Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-26 - RESOLUTIONS - VISTA CYN ANNEX MC 07 127 (2)RESOLUTION NO. 11-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2007071039), AND ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND. REPORTING PROGRAM AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE VISTA CANYON PROJECT (MASTER CASE NO. 07-127: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-001 A, PRE -ZONE 07-001 A, ANNEXATION 07-002A, SPECIFIC PLAN 07-001, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 69164, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-009, OAK TREE PERMIT 07-019) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. An application for Master Case 07-127, the Vista Canyon project, was filed by the project applicant, Vista Canyon, LLC (the "applicant"), with the City of Santa Clarita on June 29, 2007. The original entitlement requests (collectively, "Entitlements") include: 1. Annexation 07-002A to annex (and amend the City's Sphere of Influence to include) the Vista Canyon site, an approximately 185 -acre site that is generally located southwest of Sand Canyon Road and State Route 14 ("SR - 14") in the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County. 2. Pre -zone 07-001 A to pre -zone the Vista Canyon site to Specific Plan ("SP"). Specific Plan 07-001 to adopt a Specific Plan that includes entitlements for 1,117 dwelling units (96 single-family detached, 1,021 multi -family attached), 646,000 square feet of commercial office, 164,000 square feet of retail, and a 200 -room hotel. A residential overlay within the Specific Plan would permit the conversion of up to 250,000 square feet of the commercial office area to 233 additional multi -family attached dwelling units, permitting development of the project site with up to 1,350 dwelling units and 700,000 square feet of commercial area. 4. General Plan Amendment 07-001A to amend the General Plan Land Use Map and Circulation Element in order to designate the Vista Canyon site as SP, revise the Significant Ecological Area ("SEA") overlay to correspond to the area proposed as Specific Plan -Open Space ("SP -OS"), and establish the alignment and roadway classifcation for Lost Canyon Road and Vista Canyon Road. Tentative Tract Map 69164 to subdivide the 185 -acre project site into 162 lots. In addition, each individual dwelling or commercial unit would have the ability to be subdivided. i 5. Conditional Use Permit 07-009 to allow for the import of up to 500,000 cubic yards of dirt to accommodate the development within the Vista Canyon site. 6. Oak Tree Permit 07-019 to allow for the removal of 10, four of which are heritage size, of the 41 oak trees located within the Specific Plan site. The request would also permit the encroachment into the protected zone of 10 oak trees, and pruning or trimming of seven of these 10 oak trees. Implementation of three of the four Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road intersection options could require an additional oak tree removal and/or up to two additional oak tree encroachments. As discussed at length below, the original Vista Canyon project has been revised since the initial 2007 application for the Entitlements. As a general matter, the modifications to the project reduce the amount and extent of site development, thereby reducing environmental impacts and avoiding the creation of new impacts. a. The City of Santa Clarita is also concurrently processing under Master Case 07-127 (General Plan Amendment 07-00113, Prezone 07-00113, Annexation 07-002B) a separate application to annex the Ancillary Annexation Area ("AAA") to the City of Santa Clarita. The AAA includes unincorporated County of Los Angeles property adjacent to and surrounding the Vista= Canyon project site, specifically Fair Oaks Ranch (approximately 1,082 acres), Jakes Way (approximately 260 acres), and portions of Sand Canyon (915 acres). b. As indicated in Paragraph (a), above, the project originally proposed to develop 1,117 dwelling units (96 single-family residential lots and 1,021 attached condominiums (up to 579 of these attached condominium units may be rented or leased)), and up to 950,000 square feet of commercial and medical office, retail, theater, restaurant, and hotel uses within four Planning Areas ("PA"). A residential overlay within the corporate office campus site would have allowed for the conversion of up to 250,000 square feet of office floor area to 233 attached residential units. If implemented, this conversion would have permitted a maximum of 1,350 residential units and 700,000 square feet of commercial floor area. The original project entailed a new Multi - Modal Transit Station ("Transit Station"), consisting of a Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station, as well as a wastewater reclamation plant ("WRY'). As originally proposed, there would also be approximately 18 acres of parks/recreation facilities, including the Oak Park, Town Green, Community Garden, River Education/Community Center, up to six private recreation facilities, and trails. Further, the original project also included approximately 10 acres of proposed public streets, including the extension of Lost Canyon Road from Fair Oaks Ranch to Vista Canyon Road and the construction of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge to connect Lost Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. C. The Vista Canyon site primarily is surrounded by residentially -developed land. Residential development, commercial development and SR -14, are located to the north of the project site. The Colony Townhomes, a multi -family residential 2 community, is directly west of the project site. The Fair Oaks Ranch community, which is comprised of single-family and multi -family residential units, an elementary school, and community park, lies to the south and west. The existing Metrolink rail line is located to the south of the project site. The La Veda and Lost Canyon residential areas, which consist of homes, and a public and private elementary school, lie to the east. The Santa Clara River bisects the Vista Canyon site. d. The project site is presently located in unincorporated Los Angeles County, directly adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita. The Los Angeles County Land Use Map (as amended through May 13, 2003) designates the project site as M (Industry) and W (Floodplain/Floodway). The property is currently zoned M-1.5 (Light Industrial), A- 1-1 (Light Agriculture — 1 acre minimum lot size), R -A-8,000 (Residential Agriculture — 8,000 square foot minimum lot size), and A-1-10,000 (Light Agriculture — 10,000 square foot minimum lot size). Under the existing County light industrial zoning designation of M-1.5 and taking into account parking and landscaping requirements, the project site could be developed with approximately 1.0 million square feet of light industrial uses. The agricultural and residential zoned portions of the project site could be developed with approximately 170 single-family residential units. e. On June 25, 1991, the City Council. adopted the City of Santa Clarita General Plan via Resolution No. 91-98, The City's General Plan presently designates the Vista Canyon project site as Business Park with portions of the site covered by a SEA overlay. The City's General Plan Land Use Concept identifies the project site as a "major sub -center" with Business Park/Office Uses. Under the Business Park designation and taking into account City parking and landscaping requirements, the project site could be developed with approximately 4.35 million square feet of business park floor area. f. The County of Los Angeles and City of Santa Clarita are presently completing One Valley One Vision ("OVOV") — a joint effort, initiated in 2000, between the City and County to create guidelines for the future growth and development of the Santa Clarita Valley while also preserving natural resources. The jurisdictional planning boundaries established in OVOV include the City and its four communities (i.e., Canyon Country, Newhall, Saugus and Valencia), and the County communities of Stevenson Ranch, Castaic, Val Verde, Agua Dulce, and the future Newhall Ranch. The draft OVOV Land Use Plan (dated October 2008) issued by the County designates the project site as UR2 (Urban2 - five dwelling units per acre) with an SEA overlay over portions of the site. Under this draft land use designation, the project site could be developed with up to 700 residential units. However, various goals and policies within OVOV encourage transit oriented development ("TOD") through the permitting of higher densities and intensities, and would allow for mixed- use, compact development in close proximity to new or existing rail stations and/or multi -modal transit facilities. As proposed, the Vista Canyon project includes a new Transit Station. 3 g. The Vista Canyon site was originally a portion of Mitchell Ranch, which was first settled in 1860 by Thomas Mitchell. Thomas Mitchell was born in Virginia, subsequently moving to Texas where, in 1852, he served under Sam Houston in the Texas Mounted Volunteers. He went to California shortly thereafter, spending approximately eight years in the northern California mining districts. In 1860, he moved to the Santa Clarita Valley to start a cattle ranch. Initially, he transported a dismantled miner's cabin down from Tehachapi and erected it on the property, more specifically in the southeastern portion of the project site. A few years later he married Martha Taylor and built a more commodious adobe, about 40 feet from the original cabin. The adobe was 60 by 45 feet in size and redwood shingled. Eventually, Mitchell increased his holdings to nearly a thousand acres, on which he raised cattle, produced honey, and farmed., With increasing population, and thus children, in the valley, the Sulphur Springs School District was founded, circa 1872. The school opened initially in the kitchen of Mitchell's adobe, was taught by Mrs. Mitchell, and was the first school building in the Santa Clara Valley area. Circa 1885, the student population had outgrown the single room and a wooden schoolhouse was constructed at Sulphur Springs, on land donated by Mitchell. The Sulphur Springs school location is directly east of the project site. Mitchell also built a two-story home on the project site in 1888, then using the adobe as a guesthouse. Bricks from the adobe were eventually- removed from the property and the school/adobe was reassembled at Heritage Junction in Hart Park in Newhall. In addition to the original miner's cabin, adobe, two-story wooden house, and likely a number of outbuildings, a family cemetery was also present on the Mitchell Ranch. This was used to inter the Mitchell family, and their friends and neighbors. None of the buildings referenced above remain on the Vista Canyon site. The cemetery, however, is still present and would be preserved by the project. Presently, the project site is comprised primarily of undeveloped, highly disturbed land, including various utilities, an equipment storage yard and a single-family residence located on the western side of the project site, and the Mitchell family cemetery located on the small elevated terrace on the northeastern portion of the project site. h. The project site is irregularly shaped, and includes the sandy bottom of the ephemeral Santa Clara River, a small elevated terrace on the northeastern portion of the project site, and a larger elevated terrace that forms the southern half of the project site. These terraces drain towards the River. Elevations on the project site range from a high of 1,555 feet above sea level at the northeastern portion of the site, to a low of 1,465 feet above sea level in the middle of the Santa Clara River. Environmental conditions on the project site have been altered substantially by existing and historical uses of the property, including outdoor storage, agricultural cultivation, grading, utility construction and maintenance, and residential uses. Unauthorized dumping also has occurred on the project site. There is little remaining 0 natural vegetation remaining with the exception of a vegetated area on the southeastern portion of the project site that includes oaks and introduced grasses. j. The Vista Canyon project concentrates development on the flatter, disturbed, elevated terraces on the project site, and as revised would preserve a River corridor averaging over 800 feet in width. The majority of oak trees on the project site would be preserved and incorporated into the project. k. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA;" Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the City of Santa Clarita is the lead agency and the City Council is the decision-making body for the Vista Canyon project. The City's Planning Commission is a recommending body for the Vista Canyon project. 1. The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the Vista Canyon project, which determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and that an environmental impact report ("EIR") must be prepared. The Initial Study determined that the following areas must be addressed in the EIR for the Vista Canyon project: geotechnical hazards, flood, traffic/access, air quality, noise, biological resources, land use, water services (including both water demand/supply and water quality), solid waste disposal, education, library services, parks and recreation, fire services, sheriff services, human made hazards, visual resources, population/housing/employment, cultural resources, agricultural resources, Santa Clara River corridor, wastewater disposal, global climate change and utilities. m. An initial Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Entitlements was circulated to affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15000 et seq.), for thirty days, beginning on July 11, 2007. A revised NOP, reflecting various modifications made to the project was circulated, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, for thirty days, beginning on February 26, 2008. And, yet another revised NOP, reflecting the inclusion of the AAA, was circulated, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, for thirty days, beginning on October 1, 2009. Agencies that received the NOPs include, but are not limited to, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game, South Coast Air Quality ,Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, waste haulers, water agencies and transportation agencies serving the Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with CEQA's consultation requirements. Numerous comments from public agencies, organizations, and members of the public were received in response to the NOPs. n. A scoping meeting was held at the City of Santa Clarita Century Conference Room on February 27, 2008, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper on February 6, 2008, and was mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site, in addition to approximately 80 agencies. Approximately 25 people attended the scoping meeting. 9 o. On July 20, 2010, at 3:30 p.m., the Planning Commission conducted a site tour of the Vista Canyon project site. p. The City of Santa Clarita prepared a Draft EIR (October 2010; SCH No. 2007071039) for the Vista Canyon project that addressed all issues raised by the Initial Study and in comments received on the NOPs. The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA. Specifically, the Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR was filed, posted and advertised on October 19, 2010, and the 45 -day public review period ended on December 3, 2010, 5:00 p.m. in accordance with CEQA. q. The City also prepared a Planning Commission Final EIR (February 2011; SCH No. 2007071039). The Planning Commission Final EIR complied with all applicable CEQA requirements, and contained responses to all oral and written comments received prior to January 18, 2011. The Planning Commission Final EIR also contained a description of modifications to the Vista Canyon project made in response to public comment, City staff recommendations, and Planning Commission direction; copies of all comment letters received on the project; revised pages of the Draft EIR; and, additional supporting materials in appendices. Notice of the Planning Commission Final EIR's availability was sent to commenting agencies, organizations and persons on February 4, 2011. r. The Planning Commission held duly -noticed public hearings on the Vista Canyon project on October 19, November 2, and December 21, 2010, and February 15, 2011. These hearings were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on December 21, 2010.On October 19, 2010, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the Vista Canyon project; received a presentation from staff on the Vista Canyon Specific Plan; received a Draft EIR presentation from staff on several sections (Geotechnical Hazards, Land Use, Solid Waster Disposal, Education Services, Library Services, Fire Services, Sheriff Services, Human -Made Hazards, Population, Housing and Employment, Cultural Resources, Agricultural Resource, Utilities, and Ancillary Annexation Areas); received a presentation from the applicant, and received public testimony regarding the project. On November 2, 2010, City staff responded to questions posed by the Planning Commission and pubic on issues related to Schools, Traffic, Grading, Solid Waste and Annexation. City staff also made a presentation on various Draft EIR Sections (Flood, Traffic and Access, Air Quality, Noise, Biological Resources, Water Services, Water Quality, Parks and Recreation, Visual Resources, River Corridor, Wastewater Disposal, Global Climate Change, and Project Alternatives). The Planning Commission also received a presentation from the applicant and received public testimony regarding the project. ON 1 On December 21, 2010, City staff responded to questions and issues raised by the Planning Commission related to Flood, Traffic, Air Quality, Noise, Biological Resources, Water Services, Water Quality, Parks and Recreation, Visual Resources, River Corridor, Wastewater Disposal, Global Climate Change, and Project Alternatives. In addition, the Planning Commission considered potential site plan modifications, noise-, dust- and traffic -related conditions, and additional public testimony on the project. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff and the applicant to bring back a site plan reflecting various project modifications (detailed below), and directed staff to incorporate the following specific requirements into the revised site plan and/or conditions of approval for the project: 1. Elimination of the 26 single-family lots located in the area adjacent to the existing La Veda neighborhood. Elimination of these lots increased the size of the proposed Oak Park to over 10 acres, eliminated the removal of one heritage oak tree, and allowed for the preservation and enhancement of the north/south animal movement corridor from the Santa Clara River through the project site to undeveloped land to the south. This project revision incorporated aspects of Draft EIR Alternative 5 (Open Space Corridor). 2. Selection of the "Roundabout" (Intersection Design Option 3) at the Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road intersection. 3. Removal of the properties south of Placerita Canyon Road from the AAA, with the exception of the City's Walker Ranch Open Space property. Removal of these properties reduced the size of the Sand Canyon annexation area from 1,723 acres to 915 acres. 4. Require, as a condition of approval, the project applicant to minimize potential dust and vibration impacts associated with project -related construction to the existing La Veda neighborhood. 5. Require, as a condition of approval, the project applicant to retain a qualified biologist to prepare an animal movement corridor plan, which would address corridor design, specifications for an undercrossing under Lost Canyon Road, and plant materials for the corridor. 6. Require, as a condition of approval, the project applicant to construct an eight -foot tall wall/ beam in locations along the southerly Metrolink right-of-way adjacent to the proposed station to reduce train -related noise to off-site properties. 7 7. Require the applicant to fund a crossing guard for a temporary time period after the completion of the intersection improvements at Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road. S. On February 15, 2011, the modified site plan, Planning Commission Final EIR (February 2011), resolutions and conditions of approval were presented to the Planning Commission. The Commission also received public testimony regarding the project. As a result of the project modifications made during the proceedings before the Planning Commission, the revised site plan recommended by the Planning Commission proposes a total of 1,091 residential units (1,324 under the residential overlay), 950,000 square feet of commercial floor area (700,000 square feet under the residential overlay), Transit Station, a 10 -acre neighborhood park and other recreational amenities. t. At the conclusion of the February 15, 2011 public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the Planning Commission Final EIR (see Resolution No. P11-02) and approve the Vista Canyon project as revised (see Resolution No. P11-01). The Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council adopt (i) a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts of the Vista Canyon project that cannot be mitigated to less -than -significant levels, and (ii) the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ("MMRP") (see Resolution No. P1.1- 02). The Planning Commission considered the Draft EIR (October 2010) and Planning Commission Final EIR (February 2011) prepared for the Vista Canyon project, as well as information provided in staff reports, presented to the Planning Commission from experts, and presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the Planning Commission following the close of the Draft EIR public comment period up to January 18, 2011, prior to recommending approval of the Vista Canyon project. U. Following the February 15, 2011 hearing, the City prepared the Final EIR (April 2011; SCH No. 2007071039). The Final EIR contained copies of all late written comment letters; responses to all oral and written comments received on or after January 18, 2011 and prior to April 8, 2011; and, a description of additional modifications to the Vista Canyon project made in response to public comment, City staff recommendations, and City Council direction (see Paragraph (w), below). Notice of the Final EIR's availability was provided on April 15, 2011 to commenting agencies, organizations and persons. V. The City Council subsequently held duly -noticed public hearings on the Vista Canyon project on March 22 and April 26, 2011. These hearings were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:00 p.m. The City Council closed thepublic hearing.on April 26, 2011. On March 22, 2011, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the Vista Canyon project. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council directed staff and the applicant to bring back a site plan and conditions reflecting various project modifications (detailed below), and directed staff to incorporate the following specific requirements into the revised site plan and/or conditions of approval for the project: Increase the length of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge over the Santa Clara River from 650 feet to 750 feet. 2. Increase the River Corridor width in PA -1 and PA -2 by an average of 100 feet (excepting the proposed water reclamation plant, which is located in an area outside of California Department of Fish and Game's jurisdiction). With this modification, the average width of the River Corridor on the project site would be over 800 feet. This change requires the redistribution of residential and commercial land uses in PA -1 and PA -2. 3. Eliminate commercial development within PA -4 (Mitchell Hill), resulting in no commercial or residential development north of the Santa Clara River Corridor. 4. Relocate the Town Green in PA -2 from its present location adjacent to the Metrolink right-of-way and Transit Station to a location near the southern abutment of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge. This relocation would locate the Town Green along the Santa Clara River directly north of the office and hotel buildings located to the east of Vista Canyon Road. 5. Eliminate the residential overlay and establish a residential and commercial development cap on the project of 1,100 residential units and 950,000 square feet of commercial floor area. 6. Add the following conditions to the project: a. Require the staff and applicant to work together on a Recreational Amenity Plan for the Mitchell Hill Open Space. The plan would include site security improvements and the construction of unimproved access (decomposed granite or similar surface) to the Mitchell Hill Open Space. The applicant shall also construct improvements identified in the approved Recreational Amenity Plan. The applicant shall receive Park Development Fee credit for the constructed improvements. b. Require the applicant to pay all costs and complete the restoration of the Mitchell Family cemetery, including the extension of water and electricity to the cemetery. C. Require the project's Landscape Maintenance District to pay for ongoing maintenance of the Oak Park, River 9 Corridor and Mitchell Hill Open Space (including the Mitchell Family cemetery). d. Require the applicant to provide $300,000 in funding to be used for the City's construction of the Sand Canyon Road Trail from Roadrunner Avenue to Lost Canyon Road, and un -constructed portions of the Sand Canyon trail between Roadrunner Avenue and Sultus Street. e. Require that project lighting be decorative and down lit, including along public roadways and the Vista Canyon Road Bridge. f. Require that no lighting be permitted on Lost Canyon Road from La Veda Avenue to a point 300 feet from the eastern project boundary due to the animal movement corridor. g. Require that no lighting be permitted on trails adjacent to the animal movement corridor or along the Santa Clara River. h. Require that the applicant use its best efforts, working with City staff, to acquire an off-site, 20 -foot wide, trail easement to be located on the property to the south of the existing railroad undercrossing to allow for the connection of the Vista Canyon trail system to the Fair Oaks Ranch/Golden Valley trail system and to the City's trail system at the western terminus of Roadrunner Avenue. Require that the project's loop trail, from the project's eastern boundary to the existing railroad undercrossing, be decomposed granite (or similar surface) at a width of 20 feet. j. Require that the project's loop trail, from the existing railroad undercrossing to Vista Square, be decomposed granite (or similar surface) at a width of 12 feet. k. Require that the slope of the bank stabilization in the area of the animal movement corridor not exceed a grade of 2.5:1 to provide access for wildlife to enter into the River. 1. Require that a conservation easement be recorded over the animal movement corridor on-site and that .the applicant working with City staff use their best efforts to acquire a conservation easement off-site on the property directly to the south to preserve the animal corridor through the project site and to the south. 10 With these additional modifications incorporated, the Vista Canyon project would result in the following land uses: 1. A maximum of 1,100 residential units. 2. A maximum of 950,000 square feet of commercial floor area. 3. A Transit Station, consisting of a Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station. 4. A water reclamation plant. 5. Various infrastructure, recreation and open space improvements, including streets, utilities, the Oak Park, Town Green, Community Garden, up to six private recreational areas, the River Corridor and Mitchell Hill Open Space area. On April 26, 2011, the City Council received public testimony, closed the public hearing, certified the Final EIR, and adopted all of the necessary documents (e.g., resolutions and ordinances) for approval of the project. w. 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. X. Based upon the Draft EIR (October 2010), Planning Commission Final EIR (February 2011), and Final EIR (April 2011), staff and consultant presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, and public comments and testimony, the City Council finds that the Vista Canyon project, as modified, will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor will the Vista Canyon project be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the project site; nor will the Vista Canyon project jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the project conforms with the zoning ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land uses. The Vista Canyon project proposes the extension of all utilities and services to the project site. Currently, all required utilities and services are available at locations adjacent to the project site. y. Additionally, the City Council finds that all public hearings pertaining to the Vista Canyon project were duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for each of the Entitlements. The project was advertised in The Signal, through on-site posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first-class mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Vista Canyon project site. In addition, the date and time of each public hearing was posted on three signs at the project site, as well as eight off-site signs. Z. 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 11 07-127 project file is with the Community Development Department; the record specifically is in the custody of the Director of Community Development. SECTION 2. CEQA REQUIREMENTS. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of facts: a. CEQA provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Pub. Resources Code, §21002, emphasis added.) The procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." (Ibid.); b. CEQA also provides that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects. (Pub. Resources Code, §21002.) CEQA provides that a public agency has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors, and in particular the goal of providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian. (Pub. Resources'Code §21-081; 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 12 (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 S as herein provided; f. CEQA requires decision -makers to adopt a MMRP for those mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR that would mitigate or avoid each significant impact identified in the EIR and to incorporate the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, including all mitigation measures, as a condition of project approval; g. CEQA requires that the responses to comments in the Final EIR demonstrate good faith and a well -reasoned analysis, and not be overly conclusory. In response to several of the comments received, portions of the Draft EIR have been revised. Although new material has been added to the Draft EIR through preparation of the Final EIR, this new material provides clarification to points and information already included in the Draft EIR and is not considered to be significant new information or a substantial change to the Draft EIR or to the project that would necessitate recirculation; and h. State CEQA Guidelines section 15003(c) and (i) note that state courts have held that the purpose of an EIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public generally of the environmental impacts of a proposed project. CEQA does not require technical perfection or exhaustive treatment of issues in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good -faith effort at full disclosure. SECTION 3. CEQA FINDINGS. The City Council does hereby find that: 13 a. The Final EIR for Master Case 07-127 has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, has been reviewed and considered by the City Council, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. b. The Final EIR for Master Case 07-127, which consists of the Draft EIR (October 2010), Planning Commission Final EIR (February 2011), and Final EIR (April 2011), identifies and discloses project -specific impacts and cumulative project impacts attributable to the Vista Canyon project. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR, findings, and facts in support of findings are herein incorporated as "Findings Required By CEQA," referred to as Exhibit A, and identified as follows: (i) The Final EIR identifies significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the project, as set forth in Section 2.0 of Exhibit A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that will avoid or lessen certain of the project impacts, but that will not avoid or reduce all of the potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. These remaining significant impacts are balanced against project benefits and are found to be overridden by the project benefits, as stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 6, below. (ii) The Final EIR also -identifies significant but mitigated impacts, as set forth in Section 3.0 of Exhibit A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that will avoid or reduce these potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. (iii) The Final EIR also identifies less -than -significant impacts, as set forth in Section 4.0 of Exhibit A. (iv) As issues that are noted in Section 3(c), above, have no significant environmental impacts and require no mitigation, those issues also will have no contribution to cumulative impacts. (v) The MMRP, incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit B, is required to mitigate project impacts. SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Vista Canyon Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Vista Canyon project and the Final EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council further finds and recommends that the City Council find that the Final EIR analyzes a reasonable range of project alternatives that would feasibly attain most"of the basic objectives of the Vista Canyon project and would lessen any of the significant impacts of the project, and adequately evaluates the comparative merits of each alternative. a. The objectives of the Vista Canyon project are specified in the Final EIR and Section 1.4 of Exhibit A. These objectives are used as the basis for comparing the project 14 alternatives and determining the extent that the objectives would be achieved relative to the proposed project. Only those impacts found significant and unavoidable are relevant in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts in four environmental issue areas: 1. Traffic and Access — Phase I (Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road intersection), Interim (SR -14 — Sand Canyon Road to Soledad Canyon Road segment), cumulative (SR -14 — Sand Canyon Road to Soledad Canyon Road segment; Soledad Canyon Road — Sierra Highway to Golden Valley Road). 2. Air Quality -- short-term construction impacts (VOC, NOx, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions), operational impacts (VOCs, NOx, CO, and PM10 ), cumulative (VOCs, NOx, CO, PM2.5, and PM10 ). 3. Noise.-- short-term (construction and vibration (on-site only)), cumulative. (SR -14 noise off-site). 4. Solid Waste -- short-term (construction), long-term (operational), and cumulative impacts. b. Alternative 1 — No Project Alternative. This alternative is required by the State CEQA Guidelines and compares the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present condition with those that would be generated by the proposed project. Under this alternative, no development would occur, and the existing storage yard and residence would remain on a portion of the site. The No Project Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR and all other identified significant impacts, and, therefore, is considered environmentally superior. This alternative would not attain the basic objectives of the project. That said, some of the resource conservation objectives would be avoided through the complete avoidance of direct and indirect environmental impacts. This alternative is infeasible because it would not attain the basic project objectives, and would not provide any of the project benefits. C. Alternative 2 — Proposed County Land Use Designation (OVOV). This alternative would develop a project allowed by Los Angeles County's proposed land use designations for the site, as defined in the General Plan Update (OVOV). The proposed designation would permit approximately 700 residential units on the project site; a 5 -acre neighborhood park and up to two private recreation areas also would be provided. However, no commercial or transit uses would be constructed as part of this alternative. Additionally, this alternative would not include the water reclamation plant or Vista Canyon Road Bridge. Consistent with OVOV, Lost Canyon Road 15 would be extended as a major highway from Fair Oaks Ranch to Jakes Way, and then as a secondary highway from Jakes Way to Lost Canyon Road at La Veda Avenue. This alternative would result in less impacts than the project in 12 categories, greater impacts in 5 categories, and similar impacts in 7 categories. In general, this alternative is considered the "environmentally superior" alternative for purposes of CEQA. This alternative would not fully meet or impede the following project objectives, which are defined in Section 1.4 of Exhibit A (attached): Land Use Planning Objectives 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 14; and, Economic Objectives 1, 3, and 4. Therefore, this alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy numerous project objectives, and would not provide all of the project benefits. d. Alternative 3 — Existin,, City of Santa Clarita General Plan Designation. This alternative would develop a project allowed by the City of Santa Clarita's existing General Plan land use designation for the site (i.e., Business Park (BP)). Under the BP designation, the site could be developed with approximately 4.35 million square feet of light industrial/business park uses. This alternative would include construction of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge, Metrolink Station, and Bus Transfer Station. Lost Canyon Road would be extended from Fair Oaks Ranch to Lost Canyon Road at La Veda Avenue as a major highway. This alternative would not include any parks or recreation facilities. This alternative would result in less impacts than the project in 8 categories, greater impacts in 8 categories, and similar impacts in 8 categories. Therefore, this alternative is not environmentally superior to the project. This alternative would not fully meet or impede the following project objectives, which are defined in Section 1.4 of Exhibit A (attached): Land Use Planning Objectives 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 14; and, Economic Objectives 1. Therefore, this alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy numerous project objectives, and would not provide all of the project benefits. e. Alternative 4 — Reduced Development Footprint (Relocation of Southerly Bank Stabilization). This alternative generally would move the bank stabilization on the south side of the River Corridor back by an average of 100 feet, thereby increasing the width of the River Corridor as compared to the proposed project. The Vista Canyon Road Bridge length would be extended from 650 to 800 feet. The residential overlay also would be eliminated, reducing the number of residential units from a maximum of 1,324 to 1,091. Lost Canyon Road would be extended from Fair Oaks Ranch to La Veda Avenue in a design (with traffic calming) similar to the proposed project. All other components of the project would be incorporated into this alternative. 16 This alternative would result in less impacts than the project in 14 categories, greater impacts in one category, and similar impacts in 9 categories. Therefore, this alternative is considered to be environmentally superior to the project. This alternative would not fully meet or impede the following project objective, which is defined in Section 1.4 of Exhibit. A (attached): Economic Objective 2. Therefore, this alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy one of the project objectives. f. Alternative 5 — Open Space Corridor Alternative. This alternative would create a north/south open space corridor from and through the project site to undeveloped properties to the south, and would not include development in PA -4 (Mitchell Hill). The alternative also would eliminate the extension of Lost Canyon Road to La Veda Avenue; Lost Canyon Road would terminate in the project site, though the alternative would still extend trail improvements from the project site along the north side of Lost Canyon Road to Sand Canyon Road. The.altemative would increase the' -size of Oak Park (which would include both active and passive areas) and would remove one less oak tree, as compared to the project. In comparison to the project, 32 single- family units would be eliminated. All other components of the project would be incorporated into this alternative. This alternative would result in less impacts than the project in 12 categories, greater impacts in one category, and similar impacts in 11 categories. Therefore, this alternative is considered to be environmentally superior to the project. This alternative would not fully meet or impede the following project objectives, which are defined in Section 1.4 of Exhibit A (attached): Land Use Planning Objective 12; Economic Objective 2. g. Alternative 6 — Lost Canyon Road Alignment (parallel and' adjacent to the southerly bank stabilization). This alternative would extend Lost Canyon Road from Fair Oaks Ranch to La Veda Avenue in an alignment running parallel and adjacent to the southerly bank stabilization. Lost Canyon Road would be constructed to serve as a secondary highway to the Vista Canyon Road Bridge, and as a collector through the eastern portions of the project site. All other components of the proposed project would be incorporated into this alternative. The environmental impacts of this alternative would be similar to the impacts of the project, with the exception of traffic/circulation, which would be slightly greater than the project. Accordingly, the alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the project. This alternative would not fully meet or impede the following project objective, which is defined in Section 1.4 of Exhibit A (attached): Land Use Planning Objective 3. Therefore, this alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy one of the project objectives, and would not provide all of the project benefits. 17 h. Off -Site Alternatives. Alternative sites of generally the same size within or directly adjacent to the City in the eastern Santa Clarita Valley do not exist, are presently being utilized for other purposes, or are the subject of other development proposals. The proposed project involves development of a transit -oriented, mixed-use community in an infill site, surrounded on all sides by development with the necessary infrastructure adjacent to the project site. A Multi -Modal Transit Station (Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station) would be developed as part of the project. There are no potential alternative project sites in the local vicinity that are similar in acreage, are close to existing or planned infrastructure improvements, and are adjacent to the Metrolink rail line. Potential alternative sites that provide access to similar infrastructure and alternative transit are located beyond existing urbanized areas and,'therefore, would induce growth in these non -urban areas. As such, off-site alternatives are considered infeasible. i Modification of Project Description Based on Alternatives Discussion. As discussed in Section 1, above, during the public hearing process conducted for the Vista Canyon project by the Planning Commission and City Council, numerous modifications were made to the originally proposed project. For example, consistent with Alternative 4, the City Council has revised the Vista Canyon project such that the�bank=stabilization- on the -south -side of the -River Corridor within PA -1 and PA -2, excepting the WRP, has been mowed back by an average of 100 feet. Additionally, the residential overlay has been eliminated, and the length of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge has been extended from 650 to 750 feet. And, consistent with Alternative 5, the Planning Commission and City Council, revised the Vista Canyon project so as to create a north south open space corridor through the elimination of 26 single-family lots originally proposed in the area adjacent to the existing La Veda neighborhood. As a result, the size of Oak Park has been increased. Additionally, the proposed project has eliminated development in PA -4. SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Based upon the above recitals -and the entire record, including, without limitation, the Vista Canyon Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Vista Canyon project and the Vista Canyon Final EIR, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council finds the following: a. That the Final EIR for the Vista Canyon project is adequate, complete, has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, and should be certified on that basis. b. That the City Council has independently reviewed and c nsidered the Final EIR in reaching its conclusions, i C. That the Final EIR was presented and reviewed prior; to taking final action to recommend certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Vista Canyon project. J 1 d. That, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and 15093, the Final EIR includes a description of each potentially significant impact and rationale for finding that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as detailed in Exhibit A attached hereto. The analyses included in the Final EIR to support each conclusion and recommendation therein is hereby incorporated into these findings. e. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081, modifications have occurred to the project to reduce significant effects. f. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the Vista Canyon project that avoid or substantially lessen its significant environmental effects because feasible mitigation measures, including those in the MMRP, are made conditions of approval for the project. g. The Statement of Overriding Considerations identifies and weighs the revised project's significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a 'level below significant against the community benefits from this revised project, and concludes based on substantial evidence in the record that the revised project's benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant impacts. h. That the Final EIR reflects the decision -maker's independent judgment and analysis. That a MMRP has been prepared and is recommended for adoption to enforce the mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and project approvals. j. The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings on which this decision is based are under the custody of the City Clerk and are located at the City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, California 91355. SECTION 6. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Vista Canyon Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Vista Canyon project and the Vista Canyon Final EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council finds that there is substantial evidence that supports the conclusion that the Vista Canyon project will result in community benefits, including specific ecological, economic, legal, social, technical and other benefits, that outweigh the significant effects of the Vista Canyon project on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. a. Significant unavoidable impacts include the following, as further described in Exhibit A attached hereto: 19 I Traffic and Access — Phase I (Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road intersection), Interim (SR 14 — Sand Canyon Road to Soledad 'Canyon Road segment), cumulative (SR -14 — Sand Canyon Road to Soledad Canyon Road segment; Soledad Canyon Road — Sierra Highway to Golden Valley Road). 2 Air Quality -- short-term construction impacts (VOC, NOx, NO2, PM�o, and PM2.5 emissions), operational impacts (VOCs, NOx, CO,1 and PM10 ), cumulative (VOCs, NOx, CO, PM2.5, and PMio ). 3. Noise -- short-term (construction and vibration (on-site, only)), cumulative (SR -14 noise off-site. i 4. Solid Waste -- short-term (construction), long-term (operational), and cumulative impacts. b. The benefits of the Vista Canyon project outweigh its significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level below significant. These benefits include the following: 1. The project will createa significant employment center in the eastern $anta Clarita Valley. The project is expected to create lbetween 2,500 and 4,000 permanent jobs, the majority of these being associated with the corporate office campus and professional office space. Additionally, the project will create temporary employment opportunities in its development and construction stage. The project will assist the City in meeting its desired jobs/housing balance. 2. The project will implement various Goals and Policies of the City's General Plan related to the development of compact, mixed-use, transit -oriented development. 3. The project will provide various residential housing; opportunities for different economic levels, with a mix of housing types, as required by the Housing Element of the City's General Plan, and the Housing Allocation for the City of Santa Clarita as set forth by the Southern California Association of Governments in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. I I 4. The project will provide significant traffic/circulation benefits which include: a. The extension of Lost Canyon Road from Fair Oaks Ranch to Soledad Canyon Road, via the Vista Canyon Road Bridge; b. The construction of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge, substantially reducing traffic impacts to Sand Canyon Road; c. Traffic calming to reduce cut -through traffic from �Jakes Way to Sand Canyon Road; and, 20 1 1 d. Improvements to Lost Canyon Road from the eastern project boundary to Sand Canyon Road to alleviate congestion, including the implementation of a "roundabout" at the intersection of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. 5. The project will provide substantial recreational benefits, including expansion of the City's River Trail system and on-site trails, the 10 -acre Oak Park/River Education Center, Town Green and the preservation of approximately 87acres of the Santa Clara River corridor. The project will also include significant private recreational facilities including the Community Garden and up to six private recreational facilities. 6. The project will result in the creation of a permanent eastern Santa Clarita Valley Multi -Modal Transit Station (Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station). This significant "public-private" partnership would result in the closure of the temporary Via Princessa Metrolink Station and provide for an opportunity to convert the station along with adjacent County -owned property to a regional park. The applicant has entered into a Transit Funding Agreement with the .City that requires the applicant to contribute funding and land for the Transit Station well in excess of City requirements. 7. The project includes an extensive Sustainability Plan as follows: a. The project's residential and commercial buildings will exceed the 2008 Title 24 building energy efficiency standards by at least 20%. b. EnergyStar major appliances in all residential units and non-residential buildings. c. An 80,000 square foot photovoltaic system (or equivalent) will be constructed on the project site. d. Consistent with the Governor's Million Solar Roofs Plan, the project developer will offer all potential- single-family home -buyers a solar energy system purchase option. e. Solar heating will be used for all on-site community pools. f. The project will construct an on-site WRP, which will generate a water supply equivalent to the applicant's estimated total potable demand. Recycled water will be used for on-site irrigation purposes, and nonresidential non -potable purposes (public restroom toilets). The Vista Canyon WRP will also produce an excess supply of recycled water that ultimately would be utilized by the Castaic Lake Water Agency as part of its recycled water system. 21 g. The project will install evapotranspiration (weather sensitive controllers) irrigation controllers in all landscaped areas of the project. Additionally, the project site will be vegetated primarily with a native and/or drought -tolerant plant palette h. The project will include a mix of land uses including residential, retail commercial, office, recreation, transit and hospitality. i. The project will include over four miles of trails, pathways, bicycle lanes to encourage walking and bicycling within the project site. j. Office uses within the project would include the use of van pools and car pools as part of the required Transportation Demand Management Plan. k. Permeable pavement and other innovative water quality improvements will be . utilized in on -street parking areas within the project. 8. The project includes the preservation of a north/south animal movement corridor from the Santa Clara River to undeveloped properties to the south, as well as an east/west animal movement corridor along the Santa Clara River. Additionally, as concluded" in the Final EIR; the project` will; enhance the Santa Clara- River corridor on-site improving its overall biological function. 9. The project will bring upscale retail services and amenities to the eastern Santa Clarita Valley which will include restaurants, shops, a hotel and theater. 10. The project applicant has negotiated a "Mitigation Agreement" with Caltrans to reduce project impacts to SR -14. Additionally, the Vista Canyon Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station will further reduce commuter trips on SR -14 11. The project has been designed to minimize impacts to the Santa Clara River. The project concentrates development on flatter, disturbed, terraces along the River corridor. Over 50 percent of the project site would be preserved as open space or dedicated to recreational use. The project design preserves a majority of the oak trees on-site, incorporating them into the project. 12. The Vista Canyon Specific Plan will result in the implementation of the City's adopted architectural design guidelines for Canyon Country that ensures compatible development and complimentary architecture to the surrounding neighborhoods. SECTION 7. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR (SCH No. 2007071039; Exhibit C = Incorporated by Reference) and CEQA Findings (Exhibit A), and hereby determines that itis adequate and in compliance with CEQA. In compliance with Public Resources Code section 12081 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council has considered the project benefits as balanced against its unavoidable adverse environmental 22 F - L, 1 effects, and hereby determines that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects; therefore, the City Council. determines that the unavoidable adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR and associated documents, and adopt the MMRP (Exhibit B — Incorporated by Reference) and Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 8. By the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council has not granted any approval or entitlement on this project. SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26`h day of April 2011. MAYOR ATTEST: ACTING C Y C ERK DATE: / 23 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 24 ACT(G Cl ty CLERK 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. I 1-21 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 1 25 Exhibit A Findings Required By CEQA 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE. Public Resources Code section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 require that the lead agency, in this case the City of Santa Clarita ("City"), prepare written findings for identified significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. Specifically, State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 states, in part, that: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: (b) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR. (c) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (d) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. In accordance with Public Resource Code section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, whenever significant impacts cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the decision-making agency is required to balance, as applicable, the benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." The Final EIR for the Vista Canyon project identified potentially significant effects that could result from project implementation. The City finds that the inclusion of certain mitigation 26 measures as part of the project approval will reduce most, but not all, of those effects to less - than -significant levels. Those impacts that are not reduced to less -than -significant levels are identified and overridden due to specific project benefits. As required by CEQA, the City, in adopting these findings, also adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") for the project. The City finds that the MMRP, which is incorporated by reference and made a part of these findings, meets the requirements of Public Resources Code section 21081.6 by providing for the implementation and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of the project. In accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City adopts these findings as part of its certification of the Final EIR for the project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082. 1, subdivision (c)(3), the City also finds that the Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment as the lead agency for the project. 1.2 ORGANIZATION/FORMAT OF FINDINGS Section 1.0 contains a summary description of the project and background facts relative to the environmental review process. Section 2.0 identifies the significant impacts of the project that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level (even though all feasible mitigation measures have been identified and incorporated into the project), while Section 3.0 identifies the potentially significant effects of the project that will be mitigated to a less -than -significant level with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. Section 4.0 identifies the project's potential environmental effects that were determined not to be significant. Section 5.0 discusses the feasibility of the project alternatives. And, Section 6.0 addresses the environmental impacts associated with the Ancillary Annexation Area (AAA). 1.3 SUMMARY OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION As revised, the project would include development of the approximately 185 -acre Vista Canyon project site with a maximum of 1,100 dwelling units, and up to 950,000 square feet of commercial and medical office, retail, theater, restaurant and hotel uses within three Planning Areas (PA). The project also includes approximately 21 acres of parks/recreation facilities, including the approximately 10 -acre Oak Park/River Education Center proposed for dedication to the City. Other recreational facilities include the Community Garden, Town Green and up to six private recreational facilities. Further, there are approximately 10 acres of proposed public streets, including the extension of Lost Canyon Road from Fair Oaks Ranch to Vista Canyon Road and 27 i I the construction of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge to connect Lost Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. The applicant also is proposing construction of a water reclamation plant (WRP), located adjacent to the western project boundary and directly north of Lost Canyon Road, which would provide recycled water for use in the project's landscaped areas and toilets within public restroom areas in commercial areas of the project. Additionally, the project also includes a Multi -Modal Transit Station, comprised of a Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station. Finally, the City proposes to annex various properties surrounding and including the Vista Canyon site, all of which currently are located under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles. In total, the AAA includes approximately 2,257 acres, including the Fair Oaks Ranch (approximately 1,082 acres), Jakes Way (approximately 260 acres)I 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 MR. 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: i 5. Design neighborhoods to create a unique identity and sense of place. 28 6. Design neighborhoods to locate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses in close proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit, and trails. 7. Provide a rich set of public spaces, including roadways that range from lively streetscapes to pedestrian passages. 8. Implement sustainable development principles, including greater energy efficiency, waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, use of water efficiency measures, and use of recycled materials and renewable energy sources. 9. Create and enhance opportunities for non -vehicular travel and encourage pedestrian mobility by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential neighborhoods to nearby schools, neighborhood parks, trail systems, neighborhood retail/commercial and adjacent park and recreation areas. 10. Foster the design and integration of a mutually beneficial relationship between the natural and built environments, and implement sensitive land use transition treatments, attractive streetscapes, and high quality design themes. 11. Provide a meandering trail with public access adjacent to the Santa Clara River Corridor. 12. Integrate a new community into the City's existing and planned circulation network. 13. Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting streetscapes. 14. Facilitate the expansion of transit facilities by providing property and participate in the funding of a new City/Metrolink transit center and associated facilities, and direct pedestrian access to such facilities from the Specific Plan's commercial, retail, office, and residential areas. 15. Provide neighborhood parks and improvements that offset park dedication requirements and meet the recreation needs of local residents. Economic Objectives 29 i I . Enhance and augment the housing market by providing a variiety 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. i 4. Provide a project jobs/housing balance of at least two jobs for every one residential unit. 5. Adopt development regulations and guidelines that allow site, parking and facility sharing, and other innovations that reduce the costs of providing public services. Resource Conservation Objectives 1. Restore and minimize impacts to important biotic resources. 2. Maintain the use of the Santa Clara River as a major east/west open space corridor. 3. Establish a Santa Clara River Corridor and adopt measures to maii ntain, enhance, and protect important river habitat values and functions. I 4. Provide native revegetation of river and setback areas when temporarily disturbed due to development activities. I 5. Minimize impacts to the Santa Clara River and its resources. j I 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. i 1.5 INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF PREPARATION Preliminary environmental review of the Vista Canyon project was conducted by the City's Community Development Department. In the initial Notice of Preparation (NOP) and subsequent revised NOPs, the City determined that the proposed Vista Canyon project may have potentially significant effects on several environmental impact categories,, including: (a) hazards (geotechnical, flood, and noise); .(b) resources (water quality, air quality, biological, cultural We resources, agricultural resources, and visual__ resources/aesthetics); (c) services (transportation/circulation, sewage disposal, education, fire/sheriff and utilities); and (d) other categories (general, environmental safety/hazardous materials, land use and demand for new recreation facilities). The initial NOP was circulated for a 30 -day review period from July 11, 2007 to August 10, 2007. Revised NOPs were circulated from February 26, 2008 to March 21, 2008, and October 1, 2009 to November 2, 2009, due to revisions to the project. These NOPs were circulated pursuant to the requirements of the State CEQA Guidelines in order to solicit input from responsible and interested public agencies and the community regarding the content of the EIR. In addition, to facilitate local participation, the City held a scoping meeting on the project and solicited suggestions from the public and other agencies on the scope and content of this Draft EIR. The meeting took place at the Century Room at the Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, on February 27, 2008. In response to the NOPs and scoping meeting, comment letters and other input were received from interested agencies, organizations and others, copies of which are presented in Appendix I to the Draft EIR. Based on the results of the City's NOPs and scoping efforts, the following topics were evaluated in the EIR: 1. Geotechnical Hazards 14. Sheriff Services 2. Flood 15. Human -Made Hazards 3. Traffic and Access 16. Visual Resources 4. Air Quality 17. Population, Housing, and 5. Noise Employment 6, Biological Resources 18. Cultural Resources 7. Land Use 19. Agricultural Resources 8. Water Service/Water Quality 20. Santa Clara River Corridor Analysis 9. Solid Waste Disposal 21, Wastewater Disposal 10. Education 22, Global Climate Change 11. Library Services 23. Utilities 12. Parks and Recreation 24. Ancillary Annexation Area 13. Fire Services . 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 31 the public of the significant environmental effects of the project. Possible ways to minimize significant effects are identified in the FIR and reasonable alternatives to the project are evaluated. The FIR is intended as a "project FIR" under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. A project FIR is typically prepared for a specific construction -level project. (See State CEQA Guidelines §15161.) Under CEQA, a project FIR "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 FIR (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 FIR (February 2011) was made available to the public on February 4, 2011. Finally, responses to all comments included in the Final FIR (April 2011) were distributed by the City on April 15, 2011. Copies of the Uraff FIR (October 20`10) 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 FIR (February 2011) and the Final FIR (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 FIR were reviewed and are included in the Final FIR, along with written responses to each of the comments. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15132, the Final FIR for the project consists of: (i) the Draft FIR; (ii) comments received on the Draft EIR; (iii) a list of the persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft FIR; (iv) written responses to significant environmental issues raised during the public review and comment period and related supporting materials; and, (v) other information contained in the administrative record. 2.O FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT This section -identifies the significant unavoidable impacts that require•a statement of overriding considerations to be issued by the City if the project is approved. Based on the substantial record 31 evidence, the following impacts have been determined to fall within this "significant unavoidable impact" category. 2.1 TRAFFIC AND ACCESS 2.1.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts The existing plus project scenario would result in significant impacts at nine study intersections, but no freeway segments or roadways. Implementation of the mitigation measures listed below, as well as the prior completion of the Cross Valley Connector, effectively mitigates and reduces the impacts at these nine intersections to a level below significant. Phase 1 (2012) of the project would cause significant impacts at five study intersections, but no freeway segments. Implementation of the mitigation measures listed below would reduce these impacts to less -than -significant levels at four of the five intersections. At one of the intersections (Sand Canyon Road/Lost Canyon Road), the project would have a temporary significant and unavoidable impact because the recommended improvement would not be completed until after completion of Phase 1. Project build -out (2015) would cause significant impacts at eight study intersections. Implementation of the mitigation measures listed below would reduce these impacts to less -than - significant levels at all eight intersections. The project also would significantly impact one SR - 14 segment, Sand Canyon Road to Soledad Canyon Road. However, because there are neither planned and programmed improvements for SR -14, nor an established funding program, the project's payment of an in -lieu fee to Caltrans would not fully mitigate the identified impact. Under long-range cumulative conditions (2030), the project would cause significant impacts along Soledad Canyon Road between Sierra Highway and Golden Valley Road. No feasible improvements, however, are available as this arterial already is constructed to its ultimate width. The Circulation Element in the City's General Plan recognizes that, in some cases, street improvements to accommodate additional traffic are not capable of being implemented due to right-of-way limitations and existing development. The project also would significantly impact one SR -14 segment (Sand Canyon Road to Soledad Canyon Road). As noted above, because there are neither planned and programmed improvements for SR -14, nor an established funding program, the project's payment of an in -lieu fee to Caltrans would not fully mitigate the identified impact. 2.1.2 Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 Prior to the completion and occupancy of project Phase 1, the project applicant shall convert the westbound left -turn lane on Soledad Canyon Road onto the SR -14 southbound on-ramp from a permitted to protected signal phase, and retime this traffic signal and the adjacent Sand Canyon Road/Soledad Canyon Road signal to optimize traffic flow. 4.3-2 Prior to the completion and occupancy of project Phase 1, the project applicant shall take those steps necessary that result in retiming the traffic signals at the Via Princessa/SR-14 SB ramps and Via Princessa/SR-14 NB ramps intersections to optimize traffic flow. 4.3-3 Prior to the completion and occupancy of project Phase 1, the project applicant shall install a westbound right -turn overlap arrow at the Via Princessa/Lost Canyon Road intersection. 4.3-4 Prior to project completion and full occupancy (beyond Phase 1), the project applicant shall construct the following improvements at the Sand Canyon Road/Soledad Canyon Road and SR -14 SB Ramps/Soledad Canyoii-Ro-ad inter -sections: ® 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. G Install a right -turn overlap arrow on the northbound Sand Canyon Road approach to Soledad Canyon Road. ® Retime and optimize operations of both traffic signals based on the revised lane geometries and signal phasings. 4.3-5 Prior to the completion and full occupancy of the project (beyond Phase 1), the project applicant shall install Intersection Design Option No. 3, as described below, at the Sand Canyon Road/Lost Canyon Road intersection. ® Option 3 (Roundabout) —this design option (see Exhibit 4.3-18 and 4.3-18a) would include the installation of a "roundabout" or traffic circle at the intersection. This option would involve the relocation of the intersection to the north and west to adhere to northbound "line of sight" requirements. Right-of- way acquisition would"be necessary'on all four corners most -of it would come from the northwest corner (which is presently vacant). Encroachment - within the protected zone of the heritage oak tree located along the eastern 33 edge of Sand Canyon Road would still occur, consistent with the existing condition. From a traffic operational standpoint, this design option would be the best of the four, improving the future LOS F under the existing design to an LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM. peak hour even with future growth (including the Vista Canyon project). 4.3-6 Prior to project completion and full occupancy (beyond Phase 1), the project applicant shall construct the following improvements at the Soledad Canyon Road/Lost Canyon Road intersection: • Install a traffic signal with signal equipment placed in locations that accommodates the planned restriping of the road to six lanes. • Construct an exclusive right -turn lane on the eastbound Soledad Canyon Road approach consistent with the condition of approval previously placed on the undeveloped parcel adjacent to this intersection. • Construct two left -turn lanes and one right -turn lane (with a right -turn overlap phase) on the Vista Canyon Road approach. Each lane should provide 125 feet of storage. • Lengthen the westbound left -turn lane on Soledad Canyon Road from 140 feet to 200 feet to accommodate the projected 95th percentile vehicle queue of 140 feet and to provide opportunities for deceleration. 4.3-7 Prior to project completion and full occupancy (beyond Phase 1), the project applicant shall construct the following improvement at the Via Princessa/Lost Canyon Road intersection: • Restripe the southbound approach to include a second left -turn lane. 4.3-8 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. 34 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 1 (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, tle`City also finds that the above mitigation measures -are feasible are adopted an will reduce the project's other potential traffic -related impacts to intersections, freeways and roadways to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid these potentially significant traffic -related impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR. 2.2 AIR QUALITY 2.2.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts Construction -related emissions, which occur on- and off-site, include all emissions associated with the construction equipment, grading and demolition activities, as well as worker trips, on - road diesel trucks, and architectural coating. Based on air quality modeling utilizing conservative data inputs prepared by a qualified environmental consultant, construction -related emissions would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for VOCs, NOx, PM2.5 and PM10, and would exceed the localized significance thresholds for NO2, PM2.5, and PM 10. Operational emissions would be generated by both stationary and mobile sources as a result of normal--day-to=day activity on the project site: Based on airquality modeling,_ operational emissions also would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for VOCs, NOx, CO, and PM 10 during the summer and winter. 35 Finally, the project also would result in regional emission levels that are cumulatively considerable for VOCs, NOx, CO, PM2.5, and PMIO in light of its exceedances of the above - referenced SCAQMD thresholds. 2.2.2 Mitigation Measures 4.4-1 The project applicant shall prepare a Construction Traffic Emission Management Plan to minimize emissions from vehicles including, but not limited to, scheduling truck deliveries to avoid peak hour traffic conditions, consolidating truck deliveries, and prohibiting truck idling in excess of 5 minutes, and ensuring that all off-road equipment is compliant with the CAR -B's in -use off-road diesel vehicle regulation and SCAQMD Rule 2449. 4.4-2 The project contractor shall use electric or alternative fueled mobile equipment for. on-site uses instead of diesel equipment if suitable equipment is commercially available and the necessary power and refueling infrastructure can reasonably be installed on site; 4.4-3 The project contractor shall maintain construction equipment by conducting regular tune- ups according to the manufacturers' recommendations. 4.4-4 The project contractor shall use electric welders to avoid emissions from gas or diesel welders if suitable equipment is commercially available and the necessary power infrastructure can reasonably be installed on site. 4.4-5 The project contractor shall use on-site electricity or alternative fuels rather than diesel -powered or gasoline -powered generators if suitable equipment is commercially available and the necessary power and refueling infrastructure can reasonably be installed on site. 4.4-6 Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. 4.4-7 Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow. 4.4-8 Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and off-site. 36 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: e April 1, 2010 to December 31, 2011: All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet Tier 2 off-road emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with the BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 2 or Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. o 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. 37 4.4-12 The project constructor shall limit PMio and PM2.5 fugitive dust emissions by implementing the following measures: • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit the construction site onto paved roads or wash off trucks or any equipment leaving the site each trip; • Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph; • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered; • Pave road and road shoulders; • Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible; • Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil is carried onto adjacent public paved roads (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water); and • Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM10 generation. 4.4-13 The project constructor shall limit VOC emissions by implementing the following measures:. • Use coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than required under SCAQMD Rule 1113; • Construction/build with materials that do not require painting; • Require the use of pre -painted construction materials; and ® Contractors shall use varying -pressure -low-volume (HPLV) paint applicators or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency. 2.2.3 Findings 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 2.3.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts Construction of the project would require site preparation, grading, and the construction of roadways, infrastructure, and buildings. Each of these construction activities typically involves the use of heavy-duty equipment, all of which could expose off-site residents and other noise sensitive receptors to temporary, but significant and unavoidable noise impacts due to the exceedance of noise standards set forth in the Noise Element of the City's General Plan. Construction activities also would result in vibration impacts. Since ground -borne vibration could be generated"during construction in excess of -the -Federal -Transit Administration vibration standards, impacts to on-site sensitive uses (i.e., residential) would be significant and unavoidable. Traffic associated with the project also would contribute to a cumulatively considerable noise increases along SR -14, but not other local roadways. This noise increase would significantly impact off-site sensitive receptors located adjacent to or near to portions of SR -14. 2.3.2 Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 Pursuant to Section 11.44.080 of the City's Noise Ordinance, construction work shall occur within 300 feet of occupied residences only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 ANI and 6:00 PM on Saturday. No construction work shall occur on Sundays, New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, Memorial Day, and Labor Day. 4.5-2 The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that the following construction best management practices (BMPs) be implemented by the construction contractor to reduce construction noise and vibration levels: ® Two weeks -prior to the commencement of construction, notification must. be provided to surrounding land uses of the project site disclosing the 39 construction schedule, including the various types of activities that would be occurring throughout the duration of the construction period. • Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards and in good working condition. • Place noise- and vibration- generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive uses, where feasible (particularly away from the residential uses located north and east of the project site). • Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, where feasible. • Construction -related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for,more than 30 minutes. • Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow for surrounding owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. If the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action .taken to the reporting party. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Santa Clarita prior to issuance of the grading permit. .o 2.3.3 Findings Although the above -enumerated mitigation measures would reduce the magnitude of construction -related impacts, the City finds there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the identified significant noise and vibration impacts to a level below significant. Therefore, these impacts must be considered unavoidably significant even after implementation of all feasible noise mitigation measures. Further, no feasible mitigation exists to reduce the cumulative noise impacts along SR -14 to a level below significant. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), the City has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and the identified noise impacts are thereby acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. 2.4 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 2.4.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts The project would generate solid waste, including hazardous waste, requiring disposal during the construction and operational phases. As an adequate amount of landfill space has not been identified to- accomfriodate' long�terni­ soli&-wasfe "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 Fre, 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. 41 4.9-6 For commercial developments and residential buildings having five or more living units, no refuse collection or recycling areas will be located between a street and the front of a building. 4.9-7 On-site trash compactors will be installed for non-recyclables in all restaurants/food services areas. 4.9-8 The project will comply with City recycling requirements, including the number and location of recycling and waste bins. 4.9-9 First-time buyers and businesses will receive educational material on the City's waste management efforts. Educational material shall be passed to consecutive buyers using the CC&Rs. 4.9-10 The applicant shall comply with all applicable state, regional, and local regulations and procedures *for the use, collection, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. .f 4.9-11 During construction, recycling bins for glass, metals, paper, wood, plastic, greenwastes, and cardboard will be placed on site to ensure their use by construction workers and will be trucked to recycling/processing facilities. 4.9-12 In construction specification and bid packages, building materials made of recycled materials will be required, to the extent possible and feasible. 2.4.3 Findings Although the above -enumerated mitigation measures would reduce the magnitude of solid waste - related impacts, the City finds there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the identified impacts to a level below significant. Therefore, these impacts must be considered unavoidably significant even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), the City has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and the identified solid waste disposal impacts are thereby acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. 3.0 FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT BUT MITIGATED IMPACTS This section identifies significant adverse impacts of the project that require findings to be made under Public Resources Code section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091. Based 42 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 Buildii g -`Code; City of"Santa ­Clarita `Building`Code- arid` pertinent professional engineering standards. In addition, Mitigation Measure 4.1-22 requires compliance with Section 1613 of the International Building Code. Compliance with the referenced standards would ensure that impacts attributable to strong seismic ground shaking are reduced to a less -than -significant level. Finally, impacts attributable to lateral spreading, differential settlement, corrosive soils, expansive soils, and subsidence would be reduced to a level below significant through the implementation of various mitigation measures. 3.1.2 Mitigation Measures 4.1-1 Grading: The applicability of the preliminary recommendations for foundation and retaining wall design shall be confirmed at the completion of grading. Paving studies and soil corrosivity tests shall be performed at the completion of rough grading to develop detailed recommendations for protection of utilities, structures, and for construction of the proposed roads. 4.1-2 ` Site Preparation: Prior to performing earthwork, the existing .vegetation and any deleterious debris shall be removed from the site. Existing utility lines shall be relocated or properly protected -in- place. All unsuitable soils uncertified., f hs, 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 a, 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 16 recompacting the soil in=place. Deeper removals may required- by the Project Geotechnical Consultant based on observed field conditions during grading. During grading operations, the removal depths shall be observed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant and surveyed by the Project Civil Engineer for conformance with the recommended removal depths shown on the grading plan. 4.1-4 Material for Fill: The on-site soils, less any debris or organic matter, may be used in the required fills. Any expansive clays shall be mixed with non -expansive soils to result in a mixture having an expansion index less than 30 if they are to be placed within the upper 8 feet of the proposed rough grades. Rocks or hard fragments larger than 4 inches shall not be clustered or compose more than 25 percent by weight of any portion of the fill or a lift. Soils containing more than 25 percent rock or hard fragments larger than 4 inches must be removed or crushed with successive passes (e.g., with a sheepsfoot roller) until rock or hard fragments larger than 4 inches constitute less than 25 percent of the fill or lift. 4.1-5 Oversized Material: Rocks or hard fragments larger than 8 inches shall not be placed in the fill without conformance with the following requirements: Rock or, material greater than 8 inches in diameter, but not exceeding 4 feet in largest dimension shall be considered oversize rock. The oversize rocks can be incorporated into deep fills where designated by the Project Geotechnical Consultant. Rocks shall be placed in the lower portions of the fill and shall not be placed within the upper 15 feet of compacted fill, or 44 nearer than 15 feet to the surface of any fill slope. Rocks between 8 inches and 4 feet in diameter shall be placed in windrows or shallow trenches located so that equipment can build up and compact fill on both sides. The width of the windrows shall not exceed 4 feet. The windrows shall be staggered vertically so that one windrow is not placed directly above the windrow immediately below. Rocks greater than 1 foot in diameter shall not exceed 30 percent of the volume of the windrows. Granular fill shall be placed on the windrow, and enough water shall be applied so that soil can be flooded into the voids. Fill shall be placed along the sides of the windrows and compacted as thoroughly as possible. After the fill has been brought to the top of the rock windrow, additional granular fill shall be placed and flooded into the voids. Flooding is not permitted in fill soils placed more than 1 foot above the top of the windrowed rocks. Where utility lines or pipelines are to be located at depths greater than 15 feet, rock shall be excluded in that area. Excess rock that cannot be included in the fill or that exceeds 4 feet in diameter shall be stockpiled for export or used for landscaping purposes. 4.1-6 Import Material: Import material shall consist of relatively non -expansive soils with an expansion index less tfian 30. The` impoited` materials shall con am sufficient` fines (binder material) so as to be relatively impermeable and result in a stable subgrade when compacted. The import material shall be free of organic materials, debris, and rocks larger than 8 inches. A bulk sample of potential import material, weighing at least 25 pounds, shall be submitted to the Project Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours in advance of fill operations. All proposed import materials shall be approved by the Project Geotechnical Consultant prior to being placed at the site. 4.1-7 Compaction: After the site is cleared and excavated as recommended, the exposed soils shall be carefully observed for the removal of all unsuitable material. Next, the exposed subgrade soils shall be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches, brought to above optimum moisture content, and rolled with heavy compaction equipment. The upper 6 inches of exposed soils shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM D 1557-02 Method of Compaction. After compacting the exposed subgrade soils, all required fills shall be placed in loose lifts, not more than 8 inches in thickness, and compacted to at least 90 percent of their maximum density. For fills placed at depths greater than 40 feet below proposed finish grade a minimum compaction of 93 percent of the maximum dry density is required. The moisture content of -the fill soils at the- time, of compaction shall be above- the -optimum -moisture content. Compacted fill shall not be allowed to dry out before subsequent lifts are placed. Rough grades shall be sloped so as not to direct water flow over slope faces. Finished exterior 45 grades shall be sloped to drain away from building areas to prevent ponding of water adjacent to foundations. 4.1-8 Shrinkage and Bulking: In computing fill quantities, about 10 to 15 percent shrinkage of the upper 5 feet is estimated for on-site natural alluvial soils, slopewash, and unsuitable soils. That is, it will require approximately 1.15 cubic yards of excavated alluvium to make 1 cubic yard of fill compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density. About 10 percent shrinkage of the alluvium between depths of about 5 to 10 feet is estimated, as well as 5 percent shrinkage below a depth of about 10 feet. Additional loss of material may be due to stripping, clearing, and grubbing. A bulking value of about 5 to 10 percent is anticipated for materials generated from the bedrock when placed as compacted fill. The removal of oversize material generated by excavation of the bedrock may affect volume losses. 4.1-9 Temporary Slopes: For purposes of construction, the soils encountered at the site shall not be expected to stand vertically for any significant length of time in cuts. 4 feet or higher. Where the necessary space is available, temporary unsurcharged embankments may be sloped back at a 1:1 without shoring, up to a height of 45 feet in competent bedrock with favorable bedding. Where any cut slope exceeds a height of 50 feet within competent bedrock, a bench at least 10 feet wide shall be located at mid -height. Within alluvial or compacted fill material, temporary excavations may be made at a 1.25:1 cut to a height of 25 feet. If the temporary construction embankments are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are recommended along the tops of the slopes where necessary to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces. Where sloped embankments are used, the tops of the slopes shall be barricaded to prevent vehicles and storage loads within 5 feet of the tops of the slopes. A greater setback may be necessary when considering heavy vehicles, such as concrete trucks and cranes; in this case, the Project Geotechnical. Consultant shall be advised of such heavy vehicle loads so that specific setback requirements can be established. All applicable safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA regulations, shall be met. 4.1-10 Permanent Slopes: Permanent cut and fill slopes may be inclined at 2:1 or flatter. The current bulk grading plan indicates that the steepest slope to be constructed at the site during grading will be 2:1. 4.1-11 Proposed Cut Slopes: Cut slopes proposed for the rough grading of the subject site have been designated as shown in the Project Geotechnical Report. Each cut slope is discussed with specific recommendations presented in the "Slope Stability Analyses" section of the Project Geotechnical Report. All grading shall conform to the minimum recommendations presented in the Project Geotechnical Report. If these slopes are modified from those that are discussed in the Project Geotechnical Report, the modifications shall be reviewed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant to ascertain the applicability of project recommendations or to revise recommendations. The cut slope designation, gradient, and proposed mitigation are summarized in the Project Geotechnical Report. 4.1-12 Fill Slopes: If the toe of a fill slope terminates on natural, fill, or cut, a keyway is required at the toe of the fill slope. The keyway shall be a minimum width of 12 feet, be founded within competent material, and shall extend a horizontal distance beyond the toe of the fill to the depth of the keyway. The keyway shall be sloped back at� a minimum gradient of 2 percent into the slope. The width of fill slopes shall be no less than 8 feet and under no circumstances shall the fill widths be less than what the compaction equipment being used can fully compact. Benches shall be cut into the existing slope to bind the fill to the slope. Benches shall be step-like in -profile, withea-1 56nc na less than 4 -feet in height- and eig t`and established in competent material. Compressible or other unsuitable soils shall be removed from the slope prior to benching. Competent material is defined as being essentially free of loose soil, heavy fracturing, or erosion -prone material and is established by the Project Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Where the top or toe of a fill slope terminates on a natural or cut slope and the natural or cut slope is steeper than a gradient of 3:1, a drainage terrace with a width of at least 6 feet is required along the contact. As an alternative, the natural or cut portion of the slope can be excavated and replaced as a stability fill to provide an all -fill slope condition. When constructing fill slopes, the grading contractor shall avoid spillage of loose material down the face of the slope during the dumping and rolling operations. Preferably, the incoming load shall be dumped behind the face of the slope and bladed into place. After a maximum of 4 feet of compacted fill has been placed, the contractor shall backroll the outer face of the slope by backing the tamping roller over the top of the slope and thoroughly covering all of the slope surface with overlapping passes of the roller. The foregoing shall be repeated after the placement of each 4 -foot thickness of fill. As an alternative, the fill slope can- be over built- and the slope cut back to expose. a compacted core. If the required compaction is not obtained on the fill slope, additional 47 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 3-1eet 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. 1 1 1 Foundation and floor slabs for structures located within a transition zone shall also contain special reinforcement as designed by the Project Structural Engineer. Continuous footings located across the transition zone and 20 feet on either side of the contact shall incorporate a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one at the top and one at the bottom. Floor slabs located across the transition zone and 20 feet on either side of the contact shall have a minimum slab thickness of at least 4 inches and shall contain as a minimum No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on center. As an alternative, post -tensioned floor slabs may be used. 4.1-18 General: Residential and commercial buildings up to three stories in height may be supported on continuous or individual spread footings established in properly compacted fill. The following recommendations shall be considered preliminary since fill will be used in some lots to raise the site grade and the final design values will depend upon the engineering characteristics of the fill soil. The preliminary design values are based upon the site investigation, experience with the soils in the area, and the site. preparation and grading recommendations for this project. t � 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 i 18 inches below the lowest final adjacent grade. Structures may be placed on spread footings designed using a bearing value of 2,000 j 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 j 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 t ! or seismic loads. j While -the actual bearing value of the fill placed at the site will depend on the materials i 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 a fill shall be confirmed during grading. 4.1-20 Lateral Resistance: Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction and by the passive resistance of the soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.4 applied to the dead loads- may be i 0 used between the footings, floor slabs, and the supporting soils. The passive resistance of properly compacted fill soils may be assumed to be equal to the the developed by a fluid with a density of 250 pcf. The frictional resistance and the passive resistance of the soils may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. 4.1-21 Foundation Observations: To verify the presence of satisfactory soils at foundation design elevations, the excavations shall be observed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant. Excavations shall be deepened as necessary to extend into satisfactory soils. Where the foundation excavations are deeper than 4 feet, the sides of the excavations shall be sloped back at 0.75:1 or shored for safety. Inspection of foundation excavations may also be required by the appropriate reviewing governmenItal agencies. The contractor shall be familiar with the inspection requirements of the reviewing agencies. i i 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 34:41'599 Longitude -118.4342 Site Class D Ss 1.810 SI 0.673 SMs 1.810 SM 1 1.009 SDs 1.207 SDI 0.673 I The parameters were determined using the Ground Motion Parameter Calculator (Version 5.0.8) at the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards website. 4.1-23 General: Backfill placed behind retaining walls shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. When backfilling behind walls, it is required that the walls be braced and heavy compaction equipment not be used closer to the back of the wall than the height of the wall. 4.1-24 Lateral Earth Pressures: For design of non -building retaining walls, where the surface of the backfill is level and the retained height of soils is less than 15 feet, it may be assumed that drained, non -expansive soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a 50 1 1 ' fluid with a density of 35 pcf. Where the surface of the backfill is inclined at 2:1, it may be assumed that drained soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 47 pcf. In addition to the recommended earth pressures, the walls shall be designed to resist any applicable surcharges due to any nearby foundations, walls, storage or traffic loads. A drainage system, such as weepholes or a perforated pipe shall be provided behind the walls to prevent the development of hydrostatic pressure. Recommendations for wall drains are presented as follows. If a drainage system is not installed, the walls shall be designed to resist an additional hydrostatic pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 60 pcf against the full height of the wall. In addition to the recommended earth and hydrostatic pressures, the upper 10 feet of walls adjacent to vehicular traffic areas shall be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf. This pressure is based on an assumed 300 psf surcharge behind the walls due to normal traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet from the walls, the traffic surcharge is not required. 4.1-25 Walt Drainage: A drainage system shall be provided -behind all retaining walls or the walls shall be designed to resist hydrostatic pressures. Retaining wall backfill may be drained by a perforated pipe installed at the base and back side of the wall. The perforated pipe shall be at least 4 inches in diameter, placed with the perforations down, and be surrounded on all sides by at least 6 inches of gravel. The pipe shall be installed to drain at a gradient of between 0.5 to 1 percent and shall be connected to an outlet device. A filter fabric such as Mirafi 140 or equivalent shall be placed on top of gravel followed by a minimum 2 -feet thick compacted soil layer. Alternatively, the filter fabric and gravel is not required when using a continuous slotted pipe and graded sand which conforms to Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) "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 buried. soil cement channel liner. Detailed construction plans for the soil cement channel liner are not yet available and will. be geotechnically reviewed in a future report to ensure consistency with the 51 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 11.25:1. 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. i 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 cont ent 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 oil the results of unconfined compression tests on the samples of the soil -cement mixtures, the Project Geotechnical - Consultant` shall determine -°during` grading activities the percentage of cement content -to be used during construction. This testing shall take place when soil intended for soil cement manufacture has been stockpiled on site. The soil -cement shall be placed in layers not more than 8 inches in thickness and shall be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density at a moisture content of no more than,2 percent over optimum for the soils. The placement of the soil -cement shall be performed under the observation of the Project Geotechnical Consultant, who shall perform sieve analyses, compaction, unconfined compression, and moisture -density tests. i 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 ishall 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; e -- Observe the exposed subgrade in areas to receive fill and in areas where excavation has resulted in the desired finished s bgrade. The representative I I 52 shall also observe proof -rolling and delineation of areas requiring overexcavation; • Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import soils for fill placement; collect and submit soil samples for required or recommended laboratory testing where necessary; • Observe the fill and backfill for uniformity during placement; • Test fill for field density and compaction to determine the percentage of compaction achieved during fill placement; • Geologic observation of all cut slopes, keyways, backcuts and geologic exposures during grading to ascertain that conditions conform to those anticipated in the report; and • Observe benching operations; observe canyon cleanouts for subdrains, and subdrain installation. 3.1.3 Findings The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce these potential geotechnical hazard -related impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant geotechnical hazard -related impacts of the project identified in'the Final EIR. 3.2 FLOOD 3.2.1 Potential Significant Impacts Project -related increases in sedimentation and debris production, erosion and sedimentation during construction could result in a potentially significant impact; mitigation is recommended to reduce impacts to a level below significant. 3.2.2 Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 During all construction phases, temporary erosion control shall be implemented to retain soil and sediment on the project site, and the bank stabilization areas, as follows: • Re -vegetate exposed areas as quickly as possible; • Minimize disturbed areas; • Divert runoff from downstream drainages with earth dikes, temporary drains, slope drains, etc.; • Reduce velocity through outlet protection, check dams, and slope roughening/terracing; 53 • Implement dust control measures, such as sand fences, watering, etc.; a 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; e 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 bi le barriers, and gravel inlet filters, and/or with settling devices, such as sediment traps or basins); and/or • Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharge (e.g., pipe flushing, fire hydrant flushing, and over -watering during dust control, vehicle and equipment wash down) from the construction site through the use of appropriate sediment control BMPs. 4.2-2 All necessary permits, agreements, letters of exemption from the USACE and/or the CDFG for project -related development within their respective jurisdictions must be obtained prior to the issuance of a grading permit, which permits grading within their respective jurisdictions. 4.2-3 By October 1 st 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). 1 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 stormwal er runoff discharge rates, velocities, and duration in natural drainage systems mimic predevelopmentconditions. All elements of the storm drain system shall conform to the policies and standards of the LACDPW, Flood Control Division, as applicable. j 1 54 4.2-5 Final project hydrology and debris production calculations shall be prepared by a project engineer to verify the requirements for debris basins and/or desilting inlets consistent with the approved drainage concept and this analysis. 3.2.3 Findings The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce these potential flood -related impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant flood -related impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR. 3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.3.1 Potential Significant Impacts The project would significantly impact the following vegetation communities: coast live oak associations; cottonwood associations; big sagebrush associations; riparian scrub; alkali rye series; and, alluvial scrub (terrace). Additionally, because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the take of bird nests with eggs or young; -the project could significantly impact the active nests of common bird species. The project also could significantly impact the slender mariposa lily, Plummer's mariposa lily, oak trees, and special - status wildlife. The project could result in indirect impacts to biological resources attributable to increased human and domestic animal presence along the River Corridor, increased populations of non- native species, increased light and glare, stormwater runoff, and construction -related activities. The project also would result in cumulative impacts attributable to reductions in total habitat area, limitation of species diversity, restriction of animal movement corridors, and overall loss of sensitive vegetation communities, wildlife habitat, and open area in the Santa Clarita Valley. However, with implementation of the mitigation measures enumerated below, as well as those identified for water quality, all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project would be reduced to a level below significant. 3.3.2 Mitigation Measures, 4.6-1 The applicant shall mitigate for alkali rye at a ratio of 0.5:1 through on-site habitat restoration. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, the applicant, shall provide to the City Community Development Department for review and approval a detailed mitigation and monitoring plan for the restoration of alkali rye. The mitigation 55 56 plan shall encompass comparable general habitat attributes and acreage of useable wildlife habitat on the subject property (approximately i0.35 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 iincludes salvaging and re- establishment of slender mariposa population on the mitigation site designated in the plan. i 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 i in the plan. 4.6-2 The applicant shall mitigate for the loss of riparian scrub and big sagebrush scrub through implementation-oNhe- Wetland& Plan, 2009 -to -the -satisfactioin° 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 ito 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 implement relocated, unless USFWS personnel or their agents this measure or authorized 56 by USACE in a subsequent Clean Water Act section 404 permit or streambed alteration agreement issued by CDFG. 4.6-5 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall employ a qualified biologist to implement the Spadefoot Plan, 2009, with review and oversight provided by the City Planning Department. Any substantive revisions to or deviations from the Spadefoot Plan, 2009, shall be provided to CDFG for consideration and input. 4.6-6 Sixty days prior to grading activities, a qualified biologist shall contact CDFG and consult with CDFG staff regarding the timing of pre -construction surveys. In any event, no later than thirty days prior to grading activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey within appropriate habitat areas to capture and relocate individual silvery legless lizard, coastal western whiptail, rosy boa, San Diego banded gecko, San Bernardino ringneck snake, coast horned lizard, coast patch -nosed snake, and San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit in order to avoid or minimize take of these sensitive species. Individuals shall be relocated to nearby undisturbed areas with suitable habitat, as identified by the qualified biologist in consultationwith CDFG staff. Results of the surveys and relocation efforts shall be. provided to the City with a copy to CDFG. Collection and relocation of animals shall only occur with the proper scientific collection and handling permits. 4.6-7 Beginning 30 or more days prior to the removal of any suitable riparian habitat that will occur during the riparian bird breeding and nesting season of March 15th through September 1st, the applicant shall arrange for weekly bird surveys to detect the above riparian bird species in the habitats to be removed, and any other such habitat within 300 feet of the construction work areas. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist using CDFG or USFWS survey protocols. The surveys shall continue on a weekly basis, with the last survey being conducted no more than 7 days prior to the initiation of construction work. If an active nest is found, clearing and construction within. 300 feet of the nest shall be postponed until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, and when there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Limits of construction to avoid a nest site shall be established in the field with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction personnel shall be instructed on the ecological sensitivity of the area. 57 Results of the surveys, including surveys to locate nests, shalljbe provided to the USACE and CDFG. The results shall include a description of any nests located and measures to be implemented to avoid nest sites. 4.6-8 Signage shall be installed along the River Corridor indicating that no pets of any kind are allowed within the preserved River Corridor. 4.6-9 Fencing of sufficient height and design (i.e., ranch -rail) shall be constructed between the edge of developed areas and the River Corridor to deter humans and pets from entering habitat areas within the River Corridor. Locally indigenous native shrubs shall be planted along the fence to further deter access. Final fence design shall be approved by the City Planning Department. Fencing shall not be placed within the -USACE or CDFG jurisdictional areas of the site. The potentially palette of local indigenous native plant species to be used along the fence include the foll'ow'ing; observed` -on site-duringthe-course,of bi�ological=surveys Cal-ifornia- juniper, blue elderberry, four -wing saltbush, quailbush, skunki bush, California sagebrush, Great Basin sagebrush, coyote bush, mulefat, white -stem rabbitbrush, thick -leaf yerba santa, bladderpod, cane cholla, coastal prickly pear, coas 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. I 4.6-11 Prohibitions against human, domestic animal, and motorized vehicle/bike entry into the River Corridor shall be established by ordinance or recorded CC&Rs. 4.6-12 Interpretative signs shall be constructed and placed in appropriate areas, as determined by a- .qualified biologist, that explain .the sensitivity. of natural, habitats and the need to minimize impacts on these natural areas. The signs will state that the River Corridor is a protected natural area and that all pedestrians must remain on designated trails, all pets 58 1 are to be restrained on a leash, and that it is illegal to harm, remove, or collect native plants and animals. The project applicant shall be responsible for installation of interpretive signs and fencing along the River Corridor. 4.6-13 A qualified restoration specialist shall ensure that the proposed landscape plants will not naturalize and cause maintenance or vegetation community degradation in open -space areas of the project site. Container plants to be installed within public areas shall be inspected by a qualified restoration specialist for the presence of disease, weeds, and pests, including Argentine ants. Plants with pests, weeds, or diseases shall be rejected. In addition, landscape plants shall not be on the Cal -IPC California Invasive Plant Inventory (http://www.cal-ipc,org/ip/inventory/index.php). Except as required for fuel modification, irrigation of perimeter landscaping adjacent to the River Corridor with native plant communities shall be limited to temporary irrigation (i.e., until plants become established). 4.6-14 The applicant shall be responsible for weeding all restoration/enhancement sites to prevent an infestation of perennial non-native invasive weeds. All perennial, non=native invasive weed species (e.g., arundo, pampas grass, fennel, perennial pepperweed, castor bean, tamarisk, etc.) shall be controlled for a period of 5 years after the initial vegetation community restoration, or until the 5 -year success criteria described in the Wetlands PIan, 2009, are met. The cover of annual, non-native plant species at the mitigation sites shall not exceed the requirements of the Wetlands Plan, 2009, at any time during the period of documenting successful restoration. 4.6-15 Waste and recycling receptacles that discourage foraging by wildlife species adapted to urban environments shall be installed in common areas and parks throughout the project site. 4.6-16 All bridge, street, residential, and parking lot lighting shall be downcast luminaries or directional lighting with light patterns directed away from the River Corridor. Similarly, all lighting immediately adjacent to the Santa Clara River, Oak Park, and designated mitigation areas for biological resources shall be shielded. CC&Rs shall require that exterior lighting within the residential areas adjacent to the River Corridor be limited to low luminosity and/or shielded. 59 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: o The construction monitor shall attend pre -grade meetings to ensure that timing/location of construction activities do not conflict with mitigation requirements (e.g., seasonal surveys for plants and ,wildlife). ® Mark/flag the construction area in the field with the contractor in accordance with the final approved grading plan. Haul roads and access roads shall only be sited within the grading areas analyzed in the project EIR. ® Supervise cordoning of preserved natural areas that lie outside grading areas identified in the project EIR (e.g., with temporary fence posts and colored rope). ® Conduct a field review of the staking (to be set by the surveyor) designating the limits of all construction activity. Any construction activity areas immediately adjacent to riparian areas or other special -status resources may be flagged or temporarily fenced by the monitor, at his/her discretion. ® Conduct meetings with the contractor and other key construction personnel describing the importance of restricting work to designated areas. The monitor should also discuss procedures for minimizing harm or harassment of wildlife encountered during construction. ® Periodically visit the site during construction to coordinate and monitor compliance with the above provisions. 4.6-18 Construction personnel shall be prohibited from entry into areas outside the designated construction area, except for necessary construction related activities, such as surveying. All such construction activities shall be coordinated with the construction monitor. 4.6-19 Construction activities shall be limited to the following areas of temporary disturbance: • an 85-f6ot-Mde'zone that extends into the river from the base of the rip -rap or gunite bank protection where it intercepts the river ;bottom; e i • 100 feet on either side of the outer edge of the Vista Canyon Road bridge and the haul route (located within bridge zone); j • 50 -foot -wide corridor for all utility lines; and c 20 -foot -wide temporary access ramps and roads to reach construction sites. The locations of these temporary construction sites and the routes of all access roads within CDFG or USACE jurisdiction shall be shown on maps submitted to the CDFG and USACE. Any variation from these limits shall be noted, with a justification for a variation. The construction plans should indicate what type of vegetation, if any, would be temporarily disturbed, and the post -construction activities to facilitate natural revegetation of the temporarily disturbed areas. The boundaries of the construction site and any temporary access roads within the riverbed shall be marked in the field with stakes and flagging. No construction activities, vehicular access, equipment storage, stockpiling, or significant human intrusion shall occur outside the work area and access roads. 4.6-20 Equipment shall not be operated in areas of ponded or flowing water within CDFG or USACE jurisdiction unless there are no practicable alternative methods to accomplish the construction work, and only after prior approval by the CDFG and the USACE. Approval shall be acquired by submitting a request to CDFG and USACE no later than 30 days prior to construction. The request must contain a biological evaluation demonstrating that no sensitive fish, amphibians, or reptiles are currently present, or likely to be present during construction, at the construction site or along access roads. 4.6-21 Temporary sediment retention ponds shall be constructed downstream of construction sites that are located in River Corridor under the following circumstances: • the construction site contains flowing or ponded water that drains off site into the undisturbed streamflow or ponds; or o streamflow is diverted around the construction site, but the work is occurring in the period November 1st through April 15th when storm flows could inundate the construction site. The sediment ponds shall be constructed of riverbed material and shall prevent sediment -laden water from reaching undisturbed ponds or streamflows. To the extent possible, ponds shall be located in barren or sandy river bottom areas devoid of existing riparian scrub, riparian woodland, or aquatic habitat. The ponds shall be maintained and repaired after flooding events, - and shall be restored to pre -construction grades and substrate conditions within 30 days after construction has ended at that particular site. The location and design of sediment retention ponds shall be included in the Storm Water 61 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 r- areas -of ponded or flowing water to prevent -d'isco'lored; srlt=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 for 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. 62 4.6-31 The applicant shall use best efforts to ensure that no debris, bark, slash sawdust, rubbish, cement or concrete or washing thereof, oil, petroleum products, or other organic material from any construction, or associated activity of whatever nature, shall be allowed to enter into, or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into, watercourses included in the permit. When construction operations are completed, any excess materials or debris shall be removed from the work area. 4.6-32 No equipment maintenance shall be done within or near the River Corridor where petroleum products or other pollutants from the equipment may enter this area. 4.6-33 As the project reach of the Santa Clara River typically has no surface flows, any water diversions shall utilize: e 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. e The use of a pump to divert flows around a work site is also acceptable. The pump must have at least a 0.25 -inch screen. Water should be discharged downstream, within 25 feet of the work area. Any dams installed across flowing water for the diversion shall be removed upon completion of construction and the area shall be restored as closely as possible to its original configuration. ® The Operator shall alert the USACE and the Department of work to be performed at least two weeks in advance of the work.. If the work may adversely impact Endangered species, the USACE, the Department and the City shall meet in the field to resolve the issue. The City may contact the USACE and the Department to identify areas of potential Endangered species habitat. If the USACE and the Department believe the work may adversely impact Endangered species or its habitat resources or. the City wishes to consult with the USACE and the Department, a field meeting will be scheduled. At the field meeting, the USACE and the Department will provide 63 information regarding Endangered or Threatened species that could be impacted by the project. If take of an Endangered species will occur, the appropriate Endangered species permits will be required. To the extent that a USFWS Section 7 and a CDFG Section 2081, Memorandum of Agreement have been completed for the species present, the mitigation measures shall be implemented and construction may proceed as outlined in these documents. o Standard dust control measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts on nearby plants and wildlife. This includes replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible; watering active sites at least twice daily; suspending all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph; and restricting traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 mph or less in areas within 200 feet of vegetation. ® Upon completion of construction, the contractor shall be held responsible to restore any haul roads and access roads that are outside of approved grading limits. This restoration shall be done in consultation with the construction monitor. 4.6-34 If the Oak Tree Permit `is approved --by the Cify °Council; theapplicant shall= have permission to remove the following oak trees on the project site (Heritage Trees are in bold): No. 4, No. 25, No. 26, No. 27, No. 28, No. 29, No. 30, No. 31, and No. 32. If approved by the City Council, the applicant shall have permission to encroach into the protected zone of the following oak trees (Heritage Trees are shown in bold): No. 1, No. 3, No. 33, No. 34, No. 38, No. 47, No. 50, No. 52, and No. 71. If approved by the City Council, the applicant shall have permission to trim livewood in excess of 2 inches in diameter of the following trees: No. 1, No. 3, No. 33, No. 34, No. 38, and No. 52. If approved by the City Council, the applicant shall have permission to encroach within the protected zone of the following off-site oak trees (Heritage Trees shown in bold): Tree No. 25B (Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road Option 3 - encroachment and trimming) Tree No. 45 (Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road Option 3 — encroachment and trimming) 4.6-35 The applicant and all their contractors shall be in compliance with the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and Preservation and Protection Guidelines at all times throughout the project. Failure to comply with these requirements shall be considered non=compliant-and may result in the- issuance -.of a- Stop Alt. Work, notice. construction delays and additional fees. 64 4.6-36 The applicant and all their contractors shall adhere to all recommendations issued by the applicant's Arborist of Record (AOR) both during on-site monitoring as well as those listed within the project's oak tree reports and addendums. Failure to comply with these recommendations shall 'be considered non compliant and -may result in the issuance of a Stop All Work notice, construction delays and additional fees 4.6-37 Mitigation for the oak tree impacts referenced above shall include dedication to the City of Santa Clarita of the 2 -acre oak tree preserve located adjacent to the Oak Park. Dedication of this 2 -acre property to the City shall occur in conjunction with dedication of the Oak Park. A deed restriction shall be recorded over this 2 -acre preserve restricting its use to open space only and prohibiting any future development or grading. Signage shall be posted along the trail adjacent to the preserve indicating that this area is an oak tree preserve/mitigation area. Additionally, the applicant shall be required to plant mitigation oak trees on this 2 -acre parcel as well as a portion of the Town Green parcel to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The oak preserve and Town Green shall be the primary oak mitigation areas for the project: Secondary oak tree mitigation or planting areas shall - include trail corridors throughout the project site. Group plantings of native oaks are encouraged in areas that will accommodate the trees for future growth. Examples are passive parks, break areas, open landscape areas, new trails and the entrance to commercial and residential portions of the project. The planting of on-site mitigation oak trees referenced above shall be equal to or exceed the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) dollar value of all oak trees proposed for removal, presently estimated at $404,990 (includes the oak trees on-site). Prior to the issuance of grading permits and the start of any construction, the applicant shall be required to bond for the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) dollar value of all oak trees proposed for removal. 4.6-38 Prior to the issuance of grading permits and the start of any construction, the applicant shall have all required protective fencing installed around the oak trees. Oak trees that are proposed for encroachment shall have the protective fence placed at the furthest point away from the trunk that will allow for the necessary construction. All remaining oak trees shall have the fence installed at the protected zone located 5feet out from edge of dripline.. . 4.6-39 Protective fencing shall consist of 5 -foot standard chain link material supported by steel post driven directly into the ground and evenly spaced at 8 feet on center. 36 -inch silt 65 fencing shall be installed at the base of all protective fencing and be maintained in good repair throughout all phases of construction. 4.6-40 A maximum of one non-gated3-foot-wide opening shall be left open on the opposite side of construction to allow for required monitoring by City staff and the applicant's Arborist of Record. Openings shall be spaced every 100 feet or at a rate of one per tree. 4.6-41 The applicant shall be required to install proper signage that reads "THIS FENCE IS FOR THE PROTECTION OF OAK TREES AND SHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR RELOCATED WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION BY THE CITY ARBORIST". 4.6-42 The applicant shall be required to submit a copy of all future site plans including but not limited to grading plans, street improvement plans, construction plans and landscape plans to the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Specialist. All site plans shall require written approval from the City's Urban Forestry Division. 4.6-43 Any oak tree approved for relocation (presently Tree No. 31 is proposed for relocation) shall be completed by an approved qualified tree relocating company. 4.6-44 Any oak tree proposed for relocation shall be considered a removal. Any oak tree that has been approved for relocation shall require an up to 90 day side box waiting period before bottom roots may be removed. The final waiting period shall be established by the Arborist of Record and the City's Oak Tree Specialist. 4.6-45 Any oak tree which has been approved for relocation shall require a minimum five year mitigation period, which shall include the submittal of all maintenance and monitoring records completed on the tree. Monitoring reports shall be' submitted at the end of each month for the first two years, quarterly (four times per year) for the following two years and biannually for the final year. The, bond. (based upon a .value equivalent to the oak tree's ISA value) for the relocated tree will not be exonerated until the completion of the required mitigation period. 4.6-46 The applicant shall be required to incorporate large scale trees, which include 48 inch and 60 inch -box trees: -into --its mitigation plan.. This- may -also-include- the installation. of specimen size trees that range from 72 inch box in size up to 84 inch box trees. 4.6-47 Mitigation oak trees may include the following native species of oak; Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), or Canyon oak (Quercus chrysolepis). Incorporating additional native species in areas immediately adjacent to where established oak trees are present, may have a negative impact on the existing oak trees and is not permitted. 4.6-48 The applicant shall comply with all additional requirements of the project's adopted oak tree permit. 4.6-49 An integrated pest management plan that addresses the use of pesticides (including rodenticides and insecticides) on site within the River Corridor, including buried bank stabilization areas, will be prepared prior to the issuance of building permits for the initial tract map. The plan will implement appropriate Best Management Practices to avoid and minimize adverse effects on the natural environment, including vegetation communities, special -status species, species without special status, and associated habitats, including prey and food resources (e.g., insects, small mammals, seeds). Potential management practices include cultural (e.g., planting pest -free stock plants), mechanical (e.g., weeding, trapping), and" biological contfols-(e g: natural predators or -competitors of pest species, insect growth regulators, natural pheromones, or biopesticides), and the judicious use of chemical controls, as appropriate (e.g., targeted spraying versus broadcast applications). The plan will establish management thresholds (i.e., not all incidences of a pest require management); prescribe monitoring to determine when management thresholds have been exceeded; and identify the most appropriate and efficient control method that avoids and minimizes risks to natural resources. Preparation of the CC&Rs for each tract map shall include language that prohibits the use of anticoagulant rodenticides in the project site. 3.3.3 Findings The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce these potential biota -related impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant biota -related impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR. 3.4 WATER QUALITY 3.4.1 Potential Significant Impacts 67 The project would generate pollutants typical of urban residential and commercial areas during construction, and after the site is built out and occupied. However, like other development in the Santa Clarita Valley, the project would be required to satisfy all applicable regional and local water quality requirements, including those of the SWRCB, LARWQCB, NPDES program, County of Los Angeles, and City of Santa Clarita. Taking into account the project's non- structural and structural (treatment) PDFs, and accounting for the applicable regulatory. requirements, water quality impacts would be less than significant. Specifically, based on a quantitative assessment, the project would not significantly impact stormwater runoff volumes, or loads of total suspended solids, total phosphorous, nitrogen compounds, metals, and chloride. Based on a qualitative assessment, the project also would not result in significant impacts attributable to turbidity, pathogens, hydrocarbons, pesticides, trash and debris, methylene blue activated substances, cyanide. The project also would not result in significant impacts attributable to bioaccumulation, dry weather runoff, groundwater quality, groundwater recharge, and hydromodification. As-al1`cumlative�projects-within-the=tri'butary-watershed°and_other°undeveloped-areas ofthe City - are required to meet the same or similar general water quality requirements as the project, and any other site-specific requirements that the LACDPW Flood Control Division and LARWQCB require, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts. 3.4.2 Mitigation Measures 4.8.1-1 The project applicant shall be required to implement all Project Design Features (PDFs), as outlined in Subsection 5 (Project Design Features) of this section. 3.4.3 Findings The City finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce the potential water quality -related impacts of the project to- less=than-significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State CEQA, Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been i required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant water quality -related impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR. 3.5 FIRE SERVICES 3.5.1. Potential. Sign ificant,Impacts. First, due to the lack of on-site fire equipment access and water lines, construction activities would result in a significant impact on fire protection. Second, the project would result in significant impacts relative to fire protection absent compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements due to access, water supply, topography, and vegetative cover constraints. The project, however, would not impact the staffing, equipment and facilities levels of the Los Angeles County Fire Department with payment of the enacted mitigation fees, which currently are $0.99 per square foot (effective March 1, 2010). The project also would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts because increased cumulative development demands would be met by increases in staffing and equipment funded by developer fees and increased tax revenues, and because compliance with all applicable fire codes, standards and guidelines would be required. 3.5.2 Mitigation Measures Access Requirements 4.13-1 Due to the size of the proposed development the applicant shall provide multiple means of access as required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department, 4.13-2 Access shall be provided onto the project site as noted on the tentative tract map. 4.13-3 Access to the proposed project site shall comply with Section 503 of the Fire Code, which requires all weather access. All weather access pay require paving. 4.13-4 Fire Department Access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any exterior portion of all structures. On-site vehicular access shall be required for any building exceeding 150 feet from the public street. 4.13-5 Where driveways extend further than 150 feet and are of single access design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final tract map. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to insure their integrity for Fire Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways that extend over 150 feet in length. 4.13-6 Private driveways shall be indicated on the final tract map as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" with the widths clearly depicted and shall be maintained in accordance with the Fire Code. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department prior to the commencement of construction. 4.13-7 Vehicular access shall be provided and maintained serviceable to all fire hydrants throughout the construction period of the proposed project. :' 1 4.13-8 For buildings that are less than three stories in height and/or less than 35 feet in height, an unobstructive driveway with a minimum width of 26 -feet, clear -to -sky, shall be posted with a sign that reads, "No Parking — Fire Lane." 4.13-9 For buildings that are more than three stories and/or 35 feet or greater in height, an unobstructive driveway with a minimum width of 28 -feet, clear -to -sky, shall be posted with a sign that reads, "No Parking — Fire Lane." The centerline of the access roadway shall be located parallel to and within 30 -feet of the exterior all 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:I3'=11 TIZe-center=`lme "of the 'access-roadway`shall belocated"paral"hel--fo and° within 3Ofeet-o. 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 aIso be implemented for the eastern connection to Lost Canyon Road. 4.13-13 All Fire Department turnarounds shall be clearly identified and shall be posted with a sign that reads, "No Parking — Fire Lane." 4.13-14 Additional access issues shall be addressed with the submitplan tal of the revised s during building plan check with consultation between the (client and the Los Angeles County, Fire, Department. I 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. 1 Water System Requirements I 70 4.13-16 The project construction engineer shall provide water mains, fire hydrants and fire flows as required by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, for all land uses on the tract map, and shall be recorded as so. 4.13-17 The project construction engineer ensure that fire flow requirements for Planning Area 1 is 3,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for three hours. All proposed structures and buildings shall be constructed to be fully fire sprinklered and have a minimum of Type V-1 hour construction or greater. 4.13-18 The project construction engineer shall ensure that fire flow requirements for Planning Area 2 is 3,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for three hours. All proposed structures and buildings shall be required to be fully fire sprinklered and have a minimum of Type V-1 hour construction or greater. 4.13-19 The project construction engineer shall ensure that fire flow requirements for Planning Area 3A and 3B is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for two hours. All proposed' --structures and buildings- shall be required to be fully°sprinklered and have a minimum of Type 1-V construction or greater. The exact fire flow, with a possible flow reduction, shall be determined during the building plan process. 4.13-20 The project construction engineer shall ensure that fire flow requirements for Planning Area 3C and 3D is 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for two hours. 4.13-21 The project construction engineer shall ensure that fire flow requirements for Planning Area 4 is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for two hours. All proposed structures and buildings shall be fully fire sprinklered and have a minimum of Type V-1 hour construction or greater. The exact fire flow, with a possible flow reduction, shall be determined during the building plan process. 4.13-22 The project construction engineer shall ensure that the required fire flow for private on- site hydrants is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch and that each private on-site hydrants must be capable of flowing 1,250 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch with two hydrants flowing simultaneously, one of which shall be the furthest from the public water source. 4.13-23 The project construction engineer shall install 59 public fire hydrants. The location for . the on-site fire hydrants shall be determined during building plan check. 71 I i 4.13-24 All fire hydrants shall measure 6 -inches by 4 inches by 2.5 iinches 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. ' I Additional Information Requirements I 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 Ful 1 Modification Unit, Fire Station 432, 605 North Angeleno Avenue; Azusa, CA -9T702-2904, phone (62 i 5205. 1 Submittal Requirements 4.13-27 The project applicant shall submit a minimum of four jcopies of the water plans indicating the public fire hydrants to be installed to th I e 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. I 4.13-29 The project construction engineer shall submit the building construction plans to the Fire -Department's Engineering. Unit -Santa Clarita, (60l),2186 -882l, Forestry Division — Other Environmental Concerns Requirements 4.13-30 The project applicant shall comply with Fuel Modification requirements as indicated in 'Mitigation .Wasure 4;43726: ,... j ....... i 3.5.3 Findings 72 The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the potential fire services -related impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant fire services -related impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR. 3.6 SHERIFF SERVICES 3.6.1 Potential Significant Impacts Construction of the project would increase both the incidence of petty crimes on the site and construction traffic on SR -14 and surrounding roadways, which may potentially delay emergency vehicles traveling through the area. However, by retaining the services of a private security company to patrol the project construction site, and by implementing a construction traffic control plan, any potentially significant construction -related impacts to law enforcement services would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. Operation alfy, the project would increase the demand' for -law' enforcement and" traffic -related services both on the project site and within the local vicinity in terms of the number of personnel and the amount of equipment needed to adequately serve the project site at buildout. Additionally, significant public safety impacts could arise as a result of project design, landscape materials, and building orientation. However, payment of the law enforcement facilities fees and new tax revenues would mitigate impacts to the Sheriff Department to a less -than -significant level. Further, measures requiring that adequate public safety concepts be incorporated into the building design would mitigate impacts to law enforcement. Thus, the project would not contribute to any cumulatively considerable impacts to sheriff services. 3.6.2 Mitigation Measures 4.14-1 During construction, the project applicant, or its designee, shall retain the services of'a private security firm to patrol the project site. 4.14-2 Prior to construction activities, the project applicant shall have a construction traffic control plan approved by the City of Santa Clarita. 4.14-3 As final development plans are submitted to the City of Santa Clarita for approval in the future, the Sheriff Department design requirements that reduce demands for serviceand ensure adequate public safety shall be incorporated into the building design. The design requirements for this project shall include: 73 i o 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 ands 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. i 3.6.3 Findings j The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will (educe the potential sheriff services -related impacts of the project to l� ss -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 j 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 I Southern Pacific Railroad indicates that a portion of the site may be affected by metals, herbicides, petroleum hydrocarbons, and other contaminates associated with rail operations. The .>, {- existing, on-site residence -could contain asbestos and lead,.and the,hjistoric agricultural.activities .present the potential for on-site residential pesticides and agricultural chemicals to be present. In summary, absent mitigation, demolition, grading and construction activities associated with project implementation could result in the release of potentially hazardous materials to the .. environment. j I3.7.2 Mitigation Measures 74 I C 1 1 4.15-1 Prior to grading, areas of the project site indicated on Figure 4.15-1 shall be sampled for the presence of metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, and pesticides. If the presence of hazards is identified, the area(s) shall be remediated in accordance with federal and state law prior to grading of that portion of the project site. 4.15-2 Prior to demolition activities, an asbestos survey shall be conducted by a qualified environmental professional to determine the presence or absence of asbestos at the existing, on-site, single-family residence. The survey shall be submitted to the City of Santa Clarita. If present, asbestos removal shall be performed by a State -certified asbestos containment contractor in accordance with the Toxic Substance Control Act (15 U.S.C. Section 2601 et. seq.). 3.7.3 Findings The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the potential human -made hazards impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1) changes or alterations_ ave 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. 75 4.16-2 The project applicant, or designee, shall require that all security lights be properly shielded and projected downwards during construction, such that light is directed only onto the work site. 4.16-3 The project applicant, or designee, shall require that all outdoor lighting along the project site boundary consist of low -intensity downlights, or be equipped with louvers, shields, hoods or other screening devices. 4.16-4 The project applicant, or designee, shall require that all outdoor lighting along the project site boundary be projected downwards to illuminate the intended surface and minimize light spillover and glare generation. 4.16-5 The project applicant, or designee, shall require that only low -reflective building materials be used on building exteriors. 3.8.3 Findings The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible; are adopte"d, and"will reduce the potential light and glare impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant light and glare impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR. 3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.9.1 Potential Significant Impacts Although most of the site is being preserved as part of the project's Oak Park, a data recovery/salvage excavation program is required to lessen impacts to Site VC -2/H, the Mitchell family homestead. Finally, mitigation is required to avoid the disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified: in Section 3.9.2; the project, would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact. 3.9.2 Mitigation Measures 4.18-1 Site VC -2/11 contains the remains of the Mitchell family homestead, which may contain `important subsurface --archeological :-. deposits. A Phase, =I-II data . recovery- (salvage - excavation) program shall be conducted on Site VC -2/H prior to grading activities. 76 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 fiinding 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 210812(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 CEOA Guidelines section 15064.5(e), shall be taken: 1. There will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably susceptible to overlying adjacent human remains until: a. The Los Angeles County Coroner is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and b. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American: (i) The Coroner . shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours; (ii) The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American; and (iii)The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the Project applicant for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98, or, 2. Where the following conditions occur, the project applicant, or its designee, shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: a. The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendant or the most likely descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the Commission; b. The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or C. The project applicant, or its designee, rejects the recommendation of the descendant, -and mediation -by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the project applicant. 77 3.9.3 Findings The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the potential impacts to cultural resources to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant cultural resources - related impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR. 3.10 SANTA CLARA RIVER CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 3.10.1 Potential Significant Impacts Based on detailed biota surveys, the existing SEA/FEMA overlay boundary does not correspond to the sensitive riparian and jurisdictional resources within the project site. Therefore, the project requests a GPA, which would revise both the land use designation for the project site to SP and adjust the existing SEA/FEMA overlay boundary to correspond to the area to be designated SP - OS. The'''s impacts to biolo °icalresou"r`ces. e. -g- cei=fain s 'ecial=status p�p am l ibians re" ti es; project p g "( �, p birds and mammals) within the existing SEA/FEMA overlay area would be significant absent adoption of the mitigation measures below, which minimize impacts to jurisdictional and sensitive riparian -associated resources on site and ensure project compatibility with ongoing ecological functions of the post -project SEA/FEMA overlay area. Additionally, the mitigation measures= identified for biological resources, flood, and water quality also would assist in ensuring that impacts to the River Corridor are not significant. Of note, the project's development footprint corresponds to and preserves and enhances the sensitive biological and jurisdictional resources present within the River Corridor, and is designed to: (a) be compatible with the sensitive biological resources present, including the set as 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 78 project site would result in a regional increase of jurisdictional resource functions and provide for an ecologically meaningful resource to existing riparian resources. Finally, in light of the project's compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the project would not result in' a cumulatively considerable impact to the River Corridor. 3.10.2 Mitigation Measures 4.20-1 The project applicant shall implement the Wetlands Plan, 2009, in order to: (a) Satisfy the mitigation requirements of local, state, and federal agencies for wetland and riparian habitat; (b) Create or restore riparian and riverine vegetation communities suitable for nesting, foraging, and breeding by native animal species; (c) Create or restore vegetation communities to be compatible with the fluvial morphology and hydrology of the stream channel corridor; (d) Create or restore vegetation communities to be consistent with adjacent, existing riparian vegetation communities; and (e) Create- or restore vegetation communities to be self-sustaining and- functional beyond the maintenance and monitoring period. In implementing the Wetlands Plan, 2009, the applicant shall implement the maintenance activities during the specified monitoring, the monitoring plan for the mitigation areas, the reporting requirements, and the contingency measures specified in that plan. The applicant also must satisfy the performance standards and success criteria set forth in that plan. The maintenance and monitoring will be subject to approval of the City's Community Development Department. In conjunction with implementation of the Wetlands Plan, 2009, permanent impacts within the California Department of Fish and Game's jurisdictional delineation limits shall be restored with similar habitat at the rate of one acre replaced for one acre lost. 4.20-2 Prior to grading, and construction activities, a qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct a worker environmental awareness program for all construction/contractor personnel. A list of construction personnel who have completed training prior to the start of construction shall be maintained on site.and this list shall be updated as, required when new personnel start work. No construction worker may work in the field for more than five days without participating in the program.. The. qualified .b.iologist shall provide . ongoing guidance to construction personnel and contractors to ensure compliance with 79 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; e 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; o 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); o Conduct meetings with the contractor and other key construction personnel describing the importance of restricting work to designated areas. Maps showing the location of special -status wildlife or populations of rare plants, exclusion areas, or other construction limitations (e.g., limitations on nighttime work) will be provided to the environmental monitors and construction crews prior to ground disturbance; • Discuss procedures for minimizing harm to or harassment of wildlife encountered during construction and provide a contact person in the event of the discovery of dead or injured wildlife; • Review/designate the construction area in the field with the contractor in accordance with the final grading plan; Ensure that haul roads, access roads, and on-site staging and storage areas are _._ sited -within -grading. areasto. minimize -degradation _of vegetation communities adjacent to these areas (if activities outside these limits are necessary, they shall be evaluated by the biologist to ensure that no special -status species habitats will'be'affected); o Conduct a field review of the staking (to be set by the surveyor) designating the limits;of all construction activity; z • Flag or temporarily fence any construction activity areas immediately adjacent to riparian areas; o Ensure and document that required pre-constructiori surveys acid%or'relocation efforts have been implemented; and 9 Be present during initial vegetation clearing and grading. 80 4.20-3 Prior to construction the applicant shall develop a relocation plan for coast horned lizard, silvery legless lizard, and other special -status reptile species. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the timing and location of the surveys that would be conducted for each species; identify the locations where more intensive efforts should be conducted; identify the habitat and conditions in the proposed relocation site(s); the methods that would be utilized for trapping and relocating the individual species; and provide for the documentation/recordation of the species and number of the animals relocated. The plan shall be submitted to the City 60 days prior to any ground disturbing activities within potentially occupied habitat. The plan shall include the specific survey and relocation efforts that would occur for construction activities during the activity period of the special -status species (generally March to November) and for periods when the species may be present in the work area but difficult to detect due to weather conditions (generally December through February). Thirty days prior to construction activities in coastal scrub, chaparral, oak woodland, riparian habitats, or other areas supporting these species, qualified biologists shall conduct surveys to capture and relocate "individual coast- honied` 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 Match through August in the project region, or as determined by I a qualified biologist), the applicant shall have surveys conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests of bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or the California Fish and Game Code are present in the disturbance zone or within 300 feet.of the -disturbance zone. Pre -construction surveys shall. include nighttime surveys to identify active rookery sites. The total number of surveys shall be determined by the on-site qualified biologist based on the construction/grading schedule. 81 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 "tor be disturbed. Occupied ens-- depressions, ns,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 q 1). This buffer may be reduced based on the location of the den upon consultation with the City and CDFG. Occupied maternity dens, depressions, nests, or burrows shall be flagged for avoidance, and a biological monitor shall be present during construction. If unattended young are discovered, they shall be relocated to suitable habitat by a qualified biologist. The applicant shall document all San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit identified, avoided, or moved and provide a written report to the City with a copy to CDFG. 3.10.3 Findings The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the potential impacts to the Santa Clara River Corridor to less -than -significant levels in conjunction with, those7 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)(i), 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: FIX 1 1 1 3.11 WASTEWATER DISPOSAL 3.11.1 Potential Significant Impacts Although construction -related impacts would be less than significant, the operational phase of the project could result in significant impacts to wastewater disposal facilities absent evidence that adequate capacity and infrastructure is available to serve the project. As the project would construct a WRP to accommodate the projected wastewater produced by the contemplated land uses, potential impacts to wastewater disposal would be less than significant. Additionally, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact because safeguards are in place to ensure that no wastewater disposal connection permits are issued absent evidence of adequate capacity. Nonetheless, the mitigation measures below are provided to ensure that such impacts are not significant and the facilities provided by the project comply with pertinent requirements of the City, California Department of Public Health, and County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health - Environmental Health Division. 3.11.2 Mitigation Measures 4.21-1 Upon completion of the WRP, the applicant shall dedicate the WRP property to the City of Santa Clarita. 4.21-2 A 395,411 gallon per day water reclamation plant shall be constructed on the Vista Canyon Specific Plan site, pursuant to local, regional, state and federal design standards (as applicable), to serve the Vista Canyon Specific Plan. The project applicant shall assign the responsibility for ownership, operation, and maintenance of the water reclamation plant to the City of Santa Clarita. 4.21-3 All facilities of the sanitary sewer system, including the siphon, will be designed and constructed for maintenance by the City of Santa Clarita in accordance with the applicable manuals, criteria, and requirements. 4.21-4 The project applicant shall require construction contractors to provide portable, on-site sanitation. facilities that will be serviced by approved disposal facilities and/or treatment plants. .4.21-5 Prior to issuance of building permits, the. project applicant shall obtain a "will -serve" letter from the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County verifying that treatment capacity is adequate. 83 4.21-6 All local wastewater lines within the project boundaries are to be constructed by the project applicant and dedicated to the City of Santa Clarita Transportation . and Engineering Services Department. 4.21-7 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall pay applicable wastewater connection fees. 4.21-8 Prior to issuance of the first occupancy and the use or installation of any recycled water infrastructure, plans must be submitted to the State of California Department of Public Health and to the County Department of Public Health -Environmental Health Division for review and approval. 3.11.3 Findings The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the potential impacts to wastewater disposal to less -than -significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091; subdivision (a)(1'), changes oral`teratiors-have been required` in 'or` incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant wastewater disposal - related impacts of the project identified in the Final EIR. 4.0 FINDINGS ON LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 4.1 GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS 4.1.1 Less Than Significant Impacts The project would be served by a WRP and the existing sewage conveyance system; therefore, the project would not be located on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater- disposal systems. Additionally, construction of the proposed project would not alter any significant landforms, or destroy, cover or modify any unique geologic or physical feature(s). The project site also is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active faults are located on the site; therefore, impacts due to -rupture of a known -earthquake, fault would,be less, than signif cant., r 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= devel`o ment-areas =within a.: ro'ect-.site..:Additionall buildin s and facilities proposed -. under other projects are required to be. sited, designed, and constructed in accordance with jgeotechnical, geologic, and seismic building codes. 4.1.2 Mitigation Measures Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant. 4.1.3 Findings The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced geotechnical hazards. 4.2 FLOOD 4.1.2 Less Than Significant Impacts While the project would include development of the storm drain system and have pre -defined outlets to the Santa Clara River, existing drainage patterns would not be significantly altered and no impacts would occur with respect to discharge changes. More specifically, no significant impacts to the River's fluvial or vegetation area would occur as a result of the project's flood protection improvements. Additionally, there are no increases in the water surface elevation beyond the limits of the project site resulting from projecf iriiplementation and those that occur on site are minor, localized, and accommodated by the flood protection improvements. Finally, the flood protection improvements only would result in localized, minor changes in bed riverbed adjustment values; this is not considered a significant impact. The project also would not significantly impact on-site drainage, particularly due to its inclusion of energy dissipaters at the on-site storm drain outlets. Additionally, the project's compliance with all FEMA requirements, as well as the County of Los Angeles' QCAP requirements, ensures that impacts attributable to floodplain modifications will not be significant. In that regard, the project would raise portions of the project site to elevations above the existing FEMA maximum flooding elevation and construct buried soil cement bank protection along the River Corridor to protect the site from erosion. And, the post -project runoff discharge quantities would decrease, as compared to the existing conditions, due to the provision of water quality/debris basins that would•capture upstream bulk flows and. allow debris to settle out. The project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding for the reasons enumerated in the previous paragraphs. The project also would not result in a substantial alteration of existing drainage patterns in such a manner as to result` -in substantial -erosion or siltation;. and would -not significantly impact the fluvial. characteristics or mechanics of the Santa Clara River. M. Finally, compliance with all applicable regulations ensures that the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to flood, particularly as other projects within the City of Santa Clarita and County of Los Angeles would be subject to the same general requirements as the project. 4.2.2 Mitigation Measures Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant. 4.2.3 Findings The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced flood impacts. 4.3 TRAFFIC AND ACCESS 4.1.2 Less Than Significant Impacts Basedonthe Parking Demand Analysis" (20`l"0);""a copy "of whi_& is--Wud'e&'iri -Appendix 4:3-o 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. 4.3-16 The applicant..shall comply with the; requirements of the Vista Canyon Parking Demand Analysis. 4.3.3 Findings The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced traffic and- access -matters, -,but -that the. above,..mitigation-measure ;shall be, incorporated,into the project to ensure that such impacts remain below a level of significance. 86 4.4 AIR QUALITY 4.1.2 Less Than Significant Impacts Because the project would not increase the population figures over those that have been planned for the area and would be consistent with the AQMP forecasts and emission reduction strategies for the area, the project would neither interfere with the attainment of federal or state ambient air quality standards nor result in population increases within the area in excess of those projected by SCAG. Also, under worst-case conditions, future CO concentrations at studied intersections would not exceed state or federal standards; therefore, the project would not result in significant CO hotspot impacts to sensitive receptors. Neither the project's residential and commercial uses, nor the WRP would create an objectionable odor that could impact sensitive receptors. The project also would not have on-site hazardous materials that could result in an accidental release of toxic air emissions or acutely hazardous materials posing a threat to public health and safety. Similarly, although the WRP could potentially emit toxic air contaminant emissions during -the Wastewater treatment process, the facility would employ a mechanical system that would collect emissions and direct them to a biological or chemical air treatment unit prior to exhausting to the atmosphere. Finally, the project is not anticipated to expose sensitive receptors to substantial increases in health risks and pollutant concentrations relative to the general population, and would not emit carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants that individually or cumulatively exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in 1 million. 4.4.2 Mitigation Measures Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant. 87 4.4.3 Findings The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced air quality matters. 4.5 Nom 4.1.2 Less Than Significant Impacts Noise generated by mobile sources during the project's construction phase, and specifically truck traffic and worker traffic, would not be significant. Additionally, construction -related vibration impacts attributable to pile drivers, bulldozers, and loaded haul trucks would. not significantly impact off-site sensitive receptors. As for operational -related impacts, the project would not increase noise levels at an increment of 3 dB(A) or greater along the modeled roadway and freeway (SR -14) segments. Therefore, project -level impacts to on- and off-site sensitive receptors would be less than significant relative to mobile source noise. The project also would -riot result in significant noise impact s`attributable`to-the"Unron- aer is Railroad/Metrolink rail line as residential units would be at a sufficient distance from the tracks. Relatedly, it is important to note that the project would not result in an increase in noise levels associated with the railroad tracks, which already are in place. In an effort to further assess the post -project ambient noise levels, City staff directed the environmental consultant to complete additional analysis utilizing measurements from the on-site monitoring location closest to Fair Oaks Ranch that account for the project applicant's commitment to construct an eight -foot tall berm/wall along the southern boundary of the future Metrolink Station to further reduce noise levels. Existing noise levels at the on-site measurement location (approximately 60 feet from the railroad tracks) are 60 db(A) CNEL. The project would increase those noise levels at that location to 67 db(A) CNEL due to project operation (vehicle traffic, Metrolink Station, stationary noise sources, etc.). The closest homes in Fair Oaks Ranch to the, Metrolink .Station, . however;., are approximately _ 300 feet away. At feet, the p- . 300 ost , 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 lgcatons, including Fair Oaks Ranch. Specifically, with the berm/wall, the db(A) CNEL would be 58.2 at 300 feet and . 57.5 at400`feet these -levels are=.well within:ahe,.Gity'-s noise -guidelines: 88 Point source noise impacts attributable to the land uses contemplated for the project site also would be less than significant and within the range of acceptable noise levels permitted by community standards. And finally, the project would not result in unacceptable interior noise levels at on- or off-site residential uses. 4.5.2 Mitigation Measures Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant. 4.5.3 Findings The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced noise matters. 4.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.1.2 Less Than Significant Impacts The project would not significantly impact the following vegetation communities: California sagebrush - California buckwheat series; Chamise series;Elderberry series; Mixed native and non-native series; Mulefat series; Saltgrass; Non-native annual grassland - ruderal series; Yerba santa series; and, Disturbed. The project also would not significantly impact common wildlife reptile, amphibian, or mammal species. Further, the Peirson's morning-glory, a special -status plant species that has been observed on site, would not be significantly impacted. Finally, the project would not significantly impact wildlife movement corridors due to the preservation and enhancement of north -south and east -west corridors. 4.6.2 Mitigation Measures Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant. 4.6.3 Findings The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced biota matters. 4.7 LAND USE 4.1.2 Less Than Significant Impacts As the site is mostly vacant, the project would neither. disrupt nor physically divide an jestablished 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 t to such types of plans. Additionally, the project is generally consistent with all applicable goals, policies and/or requirements of the City's existing General Plan, proposed OVOV General Plan, and Unified Development Code, as well as SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan and Compass Growth Visioning. 4.7.2 Mitigation Measures Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant. 4.7.3 Findings The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on land use; therefore, no mitigation is required. .O 1 4.8 WATER SERVICE 4.1.2 Less Than Significant Impacts The proposed project's water demand would be met by relying on three primary sources of water supply: groundwater from the Alluvial aquifer; SWP water; and, recycled water from the WRP. Based on an evaluation of the project's water demand (including the Vista Canyon WSA) and the supplies of the local water purveyor, an adequate supply of water is available to serve the project, and the project would not create, or contribute to, any significant project -specific or cumulative water supply impacts in the Santa Clarita Valley. Supplying water to the project also would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies, or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. 4.8.2 Mitigation Measures Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant. Nonetheless, the following mitigation measures are included in order to contribute to a reduction in the project's demand for potable water, and to ensure that adequate water supplies are available to serve the project at the time of construction. 4.8-1 The proposed project shall implement a water recycling system in order to reduce the project's demand for imported potable water. The project shall install a distribution system to deliver recycled water to irrigate land uses suitable to accept reclaimed water, pursuant to Los Angeles County Department of Health Standards. Uses include retail, office, and commercial spaces. Such uses shall be dual -plumbed to receive recycled water for toilet facilities. 4.8-2 Landscape concept plans shall include a palette rich in drought -tolerant and native plants. 4.8-3 Water conservation measures as required by the State of California shall be incorporated into all irrigation systems. 4.8-4 In conjunction with the submittal of applications that permit construction, and prior to approval of any such permits, the City of Santa Clarita shall require the applicant of the permit to obtain written confirmation from the retail water agency identifying the source(s) of water available to serve the project concurrent with need. 4.8-5 Prior to commencement of use, all uses of recycled water shall be reviewed and approved by the State of California Health and Welfare Agency, Department of Health Services. 91 4.8-6 Prior to the issuance of building permits that allow construction, the applicant of the project shall finance the expansion costs of water service extension to the project through the payment of connection fees to the appropriate water agency(ies). 4.8.3 Findings The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on water service, but that the above mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project to ensure that such impacts remain below a level of significance. 4.9 EDUCATION 4.1.2 Less Than Significant Impacts The project would generate additional elementary, junior high, and high school students that would be accommodated by the Sulphur Springs Union School District and William S. Hart Union High School District. However, implementation of the School Facilities Mitigation Agreement between the Sulphur Springs Union School District and the applicant, and the Agreement for Fair Share Funding d -§1 f School Facilities between"the William`s: Hart-Um'oi Hig '— School District and the applicant would ensure all project impacts are at a level below significant. Additionally, because of the referenced mitigation agreements and because similar mechanisms would likely be utilized for each new residential development in the Santa Clarita Valley, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to education. 4.9.2 Mitigation Measures Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant. 4.9.3 Findings The City finds that, with implementation of the referenced mitigation agreements, the project will have a less -than -significant impact on education. 4.10 LIBRARY SERVICES 4.1.2 Less Than Significaht Impacts The project would generate the need" for additional items (e:g., books, magazines, periodicals; audio. video, etc.),_ squate feet µof_ library, facilities, and public access computers, based on the l ' County of Los Angel"'e8-,Publ'ic`°'-Library's'-s''ervice level=guidelines.,. -However, zpayment,.of ,t e . ;. C City's adopted library impact fee of $718.00 per new residential dwelling unit (as of February i I 2010) would ensure that the proposed project would not significantly impair library services. 92 1 C Similarly, because the proposed project and any future development would be required to pay the City's library impact fee, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact. 4.10.2 Mitigation Measures Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant. 4.10.3 Findings The City finds that, with payment of the requisite library impact fees, the project will have a less - than -significant impact on library services. 4.11 PARKS AND RECREATION 4.11.1 Less Than Significant Impacts The project incorporates approximately 21 acres of formal active/passive park or recreational uses, including the approximately 10 -acre Oak Park/River Education Center, both of which are r: proposed for dedication to the City. Other recreational facilities include the Community Garden, Town Green, up to six privaie'recreational facilities arid' project trails. `The' -project Araits,-exten over 4 miles both on and off the project site, including significant extensions of the Santa Clara River Trail. In summary, the project satisfies the City's parkland standards through a combination of parkland, private recreation facilities and payment of fees and, therefore, would not result in significant unavoidable impacts to local parks and recreation facilities. The project also would not significantly impact regional, state or federal parks or trail systems. Similarly, because the proposed project and any future development would be required to meet the City's parkland requirements by providing either the dedication of land, payment of in -lieu fees, or construction of park amenities (or a combination thereof), the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact. 4.11.2 Mitigation Measures Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not required for effects which. are not found to be significant. Nonetheless, the following mitigation measures are included in order to ensure that the project will not significantly impact parks and f recreational facilities. f 4.12-1 Consistent with the Vista Canyon Specific Plan, development of the project shall provide the following parks and open -areas: j ® Ten acres of public parkland with improvements, including the Oak Park and 1 4 the River Education Center; 93 Y Up to six private recreation facilities and over 4 miles of trails; and i Dedication of the Santa Clara River Corridor on site. 4.12-2 Reject applicant, or its designee, will meet City parkland requirements by providing either the dedication of land, payment of in -lieu fees, construction of park amenities; or any combination of the three as approved by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, prior to issuance of building permits. 4.11.3 Findings The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on parks and recreation, but that the above mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project to ensure that such impacts remain below a level of significance. 4.12 SHERIFF SERVICES 4.12.1 Less Than Significant Impacts The project would increase demands for CHP services in the project area. However, through increased revenues generated by the project (via motor vehicle registration and drivers license fees paid by new on-site residents and businesses), f project would generate more than' sufficient funding for the additional staffing and equipment would needed to serve the project area, including future demands. This funding can and should be allocated to the CHP by the state CHP for the Santa Clarita Valley station to meet project demands. Therefore, project- and cumulative -level impacts to the CHP would be less -than -significant. The project also would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because the project contains multiple evacuation routes, which would provide for the safe movement of residents and employees. 4.12.2 Mitigation Measures Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant. 4.12.3 Findings , The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced sheriff services. i i 94 I- 1 1 4.13 HUMAN -MADE HAZARDS 4.13.1 Less Than Significant Impacts The project would result in the buildout of both residential and general commercial uses. These land use types would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Similarly, the project's residential and commercial uses would not result in the emission of hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. Additionally, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project site also is not located within 2 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 significar t'impacts attributable to oil production operations (as the site is not within the designated boundaries of an oil or gas field), underground storage tanks, transmission line exposure, or adjacent properties. Finally, as human -made hazards present site-specific issues, no cumulative impacts are anticipated. 4.13.2 Mitigation Measures Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant. 4.13.3 Findings The City finds that the project will result in less -than -significant impacts attributable to the above -referenced human -made hazards. { 4.14 VISUAL RESOURCES 4.14.1 Less Than Significant Impacts i 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 a 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, 95 I due to the distance between SR -14 and the development area, thel structures would not be visually prominent from SR -14. i i 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 I highway as there are no designated state scenic highways in the Santa Clarita Valley. Further, although the visual character of the project site and surrounding areas would change (due to the transition of a predominantly vacant site to a developed state), the visual impacts resulting from build -out of the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings. Relatedly, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable dlevelopment as it is located in an area largely surrounded by existing, approved and planned development. Further, the project would be visually consistent with the existing adjacent development, such as the Colony Townhome and Fair Oaks Ranch communities. 4.14.2 Mitigation Measures Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant. 4.14.3 Findings The City -finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on the above -referenced visual resources. I 4.15 POPULATION, MOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT 4.15.1 Fess 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{witli,SCAG'.s,job,s/housing goal,of 1,.5:1 via its inclusion of commercial, office, retail and hotel uses. ., 1 W] 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 notresult in cumulatively considerable impacts to agricultural resources and forestland. 4.16.2 Mitigation Measures Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section. 151.26.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant. 4.16.3 Findings The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on agricultural resources. 97 i 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 jhis 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 riot fourid'to "be significant:`" 4.17.3 )Findings The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on global climate change. i 4.18 UTILITIES 4.18.1 Less Than Significant Impacts Electricity and natural gas demand associated with the project's construction phase is not anticipated to be significant. Additionally, at build -out, the project would result in an eleven percent reduction in electricity demand and a sixteen percent reduction in natural gas demand because all residential and non-residential structures would exceed the 2008 Title 24 standards by 20 percent. Finally, the extension of electric, natural gas, and communication infrastructure would not result in significant impacts due to the project's compliance with applicable standards - ... issued by the: City,,SCE,.SCGC;-and AT&T -.Tor -these. same. reasons,, the project also. would -not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to utilities. I 4.18.2 Mitigation Measures Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not required for. effects�which;are-notfound to-be:significant: i4' 98 1 1 1 4.18.3 Findings The City finds that the project will have a less -than -significant impact on utilities. 5.0 FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 5.1 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The alternatives section of the Final EIR contains an analysis of alternatives to the project, including the "No Project" alternative. (For a detailed discussion of these alternatives, please see Section 6.0, Alternatives, of the EIR.) Based on the analysis, the City finds as follows: (a) Alternative 1, The No Project Alternative Description: This alternative is required by the State CEQA Guidelines and compares the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present condition with those that would be generated by the proposed project. Under this alternative, no development would occur, and the existing storage yard and residence would remain on a portion of the site. 'EnvironmentaFEfRcts This alternative is environmentally superior tu 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 Z, Proposed County Land Use Designation (OVOV) Description: This alternative would develop a project allowed by Los Angeles County's proposed land use designations. for ,the site, as defined in the General Plan Update (OVOV). The proposed designation would permit approximately 700 residential units on the project site; a 5 -acre neighborhood park and up to two private recreation areas also would be provided. However, no commercial or transit uses would be constructed as part of this alternative. Additionally, this alternative -would -not:, include, the--WR,P or-Vista.Canyon Road Bridge. Consistent with OVOV, Lost Canyon Road would be. extended as a major highway from Fair Oaks Ranch to Jakes Way, and then as a secondary highway from Jakes Way to Lost Canyon Road at La Veda Avenue. Environmental Effects: This alternative would result in less impacts than the project in 12 categories, greater impacts in 5 categories, and similar impacts in 7 categories. In general, this alternative is considered the "environmentally superior" alternative for purposes of CEQA. Relation to Project Objectives: This alternative would not fully meet or impede the following project objectives, which are defined in Section 1.4, above: Land Use Planning Objectives 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 14; and, Economic Objectives 1, 3, and 4. Feasibility: This alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy numerous project objectives, and would not provide all of the project benefits. r,� F:. s c Alternative -3, Existif Cit of Santa"Clar�ta'GeneraPflari Designation` O g tY- g Description: This alternative would develop a project allowed by the City of Santa Clarita's existing General Plan land use designation for the site (i.e., Business Park (BP)). Under the BP designation, the site could be developed with approximately 4.35 million square feet of light industrial/business park uses. This alternative would include construction of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge, . Metrolink Station, and Bus Transfer Station. Lost Canyon Road would be extended from Fair Oaks Ranch to Lost Canyon Road at La Veda Avenue as a major highway. This alternative would not include any parks or recreation facilities. 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 Relation to Project Objectives: This alternative would not fully meet -or impede the following project objectives which. are defined irn_Section f.4, above -1a nd 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. 100 (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-:rand`PA'2;-excepting-the WRP; has`been movcd� back by an - average of 100 feet. Additionally, the residential overlay has been eliminated, and the length of the Vista Canyon Road Bridge has been extended from 650 to 750 feet. Environmental Effects: This alternative would result in less impacts than the project in 14 categories, greater impacts in one category, and similar impacts in 9 categories. Therefore, this alternative is considered to be environmentally superior to the project. Relation to Project Objectives: This alternative would not fully meet or impede the following project objective, which is defined in Section 1.4, above: Economic Objective 2. Feasibility: This alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy one of the project objectives. (e) Alternative 5, Open Space Corridor. Description: -.This alternative would create a.north/south open -space corridor--from- and orridor_ fromand through the project site to undevelopedproperties to the south, and would not include development in PA -4 (Mitchell Hill). The alternative also would eliminate 101 the extension of Lost Canyon Road to La Veda Avenue; Lost Canyon Road would terminate in the project site, though the alternative would still extend trail improvements from the project site along the north side of Lost Canyon Road to Sand Canyon Road. The alternative would increase the size of Oak Park (which would include both active and passive areas) and would remove one less oak tree, as compared to the project. In comparison to the project, 32 single-family units would be eliminated. All other components of the project would be incorporated into this alternative. 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 EnviNonm— &htal� Effects This `alternative would"'`result'° irr- less-- impacts --than!- t e - project in 12 categories, greater impacts in one category, and similar impacts in II categories. Therefore, this alternative is considered to be environmentally superior to the project. Relation to Project Objectives: This alternative would not fully meet or impede the following project objectives, which are defined in Section 1.4, above: Land Use Planning Objective 12; Economic Objective 2. Feasibility: Components of this alternative were implemented by the Planning Commission (i.e., elimination of 26 single-family lots, increased size of Oak Park, and removal of one less oak tree). However, full implementation of t is alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy two of the project :..... objechues., (f� " Alternative 6, Lost' Canyon Road' Alignment Descrcption: This alternative" would.extend" Lost Canyon Road from Fair Oaks Ranch to La Veda Avenue in an alignment running parallel and adjacent to the southerl 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 102 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. 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.j the subject of other development proposals. The project involves development of a transit -oriented, mixed-use community in an infill site, generally surrounded on all sides by development with the necessary infrastructure adjacent to the project site. A multi -modal transit station (Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station) would be developed as part of the project. There are no potential alternative project sites in the local vicinity that are similar in acreage, are close to existing or planned infrastructure improvements, and are adjacent to the Metrolink rail line. Potential alternative sites that provide access to similar infrastructure and alternative transit are located beyond existing urbanized areas and, therefore, would induce growth in these non -urban areas. 6.0 ANCILLARY ANNEXATION AREA To preface, no findings are required relative to the AAA by Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section .15091 as.the EIR did not identify, one or more significant environmental effects for the City's proposed annexation of these properties. Nonetheless, information regarding the environmental analysis for the AAA contained in the EIR is presented below. First, most of the AAA -.is built: out. As such,,. the proposed changes to the land use designations _ in the built out portion of the AAA and the of those areas to a different land use 103 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 fin-ther detail than provided in this section due to the preparation of specific development plans. At this point, it is not known whether, when or how the undeveloped portions of the ancillary annexation area would be built out. Nonetheless, in some instances, the imposition of existing regulatory standards and development fees would effectively ensure that impacts are not significant. In some instances, however, it is difficult to forecast the environmental impacts of the annexation. That being said, design -level mitigation measures would be identified, as necessary and feasible, during the subsequent project -level environmental review that would be undertaken in conjunction with any additional development in the AAA, and specifically the Sand Canyon and Jakes Way areas_. `Iis reasonable­to assume arid" recommend—dfIhis juncture`t at" urt er development in the AAA utilize mitigation measures comparable to those recommended for the Vista Canyon project due to the similar nature of the development types. The CEQA-mandated "no project" alternative likely would result in similar impacts as the proposed AAA, as neither would preclude additional development; rather, both scenarios would allow for development to be proposed and corresponding environmental review to be undertaken. Also, no alternative locations to the proposed AAA, which represents a logical extension of the City's physical boundary and municipal service area, exist. 1 104 L EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE 105 EXHIBIT C FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE fl e 106