HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-26 - RESOLUTIONS - ANCILLARY ANNEX MC 07 127 (2)RESOLUTION NO. 11-22
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
07-00113, 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 A-ct ("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
1
f. The City of Santa Clarita prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") (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. 11-02 and 11-03, 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 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 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, 201-1.
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.
2
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.
m. 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
I roject 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.
3
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 Lias am 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
H
(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.
E
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
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:
e
f.
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 it 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 thatimpacts 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.
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. j
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.
i
0
F,
1
1
1
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.
e. 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.
7
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, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April 2011.
MAYOR
DATE: 511'911(
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 was regularly introduced and passed at a regular meeting of the City
Council on the 26th day of April, 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Ender, Ferry, Weste, McLean
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
RECUSED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Kellar
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
r
ACT G CITY ULERK
1
1
1
1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
ss.
CERTIFICATION OF
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
I, , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do
hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Resolution No. 11-22, adopted
by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California on April 26, 2011, which is now on
file in my office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this day of 2011.
City Clerk
By
Deputy City Clerk
M
Exhibit A To Resolution No. 11-22
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.
As requiredp ired by CEQA, the City, in adopting these findings, also adopts a Mitigation Monitoring
..
and Re orting Prog"ram ("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
10
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
camiot 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 ands 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.
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.
12
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. n
4. Provide a project jobs/housing balance of at least two jobs for everyone 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
13
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'DraftEIR. Based ori"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. Sol -id Water Disposal
10. Education
11. Library Services
12. Parks and Recreation
13. Fire Services
14. Sheriff Services
15. Human -Made Hazards
16. Visual Resources
14
D
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 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)
www.santa-clarita.com/planning. 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
15
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 requite 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 'tecommend`ed' improvement wotiild 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
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 6rif6 the "SR=14
southbound on-ramp from a permitted to protected signal phase, and retime this traffic
16
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).
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 withsignal equipment placed in locations that
accommodates the planned restriping of the road to six lanes.
1?
® 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.
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
18
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 PM 10,
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.
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. z
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 manufacturer -s-' 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.
19
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 1 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.
• 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:
20
• 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;
• 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
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 NOISE
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
21
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
constrtctiori besf managementIT"° practices (B'NI'Ps) 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.
• 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
supermtend ent._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` 16 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.
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.
23
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.
24
1
1
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, 1Vlrtigation Measure 4'.1-22 requires compliance With Section 1613 0 t e
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.
►.
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 6e placed within t e upper^
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 l 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 fll 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. Vdhere utility lines or
pipelines are to be located at depths greater than 15 feet, rock shall be excluded in that
26
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 Teef--below proposed- finish gfad-e -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, clear-irg; 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
27
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' Constltant to'-asccrtain-the--
applicability
t e -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 constructi
<. .
ng 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
28
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
29
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 threei 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.
F '
4-J-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
compact fill soils ma be .` e e ual to the ressure d
properly p y assumed to. b q` p evel.ope
.. 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-`s`hall -bb deepened as 'necessary to ektend 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
30
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 `sfiall 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.
31
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 I 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) "F1 " 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 b'urie-'soil cement=e anise
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`derisity ata moisture content of no more than 2 percent over, optimum -for, "
be under the observation of
the soils. The placement of the soil -cement shall performed
32
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 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.
1
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.,.
34
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-lated impacts of the 'projecf to less-Eben=sigriificanf"levels: Accordirig y, the-
re
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.
35
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
µ by USACE inLa subsequent Clean Water Act section 404 permit or streambed alteration
agreement issued by CDFG.
36
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
a
riparian bird species in the habitats t'o be removed; andariy-othersuch habitat:within-3'00-
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.
37
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 impacfs on these natural area°s: The signs" will state that the"River" r orrr or rs-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,
irrigationof perimeter landscaping adjacent to the River Corridor with native plant
communities- shall be limited to- temporary irrigation (i.e., untilplants become.
established).
iiig
4.6-14 The prevent an infestation of reerenniallnon-native a nvasivle rweedst1A 1 perennial,
sites to
pp p
prev p, 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,
1y 2009, are met The cover of annual, non-native plant species at the -mitigation sites shall
not exceed the requirements of`the Wetl`and's Plan, 2009; at any time during the penod"of'
documenting successful restoration.
M
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 '-sha11-'-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 r'ipar'ian 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.
39
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 snaps 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 o coristrucfion
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 1 st 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 sireamflows. To the extent
possible, ponds shall be located in barren or sandy river bottom areas devoid of existing
:1
1
1
1
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 (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.
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
41
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
purrip `must- Have at "least�a '0:2'5=irich'screen---'Water shoul`d= he discharge
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 completedfor 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
!N
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 an
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.
43
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
tree"s shall have "th'efellce Ir stalled` -at` the protected LL2one- 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 F 5 complefed by an approved qualified'trcea relocating company.
i
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.
1
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 impacton the existingL 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.
45
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:-� B`ased- on- a�iqualitative -assessment -the> proj ect- 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-refated'impacts'ofthe project`to Iess=than=significant'1'evels: 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.
1
46
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' ontothe 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.
4.113-8 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."
47
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. 1-343, Al'1-Fire-Department°turnarounds;-shall -be° clearly identified -and shall- beposted-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 Ballo is per minute at -20 pounds per 'square` inch for'three`hours:`A11
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
1 possible flow reduction, shall be determined during the building plan process.
i
i
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.
1
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
Y -'potential, fire services=related°ini acts,ofthe roJ'ect to--less—than—significant-levels. Accordin 1Y
,.
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 cons dera ble`impact-9 o,sheriff services:
50
i
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 ori -site 'residence could contain asbestos and lead, and the historic 'agricultural activities
present the potentialT&'on-site residential pesticides and agricultural chemicals to be present. In
summary, absent mitigation, demolition, grading and construction activities associated with
51
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
and`State CEQA-Guidelines=section°-1-5'09F1-; 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' `ro ecf "a licant,` or deli` neer shall `re wire that "all `securit lights -be hts"be ro erl
p J pp g q Y g properly
Y
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 screeriir' devices. -
52
i
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 -2/1-1, the Mitchell
family homestead. Finally, mitigation is required to avoid the disturbance of human remains,
including those `interred outside of formal" cemeteries. ---With -implementation oft 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.
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.
aken: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:
53
(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 Teasible;-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- df' the r itigaaionmeasures below, which `minimize impacts "to jurisdictional and'
sensitive riparian -associated resources on site I 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'Cl'eve lopment footprint correspon s 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
54
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
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
wetl'andand 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 standardsand 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
c.oriduct a worker environmental awareness program for ryall construction/contractor
personnel. A list of'construction personnel' who have completed training prior tothe 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
55
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;
o 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
shalh=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;
56
• 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,
_t
riparian habitats, or other areas supporting these species, qualified` biolbgists 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
to _identify active -rookery sites. The- total. number of surveys shallbe determined by the
on-site qualified biologist based on the con struction/grading schedule.'
57
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'thex'den "uponconsultation 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
3:1-1.1 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 toserve the project. As the project would
construct RP t
a Woxacc(s date the--brojected 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
58
I
capacity. Nonetheless, the mitigation measures below are provided to ensure that such impacts
r 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 and7or "treatment
plants.
4
i 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
i
fnds that, pursuant to Public Resources -Code section 21081; subdivision (a)(1), -and State CEQA
.:
Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations fiave been required in, 6r-
incorporated
rincorporated into; the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant wastewater disposaI-
related impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR.
59
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 4Stafe CEQA ' Guidel'ines "section°°`15 T26:4(a)(3); mitigation measures are riot
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.- - Additional ly,-there--.are.- no- -increases- in the water surface_e-lev_ation_
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 isnot 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 `proj-
ect 's compliance
with all FEMA requirements, as well as the County .of Los Angeles' QCAP requirements,
ensures that impacts attriibutable to floodplain modifications will not be g si nificant In that
regard,the"project would raise portions of the project site`to elevationsabove`"ttie existingFEIvIA
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.
I
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 aad-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.
Gil
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.
...a -_ . _ :.
Finally, the`projecf Is not anticipate_d""toe
'xpose se'nsittve receptors 'to `substaritta ° mereases iri
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
OISE_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, bulTdozers,E and loaded haul trucks` would not sigrficantly'fl ` `
- impact off-site sensitive receptors:. - -
As for operational -related impacis, tlle:project would�not increase noise "levels agar increment of
3 dB(A) or .greater along the modeled` roadway and freeway (SR -14) segments. Therefore,
project.level- mpacts to on and off site sensitive receptors would be less than sigmficant relative
to mobile source
62
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 fixture
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 `impactsattributable to"tle larid uses contemplated' for the projectsite 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; Salfgrass; 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. - - -
63
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„effecfs which" are not found fo 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
64
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 connectionfees to the"�a- ro'riate water a enc" ies r r
p �y pp p g Y ) _..
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 proj1.ect would not result in'cumulatively considerable impacts'to`education.
4.9.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section I5126.4(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.
65
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:
Wf Than'Si7gnificarit`Iinpact9
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
---._
4.11.2 Mitigation Measures
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section :15126.4(4)(3), mitigation measures are not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.' Nonetheless, the'followiiig'mitigat"ion `
measures are included in order. to ensure that the project -will notsignificantly impact. parks and
recreational facilities.
4.12-1 Consistent with the Vista Canyon Specific Plan, development of the project shall provide
- _
the fol -lo parks and open areas
• Ten acres of public` parkland wi'tYi improvements; incl'ud'ing the "Oak Park and "
the River Education Center;
® Up to six private recreation facilities and over 4 miles of trails; and
66
a 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
0
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 es -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- HUIVLAN MADE -HAZARDS -
4.13.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
The project would result in the buildout of both residentialand 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
67
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. T4 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=exist-ing-v-isual- character - or quality -of
the project site and its surroundings.
Relatedly, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable development as i is located` •'
in anarea. 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.
A-14:2- -Mitigation-"Measures
Consistent" with - State CEQA- Guidelines section' 15126.4("a)(-_, m`itigat oft measures are
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
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
requiredfor-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.
12
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`s "arige:
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, SCLC, and AT&T. For these same reasons, the project also would not
result -in a cumulatively considerable, impact to utilities.
- - - - 4 1-8.2—Mitigation- Measures
- Consistent with- State- CEQA----Guidelines- sect -ion 15-126:4(a)(3)� mitigation- measures- are- not
required for effects which are not found to be significant.
418.3 Findings
The City,finds that -the project -will have a less -than -significant impact -on -utilities.
= 50 FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES.
5 lj PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The alternatrv_es section of the Final EIR contains an analysis of alternatives to the project,
r.. x .,.:?_ '`. ..,,y:_ •..,. ,,,r.„s ..ter _ ��=. .n•� .-a�-.�3 �. �. � ,u:t-. ._
including the No Project" alternafi`ve: (For a detailed discussion oft hese 'alterri'atives`,pYease see`
Section 6.0, Alternatives, of the EIR.) Based on the analysis, the City finds as follows:
70
(a) Alternative.l, 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_fwo`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- hilly --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
RoadBridge, 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.
71
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 1.45 -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
Descriptaon.: `This -alternative °would' create a no open space corridor from and through
the project site to undevelopedproperties 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 C'anyon'Road"would terminate in, the project site; though the alternative 4
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
72
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, arid` removal`` o - one ess 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.
73
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 fo 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-levelmitigation measures would be. identified, as necessary and feasible, .
during the subsequent project level environmental review that would be undertaken In
conyurction with ariy additional developinerit m thec AAA", and speclfically`the Sand Canyon and'
- Jakes Way areas -It iS -reasonable to assume and recommend at -this juncture that further. .
developinent in the AAA utilize mitigation measures comparable to those recommended for the"
Vista Canyon project due to thesimilar:nature ofthe development types.
The .0 A mandated , ro ect" 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
74
1
1
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.
75
EXHIBIT B
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
I
1
1
mi