Planning Commission Agenda Item (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) — Santa Clarita City Council, May 27, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

1.f
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 25
DECEMBER 2024
or new information relating to federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.). As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to federally protected wetlands and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
d) Would the Modified Plan interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The SCEA states that the Specific Plan area is surrounded by urban development and does not serve to connect habitat areas or provide a conduit by which wildlife could reach the areas necessary for their life history. The Santa Clara River does serve as such a conduit for wildlife and is located approximately 600 feet from the Specific Plan area at the closest point and separated by intervening development (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As such, the Originally Approved Plan would not result in any substantial effects on wildlife movement or established wildlife corridors, and impacts would be less than significant. Regarding nursery sites, development of the Originally Approved Plan would result in a permanent loss of on-site habitat suitable to function as a rearing area for wildlife; however, as discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area does not contain any significant features that offer unique or high-quality nursery opportunities for wildlife, and the site’s habitat is common in the region. Animals that use the Specific Plan area would be displaced during construction and forced to find alternative nesting sites, if not killed, and could also perish due to competition or exposure (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Nesting birds would likely be able to find new nesting sites due to their high mobility. Because the species affected by the Originally Approved Plan are common with secure populations in the region and because the Project would not impact rare or especially valuable nursery habitat, the loss of potential nursery habitat would less than significant.

Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, and impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
e) Would the Modified Plan conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, including oak trees? The SCEA states that the Specific Plan area does not contain any trees, and as such, the City’s oak tree ordinance does not apply and there would be no conflict. However, the Specific Plan area is partially within the Santa Clara River Significant Ecological Area (SEA) designated by the County, although there are no resources on-site (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA evaluated the Originally Approved Plan for compatibility with SEA resources, guided by the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, and found that the Originally Approved Plan is compatible with biological resources, maintains watercourses and waterbodies in a natural state, maintains wildlife corridors, preserves adequate buffer areas or barriers between development and natural resources, provides fences or walls where necessary to buffer important

1.f
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 26
DECEMBER 2024
habitat areas from development, and ensures that road and utilities are designed to mitigate impacts to biological resources. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and impacts would be less than significant.

The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi-family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated as compared to the Originally Approved Plan.

There are no changed circumstances and no new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to conflicts with any local policies protecting biological resources and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. f) Would the Modified Plan conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is not located within the coverage area of a federal, State, or local habitat conservation plan, and therefore the Originally Approved Plan would not conflict with the provisions of any adopted habitat or natural community conservation plan or any other approved conservation plan, and no impact would occur.

There are no changed circumstances and no new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to conflicts with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. g) Would the Modified Plan affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map? The SCEA states that a portion of the Specific Plan area is within the Santa Clara SEA designed by the County and within the County’s overlay zone; however, no unique biological resources are present within the SEA, and the Originally Approved Plan would therefore not affect the SEA, and impacts would be less than significant.

1.f
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 27
DECEMBER 2024

3.5 Cultural Resources

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a
unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
SCEA Analysis Summary – Originally Approved Plan
Potential impacts to cultural resources were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-68 through 4-80 using information contained in the Cultural Resources Inventory for the MetroWalk Development Project. The SCEA determined there would be no impact to historical resources and impacts relating to the disturbance of human remains were determined to be less than significant. Impacts to archaeological resources were determined to be less than significant with mitigation upon implementation of Project-specific MM-CUL-1 while impacts to paleontological resources were determined to be less than significant with mitigation upon implementation of Project-specific MM-CUL-2. These mitigation measures are included below:

MM CUL-1: Prior to the commencement of any construction activities on-site, the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to provide archaeological awareness training at the construction kickoff meeting to ensure proper identification and treatment of inadvertent discoveries.

In the event that archaeological resources (e.g., sites, features, artifacts, or fossilized material) are exposed during construction activities for the Project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified specialist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether additional study is warranted.

Depending upon the significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted.

MM CUL-2: Prior to the commencement of any grading activity on-site, the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) 2010 guidelines.

The paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the Project. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the SVP guidelines and shall outline requirements for preconstruction meeting attendance and worker environmental awareness training; where monitoring is required within the Project area based on

1.f
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 28
DECEMBER 2024
construction plans and/or geotechnical reports; procedures for adequate paleontological monitoring and discoveries treatment; and paleontological methods, reporting, and collections management. The qualified paleontologist shall attend the preconstruction meeting and a paleontological monitor shall be on-site during all rough grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities in previously undisturbed Mint Canyon Formation materials. In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor will temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to allow recovery of paleontological resources. The area of discovery will be roped off with a 50-foot radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor will remove the rope and allow grading to recommence in the area of the find.

Modified Plan Analysis
a) Would the Modified Plan cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
The Specific Plan area is a vacant infill site located in the Canyon Country community within the City. As discussed in the SCEA, a records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) that identified three previously conducted cultural resources studies that overlap or intersect with the Specific Plan area which revealed no cultural resources on the Specific Plan area. In addition, Exhibit CO-6, Historical Resources, of the City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element reveals that there are not any historical resources on the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Specific Plan area is located adjacent to two Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) lines, one of which may contain historical associations with the original 1875 SPRR alignment between Northern and Southern California; however, the Cultural Resources Inventory determined that the Originally Approved Plan would not result in significant direct or indirect impacts to the 1875 SPRR track because it is at least 300 feet outside of the Originally Approved Plan boundaries and because the historical setting has been significantly altered by freeway and residential development (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Because the Originally Approved Plan would not directly or indirectly cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, no impact would occur.

The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed and because the Modified Plan amends the Specific Plan to allow for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi-family and affordable senior uses and reduces the total number of new units proposed to a total of up to 318 units as compared to the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances and no new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. The Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to historical resources and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. b) Would the Modified Plan cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
The Originally Approved Plan would require a maximum excavation depth of approximately 12 feet. As discussed in the SCEA, the SCCIC records search identified three previously conducted cultural resources studies that overlap or intersect with the Specific Plan area which revealed no cultural resources on the Specific Plan area. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted in February 2020 to request a search of their files to determine whether any Native American resources have been mapped within or near the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The NAHC responded in March 2020 stating that the search was negative for Native American resources. In addition, a pedestrian survey of the

1.f
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 29
DECEMBER 2024
Originally Approved Plan Site was conducted by an archaeologist and a Tataviam Native American Monitor, and no cultural resources were found on the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Nonetheless, construction activities have the potential to encounter previously undiscovered archaeological resources, and therefore the Originally Approved Plan includes Project-specific MM CUL-1, which requires a qualified archaeologist to provide archaeological awareness training at the construction kickoff meeting to ensure proper identification and treatment of inadvertent discoveries and would halt construction immediately within 100 feet if an inadvertent discovery is made. With incorporation of MM CUL-1, Originally Approved Plan impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed and the same area would be graded, even with the allowance single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi-family and affordable senior uses. Furthermore, the Modified Plan would continue to incorporate Project-specific MM CUL-1. Additionally, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in an impact of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to archaeological resources and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
c) Would the Modified Plan directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
As disclosed in the SCEA, according to the City’s General Plan EIR, the Santa Clarita Valley is sensitive for paleontological resources, with most of the potential fossil-producing rock formations in the City located within hilly terrain, and the Santa Susana Mountains and Sierra Pelona Mountains are sensitive to paleontological resources. Based on the Paleontological Resources Review conducted by Dudek for the Originally Approved Plan, middle to early late Miocene Mint Canyon Formation, which has a high paleontological resource sensitivity and has produced scientifically significant vertebrates, is exposed at the surface in the northeastern portion of the Specific Plan area and may be exposed at an unknown depth elsewhere within the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Furthermore, according to records results received from the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum, the closest fossil locality to the Specific Plan area is east-northeast of the Specific Plan area, along Sand Canyon Road. The Originally Approved Plan would require a maximum excavation depth of approximately 12 feet. Although the Specific Plan area has been previously disturbed and no paleontological resources were identified on-site, due to the proximity of past fossil discoveries and to the Mint Canyon Formation, Dudek determined that the Specific Plan area is highly sensitive for paleontological resources and therefore the Originally Approved Plan included MM CUL-2 to ensure that any impacts in the event that paleontological resources are found would be reduced to a level of less than significant (City of Santa Clarita 2020). With incorporation of MM CUL-2, Originally Approved Plan impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

The Specific Plan area has not changed and the Modified Project area of construction would be the same as the area within the Originally Approved Plan. Furthermore, the Modified Plan would continue to incorporate Project-specific MM CUL-2. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in an impact of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to paleontological resources and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.

1.f
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 30
DECEMBER 2024
d) Would the Modified Plan disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is not part of a formal cemetery and is not known to have been used for disposal of historical or prehistoric human remains and therefore human remains are not expected to be encountered during construction. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during construction, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires projects to halt until the county coroner has examined the remains, and if the coroner determines that the remains may be Native American, PRC Section 5097.98 requires that the NAHC be notified within 24 hours and that they notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American who will then complete their inspection within 48 hours and determine the disposition of the human remains (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Compliance with these regulations would reduce any potential impacts to a level of less than significant.

The area of construction would be the same with the Modified Plan as with the Originally Approved Plan.

3.6 Energy

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
VI. ENERGY – Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
SCEA Analysis Summary – Originally Approved Plan
Energy impacts were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-80 through 4-87. The SCEA determined that impacts relating to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and conflicts with a state or local plan for renewable energy would be less than significant.

1.f
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 31
DECEMBER 2024
Modified Plan Analysis
a) Would the Modified Plan result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? As detailed within the SCEA in Table VI-1, the Originally Approved Plan’s energy usage would constitute an approximate 0.0016% increase over Los Angeles County’s typical annual electricity consumption, an approximate 0.0037% increase over the County’s typical annual natural gas consumption, and operational vehicle fuel consumption would increase the County’s annual consumption by 0.0213%. The Originally Approved Plan would consume energy through fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment and by bound energy in construction materials. The overall fuel consumption during construction of the Originally Approved Plan would be approximately 809,336 gallons, resulting in a nominal increase in fuel use in the County and the Originally Approved Plan would therefore result in a minimal effect on local and regional energy supplies and would not require additional capacity (City of Santa Clarita 2020). According to the SCEA, some energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with State requirements and with the latest Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) engine emissions standards which require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. The Originally Approved Plan includes Project-specific MM AQ-1 which requires that all diesel-fueled equipment used during construction shall be equipped with Tier 4 Final engines which would reduce air pollutant emissions and increase fuel efficiency, thus reducing the amount of fuel off-road equipment would consume (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA states that there are no unusual Originally Approved Plan characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment, building materials, or methods that would be less efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State, and construction fuel energy and construction materials would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. As such, construction energy use would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.

The Originally Approved Plan would consume approximately 661,775 gallons of fuel per year during operation which would increase Countywide vehicle fuel consumption 0.0213% and does not propose any unusual features that would result in excessive long-term fuel consumption (City of Santa Clarita 2020).

The Originally Approved Plan includes the installation of 203 electric vehicles (EV) charging stations and designated EV parking spaces in compliance with 2019 CALGreen Code which supports EV use and would reduce petroleum fuel consumption. Therefore, fuel consumption from vehicle trips generated by the Originally Approved Plan would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.

As discussed in the SCEA, the California Energy Commission (CEC) forecasts that the Statewide annual average growth rates of energy demand between 2016 and 2030 would be 0.99% to 1.59% for electricity and 0.25% to 0.77% for natural gas. Operational energy consumption of the Originally Approved Plan would represent an approximately 0.0016% in electricity consumption and a 0.0037% increase natural gas consumption over the current Countywide usage, which would be significantly below the CEC’s forecasts and the current Countywide usage (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As such, the Originally Approved Plan would be consistent with the CEC’s forecasts and would not require additional capacity or supplies. Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan would consume energy during the same time periods as other residential developments and would consume energy evenly throughout the day, therefore not resulting in unique or more intensive peak or base period electricity demand (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would be required to comply with the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards which would significantly reduce energy usage and ensure that the Project is consistent with various City General Plan goals and objectives. Furthermore, Southern California Edison (SCE) is subject to California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) which would increase the reliance on renewable energy sources and would ensure that new development projects would not result in the waste of finite energy resources (City of Santa Clarita

1.f
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 32
DECEMBER 2024
2020). As such, the Originally Approved Plan would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of building energy during operations or construction and would not preempt future energy development or conservation, and impacts would therefore be less than significant.

Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. The Modified Plan would continue to require a minimal amount of fuel use, not requiring additional capacity, would continue to not propose any unusual features requiring excessive long-term fuel consumption, and would continue to comply with all applicable State and federal standards, including Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The Modified Plan allows for singlefamily and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi-family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated. Given that the Modified Plan reduces the total number of proposed units, the Modified Plan would also reduce the total on-site energy use. The Modified Plan would result in reduced operational fuel consumption as there would be fewer dwelling units and less people residing within the Specific Plan area compared to the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. b) Would the Modified Plan conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The Originally Approved Plan was designed to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local plans and codes, including the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which the City enforces through its local building code, plan check, and permitting processes, and compliance with which would ensure that the Originally Approved Plan incorporates energy-efficient design features (City of Santa Clarita 2020).

According to the SCEA, electricity supplied to the Originally Approved Plan by SCE would be subject to the State’s RPS that increases energy procurement from renewable sources. In addition, the Originally Approved Plan would comply with the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction policies and other policies within the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS that focus on creating livable communities, reducing fossil fuel use by decreasing VMT, reducing building energy use, and increasing the use of renewable resources, and would comply with General Plan Goal CO 8, Objective 8.1 and Objective 8.3 (City of Santa Clarita 2020).

The SCEA states that the Specific Plan area is within a High-Quality Transit Area (HQTA) a TPA, and a livable corridor consistent with the 2040-2045 RTP/SCS that focuses on placing housing near transit, which would reduce the consumption of electricity, natural gas, and petroleum, and states that the Specific Plan area is well-served by the Vista Canyon Multi-Modal Center. As such, the Originally Approved Plan would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Modified Plan, similar to the Originally Approved Plan, would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local policies and plans, including Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi-family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated, which would result in reduced operational fuel consumption as less people would reside on the Specific Plan area compared to the Originally Approved Plan. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact.

Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to conflicts with a

1.f
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 33
DECEMBER 2024
state or local plan for renewable energy and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.

3.7 Geology and Soils

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial wind or water soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil, either onor off-site?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f) Result in a change in topography or
ground surface relief features?
g) Result in earth movement (cut and/or
fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more?
h) Involve development and/or grading on
a slope greater than 10% natural
grade?

1.f
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 34
DECEMBER 2024

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
i) Result in the destruction, covering, or
modification of any unique geologic or
physical feature?
SCEA Analysis Summary – Originally Approved Plan
Potential impacts to geology and soils were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-87 through 4-100. Potential impacts relating to geology and soils were determined to be less than significant or were determined to have no impact.

Modified Plan Analysis
a) Would the Modified Plan directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones or any other known fault zones, and no known Holocene-active faults cross the Specific Plan area. Although the potential for fault rupture at the Specific Plan area is low to non-existent, the Originally Approved Plan would still be required to comply with the California Building Standards Code (CBC). Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, and no impact would occur.

Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would comply with the CBC. Proposed development would occur in the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to rupture of a known earthquake fault and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
The Originally Approved Plan area is subject to potential earthquake hazards due to the seismically active nature of Southern California; although, according to the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the Originally Approved Plan, the closest known active fault capable of producing strong ground shaking is the San Gabriel Fault located approximately 4.5 miles west of the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Consequently, the Specific Plan area could be impacted by strong ground shaking should an earthquake occur along this fault. However, the Originally Approved Plan would be required to comply with the CBC, the City of Santa Clarita Building Code, and other applicable codes, and would still be subject to building inspection during and after construction. Compliance with these applicable codes would ensure that the Originally Approved Plan would not expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, and impacts would be less than significant.

1.f
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 35
DECEMBER 2024
Similar to development under the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would comply with all applicable codes including the CBC and the Santa Clarita Building Code and would still be subject to building inspection during and after construction. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to strong seismic ground shaking and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is located within a liquefaction hazard area, as shown on Exhibit S-3 of the City’s General Plan Safety Element. However, the Project would be required to comply with the Recommended Procedures of Implementation of CGS Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California to achieve standards that reduce the risk of liquefaction-induced settlement to a level of less than significant (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan itself would not exacerbate the risk of liquefaction to occur on the Specific Plan area, and the City’s Building Code requires mitigation of liquefaction hazards in new development projects. The appropriate design techniques would be confirmed during the City’s plan check process and would ensure that the Originally Approved Plan’s impacts would be less than significant.

Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would comply with the Recommended Procedures of Implementation of CGS Special Publication 117A, the City’s Building Code, and would have its design techniques confirmed during the City’s plan check process. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to seismic-related ground failure and liquefaction and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
iv) Landslides?
As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is not located within an area subject to potential seismicinduced slope instability or a mapped landslide zone, and no steep slopes exist on or within the immediate vicinity of the site. As such, seismic-induced landslides are not a significant hazard for the Originally Approved Plan and the Project would not expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects. There would be no impact.

Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, development under the Modified Plan would occur within the same Specific Plan area where it would not be located within an area subject to potential seismic-induced slope instability or a mapped landslide zone, and no steep slopes exist on or within the immediate vicinity of the site. Further, there are no changed circumstances nor any new information. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to landslides and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.

1.f
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 36
DECEMBER 2024
b) Would the Modified Plan result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, either on- or off-site?
As described in the SCEA, during construction, soils on-site may become exposed and subject to erosion; however, the Originally Approved Plan would be required to incorporate existing regulations that reduce erosion potential including SCAQMD Rule 403, which would reduce the potential for wind erosion, while compliance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit would reduce potential water erosion impacts by requiring best management practices (BMPs) to prevent eroded soils from traveling off-site. Erosion potential during construction would be greatly reduced through required compliance with existing regulations. After construction, the Specific Plan area would be covered with structures, landscaping, pavement, and other hard surfaces which would reduce erosive potential of the Specific Plan area. Therefore, because the Originally Approved Plan would be required to implement SCAQMD Rule 403 and NPDES requirements, and because development of the Originally Approved Plan would reduce erosive potential compared to existing conditions, the Project would not result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant.

Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, development under the Modified Plan would incorporate existing regulations including SCAQMD Rule 403, comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit, and would also introduce structures, landscaping, pavement, and other hard surfaces that would reduce erosive potential within the Specific Plan area. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to wind or water soil erosion or the loss of topsoil and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) Would the Modified Plan be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
As discussed in the SCEA, saturated soils that have experienced liquefaction may be subject to lateral spreading where they are located adjacent to free faces, such as slopes, channels, and rivers. However, the Specific Plan area does not include any free faces or steep slopes, and as such, no lateral spreading or landslides would occur. Incorporation of appropriate design and engineering techniques and BMPs, such as removal and recompaction of soil, in combination with structural solutions (e.g., mat foundation and pile and grade beams) would be confirmed during the City’s plan check process, and proper design and engineering techniques would be included in construction specifications to the satisfaction of the City’s Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of grading permits (City of Santa Clarita 2020). This standard regulatory compliance process would reduce potential impacts associated with subsidence or collapse due to unstable soils to a level of less than significant. Therefore, compliance with regulatory requirements would ensure that the Originally Approved Plan would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the Originally Approved Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, development under the Modified Plan would implement appropriate design and engineering techniques or structural solutions confirmed to the satisfaction of the City’s Department of Building and Safety during the City’s plan check process. Development would occur within the same Specific Plan area. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in

1.f
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 37
DECEMBER 2024
any new or different impacts relating to unstable soils and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
d) Would the Modified Plan be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? The Geotechnical Investigation for the Originally Approved Plan showed that the soil on the Specific Plan area has low expansive characteristics based on field soil classifications and lab testing and based on the recommended foundation systems and underlying soil properties, soil expansion or contraction is unlikely to affect the Originally Approved Plan (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.

The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. There are also no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to expansive soils and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
e) Would the Modified Plan have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The SCEA identified there would be a less than significant impact in this regard because the Originally Approved Plan would be required to connect to the existing public sewer system. Therefore, septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems would not be used, and there would be no impact.

The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Modified Plan would still be required to connect to the existing public sewer system. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. f) Would the Modified Plan result in a change in topography or ground surface relief features? The Specific Plan area is relatively flat and would require grading for site preparation and for the installation of utility lines. The SCEA determined that as the Originally Approved Plan would have consisted of approximately 50,000 cubic yards of cut, up to 50,000 cubic yards of fill, and approximately 400,000 cubic yards of over excavation, grading would have been balanced on the Specific Plan area and would not have resulted in noticeable changes in topography or ground surface relief features. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Grading of the site has already largely occurred. The Modified Plan would not change the amount of grading or change in topography or ground surface relief features. There are also no changed circumstances nor any new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the conclusion in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to a change in topography or ground surface relief features and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.

1.f
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 38
DECEMBER 2024
g) Would the Modified Plan result in earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? The Originally Approved Plan consists of approximately 50,000 cubic yards of cut, up to 50,000 cubic yards of fill, and approximately 400,000 cubic yards of over excavation (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As discussed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would be required to submit a grading plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Building and Safety Division, that incorporates the preliminary design recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation Report and the final geotechnical report that provides design-level values for development for the final Project plans. Compliance with all applicable City grading permit requirements would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.

Grading of the site has already largely occurred. The Modified Plan would involve similar amounts of earth movement as the Originally Approved Plan. Further, there are no changed circumstances nor any new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to significant earth movement and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. h) Would the Modified Plan involve development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10% natural grade? The Specific Plan area includes steep slopes on the western boundary of the Specific Plan area; however, the Specific Plan area is largely flat, and there are not natural slopes larger than a 10% grade on-site where the Originally Approved Plan’s uses are planned for (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Therefore, as stated in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would not cause any impacts regarding grading or slopes greater than 10%, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Modified Plan development would occur in the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan.

There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to grading on a slope greater than 10% natural grade and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
i) Would the Modified Plan result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature?
As discussed above, the Specific Plan area is largely flat and does not contain any ridgelines or other regionally notable topographic features (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not impact any unique geologic or physical feature, and no impact would occur.

The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA, and no impact would occur. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to any unique geologic or physical feature and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.

1.f
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 39
DECEMBER 2024

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
SCEA Analysis Summary – Originally Approved Plan
Greenhouse gas emissions impacts were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-100 through 4-113. The SCEA did not identify any significant impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and was found to be consistent with the City of Santa Clarita Climate Action Plan, the OVOV General Plan, the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, and the 2017 State Scoping Plan, and therefore would not substantially contribute to global climate change impacts. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Modified Plan Analysis
a) Would the Modified Plan generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
AND
b) Would the Modified Plan conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The Originally Approved Plan would generate temporary and long-term increases in GHG emissions during construction and operation. As discussed within the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would generate GHG emissions during construction from off-road equipment usage, construction vehicles, and construction worker trips, and would result in combined annual emissions of 2,061 metric tons of CO2e. Even though the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) expired in August 2020, the Air Quality and GHG Study prepared for the Originally Approved Plan determined that the Project would be consistent with the measures of the CAP that would have applied (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would be consistent with General Plan Goal CO 8 as it would be required comply with the CALGreen Code, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, the City’s Green Building Standards Code, and the City’s Energy Conservation Code, and would include energy- and water-efficient appliances and fixtures and would be located adjacent to the Metrolink Vista Canyon Station (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would also include a recreation center, a tot lot, a multi-use trail, and pedestrian linkages, thereby reducing VMT by providing recreational opportunities within walking distance.

The SCEA also determined that the Originally Approved Plan would be consistent with all 10 goals of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS that overall focus growth near destinations and mobility options, promote diverse

1.f
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 40
DECEMBER 2024
housing choices, leverage technology innovations, support implementation of sustainability policy, and promote a green region. The Originally Approved Plan would also be consistent with the goals of the 2017 Scoping Plan that reduce fossil fuel use and energy demand and maximize recycling and landfill diversion and would comply with the latest Title 24 standards. Thus, the Originally Approved Plan would not generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation to reduce GHG emissions, and impacts would therefore be less than significant.

In June 2022, the City adopted an updated CAP that sets new targets for reaching aggressive emissions reductions across five main focus areas: Buildings & Energy, Transportation & Land Use, Materials & Consumption, Natural Systems & Water Resources, and Community Resilience & Wellbeing. The updated CAP sets a near-term target to achieve a 40% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 and an interim target to reach an 80% reduction by 2035. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi-family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated, which would result in reduced operational fuel consumption, and thus, less GHG emissions, resulting in a slightly reduced impact compared to the Originally Approved Plan. In addition, the Modified Plan would continue to be consistent with all plans and their goals and would comply with all applicable standards and codes. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to significant GHG emissions or relating to conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation to reduce GHG emissions, and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving explosion
or the release of hazardous materials
into the environment (including, but not
limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals,
fuels, or radiation)?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?

1.f
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 41
DECEMBER 2024

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within 2 miles of
a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
i) Expose people to existing sources of
potential health hazards (e.g., electrical
transmission lines, gas lines, oil
pipelines)?
Prior SCEA Analysis Summary
Potential impacts to hazards and hazardous materials were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-113 through 4-127. All potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts were determined to be less than significant or were determined to result in no impact.

Modified Plan Analysis
a) Would the Modified Plan create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
As discussed in the SCEA, the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials are closely regulated through State and federal law, including those incorporated into the California Health and Safety Code, such as the California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law and the California Hazardous Waste Control Law as well as other regulations promulgated by State and federal regulatory agencies including the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW), the California

1.f
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 42
DECEMBER 2024
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The Originally Approved Plan, as a residential land use, would involve the handling of minor quantities of common household hazardous materials such as cleaning products, paints, solvents, and adhesives, among others, which are considered acceptable in residential areas and are not a significant threat to the environment (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Given the relatively minor use of hazardous materials and the requirement to adhere to State and federal law closely regulating hazardous materials, the Originally Approved Plan was determined to result in less than significant impacts.

The Modified Plan involves the transport, use, or disposal of common household hazardous materials and would also be required to adhere to State and federal regulations that heavily regulate the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, similar to the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact.

Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impact relating to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
b) Would the Modified Plan create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation)? The Originally Approved Plan included a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to delineate the environmental conditions on the Specific Plan area, which reviewed the historical land uses of the Specific Plan area, included a local and regional environmental records search, and included Specific Plan area reconnaissance (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As discussed in the SCEA, the records search and the Specific Plan area reconnaissance did not reveal any aboveground storage tanks, hazardous materials, or petroleum products on the Specific Plan area. The Phase II ESA for the Originally Approved Plan confirmed that the adjacent railroad tracks, historical agricultural use, and historical hog farm operations of the Specific Plan area do not represent recognized environmental conditions (RECs) or an unacceptable human health risk and therefore would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through potential upset or accident conditions. The SCEA determined that impacts would be less than significant.

Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would adhere to all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations related to emissions of or the handling of hazardous substances. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
c) Would the Modified Plan emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

The nearest school to the Specific Plan area is the Fair Oaks Ranch Community School located approximately 0.6 mile southwest of the site, and there are no proposed schools within 0.25 mile of the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As such, the Originally Approved Plan was determined to have no impact regarding hazardous emissions or materials near existing or proposed schools.

1.f
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 43
DECEMBER 2024
The Modified Plan is located in the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. Similar to the the Originally Approved Plan, development under the Modified Plan would adhere to all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations related to emissions of or the handling of hazardous substances.

Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. d) Would the Modified Plan be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is not listed on the DTSC’s Cortese List of hazardous waste sites and therefore would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As such, the Originally Approved Plan was determined to have no impact in this regard.

The Modified Plan is located in the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact.

Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to a hazardous materials site and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Modified Plan result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
As discussed in the SCEA, the nearest airport to the Specific Plan area is the Whiteman Airport located approximately 10 miles south of the Specific Plan area. As such, the Specific Plan area is not within 2 miles of an airport and the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA determined there would be no impact regarding public or public use airports.

The Specific Plan area has not changed, and there are no changed circumstances nor new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to safety hazards for people residing or working in the Specific Plan area and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Modified Plan result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Specific Plan area?
The airport or airstrip nearest to the Specific Plan area is the Whiteman Airport located approximately 10 miles south of the site and the Originally Approved Plan therefore would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA determined there would be no impact regarding private airstrips.

1.f
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 44
DECEMBER 2024
in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to safety hazards for people residing or working in the Specific Plan area and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. g) Would the Modified Plan impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
As discussed in the SCEA, the City has a Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP), adopted in 2004 and updated in 2010 and 2015, which provides a framework for communications, decisions, and actions by emergency response personnel for emergencies requiring evacuation (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA determined that the HMP emergency response system would be adequate to address emergency response evacuation scenarios for potential hazard events in the Originally Approved Plan area, and that the Project’s proposed emergency access features would be evaluated as part of the development review process.

Furthermore, as discussed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would develop the currently vacant Specific Plan area with impervious surfaces or managed landscape areas which would remove existing wildfire fuel loads and would reduce the wildfire risk on the Specific Plan area. The Project would be constructed to the stringent standards of the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) to reduce wildfire risk and would also be required to be in full compliance with all applicable standards for development in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The City would review all construction plans to determine the Originally Approved Plan is in compliance. Through compliance with the City’s development review process and the HMP, the Originally Approved Plan would not impair or interfere with implementation of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan and impacts would therefore be less than significant (City of Santa Clarita 2020).

The Specific Plan area has not changed, and there are no changed circumstances nor new information.

There would be fewer residents would potentially need to evacuate during an emergency. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to conflicts with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. h) Would the Modified Plan expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
As discussed in the SCEA analysis for this impact threshold and in Section XX, Wildfire, the Originally Approved Plan would not impair or interfere with implementation of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan, would not result in any significant impacts related to wildfire, and wildfire impacts would therefore be less than significant (City of Santa Clarita 2020).

1.f
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 45
DECEMBER 2024
i) Would the Modified Plan expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards (e.g., electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)?
The SCEA disclosed that the Specific Plan area is located in a suburban area with major utilities running underneath nearby roads and no overhead power lines in the immediate vicinity. SoCalGas revealed there is a natural gas pipeline located underneath the railroad segment immediately southeast of the Specific Plan area; however, the Project does not propose any ground disturbance in this area and the pipeline would therefore not be affected, and standard construction precautions would further reduce the potential risk of hazards to construction workers (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would locate utilities within underground conduits in the public or private street corridors/rights-of-way of each Planning Area. Thus, the SCEA determined that the Originally Approved Plan would not expose people to existing sources or potential health hazards such as electrical transmission lines, gas lines, or oil pipelines, and impacts would therefore be less than significant.

The Specific Plan area has not changed, and there are no changed circumstances nor new information.

Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would locate all utilities underground. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?

1.f
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 46
DECEMBER 2024

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
k) Result in changes in the rate of flow,
currents, or the course and direction of
surface water and/or groundwater?
l) Other modification of a wash, channel
creek, or river?
m) Impact stormwater management in any
of the following ways:
i) Potential impact of project
construction and project postconstruction activity on stormwater runoff?
ii) Potential discharges from areas for
materials storage, vehicle or
equipment fueling, vehicle or
equipment maintenance (including
washing), waste handling,
hazardous materials handling or
storage, delivery areas or loading
docks, or other outdoor work
areas?

1.f
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 47
DECEMBER 2024

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
iii) Significant environmentally harmful
increase in the flow velocity or
volume of stormwater runoff?
iv) Significant and environmentally
harmful increases in erosion of the
Specific Plan area or surrounding
areas?
v) Stormwater discharges that would
significantly impair or contribute to
the impairment of the beneficial
uses of receiving waters or areas
that provide water quality benefits
(e.g., riparian corridors, wetlands,
etc.)?
vi) Cause harm to the biological
integrity of drainage systems,
watersheds, and/or water bodies?
vii) Does the Proposed Project include
provisions for the separation,
recycling, and reuse of materials
both during construction and after
project occupancy?
SCEA Analysis Summary – Originally Approved Plan
Potential impacts to hydrology and water quality were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-127 through 4-142.

All potential impacts relating to hydrology and water quality were determined to be less than significant or were determined to result in no impact.

Modified Plan Analysis
a) Would the Modified Plan violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? As described in the SCEA, the City is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB which has adopted water quality objectives in its Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SQMP) designed to ensure that stormwater achieves compliance with receiving water limitations so that the stormwater generated by any given development does not exceed the limitations of receiving waters and, thus, would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Chapter 17.90 of the SCMC prescribes the requirements for compliance with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (the NPDES program) for all proposed grading activities (City of Santa Clarita 2020). MS4 permits are required under the NPDES program which mandate low impact development (LID) practices to be implemented and require submittal of a comprehensive LID plan and analysis to demonstrate compliance with Los Angeles County’s LID Standards Manual (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The applicant for the Originally Approved Plan would be required to prepare a comprehensive LID plan for review and approval by the City. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable City grading permit standards to reduce sediment and erosion, would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit, and would be required to implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with erosion and sediment control measures to eliminate or

1.f
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 48
DECEMBER 2024
control pollutants discharged from the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As stated in the SCEA, compliance with the City’s permitting process and the SWPPP would ensure that the Project would not significantly alter the drainage of the Specific Plan area or result in erosion from the Specific Plan area that would impact water quality.

Potential pollutants during Project operation would be typical of pollutants from urban land uses and of runoff from impervious surfaces which could result in the discharge of these potential pollutants into the local storm drain system. As discussed in the SCEA, stormwater discharges containing urban pollutants are regulated by the countywide MS4 permit. The Project would include BMPs to treat the Project’s stormwater runoff prior to discharge. Specifically, infiltration would be the method for water quality treatment for the Project. The infiltration chamber, which would replace the existing desilting basin near the northwestern corner of the Specific Plan area, would remove pathogens, nutrients, pesticides, organic compounds, oxygen demanding substances, trash and debris, oils and grease, sediments, and metals by filtering the runoff though natural earth/soil prior to entering the underground aquifer. Furthermore, there would be multiple catch basins on the Specific Plan area, which would collect the runoff and send it the proposed underground infiltration chamber located on the northwestern corner of the Specific Plan area. All runoff from the Specific Plan area would be captured in area drains and routed through an underground storm drain system, which would tie into the existing 42-inch storm drain in Harriman Drive. Prior to discharge into this storm drain, the first-flush runoff would be treated in the underground infiltration chamber. During flood events, the total flowrate that would be generated by the Originally Approved Plan and discharged into the 42-inch storm drain is estimated to be 61.34 cfs, which would be below the storm drain’s design capacity of 98.75 cfs. With incorporation of the infiltration chamber into the Project design, as well as compliance with the MS4 permit and NPDES permit requirements, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and Originally Approved Plan impacts would be less than significant.

Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would comply with all applicable City grading permit standards to reduce sediment and erosion, obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit, and would implement a SWPPP with erosion and sediment control measures to eliminate or control pollutants discharged from the Specific Plan area. Further, there are no changed circumstances or any new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to violations of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
b) Would the Modified Plan substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The Originally Approved Plan is located within the Santa Clara River Valley Subbasin of the Santa Clara River Valley Groundwater Basin where groundwater is replenished by the Santa Clara River, its tributaries, and stormwater percolation (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As discussed in the SCEA. the Originally Approved Plan would not install any groundwater wells or otherwise directly withdraw any groundwater and there are not any known aquifer conditions on the Specific Plan area or in the vicinity that could be affected by construction activities. The City’s General Plan EIR has determined that urbanization in the Santa Clarita Valley has not reduced groundwater recharge, nor depleted the amount of groundwater stored in the local groundwater basin due to long-term stability in pumping and groundwater levels with the addition of imported water from the State Water Project, and the Originally Approved Plan therefore would not interfere

1.f
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 49
DECEMBER 2024
with any groundwater supplies (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA disclosed that groundwater was not encountered at the Specific Plan area at a depth of 51.5 feet in recent exploration and that the Originally Approved Plan would have a maximum excavation depth of approximately 12 feet. The Originally Approved Plan would adhere to the NPDES Construction General Permit which authorizes construction dewatering activities and the General Waste Discharge Requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB that include BMPs that govern construction-related dewatering discharges within project development areas. Compliance with the General Waste Discharge Requirements would ensure that Originally Approved Plan impacts relating to discharges would be less than significant.

Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, development under the Modified Plan would involve the same maximum depth of excavation at 12 feet. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would continue to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit and the General Waste Discharge Requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information.

As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to groundwater supplies and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) Would the Modified Plan substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
As described in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area drains in a northwest direction and into an existing 42- inch storm drain in Harriman Drive while a desilting basin exists near the northwestern corner of the site at the inlet to the 42-inch storm drain to collect debris from the natural condition of the Specific Plan area.

Development of the Originally Approved Plan would alter the drainage of the Specific Plan area as it would introduce impervious surfaces (residential buildings, ancillary structures, parking lots, sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and landscaping) on a previously undeveloped and pervious site (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As discussed in the SCEA, the proposed on-site drainage system for the Originally Approved Plan would incorporate BMPs to reduce erosion and siltation to the maximum extent possible, which include catch basins designed to physically screen pollutants and an underground infiltration chamber, while all runoff from the Specific Plan area would be captured in private storm drain lines and routed through an underground storm drain system. Before the system discharges into the existing 42-inch storm drain, a diverter (splitter) box would route the required low flow volume to an underground water quality infiltration chamber while letting the high flow continue on to the existing 42-inch storm drain. The low flow pipe would be sized to convey the water quality flow into the underground chamber, and during flood events, the total flow rate that would be generated by the Originally Approved Plan and discharged into the 42-inch storm drain was estimated to be 61.34 cfs, which would be below the storm drain’s design capacity of 98.75 cfs (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, given standard engineering practices and compliance with NPDES requirements and City standards, the SCEA determined that the Originally Approved Plan would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Specific Plan area or area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, and that impacts would be less than significant.

The Modified Plan, similar to the Originally Approved Plan, would continue to be required to comply with the NPDES requirements and City standards. There are no changed circumstances or new information as no other changes to pervious surfaces or to the development plans have occurred. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the area that would result in

1.f
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 50
DECEMBER 2024
substantial erosion or siltation and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
d) Would the Modified Plan substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? As discussed in the SCEA, all runoff from the Project would be captured in private storm drain lines and routed through an underground storm drain system and before it drains into the existing 42-inch storm drain in Harriman Drive, a diverter (splitter) box would route the required low flow volume to an underground water quality infiltration chamber while letting the high flow continue on to the existing 42-inch storm drain.

The low flow pipe would be sized to convey the water quality flow into the underground chamber, and during flood events, the total flow rate that would be generated by the Originally Approved Plan and discharged into the 42-inch storm drain was estimated to be 61.34 cfs, which would be below the storm drain’s design capacity of 98.75 cfs (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Through incorporation of the infiltration chamber and compliance with MS4 and NPDES permit requirements, the Originally Approved Plan was determined to not result in a substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff, and impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would continue to comply with MS4 and NPDES permit requirements. Further, there is no change in circumstances nor any new information as no other changes to pervious surfaces or to the development plans have occurred. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the area or relating to a substantial increase in the rate of surface runoff that would result in flooding and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
e) Would the Modified Plan create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? As discussed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would not increase stormwater runoff discharged from the Specific Plan area, and during flood events, the total flow rate that would be generated by the Originally Approved Plan and discharged into the 42-inch storm drain was estimated to be 61.34 cfs, which would be below the storm drain’s design capacity of 98.75 cfs. The Originally Approved Plan would comply with all applicable City grading permit regulations and NPDES requirements and would implement BMPs to reduce and treat stormwater runoff from the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan would comply with the City’s stormwater ordinance that ensures the stormwater flows are properly treated before entering the storm drain system (City of Santa Clarita 2020).

As stated in the SCEA, the existing stormwater infrastructure would be sufficient and would have the capacity to serve the Specific Plan area. Thus, the Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and impacts would be less than significant.

Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would continue to comply with NPDES permit requirements, all applicable City grading permit regulations, and the City’s stormwater ordinance, and would implement BMPs that reduce and treat stormwater runoff from the Specific Plan area. Further, there are no changed circumstances nor any new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to

1.f
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 51
DECEMBER 2024
excessive runoff water or additional sources of polluted runoff and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
f) Would the Modified Plan otherwise substantially degrade water quality? As discussed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would not be a point-source generator of water pollutants and its compliance with the City’s stormwater ordinance would ensure that the Project would not generate stormwater pollutants that would substantially degrade water quality. The Project could generate short-term pollutants during construction, including sediment, trash, construction materials, and equipment fluids; however, the countywide MS4 permit required for the Originally Approved Plan requires construction sites to implement BMPs to reduce the potential for construction-induced water pollutant impacts (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan is required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit and submit a Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) that includes a SWPPP outlining the BMPs that would be incorporated during construction to minimize construction-induced water pollutants. Compliance with the MS4 construction site requirements and the NPDES Construction General Permit, as well as the implementation of a SWPPP would ensure that construction activities on the Specific Plan area would not significantly impact water quality and that impacts would be less than significant.

Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would continue to comply with MS4 and NPDES Construction General Permit requirements and would still implement a SWPPP to minimize constructioninduced water pollutants from the Specific Plan area. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to degradation of water quality and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. g) Would the Modified Plan place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? The Specific Plan area is located within Zone X on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) flood insurance rate map, which means the Specific Plan area is within an area of minimal flood hazard and was determined to be outside the 500-year flood and is protected by levee from the 100-year flood (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As such, the Originally Approved Plan was determined to have no impact regarding placing housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area.

1.f
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 52
DECEMBER 2024
(City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, the Originally Approved Plan was determined to have no impact regarding placing housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area.

1.f
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 53
DECEMBER 2024
The Modified Plan is located within the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan and plans to continue with the same depth of excavations. There are no changed circumstances or new information.

The Modified Plan would continue to comply with NPDES Construction General Permit requirements. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to changes in flow rates or course and direction of surface water and groundwater resources and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
l) Other modification of a wash, channel creek, or river? The Specific Plan area does not contain a creek or any riverine feature and would therefore not result in the modification of a wash, channel creek, or river (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, no impact would occur.

The Modified Plan is located within the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to other water resource modifications and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
m) Would the Modified Plan impact stormwater management in any of the following ways:
i) Potential impact of Modified Plan construction and Modified Plan post-construction activity on stormwater runoff?
ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff? iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion of the Specific Plan area or surrounding areas?
v) Stormwater discharges that would significantly impair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)?
vi) Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies? vii) Does the Modified Plan include provisions for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy?
As discussed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan is required to comply with the City’s stormwater ordinance, the countywide MS4 permit, and the NPDES Construction General Permit, and is required to implement a LID compliance plan and SWPPP. Compliance with these requirements of the Clean Water Act and the NPDES would ensure that the Originally Approved Plan would not cause any significant impacts related to stormwater management (City of Santa Clarita 2020). In addition, the Project’s engineered stormwater facility would be designed so that stormwater flows off-site would not increase during the 85th

1.f
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 54
DECEMBER 2024
percentile storm event as a result of Originally Approved Plan construction. Thus, the Project would not significantly increase flows, impair beneficial uses of downstream uses, or harm the biological integrity of downstream waters. Finally, the Project would be required to comply with the City of Santa Clarita’s construction and demolition recycling ordinance (05-09), as well as required City recycling programs during operation (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would continue to comply with MS4 and NPDES Construction General Permit requirements and would be required to implement a LID compliance plan and SWPPP. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.

3.11 Land Use and Planning

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Disrupt or physically divide an
established community (including a
low-income or minority community)?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, and/or policies by
agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?
SCEA Analysis Summary – Originally Approved Plan
Potential impacts to land use and planning were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-142 through 4-147.

Potential impacts related to physically dividing an existing community, conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, and conflicts with any applicable habitat conservation plan were determined be less than significant or were determined to have no impact.

1.f
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 55
DECEMBER 2024
Modified Plan Analysis
a) Would the Modified Plan disrupt or physically divide an established community (including a low-income or minority community)?
As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is located in a suburban portion of the City with multifamily residential uses to the west and south, and the Vista Canyon Specific Plan development to the north and east. The Originally Approved Plan would use existing public streets (Lost Canyon Road and Harriman Drive) to provide access to the residential buildings and related amenities and would connect to utilities beneath Harriman Drive (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would also provide pedestrian connections to the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area, which includes the Metrolink Vista Canyon Station and nearby trail systems. The Project would not result in the construction of a linear feature, such as railroad tracks, a flood control channel, or a major roadway that would result in a physical division of an established community or any physical alterations to land uses beyond the Specific Plan area, and the Originally Approved Plan therefore would not physically divide an established community (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, no impact would occur.

The Modified Plan is located within the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to disruption or division of an established community and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
b) Would the Modified Plan conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? As described in the SCEA, a General Plan Amendment and zone change needed to occur in order to accommodate the Originally Approved Plan. Such General Plan Amendment and zone change have occurred. The General Plan Land Use Element includes policies designed to encourage preparation of specific plans where appropriate to meet the goals for more healthy, vibrant, and attractive communities (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan includes multi-family residential uses in regional and community commercial areas to encourage more residences to be within walking distance of rail transit stations to facilitate rail commuting to employment outside of the Santa Clarita Valley, which is expressly emphasized in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA states that the Project’s mix of residential densities will allow for the permitting of housing at all income levels and age preferences, including affordable and mixed-income housing in support of a goal of the General Plan Land Use Element, and which would be in close proximity to transit jobs and services.

The Originally Approved Plan would be immediately adjacent to the Metrolink Vista Canyon Station and the Vista Canyon Multi-Modal Center which would include a bus transfer station that will accommodate local routes within the Santa Clarita Valley and regional routes to and from Los Angeles, the Antelope Valley, Van Nuys, and the Warner Center (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan’s location would provide residential uses next to public transit, other employment opportunities, commercial uses, other transit-oriented mixed uses associated with the Vista Canyon Specific Plan, and other surrounding residential, commercial, and service uses (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Therefore, as disclosed in the SCEA, while the Project requests a General Plan Amendment and zone change, the Project would be consistent with the goals of the City’s General Plan and the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS related to placement of mixed residential densities near transit centers to facilitate rail commuting to employment outside of the Santa

1.f
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 56
DECEMBER 2024
Clarita Valley and to encourage pedestrian activity in the Project area to reduce vehicle trips and air pollution. Thus, the Originally Approved Plan would not conflict with any existing specific plan area, coastal zone, or other plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Modified Plan would allow for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi-family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of units constructed and residents generated compared to the Originally Approved Plan. The Modified Plan would necessitate a Specific Plan Amendment in order to accommodate the single-family and duplex uses. With approval of such Specific Plan Amendment, the Modified Plan would be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations, similar to the Originally Approved Plan. Additionally, there are no changed circumstances nor any new information. As such, the Modified Plan would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to conflicts with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
c) Would the Modified Plan conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is not within a habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved environmental resource conservation and there are no land use restrictions for the site that would require conservation of the Specific Plan area for purposes of protecting wildlife habitat or other natural resources and there are no policies in the City’s Safety Element that establish land use restrictions for the Specific Plan area pertaining to avoidance of environmental hazards. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not conflict with any adopted environmental conservation plans, and no impact would occur.

Development under the Modified Plan would have the same development footprint as development under the Originally Approved Plan. The Modified Plan and the Originally Approved Plan occupy the same Specific Plan area. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan and no conservation plans would be affected. Additionally, there are no changed circumstances nor any new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to conflicts with an applicable habitat conservation or natural community conservation plan and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.

3.12 Mineral Resources

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and the residents
of the state?

1.f
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 57
DECEMBER 2024

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan?
c) Use nonrenewable resources in a
wasteful and inefficient manner?
SCEA Analysis Summary – Originally Approved Plan
Potential impacts to mineral resources were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-147 through 4-149. Potential impacts due to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or State and the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan were determined to be less than significant while impacts relating to nonrenewable resources were determined to have no impact.

Modified Plan Analysis
a) Would the Modified Plan result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is not located within a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ), as depicted on Exhibit CO-2, Mineral Resources, of the City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element. An area designated as MRZ-2 is located immediately north of the Specific Plan area which is located on either side of the Santa Clara River and is characterized by aggregate resources (i.e. sand and gravel used in construction). However, the Specific Plan area itself has a General Plan Land Use and zoning designation of BP which does not allow for mineral recovery uses and does not contain any known mineral resources (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, the Originally Approved Plan would not result in the loss of availability of any resource of known value to the region and State, and no impact would occur.

The Modified Plan is located within the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or state and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
b) Would the Modified Plan result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is not located within a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ), as depicted on Exhibit CO-2, Mineral Resources, of the City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element. An area designated as MRZ-2 is located immediately north of the Specific Plan area which is located on either side of the Santa Clara River and is characterized by aggregate resources (i.e. sand and gravel used in construction). However, the Specific Plan area itself has a General Plan Land Use and zoning

1.f
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 58
DECEMBER 2024
designation of BP which does not allow for mineral recovery uses and does not contain any known mineral resources (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, the Originally Approved Plan would not result in the loss of availability of any resource of known value to the region and State, and no impact would occur.

The Modified Plan is located within the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
c) Would the Modified Plan use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? As discussed in the SCEA analysis for this impact threshold and in Section VI, Energy, the Originally Approved Plan would consume energy resources during construction and operation. The Originally Approved Plan would also utilize building materials and human resources, many of which are nonrenewable, such as manpower, sand, gravel, earth, iron, steel, and hardscape materials, and would utilize some resources, such as lumber, that are slowly renewable (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would also commit energy and water resources during construction and through operation and maintenance. The SCEA also discloses that market-rate conditions encourage the efficient use of materials and manpower.

Market-rate conditions encourage the efficient use of materials and manpower during construction, and similarly, the energy and water resources that would be used for the Project would be supplied by the regional utility purveyors which participate in various conservation plans (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan is expected to use energy and water resources in the same manner as typical modern development and is designed to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local plans and codes which includes the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards which mandate a variety of energy conservation and efficiency requirements to be met through building design and construction. Thus, the Originally Approved Plan would not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner, and no impact would occur.

The Modified Plan is located within the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan. The Modified Plan would involve the use of nonrenewable and some slowly renewable building materials and resources and is expected to use typical amounts of energy and water compared to other modern development. The Modified Plan would still adhere to the requirements of all applicable federal, State, and local plans and codes which includes the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to nonrenewable resource use in an inefficient manner and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.

1.f
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 59
DECEMBER 2024

3.13 Noise

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within 2 miles of
a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels?
SCEA Analysis Summary – Originally Approved Plan
Potential noise and vibration impacts were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-149 through 4-165. All potential noise impacts were determined to be less than significant or were determined to result in no impact.

Modified Plan Analysis
a) Would the Modified Plan result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
The SCEA states that the most prevalent source of noise in the Originally Approved Plan vicinity is vehicular traffic on Lost Canyon Road to the west, SR-14 to the west and north, and the Union Pacific Railroad to the south, in addition to Harriman Drive, a newly constructed street for the Vista Canyon Specific Plan Project.

1.f
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 60
DECEMBER 2024
Ambient noise levels are highest during the daytime and rush hours, unless congestion slows speeds, which also reduced noise levels. Table XIII-1 within the SCEA summarizes the results of noise measurements taken at four locations for the Originally Approved Plan and showed that existing ambient noise levels ranged from 40 dBA (A-weighted decibels) Leq (equivalent continuous sound level) to 53 dBA Leq. Table XIII2 of the SCEA summarizes the estimated construction noise levels and shows that noise levels would not exceed the daytime construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptors.

Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan would comply with applicable requirements of the SCMC and would implement standard construction practices and BMPs to reduce construction noise levels, including, but not limited to, temporary noise barriers and proper maintenance of construction equipment fitted with muffling devices. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan construction noise would not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of established standards in the City General Plan or SCMC, and construction noise impacts would be less than significant (City of Santa Clarita 2020).

The Originally Approved Plan would include ground-level heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, one for each townhome, while several apartment units would share a larger HVAC unit and would require approximately 86 HVAC units in total (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As discussed in the SCEA, HVAC equipment would be located as close as 145 feet from the property line of the nearest sensitive receptor (planned residences part of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan) and would result in noise levels of approximately 50 dBA Leq at a distance of 145 feet. However, SCMC Section 17.57.020(E) requires all HVAC equipment on residential properties to be screened, shielded, or sound-buffered, and as such, HVAC screening would reduce noise levels to approximately 45 dBA Leq for each unit (City of Santa Clarita 2020).

Based on the Specific Plan area design, planned residences to the north would be exposed to noise from up to 7 HVAC units at a distance of 145 feet, resulting in combined noise levels of approximately 54 dBA Leq which would not exceed the daytime and nighttime standards for residential land uses of 65 dBA and 55 dBA Leq, respectively, and impacts relating to HVAC would be less than significant.

On-site vehicles would generate intermittent noise while traveling throughout the Specific Plan area. during peak hour traffic, approximately 190 vehicles would enter and exit the Specific Plan area which would result in an hourly noise level of approximately 39 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the source (City of Santa Clarita 2020).

The SCEA states that vehicle circulation areas on-site would be approximately 100 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors, resulting in an approximate noise level of 36 dBA Leq which would not exceed the City’s established thresholds. As such, impacts from vehicle circulation would be less than significant.

The sound analysis within the SCEA also revealed that sensitive receptors near the Originally Approved Plan’s main park would be exposed to a noise level of approximately 54 dBA Leq, which would not exceed established standards. Furthermore, noise levels at the sensitive receptors closest to other outdoor use areas throughout the Specific Plan area would be less than the levels generated by the Originally Approved Plan’s main park due to the smaller size/capacity of these outdoor use areas and other factors. Therefore, impacts from recreational activities would be less than significant.

During operation, the Originally Approved Plan would generate vehicle trips that would cause an incremental increase in noise levels on surrounding streets. As shown in Table XIII-3 within the SCEA, Project-related traffic would not increase ambient noise levels by more than 5 dBA or result in a change in land use compatibility classifications for sensitive receptors. Therefore, Originally Approved Plan-related traffic would be less than significant. Furthermore, Table XIII-4 shows that a cumulative traffic noise impact would occur along Lost Canyon Road between Jakes Way and Medley Ridge Drive because cumulative plus Project traffic noise levels would result in greater than a 3 dBA increase in traffic noise levels, as well as a change in the land use compatibility classification from “normally acceptable” to “conditionally acceptable.” However, the Originally Approved Plan would only contribute approximately 1 dBA to the overall 12 dBA noise level increase, which is an increase of noise levels that would not be perceptible to the human ear.

1.f
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 61
DECEMBER 2024
Given the Originally Approved Plan’s projected increase of 1 dBA, well below the roadway noise impact threshold of 3 dBA, the Originally Approved Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in traffic noise levels along Lost Canyon Road. Based on the above information, the SCEA determined that the Originally Approved Plan would not expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of established standard within the General Plan or SCMC, and Originally Approved Plan impacts would therefore be less than significant.

The Modified Plan is located within the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi-family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and up to 946 new residents.

Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of units constructed and residents generated compared to the Originally Approved Plan, and thus, would result in a reduced impact to operational traffic noise and resident-generated noise. In addition, the Modified Plan would require less HVAC units compared to the Originally Approved Plan, resulting in a reduced HVAC noise impact. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to exposure of people to or generation of noise levels in excess of established standards and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. b) Would the Modified Plan result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
As discussed within the SCEA, the construction equipment that would generate the highest levels of vibration and are necessary for development of the Originally Approved Plan include rollers, loaded trucks, and bulldozers. The City does not have established significance criteria to assess vibration impacts; however, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) developed limits for the assessment of vibrations from transportation and construction sources which were used to assess Originally Approved Plan impacts. Vibration-generating construction equipment, including bulldozers and rollers used for grading and paving of the Specific Plan area, would occasionally pass by off-site structures and would operate as close as 100 feet away from the nearest structure located within the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area immediately north of the site (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Bulldozers and loaded trucks would generate vibrations for longer periods of time at locations of proposed on-site structures and would operate as close as 115 feet from the nearest structure located within the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area. As shown in Table XIII-6 in the SCEA, Originally Approved Plan vibration levels would not exceed the human annoyance or structural damage thresholds for occasional pass-bys of construction equipment or for extended periods of construction activities. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels during construction, and furthermore, given that the Project is a residential land use, it does not include significant stationary sources of vibration such as manufacturing or heavy equipment operations (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of units constructed and residents generated compared to the Originally Approved Plan. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information relating to vibration. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan

1.f
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 62
DECEMBER 2024
would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact.

Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to exposure of people to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) Would the Modified Plan result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
As discussed in the SCEA response to Checklist Question XIII(a), or Section 3.13(a) above, noise generated during operation of the Originally Approved Plan would be below the City’s established thresholds.

Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project area above established levels, and impacts would therefore be less than significant.

The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi-family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and up to 946 new residents. Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of units constructed and residents generated compared to the Originally Approved Plan, and thus, would result in a reduced impact relating to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels as less people would be residing and generating noise within the Specific Plan area. In addition, the Modified Plan would require less HVAC units compared to the Originally Approved Plan, resulting in a reduced HVAC noise impact. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information relating to in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. d) Would the Modified Plan result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? As discussed in the SCEA response to Checklist Question XIII(a), or Section 3.13(a) above, noise generated during construction of the Originally Approved Plan would be below the City’s established thresholds.

Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project area above established levels, and impacts would therefore be less than significant.

1.f
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 63
DECEMBER 2024
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The SCEA states that there are no public use airports in Santa Clarita, and that no portion of the City is within an airport land use plan (ALUP). The nearest airport to the Specific Plan area is the Whiteman Airport located approximately 10 miles south of the Specific Plan area. As such, the Originally Approved Plan would not be within an ALUP, would not expose people residing or working in the Originally Approved Plan area to excessive noise levels, and therefore, no impact would occur.

The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed, and there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new significant impacts relating to exposure of people to excessive noise levels and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.

3.14 Population and Housing

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere (especially affordable
housing)?
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
SCEA Analysis Summary – Originally Approved Plan
Potential impacts to population and housing were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-165 through 4-169.

Potential impacts related to inducing substantial population growth, displacement of existing housing, and displacement of people were determined to be less than significant or were determined to have no impact.

1.f
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 64
DECEMBER 2024
Modified Plan Analysis
a) Would the Modified Plan induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The SCEA states that as of January 1, 2020, according to the California Department of Finance (DOF), the City had an estimated population of 221,932, a total housing stock of 77, 008 units, and a housing vacancy rate of 3.7%. As discussed in the SCEA, development of the Originally Approved Plan would result in the construction of 498 new residential units and would generate approximately 1,479 new residents, using the DOF’s average number of persons per household in the City of 2.97, which would represent a 0.7% increase in the January 2020 citywide population or approximately 4% of the total City growth forecast for 2045 as identified in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. These were conservative estimates for the Originally Approved Plan as the actual number of people that would occupy the Project would likely be less as Planning Area 2 and 3 include market-rate, age-qualified units and because Planning Area 3 would also include 169 units that are affordable senior apartments (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Given this, the Originally Approved Plan’s share of forecast growth is not considered significant. Furthermore, the proposed infrastructure improvements would be sized for the needs of the Project and would not provide capacity for or extensions to other properties that could induce growth outside of the Specific Plan area.

According to the SCEA, SCAG calculated the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation for the City for the 2013-2021 Housing Element which was applicable at the time of the SCEA’s drafting as 10,981 units, with 1,532 moderate income units and 1,678 low income units. The total housing units in the City increased between 2013 and 2021 by 6,012 units, falling short of the 10,981 unit target set by SCAG (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would assist the City in reaching the housing development targets set by SCAG. As such, the Originally Approved Plan would not induce substantial growth, and impacts would be less than significant.

1.f
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 65
DECEMBER 2024
substantial numbers of existing housing. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
c) Would the Modified Plan displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
As stated above, the Specific Plan area is undeveloped and does not contain existing housing, and therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not displace any people. No impact would occur.

The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed, and there are no changed circumstances or new information relating to displacement of substantial numbers of people. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to displacement of substantial numbers of people and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.

3.15 Public Services

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project result in:
a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
SCEA Analysis Summary – Originally Approved Plan
Potential impacts to public services were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-169 through 4-177. The SCEA determined that impacts to public services would be less than significant.

1.f
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 66
DECEMBER 2024
Modified Plan Analysis
a) Would the Modified Plan result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
As discussed in the SCEA, fire suppression and emergency medical response services for the Specific Plan area are provided by the LACoFD specifically with 16 fire stations and 15 engine companies, 5 paramedic squads, 1 hazardous materials squad, and 2 ladder trucks serve the Santa Clarita Valley. The nearest fire station to the Specific Plan area is LACoFD Station 107 located approximately 0.7-mile northwest of the site while the second nearest fire station, Station 150, is located approximately 2 miles southwest of the site (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would construct 498 residential units adjacent to the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area, which is a large scale residential and commercial development, and near to other single- and multi-family residential developments to the west and south.

Thus, the SCEA determined that since the Originally Approved Plan would not represent a unique land use or type of construction, the Originally Approved Plan would not require additional fire department resources and impacts would therefore be less than significant.

The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. Furthermore, the Modified Plan would reduce the total number of new units constructed and new residents generated. There are also no changed circumstances or new information relating to fire protection. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to fire protection services and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. ii) Police protection?
As discussed in the SCEA, police protection services for the Specific Plan area are provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) who strive to maintain a service ratio of approximately one officer for every 1,000 residents within the communities it serves. The Specific Plan area would be serviced by the LASD Santa Clarita Valley Station located approximately 4 miles northwest of the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would increase the demand for police services upon buildout as new residential units would be constructed and, as such, to maintain the service ratio identified by the LASD, the Originally Approved Plan would require 1.5 new officers. LASD adopted a funding program in 2008 for capital facilities needed to meet the law enforcement needs of expected growth in the Santa Clarita Valley through collection of a law enforcement impact fee which both the City and the County collect from new development permits to fund future facilities (City of Santa Clarita 2020). At the time the SCEA was being drafted, a new Santa Clarita LASD Station, approximately 3.6 miles west of the Specific Plan area, was being constructed and is now operational. The new police station has adequate space and is expected to improve the level of service provided by the Santa Clarita Valley Station (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Therefore, the need for an additional 1.5 new police officers from Originally Approved Plan implementation would not require the new construction or expansion of any LASD facilities, and thus, impacts would be less than significant.

1.f
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 67
DECEMBER 2024
and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents.

Thus, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of new residents and, thus, a reduced number of new police officers required to accommodate the Modified Plan compared to the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to police protection services and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
iii) Schools?
The Originally Approved Plan would generate approximately 1,479 new residents within the Specific Plan area by constructing 498 new residential units, many of which would likely include one or more school-age children who would attend local schools (City of Santa Clarita 2020). However, as discussed in the SCEA, 169 of the Originally Approved Plan units would be age-qualified apartments and affordable senior apartments, and would, therefore, not include a substantial number of school-age children. The Specific Plan area is within the Sulphur Springs Union School District and the William S. Hart Union High School District, but the Originally Approved Plan residents would likely attend Sulphur Springs Community School, La Mesa Junior High School, and Golden Valley High School (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA states that both school district make decisions on how to respond to enrollment changes with respect to optimizing existing resources and facilities or constructing new facilities and that planned development in both districts may increase enrollment. Planned development within the Sulphur Springs Union School District boundaries may increase enrollment in transitional kindergarten through sixth grade students and affect the existing overcrowded capacity of Sulphur Springs Community School while planned development within the William S. Hart Union High School District boundaries, including the Originally Approved Plan, may increase enrollment in junior high and high school students and affect the overcrowded capacity of La Mesa Junior High School and Golden Valley High School (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As disclosed in the SCEA, new school sites may be necessary as a result of implementation of the Originally Approved Plan and both districts assess development impact fees, which the Originally Approved Plan would be required to pay under SB 50, to help finance new and expanded facilities needed to accommodate population growth and increasing enrollments. Thus, impacts to schools would be less than significant.

1.5 to 2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents through 20 existing parks as of 2020 (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would increase the population of the City and would be required to

1.f
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 68
DECEMBER 2024
provide approximately 7.4 acres of parkland, including open space, recreation opportunities, and public/private parks featuring approximately 3.4 acres of common open space and recreational facilities.

The City has adopted a parkland fee ordinance pursuant to the State’s Quimby Act, which allows local agencies to collect impact fees from residential projects to finance the acquisition and development of new parkland to serve local residents (City of Santa Clarita 2020). SCMC Section 17.51.010(E) allows developers to dedicate land, build parks to serve residents of a new development, or pay in-lieu fees to the City for parkland acquisition and development. As disclosed in the SCEA, the City determined that the Originally Approved Plan does not include 7.4 acres available for dedication and would instead pay in-lieu fees as a condition of approval toward existing and future improvements at nearby parks, including Canyon Country Park, Fair Oaks Park, and the expansion of Canyon Country Community Center. Thus, the Originally Approved Plan would not require the provision of new or physically altered parks beyond the existing and future improvements identified, and, therefore, Originally Approved Plan impacts would be less than significant.

The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multifamily and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Thus, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of new residents and, thus, a reduced number of residents potentially using park facilities. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information related to parks. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to parks and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. v) Other public facilities?
The SCEA states that although the Originally Approved Plan includes on-site recreational facilities, such as pools and community gathering areas, future residents may occasionally visit other public facilities, such as senior centers, community centers, pools, and libraries. The additional residents generated by the Originally Approved Plan would have a less-than-significant impact on facilities as only a small percentage of residents would visit a particular facility on a given day (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As disclosed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would not result in a need to construct new types of “other” public facilities and would adhere to the requirements of SCMC Section 17.51.010(C) which requires a proposed residential land use to pay the Library Facilities and Technology Mitigation Fee as a condition of approval to acquire a land use permit or entitlement. Payment of this fee would sufficiently offset the Originally Approved Plan’s increase in demand for local public libraries and contribute to the City’s efforts to improve existing libraries and resources. Thus, the Originally Approved Plan would not result in a need to construct new libraries or other public facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

1.f
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 69
DECEMBER 2024

3.16 Recreation

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XVI. RECREATION – Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
SCEA Analysis Summary – Originally Approved Plan
Potential impacts to recreation were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-177 through 4-179. Potential impacts to existing parks or recreational facilities were determined to be less than significant while potential construction of new recreational facilities was determined to have no impact.

Modified Plan Analysis
a) Would the Modified Plan increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The SCEA states that the Originally Approved Plan would provide outdoor recreation areas for residents and amenities such as parks, playgrounds, pools, courtyards, landscaped areas, club houses, and trials, some which would connect to nearby regional recreational facilities include the multi-use trails within the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area and along the Santa Clara River. These on-site recreational amenities would reduce the impact on municipal recreation facilities as would the requirement to pay development impact fees designed to offset a development’s impact on municipal recreational facilities (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, the Originally Approved Plan is not expected to result in or expediate substantial physical deterioration of any existing recreational facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

1.f
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 70
DECEMBER 2024
would not result in any new or different impacts relating to existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
b) Does the Modified Plan include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? As discussed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan is not anticipated to substantially increase the demand on municipal parks and recreation facilities in the City, thus requiring construction or expansion of any facilities. The Originally Approved Plan includes outdoor recreation and open space areas and trails, including an outdoor public plaza on the east side of the Specific Plan area which would connect the site to the Metrolink station and to commercial uses, trials, and other amenities within the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to construction or expansion of recreational facilities and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.

3.17 Transportation

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance, or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit
and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,
and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but
not limited to, level of service standards
and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?

1.f
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 71
DECEMBER 2024

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
c) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
SCEA Analysis Summary – Originally Approved Plan
Potential impacts to transportation were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-179 through 4-191. Potential impacts relating to transportation were determined to be less than significant or were determined to result in no impact.

Modified Plan Analysis
a) Would the Modified Plan conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
As discussed in the SCEA, the existing circulation network in the Originally Approved Plan area includes the roadway network surrounding the Specific Plan area; transit service including the Metrolink commuter train service and Santa Clarita Transit bus service; and a network of Class I, Class II, and Class III bicycle routes.

Metrolink operates three stations within the City, the Santa Clarita, New Hall, and Via Princessa Metrolink Stations. The same rail line is occasionally used by freight trains when the Union Pacific Railroad line is closed or restricted (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Furthermore, the Antelope Valley Line that runs throughout the City provides access to the City of Lancaster to the north and to Union Station in Los Angeles. As detailed within the SCEA, the Via Princessa Metrolink Station, located less than 500 feet northeast of the Specific Plan area, was replaced by a new station as part of development of the Vista Canyon Multi-Modal Center.

Santa Clarita Transit provides local bus transit services and commuter express routes. A Class I bicycle path runs along the Santa Clara River west of Deep Creek Drive and two Class II bike lanes are within Soledad Canyon Road and Jason Drive (City of Santa Clarita 2020).

Vehicle access to the Specific Plan area would be provided by two unsignalized driveways along Harriman Drive, while the eastern driveway at the intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street could also be used to access the site via Cooper Street. The Vista Canyon Multi-Modal Center located immediately within

1.f
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 72
DECEMBER 2024
500 feet northeast of the Specific Plan area provides bus and rail transit services to the site. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the Specific Plan area would be provided via two sidewalks with marked pedestrian crossings at the two driveways along Harriman Drive. The Originally Approved Plan would include sidewalks and marked pedestrian crossings on all public roads adjacent to the Specific Plan area, while the Project would also connect to a series of mixed-use tails including the Santa Clara River trail at the intersection of Lost Canyon Road and Jakes Way. On-site pedestrian and bicycle circulation would be provided by a series of walkways and trials that join the two driveway entrances to the Vista Canyon trail system. Given this, the SCEA determined that the Originally Approved Plan would not impede a planned or operating transit facility, or planned pedestrian or bicycle facility, and impacts to transit and nonmotorized transportation would be less than significant.

Construction of the Originally Approved Plan would last for approximately five years and would include three phases: (1) grading, (2) street and utility improvements, and (3) building construction. During each of these phases, off-site trips would be generated by construction workers and by large trucks used for a variety of construction purposes. The greatest number of daily passenger-car-equivalent (PCE) trips would occur during the building construction phase (472 daily PCE), with construction workers generating the majority of the construction-related traffic. Because construction workers often travel outside of typical commute hours, these trips are expected to have a negligible effect on the circulation network in the Originally Approved Plan area. Originally Approved Plan grading would be balanced on-site with cut soils used to level the site in preparation for the proposed residential development, and as the Specific Plan area is vacant, preparation would not require a substantial number of haul trucks that could result in roadway closures or detours (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Additionally, because the Specific Plan area is currently located at the terminus of Lost Canyon Road, construction activities would not substantially disrupt traffic movements or require temporary traffic control. Given this, a construction management plan is not required for the Originally Approved Plan, and no substantial impacts to the circulation network would be generated during construction. Impacts to the circulation network during construction would be less than significant.

The City’s VMT guidelines and thresholds state that, absent evidence indicating a project would generate a significant level of VMT, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day may be assumed to cause a less than significant impact, and that projects within TPAs may be exempt from a VMT analysis (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As discussed in the SCEA, although the Originally Approved Plan would generate more than 110 trips per day, the Originally Approved Plan would connect via a walking trail to the adjacent Vista Canyon Multi-Modal Center and its substantial bus services, park-and-ride lot, and new Metrolink commuter rail station along the existing Antelope Canyon Line. The Originally Approved Plan was also required to satisfy the following criteria to allow for screening under the City’s and OPR’s VMT Guidance:

1. Has a floor area ratio (FAR) of greater than 0.75;

2. Does not include more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees than other typical nearby uses, or more than required by the City;

3. Is consistent with the applicable SCS (as determined by the lead agency); and

4. Does not replace affordable residential units with a small number of moderate- or high-income residential units.

As detailed within the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan was determined to have a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.76, above the requirement of Criterion No. 1. Regarding Criterion No. 2, the Originally Approved Plan was required to provide a total of 902 parking spaces in line with the regulations of the MetroWalk Specific

1.f
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 73
DECEMBER 2024
Plan to maintain the Project’s pedestrian-oriented character and accessibility to transit, amenities, and daily services intended to minimize vehicle trips and parking demand. Although, the parking supply would be less than that the required by the SCMC, the Originally Approved Plan would meet the requirements of the MetroWalk Specific Plan and would meet Criterion No. 2. The Originally Approved Plan was determined to be consistent with Criterion No. 3 as the Project would be located adjacent to the Vista Canyon MultiModal Center and would be a transit-oriented development with connecting walkable/bikeable trails from the residential community to the station. Regarding Criterion No. 4, the Specific Plan area is currently vacant and would not remove or replace any affordable residential units and would therefore be consistent with Criterion No. 4 and would be screen from VMT analysis (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As such, the City presumed that the Originally Approved Plan would have a less than significant impact.

Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would be consistent with the VMT screening criteria, as it:

1. Continues to have a floor area ratio (FAR) of greater than 0.75;

2. Continues to not include more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees than other typical nearby uses, or more than required by the City;

3. Continues to be consistent with the applicable SCS (as determined by the lead agency); and

4. Continues to not replace affordable residential units with a small number of moderate- or highincome residential units. To this end, there is no affordable residential unit replacement with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units.

The Modified Plan would continue to be consistent with all of the City’s criteria for VMT screening and would not require a VMT analysis. In addition, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would result in a less than significant impact.

Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to conflicts with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
b) Would the Modified Plan conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? The SCEA states that the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) is managed at a County-level and was established statewide in 1990 to implement Proposition 111, linking transportation, land use, and air quality decisions. However, the City and other cities, in partnership with Los Angeles County Metro, elected to be exempt from the California CMP in accordance with the CMP statute. As such, a CMP analysis is no longer applicable in the City’s environmental documents, and no impact would occur.

1.f
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 74
DECEMBER 2024
The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multifamily and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. A CMP analysis is still not required for environmental documents in the City. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to conflicts with an applicable congestion management program or other standards established by the County and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) Would the Modified Plan result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The Specific Plan area is not within an ALUP or within 2 miles of a public or public use airport as none exist within the City (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, the Originally Approved Plan would not affect any airport facilities or cause a change in the directional patterns of aircrafts. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not cause a change in air traffic patterns or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks, and no impact would occur.

The Specific Plan area has not changed and would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi-family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact.

Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to a change in air traffic patterns and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
d) Would the Modified Plan substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? As stated above and within the SCEA, access to the Specific Plan area would be provided by two unsignalized driveways along Harriman Drive, as well as an eastern driveway at the intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street while on-site circulation would be provided by a network of internal roadways, many of which would have on-street parking. Two internal intersections would be roundabouts with final design being subject to City review to ensure proper accommodations, and there would be no sharp curves or geometric design features within the internal driveway or surface parking lots that could create circulation hazards (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would not generate incompatible uses of area roadways that could impar circulation or safety and the internal circulation system would meet the mandatory design standards of the City as they relate to width, intersection control, and sight distance.

Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses, and no impact would occur.

The Modified Plan does not propose changes to the circulation network and improvements. The entry points to the community would remain the same, and there would be no introduction of hazardous design features, such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections, nor would there be incompatible uses. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi-family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Further, there

1.f
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 75
DECEMBER 2024
are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact.

Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to substantially increasing hazards due to a design feature and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
e) Would the Modified Plan result in inadequate emergency access? As discussed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan’s ingress/egress and circulation network are required to meet the standards of LACoFD which ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles.

Furthermore, final Project plans are subject to review and approval by the LACoFD to ensure the site’s compliance with all LACoFD ordinances and policies. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not cause significant impacts due to inadequate emergency access, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Modified Plan circulation network would still be required to adhere to all LACoFD ordinances and policies. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi-family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. The Modified Plan’s reduction in dwelling units would reduce the number of dwelling units and residences who would utilize surrounding roadways, and the Modified Plan’s access to surrounding roadways would remain the same. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to inadequate emergency access and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. f) Would the Modified Plan conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? As discussed in the SCEA and in 3.17(a) above, the Originally Approved Plan would not impede a planned or operating transit facility, or a planned bicycle or pedestrian facility. The City’s Transit Development Plan (TDP) ensures that transit accessibility is not negatively impacted by development projects that would increase transit ridership. The TDP also identifies transit infrastructure improvements, none of which would be impaired by the Originally Approved Plan (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan is designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle activities as transportation modes within the MetroWalk development and within surrounding areas. The Originally Approved Plan includes a series of pedestrian walkways ranging from 4 feet wide to 10 feet wide, an 8-foot-wide pedestrian walkway connecting the northeast portion of the Specific Plan area to the Vista Canyon Transit Center, ensuring transit options are accessible to Project residents, and includes a sidewalk along Harriman Drive’s frontage that connects to a sidewalk on the east side of Lost Canyon Road. The Originally Approved Plan also includes a 1-mile-long landscaped trail that would connect the retail uses within the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area, the Metrolink Station, and the Specific Plan area. The SCEA states that these Originally Approved Plan features are consistent with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element goals of a multi-modal circulation network.

As evaluated in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan is a transit-oriented development that would construct 498 residential units in close proximity to commuter rail and bus service at the Multi-Modal Transit Center and the Metrolink Vista Canyon Station which would likely increase transit ridership. While the Originally Approved Plan would likely increase rail and bus ridership, these increases are planned for in SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and the Santa Clarita OVOV General Plan through goals and policies that

1.f
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 76
DECEMBER 2024
encourage transit-oriented development and multi-modal projects (City of Santa Clarita 2020). In addition, the SCEA states that impacts relating to the increase in transit ridership would be offset by the Originally Approved Plan’s provision of approximately 902 surface parking spaces and by the Project’s requirement to pay the City’s Transit Facilities Mitigation Fee, which was established to mitigate adverse impacts due to the inadequacy of transit facilities that might otherwise occur due to new residential development.

Therefore, because the Originally Approved Plan would not conflict with an adopted policy, plan, or program regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and because the Project would pay the City’s Transit Facilities Mitigation Fee, impacts would be less than significant.

Similar to development under the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would pay the City’s transit mitigation fee and would provide parking spaces for Project residents pursuant to the ratios provided in the amended Specific Plan. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi-family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing
in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in
a local register of historical
resources as defined in
Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k), or

1.f
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 77
DECEMBER 2024

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
ii) A resource determined by
the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code § 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resource Code §
5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the
significance of the
resource to a California
Native American tribe.

SCEA Analysis Summary – Originally Approved Plan
Potential impacts to tribal cultural resources were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-192 through 4-194.

The SCEA determined that impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation upon implementation of Project-specific MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-3. These mitigation measures are included below:

MM TCR-1: The Project shall retain a professional Native American monitor procured by the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians to observe all ground-disturbing activities, including, but not limited to, excavating, digging, trenching, plowing, drilling, tunneling, quarrying, grading, leveling, clearing, driving posts, auguring, backfilling, blasting, stripping topsoil or a similar activity, and any archaeological work conducted during Project construction. If cultural resources are encountered, the Native American monitor shall have the authority to request ground-disturbing activities to cease within 60 feet of discovery to assess and document the potential finds in real time.

MM TCR-2: If significant pre-contact and/or postcontact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop an Archaeological Treatment Plan (ATP), the drafts of which shall be provided to the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians for review and comments. The ATP shall provide details regarding the process for in-field treatment of inadvertent discoveries and the disposition of inadvertently discovered non-funerary resources.

MM TCR-3: The City and applicant shall, in good faith, consult with the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of any tribal cultural resource encountered during all ground-disturbing activities.

1.f
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 78
DECEMBER 2024
Modified Plan Analysis
a) Would the Modified Plan cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
AND
b) Would the Modified Plan cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
As discussed in the SCEA, in compliance with SB 18, the City sent notification letters to the 14 Tribal Representatives on the Tribal Consultation List received from the NAHC on October 9, 2020, and pursuant to AB 52, the City sent a formal notification letter to the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (Tataviam) on October 20, 2020. The Tataviam responded to commence formal consultation with the City for the Originally Approved Plan while the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians also responded that the tribe may wish to request formal consultation; however, no further information from the Santa Ynez was received by the City at the time of the publication of the SCEA. In addition, the San Fernando Band of Mission Indians (SFBMI) also responded and expressed interest in the Project; SFBMI did not request formal consultation but requested to be notified of public hearings (City of Santa Clarita 2020). A records search was conducted at the SCCIC which identified three previously conducted cultural resources studies that overlap or intersect with the Specific Plan area and which revealed no cultural resources on the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). In addition, consultation with the NAHC regarding their records as well as a pedestrian survey of the Specific Plan area conducted by an archaeologist and a Tataviam Native American Monitor did not identify any cultural resources on the Specific Plan area. As discussed further in the SCEA, although the records searches and pedestrian survey did not identify any cultural resources don the Specific Plan area, the Tataviam expressed concern regarding the site’s location within a culturallysensitive area and referred to their records which indicate the presence of several tribal cultural resource sites and isolated resources surrounding the Specific Plan area in addition to the Santa Clara River which is known to the Tataviam as a historic and sacred tribal cultural resource. Moreover, the Tataviam acknowledged that, although portions of the Specific Plan area currently contain redeposited fill, the natural undisturbed surface of the Specific Plan area remains buried under the fill and was not assessed during the intensive pedestrian survey (City of Santa Clarita 2020). To address any inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources on the Specific Plan area during construction, Project-specific MM-TCR-1 through MMTCR-3 have been identified and incorporated into the Project to reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to a level of less than significant. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures, the Originally Approved Plan would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

1.f
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 79
DECEMBER 2024
The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multifamily and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. As there would be fewer dwelling units, there would be less ground disturbance activities that could potentially implicate tribal cultural resources. The Modified Plan would continue to incorporate Project-specific mitigation measures MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-3. With respect to changed circumstances and new information, the Project site has undergone rough grading, and installation of select utilities. The fire water lines have been completed, the trenching for domestic water and dry utilities has been completed, the backbone loop road has been constructed, and traffic signals at the intersections of both Los Canyon Drive/Medley Ridge Drive and Lost Canyon Drive/Canyon Park Boulevard have been raised.

Additionally, the onsite detention basin has been completed. The Project-specific mitigation measures would continue to apply. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in an impact of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to tribal cultural resources and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of
new stormwater drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources,
or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing
commitments?

1.f
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 80
DECEMBER 2024

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal
needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
SCEA Analysis Summary – Originally Approved Plan
Potential impacts to utilities and service systems were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-194 through 4- 206. All potential impacts related to water, wastewater, stormwater, sufficient water supplies, and landfills were determined to be less than significant.

Modified Plan Analysis
a) Would the Modified Plan exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
As discussed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan is solely a residential development and therefore none of the proposed uses would generate atypical wastewater, and that all wastewater generated under the Project is expected to be domestic sewage. Wastewater treatment facilities operated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) are designed to treat domestic sewage in compliance with requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, the SCEA determined that typical domestic sewage does not exceed requirements of the existing wastewater treatment system and that the Originally Approved Plan would result in a less than significant impact.

The analysis within the SCEA remains largely accurate with respect to the Modified Plan, although, the Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi-family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents.

Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced total amount of wastewater generated compared to the Originally Approved Plan. There are also no changed circumstances or new information with respect to wastewater treatment requirements. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact.

Thus, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to wastewater treatment requirements and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
b) Would the Modified Plan require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The SCEA states that water service to the Specific Plan area is provided by the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (SCVWA). The Originally Approved Plan would include new connections to the existing potable water system infrastructure, including a 48-inch SCVWA potable water pipeline that crosses the Specific Plan area

1.f
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 81
DECEMBER 2024
from the southwest to the intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street, a 12-inch potable water pipeline within Harriman Drive, and a 6-inch recycled water pipeline within Lost Canyon Road, Harriman Drive, and Cooper Street, and would connect to the existing 12-inch potable water pipeline within Harriman Drive at two locations: approximately 440 linear feet east of the intersection of Harriman Drive and Lost Canyon Road and at the intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street (City of Santa Clarita 2020). In addition, a network of smaller lines would be located within the planned roadway network providing water to the proposed residential units and recycled water from the Vista Canyon Specific Plan Project immediately north of the Specific Plan area would satisfy the Originally Approved Plan’s demand for nonpotable water (City of Santa Clarita 2020).

Wastewater treatment for the Santa Clarita Valley is provided by the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District, a part of the Sanitation District’s regional wastewater treatment system. The Sanitation Districts operate two, interconnected water reclamation plants (WRPs) in the Valley, the Saugus WRP and the Valencia WRP, which operate under a joint powers agreement to serve the residents of the Valley. The Vista Canyon WRP, associated with the Vista Canyon Project, is located immediately north of the Specific Plan area and would treat the wastewater generated by the Originally Approved Plan while all solids would be conveyed to the Valencia WRP. The Vista Canyon WRP would provide recycled water to the Specific Plan area for non-potable use, such as for landscaping needs (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As detailed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would connect to two existing north-south, 10-inch sewer pipelines, one of which is located approximately 440 linear feet east of the intersection of Harriman Drive and Lost Canyon Road, and the other of which is located at the intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street. Overall, the Originally Approved Plan would be within the existing service capacities of water and wastewater service purveyors and that the only water or wastewater improvements necessary are on-site connections to the existing infrastructure which are subject to connection fees (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Therefore, the SCEA determined that the Originally Approved Plan would not require or result in the construction or expansion of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, and that impacts would therefore be less than significant.

The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multifamily and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced total amount of water demand and wastewater generated compared to the Originally Approved Plan due to the significant reduction of residents generated. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information with respect to the water or wastewater providers’ existing facilities and the Modified Plan’s reduced demand for water and generation of wastewater. Thus, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to construction or expansion of water or wastewater treatment facilities and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.
c) Would the Modified Plan require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? As described in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would require the construction of new drainage and water quality features to create a system that protects development from erosion and potential flooding and preserves the Santa Clara River. The Originally Approved Plan would include construction of conventional drainage improvements like storm drains and retention/detention systems, and also envisions using sustainable drainage and water quality techniques such as infiltration basins, biofiltration areas, vegetated swales, and filter strips (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA states that the primary purpose of the LID practices utilized by the Originally Approved Plan is to maintain landscape functionality

1.f
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 82
DECEMBER 2024
equivalent to predevelopment hydrologic conditions and to minimize stormwater pollutants of concern. As required by the City and by the countywide MS4 permit, the final design of the development must be engineered so that post-development peak runoff discharge rates are equal to or less than predevelopment peak runoff rates. It was determined that the Originally Approved Plan’s engineered stormwater system would be complaint with the MS4 and NPDES permit requirements and would not exceed capacity of the existing 42-inch storm drain near the northwestern corner of the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, the SCEA determined that the Originally Approved Plan would not require or result in the construction of new off-site stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities off-site, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multifamily and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Given the reduction in impervious surfaces as a result of converting a portion of the Specific Plan area to single-family dwellings and/or duplexes, the Modified Plan would result in a reduction of stormwater flows. Nevertheless, the Originally Approved Plan’s stormwater drainage facilities would remain the same, even if there is a small reduction in stormwater flows. Additionally, there are no changed circumstances or new information with respect to stormwater drainage facilities. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Thus, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to construction or expansion of stormwater drainage facilities and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. d) Would the Modified Plan have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? SCVWA adopted the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in 2016, which provides a detailed summary of present and future water resources and demands within the SCVWA service area and assesses the Valley’s water resource needs. The SCVWA’s water sources come from the State Water Project and local groundwater is generated by the Santa Clara River (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As discussed in the SCEA and as analyzed in the UWMP, projected water supplies in the UWMP greatly exceed the projected water demand for the SCVWA service area in 2020 and in 2050. The Originally Approved Plan would generate a total water demand of 116 gallons per minute (gpm) on an average day, with 103 gpm being required for the proposed residential uses, 7 gpm being required for the irrigated landscaping, parks, and community center, and 6 gpm required for the four pools (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As disclosed by the SCEA, this average daily demand for the Originally Approved Plan would represent approximately 0.3% of current water supply and approximately 0.3% of available water supplies in 2050, when including planned water supplies.

As such, existing water supplies are sufficient to serve the Originally Approved Plan, the Project would not require new or expanded water entitlements, and impacts would be less than significant.

1.f
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 83
DECEMBER 2024
impact. Thus, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to sufficient water supplies and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. e) Would the Modified Plan result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
See the discussion above under Section 3.19(b) for more information regarding this impact. Given the discussion within the SCEA and Section 3.19(b) above which states that recycled water from the Vista Canyon Specific Plan Project immediately north of the Specific Plan area would satisfy the Originally Approved Plan’s demand for non-potable water and that the Originally Approved Plan would be within the existing service capacities of water and wastewater services and would not require or result in the construction or expansion of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, impacts relating to wastewater would therefore be less than significant.

The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multifamily and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced total amount of wastewater generated compared to the Originally Approved Plan. The wastewater treatment provider would continue to be able to serve the Modified Plan as wastewater generation would be reduced compared to the Originally Approved Project since there would be a significant reduction in residents generated. There are no other changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Thus, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has adequate capacity to serve the Modified Plan and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. f) Would the Modified Plan be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
As discussed in the SCEA, there are three Class III (nonhazardous) landfills that serve the City which all have significant remaining capacities. The Originally Approved Plan would generate approximately 2,644 pounds (3.3 cubic yards) of solid waste per day which the existing landfills have sufficient capacity to handle, and the Project would be required to comply with the City’s and California’s solid waste diversion regulations (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

1.f
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 84
DECEMBER 2024
g) Would the Modified Plan comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The SCEA states that the California Integrated Waste Management Act required that jurisdictions maintain a 50% or better diversion rate for solid waste which the City implements through its franchised Solid Waste Management Services. Per the agreements between the City and the franchised trash disposal companies, each franchisee is responsible for meeting the minimum recycling diversion rate of 50% on a quarterly basis (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan is required to comply with the applicable solid waste franchisee’s recycling system and, thus, would meet the City’s and California’s solid waste diversion regulations. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not conflict with any statutes or regulating regarding solid waste and impacts would be less than significant.

As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would result in a less than significant impact. Thus, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to compliance with applicable solid waste regulations and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.

3.20 Wildfire

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose project occupants
to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result
in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?

1.f
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 85
DECEMBER 2024

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
SCEA Analysis Summary – Originally Approved Plan
Wildfire impacts were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-206 through 4-212. Potential wildfire impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Modified Plan Analysis
a) Would the Modified Plan substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
As discussed in the SCEA, the City has a HMP that provides the overall direction for efforts by the City’s agencies, organizations, and citizens to mitigate risk from natural and man-made hazards. Section 7 of the HMP addressed wildfire hazards within the City and provides a framework for communications, decisions, and actions by emergency response personnel for emergencies requiring evacuation. Further, the command structure of the HMP would assess local conditions in an ongoing manner to identify locations and severity of threats to all types of land uses (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA determined that the Originally Approved Plan would increase the number of residents and employees that could be affected during a wildfire event in the area and would incrementally add to the scale and complexity of evacuation procedures, but also determined that Originally Approved Plan residents would be able to adequately travel north or south, connecting to major roadways for the purpose of evacuation. As such, and given MMs included in the 2020-2040 RTP/SCS that provide local and regional strategies for responding to emergency events and hazards that are incorporated into the Originally Approved Plan, the City’s existing emergency response system would be sufficient to allow evacuation of the Specific Plan area in the event of future wildfires in the Project area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Development of the Originally Approved Plan would not substantially impair the City’s HMP’s emergency response protocols, and impacts would therefore be less than significant.

Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.

1.f
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 86
DECEMBER 2024
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Modified Plan occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is relatively flat and contains very little natural vegetation due to extensive past disturbances, with the exception of some California sage scrub primarily located on the eastern side of the Specific Plan area. Additionally, the Specific Plan area is within a VHFHSZ identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (City of Santa Clarita 2020). With implementation of the Originally Approved Plan, wildfire risk would be reduced on the Specific Plan area compared to existing conditions as the site would be developed with impervious surfaces or managed landscaped areas. In addition, the Originally Approved Plan would be designed to the stringent standards of the LACoFD to resist fire ignition and slow the spread of fire, and no building permits would be issued by the City until construction plans have been reviewed and determined to be in full compliance with all applicable standards for development within a VHFHSZ, which include requirements for fire-resistant building materials, sprinkler systems in all homes, certain water flow pressures for fire hydrants, and adequate internal circulation and site access for fire engines and crews (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA states that through implementation of the Originally Approved Plan’s proposed uses, fuel loads on the Specific Plan area would be reduced and would thus reduce the risk of a wildfire occurring or intensifying on-site and threatening surrounding properties. The Originally Approved Plan would not involve storage, use, or disposal of significant quantities of hazardous materials, and would not include any significant sources of hazardous materials that could add to the fuel load and produce harmful pollutants in the event of a wildfire (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As such, the Originally Approved Plan would not exacerbate wildfire risks and would not expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire, and therefore impacts would be less than significant.

The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multifamily and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of residents on the Specific Plan area compared to the Originally Approved Plan and would thus have a reduced effect of potential wildfire risk exposure to Project residents. There are no changed circumstances or new information with respect slope, prevailing winds, and other factors that could exacerbate wildfire risks. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to exacerbation of wildfire risks and exposure of people to wildfire risks and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) Would the Modified Plan require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? The Originally Approved Plan would develop the Specific Plan area that is located within a VHFHSZ with impervious surfaces including residential buildings, surface parking lots, drive aisles, outdoor gathering spaces and walking trails, and managed landscaped areas. The first stage of construction for the Originally Approved Plan would involve grading and clearing which would effectively remove all existing flammable vegetation from the Specific Plan area and would therefore reduce construction-related wildfire risks to a level of less than significant (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Furthermore, as detailed in the SCEA, all wet and dry utilities required for the Originally Approved Plan would be connected to existing utilities north of the Specific Plan area within Harriman Drive and would be underground, thus, reducing the risk of fire during operations. No additional wildfire-resistant design measures have been identified by LACoFD following their

1.f
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 87
DECEMBER 2024
review of the Originally Approved Plan. As such, the design of the Originally Approved Plan would not exacerbate wildfire risks or result in temporary or ongoing environmental impacts, and impacts would therefore be less than significant.

The Modified Plan would include residential uses, but with potential single-family and/or duplex uses in lieu of multi-family uses, and the Specific Plan area would continue to have all flammable vegetation removed during grading and clearing and would continue with plans to connect to undergrounded utilities within Harriman Drive north of the Specific Plan area. There are no changed circumstances or new information with respect to the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Thus, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to exacerbation of wildfire risks that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. d) Would the Modified Plan expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area would be transformed with implementation of the Project and would result in an effective reduction of the on-site vegetation fuel load and would reduce the risk that a wildfire would strip the site of vegetation, thus, creating possible flooding conditions due to bare land.

Furthermore, the Specific Plan area is relatively flat and is not within a landslide zone as identified by the California Department of Conservation, and therefore no landslide risks exist on the Specific Plan area that would be exacerbated by a wildfire (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, the SCEA determined that the Originally Approved Plan would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes, and impacts would therefore be less than significant.

The Modified Plan does not change the Specific Plan area. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi-family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of residents on the Specific Plan area compared to the Originally Approved Plan and would thus have a reduced effect of potential wildfire risk exposure to Project residents. The reduction in dwelling units would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information with respect to this topic. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to exposure of people or structures to significant wildfire risks and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified.

1.f
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 88
DECEMBER 2024

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
a) Does the Modified Plan have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
As discussed in the SCEA, based on the analysis within the Initial Study Checklist Section IV, Biological Resources, with incorporation of Project-specific mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2, the Originally Approved Plan would not have substantial impacts to special-status species or protected native birds. Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan would not affect the local, regional, or national populations or ranges of any plant or animal species and would not threaten any plant communities. The Originally Approved Plan would not impact historical or tribal cultural resources but would require the incorporation of MM-CUL-2 and MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-3 to ensure less than significant impacts to archaeological/paleontological and tribal cultural resources (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, with the incorporation of these mitigation measures, the Originally Approved Plan would not eliminate any important examples of California history or prehistory and would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the

1.f
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 89
DECEMBER 2024
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. As such, the SCEA determined that the Originally Approved Plan would not result in a mandatory finding of significance in this regard (City of Santa Clarita 2020).

Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. b) Does the Modified Plan have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
The SCEA states that the cumulative projects identified in the SCEA are located approximately 0.7 mile to

2.1 miles away from the Specific Plan area, with the exception of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan located adjacent to the north of the site and Related Project No. 8 located approximately 0.5 mile from the site.

Accordingly, these related projects are located sufficiently and physically distant from the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). When considering the Originally Approved Plan in combination with these projects in regard to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology, and hazards and hazardous materials, the Originally Approved Plan does not have the potential to cause any cumulative impacts due to the significant distances to the other projects from the Specific Plan area. As detailed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would have no impact, a less-than-significant impact, or a less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated, with respect to all environmental issues considered. Cumulative impacts of several resource areas have also been addressed in the individual resource sections, including Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, Noise, and Transportation/Traffic. CalEEMod was utilized to assess the air quality and GHG impacts resulting from the Originally Approved Plan, concluding less-than-significant impacts. Noise and traffic studies conducted as part of the SCEA both considered cumulative increases in traffic and concluded that the impacts of the Originally Approved Plan would not be cumulatively considerable, and, as such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Some of the other resource areas (agricultural and mineral resources) were determined to have no impact in comparison to existing conditions. The Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to these issues. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant and not cumulatively considerable.

Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable, and the Originally Approved Plan would not result in a mandatory finding of significance in this regard.

1.f
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 90
DECEMBER 2024
the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) Does the Modified Plan have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
As discussed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would not result in significant adverse effects to air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, geology and soils, hydrology, and noise with the incorporation of associated mitigation measures. In regard to air quality, construction and operational activities associated with the Originally Approved Plan would produce TACs in proximity to the residents (sensitive receptors) of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan Project. However, with incorporation of MM AQ-1, impacts would be less than significant. The SCEA also states that occupants of the Originally Approved Plan could be exposed to strong seismic ground shaking during earthquake events; however, the Originally Approved Plan would not exacerbate seismic risks, and the geologic conditions of the Specific Plan area (which is located within a liquefaction zone) would be alleviated by the required compliance with the California Building Standards Code, Santa Clarita Building Code, and other applicable codes. Construction activities would abide by all standard construction practices and regulatory requirements related to hazardous materials handling and disposal to reduce the risk of exposure during construction and to ensure that potential exposure risk of residents to on-site contaminants would be reduce to less than significant (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would not expose people to flooding, and noise impacts would not exceed applicable thresholds at adjacent sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would comply with all applicable rules and regulations and recommended motivation measures that would reduce potential impacts on human beings to less than significant. The Originally Approved Plan would not result in a mandatory finding of significance in this regard.

1.f
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 91
DECEMBER 2024
4 Addendum Conclusion
As demonstrated by the analysis and discussion above, impacts associated with the Modified Plan would be similar to or less than the impacts identified within the SCEA and associated with the Originally Approved Plan. No substantial changes to the Originally Approved Plan would occur that would require major revisions of the SCEA due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. In addition, no changed circumstances or new information of substantial importance have become available relative to any of the environmental topic categories that would result in new or more severe significant environmental impacts. Furthermore, the applicable mitigation measures incorporated into the Originally Approved Plan and the SCEA would continue to be implemented under the Modified Plan. All Modified Plan impacts would be within the level of impacts analyzed in the SCEA, and none of the conditions described in PRC Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 requiring a recirculated document would occur. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not create any potential adverse impacts beyond those evaluated within the SCEA. As such, the preparation of this SCEA Addendum to modify the Project Description would be appropriate and fully complies with the requirements of PRC Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

In addition, the information provided in this Addendum does not result in any of the conditions set forth in Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines requiring recirculation of the SCEA. Rather, as provided within CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, this Addendum supports the conclusion that recirculation is not required.

In conclusion, the changes to the Originally Approved Plan proposed by the Modified Plan would not result in any new significant impacts or any increases in the severity of previously identified impacts. Nor are there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Originally Approved Plan was approved, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would result in any new significant impacts or any increases in the severity of previously identified impacts. For the above reasons, the changes proposed by the Modified Plan do not require preparation of a new, supplemental or subsequent SCEA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, and no further environmental analysis is required under CEQA.

1.f
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230)) 16917 92
DECEMBER 2024
5 References
SCVWA (Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Volume 1 Final.

Adopted June 2021. Accessed December 2024.
https://www.yourscvwater.com/sites/default/files/SCVWA/SCVWA-2020-UWMP-Volume-I_FINAL.pdf.

1.f
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: SCEA Addendum (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230))

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
[X] County Clerk [ ] State Clearinghouse
County of Los Angeles 1400 Tenth Street
12400 E. Imperial Hwy., Rm. 1007 Sacramento, CA 95815
Norwalk, CA 90650

PROJECT
NAME:

Newhall Mixed-Use Project: Master Case 24-230: Specific Plan Amendment 24-002

PROJECT
LOCATION:

Southeast corner of Lost Canyon Road and Harriman Drive (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 2840- 034-020, -021, -022, -023, -024, and -026)

PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:

The applicant, BluMax Santa Clarita, LLC, is requesting to amend the MetroWalk Specific Plan to expand the housing types allowed within the Specific Plan area, reduce setbacks between units, eliminate planning areas, and adjust the timing for the construction of the senior affordable units. The proposed amendment will facilitate greater flexibility to provide a variety of housing options consistent with the design guidelines included in the specific plan. The site is approximately 20 acres and there are no proposed changes to the amenities, open spaces, and maximum number of units within the specific plan. A Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for the MetroWalk Specific Plan was approved by the City Council on March 23, 2021.

PROJECT
APPLICANT:

BlueMax Santa Clarita, LLC
This is to advise that the City of Santa Clarita has made the following determinations regarding the project described above:
1) The project was approved by the [] Director of Community Development [ ] Planning Commission [X] Mayor and City Council on the following date: May 27, 2025.
2) [X ] An Addendum to the Final SCEA was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3) The project [ ] WILL [X] WILL NOT have a significant impact on the environment. 4) Mitigation measures [X] WERE [ ] WERE NOT made a condition of project approval. 5) A Statement of Overriding Considerations [ ] WAS [X] WAS NOT adopted for this project.

This is to certify that the [ ] NEGATIVE DECLARATION [ ] ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT [X] ADDENDUM with record of project approval is available for public review at:

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, California 91355
(661) 255-4330
Contact Person/Title: Justin Sauder, Associate Planner
Signature: ________________________________________________

1.g
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Notice of Determination (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230))

CITY OF SANTA CLARITA

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION: Master Case 24-230: Specific Plan Amendment 24-002 PROJECT APPLICANT: BluMax Santa Clarita, LLC
PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Lost Canyon Road and Harriman Drive (APNs: 2840- 034-020, -021, -022, -023, -024, and -026)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, BluMax Santa Clarita, LLC, is requesting to amend the MetroWalk Specific Plan to permit duplexes and single-family condominiums, as the plan currently contemplates only multi-family housing types of three or more units. The proposed amendment will facilitate greater flexibility to provide a variety of housing options consistent with the design guidelines included in the specific plan. The site is approximately 20 acres and there are no proposed changes to the amenities, open spaces, and maximum number of units within the specific plan.

The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date:

DATE: Tuesday, April 15, 2025
TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m.

LOCATION: City Hall, Council Chambers
23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
The Planning Commission agenda can be found at www.santaclarita.gov/agendas by April 11, 2025.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for the MetroWalk Specific Plan was approved by the City Council on March 23, 2021. An addendum to the SCEA was prepared for the proposed project and is available for review by appointment in the City Clerk’s Office located in the City Hall building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. In addition, a copy will be available on the Planning Division’s website. https://santaclarita.gov/planning/environmental If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearings. If you wish to have written comments included in the materials the Planning Commission receives prior to the public hearing, it must be submitted to the Community Development Department by Friday, April 4, 2025.

For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the project planner, by appointment, at the City of Santa Clarita, Permit Center, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone:
(661) 255-4330. Website: www.santaclarita.gov/planning. Send written correspondence via e-mail to [email protected], or by US mail to: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Project Planner: Justin Sauder, Associate Planner.

Patrick Leclair
Planning Manager
Published: The Signal, March 25, 2025

1.h
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Public Hearing Notice (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230))

PROJECT SITE
Southeast Corner of Lost Canyon Road and Harriman Drive Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 2840-034-020, -021, -022, -023, -024, and -026

1.h
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Public Hearing Notice (MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (MC24-230))

Santa Clarita City CouncilMay 27, 2025

Santa Clarita City Council
May 27, 2025