-1 hour construction or greater.
FD24. The Fire Flow Requirement for Planning Area 3A & 3B is 2500 GPM at 20 PSI for 2
hours. All proposed structures and buildings are required to be fully fire sprinklered and
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 50 of 64
have minimum of Type V-1 hour construction or greater. The exact fire flow with a
possible flow reduction will be determined during the building plan.
FD25. The Fire Flow Requirement for Planning Area 3C & 3D is 1500 GPM at 20 PSI for 2
hours.
FD26. The Fire Flow Requirement for Planning 4 is 2500 GPM at 20 PSI for 2 hours. All
proposed structures and buildings are required to be fully fire sprinklered and have
minimum of Type V-1 hour construction or greater. The exact fire flow with a possible
flow reduction will be determined.
PARKS AND RECREATION
GENERAL CONDITIONS
PRI. The applicant shall comply with the City's Parkland Development Fee (PDF)
requirements. Prior to map recordation, the applicant will be required to provide an
appraisal of one acre of land within the project site to establish the fair market value and
this will be used as the basis for the PDF. Also prior to recordation of any map, the
applicant shall offer for dedication the Oak Park property to the City of Santa Clarita as
partial fulfillment of its parkland or park fee requirement. If at any time a map triggers
fees in excess of those satisfied by credits associated with this parkland, a fee payment
will be required prior to map approval. The applicant shall receive PDF credit for the
portion of the ten -acre park property that meets local park criteria as determined by the
Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services.
PR2. The applicant shall record a conservation easement in favor of the City over the wildlife
corridor and oak mitigation areas of the Oak Park.
PR3. The applicant shall use its best efforts, working with City staff, to obtain a conservation
easement on a portion of the property to the south of Vista Canyon to preserve the animal
movement corridor.
PR4. All water quality basins are to be fenced and screened from public view with
landscaping. No water quality basins, or improvements should be located within the
boundaries of the park, except those required to mitigate water quality impacts associated
with development of the park. Water quality basins or improvements required for the
park shall not be excluded from the project's PDF eligible acreage.
PR5. Separate lots shall be provided for City dedicated park land, for all river trails, and for
open space lots to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community
Services.
PR6. Property between residential/commercial property and the river trail shall not be
maintained Parks, Recreation, and Community Services.
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 51 of 64
PR7. Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall provide a letter from the
project archaeologist certifying what archaeological limitations may be on any property
proposed for dedication to. the City. This letter shall specifically detail limitations related
to grading, trenching, maintenance, and landscaping.
PR8. Prior to the approval of the Tentative Map, the applicant shall provide a preliminary Park
and Trails Master Plan for the review and approval of the Director of the Parks,
Recreation and Community Services.
PR9. Prior to issuance of 1 st building permit, the applicant shall provide preliminary landscape
and irrigation plans for the park, trail areas, and open space for the review and approval
of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services.
PR10. Prior to issuance of the first occupancy of residential or commercial unit within an
approved phase of the project, the applicant shall provide a Park and Trails Master Plan,
landscape and irrigation plans for parks, trails, and open space areas within that phase for
the approval of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. All park and
trail amenities in approved phase shall be completed prior to the last occupancy permit
for said phase. Additionally, the applicant shall provide a Parks and Trail Plan
illustrating how parks and trails in the applicable phase integrate with the overall Master
Plan.
PRI 1. Prior to the 150th issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy in Planning Area 3 (PA -3) of
the project, the applicant is required to have completed construction of the Oak Park, the
River Education Center and the Santa Clara River Trail on both sides of the River or
provide acceptable security (bonds, etc.) for said improvements equal to an agreed upon
amount to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services.
In any event the Oak Park, River Education Center and River Trail shall be completed by
the 600`h residential occupancy in the project. The applicant shall receive full PDF credit
for construction costs associated with the development of the Oak Park and River
Education Center. Internal trails, private recreational facilities and private parks shall be
completed in conjunction with development of each phase.
PR12. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall purchase approximately
four (4) acres of the City owned property which would be utilized by the project
applicant for development within Planning Area 3. The purchase price shall be based up
a fair market appraisal at the time of purchase. The City agrees to grant the applicant
temporary and permanent easements within its land for the construction of buried bank
stabilization, the Vista Canyon Road Bridge and other project related improvements.
Upon completion of all river improvements required for the project the applicant shall
dedicate in fee and at no cost to the City the applicant's River Corridor property, which
when combined with the City's property will total approximately 87 acres. The applicant
shall be responsible for temporary maintenance of the re -vegetated areas within the River
Corridor consistent with mitigation requirements and permits.
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 52 of 64
PR13. No manufactured slopes on project site shall be accepted for City ownership as open
space lots. All manufactured slopes must be maintained by the HOA unless it has been
accepted into the LMD maintenance district.
PR14. The applicant shall provide project signage as it pertains to the City of Santa Clarita's
Beautification Master Plan for park,, trails and open space. Prior to the issuance of the
first building permit, a final signage plan including the locations, content, and design of
the signs shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Director of the Parks,
Recreation and Community Services Department. Signs to be provided include a City of
Santa Clarita park monument sign at the corner of Lost Canyon Road and B Drive,
directional signs, four small trail monument signs, and any required environmental
interpretive signs to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community
Services.
PR15. The applicant shall comply with all details of the Tentative Tract Map subject to any
modifications permitted by the Vista Canyon Specific Plan.
PR16. The applicant shall bond for public park and trail improvements in each phase at the
appropriate time in conjunction with other bonding requirements, i.e. grading, street
improvements, depending on the type of improvement. Bonds shall be.processed through
Public Works, Development Services section.
PR17. Private parks including the Town Green, Community Garden and private recreational
facilities shall be maintained by an HOA or POA. Based on the project's extensive
private recreational facilities, the project applicant shall receive a 30% PDF credit.
PARK CONDITIONS
PR18. The applicant shall dedicate and build the Oak Park. The Oak Park amenity plan may
include the following amenities: Standard City park monument sign, off-street parking
lot containing 10 parking spaces, playground, splash pad, basketball court, tennis courts,
perimeter trail with benches and drinking fountains, trash receptacles, bike racks, horse
shoe pits, trellis shade structure with picnic tables, restroom building, multi-purpose field,
and connection to all trails and paseos to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks,
Recreation, and Community Services. The amenities list may be modified and amenities
may be substituted upon mutual agreement of the City and the applicant.
PR19. As proposed, the Vista Canyon project does not include any developed park area within
the 10 year floodplain. No developed park area will be allowed to be located within the
10 year floodplain. This includes turf areas, pedestrian paths, vehicular paths, or any
structures.
PR20. If the development requires any approval from outside agencies the applicant is to
provide the City of Santa Clarita with copies of all applicable permits and letters of
authorization that may include any portion of the dedicated park or trail/paseo areas.
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 53 of 64
PR21. The applicant shall create a Landscape Maintenance District to cover City maintenance
costs for the Oak Park, River Corridor and Mitchell Hill Open Space. Maintenance costs
shall be based upon an approved Engineering Report detailing the project's percentage
for maintenance of the above facilities.
TRAILS AND PASEOS
PR22. Prior to the issuance of the first residential occupancy permit for each phase, the
applicant shall complete all private parks, trails, paseos, and bike paths within that phase
to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services.
PR23. Prior to the issuance of the 150th occupancy permit for Planning Area 3 of the project, the
applicant shall secure easements and construct a minimum 12' wide stabilized
decomposed granite trail connecting the Santa Clara River Trail on the south side of the
river to Sand Canyon Road. This trail shall be located adjacent to the River, to the north
of the two homes located along this portion of Lost Canyon Road. No flood protection
improvements will be required for this trail. If the applicant is unable to secure
easements for this trail, the applicant shall construct a minimum 8' wide stabilized
decomposed granite trail along the north side of Lost Canyon Road to the satisfaction of
the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services.
PR24. The applicant shall reconstruct the Lost Canyon Trailhead next to SR14 to the
satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services.
PR25. All lighting, including lighting near the Santa Clara River corridor, shall be directed
down, back shielded, or fully hooded. No lighting shall be permitted on the trail adjacent
to the wildlife corridor in the Oak Park or on the Santa Clara River Trail.
PR26. All feeder trails and paseos shall be maintained by HOA or POA. Trial surfaces shall be
approved prior to installation to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation, and
Community Services. The applicant shall provide a detailed circulation map showing all
public and private paths of travel. All pathways shall be identified on the tentative tract
map and or final map.
PR27. The applicant shall provide a total of $300,000 in funding to the City of Santa Clarita to
be used for the construction of Sand Canyon Trail from Lost Canyon Road to Roadrunner
Avenue and for portions of the unconstructed trail between Roadrunner ,Avenue and
Sultus Street. The applicant shall provide the initial $100,000 prior to July 1, 2012,
contingent upon the City having all of the necessary easements for the trail. If the City
has not obtained the easements by July 1, 2012, this initial funding shall be due when the
easements are obtained but no later than the 150th occupancy in Plannin� Area 3. The
remaining $200,000 shall be made due to the City prior to the 150' occupancy in
Planning Area 3.
PR28. The applicant shall use its best efforts, working with City staff, to acquire a 20 -foot wide
trail easement off-site on the property to the south of the existing railroad undercrossing
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 54 of 64
to ensure necessary easements to connect the Fair Oaks Ranch/Golden Valley trail system
and the City's proposed trail at the western terminus of Roadrunner Avenue to the Vista
Canyon trail system.
PR29. The project's loop trail, from the project's eastern boundary to the existing railroad
undercrossing, shall be decomposed granite or similar surface at a width of 20 feet.
PR30. The project's loop trail, from the existing railroad undercrossing to Vista Square, shall be
decomposed granite or similar surface at a minimum width of 12 feet.
MITCHELL HILL OPEN SPACE
PR31. The applicant shall pay all costs associated with and complete the restoration of the
Mitchell Family cemetery (including fencing, seating, landscaping, interpretive signage,
etc.) The applicant shall extend electricity and water to the Mitchell Family cemetery.
PR32. The applicant shall work with City staff on a recreational amenity plan for the Mitchell
Hill Open Space. This plan shall include site security improvements and the construction
of an unimproved access (decomposed granite or similar surface) from Vista Canyon
Road to the Mitchell Hill Open Space. Once a mutually acceptable plan is identified, the
applicant shall construct the improvements in accordance with the Plan. The applicant
shall receive PDF credit for construction costs associated with the implementation of this
Plan.
PR33. The applicant shall receive PDF credit for the Mitchell Hill Open Space land in an
amount equal to 50% of the applicant's remaining fee obligation, after taking out PDF
credit for the Oak Park, Mitchell Hill Amenity Plan improvements, and the 30% private
recreation credit for the project.
PR34. Upon completion of the Mitchell Hill Amenity Plan improvements and project mitigation
requirements, the applicant shall dedicate the Mitchell Hill Open Space to the City of
Santa Clarita.
TRANSIT DIVISION
Bus Stop
TS 1. The applicant shall provide a bus stop at the location of Southbound Lost Canyon Road
as shown on Tentative Tract Map 69164. A sidewalk shall be constructed on the south
side of Lost Canyon Road, providing pedestrian access to the bus stop from Fair Oaks
Ranch, the adjacent apartments and the Vista Canyon project.
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 55 of 64
TS2. The bus stop'shall be constructed as follows:
• A bus turnout/pullout shall be constructed to the required dimensions as
determined by the Department of Public Works and the City's Transit
Division.
• A 10'x25' concrete passenger waiting pad placed behind the sidewalk.
• A permanent stylized structure (no pre -fabricated), that compliments the
architecture of the Vista Canyon development, and consists of:
o a 10'x20' concrete pad placed behind the sidewalk,
o bench,
o trash receptacle,
o lighting (all electrical conduits shall be located within the shelter
structure)
TS3. Color evevations and materials board for the proposed bus shelter structure shall be
supplied to the Transit and Planning Divisions, for their review and approval, prior to
construction
TS4. The bus stop shall comply with all ADA regulations as specified in the most recent
version of the California Disabled Accessibility Guidebook (Ca1Dag). Proposed disabled
access shall be drawn on all construction plans.
TS5. At the location of the bus stop, the sidewalk shall be directly adjacent to the street for no
less than 30'.
TS6. The bus stop location shall be a minimum of 100' from the intersection of Lost Canyon
Road and Jakes Way to the satisfaction of the Director of Administrative Services.
TS7. The applicant shall construct an in=street concrete pad within the street pursuant to the
current city standard and APWA 13 1 -1 at the bus stop location.
Metrolink Station/Bus Transfer Station/Transit Fee
TS8. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the attached Transit Funding
Agreement to the satisfaction of the Director of Administrative Services.
URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION
UF 1. The applicant and all their contractors shall be in compliance with the City of Santa
Clarita: Oak Tree Ordinance and Preservation and Protection Guidelines at all times
throughout the project. Failure to comply with these requirements shall be considered non
compliant and may result in the issuance of a Stop All Work notice, construction delays
and additional fees.
UF2. The applicant and all their contractors shall adhere to all recommendations issued by the
applicant's Arborist of Record (AOR) both during on-site monitoring as well as those
listed within the project's oak tree reports and addendums. Failure to comply with these
W�
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 56 of 64
recommendations shall be considered non compliant and may result in the issuance of a
Stop All Work notice, construction delays and additional fees.
UF3. The project applicant shall have permission to remove the following oak trees on the
project site: Tree Nos. 4, 25(H), 26, 27(H), 28, 29(H), 30, 31, and 32.
UF4. The project applicant shall have permission to encroach within the protected zone
(consistent with the project oak tree reports) of the following oak trees on the project site:
Tree Nos. 1, 3(H), 33, 34(H), 38(H), 47(H), 50, 52(H) and 71.
UFS. The project applicant shall have permission to trim live wood in excess of 2" in diameter,
consistent with the recommendations of the project's oak tree reports, on the following
oak trees on the project site: Tree Nos. 1, 3(H), 33, 34(H), 38(H), and 52(H).
UF6. The City Council selected Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road Intersection Design
Option No. 3 ("Roundabout Option"). Based upon this decision, the project applicant
shall have permission to encroach within the protected zone of oak tree nos. 25B and 45
and trim live wood in excess of 2" in diameter (consistent with the project's oak tree
reports) on off-site Oak Tree No. 45.
UFT Mitigation for the oak tree impacts referenced above shall include dedication to the City
of Santa Clarita of the two -acre oak tree preserve located adjacent to the Oak Park. The
value of the two -acre property shall be appraised prior to dedication to the City with said
appraisal submitted to the City for review and approval. Dedication of this two -acre
property to the City shall occur in conjunction with dedication of the Oak Park. A deed
restriction shall be recorded over this two -acre preserve restricting its use to open space
only and prohibiting any future development or grading (excluding mitigation activities).
Signage shall be posted along the trail adjacent to the preserve indicating that this area is
an oak tree preserve/mitigation area.
Additionally, the applicant shall be required to plant mitigation oak trees,on this two -acre
parcel as well as the Town Green and Mitchell Hill Open Space to the satisfaction of the
Director of Community Development. The oak preserve, Town Green, and Mitchell Hill
Open Space shall be the primary oak mitigation areas for the project. Secondary oak tree
mitigation or planting areas shall include trail corridors throughout the project site. Group
plantings of native oaks are encouraged in areas that will accommodate the trees for
future growth. Examples are passive parks, break areas, open landscape areas, new trails
and the entrance to commercial and residential portions of the project.
The planting of on-site mitigation oak trees referenced above shall be equal to or exceed
the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) dollar value of all oak trees proposed for
removal per the Oak Tree Report (includes the nine oak trees on-site and the one
potential oak tree off-site). Prior to the issuance of grading permits and the start of any
construction, the applicant shall be required to bond for the International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA) dollar value of all oak trees proposed for removal.
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 57 of 64
UF8. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and the start of any construction, the applicant
shall have all required protective fencing installed around the oak trees. Oak trees that are
proposed for encroachment shall have the protective fence placed at the furthest point
away from the trunk that will allow for the necessary construction. All remaining oak
trees shall have the fence installed at the protected zone located five (5') feet out from
edge of dripline.
U179. Protective fencing shall consist of five (5') foot standard chain link material supported by
steel post driven directly into the ground and evenly spaced at eight (8') feet on center.
36" inch. silt fencing shall be installed at the base of all protective fencing and be
maintained in good repair throughout all phases of construction.
OF 10. A maximum of one non -gated three foot wide opening shall be left open on the opposite
side of construction to allow for required monitoring by City Staff and the applicant's
Arborist of Record. Openings shall be spaced every 100 feet or at a rate of one per tree.
OF 11. The applicant shall be required to install proper signage that reads "THIS FENCE IS
FOR THE PROTECTION OF OAK TREES AND SHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR
RELOCATED WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION BY THE CITY
ARBORIST".
OF 12. The applicant shall be required to submit a copy of all future site plans including but not
limited to grading plans, street improvement plans, construction plans and landscape
plans to the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Specialist. All site plans shall require written
approval from the City's Urban Forestry Division.
UF13. Any oak tree approved for relocation (presently Tree No. 31 is proposed for relocation)
shall be completed by an approved qualified tree relocating company.
UF14. Any oak tree which is proposed for relocation shall be considered a removal. Any oak
tree that has been approved for relocation shall require an up to 90 day side box waiting
period before bottom roots may be removed. The final waiting period shall be
established by the Arborist of Record and the City's Oak Tree Specialist.
OF 15. Any oak tree which has been approved for relocation shall require a minimum five year
mitigation period, which shall include the submittal of all maintenance and monitoring
records completed on the tree. Monitoring reports shall be submitted at the end of each
month for the first two years,_ quarterly (four times per year) for the following two years
and biannually for the final year. The bond (based upon a value equivalent to the oak
tree's ISA value) for the relocated tree will not be exonerated until the completion of the
required mitigation period.
OF 16. The applicant shall be required to incorporate large scale trees which include 48 inch and
60 inch box trees. This may also include the installation of specimen size trees that range
from 72" box size to 84" box size.
/ 7Z
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 58 of 64
U1717. Mitigation oak trees may include the following native species of oak; Coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia), Canyon oak (Quercus chrysolepis) and Blue oak (Quercus douglasii).
Incorporating additional native species in areas immediately adjacent to where
established oak trees are present, may have a negative impact on the existing oak trees
and is not permitted.
LANDSCAPE
UF 18. All proposed irrigation shall be placed outside the protected zone of any existing oak tree.
UF19. Any landscape improvements including but not limited too plant material, walkways,
trails, water features, patios, lighting, statues or art that are proposed for within the
protected zone of an existing oak tree shall be approved by the City of Santa Clarita Oak
Tree Specialist.
UF20. Only drought tolerant native species of plant material may be placed within the protected
zone of an oak tree. This includes all mitigation oaks, relocated oak trees and existing oak
trees.
UF21. A minimum ten (10') foot critical zone (measured from the trunk) shall be maintained for
all non heritage oak trees and fifteen (15') feet for all heritage oak trees. Only landscape
boulders and approved mulch may be installed within this critical zone and shall be
approved by the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Specialist.
UF22. At no time shall any overhead irrigation be permitted to come in contact with an oak tree.
Only direct contact irrigation (drip and/or bubbler) systems may be installed within the
protected zone of an oak tree. Overhead irrigation which has been approved for outside
the protected zone shall be directed away from the canopy of the oak tree.
UF23. The minimum protected zone for any non -established or existing oak tree is fifteen (15')
feet. This includes all new oak trees that were planted for required mitigation. All turf
shall be kept a minimum of 15 feet from any oak tree. Lineal root barriers shall be
required along the edge of any proposed walkways, trails, drive approaches, street and
any other form of hardscape that is approved for within the protected zone of an oak tree.
UF24. Walkways and bike trails or any other form of hardscape that is approved for within the
protected zone of an oak tree shall consist of an approved material such as permeable
landscape pavers and asphalt. In some cases, subject to the approval of the City's Oak
Tree Specialist, the applicant shall be required to install approved aeration tubes.
UF25. Native trees, including but not limited to Platanus racemosa, Cercis occidentalis, Populus
fremontii, Rhus integrifolia, Heteromeles arbutifolia and Quercus species, shall be
incorporated near project trails along the Santa Clara River and the Metrolink right-of-
way to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 59 of 64
UF26. Prior to grading and/or as required by the Community Development Department, the
applicant shall be required to submit a full set of preliminary landscape plans to the City
of Santa Clarita Urban Forestry Division for review. The final landscape plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the City of Santa Clarita Urban Forestry Division.
UF27. Prior to bond exoneration and upon completion of the installation of all required
mitigation oak trees, the applicant shall be required to submit a detailed GPS site plan
(consistent with the City's system) with the location of all mitigation oak trees. Included
on this site plan shall be a detailed legend identifying the number, size, species and cost
of all oak trees planted on site. This is required to confirm that all mitigation has properly
been documented and completed.
CONSTRUCTION & PRESER VA TION:
UF28. At no time shall the applicant or their contractors be permitted to place or store any form
of construction material, equipment, machinery or vehicles within the protected zone of
an oak tree.
UF29. At no time shall the applicant or their contractors be permitted to wash, rinse, clean or
service any form of construction equipment, tools vehicles or machinery within 100 feet
of an oak tree.
UF30. At no time shall any form of liquid or dry contaminates including but not limited to oils,
gasoline, diesel fuel, concrete, plaster and mortars be permitted to enter the protected
zone of an oak tree.
UF31. The applicant shall be required to have approved on-site concrete rinse out stations
located throughout the project site. These and all other rinse out stations shall be located a
minimum of 100' feet from any oak tree.
UF32. All work completed within the protection zone of an oak tree shall be monitored by the
applicant's Arborist of Record.
UF33. Any root or roots that are encountered during construction including grading, excavation
and trenching that are two (2") inches in diameter or larger shall be preserved at all times
unless waived by the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Specialist.
UF34. Exposed roots shall be immediately covered with moistened layers of burlap until backfill
can be completed. Burlap may be removed or left on the root. Backfill shall consist of
original native soil only.
U1735. Any root which has been approved for removal shall be cut clean with a proper pruning
device. Proper pruning device will vary depending on the size of the root. All pruning of
roots shall be completed by or in the presence of the applicant's Arborist of Record.
/ 7Y
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 60 of 64
UF36. Any oak tree that has been approved for trimming shall be completed by an approved
qualified tree trimming contractor certified through the International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA) or in the presence of the applicant's Arborist of Record.
UF37. All non -infested wood chips generated from pruning shall be recycled and used as mulch
for existing oak trees.
UF38. The applicant and their contractors shall adhere to the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) A300 Part I, Best Management Practices and the ISA Pruning Standards
for all oak tree care operations.
UF39. The applicant and their contractors .shall adhere to ANSI A300 Part IV (Management of
Tree and Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development and Construction) and Best
Management Practices (Managing Trees During Construction) throughout the project.
STREET TREES:
UF40. The applicant shall be required to install street trees within the parkways and medians of
all public and private streets. Street trees shall be a minimum size 24" box standard trunk
tree free from any incorrect pruning, stake damage, trunk damage, girdled roots and
broken branches.
UF41. All street trees shall be approved by the City of Santa Clarita Urban Forestry Division
(Oak Tree Specialist), Special Districts (LMD) and the Community Development
Department (Planning).
UF42. All trees shall meet and/or exceed the minimum requirements set forth in the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Specification Guidelines for Container -
Grown Landscape Trees and Shrubs.
UF43. All trees planted within the public right of way shall be planted in accordance with the
City of Santa Clarita Tree Planting and Staking Detail Sheet. This sheet may be obtained
from the City Oak Tree Specialist.
UF44. The applicant shall be required to install and maintain irrigation to all trees planted within
the public right of way.
UF45. Prior to bond exoneration, the applicant shall submit a final landscape plan which shows
all existing oak trees, proposed mitigation oak trees, required oak trees and all parkway
trees. The landscape plan shall have a detail planting legend identifying all proposed oak
trees, size of proposed trees, number of species and individual symbols.
UF46. The applicant shall be required to provide a GPS spread sheet which identifies the
location, genus, species, height, trunk diameter and canopy spread of all trees planted
within the public right of way.
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 61 of 64
UF47. Upon completion of the project and completion of all required mitigation, the bond for
oak tree mitigation will be exonerated.
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 62 of 64
TRANSIT FUNDING AGREEMENT
REGARDING THE VISTA CANYON PROJECT'S TRANSIT FUNDING
As required by Condition of Approval —for the Vista Canyon project (Master Case 07-
127), the City of Santa Clarita ("City") and Vista Canyon Ranch, LLC ("Vista"), a California
limited liability company and the project applicant, agree to implement the terms of this Funding
Agreement Regarding The Vista Canyon Project's Transit Funding ("Agreement").
This Agreement is made and entered into on the basis of the facts and understandings set
forth below:
A. Vista is the owner and developer of certain real property located in the
unincorporated northern portion of Los Angeles County in the Santa Clara River Valley, situated
south of State Route 14, west of Sand Canyon, east of Fair Oaks Ranch and north of the
Metrolink railroad tracks. The Vista Canyon project site will be annexed into the City, along
with various adjacent properties.
B. The City is a municipality located within Los Angeles County, more specifically
within the Santa Clarita Valley.
C. The Vista Canyon project includes a new Multi -Modal Transit Station ("Transit
Station"), which consists of a Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station. The Transit Station
will serve residents within the eastern Santa Clarita Valley, including future residents and
employees of the Vista Canyon project.
D. The Transit Station will likely be constructed in two phases. The first phase will
consist of 500 surface parking spaces, a station platform, and associated track work. The second
phase will include a 750 -space parking structure, the Bus Transfer Station, and additional track
work. The City and Vista will coordinate with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority,
Metrolink, and Metropolitan Transit Authority, as necessary, in designing the Transit Station and
when undertaking improvements within the rights-of-way of these agencies.
E. The Metrolink Station component of the Transit Station will replace the existing,
temporary Via Princessa Metrolink Station ("Via Princessa Station"). The Via Princessa Station
was constructed after the 1994 Northridge Earthquake in order to provide temporary Metrolink
service to residents within the eastern Santa Clarita Valley until a more permanent facility could
be provided. The Via Princessa Station provides 392 parking spaces.
F. The City and Vista desire to work together to obtain funding to construct the
Transit Station. Existing funding sources for construction of the Transit Station include direct
contributions from the applicant and transit funds from the City. Additionally, federal and/or
state funding for transit -oriented developments, such as the Vista Canyon project, may be
secured. To date, Vista has expended approximately $200,000 on plans and consultants directly
related to the design, construction and funding for the Transit Station.
/7'7
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 63 of 64
G. Consistent with the requirements of the Vista Canyon Parking Demand Analysis
("Parking Analysis"), parking provided (750 parking spaces at buildout) for the Transit Station
will be exclusively allocated to the City for park-and-ride purposes on weekdays from the hours
of 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. On weekends, a minimum of 169 parking spaces will be provided for
the Transit Station from the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. As indicated in the Parking
Analysis, the Vista Canyon project will have a surplus of over 1,000 parking spaces between
6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m, on weekdays, and a surplus of 1,803 parking spaces on weekends.
Though Vista will receive use of the Transit Station parking spaces as surplus parking during the
off -hours referenced above, the Transit Station parking is not required to meet the demands of
the non-residential uses in the Vista Canyon project per the Parking Analysis.
In furtherance of the common objectives regarding the construction of the Transit Station,
the City and Vista hereby agree as follows:
1.0 The City will work with Vista and use its best efforts to obtain federal and/or state
funding for the construction and acquisition of the Transit Station. Additionally, the City will
contribute from its Transit Budget to the construction of the Transit Station, an amount that is
equivalent to the land value of the Via Princessa Station based upon the conversion of that
station to recreational uses. The applicant will be required to pay for all NEPA environmental
documentation and receive credit for those costs.
2.0 Vista will remit payment of the Vista Canyon project transit fee upon issuance of
each individual building permit at the rates described below:
Single Family Residential — $1,311 per dwelling unit
Multi -Family Residential - $1,412 per dwelling unit
Retail Commercial - $2.93 per square foot
Professional, Medical Office, Hospitality — $0.68 per square foot
Based on the above rates and the approved plan, the Vista Canyon project will generate up to
$2,562,140 in transit fees that will be directed to the construction of the Transit Station. Vista
shall receive a transit fee credit for funds expended prior to building permit related to the design,
construction and funding of the Transit Station.
3.0 Vista will dedicate to the City the Bus Transfer Station site and grant the City a
permanent easement for parking purposes over the parking structure associated with the Transit
Station. Vista's land and easement dedications will be at no cost to the City. However, if federal
and/or state funds are received and allocated to land acquisition/easement costs, as discussed in
Paragraph 1.0 above, the City shall reimburse Vista the fair market value for the land and
easement.
4.0 Vista will create a Community Facilities District ("CFD") over the commercial
properties within the Vista Canyon project. The City agrees to work with and facilitate the
formation of this CFD, and Vista commits to allocate 15% of the proceeds of this CFD to
Master Case No. 07-127
Entitlement Resolution
Page 64 of 64
construction of the Transit Station. Total proceeds from this CFD are estimated to be between
$10 million and $15 million.
5.0 The first phase of the Transit Station will be in place and operational prior to
Vista's receipt of a certificate of occupancy for more than 250,000 square feet of commercial
floor area in the Vista Canyon project.
S:\CD\CURRENT\!2007\07-127 (VistaCanyonRanch)\City Council\FINAL CITY COUNCIL\FINAL Vista Entitlement Resolution.doc
i 7g
RESOLUTION NO. 1I -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, .
CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH
NO. 2007071039), AND ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE
VISTA CANYON PROJECT (MASTER CASE NO. 07-127: GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 07-001 A, PRE -ZONE 07-001 A, ANNEXATION 07-002A, SPECIFIC PLAN
07-001, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 69164, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-009, OAK
TREE PERMIT 07-019)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact:
a. An application for Master Case 07-127, the Vista Canyon project, was filed by the
project applicant, Vista Canyon, LLC (the "applicant"), with the City of Santa Clarita
on June 29, 2007. The original entitlement requests (collectively, "Entitlements")
include: .
1. Annexation 07-002A to annex (and amend the City's Sphere of Influence to
include) the _Vista Canyon site, an approximately 185 -acre site that is
generally located southwest of Sand Canyon Road and State Route 14 ("SR=
14") in the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County.
2. Pre -zone 07-OOlA to pre -zone the Vista Canyon site to Specific Plan ("SP")
3. Specific Plan 07-001 to adopt a Specific Plan that includes entitlements for
1,117 dwelling units (96 single-family detached, 1,021 multi -family attached),
646,000 square feet of commercial office, 164,000 square feet of retail, and a
200 -room hotel. A residential overlay within the Specific Plan would permit
the conversion of up to 250,000 square feet of the commercial office area to
233 additional multi -family attached dwelling units, permitting development
of the project site with up to 1,350 dwelling units and 700,000 square feet of
commercial area.
4. General Plan Amendment 07-001A to amend the General Plan Land Use Map
and Circulation Element in order to designate the Vista Canyon site as SP,
revise the Significant Ecological Area ("SEA") overlay to correspond to the
area proposed as Specific Plan -Open Space ("SP -OS"), and establish the
alignment and roadway classification for Lost Canyon Road and Vista Canyon
Road. Tentative Tract Map 69164 to subdivide the 185 -acre project site into
162 lots. In addition, each individual dwelling or commercial unit would have
the ability to be subdivided.
/90
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 2 of 109
5. Conditional Use Permit 07-009 to allow for the import of up to 500,000 cubic
yards of dirt to accommodate the development within the Vista Canyon site.
6. Oak Tree Permit 07-019 to allow for the removal of 10, four of which are
heritage size, of the 41 oak trees located within the Specific Plan site. The
request would also permit the encroachment into the protected zone of 10 oak
trees, and pruning or trimming of seven of these 10 oak trees. Implementation
of three of the four Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road intersection options
could require an additional oak tree removal and/or up to two additional oak
tree encroachments.
As discussed at length below, the original Vista Canyon project has been revised
since the initial 2007 application for the Entitlements. As a general matter, the
modifications to the project reduce the amount and extent of site development,
thereby reducing environmental impacts and avoiding the creation of new impacts.
b. The City of Santa Clarita is also concurrently processing under Master Case 07-127
(General Plan Amendment 07-OO113, Prezone 07-OO113, Annexation 07-002B) a
separate application to annex the Ancillary Annexation Area ("AAA") to the City of
Santa Clarita. The AAA includes unincorporated County of Los Angeles property
adjacent to and surrounding the Vista Canyon project site, specifically Fair Oaks
Ranch (approximately 1,082 acres), Jakes Way (approximately 260 acres), and
portions of Sand Canyon (915 acres).
C. As indicated in Paragraph (a), above, the project originally proposed to develop 1,117
dwelling units (96 single-family residential lots and 1,021 attached condominiums
(up to 579 of these attached condominium units may be rented or leased)), and up to
950,000 square feet of commercial and medical office, retail, theater, restaurant, and
hotel uses within four Planning Areas ("PA"). A residential overlay within the
corporate office campus site would have allowed for the conversion of up to 250,000
square feet of office floor area to 233 attached residential units. If implemented, this
conversion would have permitted a maximum of 1,350 residential units and 700,000
square feet of commercial floor area. The original project entailed a new Multi -
Modal Transit Station ("Transit Station"), consisting of a Metrolink Station and Bus
Transfer Station, as well as a wastewater reclamation plant ("WRP"). As originally
proposed, there would also be approximately 18 acres of parks/recreation facilities,
including the Oak Park, Town Green, Community Garden, River
Education/Community Center, up to six private recreation facilities, and trails.
Further, the original project also included approximately 10 acres of proposed public
streets, including the extension of Lost Canyon Road from Fair Oaks Ranch to Vista
Canyon Road and the construction of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge to connect Lost
Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road.
d. The Vista Canyon site primarily is surrounded . by residentially -developed land.
Residential development, commercial development and SR -14, are located to the
north of the project site. The Colony Townhomes, a multi -family residential
/8/
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 3 of 109
community, is directly west of the project site. The Fair Oaks Ranch community,
which is comprised of single-family and multi -family residential units, an elementary
school, and community park, lies to the south and west. The existing Metrolink rail
line is located to the south of the project site. The La Veda and Lost Canyon
residential areas, which consist of homes, and a public and private elementary school,
lie to.the east. The Santa. Clara River bisects the Vista Canyon site.
e. The project site is presently located in unincorporated Los Angeles County, directly
adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita. The Los Angeles County Land Use Map (as
amended through May 13, 2003) designates the project site as M (Industry) and W
(Floodplain/Floodway). The property is currently zoned M-1.5 (Light Industrial), A-
1-1 (Light Agriculture — 1 acre minimum lot size), R -A-8,000 (Residential
Agriculture — 8,000 square foot minimum lot size), and A-1-10,000 (Light
Agriculture — 10,000 square foot minimum lot size). Under the existing County light
industrial zoning designation of M-1.5 and taking into account parking and
landscaping requirements, the project site could be developed with approximately 1.0
million square feet of light industrial uses. The agricultural and residential zoned
portions of the project site could be developed with approximately 170 single-family
residential units.
f. On June 25, 1991, the City Council adopted the City of Santa Clarita General Plan via
Resolution No. 91-98. The City's General Plan presently designates the Vista
Canyon project site as Business Park with portions of the site covered by a SEA
overlay. The City's General Plan Land Use Concept identifies the project site as a
"major sub -center" with Business Park/Office Uses. Under the Business Park
designation and taking into account City parking and landscaping requirements, the
project site could be developed with approximately 4.35 million square feet of
business park floor area.
g. The County of Los Angeles and City of Santa Clarita are presently completing One
Valley One Vision ("OVOV") — a joint effort, initiated in 2000, between the City and
County to create guidelines for the future growth and development of the Santa
Clarita Valley while also preserving natural resources. The jurisdictional planning
boundaries established in OVOV include the City and its four communities
(i.e., Canyon Country, Newhall, Saugus and Valencia), and the County communities
of Stevenson Ranch, Castaic, Val Verde, Agua Dulce, and the future Newhall Ranch.
The draft OVOV Land Use Plan (dated October 2008) issued by the County
designates the project site'as UR2 (Urban2 - five dwelling units per acre) with an
SEA overlay over portions of the site. Under this draft land use designation, the
project site could be developed with up to 700 residential units. However, various
goals and policies within OVOV encourage transit oriented development ("TOD")
through the permitting of higher densities and intensities, and would allow for mixed-
use, compact development in close proximity to new or existing rail stations and/or
multi -modal transit facilities. As proposed, the Vista Canyon project includes a new
Transit Station.
/ga
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 4 of 109
h. The Vista Canyon site was originally a portion of Mitchell Ranch, which was first
settled in 1860 by Thomas Mitchell. Thomas Mitchell was born in Virginia,
subsequently moving to Texas where, in 1852, he served under Sam Houston in the
Texas Mounted Volunteers. He went to California shortly thereafter, spending
approximately eight years in the northern California mining districts. In 1860, he
moved to the Santa Clarita Valley to start a cattle ranch. Initially, he transported a
dismantled miner's cabin down from Tehachapi and erected it on the property, more
specifically in the southeastern portion of the project site. A few years later he
married Martha Taylor and built a more commodious adobe, about 40 feet from the
original cabin. The adobe was 60 by 45 feet in size and redwood shingled.
Eventually, Mitchell increased his holdings to nearly a thousand acres, on which he
raised cattle, produced honey, and farmed. With increasing population, and thus
children, in the valley, the Sulphur Springs School District was founded, circa 1872.
The school opened initially in the kitchen of Mitchell's adobe, was taught by Mrs.
Mitchell, and was the first school building in the Santa Clara Valley area. Circa 1885,
the student population had outgrown the single room and a wooden schoolhouse was
constructed at Sulphur Springs, on land donated by Mitchell. The Sulphur Springs
school location is directly east of the project site. Mitchell also built a two-story
home on the project site in 1888, then using the adobe as a guesthouse. Bricks from
the adobe were eventually removed from the property and the school/adobe was
reassembled at Heritage Junction in Hart Park in Newhall.
In addition to the original miner's cabin, adobe, two-story wooden house, and likely a
number of outbuildings, a family cemetery was also present on the Mitchell Ranch.
This was used to inter the Mitchell family, and their friends and neighbors. None of
the buildings referenced above remain on the Vista Canyon site. The cemetery,
however, is still present and would be preserved by the project.
Presently, the project site is comprised primarily of undeveloped, highly disturbed
land, including various utilities, an equipment storage yard and a single-family
residence located on the western side of the project site, and .the Mitchell family
cemetery located on the small elevated terrace on the northeastern portion of the
project site.
The project site is irregularly shaped, and includes the sandy bottom of the ephemeral
Santa Clara River, a small elevated terrace on the northeastern portion of the project
site, and a larger elevated terrace that forms the southern half of the project site.
These terraces drain towards the River. Elevations on the project site range from a
high of 1,555 feet above sea level at the northeastern portion of the site, to a low of
1,465 feet above sea level in the middle of the Santa Clara River.
j. Environmental conditions on the project site have been altered substantially by
existing and historical uses of the property, including outdoor storage, agricultural
cultivation, grading, utility construction and maintenance, and residential uses.
Unauthorized dumping also has occurred on the project site. There is little remaining
/S3
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 5 of 109
natural vegetation remaining with the exception of a vegetated area on the
southeastern portion of the project site that includes oaks and introduced grasses.
k. The Vista Canyon project concentrates development on the flatter, disturbed, elevated
terraces on the project site, and as revised would preserve a River corridor averaging
over 800 feet in width. The majority of oak trees on the project site would be
preserved and incorporated into the project.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA;" Pub.
Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the City of Santa Clarita is the lead agency and the
City Council is the decision-making body for the Vista Canyon project. The City's
Planning Commission is a recommending body for the Vista Canyon project.
in. The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the Vista Canyon project,
which determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment
and that an environmental impact report (`BIR") must be prepared. The Initial Study
determined that the following areas must be addressed in the EIR for the Vista
Canyon project: geotechnical hazards, flood, traffic/access, air quality, noise,
biological resources, land use, water services (including both water demand/supply
and water quality), solid waste disposal, education, library services, parks and
recreation, fire services, sheriff services, human made hazards, visual resources,
population/housing/employment, cultural resources, agricultural resources, Santa
Clara River corridor, wastewater disposal, global climate change and utilities.
n. An initial Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Entitlements was circulated to
affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), for thirty days, beginning on July 11, 2007. A revised
NOP, reflecting various modifications made to the project was circulated, pursuant to
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, for thirty days, beginning on February 26,
2008. And, yet another revised NOP, reflecting the inclusion of the AAA, was
circulated,pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, for thirty days,
beginning on October 1, 2009. Agencies that received the NOPs include, but are not
limited to, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control
Board, California Department of Fish and Game, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, waste haulers,
water agencies and transportation agencies serving the Santa Clarita Valley in
accordance with CEQA's consultation requirements. Numerous comments from
public agencies, organizations, and members of the public were received in response
to the NOPs.
o. A scoping meeting was held at the City of Santa Clarita Century Conference Room
on February 27, 2008, 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 February 6, 2008, and was mailed to all property owners within 1,000
feet of the project site, in addition to approximately 80 agencies. Approximately 25
people attended the scoping meeting.
13
y
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 6 of 109
p. On July 20, 2010, at 3:30 p.m., the Planning Commission conducted a site tour of the
Vista Canyon project site.
q. The City of Santa Clarita prepared a Draft EIR (October 2010; SCH No.
2007071039) for the Vista Canyon project that addressed all issues raised by the
Initial Study and in comments received on the NOPs. The Draft EIR was circulated
for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in
compliance with CEQA. Specifically, the Notice of Availability/Notice of
Completion for the Draft EIR was filed, posted and advertised on October 19, 2010,
and the 45 -day public review period ended on December 3, 2010, 5:00 p.m. in
accordance with CEQA.
r. The City also prepared a Planning Commission Final EIR (February 2011; SCH No.
2007071039). The Planning Commission Final EIR complied with all applicable
CEQA requirements, and contained responses to all oral and written comments
received prior to January 18, 2011. The Planning Commission Final EIR also
contained a description of modifications to the Vista Canyon project made in
response to public comment, City staff recommendations, and Planning Commission
direction; copies of all comment letters received on the project; revised pages of the
Draft EIR; and, additional supporting materials in appendices. Notice of the Planning
Commission Final EIR's availability was sent to commenting agencies, organizations
and persons on February 4, 2011.
S. The Planning Commission held duly -noticed public hearings on the Vista Canyon
project on October 19, November 2, and December 21, 2010, and February 15, 2011.
These hearings were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at
7:00 p.m. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on December 21,
2010.
On October 19, 2010, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the
Vista Canyon project; received a presentation from staff on the Vista Canyon
Specific Plan; received a Draft EIR presentation from staff on several sections
(Geotechnical Hazards, Land Use, Solid Waster Disposal, Education Services,
Library Services, Fire Services, Sheriff Services, Human -Made Hazards,
Population, Housing and Employment, Cultural Resources, Agricultural
Resource, Utilities, and Ancillary Annexation Areas); received a presentation
from the applicant, and received public testimony regarding the project.
ii. On November 2, 2010, City staff responded to questions posed by the Planning
Commission and pubic on issues related to Schools, Traffic, Grading, Solid Waste
and Annexation. City staff also made a presentation on various Draft EIR
Sections (Flood, Traffic and Access, Air Quality, Noise, Biological Resources,
Water Services, Water Quality, Parks and Recreation, Visual Resources, River
Corridor, Wastewater Disposal, Global Climate Change, and Project
//5
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 7 of 109
Alternatives). The Planning Commission also received a presentation from the
applicant and received public testimony regarding the project.
iii. On December 21, 2010, City staff responded to questions and issues raised by the
Planning Commission related to Flood, Traffic, Air Quality, Noise, Biological
Resources, Water Services, Water Quality, Parks and Recreation, Visual
Resources, River Corridor, Wastewater Disposal, Global Climate Change, and
Project Alternatives. In addition, the Planning Commission considered potential
site plan modifications, noise-, dust- and traffic -related conditions, and additional
public testimony on the project. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning
Commission directed staff and the applicant to bring back a site plan reflecting
various project modifications (detailed below), and directed staff to incorporate
the following specific requirements into the revised site plan and/or conditions of
approval for the project:
1. Elimination of the 26 single-family lots located in the area adjacent
to the existing La Veda neighborhood. Elimination of these lots
increased the size of the proposed Oak Park to over 10 acres,
eliminated the removal of one heritage oak tree, and allowed for
the preservation and enhancement of the north/south animal
movement corridor from the Santa Clara River through the project
site to undeveloped land to the south. This project revision
incorporated aspects of Draft EIR Alternative 5 (Open Space
Corridor).
2. Selection of the "Roundabout" (Intersection Design Option 3) at
. the Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road intersection.
3. Removal of the properties south of Placerita Canyon Road from
the AAA, with the exception of the City's Walker Ranch Open
Space property. Removal of these properties reduced the size of
the Sand Canyon annexation area from 1,723 acres to 915 acres.
4. Require, as a condition of approval, the project applicant to
minimize potential dust and vibration impacts associated with
project -related construction to the existing La Veda neighborhood.
5. Require, as a condition of approval, the project applicant to retain a
qualified biologist to prepare an animal movement corridor plan,
which would address corridor design, specifications for an
undercrossing under Lost Canyon Road, and plant materials for the
corridor.
6. Require, as a condition of approval, the project applicant to
construct an eight -foot tall wall/beam in locations along the
southerly Metrolink right-of-way adjacent to the proposed station
to reduce train -related noise to off-site properties.
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 8 of 109
7. Require the applicant to fund a crossing guard for a temporary time
period after the completion of the intersection improvements at
Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road.
t. On February 15, 2011, the modified site plan, Planning Commission Final EIR
(February 2011), resolutions and conditions of approval were presented to the
Planning Commission. The Commission also received public testimony regarding the
project. As a result of the project modifications made during the proceedings before
the Planning Commission, the revised site plan recommended by the Planning
Commission proposes a total of 1;091 residential units (1,324 under the residential
overlay), 950;000 square feet of commercial floor area (700,000 square feet under the
residential overlay), Transit Station, a 10 -acre neighborhood park and other
recreational amenities.
U. At the conclusion of the February 15, 2011 public hearing, the Planning Commission
voted to recommend that the City Council certify the Planning Commission Final EIR
(see Resolution No. P11-02) and approve the Vista -Canyon project as revised (see
Resolution No. P11-01). The Planning Commission also recommended that the City
Council adopt (i) a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts of the
Vista Canyon project that cannot be mitigated to less -than -significant levels, and (ii)
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ("MMRP") (see Resolution No. P 11-
02).
The Planning Commission considered the Draft EIR (October 2010) and Planning
Commission Final EIR (February 2011) prepared for the Vista Canyon project, as
well as information provided in staff reports, presented to the Planning Commission
from experts, and presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the
Planning Commission following the close of the Draft EIR public comment period up
to January 18, 2011, prior to recommending approval of the Vista Canyon project.
V. Following the February 15, 2011 hearing, the City prepared the Final EIR (April
2011; SCH No. 2007071039). The Final EIR contained copies of all late written
comment letters; responses to all oral and written comments received on or after
January 18, 2011 and prior to April 8, 2011; and, a description of additional
modifications to the Vista Canyon project made in response to public comment, City
staff recommendations, and City Council direction (see Paragraph (w), below).
Notice of the Final EIR's availability was provided on April 15, 2011 to commenting
agencies, organizations and persons.
W. The City Council subsequently held duly -noticed public hearings on the Vista
Canyon project on March 22 and April 26, 2011. These hearings were held at City
Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:00 p.m. The City Council closed
the public hearing on April 26, 2011.
i. On March 22, 2011, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the Vista
Canyon project. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council directed staff
and the applicant to bring back a site plan and conditions reflecting various
/ E7
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 9 of 109
project modifications (detailed below), and directed staff to incorporate the
following specific requirements into the revised site plan and/or conditions of
approval for the project:
Increase the length of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge over the
Santa Clara River from 650 feet to 750 feet.
2. Increase the River Corridor width in PA -1 and PA -2 by an average
of 100 feet (excepting the proposed water reclamation plant, which
is located in an area outside of California Department of Fish and
Game's jurisdiction). With this modification, the average width of
the River Corridor on the project site'would be over 800 feet. This
change requires the redistribution of residential and commercial
land uses in PA -1 and PA -2.
3. Eliminate commercial development within PA -4 (Mitchell Hill);
resulting in no commercial or residential development north of the
Santa Clara River Corridor.
4. Relocate the Town Green in PA -2 from its present location
adjacent to the Metrolink right-of-way and Transit Station to a
location near the southern abutment of the Vista Canyon Road
Bridge. This relocation would locate the Town Green along the
Santa Clara River directly north of the office and hotel buildings
located to the east of Vista Canyon Road.
5. Eliminate the residential overlay and establish a residential and
commercial development cap on the project of 1,100 residential
units and 950,000 square feet of commercial floor area.
6. Add the following conditions to the project:
a. Require the staff and applicant to work together on a
Recreational Amenity Plan for the Mitchell Hill Open
Space. The plan would include site security improvements
and the construction of unimproved access (decomposed
granite or similar surface) to the Mitchell Hill Open Space.
The applicant shall also construct improvements identified
in the approved Recreational Amenity Plan. The applicant
shall receive Park Development Fee credit for the
constructed improvements.
b. Require the applicant to pay all costs and complete the
restoration of the Mitchell Family cemetery, including the
extension of water and electricity to the cemetery.
/ 00
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 10 of 109
C. Require the project's Landscape Maintenance District to
pay for ongoing maintenance of the Oak Park, River
Corridor and Mitchell Hill Open Space (including the
Mitchell Family cemetery).
d. Require the applicant to provide $300,000 in funding to be
used for the City's construction of the Sand Canyon Road
Trail from.Roadrunner Avenue to Lost Canyon Road, and
un -constructed portions of the Sand Canyon trail between
Roadrunner Avenue and Sultus Street.
e. Require that project lighting be decorative and down lit,
including along public roadways and the Vista Canyon
Road Bridge.
f. Require that no lighting be permitted on Lost Canyon Road
from La Veda Avenue to a point 300 feet from the eastern
project boundary due to the animal movement corridor.
g. Require that no lighting be permitted on trails adjacent to
the animal movement corridor or along the Santa Clara
River.
h. Require that the applicant use its best efforts, working with
City staff, to acquire an off-site, 20 -foot wide, trail
easement to be located on the property to the south of the
existing railroad undercrossing to allow for the connection
of the Vista Canyon trail system to the - Fair Oaks
Ranch/Golden Valley trail system and to the City's trail
system at the western terminus of Roadrunner Avenue.
Require that the project's loop trail, from the project's
eastern boundary to the existing railroad undercrossing, be
decomposed granite (or similar surface) at a width of 20
feet.
j. Require that the project's loop trail, from the existing
railroad undercrossing to Vista Square, be decomposed
granite (or similar surface) at a width of 12 feet.
k. Require that the slope of the bank stabilization in the area
of the animal movement corridor not exceed a grade of
2.5:1 to provide access for wildlife to enter into the River.
Require that a conservation easement be recorded over the
animal movement corridor on-site and that the applicant
working with City staff use their best efforts to acquire a
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 11 of 109
conservation easement off-site on the property directly to
the south to preserve the animal corridor through the
project site and to the south.
With these additional modifications incorporated, the Vista Canyon project would
result in the following land uses:
A maximum of 1,100 residential units.
A maximum of 950,000 square feet of commercial floor area.
A Transit Station, consisting of a Metrolink Station and Bus
Transfer Station.
4. A water reclamation plant.
Various infrastructure, recreation and open space improvements,
including streets, utilities, the Oak Park, Town Green, Community
Garden, up to six private recreational areas, the River Corridor and
Mitchell Hill Open Space'area.
ii. On April 26, 2011, the City Council received public testimony, closed the public
hearing, certified the Final EIR, and adopted all of the necessary documents (e.g.,
resolutions and ordinances) for approval of the project.
X. The Draft EIR (October 2010), Planning Commission Final EIR (February 2011), and
Final EIR (April 2011) have been prepared and circulated in compliance with CEQA.
y. Based upon the Draft EIR (October 2010), Planning Commission Final EIR (February
2011), and Final EIR (April 2011), staff and consultant presentations, staff reports,
applicant presentations, and public comments and testimony, the City Council finds
that the Vista Canyon project, as modified, will not adversely affect the health, peace,
comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor will the Vista Canyon project
be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the
vicinity of the project site; nor will the Vista Canyon project jeopardize, endanger or
otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the
project conforms with the zoning ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land
uses. The Vista Canyon project proposes the extension of all utilities and services to
the project site. Currently, all required utilities and services are available at locations
adjacent to the project site.
Z. Additionally, the City Council finds that all public hearings pertaining to the Vista
Canyon project were duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for
each of the Entitlements. The project was advertised in The Signal, through on-site
posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first-class mailing to property
owners within 1,000 feet of the Vista Canyon project site. In addition, the date and
/ 90
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 12 of 109
time of each public hearing was posted on three signs at the project site, as well as
eight off-site signs.
aa. The location of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is based for the Master Case
07-127 project file is with the Community Development Department; the record
specifically is in the custody of the Director of Community Development.
SECTION 2. CEQA REQUIREMENTS. The City Council does hereby make the following
findings of facts:
a. CEQA 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[.]" (Pub.
Resources Code, §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." (Ibid.); .
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. (Pub.
Resources Code, §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. (Pub. Resources Code, §21081; Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 14, §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.
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 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) "[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,"
lql
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 13 of 109
(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."
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §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, legal and technological factors. (Pub.
Resources Code, §21061.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15364.);
d. The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular
alternative promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. "Feasibility"
under CEQA, then, 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 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 a condition 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. State 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.
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 14 of 109
SECTION 3. CEQA FINDINGS. The City Council does hereby find that:
a. The Final EIR for Master Case 07-127 has been prepared in compliance with CEQA,
has been reviewed and considered by the City Council, and reflects the independent
judgment of the City Council.
b. The Final EIR for Master Case 07-127, which consists of the Draft EIR (October
2010), Planning Commission Final EIR (February 2011), and Final EIR (April 2011),
identifies and discloses project -specific impacts and cumulative project impacts
attributable to the Vista Canyon project. 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:
(i) The Final EIR identifies significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the
project, as set forth in Section 2.0 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.
(ii) The Final EIR also identifies significant but in impacts, as set forth
in Section 3.0 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.
(iii) The Final EIR also identifies less -than -significant impacts, as set forth in
Section 4.0 of Exhibit A.
(iv) 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.
(v) The MMRP, incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit B, is required
to mitigate project impacts.
SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES.
Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Vista Canyon Final EIR, oral
and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Vista
Canyon project and the Final EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the
City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the
City Council further finds and recommends that the City Council find that the Final EIR analyzes
a reasonable range of project alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives
of the Vista Canyon project and would lessen any of the significant impacts of the project, and
adequately evaluates the comparative merits of each alternative.
iq3
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 15 of 109
a. The objectives of the Vista Canyon project are specified in the Final EIR and Section
1.4 of Exhibit A. These objectives are used as the basis for comparing the project
alternatives and determining the extent that the objectives would be achieved relative
to the proposed project. Only those impacts found significant and unavoidable are
relevant in making the final determination of whether an alternative is
environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. The proposed project
would result in significant and unavoidable impacts in four environmental issue areas:
Traffic and Access — Phase I (Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road
intersection), Interim (SR -14 — Sand Canyon Road to Soledad Canyon Road
segment), cumulative (SR -14 — Sand Canyon Road to Soledad Canyon Road
segment; Soledad Canyon Road — Sierra Highway to Golden Valley Road).
2. Air Quality -- short-term construction impacts (VOC, NOx, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5
emissions), operational impacts (VOCs, NOx, CO, and PM10 ), cumulative
(VOCs, NOx, CO, PM2.5, and PMIo ).
3. Noise --short-term (construction and vibration (on-site only)), cumulative (SR -14
. noise off-site).
4. Solid Waste -- short-term (construction), long-term (operational), and cumulative
impacts.
b. Alternative 1 — No Project Alternative. This alternative is required by the State
CEQA Guidelines and compares the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its
present condition with those that would be generated by the proposed project. Under
this alternative, no development would occur, and the existing storage yard and
residence would remain on a portion of the site.
The No Project Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts
identified in the Final EIR and all other identified significant impacts, and, therefore,
is considered environmentally superior.
This alternative would not attain the basic objectives of the project. That said, some
of the resource conservation objectives would be avoided through the complete
avoidance of direct and indirect environmental impacts. This alternative is infeasible
because it would not attain the basic project objectives, and would not provide any of
the project benefits.
C. Alternative 2 — Proposed County Land Use Designation (OVOV). This alternative
would develop a project allowed by Los Angeles County's proposed land use
designations for the site, as defined in the General Plan Update (OVOV). The
proposed designation would permit approximately 700 residential units on the project
site; a 5 -acre neighborhood park and up to two private recreation areas also would be
provided. However, no commercial or transit uses would be constructed as part of this
alternative. Additionally, this alternative would not include the water reclamation
/9v
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 16 of 109
plant or Vista Canyon Road Bridge. Consistent with OVOV, Lost Canyon Road
would be extended as a major highway from Fair Oaks Ranch to Jakes Way, and then
as a secondary highway from Jakes Way to Lost Canyon Road at La Veda Avenue.
This alternative would result in less impacts than the project in 12 categories, greater
impacts in 5 categories, and similar impacts in 7 categories. In general, this
alternative is considered the "environmentally superior" alternative for purposes of
CEQA.
This alternative would not fully meet or impede the following project objectives,
which are defined in Section 1.4 of Exhibit A (attached): Land Use Planning
Objectives 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 14; and, Economic Objectives 1, 3, and 4. Therefore, this
alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy numerous project
objectives, and would not provide all of the project benefits.
d. Alternative 3 — Existing City of Santa Clarita General Plan Desi nag tion. This
alternative would develop a .project allowed by the City of Santa Clarita's existing
General Plan land use designation for the site (i.e., Business Park (BP)). Under the BP
designation, the site could be developed with approximately 4.35 million square feet
of light industrial/business park uses. This alternative would include construction of
the Vista Canyon Road Bridge, Metrolink Station, and Bus Transfer Station. Lost
Canyon Road would be extended from Fair Oaks Ranch to Lost Canyon Road at La
Veda Avenue as a major highway. This alternative would not include any parks or
recreation facilities.
This alternative would result in less impacts than the project in 8 categories, greater
impacts in 8 categories, and similar impacts in 8 categories: Therefore, this
alternative is not environmentally superior to the project.
This alternative would not fully meet or impede the following project objectives,
which are defined in Section 1.4 of Exhibit A (attached): Land Use Planning
Objectives 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 14; and, Economic Objectives 1. Therefore, this
alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy numerous project
objectives, and would not provide all of the project benefits.
e. Alternative 4 — Reduced Development Footprint (Relocation of Southerly Bank
Stabilization). This alternative generally would move the bank stabilization on the
south side of the River Corridor back by an average of 100 feet, thereby increasing
the width of the River Corridor as compared to the proposed project. The Vista
Canyon Road Bridge length would be extended from 650 to 800 feet. The residential
overlay also would be eliminated, reducing the number of residential units from a
maximum of 1,324 to 1,091. Lost Canyon Road would be extended from Fair Oaks
Ranch to La Veda Avenue in a design (with traffic calming) similar to the proposed
project. All other components of the project would be incorporated into this
alternative.
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 17 of 109
This alternative would result in less impacts than the project in 14 categories, greater
impacts in one category, and similar impacts in 9 categories. Therefore, this
alternative is considered to be environmentally superior to the project.
This alternative would not fully meet or impede the following project objective,
which is defined in Section 1.4 of Exhibit A (attached): Economic Objective 2.
Therefore, this alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy one of the
project objectives.
f. Alternative 5 — Open Space Corridor Alternative. This alternative would create a
north/south open space corridor from and through the project site to undeveloped
properties to the south, and would not include development in PA -4 (Mitchell Hill).
The alternative also would eliminate the extension of Lost Canyon Road to La Veda
Avenue; Lost Canyon Road would terminate in the project site, though the alternative
would still extend trail improvements from the project site along the north side of
Lost Canyon Road to Sand Canyon Road. The alternative would increase the size of
Oak Park (which would include both active and passive areas) and would remove one
less oak tree, as compared to the project. In comparison to the project, 32 single-
family units would be eliminated. All other components of the project would be
incorporated into this alternative.
This alternative would result in less impacts than the project in- 12 categories, greater
impacts in one category, and similar impacts in 11 categories. Therefore, this
alternative is considered to be environmentally superior to the project.
This alternative would not fully meet or impede the following project objectives,
which are defined in Section 1.4 of Exhibit A (attached): Land Use Planning
Objective 12; Economic Objective 2.
g. Alternative 6 — Lost Canyon Road Alignment (parallel and adjacent to the southerly
bank stabilization). This alternative would extend Lost Canyon Road from Fair Oaks
Ranch to La Veda Avenue in an alignment running parallel and adjacent to the
southerly bank stabilization. Lost Canyon Road would be constructed to serve as a
secondary highway to the Vista Canyon Road Bridge, and as a collector through the
eastern portions of the project site. All other components of the proposed project
would be incorporated into this alternative.
The environmental impacts of this alternative would be similar to the impacts of the
project, with the exception of traffic/circulation, which would be slightly greater than
the project. Accordingly, the alternative is not considered environmentally superior
to the project.
This alternative would not fully meet or impede the following project objective,
which is defined in Section 1.4 of Exhibit A (attached): Land Use Planning Objective
3. Therefore, this alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy one of the
project objectives, and would not provide all of the project benefits.
l46
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 18 of 109
h. Off -Site Alternatives. Alternative sites of generally the same size within or directly
adjacent to the City in the eastern Santa Clarita Valley do not exist, are presently
being utilized for other purposes, or are the subject of other development proposals.
The proposed project involves development of a transit -oriented, mixed-use
community in an infill site, surrounded on all sides by development with the
necessary infrastructure adjacent to the project site. A Multi -Modal Transit Station
(Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station) would be developed as part of the
project. There are no potential alternative project sites in the local vicinity that are
similar in acreage, are close to existing or planned infrastructure improvements, and
are adjacent to the Metrolink rail line. Potential alternative sites that provide access
to similar infrastructure and alternative transit are located beyond existing urbanized
areas and, therefore, would induce growth in these non -urban areas. As such, off-site
alternatives are considered infeasible.
Modification of Project Description Based on Alternatives Discussion. As discussed
in Section 1, above, during the public hearing process conducted for the Vista Canyon
project by the Planning Commission and City Council, numerous modifications were
made to the originally proposed project.
For example, consistent with Alternative 4, the City Council has revised the Vista
Canyon project such that the bank stabilization on the south side of the River Corridor
within PA -1 and PA -2, excepting the WRP, has been moved back by an average of
100 feet. Additionally, the residential overlay has been eliminated, and the length of
the Vista Canyon Road Bridge has been extended from 650 to 750 feet.
And, consistent with Alternative 5, the Planning Commission and City Council
revised the Vista Canyon project so as to create a north/south open space corridor
through the elimination of 26 single-family lots originally proposed in the area
adjacent to the existing La Veda neighborhood. As a result, the size of Oak Park has
been increased. Additionally, the proposed project has eliminated development in
PA -4.
SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Based upon the above
recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the Vista Canyon Final EIR,.oral and
written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Vista Canyon
project and the Vista Canyon Final EIR, upon studies and investigation made by the City
Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City
Council finds the following:
a. That the Final EIR for the Vista Canyon project is adequate, complete, has been
prepared in accordance with CEQA, and should be certified on that basis.
b. That the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Final EIR in
reaching its conclusions.
/R7
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 19 of 109
C. That the Final EIR was presented and reviewed prior to taking final action to
recommend certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Vista Canyon project.
d. That, in accordance with State 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 Public Resources Code section 21081, modifications have
occurred to the project to reduce significant effects.
f That, in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081 and State CEQA
Guidelines section 15091, changes and alterations have been required and
incorporated into the Vista Canyon 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 below 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 MMRP has been prepared and is recommended for adoption 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 Vista Canyon Final EIR, oral and written testimony
and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Vista Canyon project and the Vista
Canyon Final EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, and
upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council finds
that there is substantial evidence that supports the conclusion that the Vista Canyon project will
result in community benefits, including specific ecological, economic, legal, social, technical and
other benefits, that outweigh the significant effects of the Vista Canyon project on the
environment that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant.
WIN,
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 20 of 109
a. Significant unavoidable impacts include the following, as further described in Exhibit
A attached hereto:
1. Traffic and Access — Phase I (Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road intersection),
Interim (SR 14 — Sand Canyon Road to Soledad Canyon Road segment),
cumulative (SR -14 — Sand Canyon Road to Soledad Canyon Road segment;
Soledad Canyon Road — Sierra Highway to Golden Valley Road).
2 Air Quality -- short-term construction impacts (VOC, NOx, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5
emissions), operational impacts (VOCs, NOx, CO, and PM10 ), cumulative
(VOCs, NOx, CO, PM2,5, and PM10 ).
3. Noise --short-term (construction and vibration (on-site only)), cumulative (SR -14
noise off-site.
4. Solid Waste -- short-term (construction), long-term (operational), and cumulative
impacts.
b. The benefits of the Vista Canyon project outweigh its significant unavoidable impacts
that cannot be mitigated to a level below significant. These benefits include the
following:
1. The project will create a significant employment center in the eastern Santa
Clarita Valley. The project is expected to create between 2,500 and 4,000
permanent jobs, the majority of these being associated with the corporate office
campus and professional office space. Additionally, the project will create
temporary employment opportunities in its development and construction stage.
The project will assist the City in meeting its desired jobs/housing balance.
2. The project will implement various Goals and Policies of the City's General Plan
related to the development of compact, mixed-use, transit -oriented development.
3. The project will provide various residential housing opportunities for different
economic levels, with a mix of housing types, as required by the Housing Element
of the City's General Plan, and the Housing Allocation for the City of Santa
Clarita as set forth by the Southern California Association of Governments in the
Regional Housing Needs Assessment.
4. The project will provide significant traffic/circulation benefits which include:
a. The extension of Lost Canyon Road from Fair Oaks Ranch to Soledad Canyon
Road, via the Vista Canyon Road Bridge;
b. The construction of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge, substantially reducing
traffic impacts to Sand Canyon Road;
Iq
�
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 21 of 109
c. Traffic calming to reduce cut -through traffic from Jakes Way to Sand Canyon
Road; and,
d. Improvements to Lost Canyon Road from the eastern project boundary to
Sand Canyon Road to alleviate congestion, including the implementation of a
"roundabout" at the intersection of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon
Road.
The project will provide substantial recreational benefits, including expansion of
the City's River Trail system and on-site trails, the 10 -acre Oak Park/River
Education Center, Town Green and the preservation of approximately 87acres of
the Santa Clara River corridor. The project will also include significant private
recreational facilities including the Community Garden and up to six private
recreational facilities.
6. The project will result in the creation of a permanent eastern Santa Clarita Valley
Multi -Modal Transit Station (Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station). This
significant "public-private" partnership would result in the closure of the
temporary Via Princessa Metrolink Station and provide for an opportunity to
convert the station along with adjacent County -owned property to a regional park.
The applicant has entered into a Transit Funding Agreement with the City that
requires the applicant to contribute funding and land for the Transit Station well
in excess of City requirements.
7. The project includes an extensive Sustainability Plan as follows:
a. The project's residential and commercial buildings will exceed the 2008 Title
24 building energy efficiency standards by at least 20%.
b. EnergyStar major appliances in all residential units and non-residential
buildings.
c. An 80,000 square foot photovoltaic system (or equivalent) will be constructed
on the project site.
d. Consistent with the Governor's Million Solar Roofs Plan, the project
developer will offer all potential single-family home -buyers a solar energy
system purchase option.
e. Solar heating will be used for all on-site community pools.
f. The project will construct an on-site WRP, which will generate a water supply
equivalent to the applicant's estimated total potable demand. Recycled water
will be used for on-site irrigation purposes, and nonresidential non -potable
purposes (public restroom toilets). The Vista Canyon WRP will also produce
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 22 of 109
an excess supply of recycled water that ultimately would be utilized by the
Castaic Lake Water Agency as part of its recycled water system.
g. The project will install evapotranspiration (weather sensitive controllers)
irrigation controllers in all landscaped areas of the project. Additionally, the
project site will be vegetated primarily with a native and/or drought -tolerant
plant palette
h. The project will include a mix of land uses including residential, retail
commercial, office, recreation, transit and hospitality.
i. The project will include over four miles of trails, pathways, bicycle lanes to
encourage walking and bicycling within the project site.
j. Office uses within the project would include the use of van pools and car
pools as part of the required Transportation Demand Management Plan.
k. Permeable pavement and other innovative water quality improvements will be
utilized in on -street parking areas within the project.
8. The project includes the preservation of a north/south animal movement corridor
from the Santa Clara River to undeveloped properties to the south, as well as an
east/west animal movement corridor along the Santa Clara River. Additionally,
as concluded in the Final EIR, the project will enhance the Santa Clara River
corridor on-site improving its overall biological function.
-9. The project will bring upscale retail services and amenities to the eastern Santa
Clarita Valley which will include restaurants, shops, a hotel and theater.
10. The project applicant has negotiated a "Mitigation Agreement" with Caltrans to
reduce project impacts to SR -14. Additionally, the Vista Canyon Metrolink
Station and Bus Transfer Station will further reduce commuter trips on SR -14
11. The project has been designed to minimize impacts to the Santa Clara River. The
project concentrates development on flatter, disturbed, terraces along the River
corridor. Over 50 percent of the project site would be preserved as open space or
dedicated to recreational use. The project design preserves a majority of the oak
trees on-site, incorporating them into the project.
12. The Vista Canyon Specific Plan will result in the implementation of the City's
adopted architectural design guidelines for Canyon Country that ensures
compatible development and complimentary architecture to the surrounding
neighborhoods.
SECTION 7. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR (SCH
No. 2007071039; Exhibit C — Incorporated by Reference) and CEQA Findings (Exhibit A), and
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 23 of 109
hereby determines that it is adequate and in compliance with CEQA. In compliance with Public
Resources Code section 12081 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council has
considered the project benefits as balanced against its unavoidable adverse environmental
effects, and hereby determines that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental
effects; therefore, the City Council determines that the unavoidable adverse environmental
effects are considered acceptable. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR and
associated documents, and adopt the MMRP (Exhibit B — Incorporated by Reference) and
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
SECTION 8. By the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council has not granted any approval
or 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.
M41F
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 24 of 109
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 2011.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Kevin Tonoian, Acting City Clerk, of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. was regularly introduced and passed at a regular meeting
of the City Council on the day of , 2011 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 25 of 109
Exhibit A
Findings Required By CEQA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
Public Resources Code section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 require that the
lead agency, in this case the City of Santa Clarita ("City"), prepare written findings for identified
significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding.
Specifically, State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 states, in part, that:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been
certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project
unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those
significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each
finding. The possible findings are:
(b) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
final EIR.
(c) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(d) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
In accordance with Public Resource Code section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines section
15093, whenever significant impacts cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance; the
decision-making agency is required to balance, as applicable, the benefits of the project against
its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the
benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects
may be considered "acceptable."
The Final EIR for the Vista Canyon project identified potentially significant effects that could
result from project implementation. The City finds that the inclusion of certain mitigation
,�oy
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 26 of 109
measures as part of the project approval will reduce most, but not all, of those effects to less -
than -significant levels. Those impacts that are not reduced to less -than -significant levels are
identified and overridden due to specific project benefits.
As required by CEQA, the City, in adopting these findings, also adopts a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program ("MMRP") for the project. The City finds that the MMRP, which is
incorporated by reference and made a part of these findings, meets the requirements of Public
Resources Code section 21081.6 by providing for the implementation and monitoring of
measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of the project.
In accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City adopts these findings as part
of its certification of the Final EIR for the project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21082. 1, subdivision (c)(3), the City also finds that the Final EIR reflects the City's independent
judgment as the lead agency for the project.
1.2 ORGANIZATION/FORMAT OF FINDINGS
Section 1.0 contains a summary description of the project and background facts relative to the
environmental review process. Section 2.0 identifies the significant impacts of the project that
cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level (even though all feasible mitigation measures
have been identified and incorporated into the project), while Section 3.0 identifies the
potentially significant effects of the project that will be mitigated to a less -than -significant level
with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. Section 4.0 identifies the project's
potential environmental effects that were determined not to be significant. Section 5.0 discusses
the feasibility of the project alternatives. And, Section 6.0 addresses the environmental impacts
associated with the Ancillary Annexation Area (AAA).
1.3 SUMMARY OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As revised, the project would include development of the approximately 185 -acre Vista Canyon
project site with a maximum of 1,100 dwelling units, and up to 950,000 square feet of
commercial and medical office, retail, theater, restaurant and hotel uses within three Planning
Areas (PA).
The project also includes approximately 21 acres of parks/recreation facilities, including the
approximately 10 -acre Oak Park/River Education Center proposed for dedication to the City.
Other recreational facilities include the Community Garden, Town Green and up to six private
recreational facilities. Further, there are approximately 10 acres of proposed public streets,
including the extension of Lost Canyon Road from Fair Oaks Ranch to Vista Canyon Road and
a 6-5
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 27 of 109
the construction of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge to connect Lost Canyon Road and Soledad
Canyon Road.
The applicant also is proposing construction of a water reclamation plant (WRP), located
adjacent to the western project boundary and directly north of Lost Canyon Road, which would
provide recycled water for use in the project's landscaped areas and toilets within public
restroom areas in commercial areas of the project. Additionally, the project also includes a
Multi -Modal Transit Station, comprised of a Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station.
Finally, the City proposes to annex various properties surrounding and including the Vista
Canyon site, all of which currently are located under the jurisdiction of the County of Los
Angeles. In total, the AAA includes approximately 2,257 acres, including the Fair Oaks Ranch
(approximately 1,082 acres), Jakes Way (approximately 260 acres), and portions of the Sand
Canyon (approximately 915 acres) communities.
For a detailed discussion of the project description and setting, please see Section 1.0, Project
Description, of the EIR.
1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The project objectives include the following:
Land Use Planning Objectives
1. Create a new transit -oriented community with interrelated neighborhoods that allows for
residential, retail/commercial, office, hotel, and recreational uses, while preserving and
enhancing significant natural and historical resources.
2. Provide a sensitive and protective interface with the Santa Clara River by utilizing
appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization, and water quality
treatments. °
3. Provide development and transitional land use patterns that do not conflict with surrounding
communities and land uses.
4. Arrange land uses to reduce vehicle miles traveled and energy consumption, and to
encourage the use of transit.
5. Design neighborhoods to create a unique identity and sense of place.
c� (06
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 28 of 109
6. Design neighborhoods to locate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses in close
proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit, and trails.
7. Provide a rich set of public spaces, including roadways that range from lively streetscapes to
pedestrian passages.
8. Implement sustainable development principles, including greater energy efficiency, waste
reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, use of water efficiency measures, and use of
recycled materials and renewable energy sources.
9. Create and enhance opportunities for non -vehicular travel and encourage pedestrian mobility
by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential neighborhoods to
nearby schools, neighborhood parks, trail systems, neighborhood retail/commercial and
adjacent park and recreation areas.
10. Foster the design and integration of a mutually beneficial relationship between the natural
and built environments, and implement sensitive land use transition treatments, attractive
streetscapes, and high quality design themes.
11. Provide a meandering trail with public access adjacent to the Santa Clara River Corridor.
12. Integrate a new community into the City's existing and planned. circulation network.
13. Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting
streetscapes.
14. Facilitate the expansion of transit facilities by providing property and participate in the
funding of a new City/Metrolink transit center and associated facilities, and direct pedestrian
access to such facilities from the Specific Plan's commercial, retail, office, and residential
areas.
15. Provide neighborhood parks and improvements that offset park dedication requirements and
meet the recreation needs of local residents.
Economic Objectives
air
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 29 of 109
1. Enhance and augment the housing market by providing a variety of housing types and
densities to meet the varying needs of future residents.
2. Adopt development regulations that provide flexibility to respond and adjust to changing
economic and market conditions.
3. Provide a tax base to support public services and infrastructure.
4. Provide a project jobs/housing balance of at least two jobs for every one residential unit.
5. Adopt development regulations and guidelines that allow site, parking and facility sharing,
and other innovations that reduce the costs of providing public services.
Resource Conservation Objectives
1. Restore and minimize impacts to important biotic resources.
2. Maintain the use of the Santa Clara River as a major east/west open space corridor.
3. Establish a Santa Clara River Corridor and adopt measures to maintain, enhance, and protect
important river habitat values and functions.
4. Provide native revegetation of river and setback areas when temporarily disturbed due to
development activities.
5. Minimize impacts to the Santa Clara River and its resources.
6. Minimize impacts to oak trees and incorporate, where possible, oak trees into public spaces.
The City has considered the statement of the objectives sought by the project as found in Section
1.0, Project Description, of the EIR. The City adopts these objectives as part of the project.
1.5 INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Preliminary. environmental review of the Vista Canyon project was conducted by the City's
Community Development Department. In the initial Notice of Preparation (NOP) and subsequent
revised NOPs, the City determined that the proposed Vista Canyon project may have potentially
significant effects on several environmental impact categories, including: (a) hazards
(geotechnical, flood, and noise); (b) resources (water quality, air quality, .biological, cultural
1
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 30 of 109
resources, agricultural resources, and visual resources/aesthetics); (c) services
(transportation/circulation, sewage disposal, education, fire/sheriff and utilities); and (d) other
categories (general, environmental safety/hazardous materials, land use and demand for new
recreation facilities).
The initial NOP was circulated for a 30 -day review period from July 11, 2007 to August 10,
2007. Revised NOPs were circulated from February 26, 2008 to March 21, 2008, and October 1,
2009 to November 2, 2009, due to revisions to the project. These NOPs were circulated pursuant
to the requirements of the State CEQA Guidelines in order to solicit input from responsible and
interested public agencies and the community regarding the content of the EIR. In addition, to
facilitate local participation, the City held a scoping meeting on the project and solicited
suggestions from the public and other agencies on the scope and content of this Draft EIR. The
meeting took place at the Century Room at the Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, on February 27, 2008.
In response to the NOPs and scoping meeting, comment letters and other input were received
from interested agencies, organizations and others, copies of which are presented in Appendix I
to the Draft EIR. Based on the results of the City's NOPs and scoping efforts, the following
topics were evaluated in the EIR:
1.
Geotechnical Hazards
2.
Flood
3.
Traffic and Access
4.
Air Quality
5.
Noise
6.
Biological Resources
7.
Land Use
8.
Water Service/Water Quality
9.
Solid Waste Disposal
10.
Education
11.
Library Services
12.
Parks and Recreation
13.
Fire Services
14. Sheriff Services
15. Human -Made Hazards
16. Visual Resources
17. Population, Housing, and
Employment
18. Cultural Resources
19. Agricultural Resources
20. Santa Clara River Corridor Analysis
21. Wastewater Disposal
22. Global Climate Change
23. Utilities
24. Ancillary Annexation Area
1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The City prepared the EIR in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The EIR
is a full -disclosure informational document which informs public agency decision -makers and
coq
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 31 of 109
the public of the significant environmental effects of the project. Possible ways to minimize
significant effects are identified in the EIR and reasonable alternatives to the project are
evaluated.
The EIR is intended as a "project EIR" under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. A project
EIR is typically prepared for a specific construction -level project. (See State CEQA Guidelines
§15161.) Under CEQA, a project EIR "should focus primarily on the changes in the
environment that would result from the development project ... [and] examine all phases of the
project including planning, construction, and operation." (lbid.)
The Draft EIR (October 2010) was made available to the public for review and comment for a
45 -day period. The review and comment period began on October 20, 2010 and concluded on
December 3, 2010. Additionally, the Planning Commission's Final EIR (February 2011) was
made available to the public on February 4, 2011. Finally, responses to all comments included in
the Final EIR (April 2011) were distributed by the City on April 15, 2011.
Copies of the Draft EIR (October 2010) were available for public review at the following
locations: (a) City of Santa Clarita City Hall, Community Development Department, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355; (b) Los Angeles County Library,
Canyon Country Branch, 18601 Soledad Canyon Road, Santa Clarita CA 91351; and (c)
�. ySL',_s �r7tL�-c�l��rit.---.cc------pl 111io. The Planning Commission's Final EIR (February 2011) and
the Final EIR (April 2011) also were available at the Community Development Department and
on the City's website.
All comment letters, including late comment letters, received in response to the Draft EIR were
reviewed and are included in the Final EIR, along with written responses to each of the
comments. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15132, the Final EIR for the
project consists of: (i) the Draft EIR; (ii) comments received on the Draft EIR; (iii) a list of the
persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; (iv) written responses
to significant environmental issues raised during the public review and comment period and
related supporting materials; and, (v) other information contained in the administrative record.
2.0 FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE
PROJECT
This section 'identifies the significant unavoidable impacts that require a statement of overriding
considerations to be issued by the City if the project is approved. Based on the substantial record
Flo
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 32 of 109
evidence, the following impacts have been determined to fall within this "significant unavoidable
impact" category.
2.1 TRAFFIC AND ACCESS
2.1.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts
The existing plus project scenario would result in significant impacts at nine study intersections,
but no freeway segments or roadways. Implementation of the mitigation measures listed below,
as well as the prior completion of the Cross Valley Connector, effectively mitigates and reduces
the impacts at these nine intersections to a level below significant.
Phase 1 (2012) of the project would cause significant impacts at five study intersections, but no
freeway segments. Implementation of the mitigation measures listed below would reduce these
impacts to less -than -significant levels at four of the five intersections. At one of the intersections
(Sand Canyon Road/Lost Canyon Road), the project would have a temporary significant and
unavoidable impact because the recommended improvement would not be completed until after
completion of Phase 1.
Project build -out (2015) would cause significant impacts at eight study intersections.
Implementation of the mitigation measures listed below would reduce these impacts to less -than -
significant levels at all eight intersections. The project also would significantly impact one SR -
14 segment, Sand Canyon Road to Soledad Canyon Road. However, because there are neither
planned and programmed improvements for SR -14, nor an established funding program, the
project's payment of an in -lieu fee to Caltrans would not fully mitigate the identified impact.
Under long-range cumulative conditions (2030), the project would cause significant impacts
along Soledad Canyon Road between Sierra Highway and Golden Valley Road. No feasible
improvements, however, are available as this arterial already is constructed to its ultimate width.
The Circulation Element in the City's General Plan recognizes that, in some cases, street
improvements to accommodate additional traffic are not capable of being implemented due to
right-of-way limitations and existing development. The project also would significantly impact
one SR -14 segment (Sand Canyon Road to Soledad Canyon Road). As noted above, because
there are neither planned and programmed improvements for SR -14, nor an established funding
program, the project's payment of an in -lieu fee to Caltrans would not fully mitigate the
identified impact.
2.1.2 Mitigation Measures
iii
f
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution .
Page 33 of 109
4.3-1 Prior to .the completion and occupancy of project Phase 1, the project applicant shall
convert the westbound left -turn lane on Soledad Canyon Road onto the SR -14
southbound on-ramp from a permitted to protected signal phase, and retime this traffic
signal and the adjacent Sand Canyon Road/Soledad Canyon Road signal to optimize
traffic flow.
4.3-2 Prior to the completion and occupancy of project Phase 1, the project applicant shall take
those steps necessary that result in retiming the traffic signals at the Via Princessa/SR-14
SB ramps and Via Princessa/SR-14 NB ramps intersections to optimize traffic flow.
4.3-3 Prior to the completion and occupancy of project Phase 1, the project applicant shall
install a westbound right -turn overlap arrow at the Via Princessa/Lost Canyon Road
intersection.
4.3-4 -Prior to project completion and full occupancy (beyond Phase 1), the project applicant
shall construct the following improvements at the Sand Canyon Road/Soledad Canyon
Road and SR -14 SB Ramps/Soledad Canyon Road intersections:
• Restripe Soledad Canyon Road to include a third through lane in each
direction from just east of the SR -14 ramp intersection to west of the Sand
Canyon Road intersection.
• Install a right -turn overlap arrow on the northbound Sand Canyon Road
approach to Soledad Canyon Road.
• Retime and optimize operations of both traffic signals based on the revised
lane geometries and signal phasings.
4.3-5 Prior to the completion and full occupancy of the project (beyond Phase 1), the project
applicant shall install Intersection Design Option No. 3, as described below, at the Sand
Canyon Road/Lost Canyon Road intersection.
• Option 3 (Roundabout) — this design option (see Exhibit 4.3-18 and 4.3-18a)
would include the installation of a "roundabout" or traffic circle at the
intersection. This option would involve the relocation of the intersection to the
north and west to adhere to northbound "line of sight" requirements. Right-of-
way acquisition would be necessary on all four corners; most of it would
come from the northwest corner (which is presently vacant). Encroachment
within the protected zone of the heritage oak tree located along the eastern
Master Case No. 07 -127 -
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 34 of 109
edge of Sand Canyon Road would still occur, consistent with the existing
condition. From a traffic operational standpoint, this design option would be
the best of the four, improving the future LOS F under the existing design to
an LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM. peak hour even with
future growth (including the Vista Canyon project).
4.3-6 Prior to project completion and full occupancy (beyond Phase 1), the project applicant
shall construct the following improvements at the Soledad Canyon Road/Lost Canyon
Road intersection:
• Install a traffic signal with signal equipment placed in locations that
accommodates the planned restriping of the road to six lanes.
• Construct an exclusive right -turn lane on the eastbound Soledad Canyon Road
approach consistent with the condition of approval previously placed on the
undeveloped parcel adjacent to this intersection.
• Construct two left -turn lanes and one right -turn lane (with a right -turn overlap
phase) on the Vista Canyon Road approach. Each lane should provide 125 feet
of storage.
• Lengthen the westbound left -turn lane on Soledad Canyon Road from 140 feet
to 200 feet to accommodate the projected 95th percentile vehicle queue of 140
feet and to provide opportunities -for deceleration.
4.3-7 Prior to project completion and full occupancy (beyond Phase 1), the project applicant
shall construct the following improvement at the Via Princessa/Lost Canyon Road
intersection:
• Restripe the southbound approach to include a second left -turn lane.
4.3-5 Prior to project completion and full occupancy (beyond Phase 1), the project applicant
shall construct the following improvement at the Soledad Canyon Road/Sierra Highway
intersection:
• Install a right -turn overlap arrow on the southbound Sierra Highway approach to
Soledad Canyon Road.
4.3-9 The applicant shall execute and adhere to the terms of the mitigation agreement with
Caltrans to minimize the project's impacts to SR 14.
ai3
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 35 of 109
2.1.3 Findings
Based on the explanation provided in Section 2.1.1, and even with implementation of the
mitigation measures identified in Section 2.1.2, the City finds there are no feasible mitigation
measures that will reduce the following significant impacts to a level below significant:
temporary impacts to the Sand Canyon Road/Lost Canyon Road intersection during Phase I
(2012); impacts to the Sand Canyon Road to Soledad Canyon Road segment of SR -14 at project
build -out (2015) and during long-range cumulative conditions (2030); and, impacts to the
Soledad Canyon Road segment between Sierra Highway and Golden Valley Road under long-
range cumulative conditions (2030). Therefore, these impacts must be considered unavoidably
significant even after implementation of all feasible transportation/circulation mitigation
measures. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), the City has
determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and the identified traffic and access impacts are
thereby acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
However, the City also finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and
will reduce the project's other potential traffic -related impacts to intersections, freeways and
roadways to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public
Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091,
subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
that mitigate or avoid these potentially significant traffic -related impacts of the project identified
in the Final EIR.
2.2 AIR QUALITY
2.2.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts
Construction -related emissions, which occur on- and off-site, include all emissions associated
with the construction equipment, grading and demolition activities, as well as worker trips, on -
road diesel trucks, and architectural coating. Based on air quality modeling utilizing
conservative data inputs prepared by a qualified environmental consultant, construction -related
emissions would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for VOCs, NOx, PM2.5 and PM10,
and would exceed the localized significance thresholds for NO2, PM2.5, and PM 10.
Operational emissions would be generated by both stationary and mobile sources as a result of
normal day-to-day activity on the project site. Based on air quality modeling, operational
emissions also would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for VOCs, NOx, CO, and PM10
during the summer and winter.
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 36 of 109
Finally, the project also would result in regional emission levels that are cumulatively
considerable for VOCs, NOx, CO, PM2.5, and PM10 in light of its exceedances of the above -
referenced SCAQMD thresholds.
2.2.2 Mitigation Measures
4.4-1 The project applicant shall prepare a Construction Traffic Emission Management Plan to
minimize emissions from vehicles including, but not limited to, scheduling truck
deliveries to avoid peak hour traffic conditions, consolidating truck deliveries, and
prohibiting truck idling in excess of 5 minutes, and ensuring that all off-road equipment
is compliant with the CARB's in -use off-road diesel vehicle regulation and SCAQMD
Rule 2449.
4.4-2 The project contractor shall use electric or alternative fueled mobile equipment for on-site
uses instead of diesel equipment if suitable equipment is commercially available and the
necessary power and refueling infrastructure can reasonably be installed on site.
4.4-3 The project contractor shall maintain construction equipment by conducting regular tune-
ups according to the manufacturers' recommendations.
4.4-4 The project contractor shall use electric welders to avoid emissions from gas or diesel
welders if suitable equipment is commercially available and the necessary power
infrastructure can reasonably be installed on site.
4.4-5 The project contractor shall use on-site electricity or alternative fuels rather than
diesel -powered or gasoline -powered generators if suitable equipment is commercially
available and the necessary power and refueling infrastructure can reasonably be installed
on site.
4.4-6 Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
4.4-7 Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction
to maintain smooth traffic flow.
4.4-8 Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and
off-site.
X 1 5
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 37 of 109
4.4-9 Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak
hour to the extent practicable.
4.4-10 Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas.
4.4-11 Consistent with measures that other lead agencies in the region (including Port of Los
Angeles and Port of Long Beach) have enacted, require all on-site construction
equipment to meet U.S. EPA Tier 2 or higher emissions standards according to the
following:
• April 1, 2010 to December 31, 2011: All off-road diesel -powered construction
equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet Tier 2 off-road emissions
standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with the BACT
devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor
shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by
a Level 2 or Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine
as defined by CARB regulations.
• January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014: All off-road diesel -powered construction
equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions standards. In
addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with the BACT devices
certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall
achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a
Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by
CARB regulations.
• Post -January 1, 2015: All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater
than 50 hp shall meet Tier 4 off-road emissions standards, where available. In
addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with the BACT devices
certified by CARE. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall
achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved .by a
Level 2 or Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as
defined by CARB regulations.
• A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and
CARB or AQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization or
each applicable unit of equipment.
a��
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 38 of 109
4.4-12 The project constructor shall limit PMIo and PM2,5 fugitive dust emissions by
implementing the following measures: P
• Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit the construction site onto
paved roads or wash off trucks or any equipment leaving the site each trip;
• Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds (as
instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph;
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered;
• Pave road and road shoulders;
• Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible;
• Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil is carried onto adjacent
public paved roads (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water); and
• Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison
concerning on-site construction activity including resolution of issues related
to PM10 generation.
4.4-13 The project constructor shall limit VOC emissions by implementing the following
measures:
• Use coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than required under
SCAQMD Rule 1113;
• Construction/build with materials that do not require painting;
• Require the use of pre -painted construction materials; and
• Contractors shall use varying -pressure -low-volume (HPLV) paint applicators
or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency.
2.2.3 Findings
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 39 of 109
Although the above -enumerated mitigation measures would reduce the magnitude of impacts, the
City finds there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the identified significant
impacts to a level below significant. Therefore, these impacts must be considered unavoidably
significant even after implementation of all feasible air quality mitigation measures. Pursuant to
Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), the City has determined that specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives
identified in the EIR and the identified air quality impacts are thereby acceptable because of
specific overriding considerations.
2.3 Nom
2.3.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts
Construction of the project would require site preparation, grading, and the construction of
roadways, infrastructure, and buildings. Each of these construction activities typically involves
the use of heavy-duty equipment, all of which could expose off-site residents and other noise
sensitive receptors to temporary, but significant and unavoidable noise impacts due to the
exceedance of noise standards set forth in the Noise Element of the City's General Plan.
Construction activities also would result in vibration impacts. Since ground -borne vibration
could be generated during construction in excess of the Federal Transit Administration vibration
standards, impacts to on-site sensitive uses (i.e., residential) would be significant and
unavoidable.
Traffic associated with the project also would contribute to a cumulatively considerable noise
increases along SR -14, but not other local roadways. This noise increase would significantly
impact off-site sensitive receptors located adjacent to or near to portions of SR -14.
2.3.2 Mitigation Measures
4.5-1 Pursuant to Section 11.44.080 of the City's Noise Ordinance, construction work shall
occur within 300 feet of occupied residences only between the hours of 7:00 AM and
7:00 PM Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturday. No
construction work shall occur on Sundays, New Year's Day, Independence Day,
Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, Memorial Day, and Labor Day.
4.5-2 The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that the following
construction best management practices (BMPs) be implemented by the construction
contractor to reduce construction noise and vibration levels:
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 40 of 109
• Two weeks prior to the commencement of construction, notification must be
provided to surrounding land uses of the project site disclosing the
construction schedule, including the various types of activities that would be
occurring throughout the duration of the construction period.
• Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry
standards and in good working condition.
• Place noise- and vibration- generating construction equipment and locate
construction staging areas away from sensitive uses, where . feasible
(particularly away from the residential uses located north and east of the
project site).
• Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel
equipment, where feasible.
• Construction -related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor
vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more
than 30 minutes.
• Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job
superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow for
surrounding owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. If the job
superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take
appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting
party. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project
construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Santa Clarita
prior to issuance of the grading permit.
aid
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 41 of 109
2.3.3 Findings
Although the above -enumerated mitigation measures would reduce the magnitude of
construction -related impacts, the City finds there are no feasible mitigation measures that will
reduce the identified significant noise and vibration impacts to a level below significant.
Therefore, these impacts must be considered unavoidably significant even after implementation
of all feasible noise mitigation measures. Further, no feasible mitigation exists to reduce the
cumulative noise impacts along SR -14 to a level below significant. Pursuant to Public Resources
Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), the City has determined that specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the
EIR and the identified noise impacts are thereby acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
2.4 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
2.4.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts
The project would generate solid waste, including hazardous waste, requiring disposal during the
construction and operational phases. As an adequate amount of landfill space has not been
identified to accommodate long-term solid waste generation at current disposal rates, project -
and cumulative -level impacts would be significant. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that it is
reasonable to assume that the market forces that drive the waste disposal industry will put
pressure on the industry and governmental agencies to continually identify new economically
feasible means of waste disposal in the future.
2.4.2 Mitigation Measures
4.9-1 Recycling/separation areas will be located in close proximity to dumpsters for non-
recyclables, elevators, loading docks, and primary internal and external access points.
4.9-2 Recycling/separation areas will not conflict with any applicable federal, state, or local
laws relating to fire, building, access, transportation, circulation, or safety.
4.9-3 Recycling/separation areas will be conveniently located for those persons who deposit,
collect, and load the recyclable materials.
4.9-4 Recycling containers/bins will be located so as to not block access to each other.
4.9-5 Yard waste will be reduced through the use of xeriscaping techniques and the use of
drought -tolerant and native vegetation in common area landscaping, wherever possible.
Emig
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 42 of 109
4.9-6 For commercial developments and residential buildings having five or more living units,
no refuse collection or recycling areas will be located between a street and the front of a
building.
4.9-7 On-site trash compactors will be installed for non-recyclables in all restaurants/food
services areas.
4.9-5 The project will comply with City recycling requirements, including the number and
location of recycling and waste bins.
4.9-9 First-time buyers and businesses will receive educational material on the City's waste
management efforts. Educational material shall be passed to consecutive buyers using the
CC&Rs.
4.9-10 The applicant shall comply with all applicable state, regional, and local regulations and
procedures for the use, collection, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes.
4.9-11 During construction, recycling bins for glass, metals, paper, wood, plastic, greenwastes,
and cardboard will be placed on site to ensure their use by construction workers and will
be trucked to recycling/processing facilities.
4.9-12 In construction specification and bid packages, building materials made of recycled
materials will be required, to the extent possible and feasible.
2.4.3 Findings
Although the above -enumerated mitigation measures would reduce the magnitude of solid waste -
related impacts, the City finds there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the
identified impacts to a level below significant. Therefore, these impacts must be considered
unavoidably significant even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. Pursuant
to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), the City has determined that specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives
identified in the EIR and the identified solid waste disposal impacts are thereby acceptable
because of specific overriding considerations.
3.0 FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT BUT MITIGATED IMPACTS
This section identifies significant adverse impacts of the project that require findings to be made
under Public Resources Code section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091. Based
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 43 of 109
on substantial record evidence, the City finds that adoption of the mitigation measures set forth
below will reduce the identified significant impacts to less -than -significant levels.
3.1 GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS
3.1.1 Potential Significant Impacts
Topographic changes attributable to various grading activities on the project site would occur to
accommodate the proposed project. However, mitigation measures specifying the grading
techniques would ensure that impacts due to earth movement are less than significant. These
same mitigation measures would reduce liquefaction impacts to a level below significant by
requiring that potentially liquefiable soil layers be overlain by non -liquefiable soils of sufficient
thickness, and construction -related erosion impacts to a less -than -significant level. (Of note, the
project would result in a long-term decrease in on-site erosion and would not increase wind and
water erosion due to the placement of non-erosive surfaces on the site.)
Due to its location, ground shaking on the project site is anticipated. In order to lessen impacts
associated with ground shaking, building design and construction would adhere to the California
Building Code, City of Santa Clarita Building Code, and pertinent professional engineering
standards. In addition, Mitigation Measure 4.1-22 requires compliance with Section 1613 of the
International Building Code. Compliance with the referenced standards would ensure that
impacts attributable to strong seismic ground shaking are reduced to a less -than -significant level.
Finally, impacts attributable to lateral spreading, differential settlement, corrosive soils,
expansive soils, and subsidence would be reduced to. a level below significant through the
implementation of various mitigation measures.
3.1.2 Mitigation Measures
4.1-1 Grading: The applicability of the preliminary recommendations for foundation and
retaining wall design shall be confirmed at the completion of grading. Paving studies and
soil corrosivity tests shall be performed at the completion of rough grading to develop
detailed recommendations for protection of utilities, structures, and for construction of
the proposed roads.
4.1-2 Site Preparation: Prior to performing earthwork, the existing vegetation and any
deleterious debris shall be removed from the site. Existing utility lines shall be relocated
or properly protected in place. All unsuitable soils, uncertified fills, artificial fills,
slopewash, upper loose terrace deposits, and upper loose alluvial soils in the areas of
grading receiving new fill shall be removed to competent earth materials and replaced
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 44 of 1-09
with engineered fill. The depth of removal and recompaction of unsuitable soils is noted
in the Project Geotechnical Report. Any fill required to raise the site grades shall be
properly compacted.
4.1-3 Removal Depths: The required depth of removal and recompaction of the existing
compacted fill or natural soils are indicated in the Project Geotechnical Report. Deeper
removals shall be required if disturbed or unsuitable soils are encountered during project
grading as directed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant. After excavation of the upper
natural soils on hillsides and in canyons, further excavation shall be performed, if
necessary, and as directed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant, to remove slopewash
or other unsuitable soils. Additional removals will also be required for transition lots (a
transition lot occurs on a graded pad where relatively shallow or exposed bedrock
materials and compacted fills soils are both present on a lot.) and where expansive
bedrock occurs as directed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant. The Project
Geotechnical Consultant may require that additional shallow excavations be made
periodically in the exposed bottom to determine that sufficient removals have been made
prior to recompacting the soil in-place. Deeper removals may be required by the Project
Geotechnical Consultant based on observed field conditions during grading. During
grading operations, the removal depths shall be observed by the Project Geotechnical
Consultant and surveyed by the Project Civil Engineer for conformance with the
recommended removal depths shown on the grading plan.
4.1-4 Material for Fill: The on-site soils, less any debris or organic matter, may be used in the
required fills. Any expansive clays shall be mixed with non -expansive soils to result in a
mixture having an expansion index less than 30 if they are to be placed within the upper 8
feet of the proposed rough grades. Rocks or hard fragments larger than 4 inches shall not
be clustered or compose more than 25 percent by weight of any portion of the fill or a lift.
Soils containing more than 25 percent rock or hard fragments larger than 4 inches must
be removed or crushed with successive passes (e.g., with a sheepsfoot roller) until rock or
hard fragments larger than 4 inches constitute less than 25 percent of the fill or lift.
4.1-5 Oversized Material: Rocks or hard fragments larger than 8 inches shall not be placed in
the fill without conformance with the following requirements: Rock or material greater
than 8 inches in diameter, but not exceeding 4 feet in largest dimension shall be
considered oversize rock. The oversize rocks can be incorporated into deep fills where
designated by the Project Geotechnical Consultant. Rocks shall be placed in the lower
portions of the fill and shall not be placed within the upper 15 feet of compacted fill, or
C:;�a3
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 45 of 109
nearer than 15 feet to the surface of any fill slope. Rocks between 8 inches and 4 feet in
diameter shall be placed in windrows or shallow trenches located so that equipment can
build up and compact fill on both sides. The width of the windrows shall not exceed 4
feet. The windrows shall be staggered vertically so that one windrow is not placed
directly above the windrow immediately below. Rocks greater than 1 foot in diameter
shall not exceed 30 percent of the volume of the windrows. Granular fill shall be placed
on the windrow, and enough water shall be applied so that soil can be flooded into the
voids. Fill shall be placed along the sides of the windrows and compacted as thoroughly
as possible. After the fill has been brought to the top of the rock windrow, additional
granular fill shall be placed and flooded into the voids. Flooding is not permitted in fill
soils placed more than 1 foot above the top of the windrowed rocks. Where utility lines or
pipelines are to be located at depths greater than 15 feet, rock shall be excluded in that
area. Excess rock that cannot be included in the fill or that exceeds 4 feet in diameter
shall be stockpiled for export or used for landscaping purposes.
4.1-6 Import Material: Import material shall consist of relatively non -expansive soils with an
expansion index less than 30. The imported materials shall contain sufficient fines
(binder material) so as to be relatively impermeable and result in a stable subgrade when
compacted. The import material shall be free of organic materials, debris, and rocks
larger than 8 inches. A bulk sample of potential import material, weighing at least
25 pounds, shall be submitted to the Project Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours in
advance of fill operations. All proposed import materials shall be approved by, the Project
Geotechnical Consultant prior to being placed at the site.
4.1-7 Compaction: After the site is cleared and excavated as recommended, the exposed soils
shall be carefully observed for the removal of all unsuitable material. Next, the exposed
subgrade soils shall be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches, brought to above optimum
moisture content, and rolled with heavy compaction equipment. The upper 6 inches of
exposed soils shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density
obtainable by the ASTM D 1557-02 Method of Compaction. After compacting the
exposed subgrade soils, all required fills shall be placed in loose lifts, not more than 8
inches in thickness, and compacted to at least 90 percent of their maximum density. For
fills placed at depths greater than 40 feet below proposed finish grade a minimum
compaction of 93 percent of the maximum dry density is required. The moisture content
of the fill soils at the time of compaction shall be above the optimum moisture content.
Compacted fill shall not be allowed to dry out before subsequent lifts are placed. Rough
grades shall be sloped so as not to direct water flow over slope faces. Finished exterior
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 46 of 109
grades shall be sloped to drain away from building areas to prevent ponding of water
adjacent to foundations.
4.1-8 Shrinkage and Bulking: In computing fill quantities, about 10 to 15 percent shrinkage of
the upper 5 feet is estimated for on-site natural alluvial soils, slopewash, and unsuitable
soils. That is, it will require approximately 1. 15 cubic yards of excavated alluvium to
make 1 cubic yard of fill compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density. About 10
percent shrinkage of the alluvium between depths of about 5 to 10 feet is estimated, as
well as 5 percent shrinkage below a depth of about 10 feet. Additional loss of material
may be due to stripping, clearing, and grubbing. A bulking value of about 5 to 10 percent
is anticipated for materials generated from the bedrock when placed as compacted fill.
The removal of oversize material generated by excavation of the bedrock may affect
volume losses.
4.1-9 Temporary Slopes: For purposes of construction, the soils encountered at the site shall
not be expected to stand vertically for any significant length of time in cuts 4 feet or
higher. Where the necessary space is available, temporary unsurcharged embankments
may be sloped back at a 1:1 without shoring, up to a height of 45 feet in competent
bedrock with favorable bedding. Where any cut slope exceeds a height of 50 feet within
competent bedrock, a bench at least 10 feet wide shall be located at mid -height. Within
alluvial or compacted fill material, temporary excavations may be made at a 1.25:1 cut to .
a height of 25 feet. If the temporary construction embankments are to be maintained
during the rainy season, berms are recommended along the tops of the slopes where
necessary to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope
faces. Where sloped embankments are used, the tops of the slopes shall be barricaded to
prevent vehicles and storage loads within 5 feet of the tops of the slopes. A greater
setback may be necessary when considering heavy vehicles, such as concrete trucks and
cranes; in this case, the Project Geotechnical Consultant shall be advised of such heavy
vehicle loads so that specific setback requirements can be established. All applicable
safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA regulations, shall be met.
4.1-10 Permanent Slopes: Permanent cut and fill slopes may be inclined at 2:1 or flatter. The
current bulk grading plan indicates that the steepest slope to be constructed at the site
during grading will be 2:1.
4.1-11 Proposed Cut Slopes: Cut slopes proposed for the rough grading of the subject site have
been designated as shown in the Project Geotechnical Report. Each cut slope is discussed
i
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 47 of 109
with specific recommendations presented in the "Slope Stability Analyses" section of the
Project Geotechnical Report. All grading shall conform to the minimum
recommendations presented in the Project Geotechnical Report. If these slopes are
modified from those that are discussed in the Project Geotechnical Report, the
modifications shall be reviewed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant to ascertain the
applicability of project recommendations or to revise recommendations. The cut slope
designation, gradient, and proposed mitigation are summarized in the Project
Geotechnical Report.
4.1-12 Fill Slopes: If the toe of a fill slope terminates on natural, fill, or cut, a' keyway is required
at the toe of the fill slope. The keyway shall be a minimum width of 12 feet, be founded
within competent material, and shall extend a horizontal distance beyond the toe of the
fill to the depth of the keyway. The keyway shall be sloped back at a minimum gradient
of 2 percent into the slope. The width of fill slopes shall be no less than 8 feet and under
no circumstances shall the fill widths be less than what the compaction equipment being
used can fully compact. Benches shall be cut into the existing slope to bind the fill to the
slope. Benches shall be step-like in profile, with each bench not less than 4 feet in height
and established in competent material. Compressible or other unsuitable soils shall be
removed from the slope prior to benching. Competent material is defined as being
essentially free of loose soil, heavy fracturing, or erosion -prone material and is
established by the Project Geotechnical Consultant during grading.
Where the top or toe of a fill slope terminates on a natural or cut slope and the natural or
cut slope is steeper than a gradient of 3:1, a drainage terrace with a width of at least 6 feet
is required along the contact. As an alternative, the natural or cut portion of the slope can
be excavated and replaced as a stability fill to provide an all -fill slope condition.
When constructing fill slopes, the grading contractor shall avoid spillage of loose
material down the face of the slope during the dumping and rolling operations.
Preferably, the incoming load shall be dumped behind the face of the slope and bladed
into place. After a maximum of 4 feet of compacted fill has been placed, the contractor
shall backroll the outer face of the slope by backing the tamping roller over the top of the
slope and thoroughly covering all of the slope surface with overlapping passes of the
roller. The foregoing shall be repeated after the placement of each 4 -foot thickness of fill.
As an alternative, the fill slope can be over built and the slope cut back to expose a
compacted core. If the required compaction is not obtained on the fill slope, additional
2Z�
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 48 of 109
rolling will be required prior to placement of additional fill, or the slope shall be overbuilt
and cut back to expose the compacted core.
4.1-13 Slope Planting: In order to reduce the potential for erosion, all cut and fill slopes shall be
seeded or planted with proper ground cover as soon as possible following grading
operations in accordance with Section 7019 of the County of Los Angeles Building Code,
1999, or latest edition. The ground cover shall consist of drought -resistant, deep -rooting
vegetation. A landscape architect shall be consulted for ground cover recommendations,
plant selection, installation procedures, and plant care requirements.
4.1-14 Subdrains: Canyon subdrains are required to intercept and remove groundwater within
canyon fill areas. All subdrains shall extend up -canyon, with the drain inlet carried to
within 15 feet of final pad grade. Specific subdrain locations and recommendations shall
be provided as part of the future rough grading plan review.
4.1-15 Bedrock shall be over -excavated to a minimum depth of 5 feet below lots and streets.
Bedrock shall be overexcavated to a depth. of at least 3 feet below proposed soil subgrade
areas receiving pavement or hardscape improvements.
4.1-16 Mint Canyon Formation bedrock materials exposed at pad grade may contain expansive
claystone beds that could cause differential expansion. Therefore, within building areas at
locations where expansive Mint Canyon Formation units are exposed at pad grade, it is
required that the bedrock be removed and recompacted to a depth of at least 8 feet below
the proposed final pad elevations or 5 feet below the bottom of proposed footings,
whichever is greater. The soils generated by these over -excavations shall be mixed with
non -expansive soils to yield a relatively non -expansive mixture. Shall the resulting fill
soil still be expansive, special construction techniques such as pad subgrade saturation or
post -tensioned slabs may be required, at the discretion of the Project Geotechnical
Consultant, to reduce the potential for expansive soil related distress.
4.1-17 To reduce the potential for cracking and differential settlement, the portion of the lot in
bedrock shall be over -excavated to a depth of at least 5 feet below the proposed finished
pad elevation; or 3 feet below the bottom of proposed footings, whichever is greater. The
over -excavation shall extend at least 5 feet laterally beyond the building limits. Where
removal and recompaction for potentially expansive soils or bedrock is also required, it is
recommended that the 8 -foot removals be performed as described in the "Expansive
Bedrock" section of the Project Geotechnical Report.
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 49 of 109
Foundation and floor slabs for structures located within a transition zone shall also
contain special reinforcement as designed by the Project Structural Engineer. Continuous
footings located across the transition zone and 20 feet on either side of the contact shall
incorporate a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one at the top and one at the bottom.
Floor slabs located across the transition zone and 20 feet on either side of the contact
shall have a minimum slab thickness of at least 4 inches and shall contain as a minimum
No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on center. As an alternative, post -tensioned
floor slabs may be used.
4.1-18 General: Residential and commercial buildings up to three stories in height may be
supported on continuous or individual spread footings established in properly compacted
fill. The following recommendations shall be considered preliminary since fill will be
used in some lots to raise the site grade and the final design values will depend upon the
engineering characteristics of the fill soil. The preliminary design values are based upon
the site investigation, experience with the soils in the area, and the site preparation and
grading recommendations for this project.
4.1-19 Bearing Capacity: It is assumed that the proposed buildings will be founded at
approximately final planned grades, with column loads less than 100 kips, and have
normal floor loads with no special requirements. Individual column pads or wall footings
for buildings shall have a width of at least 12 inches and be placed at a depth of at least
18 inches below the lowest final adjacent grade.
Structures may be placed on spread footings designed using a bearing value of 2,000
pounds per square foot (psf). The recommended bearing value is a net value, and the
weight of concrete in the footings may be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The
weight of soil backfill may be neglected when determining the downward loads from the
footings. A one-third increase in the bearing value may be used when considering wind
or seismic loads.
While the actual bearing value of the fill placed at the site will depend on the materials
used and the compaction methods employed, the quoted bearing value will be applicable
if acceptable soils are used and are compacted as recommended. The bearing value of the
fill shall be confirmed during grading.
4.1-20 Lateral Resistance: Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction and by the passive
resistance of the soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.4 applied to the dead loads may be
•
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 50 of 109
used between the footings, floor slabs, and the supporting soils. The passive resistance of
properly compacted fill soils may be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a
fluid with a density of 250 pcf. The frictional resistance and the passive resistance of the
soils may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance.
4.1-21 Foundation Observations: To verify the presence of satisfactory soils at foundation
design elevations, the excavations shall be observed by the' Project Geotechnical
Consultant. Excavations shall be deepened as necessary to extend into satisfactory soils.
Where the foundation excavations are deeper than 4 feet, the sides of the excavations
shall be sloped back at 0.75:1 or shored for safety. Inspection of foundation excavations
may also be required by the appropriate reviewing governmental agencies. The contractor
shall be familiar with the inspection requirements of the reviewing agencies.
4.1-22 Under Section 1613, "Earthquake Loads" of the International Building Code (IBC), the
following coefficients and factors apply to the seismic force design of structures on the
project site.
Latitude
34.41599
Longitude
-118.4342
Site Class
D
Ss
1.810
S1
0.673
SMs
1.810
SMI
1.009
SDs
1.207
SDI
0.673
The parameters were determined using the Ground Motion Parameter Calculator (Version
5.0.8) at the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards website.
4.1-23 General: Backfill placed behind retaining walls shall be compacted to a minimum of 90
percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. When backfilling
behind walls, it is required that the walls be braced and heavy compaction equipment not
be used closer to the back of the wall than the height of the wall.
4.1-24 Lateral Earth Pressures: For design of non -building retaining walls, where the surface of
the backfill is level and the retained height of soils is less than 15 feet, it may be assumed
i
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 51 of 109
that drained, non -expansive soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a
fluid with a density of 35 pcf. Where the surface of the backfill is inclined at 2:1, it may
be assumed that drained soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a
fluid with a density of 47 pcf.
In addition to the recommended earth pressures, the walls shall be designed to resist any
applicable surcharges due to any nearby foundations, walls, storage or traffic loads. A
drainage system, such as weepholes or a perforated pipe shall be provided behind the
walls to prevent the development of hydrostatic pressure. Recommendations for wall
drains are presented as follows.
If a drainage system is not installed, the walls shall be designed to resist an additional
hydrostatic pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 60 pcf against the
full height of the wall. In addition to the recommended earth and hydrostatic pressures,
the upper 10 feet of walls adjacent to vehicular traffic areas shall be designed to resist a
uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf. This pressure is based on an assumed 300 psf
surcharge behind the walls due to normal traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet
from the walls, the traffic surcharge is not required.
4.1-25 Wall Drainage: A drainage system shall be provided behind all retaining walls or the
walls shall be designed to resist hydrostatic pressures. Retaining wall backfill may be
drained by a perforated pipe installed at the base and back side of the wall. The
perforated pipe shall be at least 4 inches in diameter, placed with the perforations down,
and be surrounded on all sides by at least 6 inches of gravel. The pipe shall be installed to
drain at a gradient of between 0.5 to 1 percent and shall be connected to an outlet device.
A filter fabric such as Mirafi 140 or equivalent shall be placed on top of gravel followed
by a minimum 2 -feet thick compacted soil layer. Alternatively, the filter fabric and gravel
is not required when using a continuous slotted pipe and graded sand which conforms to
Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) "F 1 " Designated Filter Material.
The backside of the wall shall be waterproofed. A 6 -inch vertical gravel chimney drain,
Miradrain, or equivalent, shall be placed behind retaining walls and extend to within 18
inches below the top of the wall backfill to provide a drainage path to the perforated pipe.
The top of the vertical drain shall be capped with 18 inches of on-site soils.
The drainage system shall be observed by the Project Geotechnical. Consultant prior to
backfilling the retaining wall. Inspection of the drainage system by the City of Santa
Clarita will also be required.
4.1-26 General: The proposed development includes a proposed buried soil cement channel
liner. Detailed construction plans for the soil cement channel liner are not yet available
M
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 52 of 109
and will be geotechnically reviewed in a future report to ensure consistency with the
findings in the Project Geotechnical Report. The following preliminary recommendations
can be used in the planning of the proposed bank protection. The grading
recommendations presented in the preceding sections are also applicable to the proposed
channel lining. Overexcavation of the natural soils is not expected to be required for the
lining, though existing fill soils shall be excavated and replaced with compacted fill. The
backcut for the channel lining may be sloped back at 1.25:1. Concrete lined and
soil -cement channel liners may be inclined at 1.5:1 or flatter. Grouted and ungrouted
rip -rap liners may be inclined at 2:1 or flatter.
4.1-27 Soil Cement: It is expected that portions of the on-site alluvial soils will be suitable for
use in soil -cement. For estimating purposes, a cement content of 8 to 12 percent, by
weight, may be used. To determine the actual required cement content, the granular soils
that are to be used in a soil -cement channel lining shall be stockpiled. Representative
samples of the stockpiled material shall be mixed with varying amounts of cement,
compacted, and cured for different time intervals. Based on the results of unconfined
compression tests on the samples of the soil -cement mixtures, the Project Geotechnical
Consultant shall determine during grading activities the percentage .of cement content to
be used during construction. This testing shall take place when soil intended for soil
cement manufacture has been stockpiled on site. The soil -cement shall be placed in layers
not more than 8 inches in thickness and shall be compacted to at least 95 percent of the
maximum dry density at a moisture content of no more than 2 percent over optimum for
the soils. The placement of the soil -cement shall be performed under the observation of
the Project Geotechnical Consultant, who shall perform sieve analyses, compaction,
unconfined compression, and moisture -density tests.
4.1-28 The Vista Canyon Road Bridge shall be constructed to extend the existing Lost Canyon
Road across the Santa Clara River. Final construction plans shall be reviewed to ensure
consistency with the Project Geotechnical Report. It is anticipated that the bridge will be
founded on driven or cast -in -drilled -hole piles at bents and abutments.
4.1-29 The grading operations shall be observed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant. The
Project Geotechnical Consultant shall, at a minimum, have the following duties:
• Observe the excavation so that any necessary modifications based on
variations in the soil/rock conditions encountered can be made;
• Observe the exposed subgrade in areas to receive fill and in areas where
excavation has resulted in the desired finished subgrade. The representative
Imm,
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 53 of 109
shall also observe proof -rolling and delineation of areas requiring
overexcavation;
• Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import soils for fill placement; collect
and submit soil samples for required or recommended laboratory testing
where necessary; .
• Observe the fill and backfill for uniformity during placement;
• Test fill for field density and compaction to determine the percentage of
compaction achieved during fill placement;
• Geologic observation of all cut slopes, keyways, backcuts and geologic
exposures during grading to ascertain that conditions conform to those
anticipated in the report; and
• Observe benching operations; observe canyon cleanouts for subdrains, and
subdrain installation.
3.1.3 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce these
potential geotechnical hazard -related impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels.
Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision
(a)(1), and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant
geotechnical hazard -related impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
3.2 FLOOD
3.2.1 Potential Significant Impacts
Project -related increases in sedimentation and debris production, erosion and sedimentation
during construction could result in a potentially significant impact; mitigation is recommended to
reduce impacts to a level below significant.
3.2.2 Mitigation Measures
4.2-1 During all construction phases, temporary erosion control shall be implemented to retain
soil and sediment on the project site, and the bank stabilization areas, as follows:
• Re -vegetate exposed areas as quickly as possible;
• Minimize disturbed areas;
• Divert runoff from downstream drainages with earth dikes, temporary drains,
slope drains, etc.;
• Reduce velocity through outlet protection, check dams, and slope
roughening/terracing;
6�32
-
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 54 of 109
• Implement dust control measures, such as sand fences, watering, etc.;
• Stabilize all disturbed areas with blankets, reinforced channel liners, soil
cement, fiber matrices, geotextiles, and/or other erosion resistant soil
coverings or treatments;
• Stabilize construction entrances/exits with aggregate underdrain with filter
cloth or other comparable method;
• Place sediment control BMPs at appropriate locations along the site perimeter
and at all operational internal inlets to the storm drain system at all times
during the rainy season (sediment control BMPs may include filtration devices
and barriers, such as fiber rolls, silt fence, straw bale barriers, and gravel inlet
filters, and/or with settling devices, such as sediment traps or basins); and/or
• Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges (e.g., pipe flushing, fire
hydrant flushing, and over -watering during dust control, vehicle and
equipment wash down) from the construction site through the use of
appropriate sediment control BMPs.
4.2-2 All necessary permits, agreements, letters of exemption from the USACE and/or the
CDFG for project -related development within their respective jurisdictions must be
obtained prior to the issuance of a grading permit, which permits grading within their
respective jurisdictions.
4.2-3 By October 1st of each year, a separate erosion control plan for construction activities
shall be submitted to the local municipality describing the erosion control measures that
will be implemented during the rainy season (October 1 through April 15).
4.2-4 A final developed condition hydrology analysis (LACDPW Drainage Concept Report
[DCR] and Final Design Report [FDR]) shall be prepared in conjunction with final
project design when precise engineering occurs. This final analysis will be completed to
confirm that the final project design is consistent with the approved drainage concept and
this analysis. Those final calculations shall establish design features for the project that
satisfy the criterion that post -development peak stormwater runoff discharge rates,
velocities, and duration in natural drainage systems mimic pre -development conditions.
All elements of the storm drain system shall conform to the policies and standards of the
LACDPW, Flood Control Division, as applicable.
X33
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 55 of 109
4.2-5 Final project hydrology and debris production calculations shall be prepared by a project
engineer to verify the requirements for debris basins and/or desilting inlets consistent
with the approved drainage concept and this analysis.
3.2.3 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce these
potential flood -related impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the
City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State
CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant flood -related
impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
.3.3.1 Potential Significant Impacts
The project would significantly impact the following vegetation communities: coast live oak
associations; cottonwood associations; big sagebrush associations; riparian scrub; alkali rye
series; and, alluvial scrub (terrace). Additionally, because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the
California Fish and Game Code prohibit the take of bird nests with eggs or young, the project
could significantly impact the active nests of common bird species. The project also could
significantly impact the slender mariposa lily, Plummer's mariposa lily, oak trees, and special -
status wildlife.
The project could result in indirect impacts to biological resources attributable to increased
human and domestic animal presence along the River Corridor, increased populations of non-
native species, increased light and glare, stormwater runoff, and construction -related activities.
The project also would result in cumulative impacts attributable to reductions in total habitat
area, limitation of species diversity, restriction of animal movement corridors, and overall loss of
sensitive vegetation communities, wildlife habitat, and open area in the Santa Clarita Valley.
However, with implementation of the mitigation measures enumerated below, as well as those
identified for water quality, all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project would be
reduced to a level below significant.
3.3.2 Mitigation Measures
4.6-1 ' The applicant shall mitigate for alkali rye at a ratio of 0.5:1 through on-site habitat
restoration. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, the applicant shall
provide to the City Community Development Department for review and approval a
detailed mitigation and monitoring plan for the restoration of alkali rye. The mitigation
a3Y
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 56 of 109
plan shall encompass comparable general habitat attributes and acreage of useable
wildlife habitat on the subject property (approximately 0.35 acres), and include
documentation to monitor the success of the restoration through performance standards
over a five-year period. The proposed mitigation site would be in natural areas within or
adjacent to the Oak Park or other suitable open space areas within the project site.
The applicant shall implement the Lily Plan, 2009, that includes salvaging and re-
establishment of slender mariposa population on the mitigation size designated in the
plan.
If discovered during pre -construction surveys, the applicant shall prepare and implement
a Plummer's mariposa lily mitigation plan that would include salvaging and re-
establishment of Plummer's mariposa population on an on-site mitigation sites designated
in the plan.
4.6-2 The applicant shall mitigate for the loss of riparian scrub and big sagebrush scrub through
implementation of the Wetlands Plan, 2009 to the satisfaction of the City's Community
Development Department.
4.6-3 All stream flows traversing a construction site or temporary access road shall be diverted
around the site and under access roads (using a temporary culverts or crossings that allow
fish passage). A temporary diversion channel shall be constructed using the least
damaging method possible, such as blading a narrow pilot channel through an open sandy
river bottom. The removal of wetland and riparian vegetation to construct the channel
shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. The temporary channel shall be connected
to a natural channel downstream of the construction site prior to diverting the stream. The
integrity of the channel and diversion shall be maintained throughout the construction
period. The original stream channel alignment shall be restored after construction,
provided suitable conditions are present at the work site after construction. Any
temporary stream diversion plan shall be consistent with the USACE and CDFG permits
required for project implementation.
4.6-4 A qualified biologist shall be present when any stream diversion takes place, and shall
patrol the areas both within, upstream, and downstream of the stream diversion work
area. Under no circumstances shall the unarmored threespine stickleback be collected or
relocated, unless USFWS personnel or their agents implement this measure or authorized
� 31/00,q
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 57 of 109
by USACE in a subsequent Clean Water Act section 404 permit or streambed alteration
agreement issued by CDFG.
4.6-5 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall employ a qualified biologist to
implement the Spadefoot Plan, 2009, with review and oversight provided by the City
Planning Department. Any substantive revisions to or deviations- from the Spadefoot
Plan, 2009, shall be provided to CDFG for consideration and input.
4.6-6 Sixty days prior to grading activities, a qualified biologist shall contact CDFG and
consult with CDFG staff regarding the timing of pre -construction surveys. In any event,
no later than thirty days prior to grading activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a
survey within appropriate habitat areas to capture and relocate individual silvery legless
lizard, coastal western whiptail, rosy boa, San Diego banded gecko, San Bernardino
ringneck snake, coast horned lizard, coast patch -nosed snake, and San Diego black -tailed
jackrabbit in order to avoid or minimize take of these sensitive species. Individuals shall
be relocated to nearby undisturbed areas with suitable habitat, as identified by the
qualified biologist in consultation with CDFG staff. Results of the surveys and relocation
efforts shall be provided to the City with a copy to CDFG. Collection and relocation of
animals shall only occur with the proper scientific collection and handling permits.
4.6-7 Beginning 30 or more days prior to the removal of any suitable riparian habitat that will
occur during the riparian bird breeding and nesting season of March 15th through
September 1st, the applicant shall arrange for weekly bird surveys to detect the above
riparian bird species in the habitats to be removed, and any other such habitat within 300
feet of the construction work areas. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist using CDFG or USFWS survey protocols. The surveys shall continue on a
weekly basis, with the last survey being conducted no more than 7 days prior to the
initiation of construction work.
If an active nest is found, clearing and construction within 300 feet of the nest shall be
postponed until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, and when there is no
evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Limits of construction to avoid a nest site shall
be established in the field with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction
personnel shall be instructed on the ecological sensitivity of the area.
a36
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 58 of 109
Results of the surveys, including surveys to locate nests, shall be provided to the USACE
and CDFG. The results shall include a description of any nests located and measures to
be implemented to avoid nest sites.
4.6-8 Signage shall be installed along the River Corridor indicating that no pets of any kind are
allowed within the preserved River Corridor.
4.6-9 Fencing of sufficient height and design (i.e., ranch -rail) shall be constructed between the
edge of developed areas and the River Corridor to deter humans and pets from entering
habitat areas within the River Corridor.
Locally indigenous native shrubs shall be planted along the fence to further deter access.
Final fence design shall be approved by the City Planning Department. Fencing shall not
be placed within the USACE or CDFG jurisdictional areas of the site.
The potentially palette of local indigenous native plant species to be used along the fence
include the following, observed on site during the course of biological surveys: California
juniper, blue elderberry, four -wing saltbush, quailbush, skunk bush, California sagebrush,
Great Basin sagebrush, coyote bush, mulefat, white -stem rabbitbrush, thick -leaf yerba
santa, bladderpod, cane cholla, coastal prickly pear, coast live oak, golden currant,
chaparral currant, black sage, western sycamore, California buckwheat, thick -leaf
ceanothus, wedgeleaf ceanothus, chamise, Fremont's cottonwood, Gooding's willow,
arroyo willow, and Whipple's yucca.
4.6-10 Human access into the River Corridor shall only occur in designated locations (i.e.,
existing and future trails). All motorized vehicles and off -trail bike riding shall be
prohibited from entering the preserved River Corridor with the exception of authorized
emergency or maintenance vehicles, and signs shall be posted along the River Corridor
prohibiting such uses.
4.6-11 Prohibitions against human, domestic animal, and motorized vehicle/bike entry into the
River Corridor shall be established by ordinance or recorded CC&Rs.
4.6-12 Interpretative signs shall be constructed and placed in appropriate areas, as determined by
a qualified biologist, that explain the sensitivity of natural habitats and the need to
minimize impacts on these natural areas. The signs will state that the River Corridor is a
protected natural area and that all pedestrians must remain on designated trails, all pets
� 3'J
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 59 of 109
are to be restrained on a leash, and that it is illegal to harm, remove, or collect native
plants and animals. The project applicant shall be responsible for installation of
interpretive signs and fencing along the River Corridor.
4.6-13 A qualified restoration specialist shall ensure that the proposed landscape plants will not
naturalize and cause maintenance or vegetation community degradation in open -space
areas of the project site. Container plants to be installed within public areas shall be
inspected by a qualified restoration specialist for the presence of disease, weeds, and
pests, including Argentine ants. Plants with pests, weeds, or diseases shall be rejected. In
addition, landscape plants shall not be on the Cal -IPC California Invasive Plant Inventory
(http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php). Except as required for fuel modification,
irrigation of perimeter landscaping adjacent to the River Corridor with native plant
communities shall be limited to temporary irrigation (i.e., until plants become
established).
4.6 -14 -The applicant shall be responsible for weeding all restoration/enhancement sites to
prevent an infestation of perennial non-native invasive weeds. All perennial, non-native
invasive weed species (e.g., arundo, pampas grass, fennel, perennial pepperweed, castor
bean, tamarisk, etc.) shall be controlled for a period of 5 years after the initial vegetation
community restoration, or until the 5 -year success criteria described in the Wetlands Plan,
2009, are met. The cover of annual, non-native plant species at the mitigation sites shall
not exceed the requirements of the Wetlands Plan, 2009, at any time during the period of
documenting successful restoration.
4.6-15 Waste and recycling receptacles that discourage foraging by wildlife species adapted to
urban environments shall be installed in common areas and parks throughout the project
site.
4.6-16 All bridge, street, residential, and parking lot lighting shall be downcast luminaries or
directional lighting with light patterns directed away from the River Corridor. Similarly,
all lighting immediately adjacent to the Santa Clara River, Oak Park, and designated
mitigation areas for biological resources shall be shielded. CC&Rs shall require that
exterior lighting within the residential areas adjacent to. the River Corridor be limited to
low luminosity and/or shielded.
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 60 of 109
4.6-17 The following guidelines shall be followed to minimize impacts on remaining biological
resources on site as a result of construction and grading activities and to ensure that
potential impacts on these resources will remain less than significant:
A qualified biologist shall be retained as a construction monitor to ensure that incidental
construction impacts on biological resources are avoided,. or minimized, and to conduct
pre -grading field surveys for special -status plant and wildlife species that may be
destroyed as a result of construction or site preparation activities. Responsibilities of the
construction monitor include the following:
• The construction monitor shall attend pre -grade meetings to ensure that
timing/location of construction activities do not conflict with mitigation
requirements (e.g., seasonal surveys for plants and wildlife).
• Mark/flag the construction .area in the field with the contractor in accordance
with the final approved grading plan. Haul roads and access roads shall only
be sited within the grading areas analyzed in the project EIR.
• Supervise cordoning of preserved natural areas that lie outside grading areas
identified in the project EIR (e.g., with temporary fence posts and colored
rope).
• Conduct a field review of the staking (to be set by the surveyor) designating
the limits of all construction activity. Any construction activity areas
immediately adjacent to riparian areas or other special -status resources may be
flagged or temporarily fenced by the monitor, at his/her discretion.
• Conduct meetings with the contractor and other key construction personnel
` describing the importance of restricting work to designated areas. The monitor
should also discuss procedures for minimizing harm or harassment of wildlife
encountered during construction.
• Periodically visit the site during. construction to coordinate and monitor
compliance with the above provisions.
4.6-18 Construction personnel shall be prohibited from entry into areas outside the designated
construction area, except for necessary construction related activities, such as surveying.
All such construction activities shall be coordinated with the construction monitor.
4.6-19 Construction activities shall be limited to the following areas of temporary disturbance:
• an 85 -foot -wide zone that extends into the river from the base of the rip -rap or
gunite bank protection where it intercepts the river bottom;
3�f
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 61 of 109
• 100 feet on either side of the outer edge of the Vista Canyon Road bridge and
the haul route (located within bridge zone);
• 50 -foot -wide corridor for all utility lines; and
• 20 -foot -wide temporary access ramps and roads to reach construction sites.
The locations of these temporary construction sites and the routes of all access roads
within CDFG or USACE jurisdiction shall be shown on -maps submitted to the CDFG and
USACE. Any variation from these limits shall be noted, with a justification for a
variation. The construction plans should indicate what type of vegetation, if any, would
be temporarily disturbed, and the post -construction activities to facilitate natural
revegetation of the temporarily disturbed areas. The boundaries of the construction site
and any temporary access roads within the riverbed shall be marked in the field with
stakes and flagging. No construction activities, vehicular access, equipment storage,
stockpiling, or significant human intrusion shall occur outside the work area and access
roads.
4.6-20 Equipment shall not be operated in areas of ponded or flowing water within CDFG or
USACE jurisdiction unless there are no practicable alternative methods to accomplish the
construction work, and only after prior approval by the CDFG and the USACE. Approval
shall be acquired by submitting a request to CDFG and USACE no later than 30 days
prior to construction. The request must contain a biological evaluation demonstrating that
no sensitive fish, amphibians, or reptiles are currently present, or likely to be present
during construction, at the construction site or along access roads.
4.6-21 Temporary sediment retention ponds shall be constructed downstream of construction
sites that are located in River Corridor under the following circumstances:
• the construction site contains flowing or ponded water that drains off site into
the undisturbed streamflow or ponds; or
• streamflow is diverted around the construction site, but the work is occurring
in the period November 1st through April 15th when storm flows could
inundate the construction site.
The sediment ponds shall be constructed of riverbed material and shall prevent
sediment -laden water from reaching undisturbed ponds or streamflows. To the extent
possible, ponds shall be located in barren or sandy river bottom areas devoid of existing
riparian scrub, riparian woodland, or aquatic habitat. The ponds shall be maintained and
repaired after flooding events, and shall be restored to pre -construction grades and
substrate conditions within 30 days after construction has ended at that particular site.
The location and design of sediment retention ponds shall be included in the Storm Water
a q C)
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 62 of 109
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by the applicant for all construction
activities that require a NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit.
4.6-22 Installation of bridges, culverts, or other structures shall not impair movement of fish and
aquatic life. Bottoms of temporary culverts shall be placed at or below channel grade.
Bottoms of permanent culverts shall be placed below channel grade.
4.6-23 Water containing mud, silt, or other pollutants from construction activities shall not be
allowed to enter a flowing stream or be placed in locations that may be subject to normal
storm flows during periods when storm flows can reasonably be expected to occur.
4.6-24 Vehicles shall not be driven or equipment operated in areas of ponded or flowing water,
or where wetland vegetation, riparian vegetation, or aquatic organisms may be destroyed,
except as otherwise provided for in. the CWA section 404 permit or CDFG 1603
agreement.
4.6-25 Silt settling basins, installed during the construction process, shall be located away from
areas of ponded or flowing water to prevent discolored, silt -bearing water from reaching
areas of ponded or flowing water during normal flow regimes.
4.6-26 If a stream channel has been altered during the construction or maintenance operations,
its low flow channel shall be returned as nearly as possible to pre -project topographic
conditions without creating a possible future bank erosion problem, or a flat wide channel
or sluice like area.
4.6-27 Temporary structures and associated materials not designed to withstand strong seasonal
flows shall be removed to areas above the high water mark before such flows occur.
4.6-28 Staging and storage areas for construction equipment and materials shall be located
outside of the CDFG or USACE jurisdiction.
4.6-29 Any equipment or vehicles driven or operated within or adjacent to the River Corridor
shall be checked and maintained daily, to prevent leaks of materials that if introduced to
water could be deleterious to aquatic life.
4.6-30 Stationary equipment such as motors, pumps, generators, and welders which may be
located within the River Corridor construction zone shall be positioned over drip pans.
No fuel storage tanks shall be allowed in the River Corridor.
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 63 of 109
4.6-31 The applicant shall use best efforts to ensure that no debris, bark, slash sawdust, rubbish,
cement or concrete or washing thereof, oil, petroleum products, or other organic material
from any construction, or associated activity of whatever nature, shall be allowed to enter
into, or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into, watercourses
included in the permit. When construction operations are completed, any excess materials
or debris shall be removed from the work area.
4.6-32 No equipment maintenance shall be done within or near the River Corridor where
petroleum products or other pollutants from the equipment may enter this area.
4.6-33 As the project reach of the Santa Clara River typically has no surface flows, any water
diversions shall utilize:
• Pilot channels constructed to divert flows around work areas shall be sized to
maintain existing water velocities, with wide, shallow channels being utilized.
The channel should be kept as small as possible, extending no more than 25
feet upstream and downstream of the work area. Construction of pilot
channels should start downstream. Once water is diverted into the new
channel, the original channel should be visually inspected and any stranded
animals shall be removed and returned to the water downstream of the
diversion. Once the diversion is no longer needed, the area shall be restored as
closely as possible to its original configuration.
• The use of a pump to divert flows around a work site is also acceptable. The
pump must have at least a 0.25 -inch screen. Water should be discharged
downstream, within 25 feet of the work area. Any dams installed across
flowing water for the diversion shall be removed upon completion of
construction and the area shall be restored as closely as possible to its original
configuration.
• The Operator shall alert the USACE and the Department of work to be
performed at least two weeks in advance of the work. If the work may
adversely impact Endangered species, the USACE, the Department and the
City shall meet in the field to resolve the issue. The City may contact the
USACE and the Department to identify areas of potential Endangered species
habitat. If the USACE and the Department believe the work may adversely
impact Endangered species or its habitat resources or the City wishes to
consult with the USACE and the Department, a field meeting will be
scheduled. At the field meeting, the USACE and the Department will provide
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 64 of 109
information regarding Endangered or Threatened species that could be
impacted by the project. If take of an Endangered species will occur, the
appropriate Endangered species permits will be required. To the extent that a
USFWS Section 7, and a CDFG Section 2081 Memorandum of Agreement
have been completed for the species present, the mitigation measures shall be
implemented and construction may proceed as outlined in these documents.
• Standard dust control measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts on
nearby plants and wildlife. This includes replacing ground cover in disturbed
areas as quickly as possible; watering active sites at least twice daily;
suspending all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds (as
instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph; and restricting traffic speeds on all
unpaved roads to 15 mph or less in areas within 200 feet of vegetation.
• Upon completion of construction, the contractor shall be held responsible to
restore any haul roads and access roads that are outside of approved grading
limits. This restoration shall be done in consultation with the construction
monitor.
4.6-34 If the Oak Tree Permit is approved by the City Council, the applicant shall have
permission to remove the following oak trees on the project site (Heritage Trees are in
bold): No. 4, No. 25, No. 26, No. 27, No. 28, No. 29, No. 30, No. 31, and No. 32.
If approved by the City Council, the applicant shall have permission to encroach into the
protected zone of the following oak trees (Heritage Trees are shown in bold): No. 1, No.
3, No. 33, No. 34, No. 38, No. 47, No. 50, No. 52, and No. 71. If approved by the City
Council, the applicant shall have permission to trim livewood in excess of 2 inches in
diameter of the following trees: No. 1, No. 3, No. 33, No. 34, No. 38, and No. 52.
If approved by the City Council, the applicant shall have permission to encroach within
the protected zone of the following off-site oak trees (Heritage Trees shown in bold):
Tree No. 25B (Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road Option 3 - encroachment and
trimming)
Tree No. 45 (Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road Option 3 — encroachment and
trimming)
4.6-35 The applicant and all their contractors shall be in compliance with the City of Santa
Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and Preservation and Protection Guidelines at all times
throughout the project. Failure to comply with these requirements shall be considered
non-compliant and may result in the issuance of a Stop All Work notice, construction
delays and additional fees.
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 65 of 109
4.6-36 The applicant and all their contractors shall adhere to all recommendations issued by the
applicant's Arborist of Record (AOR) both during on-site monitoring as well as those
listed within the project's oak tree reports and addendums. Failure to comply with these
recommendations shall be considered non compliant and may result in the issuance of a
Stop All Work notice, construction delays and additional fees
4.6-37 Mitigation for the oak tree impacts referenced above shall include dedication to the City
of Santa Clarita of the 2 -acre oak tree preserve located adjacent to the Oak Park.
Dedication of this 2 -acre property to the City shall occur in conjunction with dedication
of the Oak Park. A deed restriction shall be recorded over this 2 -acre preserve restricting
its use to open space only and prohibiting any future development or grading. Signage
shall be posted along the trail adjacent to the preserve indicating that this area is an oak
tree preserve/mitigation area.
Additionally, the applicant shall be required to plant mitigation oak trees on this 2 -acre
parcel as well as a portion of the Town Green parcel to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development. The oak preserve and Town Green shall be the primary oak
mitigation areas for the project. Secondary oak tree mitigation or planting areas shall
include trail corridors throughout the project site. Group plantings of native oaks are
encouraged in areas that will accommodate the trees for future growth. Examples are
passive parks, break areas, open landscape areas, new trails and the entrance to
commercial and residential portions of the project.
The planting of on-site mitigation oak trees referenced above shall be equal to or exceed
the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) dollar value of all oak trees proposed for
removal, presently estimated at $404,990. (includes the oak trees on-site). Prior to the
issuance of grading permits and the start of any construction, the applicant shall be
required to bond for the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) dollar value of all
oak trees proposed for removal.
4.6-38 Prior to the issuance of grading permits and the start of any construction, the applicant
shall have all required protective fencing installed around the oak trees. Oak trees that are
proposed for encroachment shall have the protective fence placed at the furthest point
away from the trunk that will allow for the necessary construction. All remaining oak
trees shall have the fence installed at the protected zone located 5feet out from edge of
dripline.
4.6-39 Protective fencing shall consist of 5 -foot standard chain link material supported by steel
post driven directly into the ground and evenly spaced at 8 feet on center. 36 -inch silt
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 66 of 109
fencing shall be installed at the base of all protective fencing and be maintained in good
repair throughout all phases of construction.
4.6-40 A maximum of one non-gated3-foot-wide opening shall be left open on the opposite side
of construction to allow for required monitoring by City staff and the applicant's Arborist
of Record. Openings shall be spaced every 100 feet or at a rate of one per tree.
4.6-41 The applicant shall be required to install proper signage that reads "THIS FENCE IS
FOR THE PROTECTION OF OAK TREES AND SHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR
RELOCATED WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION BY THE CITY
ARBORIST"
4.6-42 The applicant shall be required to submit a copy of -all future site plans including but not
limited to grading plans, street improvement plans, construction plans and landscape
plans to the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Specialist. All site plans shall require written
approval from the City's Urban Forestry Division.
4.6-43 Any oak tree approved for relocation (presently Tree No. 31 is proposed for relocation)
shall be completed by an approved qualified tree relocating company.
4.6-44 Any oak tree proposed for relocation shall be considered a removal. Any oak tree that has
been approved for relocation shall require an up to 90 day side box waiting period before
bottom roots may be removed. The final waiting period shall be established by the
Arborist of Record and the City's Oak Tree Specialist.
4.6-45 Any oak tree which has been approved for relocation shall require a minimum five year
mitigation period, which shall include the submittal of all maintenance and monitoring
records completed on the tree. Monitoring reports shall be submitted at the end of each
month for the first two years, quarterly (four times per year) for the following two years
and biannually for the final year. The bond (based upon a value equivalent to the oak
tree's ISA value) for the relocated tree will not be exonerated until the completion of the
required mitigation period.
4.6-46 The applicant shall be required to incorporate large scale trees, which include 48 inch and
60 inch box trees into its mitigation plan. This may also include the installation of
specimen size trees that range from 72 inch box in size up to 84 inch box trees.
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 67 of 109
4.6-47 Mitigation oak trees may include the following native species of oak; Coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia), or Canyon oak (Quercus chrysolepis). Incorporating additional native
species in areas immediately adjacent to where established oak trees are present, may
have a negative impact on the existing oak trees and is not permitted.
4.6-48 The applicant shall comply with all additional requirements of the project's adopted oak
tree permit.
4.6-49 An integrated pest management plan that addresses the use of pesticides (including
rodenticides and insecticides) on site within the River Corridor, including buried bank
stabilization areas, will be prepared prior to the issuance of building permits for the initial
tract map. The plan will implement appropriate Best Management Practices to avoid and
minimize adverse effects on the natural environment, including vegetation communities,
special -status species, species without special status, and associated habitats, including
prey and food resources (e.g., insects, small mammals, seeds). Potential management
practices include cultural (e.g., planting pest -free stock plants), mechanical (e.g.,
' weeding, trapping), and biological controls (e.g., natural predators or competitors of pest
species, insect growth regulators, natural pheromones, or biopesticides), and the judicious
use of chemical controls, as appropriate (e.g., targeted spraying versus broadcast
applications). The plan will establish management thresholds (i.e., not all incidences of a
pest require management); prescribe monitoring to determine when management
thresholds have been exceeded; and identify the most appropriate and efficient control
method that avoids and minimizes risks to natural resources, Preparation of the CC&Rs
for each tract map shall include language that prohibits the use of anticoagulant
rodenticides in the project site.
3.3.3 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce these
potential biota -related impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the
City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State
CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant biota -related
impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
3.4 WATER QUALITY
3.4.1 Potential Significant Impacts
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 68 of 109
The project would generate pollutants typical of urban residential and commercial areas during
construction, and after the site is built out and occupied. However, like other development in the
Santa Clarita Valley, the project would be required to satisfy all applicable regional and local
water quality requirements, including those of the SWRCB, LARWQCB, NPDES program,
County of Los Angeles, and City of Santa Clarita. Taking into account the project's non-
structural and structural (treatment) PDFs, and accounting for the applicable regulatory
requirements, water quality impacts would be less than significant.
Specifically, based on a quantitative assessment, the project would not significantly impact
stormwater runoff volumes, or loads of total suspended solids, total phosphorous, nitrogen
compounds, metals, and chloride. Based on a qualitative assessment, the -project also would not
0
result in significant impacts attributable to turbidity, pathogens, hydrocarbons, pesticides, trash
and debris, methylene blue activated substances, cyanide. The project also would not result in
significant impacts attributable to bioaccumulation, dry weather runoff, groundwater quality,
groundwater recharge, and hydromodification.
As all cumulative projects within the tributary watershed and other undeveloped areas of the City
are required to meet the same or similar general water quality requirements as the project, and
any other site-specific requirements that the LACDPW Flood Control Division and LARWQCB
require, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts.
3.4.2 Mitigation Measures
4.8.1-1 The project applicant shall be required to implement all'Project Design Features (PDFs),
as outlined in Subsection 5 (Project Design Features) of this section.
3.4.3 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce the
potential water quality -related impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly,
the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and
State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant water
quality -related impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
3.5 FIRE SERVICES
3.5.1 Potential Significant Impacts
First, due to the lack of on-site fire equipment access and water lines, construction activities
would result in a significant impact on fire protection. Second, the project would result in
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 69 of 109
significant impacts relative to fire protection absent compliance with all applicable regulatory
requirements due to access, water supply, topography, and vegetative cover constraints. The
project, however, would not impact the staffing, equipment and facilities levels of the Los
Angeles County Fire Department with payment of the enacted mitigation fees, which currently
are $0.99 per square foot (effective March 1, 2010). The project also would not result in
cumulatively considerable impacts because increased cumulative development demands would
be met by increases in staffing and equipment funded by developer fees and increased tax
revenues, and because compliance with all applicable fire codes, standards and guidelines would
be required.
\ 3.5.2 Mitigation Measures
Access Requirements
4.13-1 Due to the size of the proposed development the applicant shall provide multiple means
of access as required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
4.13-2 Access shall be provided onto the project site as noted on the tentative tract map.
4.13-3 Access to the proposed project site shall comply with Section 503 of the Fire Code,
which requires all weather access. All weather access pay require paving.
4.13-4 Fire Department Access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any exterior
portion of all structures. On-site vehicular access shall be required for any building
exceeding 150 feet from the public street.
4.13-5 Where driveways extend further than 150 feet and are of single access design,
turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the
final tract map. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to insure
their integrity for Fire Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be
provided for driveways that extend over 150 feet in length.
4.13-6 Private driveways shall be indicated on the final tract map as "Private Driveway and Fire
Lane" with the widths clearly depicted and shall be maintained in accordance with the
Fire Code. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted by the County
of Los Angeles Fire Department prior to the commencement of construction.
4.13-7 Vehicular access shall be provided and maintained serviceable to all fire hydrants
throughout the construction period of the proposed project.
Mal
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 70 of 109
4.13-8 For buildings that are less than three stories in height and/or less than 35 feet in height, an
unobstructive driveway with a minimum width of 26 -feet, clear -to -sky, shall be posted
with a sign that reads, "No Parking — Fire Lane."
4.13-9 For buildings that are more than three stories and/or 35 feet or greater in height, an
unobstructive driveway with a minimum width of 28 -feet, clear -to -sky, shall be posted
with a sign that reads, "No Parking — Fire Lane." The centerline of the access roadway
shall be located parallel to and within 30 -feet of the exterior wall on at least one side of
each proposed building.
4.13-10 For each building to be developed in Planning Area's 1 and 2, access shall be required
to within 150 feet of all exterior portions of the building with a minimum driveway
width of 28 feet, clear -to -sky, and shall be posted with a sign that reads, "No Parking —
Fire Lane."
4.13-11 The center -line of the access roadway shall be located parallel to and within 30 feet of
the exterior wall on at least one side of each proposed building.
4.13-12 For streets or driveways separated by an island and that provide a minimum
unobstructive driveway width of 20 -feet, clear -to -sky, shall be posted with a sign that
reads, "No Parking — Fire Lane." This requirement shall also be implemented for the
eastern connection to Lost Canyon Road.
4.13-13 All Fire Department turnarounds shall be clearly identified and shall be posted with a
sign that reads, "No Parking — Fire Lane."
4.13-14 Additional access issues shall be addressed with the submittal of the revised plans
during building plan check with consultation between the client and the Los Angeles
County Fire Department.
4.13-15 The project applicant shall provide Los Angeles County Fire Department or City
approved street signs and building access numbers prior to occupancy of the buildings
on the project site.
Water System Requirements
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 71 of 109
4.13-16 The project construction engineer shall provide water mains, fire hydrants and fire
flows as required by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, for all land uses on
the tract map, and shall be recorded as so.
4.13-17 The project construction engineer ensure that fire flow requirements for Planning Area
1 is 3,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for three hours. All proposed
structures and buildings shall be constructed to be fully fire sprinklered and have a
minimum of Type V-1 hour construction or greater.
4.13-18 The project construction engineer shall ensure that fire flow requirements for Planning
Area 2 is 3,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for three hours: All
proposed structures and buildings shall be required to be fully fire sprinklered and have
a minimum of Type V-1 hour construction or greater.
4.13-19 The project construction engineer shall ensure that fire flow requirements for Planning
Area 3A and 3B is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for two hours.
All proposed structures and buildings shall be required to be fully sprinklered and have
a minimum of Type 1-V construction or greater. The exact fire flow, with a possible
flow reduction, shall be determined during the building plan process.
4.13-20 The project construction engineer shall ensure that fire flow requirements for Planning
Area 3C and 3D is 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for two hours.
4.13-21 The project construction engineer shall ensure that fire flow requirements for Planning
Area 4 is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for two hours. All
proposed structures and buildings shall be fully fire sprinklered and have a minimum of
Type V-1 hour construction or greater. The exact fire flow, with a possible flow
reduction, shall be determined during the building plan process.
4.13-22 The project construction engineer shall ensure that the required fire flow for private on-
site hydrants is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch and that each
private on-site hydrants must be capable of flowing 1,250 gallons per minute at 20
pounds per square inch with two hydrants flowing simultaneously, one of which shall
be the furthest from the public water source.
4.13-23 The project construction engineer shall install 59 public fire hydrants. The location for
the on-site fire hydrants shall be determined during building plan check.
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 72 of 109
J
4.13-24 All fire hydrants shall measure 6 -inches by 4 inches by 2.5 inches brass or bronze, and
conform to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal standard. All on-site
hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 -feet from a structure or protected by a two
hour rated firewall.
4.13-25 All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and approved by. the County of Los
Angeles Fire Department prior ton Final Map approval.
Additional Information Requirements
4.13-26 Considering that the project site is located within the area described by the Fire
Department as "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" (formerly Fire Zone 4), the
client shall develop and submit to the County of Los Angeles Fire Department a Fuel
Modification Plan prior to final map approval. Any questions regarding the content of
the Fuel Modification Plan shall be addressed to the Fuel Modification Unit, Fire
Station #32, 605 North Angeleno Avenue, Azusa, CA 91702-2904, phone (626) 969-
5205.
Submittal Requirements
4.13-27 The project applicant shall submit a minimum of four copies of the water plans
indicating the public fire hydrants to be installed to the Fire Department's Land
Development Unit for review prior to final tract map approval.
4.13-28 The project applicant shall submit to the Fire Department's Land Development Unit for
review if any changes to the tentative tract map occur.
4.13-29 The project construction engineer shall submit the building construction plans to the
Fire Department's Engineering Unit -Santa Clarita, (661) 286-8821.
Forestry Division — Other Environmental Concerns Requirements
4.13-30 The project applicant shall comply with Fuel Modification requirements as indicated in
Mitigation Measure 4.13-26.
3.5.3 Findings
M
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page .73 of 109
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the
potential fire services -related impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly,
the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and
State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant fire
services -related impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
3.6 SHERIFF SERVICES
3.6.1 Potential Significant Impacts
Construction of the project would increase both the incidence of petty crimes on the site and
construction traffic on SR -14 and surrounding roadways, which may potentially delay
emergency vehicles traveling through the area. However, by retaining the services of a private
security company to patrol the project construction site, and by implementing a construction
traffic control plan, any potentially significant construction -related impacts to law enforcement
services would be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
Operationally, the project would increase the demand for law enforcement and traffic -related
services both on the project site and within the local vicinity in terms of the number of personnel
and the amount of equipment needed to adequately serve the project site at buildout.
Additionally, significant public safety impacts could arise as a result of project.design, landscape
materials, and building orientation. However, payment of the law enforcement facilities fees and
new tax revenues would mitigate impacts to the Sheriff Department to a less -than -significant
level. Further, measures requiring that adequate public safety concepts be incorporated into the
building design would mitigate impacts to law enforcement. Thus, the project would not
contribute to any cumulatively considerable impacts to sheriff services.
3.6.2 Mitigation Measures
4.14-1 During construction, the project applicant, or its designee, shall retain the services of a
private security firm to patrol the project site.
4.14-2 Prior to .construction activities, the project applicant shall. have a construction traffic
control plan approved by the City of Santa Clarita.
4.14-3 As final development plans are submitted to the City of Santa Clarita for approval in the
future, the Sheriff Department design requirements that reduce demands for service and
ensure adequate public safety shall be incorporated into the building design. The design
requirements for this project shall include:
�'5a-
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 74 of 109
• Proper lighting in open areas and parking lots;
• Sufficient street lighting for the proposed project's streets;
• Good visibility of doors and windows from the streets and between buildings
on the project site; and,
• Building address numbers on both residential and commercial/retail uses are
lighted and readily apparent from the streets for emergency response agencies.
4.14-4 Project design shall include, to the extent feasible, low -growing groundcover and shade
trees, rather than a predominance of shrubs that could conceal potential criminal activity
around buildings and parking areas.
4.14-5 The project applicant, or designee, shall pay the City's law enforcement facilities impact
fee in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit.
3.6.3 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the
potential sheriff services -related impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels.
Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision
(a)(1), and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant
sheriff services -related impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
3.7 HUMAN -MADE HAZARDS
3.7.1 Potential Significant Impacts
The existing on-site debris piles potentially contain metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons,
volatile organic compounds and pesticides. In addition, the historic use of the project site by the
Southern Pacific Railroad indicates that a portion of the site may be affected by metals,
herbicides, petroleum hydrocarbons, and other contaminates associated with rail operations. The
existing on-site residence could contain asbestos and lead, and the historic agricultural activities
present the potential for on-site residential pesticides and agricultural chemicals to be present. In
summary, absent mitigation, demolition, grading and construction activities associated with
project implementation could result in the release of potentially hazardous materials to the
environment.
3.7.2 Mitigation Measures
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 75 of 109
4.15-1 Prior to grading, areas of the project site indicated on Figure 4.15-1 shall be sampled for
the presence of metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, and
pesticides. If the presence of hazards is identified, the area(s) shall be remediated in
accordance with federal and state law prior to grading of that portion of the project site.
4.15-2 Prior to demolition activities, an asbestos survey shall be conducted by a qualified
environmental professional to determine the presence or absence of asbestos at the
existing, on-site, single-family residence. The survey shall be submitted to the City of
Santa Clarita. If present, asbestos removal shall be performed by a State -certified
asbestos containment contractor in accordance with the Toxic Substance Control Act (15
U.S.C. Section 2601 et. seq.).
3.7.3 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the
potential human -made hazards impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels.
Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision
(a)(1), and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant
human -made hazards impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
3.8 VISUAL RESOURCES
3.8.1 Potential Significant Impacts
During the construction phase, nighttime lighting would be maintained on the project site for
security purposes. This light could generate spillover onto adjacent residential properties, which
would be' significant absent mitigation. Light spillover also could occur once the project is
operational due to the potential for gaps in intervening buildings and landscaping, and glare
could result absent the use of low -reflective building materials.
3.8.2 Mitigation Measures
4.16-1 The project applicant, or designee, shall require that the use of nighttime lighting during
project construction be limited to only those features on the construction site requiring
illumination.
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 76 of 109
4.16-2 The project applicant, or designee, shall require that all security lights be properly
shielded and projected downwards during construction, such that light is directed only
onto the work site.
4.16-3 The project applicant, or designee, shall require that all outdoor lighting along the project
site boundary consist of low -intensity downlights, or be equipped with louvers, shields,
hoods or other screening devices.
4.16-4 The project applicant, or designee, shall require that all outdoor lighting along the project
site boundary be projected downwards to illuminate the intended surface and minimize
light spillover and glare generation.
4.16-5 The project applicant, or designee, shall require that only low -reflective building
materials be used on building exteriors.
3.8.3 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the
potential light and glare impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the
City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State
CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant light and glare
impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.9.1 Potential Significant Impacts
Although most of the site is being preserved as part of the project's Oak Park, a data
recovery/salvage excavation program is required to lessen impacts to Site VC -2/H, the Mitchell
family homestead. Finally, mitigation is required to avoid the disturbance of human remains,
including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. With implementation of the mitigation
measures identified in Section 3.9.2, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
impact.
3.9.2 Mitigation Measures
4.18-1 Site VC -2/H contains the remains of the Mitchell family homestead, which may contain
important subsurface archeological deposits. A Phase III data recovery (salvage
excavation) program shall be conducted on Site VC -2/H prior to grading activities.
a��
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 77 of 109
4.18-2 In the event that cultural resources are found during construction, activity shall stop and a
qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the resources. If the find is
determined to be a historical or unique archaeological resource, contingency funding and
a time allotment sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures or
appropriate mitigation will be made available. Construction on other parts of the project
site may proceed in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21083.2(i).
4.18-3 If, during any phase of project construction, there is the discovery or recognition of any
human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps,
which are based on Public Resources Code section 5097.98 and State CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.5(e), shall be taken:
1. There will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area
reasonably susceptible to overlying adjacent human remains until:
a. The Los Angeles County Coroner is contacted to determine that no
investigation of the cause of death is required; and
b. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American:
(i) The Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage
Commission within 24 hours;
(ii) The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the
person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant
from the deceased Native American; and
(iii)The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the
Project applicant for means of treating or disposing of, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave
goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98, or,
2. Where the following conditions occur, the project applicant, or its designee, shall
rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with
appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface
disturbance:
a. The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely
descendant or the most likely descendant failed to make a recommendation
within 24 hours after being notified by the Commission;
b. The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or
C. The project applicant, or its designee, rejects the recommendation of the
descendant, and mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails
to provide measures acceptable to the project applicant.
i
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 78 of 109
3.9.3 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the
potential impacts to cultural resources to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds
that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State CEQA
Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant cultural resources -
related impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
3.10 SANTA CLARA RIVER CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
3.10.1 Potential Significant Impacts
Based on detailed biota surveys, the existing SEA/FEMA overlay boundary does not correspond
to the sensitive riparian and jurisdictional resources within the project site. Therefore, the project
requests a GPA, which would revise both the land use designation for the project site to SP and
adjust the existing SEA/FEMA overlay boundary to correspond to the area to be designated SP -
OS.
The project's impacts to biological resources (e.g., certain special -status amphibians, reptiles,
birds and mammals) within the existing SEA/FEMA overlay area would be significant absent
adoption of the mitigation measures below, which minimize impacts to jurisdictional and
sensitive riparian -associated resources on site and ensure project compatibility with ongoing
ecological functions of the post -project SEA/FEMA overlay area. Additionally, the mitigation
measures identified for biological resources, flood, and water quality also would assist in
ensuring that impacts to the River Corridor are not significant.
Of note, the project's development footprint corresponds to and preserves and enhances the
sensitive biological and jurisdictional resources present within the River Corridor, and is
designed to: (a) be compatible with the sensitive biological resources present, including the set
aside of undisturbed areas; (b) maintain the Santa Clara River watercourse in a natural state; (c)
provide east -west and north -south wildlife movement areas within the River Corridor; (d)
preserve adequate buffer areas between the project -related development and sensitive natural
resources; and, (e) ensure that roads and utilities are designed to reduce or avoid impacts to
sensitive biological and jurisdictional resources. As such, the project is consistent with the
City's SEA development compatibility criteria, as set form in the Municipal Code at section
17.15.020(K)(1)(2).
Also, based on the CRAM Report prepared for the project, the contemplated habitat restoration,
creation and enhancement activities within and adjacent to the reach of the River within the
X11
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 79 of 109
project site would result in a regional increase of jurisdictional resource functions and provide
for an ecologically meaningful resource to'existing riparian resources.
Finally, in light of the project's compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the
project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to the River Corridor.
3.10.2 Mitigation Measures
4.20-t The project applicant shall implement the Wetlands Plan, 2009, in order to:
(a) Satisfy the mitigation requirements of local, state, and federal agencies for
wetland and riparian habitat;
(b) Create, or restore riparian and riverine vegetation . communities suitable for
'nesting, foraging, and breeding by native animal species;
(c) Create or restore vegetation communities to be compatible with the fluvial
morphology and hydrology of the stream channel corridor;
(d) Create or restore vegetation communities to be consistent with adjacent, existing
riparian vegetation communities; and
(e) Create or restore vegetation communities to be self-sustaining and functional
beyond the maintenance and monitoring period.
In implementing the Wetlands. Plan, 2009, the applicant shall implement the
maintenance activities during the specified monitoring, the monitoring plan for
the mitigation areas, the reporting requirements, and the contingency measures
specified in that plan. The applicant also must satisfy the performance standards
and success criteria set forth in that plan. The maintenance and monitoring will be
subject to approval of the City's Community Development Department.
In conjunction with implementation of the Wetlands Plan, 2009, permanent
impacts within the California Department of Fish and Game's jurisdictional
delineation limits shall be restored with similar habitat at the rate of one acre
replaced for one acre lost.
4.20-2 Prior to grading and construction activities, a qualified biologist shall be retained to
conduct a worker environmental awareness program for all construction/contractor
personnel. A list of construction personnel who have completed training prior to the start
of construction shall be maintained on site and this list shall be updated as required when
new personnel start work. No construction worker may work in the field for more than
five days without participating in the program. The qualified biologist shall provide
ongoing guidance to construction personnel and contractors to ensure compliance with
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 80 of 109
environmental/permit regulations and mitigation measures. The qualified biologist. shall
perform the following:
• Provide training materials and briefings to all personnel working on site. The
material shall include but not be limited to the identification and status of
plant and wildlife species, significant natural plant community habitats (e.g.,
riparian), fire protection measures, and review of mitigation requirements;
• A discussion of the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, other state or federal
permit requirements and the legal consequences of non-compliance with these
acts;
• Attend the pre -construction meeting to ensure that timing/location of
construction activities do not conflict with other mitigation requirements (e.g.,
seasonal surveys for nesting birds, pre -construction surveys, or relocation
efforts);
• Conduct meetings with the contractor and other key construction personnel
describing the importance of restricting work to designated areas. Maps
showing the location of special -status wildlife or populations of rare plants,
exclusion areas, or other construction limitations (e.g., limitations on
nighttime work) will be provided to the environmental monitors and
construction crews prior to ground disturbance;
• Discuss procedures for minimizing harm to or harassment of wildlife
encountered during construction and provide a contact person in the event of
the discovery of dead or injured wildlife;
• Review/designate the construction area in the field with the contractor in
accordance with the final grading plan;
• Ensure that haul roads, access roads, and on-site staging and storage areas are
sited within grading areas to minimize degradation of vegetation communities
adjacent to these areas (if activities outside these limits are necessary, they
shall be evaluated by the biologist to ensure that no special -status species
habitats will be affected);
• Conduct a field review of the staking (to be set by the surveyor) designating
the limits of all construction activity;
• Flag or temporarily fence any construction activity areas immediately adjacent
to riparian areas;
• Ensure and document that required pre -construction surveys and/or relocation
efforts. have been implemented; and
M_
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 81 of 109
• Be present during initial vegetation clearing and grading.
4.20-3 Prior to construction the applicant shall develop a relocation plan for coast horned lizard,
silvery legless lizard, and other special -status. reptile species. The plan shall include, but
not be limited to, the timing and location of the surveys that would be conducted for each
species; identify the locations where more intensive efforts should be conducted; identify
the habitat and conditions in the proposed relocation site(s); the methods that would be
utilized for trapping and relocating the individual species; and provide for the
documentation/recordation of the species and number of the animals relocated. The plan
shall be submitted to the City 60 days prior to any ground disturbing activities within
potentially occupied habitat.
The plan shall include the specific survey and relocation efforts that would occur for
construction activities during the activity period of the special -status species (generally
March to November) and for periods when the species may be present in the work area
but difficult to detect due to weather conditions (generally December through February).
Thirty days prior to construction activities in coastal scrub, chaparral, oak woodland,
riparian habitats, or other areas supporting these species, qualified biologists shall
conduct surveys to capture and relocate individual coast horned lizard, silvery legless
lizard, and other special -status reptile species in order to avoid or minimize impacts to
such species. The plan shall require a minimum of two (2) surveys conducted during the
time of year/day when each species is most likely to be observed. Individuals shall be
relocated to nearby undisturbed areas with suitable habitat. If construction is scheduled to
occur during the low activity period (generally December through February), the surveys
shall be conducted prior to this period if possible. The qualified biologist will be present
during ground -disturbing activities immediately adjacent to or within habitat that
supports populations of these species. Clearance surveys for special -status reptiles shall
be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the initiation of construction each day.
Results of the surveys and relocation efforts shall be provided to City in an annual
mitigation status report.
4.20-4 Within 30 days of ground -disturbing activities associated with construction or grading
that would occur during the nesting/breeding season of native bird species potentially
nesting on site (typically March through August in the project region, or as determined by
a qualified biologist), the applicant shall have surveys conducted by a qualified biologist
to determine if active nests of bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
and/or the California Fish and Game Code are present in the disturbance zone or within
300 feet of the disturbance zone. Pre -construction surveys shall include nighttime surveys
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 82 of 109
to identify active rookery sites. The total number of surveys shall be determined by the
on-site qualified biologist based on the construction/grading schedule.
If active nests are found, clearing and construction within 300 feet of the nest shall be
postponed or halted, at the discretion of the biologist in consultation with CDFG, until the
nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and there is no
evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest
shall be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers and
construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. The biologist
shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities
will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts to these nests
occur. Results of the surveys shall be provided to CDFG in an annual mitigation status
report.
4.20-5 Thirty days prior to construction activities in grassland, scrub, oak woodland, riverbank,
or other suitable habitat, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey within the proposed
construction disturbance zone and within 200 feet of the disturbance zone for San Diego
black -tailed jackrabbit and other special -status mammals.
If San Diego black -tailed jackrabbits or other special -status species are present, non -
breeding mammals shall be flushed from areas to be disturbed. Occupied dens,
depressions, nests, or burrows shall be flagged and ground -disturbing activities avoided
within a minimum of 200 feet during the pup -rearing season (February 15 through July
1). This buffer may be reduced based on the location of the den upon consultation with
the City and CDFG. Occupied maternity dens, depressions, nests, or burrows shall be
flagged for avoidance, and a biological monitor shall be present during construction. If
unattended young are discovered, they shall be relocated to suitable habitat by a qualified
biologist. The applicant shall document all San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit identified,
avoided, or moved and provide a written report to the City with a copy to CDFG.
3.10.3 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the
potential impacts to the Santa Clara River Corridor to less -than -significant levels in conjunction
with those feasible mitigation measures also adopted for impacts to biological resources, flood
and water quality. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1),
changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or
avoid potentially significant River Corridor -related impacts of the project identified in the Final
EIR.
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 83 of 109
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 84 of 109
3.11 WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
3.11.1 Potential Significant Impacts
Although construction -related impacts would be less than significant, the operational phase of
the project could result in significant impacts to wastewater disposal facilities absent evidence
that adequate capacity and infrastructure is available to serve the project. As the project would
construct a WRP to accommodate the projected wastewater produced by the contemplated land
uses, potential impacts to wastewater disposal would be less than significant. Additionally, the
project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact because safeguards are in place to
ensure that no wastewater disposal connection permits are issued absent evidence of adequate
capacity. Nonetheless, the mitigation measures below are provided to ensure that such impacts
are not significant and the facilities provided by the project comply with pertinent requirements
of the City, California Department of Public Health, and County of Los Angeles Department of
Public Health - Environmental Health Division.
3.11.2 Mitigation Measures
4.21-1 Upon completion of the WRP, the applicant shall dedicate the WRP property to the City
of Santa Clarita.
4.21-2 A 395,411 gallon per day water reclamation plant shall be constructed on the Vista
Canyon Specific Plan site, pursuant to local, regional, state and federal design standards
(as applicable), to serve the Vista Canyon Specific Plan. The project applicant shall
assign the responsibility for ownership, operation, and maintenance of the water
reclamation plant to the City of Santa Clarita.
4.21-3 All facilities of the sanitary sewer system, including the siphon, will be designed and
constructed for maintenance by the City of Santa Clarita in accordance with the
applicable manuals, criteria, and requirements.
4.21-4 The project applicant shall require construction contractors to provide portable, on-site
sanitation facilities that will be serviced by approved disposal facilities and/or treatment
plants.
4.21-5 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall obtain a "will -serve"
letter from the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County verifying that
treatment capacity is adequate.
G�
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 85 of 109
4.21-6 All local wastewater lines within the project boundaries are to be constructed by the
project applicant .and dedicated to the City of Santa Clarita Transportation and
Engineering Services Department.
4.21-7 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall pay applicable
wastewater connection fees.
4.21-8 Prior to issuance of the first occupancy and the use or installation of any recycled water
infrastructure, plans must be submitted to the State of California Department of Public
Health and to the County Department of Public Health -Environmental Health Division
for review and approval.
3.11.3 Findings
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the
potential impacts to wastewater disposal to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the City
finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State CEQA
Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant wastewater disposal -
related impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
4.0 FINDINGS ON LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
4.1 GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS
4.1.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
The project would be served by a WRP and the existing sewage conveyance system; therefore,
the project would not be located on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Additionally, construction of the proposed
project would not alter any significant landforms, or destroy, cover or modify any unique
geologic or physical feature(s). The project site also is not located in an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active faults are located on the site; therefore, impacts due
to rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant. Additionally, the project
site is relatively flat and presently not susceptible to any forms of slope instability or landslide.
The project's cumulative geotechnical hazard impacts also would be less than significant
because, generally speaking, impacts related to geotechnical hazards are site specific and limited
to the development areas within a project site. Additionally, buildings and facilities proposed
under other projects are required to be sited, designed, and constructed in accordance with
geotechnical, geologic, and seismic building codes.
any
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 86 of 109
4.1.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.1.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced
geotechnical hazards.
4.2 FLOOD
4.1.2 Less Than Significant Impacts
While the project would include development of the storm drain system and have pre -defined
outlets to the Santa Clara River, existing drainage patterns would not be significantly altered and
no impacts would occur with respect to discharge changes. More specifically, no significant
impacts to the River's fluvial or vegetation area would occur -as a result of the project's flood
protection ,improvements. Additionally, there are no increases in the water surface elevation
beyond the limits of the project site resulting from project implementation, and those that occur
on site are minor, localized, and accommodated by the flood protection improvements. Finally,
the flood protection improvements only would result in localized, minor changes in bed riverbed
adjustment values; this is not considered a significant impact.
The project also would not significantly impact on-site drainage, particularly due to its inclusion
of energy dissipaters at the on-site storm drain outlets. Additionally, the project's compliance
with all FEMA requirements, as well as the County of Los Angeles' QCAP requirements,
ensures that impacts attributable to floodplain modifications will not be significant. In that
regard; the project would raise portions of the project site to elevations above the existing FEMA
maximum flooding elevation and construct buried soil cement bank protection along the River
Corridor to protect the site from erosion. And, the post -project runoff discharge quantities would
decrease, as compared to the existing conditions, due to the provision of water quality/debris
basins that would capture upstream bulk flows and allow debris to settle out.
The project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding for the reasons enumerated in the previous paragraphs. The project also
would not result in a substantial alteration of existing drainage patterns in such a manner as to
result in substantial erosion or siltation, and would not significantly impact the fluvial
characteristics or mechanics of the Santa Clara River.
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 87 of 109
Finally, compliance with all applicable regulations ensures that the project would not result in
cumulatively considerable impacts to flood, particularly as other projects within the City of Santa
Clarita and County of Los Angeles would be subject to the same general requirements as the
project.
4.2.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.2.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced
flood impacts.
4.3 TRAFFIC AND ACCESS
4.1.2 Less Than Significant Impacts
Based on the Parking Demand Analysis (2010), a copy of which is included in Appendix 4.3 of
the Draft EIR, the project would not result in significant impacts to parking. Additionally, the
project would not significantly impact the transit and pedestrian/bicycle systems, as the project
would replace a temporary Metrolink rail station with a permanent facility, construct a bus
transfer station, and provide new bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Finally, the project would
generate an average of 58 vehicle miles traveled per household per day, which is within the
lower range of the estimated statewide range of 55 to 65.
4.3.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant. Nonetheless, the following mitigation
measure is included to ensure that parking -related impacts remain less than significant.
4.3-10 The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Vista Canyon Parking Demand
Analysis.
4.3.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced
traffic and access matters, but that the above mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the
project to ensure that such impacts remain below a level of significance.
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 88 of 109
4.4 AIR QUALITY
4.1.2 Less Than Significant Impacts
Because the project would not increase the population figures over those that have been planned
for the area and would be consistent with the AQMP forecasts and emission reduction strategies
for the area, the project would neither interfere with the attainment of federal or state ambient air
quality standards nor result in population increases within the area in excess of those projected
by SCAG.
Also, under worst-case conditions, future CO concentrations at studied intersections would not
exceed state or federal standards; therefore, the project would not result in significant CO hotspot
impacts to sensitive receptors.
Neither the project's residential and commercial uses, nor the WRP would create an
objectionable odor that could impact sensitive receptors. The project also would not have on-site
hazardous materials that could result in an accidental release of toxic air emissions or acutely
hazardous materials posing a. threat to public health and safety. Similarly, although the WRP
could potentially emit toxic air contaminant emissions during the wastewater treatment process,
the facility would employ a mechanical system that would collect emissions and direct them to a
biological or chemical air treatment unit prior to exhausting to the atmosphere.
Finally, the project is not anticipated to expose sensitive receptors to substantial increases in
health risks and pollutant concentrations relative to the general population, and would not emit
carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants that individually or cumulatively exceed the maximum
individual cancer risk of 10 in 1 million.
4.4.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 89 of 109
4.4.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced
air quality matters.
4.5 Nom
4.1.2 Less Than Significant Impacts
Noise generated by mobile sources during the project's construction phase, and specifically truck
traffic and worker traffic, would not be significant. Additionally, construction -related vibration
impacts attributable to pile drivers, bulldozers, and loaded haul trucks would not significantly
impact off-site sensitive receptors.
As for operational -related impacts, the project would not increase noise levels at an increment of
3 dB(A) or greater along the modeled roadway and freeway (SR -14) segments. Therefore,
project -level impacts to on- and off-site sensitive receptors would be less than significant relative
to mobile source noise.
The project also would not result in significant noise impacts attributable to the Union Pacific
Railroad/Metrolink rail line as residential units would be at a sufficient distance from the tracks.
Relatedly, it is important to note that the project would not result in an increase. in noise levels
associated with the railroad tracks, which already are in place.
In an effort to further assess the post -project ambient noise levels, City staff directed the
environmental consultant to complete additional analysis utilizing measurements from the on-site
monitoring location closest to Fair Oaks Ranch that account for the project applicant's
commitment to construct an eight -foot tall berm/wall along the southern boundary of the future
Metrolink Station to further reduce noise levels. Existing noise levels at the on-site measurement
location (approximately 60 feet from the railroad tracks) are 60 db(A) CNEL. The project would
increase those noise levels at that location to 67 db(A) CNEL due to project operation (vehicle
traffic, Metrolink Station, stationary noise sources, etc.). The closest homes in Fair Oaks Ranch
to the Metrolink Station, however, are approximately 300 feet away. At 300 feet, the post -
project db(A) CNEL would be 63.5. At 400 feet, the db(A) CNEL would be 59.6. Construction
of the eight -foot tall berm/wall along the southern boundary of the railroad right-of-way adjacent
to the Metrolink Station would further reduce ambient noise at off-site locations, including Fair
Oaks Ranch. Specifically, with the berm/wall, the db(A) CNEL would be 58.2 at 300 feet and
57.5 at 400 feet; these levels are well within the City's noise guidelines.
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 90 of 109
Point source noise impacts attributable to the land uses contemplated for the project site also
would be less than significant and within the range of acceptable noise levels permitted by
community standards. And finally, the project would not result in unacceptable interior noise
levels at on- or off-site residential uses.
4.5.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.5.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced
noise matters.
4.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.1.2 Less Than Significant Impacts
The project would not significantly impact the following vegetation communities: California
sagebrush - California buckwheat series; Chamise series; Elderberry series; Mixed native and
non-native series; Mulefat series; Saltgrass; Non-native annual grassland - ruderal series; Yerba
santa series; and, Disturbed. The project also would not significantly impact common wildlife
reptile, amphibian, or mammal species. Further, the Peirson's morning-glory, a special -status
plant species that has been observed on site, would not be significantly impacted. Finally, the
project would not significantly impact wildlife movement corridors due to the preservation and
enhancement of north -south and east -west corridors.
4.6.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.6.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced
biota matters.
4.7 LAND USE
4.1.2 Less Than Significant Impacts
As the site is mostly vacant, the project would neither disrupt nor physically divide an
established community. Also, there are no habitat conservation plans or natural community
conservation plans applicable to the project site; therefore, no conflict would result with respect
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 91 of 109
to such types of plans. Additionally, the project is generally consistent with all applicable goals,
policies and/or requirements of the City's existing General Plan, proposed OVOV General Plan,
and Unified Development Code, as well as SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan and Compass
Growth Visioning.
4.7.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.7.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on land use; therefore, no
mitigation is required.
Min
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 92 of 109
4.8 WATER•SERVICE
4.1.2 Less Than Significant Impacts
The proposed project's water demand would be met by relying on three primary sources of water
supply: groundwater from the Alluvial aquifer; SWP water; and, recycled water from the WRP.
Based on an evaluation of the project's water demand (including the Vista Canyon WSA) and
the supplies of the local water purveyor, an adequate supply of water is available to serve the
project, and the project would not create, or contribute to, any significant project -specific or
cumulative water supply impacts in the Santa Clarita Valley. Supplying water to the project also
would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies, or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge.
4.8.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects. which are not found to be significant. Nonetheless, the following mitigation
measures are included in order to contribute to a reduction in the project's demand for potable
water, and to ensure that adequate water supplies are available to serve the project at the time of
construction.
4.8-1 The proposed project shall implement a water recycling system in order to reduce the
project's demand for imported potable water. The project shall install a distribution
system to deliver recycled water to irrigate land uses suitable to accept reclaimed water,
pursuant to Los Angeles County Department of Health Standards. Uses include retail,
office, and commercial spaces. Such uses shall be dual -plumbed to receive recycled water
for toilet facilities.
4.8-2 Landscape concept plans shall include a palette rich in drought -tolerant and native plants.
4.8-3 Water conservation measures as required by the State of California shall be incorporated
into all irrigation systems.
4.8-4 In conjunction with the submittal of applications that permit construction, and prior to
approval of any such permits, the City of Santa Clarita shall require the applicant of the
permit to obtain written confirmation from the retail water agency identifying the
source(s) of water available to serve the project concurrent with need.
4.8-5 Prior to commencement of use, all uses of recycled water shall be reviewed and approved
by the State of California Health and Welfare Agency, Department of Health Services.
a � /
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 93 of 109
4.8-6 Prior to the issuance of building permits that allow construction, the applicant of the
project shall finance the expansion costs of water service extension to the project through
the payment of connection fees to the appropriate water agency(ies).
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 94 of 109
4.8.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on water service, but that
the above mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project to ensure that such impacts
remain below a level of significance.
4.9 EDUCATION
4.1.2 Less Than Significant Impacts
The project would generate additional elementary, junior high, and high school students that
would be accommodated by the Sulphur Springs Union School District and William S. Hart
Union High School District. However, implementation of the School Facilities Mitigation
Agreement between the Sulphur Springs Union School District and the applicant, and the
Agreement for Fair Share Funding of School Facilities between the William S. Hart Union High
School District. and the applicant would ensure all project impacts are at a level below
significant. Additionally, because of the referenced mitigation agreements and because similar
mechanisms would likely be utilized for each new residential development in the Santa Clarita
Valley, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to education.
4.9.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.9.3 Findings
The City finds that, with implementation of the referenced mitigation agreements, the project
will have a less -than -significant impact on education.
4.10 LIBRARY SERVICES
4.1.2 Less Than Significant Impacts
The project would generate the need for additional items (e.g., books, magazines, periodicals,
audio, video, etc.), square feet of library facilities, and public access computers, based on the
County of Los Angeles Public Library's service level guidelines. However, payment of the
City's adopted library impact fee of $718.00 per new residential dwelling unit (as of February
2010) would ensure that the proposed project would not significantly impair library services.
Similarly, because the proposed project and any future development would be required to pay the
City's library impact fee, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact.
4.10.2 Mitigation Measures
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 95 of 109
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.10.3 Findings
The City finds that, with payment of the requisite library impact fees, the project will have a less -
than -significant impact on library services.
4.11 PARKS AND RECREATION
4.11.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
The project incorporates approximately 21 acres of formal active/passive park or recreational
uses, including the approximately 10 -acre Oak Park/River Education Center, both of which are
proposed for dedication to the City. Other recreational facilities include the Community Garden,
Town Green, up*to six private recreational facilities and project trails. The project trails extend
over 4 miles both on and off the project site, including significant extensions of the Santa Clara
River Trail. In summary, the project satisfies the City's parkland standards through a
combination of parkland, private recreation facilities and payment of fees and, therefore, would
not result in significant unavoidable impacts to local parks and recreation facilities. The project
also would not significantly impact regional, state or federal parks or trail systems. Similarly,
because the proposed project and any future development would be required to meet the City's
parkland requirements by providing either the dedication of land, payment of in -lieu fees, or
construction of park amenities (or a combination thereof), the project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable impact.
4.11.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section - 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant. Nonetheless, the following mitigation
measures are included in order to ensure that the project will not significantly impact parks and
recreational facilities.
4.12-1 Consistent with the Vista Canyon Specific Plan, development of the project shall provide
the following parks and open areas:
• Ten acres of public parkland with improvements, including the Oak Park and
the River Education Center;
• Up to six private recreation facilities and over 4 miles of trails; and
• Dedication of the Santa Clara River Corridor on site.
4.12-2 Reject applicant, or its designee, will meet City parkland requirements by providing
either the dedication of land, payment of in -lieu fees, construction of park amenities, or
a 7 V
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 96 of 109
any combination of the three as approved by the Director of Parks, Recreation and
Community Services, prior to issuance of building permits.
4.11.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on parks and recreation,
but that the above mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project to ensure that such
impacts remain below a level of significance.
4.12 SHERIFF SERVICES
4.12.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
The project would increase demands for CHP services in the project area. However, through
increased revenues generated by the project (via motor vehicle registration and drivers license
fees paid by new on-site residents and businesses), the project would generate more than
sufficient funding for the additional staffing and equipment would needed to serve the project
area, including future demands. This funding can and should be allocated to the CHP by the state
CHP for the Santa Clarita Valley station to meet project demands. Therefore, project- and
cumulative -level impacts to the CHP would be less -than -significant.
The project also would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because the project contains multiple
evacuation routes, which would provide for the safe movement of residents and employees.
4.12.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.12.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced
sheriff services.
4.13 HUMAN -MADE HAZARDS
4.13.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
The project would result in the buildout of both residential and general commercial uses. These
land use types would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Similarly, the project's residential and
commercial uses would not result in the emission of hazardous emissions or handling of
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 97 of 109
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or
proposed school.
Additionally, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project site also is not located within 2
miles of a public use airport or the vicinity of a private airstrip. Accordingly, the project would
not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
Because the project site is not in the vicinity of any electrical transmission lines, gas lines, or oil
pipelines, the project would not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards.
The project also would not result in significant impacts attributable to oil production operations
(as the site is not within the designated boundaries of an oil or gas field), underground storage
tanks, transmission line exposure, or adjacent properties.
Finally, as human -made. hazards present site-specific issues, no cumulative impacts are
anticipated.
4.13.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 98 of 109
4.13.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will result in less -than -significant impacts attributable to the
above -referenced human -made hazards.
4.14 VISUAL RESOURCES
4.14.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
Although the project would alter existing short-range views, the project would not obstruct
public views of scenic resources. For example, the Santa Clara River, the site's major scenic
resource, would continue to be visible from SR -14, which offers the most prominent views of the
project site and supports the largest viewing audience among the local vantage points. Further,
due to the distance between SR -14 and the development area, the structures would not be
visually prominent from SR -14.
The project also would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
identified ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway as there are no designated state scenic highways in the Santa Clarita Valley. Further,
although the visual character of the project site and surrounding areas would change (due to the
transition of a predominantly vacant site to a developed state), the visual impacts resulting from
build -out of the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the project site and its surroundings;
Relatedly, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable development as it is located
in an area largely surrounded by existing, approved and planned development. Further, the
project would be visually consistent with the existing adjacent development, such as the Colony
Townhome and Fair Oaks Ranch communities.
4.14.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.14.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced
visual resources.
4.15 POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT
4.15.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 99 of 109
The project would not induce substantial population growth in an area either directly or
indirectly. The project also would not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing
and, therefore, would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Finally, the project would be consistent with SCAG's jobs/housing goal of 1.5:1 via its inclusion
of commercial, office, retail and hotel uses.
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 100 of 109
4.15.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.15.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on population, housing,
and employment.
4.16 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
4.16.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
The project site consists of approximately 185 acres of land that is designated as "Other Land"
by the California Department of Conservation; in other words, the project site does not contain
any "Prime Farmland," "Unique Farmland," or "Farmland of Statewide Importance."
Accordingly, the project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use. The project site
also in not part of a Williamson Act contract, and would not conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use if the requested zone change is approved.
The project site is not zoned for forestland or timberbland, and would not result in the loss or
conversion of forestland. This is consistent with the Land Cover Map developed by the USDA
Forest Service and CalFire, which classifies the project site as urban land and not forest land.
Also, .as the project site is generally bordered on all sides by existing or planned urban
development, the project would not involve other changes in the existing environment that would
result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural land uses or forestland to non -forest uses.
Finally, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to agricultural
resources and forestland.
4.16.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.16.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on agricultural resources.
4.17 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
4.17.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 101 of 109
Although the project would increase the existing on-site emission levels, based on a GHG
emissions estimate considering nine source types, and accounting for various "green" PDFs (e.g.,
20 percent exceedance of Title 24 for all residential and non-residential structures; provision of
Energy Star major appliances, where feasible; renewable electricity equivalent to an 80,000
square foot photovoltaic system; solar heating for pools), the project would not result in a
significant impact to global climate change because it would be consistent with AB 32, the State
of California's only codified GHG emissions reduction mandate. Additionally, the project
generally is consistent with various plans, policies and regulations that result in GHG emission
reductions, such as Title 24 and SB 375, and GHG emission reduction strategies recommended
by the California Attorney General and Climate Action Team. On this basis, the project also
would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to climate change.
4.17.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.17.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on global climate change.
4.18 UTILITIES
4.18.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
Electricity and natural gas demand associated with the project's construction phase is not
anticipated to be significant. Additionally, at build -out, the project would result in an eleven
percent reduction in electricity demand and a sixteen percent reduction in natural gas demand
because all residential and non-residential structures would exceed the 2008 Title 24 standards
by 20 percent. Finally, the extension of electric, natural gas, and communication infrastructure
would not result in significant impacts due to the project's compliance with applicable standards
issued by the City, SCE, SCGC, and AT&T. For these same reasons, the project also would not
result in a cumulatively considerable impact to utilities.
4.18.2 Mitigation Measures,
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are, not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
4.18.3 Findings
The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on utilities.
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 102 of 109
5.0 FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
5.1 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives section of the Final EIR contains an analysis of alternatives to the project,
including the "No Project" alternative. (For a detailed discussion of these alternatives, please see
Section -6.0, Alternatives, of the EIR.) Based on the analysis, the City finds as follows:
(a) Alternative 1, The No Project Alternative
Description: This alternative is required by the State CEQA Guidelines and
compares the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present condition
with those that would be generated by the proposed project. Under this
alternative, no development would occur, and the existing storage yard and
residence would remain on a portion of the site.
Environmental. Effects: This alternative is environmentally superior to the project
since most of the environmental effects of the project would not occur.
Relation to Project Objectives: This alternative would not attain the basic
objectives of the project, as defined in Section 1.4, above. That said, some of the
resource conservation objectives would be avoided through the complete
avoidance of direct and indirect environmental impacts.
Feasibility: This alternative is infeasible because it would not attain the basic
project objectives, and would not provide any of the project benefits.
(b) Alternative 2, Proposed County Land Use Designation (OVOV)
Description: This alternative would develop a project allowed by Los Angeles
County's proposed land use designations for the site, as defined in the General
Plan Update (OVOV). The proposed designation would permit approximately 700
residential units on the project site; a 5 -acre neighborhood park and up to two
private recreation areas also would be provided. However, no commercial or
transit uses would be constructed as part of this alternative. Additionally, this
alternative would not include the WRP or Vista Canyon Road Bridge. Consistent
with OVOV, Lost Canyon Road would be extended as a major highway from Fair
Oaks Ranch to Jakes Way, and then as a secondary highway from Jakes Way to
Lost Canyon Road at La Veda Avenue.
�I
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 103 of 109
Environmental Effects: This alternative would result in less impacts than the
project in 12 categories, greater impacts in 5 categories, and similar impacts in 7
categories. In general, this alternative is considered the "environmentally
superior" alternative for purposes of CEQA.
Relation to Project Objectives: This alternative would not fully meet or impede
the following project objectives, which are defined in Section 1.4, above: Land
Use Planning Objectives 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 14; and, Economic Objectives 1, 3, and
4.
Feasibility: This alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy
numerous project objectives, and would not provide all of the project benefits.
(c) Alternative 3, Existing City of Santa Clarita General Plan Designation
Description: This alternative would develop a project allowed by the City of
Santa Clarita's existing General Plan land use designation for the site
(i.e., Business Park (BP)). Under the BP designation, the site could be developed
with approximately 4.35 million square feet of light industrialibusiness park uses.
This alternative would include construction of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge,
Metrolink Station, and Bus Transfer Station. Lost Canyon Road would be
extended from Fair Oaks Ranch to Lost Canyon Road at La Veda Avenue as a
major highway. This alternative would not include any parks or recreation
facilities.
Environmental Effects: This alternative would result in less impacts than the
project in 8 categories, greater impacts in 8 categories, and similar impacts. in 8
categories. Therefore, this alternative is not environmentally superior. to the
project.
Relation to Project Objectives: This alternative would not fully meet or impede
the following project objectives, which are defined in Section 1.4, above: Land
Use Planning Objectives 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 14; and, Economic Objectives 1.
Feasibility: This alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy
numerous project objectives, and would not provide all of the project benefits.
(d) Alternative 4, Reduced Development Footprint (Relocation of Southerly Bank
Stabilization)
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 104 of 109
Description: This alternative generally would move the bank stabilization on the
south side of the River Corridor back by an average of 100 feet, thereby
increasing the width of the River Corridor as compared to the proposed project.
The Vista Canyon Road Bridge length would be extended from 650 to 800 feet.
The residential overlay also would be eliminated, reducing the number of
residential units from a maximum of 1,324 to 1,091. Lost Canyon Road would be
extended from Fair Oaks Ranch to La Veda Avenue in a design (with traffic
calming) similar to the proposed project. All other components of the project
would be incorporated into this alternative.
Of note, since preparation of the Draft EIR, the City Council has revised the
proposed project in a manner that is consistent with certain aspects of this
alternative. For example, the bank stabilization on the south side of the River
Corridor within PA -1 and PA -2, excepting the WRY, has been moved back by an
average of 100 feet. Additionally, the residential overlay has been eliminated,
and the length of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge has been extended from 650 to
750 feet.
Environmental Effects: This alternative would result in less impacts than the
project in 14 categories, greater impacts in one category, and similar impacts in 9
categories. Therefore, this alternative is considered to be environmentally
superior to the project.
Relation to Project Objectives: This alternative would not fully meet or impede
the following project objective, which is defined in Section 1.4, above: Economic
Objective 2.
Feasibility: This alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy one of
the project objectives.
(e) Alternative 5, Open Space Corridor
Description: This alternative would create a north/south open space corridor from
and through the project site to undeveloped properties to the south, and would not
include development in PA -4 (Mitchell Hill). The alternative also would eliminate
the extension of Lost Canyon Road to La Veda Avenue; Lost Canyon Road would
terminate in the project site, though the alternative would still extend trail
improvements from the project site along the north side of Lost Canyon Road to
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 105 of 109
Sand Canyon Road. The alternative would increase the size of Oak Park (which
would include both active and passive areas) and would remove one less oak tree,
as compared to the project. In comparison to the project, 32 single-family units
would be eliminated. All other components of the project would be incorporated
into this alternative.
Of note, since preparation of the Draft EIR, the City Council has revised the
proposed project in a manner that is consistent with certain aspects of this
alternative. For example, a north/south open space corridor has been created
through the elimination of 26 single-family lots originally proposed in the area
adjacent to the existing La Veda neighborhood. As a result, the size of Oak Park
has been increased. Additionally, the proposed project has eliminated commercial
development in PA -4.
Environmental Effects: This alternative would result in less impacts than the
project in 12 categories, greater impacts in one category, and similar impacts in
11 categories. Therefore, this alternative is considered to be environmentally
superior to the project.
Relation to Project Objectives: This alternative would not fully meet or impede
the following project objectives, which are defined in Section 1.4, above: Land
Use Planning Objective 12; Economic Objective 2.
Feasibility: Components of this alternative were implemented by the Planning
Commission (i.e., elimination of 26 single-family lots, increased size of Oak Park,
and removal of one less oak tree). However, full implementation of this
alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy two of the project
objectives.
(f) Alternative 6, Lost Canyon Road Alignment
Description: This alternative would extend Lost Canyon Road from Fair Oaks
Ranch to La Veda Avenue in an alignment running parallel and adjacent to the
southerly bank stabilization. Lost Canyon Road would be constructed to serve as
a secondary highway to the Vista Canyon Road Bridge, and as a collector through
the eastern portions of the project site. All other components of the proposed
project would be incorporated into this alternative.
Environmental Effects: The environmental impacts of this alternative would be
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 106 of 109
similar to the impacts of the project, with the exception of traffic/circulation,
which would be slightly greater than the project. Accordingly, the alternative is
not considered environmentally superior to the project.
Relation to Project Objectives: This alternative would not fully meet or impede
the following project objective, which is defined in Section 1.4, above: Land Use
Planning Objective 3.
Feasibility: This alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy one of
the project objectives, and would not provide all of the project benefits.
5.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVES
Alternative sites of generally the same size within or directly adjacent to the City in the eastern
Santa Clarita Valley do not exist, are presently being utilized for other purposes, or are the
subject of other development proposals. The project involves development of a transit -oriented,
mixed-use community in an infill site, generally surrounded on all sides by development with the
necessary infrastructure adjacent to the project site. A multi -modal transit station (Metrolink
Station and Bus Transfer Station) would be developed as part of the project. There are no
potential alternative project sites in the local vicinity that are similar in acreage, are close to
existing or planned infrastructure improvements, and are adjacent to the Metrolink rail line.
Potential alternative sites that provide access to similar infrastructure and alternative transit are
located beyond existing urbanized areas and, therefore, would induce growth in these non -urban
areas.
6.0 ANCILLARY ANNEXATION AREA
To preface, no findings are required relative to the AAA by Public Resources Code section
21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091 as the EIR did not identify one or more significant .
environmental effects for the City's proposed annexation of these properties. Nonetheless,
information regarding the environmental analysis for the AAA contained in the EIR is presented
below.
First, most of the AAA is built out. As such, the proposed changes to the land use designations
in the built out portion of the AAA and the re -assignment of those areas to a different land use
jurisdiction, practically speaking, would not result in any potentially significant environmental
impacts.
2q,K
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 107 of 109
Second, additional environmental review would be required before most of the currently
undeveloped portions of the ancillary annexation area could be built out; the subsequent
environmental review processes would evaluate impacts and identify mitigation measures in
further detail than provided in this section due to the preparation of specific development plans.
At this point, it is not known whether, when or how the undeveloped portions of the ancillary
annexation area would be built out. Nonetheless, in some instances, the imposition of existing
regulatory standards and development fees would effectively ensure that impacts are not
significant. In some instances, however, it is difficult to forecast the environmental impacts of
the annexation.
That being said, design -level mitigation measures would be identified, as necessary and feasible,
during the subsequent project -level environmental review that would be undertaken in
conjunction with any additional development in the AAA, and specifically the Sand Canyon and
Jakes Way areas. It is reasonable to assume and recommend at this juncture that further
development in the AAA utilize mitigation measures comparable to those recommended for the
Vista Canyon project due to the similar nature of the development types.
The CEQA-mandated "no project" alternative likely would result in similar impacts as the
proposed AAA, as neither would preclude additional development; rather, both scenarios would
allow for development to be proposed and corresponding environmental review to be
undertaken. Also, no alternative locations to the proposed AAA, which represents a logical
extension of the City's physical boundary and municipal service area, exist.
SAMCURREMP2007\07-127 (VistaCanyonRanch)\City Council\FINAL CITY COUNCURNAL Vista CEQA Resolution.doc
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 108 of 109
I0:4OIIall 1M:?
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Master Case No. 07-127
Vista CEQA Resolution
Page 109 of 109
EXHIBIT C
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, at its regular meeting
held March 22, 2011, continued a public hearing on
ITEM 13
PUBLIC HEARING
THE VISTA CANYON ANNEXATION PROJECT, INCLUDING THE ANCILLARY
ANNEXATION AREA (PORTIONS OF SNT CANYON, FAIR OAKS RANCH, AND JAKES
WAY)
to April 26, 2011. The continued public hearing will be held at or after 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California.
Dated this 23'd day of March, 2011.
KEVIN TONOItN, ACTING CITY CLERK
I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
KEVIN TONOIAN, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the duly
appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita and that on March 23, 2011, he caused
the above notice to be posted at the door of(the Council Chamber located at 23920 Valencia Blvd.,
Santa Clarita, California.
KEV TON61AN, ACTING CITY CLERK
Santa laritat California
S:AC1-1 'ADubuc Bearings\Conrinued PI -I ViS[a Canyon - 032311.doc f��jyr