Agenda Item: 1
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL:
DATE: September 16, 2025
SUBJECT: WILEY CANYON MIXED-USE PROJECT (MASTER CASE 20-238) APPLICANT: Wiley Canyon, LLC
LOCATION: West side of Wiley Canyon Road, between Calgrove Boulevard and Hawkbryn Avenue
CASE PLANNER: Erika Iverson
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Planning Commission:
1. Receive the staff presentation in response to Planning Commission direction;
2. Open the continued public hearing;
3. Based upon the evidence from the public hearing, consider adopting Resolution P25-13, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2202030626) prepared for the project;
4. Consider adopting Resolution P25-14, approving the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project under Master Case 20-238, including Architectural Design Review 20-023; Conditional Use Permit 20-005; Development Review 20-017; Minor Use Permit 20-013; Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 425-004; and Tentative Tract Map 83295, subject to the conditions of approval; and
5. Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.
REQUEST
The applicant, Wiley Canyon, LLC, seeks approval of an Architectural Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, Minor Use Permit, Oak Tree Permit, and 1 Packet Pg. 11
Tentative Map to allow for the development of a mixed-use project consisting of a senior-living facility with 120 assisted-living units; 9,000 square feet of commercial floor area; 45 detached single-family units, eight of which would include an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU); and 179 townhome units (Project).
BACKGROUND
To date, the City of Santa Clarita’s (City) Planning Commission has conducted three public hearings on the proposed Project: March 19, 2024, June 18, 2024, and August 19, 2025. The Project qualifies as a housing development project in accordance with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code section 66300). Consequently, the City cannot conduct more than five public hearings (including appeals) to consider the Project.
Following the June 2024 meeting, the applicant submitted an Alternative Project (Alternative 5) that reduced the overall density and floor area for Planning Commission consideration. At the August 19, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, City staff provided response to the June 2024 Planning Commission comments and presented Alternative 5.
The intent of this public hearing is to respond to the Planning Commission’s direction from the last public hearing on August 19, 2025. Additionally, the agenda includes responses to comments received during the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) public comment period; recommends certification of the Final EIR; and recommends approval of Project Alternative 5.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
In preparing an EIR, alternative projects are required to be analyzed to determine if a revision to the Project could result in an environmentally superior project that meets the Project Objectives.
At the August 2025 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant provided Alternative 5 for consideration, which would reduce the overall density and floor area. The Planning Commission directed staff to incorporate Alternative 5 into the Final EIR.
Alternative 5: Mixed Use Alternative
Alternative 5 includes the development of 232 townhome and/or detached condominium units, at two stories in height. In addition, this alternative would include a senior/assisted living facility with 120 units, at four stories in height. Under Alternative 5, the commercial component would be 9,000 square feet. Similar recreation space, as proposed in the Project, would be provided at the southern portion of the project site.
This Alternative would have similar impacts to the proposed Project’s impacts. In the areas of Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities impacts would be slightly lower, but expected to require the same mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This Alternative would have the same temporary significant unavoidable impact for construction noise. This Alternative meets the Project Objectives.
A full discussion of Alternative 5 was incorporated into the Final EIR, Chapter 1, Section 1.8, and Chapter 6, Section 6.4.
1 Packet Pg. 12
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO DRAFT EIR COMMENTS
During the public review period from March 1, 2024, to April 15, 2024, staff received 60 comment letters from public agencies, organizations, and members of the public on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Additional comments were received during the public hearing process. These comments have been provided to the Planning Commission throughout the hearing process and incorporated into the record.
The Draft Final EIR was issued to the Planning Commission for review on September 5, 2025, was posted on the City’s website, and emailed to responding agencies and interested parties.
The following summarizes responses to DEIR comments (detailed responses are provided in Resolution P25-13 Exhibit B: Draft Final EIR).
PUBLIC AGENCIES
State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board)
The letter provided by the State Water Board notes that the DEIR identifies improvements to the public water system that need to be facilitated by the Project, and as such, construction design documents and permits are required from the State Water Board Division of Drinking Water.
The EIR has been revised to include this approval requirement. Detailed responses are included and referenced in Comment Letter A1 in the Final EIR.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
The letter from DTSC notes that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed and recommends that a Phase II ESA be completed. A Phase II ESA was completed in April 2025, as shown in Chapter 3, Changes to the DEIR, of the Final EIR. The addition does not change the conclusions of the DEIR and does not result in the need for new or altered mitigation measures. Detailed responses are included and referenced in Comment Letter A2 in the Final EIR.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
The letter provided by CDFW includes comments and recommendations related to the impacts on sensitive plant communities, Crotch’s Bumble Bee, Arroyo Toad, California species of special concern, and includes recommendations on mitigation measures to address these impacts.
The recommendations from CDFW to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, related to the impacts on Crotch’s Bumble Bee, have been accepted and incorporated into the EIR. All other impacts were addressed in the Draft EIR, the appendices, and applicable mitigation measures are anticipated to fully address these concerns. Detailed responses to these comments are included and referenced in Comment Letter A3 in the Final EIR.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 7
1 Packet Pg. 13
The Caltrans letter concurs with the Traffic Analysis prepared for the proposed Project. It goes on to state that Project activities will require encroachment permits within the Caltrans right-of- way, as well as transportation permits for the use of heavy construction equipment. Revisions to identify the Caltrans permit requirement have been made to the EIR. Detailed responses are included and referenced in Comment Letter A4 in the Final EIR.
Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Los Angeles (LAFCO)
The LAFCO letter states that consideration should be made for potential annexations and/or Sphere of Influence amendments to special districts. Annexation is underway with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD), Santa Clarita Valley Division; no annexation with the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency or any other special district is required. Detailed responses are included and referenced in Comment Letter A5 in the Final EIR.
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
The LACSD letter states that annexation of the Project area is underway. The letter goes on to specify the expected average wastewater flow for Alternative 2, Affordable Housing Alternative, of the DEIR. A revision has been made to the EIR to clarify that the impacts to wastewater for Alternative 2 would be similar to the Project. In addition, the LACSD letter notes that previous comments from LACSD, provided in response to the Notice of Preparation, and the Will Serve Letter for the Project still apply. Detailed responses are included and referenced in Comment Letter A6 in the Final EIR.
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC)
The letter from SMMC includes comments and recommendations regarding habitat connectivity.
Section 4.3.1.2 of the DEIR discusses habitat linkages and wildlife movement corridors. While the site is not within any linkages identified by the South Coast Mission Linkages report, the DEIR does recognize that the South Fork of the on-site Santa Clara River is a regional wildlife movement corridor. The DEIR does outline that a majority of this on-site area would be maintained, and that the project proposes to widen the existing channel to create additional riparian habitat that would continue to allow any wildlife movement that currently occurs.
Detailed responses are included and referenced in Comment Letter A7 in the Final EIR.
County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (Sheriff)
The letters provided by the Sheriff state that the project would increase demand on police protection services and makes recommendations for landscaping, security monitoring, and lighting. Police protection is discussed in Section 4.14 of the DEIR. The project would add new employees and residents within the Sheriff service area, but would not necessitate the construction of new police facilities. The applicant would be required to pay applicable development impact fees for law enforcement. Detailed responses are included and referenced in Comment Letters A8 and A9 in the Final EIR.
County of Los Angeles Fire Department Prevention Services Bureau (Fire Department)
The Fire Department letter outlines routine design standards, standard requirements, and terms of 1 Packet Pg. 14
approval to be incorporated during the plan check process in regards to the Final Map, Water System, Fuel Modification, and the Forestry Division. Fire Department Conditions of Approval have been incorporated into the Project Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A of Resolution P25- 14). Compliance will be addressed during the permit plan check process by the Fire Department.
Detailed responses are included and referenced in Comment Letter A10 in the Final EIR.
ORGANIZATION AND PUBLIC COMMENTS
Fifty comment letters were received on the DEIR from organizations and individuals. Common themes included:
• Traffic Circulation;
• Roadway Improvements;
• Site Access;
• Wildfire Evacuation;
• Visual Changes to the site;
• Protection of Wildlife Corridor; and
• Impacts from construction and grading, among other topics.
A summary of common topics is provided below. Detailed responses are included in Comment Letters O1-O4 in the Final EIR, and I1-I46 in in the Final EIR.
Traffic Circulation/Roadway Improvements/Site Access
Wiley Canyon Road is designated by the General Plan as a Secondary Highway, which is a four- lane road configuration; however, the proposed Project improvements would maintain a two-lane roadway configuration. The two-lane design is based on the traffic analysis for the Project, which considers the traffic volumes, inclusive of the current and expected future traffic volumes, plus the traffic volumes for the Project, along portions of Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard. As discussed in the traffic assessment, vehicle trips would be between 9,000 and 10,000 vehicle trips per day, well below the maximum capacity of a two-lane roadway, of 16,000 to 18,000 vehicle trips per day. Given that the daily trips generated by the proposed Project (3,500 trips) is significantly lower than what is contemplated by the General Plan (27,000 trips) for this site, a nexus cannot be established between the Project and the build-out of a four-lane roadway. Nonetheless, the Project does not change the General Plan Roadway designation, and could be designed to accommodate four lanes in the future if ever necessary.
The site access was reviewed by City Traffic and Transportation Planning staff, as well as the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). The site provides one vehicular access from Wiley Canyon Road. A secondary access is required by LACFD only for emergency service.
This is a gated access from Wabuska Street and will have a Fire Department Knox box.
Wildfire Evacuation
Section 4.19, Wildfire, of the DEIR evaluates the potential wildfire impacts and identifies mitigation measures related to the implementation of the Project. A traffic evacuation model was prepared by CR Associates (Appendix N of the DEIR), which analyzed emergency evacuation of existing land uses, as well as the Project. The analysis concluded that the Project would not 1 Packet Pg. 15
significantly impair or physically interfere with the implementation of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The Project would replace the existing undeveloped landscape that has flammable vegetation with non-flammable landscape materials designed to comply with the LACFD fuel modification standards, constructing buildings to meet the current LACFD fire codes, as well as constructing an internal street network to provide access by emergency response vehicles, substantially reducing the fuel loads on-site. Implementation of the Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or interfere with emergency response plans.
Visual Changes
Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the DEIR discusses scenic vistas. The City’s General Plan and Open Space Element does not specifically list any local scenic vistas. However, Wiley Canyon Road provides a potential public vantage point for views of the surrounding hillsides and mountains.
The quality of the views from the roadway near the Project site, however, are regularly obscured by foreground elements such as intervening residential land uses, the Interstate-5 freeway, aboveground utility infrastructure, and vegetation. In addition, the hillsides and mountain views from Wiley Canyon Road are typically narrow and short.
Wildlife Corridor
Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the DEIR, discusses wildlife corridors, and while the Project site does not represent significant corridors for wildlife movement to and from adjacent sites, the DEIR did recognize that the South Fork of the on-site Santa Clara River is a regional wildlife movement corridor. The Project maintains a majority of this area, and the Project proposes to widen the existing channel on-site to create additional riparian habitat. The river is a concrete-sided and bottomed channel in the northern portion of the project site upstream, and that condition continues downstream of the project for approximately 1.6 miles.
Construction and Grading
Construction impacts related to air quality are discussed in the DEIR Section 4.2, Air Quality.
The analysis utilizes construction schedule, phasing, and trips for air quality modeling. The Project would comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, Control of Fugitive Dust, and incorporate mitigation measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions from grading and excavation activities to less than significant levels.
Construction impacts related to noise are discussed in the DEIR Section 4.12, Noise. The DEIR concludes that the Project will have temporary construction noise levels that would be considered significant and unavoidable. The DEIR includes two mitigation measures (MM-NOI- 1 and MM-NOI-2) designed to reduce construction noise at nearby sensitive receivers to the extent feasible.
CONCLUSION
The Project is a housing development project in accordance with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code section 66300). Accordingly, the Project was reviewed and evaluated based on conformance with the City’s objective development standards as discussed at the March 19, 1 Packet Pg. 16
2024, June 18, 2024, and August 19, 2025, Planning Commission meetings, and as a housing project, the Project cannot be denied if it is in compliance with the City’s objective design standards.
Based on the direction from the Planning Commission at the August 2025 meeting, staff has prepared the necessary Resolutions and Draft Conditions of Approval for consideration, and recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution P25-13, to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2022030626) prepared for the Project, and adopt Resolution P25-14, to approve the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project under Master Case 20-238 (ADR20-023, CUP20-005, DR20-017, MUP20-013, OTP425-004, and TM 83295) for development consisting of a senior-living facility with 120 assisted-living units; 9,000 square feet of commercial floor area; 45 detached single-family units, eight of which would include an attached ADU; and 179 townhome units; subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A of Resolution P25-14).
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution P25-13
P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings
P25-13-Exhibit B Final EIR-MMRP
Resolution P25-14
P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval
Alternative 5 Site Plan
Public Comments
1 Packet Pg. 17
RESOLUTION P25-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH No. 2022030626) FOR MASTER CASE 20- 238 (ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 20-023, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-005, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 20-017, MINOR USE PERMIT 20-013, OAK TREE PERMIT 425- 004, AND TENTATIVE MAP 83295) INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT, AND
ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS FOR MASTER CASE 20-238. The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact and conclusions:
A. On October 28, 2020, the applicant (Community Multihousing, Inc.) filed Master Case 20- 238, consisting of Architectural Design Review (ADR) 20-023, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 20-005, Development Review (DR) 20-017, Minor Use Permit (MUP) 20-013, Oak Tree Permit (OTP) 425-004, and Tentative Map (TM) 83295. The properties affected by the application are Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 2825-012-007, 2825-007-010, 2825-012- 011, 2825-012-901, and 2825-012-902;
B. The approximately 31-acre Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project (Project) site is located at 24924 Hawbryn Avenue, and has a General Plan land use and zoning designation of Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN). The Project site is also located within the area designated by the General Plan as the Calgrove Corridor/Smiser Ranch Special Development Area (Smiser Ranch Area), and located within the Planned Development Overlay (PD) zone; C. The Project includes the proposed development of 45 two-story detached, single-family condominium units, eight of which would include an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU); 179 two-story townhome units; a four-story, 120-unit assisted-living facility; and 9,000 square feet of commercial floor area, including the merger and subdivision into seven lots;
D. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.), including the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15000, et seq.), the City of Santa Clarita (City) is the lead agency, and the Planning Commission is the decision-making body for the Project;
E. The City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for the Project;
F. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project EIR was circulated to affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, for 30 days, beginning on March 24, 2022, and ending on April 25, 2022. Agencies that received the NOP include, but are not limited to, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Air Quality Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, water agencies, and utility companies serving the
1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Resolution P25-13 (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Resolution P25-13
Master Case 20-238
September 16, 2025
Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with CEQA’s consultation requirements. Comments from public agencies, organizations, and members of the public were received in response to the NOP for the Project;
G. A scoping meeting was held at City Hall on April 14, 2022, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper on March 24, 2022. Approximately 58 people attended the scoping meeting. The topics of concern that were raised at the meeting included changes to the existing visual characteristics, displacement of wildlife, wildland fire and emergency evacuation, increase in traffic, water quality and water supply, drainage and flooding, and increase in density;
H. The City hosted a community meeting in an open house format on June 30, 2022, providing the opportunity for the public to view the Project proposal and engage with City staff. There were approximately 40 people in attendance;
I. A site tour of the Project site with the Planning Commission was held February 21, 2023, to provide the Planning Commission with context for the site setting and surroundings; J. The City prepared a Draft EIR, for the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project, that addressed all issues raised in comments received on the NOP. The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA.
Specifically, the Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR was advertised on March 1, 2024, for a 45-day public review period that ended on April 15, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. in accordance with CEQA. The City received written comments throughout the comment period as well as oral testimony at the March 19, 2024, June 18, 2024, August 19, 2025, and September 16, 2025 Planning Commission meetings for the Project; K. The Planning Commission public hearings for the Project were duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for each of the Entitlements. The Project was advertised in The Signal newspaper, through on-site posting 14 days before the hearing, and by direct first- class mailing to property owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the Project site; L. On March 19, 2024, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the Project and received a presentation from City staff on the Project setting, requested Entitlements, Project description, and the Draft EIR sections. The Planning Commission provided direction to bring the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project back to the Planning Commission with additional information regarding traffic circulation and access, a parking plan, residential amenities, landscape buffers, emergency evacuation operations for the senior facility, construction management plans, and discussion of the geotechnical analysis. The Planning Commission continued the item to the June 18, 2024, Planning Commission meeting;
M. On June 18, 2024, the Planning Commission received a presentation regarding the follow-up items from the March 19, 2024, meeting, along with a presentation from the applicant, and
1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Resolution P25-13 (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Resolution P25-13
Master Case 20-238
September 16, 2025
public testimony. Additional time was needed to respond to all comments received on the Draft EIR and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission provided direction to bring the Project back to the Planning Commission with additional information regarding traffic simulations, timing for right-of-way acquisition, parking operations plan, construction phasing, and construction noise mitigation plans, additional renderings, and additional community outreach. The Planning Commission then continued the item; N. On August 19, 2025, a duly noticed continued public hearing was held before the Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The Planning Commission received a staff presentation on the follow-up items from the March 19, 2024, and June 18, 2024, meetings, along with a presentation of a reduced Project alternative proposed by the applicant. Following public testimony, the Planning Commission directed that the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project return to the Planning Commission at the September 16, 2025, meeting with a draft resolution and Conditions of Approval for the reduced Project alternative for consideration; O. On September 16, 2025, the Planning Commission received a presentation on the follow-up items from the March 19, 2024, June 18, 2024, and August 19, 2025, meetings, along with the applicant’s presentation and public testimony. The Planning Commission considered the staff report, Draft Final EIR, Resolutions, and Conditions of Approval; P. The Draft EIR was presented to the Planning Commission on March 19, 2024. On September 16, 2025, the Planning Commission considered the Draft Final EIR prepared for the Project, as well as information provided in staff reports, presented to the Planning Commission by experts, and presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the Planning Commission, before recommending approval of the Project. The Draft Final EIR for the Project was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and
Q. This Resolution and its findings are made based upon the entire administrative record, including, without limitation, testimony and evidence presented to the Planning Commission at its public hearings, including the staff report.
SECTION 2. CEQA REQUIREMENTS. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for Master Case 20-238, the Planning Commission determines as follows:
A. CEQA provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002). The procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects” (Id.);
B. CEQA’s mandates and principles are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each
1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Resolution P25-13 (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Resolution P25-13
Master Case 20-238
September 16, 2025
significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions:
(1) “[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR,” (2) “[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency,” or (3) “[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines §15091.) CEQA defines “feasible” to mean capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal and technological factors. (CEQA §21061.1; CEQA Guidelines §15364.);
C. The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. “Feasibility” under CEQA, then, encompasses “desirability” to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors; D. CEQA requires that the lead agency exercise its independent judgment in reviewing the adequacy of an EIR and that the decision of a lead agency in certifying a Final EIR and approving a project not be predetermined. The Planning Commission has conducted its own review and analysis, and is exercising its independent judgment when acting as herein provided;
E. CEQA requires decision-makers to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for those mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR that would mitigate or avoid each significant impact identified in the EIR and to incorporate the MMRP, including all mitigation measures, as a condition of Project approval; F. CEQA requires that the responses to comments in the Final EIR demonstrate good faith and a well-reasoned analysis, and not be overly conclusory. In response to several of the comments received, portions of the Draft EIR have been revised. Although new material has been added to the Draft EIR through preparation of the Final EIR, this new material provides clarification to points and information already included in the Draft EIR and is not considered to be significant new information or a substantial change to the Draft EIR or to the Project that would necessitate recirculation; and
G. CEQA Guidelines § 15003 notes that the purpose of an EIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public generally of the environmental impacts of a proposed project. CEQA does not require technical perfection or exhaustive treatment of issues in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good-faith effort at full disclosure.
1.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Resolution P25-13 (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Resolution P25-13
Master Case 20-238
September 16, 2025
SECTION 3. CEQA FINDINGS. The Planning Commission finds that the Draft Final EIR for Master Case 20-238 (ADR 20-023; CUP 20-005; DR 20-017; MUP 20-013; OTP (Class 4) 425- 004; and TM 83295) identifies and discloses Project-specific impacts and cumulative Project impacts. Environmental impacts identified in the Draft Final EIR, findings, and facts in support of findings are incorporated as CEQA Facts and Findings referred to as Exhibit A, which is incorporated by reference, and identified as follows:
A. The Draft Final EIR identifies significant but mitigated impacts, as set forth in Section 5.3 of Exhibit A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that will avoid or reduce these potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
B. The Draft Final EIR also identifies less-than-significant impacts, as set forth in Section 5.2 of Exhibit A.
C. The Draft Final EIR also identifies significant and unavoidable, but mitigated to the extent feasible, as set forth in Section 5.4 of Exhibit A.
D. The less-than-significant impacts set forth in Section 5.2 of Exhibit A will not contribute to cumulative impacts.
E. The MMRP, attached as Exhibit B, which is incorporated by reference, is required to mitigate Project impacts.
SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Project Draft Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Draft Final EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission further finds that the Draft Final EIR analyzes a reasonable range of Project alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project, would lessen any of the significant impacts of the Project, and adequately evaluates the comparative merits of each alternative.
A. The objectives of the Project are specified in the Draft Final EIR and Section 2.2 of Exhibit A. These objectives are used as the basis for comparing the Project alternatives and determining the extent that the objectives would be achieved relative to the proposed Project.
B. Alternative 1 – No Project/No Development Alternative. This alternative is required by the CEQA Guidelines and compares the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present condition with those that would be generated by the proposed Project. Under this alternative, no development or redevelopment would occur beyond what exists today; therefore, all impacts would remain at current levels.
This alternative would have the least impact compared to the Project; however, it would not attain any of the Project Objectives as summarized in Section 2.2 of the CEQA Facts and Findings (Exhibit A). Therefore, this alternative is infeasible.
1.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Resolution P25-13 (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Resolution P25-13
Master Case 20-238
September 16, 2025
C. Alternative 2 – Affordable Housing Alternative. This alternative includes the development of 837 apartment units, including 201 units designated for lower-income households. The maximum height would be 65 feet, with a proposed floor area ratio of 0.63. This alternative would not develop the recreation area located to the south of the creek. The infrastructure improvements, including the drainage basins and off-site street improvements, would remain the same as the Project.
This alternative would generally have similar impacts as the proposed Project. Impacts to Greenhouse Gas (GHG), Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities would be slightly higher, but this alternative would necessitate the same mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This alternative would have the same temporary, significant, unavoidable impact on construction noise. This alternative generally meets the Project Objectives, though it does not provide a senior-living component or commercial component, and does not develop the same recreational space as the Project.
D. Alternative 3 – Private Recreation Facility Alternative. This alternative includes the development of a private recreational facility, including a 10,000-square-foot clubhouse/restaurant. The facility would consist of eight tennis courts, seven pickleball courts, a soccer field, a football field, a baseball field, and an outdoor basketball court. All fields would include overhead lighting. The infrastructure improvements, including the drainage basins and off-site street improvements, would remain the same as the Project.
This alternative would have greater impacts in the areas of Aesthetics, due to overhead field lighting. Impacts in the areas of Air Quality, Energy, GHG, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities would be less than the Project. Impacts in all other areas would be similar to the Project, including the same temporary significant unavoidable impact for construction noise. This alternative would not meet the primary Project Objectives to provide a mixed-use development with housing, senior-living, and commercial uses.
E. Alternative 4 – Construction Noise Setback Alternative. This alternative includes the development of a 139-bed assisted-living facility, 47 detached condos, and 237 apartment units. The assisted-living facility would be three stories in height, and the multifamily units would range from two to four stories. Under this alternative, a 200-foot open space/landscaped buffer between the mobile home park to the north and the Project site would be provided. A similar recreation space to the Project at the southern portion of the Project site would be provided.
This alternative would have similar or slightly lower impacts as the proposed Project.
Impacts to Air Quality, Energy, GHG, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities would be slightly lower, but expected to require the same mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This alternative would eliminate the temporary, significant, unavoidable impact of construction noise. This alternative generally meets the Project Objectives; however, it does not provide the commercial component.
1.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Resolution P25-13 (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Resolution P25-13
Master Case 20-238
September 16, 2025
F. Alternative 5 – Mixed Use Project Alternative. This alternative includes the development of 232 townhome and/or detached condominium units, two stories in height. In addition, this alternative would include a senior/assisted-living facility with 120 units, four stories in height. The commercial component under this alternative would be 9,000 square feet. A similar recreation space to the Project at the southern portion of the Project site would be provided.
This alternative would have similar or slightly lower impacts than the proposed Project.
Impacts to Air Quality, Energy, GHG, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities would be slightly lower, but expected to require the same mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This alternative would have the same temporary significant unavoidable impact for construction noise. This alternative meets the Project Objectives.
SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record including, without limitation, the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project Draft Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Draft Final EIR, upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds:
A. That the Draft Final EIR for the Project is adequate, complete, was prepared in accordance with CEQA, and should be certified on that basis;
B. That the Planning Commission independently reviewed and considered the Draft Final EIR in reaching its conclusions;
C. That the Draft Final EIR was presented and reviewed prior to taking final action to recommend certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project;
D. That, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the Draft Final EIR includes a description of each potentially significant impact and rationale for finding that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as detailed in Exhibit A attached hereto. The analyses included in the Draft Final EIR to support each conclusion and recommendation therein is hereby incorporated into these findings; E. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081, modifications occurred to the Project to reduce significant effects;
F. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen its significant environmental effects because feasible
1.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Resolution P25-13 (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Resolution P25-13
Master Case 20-238
September 16, 2025
mitigation measures, including those in the MMRP, are made Conditions of Approval for the Project;
G. That the Draft Final EIR reflects the decision-maker’s independent judgment and analysis; H. That an MMRP has been prepared and is recommended for adoption to enforce the mitigation measures required by the Draft Final EIR and Project approvals; and The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings on which this decision is based are under the custody of the Director of Community Development and are located at the City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, California 91355.
SECTION 6: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Final EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission further finds that there is substantial evidence that supports the conclusion that the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project will result in community benefits including specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits that outweigh the one significant effect of the Project on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant.
A. One significant unavoidable impact relates to construction noise, as further described in attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated by reference; and B. The benefits of the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project outweigh its one significant unavoidable impact that cannot be mitigated to a level below significant. These benefits are listed in Section 7.3 of Exhibit A.
SECTION 7: APPROVALS. The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Draft Final EIR (SCH No. 2022030626) and determined that it is adequate and in compliance with CEQA. Accordingly, the Planning Commission certifies the Final EIR and associated documents, and adopts the attached MMRP as if fully set forth.
SECTION 8: RELIANCE ON RECORD. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the Planning Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
SECTION 9: SUMMARIES OF INFORMATION. All summaries of information in the findings, which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.
1.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Resolution P25-13 (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Resolution P25-13
Master Case 20-238
September 16, 2025
SECTION 10: NOTICE. The Secretary is directed to provide a copy of this Resolution to the Planning Commission and any other person requesting a copy.
SECTION 11: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution becomes effective immediately upon adoption and memorializes the Planning Commission’s final decision made on September 16, 2025.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 2025.
LISA EICHMAN, CHAIRPERSON
PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
RACHEL CLARK, SECRETARY
PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I, Rachel Clark, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of September, 2025, by the following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
1.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Resolution P25-13 (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
EXHIBIT A
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS
REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
FOR THE
WILEY CANYON PROJECT
SCH NO. 2022030626
Lead Agency:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
September 16, 2025
1.b
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ...... 2
2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4
2.1 Description of Project Proposed for Approval .............................................................. 4
2.2 Statement of Objectives ................................................................................................ 6
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................ ................. 8
4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING ................................ ................................ 10
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS ................................ ............................. 12
5.1 Effects Determined to Have No Impact in the EIR ..................................................... 12
5.2 Effects Determined to Be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the EIR ......... 13
5.3 Effects Determined to Be Mitigated to Less-Than-Significant Levels in the EIR ....... 18
5.4 Effects Determined to Be Significant and Unavoidable But Mitigated to the Extent Feasible ....................................................................................................................... 33
5.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project .......................................................................... 34
6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR ................................ ................................ ........... 48
6.1 Findings ....................................................................................................................... 48
6.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 48
7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ................................ ................... 50
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 50
7.2 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................................ 50
7.3 Overriding Considerations .......................................................................................... 51
8.0 STATEMENT OF LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS ............................ 55
1.b
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Finding s for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 1
This page intentionally left blank.
1.b
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 2
1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a Lead Agency make specific findings before approving a project that would significantly impact on the environment. In this Statement of Facts and Findings, the City identifies the significant impacts of the Project, presents facts supporting the conclusions reached in the analysis, makes one or more of three potential findings for each impact, and explains the reasoning behind the agency’s findings.
This Statement of Facts and Findings was prepared in accordance with CEQA, specifically Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) provides that:
No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding.
The three findings available for the Statement of Facts and Findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 are as follows:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
The City of Santa Clarita (City), the CEQA Lead Agency, finds and declares that the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City’s Planning Commiss ion find s and certifies that the EIR was reviewed, and information contained in the EIR was considered before approving the Wiley Canyon Project (“project”).
Based upon its review of the EIR, the Planning Commission find s that the EIR is an adequate assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the project, represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City, and sets forth an adequate range of alternatives to this project.
The EIR for the project is comprised of the following elements:
• Wiley Canyon Project Draft EIR and Technical Appendices (March 2024) • Wiley Canyon Project Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (September 2025)
1.b
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 3
This page intentionally left blank.
1.b
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 4
2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The project site consists of approximately 31.8 acres of vacant land located at 24924 Hawkbryn Avenue in the southwestern portion of Santa Clarita bordered by Interstate 5 (I-5) to the west, Wiley Canyon Road to the east, Hawkbryn Avenue to the north and Calgrove Boulevard to the south, within the Newhall area of the City of Santa Clarita (City) . The proje ct site is located approximately 28 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles and is locally accessible via Wiley Canyon Road and Hawkbryn Avenue. Regionally, the project site is accessible from the I -5 freeway via Calgrove Boulevard, south of the site, or v ia Lyons Avenue approximately 0.6 miles north of the site. The project site is located entirely within the City’s jurisdictional boundaries, and unincorporated Los Angeles County is located immediately west of the I-5 freeway.
The project applicant proposes to redevelop existing vacant land with a new mixed -use development consisting of the following components: a 277,108 square-foot senior living facility, 8,914 square feet of commercial space, 379 multifamily residential apartments, a publicly accessible outdoor recreational field space , and off -site circulation improvements (e.g., new roundabouts, traffic signals, Class I and II bike lanes on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard, and pedestrian trails).
A 277,108 -square-foot senior living facility is proposed with 130 independent living units, 61 assisted living units, and 26 memory care beds. This facility would be located on a 7.27-acre area in the northernly portion of the project site. Within the proposed senior living facility would be an 8,914-square-foot commercial space on the first floor by the facility’s entrance.
A total of 379 multifamily residential units are proposed to be south of the senior living facility. A total of five 3 -story buildings comprised of 152 units would be constructed on a 4.47-acre area.
Amenities on site would include a leasing center, clubhouse with fitness center, and a pool area, totaling 5,886 square feet. The proposed residences would range from 1-, 2-, and 3-bedrooms as well as loft style apartments. In addition, a total of eight buildings with 227 units would be developed within an 8.17-acre area and consist of four 4-story buildings and four 2-story buildings.
The proposed residences would include studios, and 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom apartments as well as a 2,400 square-foot clubhouse and pool area.
The project also proposes active and passive on-site recreational facilities. A 50,600-square-foot passive recreational grass pad would be located on the southern portion of the project site. A 16- foot-wide pedestrian t rail/maintenance road would be run approximately 7,040 linear feet (1.3 miles) throughout the project site and along Wiley Canyon Road. Additionally, Lot 6, which is 128,659 square feet (2.9 acres) in size and located to the east of Wiley Canyon Road would remain undeveloped under the proposed project. Within the senior living facility, a memory care garden with a central fountain, table and bench seating, faux turf, and enhanced concrete pavers are proposed. The senior living facility would also include a pool and spa, chaise lounge seating, and outdoor dining areas as well as a barbeque area with a shade structure, counter space, and pedestrian pathways and paving. The project site would be redeveloped to include landscaping throughout and would be used to screen certain facilities on site, such as transformers and
1.b
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 5
maintenance buildings. In addition, the project would utilize landscaping for fuel modification zones.
Implementation of the proposed project would require infrastructure improvements including curb and gutter, storm drain, and water and sewer connections to existing facilities within the local vicinity. The project proposes to connect to an existing 12-inch sewer line and a 12-inch dip water line located to the east of the project site along the right-of-way for Wiley Canyon Road. Existing power poles and overhead electric lines would be removed along the western boundary of the site adjacent to the I -5 freeway, with the exception of select power poles and overhead lines at the southern end of the site adjacent to the proposed drainage basin, and updated, underground electrical lines would be installed. Electrical transformer units would be installed intermit tently around the perimeter of the project site. A 30,011-square-foot (0.69-acre) drainage basin would be located immediately south of the multifamily apartment buildings, and two smaller water quality basins would be located at the northwestern end of the project site and the eastern portion of the site adjacent to the multifamily residences. Additionally, between the drainage basin discussed above, and the South Fork of the Santa Clara River, the project proposes a soil cement bank protection, adjacent to the asphalt trail and maintenance road, for protection during a 25 -year storm event.
The majority of the off-site infrastructure improvements would be street improvements along Wiley Canyon Road and its intersecting streets, including Fourl Road, Canerwel l Street, Valley Oak Court, and Calgrove Boulevard. Street improvements would include three new roundabouts, new curbs and gutters, a storm drain box culvert extension, new bus bays, bicycle paths (e.g., Classes I and II) and ramps, walking trails and sidewalks, as well as changes to existing directional signage and utilities (i.e., new power poles). The intersection of Calgrove Boulevard and I-5 located at the southwest corner of the project site would also be signalized.
AGREEMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS
This EIR is intended to inform and provide clearance under CEQA for all governmental approval actions necessary to authorize the project to proceed. These approvals include those listed below.
City of Santa Clarita
• Tentative Map to subdivide the project site into seven lots. • Grading Permit for up to 44,000 cubic yards of cut and 59,000 cubic yards of fill, and the import of approximately 85,000 cubic yards of fill.
• Conditional Use Permit for new development within th e Planned Development Overlay and to permit the assisted living facility in MXN zone. • Minor Use Permit for commercial floor area ratio that does not meet the minimum required in the zone, and the import of approximately 85,000 cubic yards of fill. • Development and Architectural Design Review for the development of the proposed project.
• Oak Tree Permit for removal of, encroachment upon, and/or impact to existing oak trees. • Certification of the EIR prepared for the project.
1.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 6
• Approval by the Planning Commission that the EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and other applicable codes and guidelines.
• Approval by the Planning Commission of the project or an alternative to the project.
Other Agencies
To allow for construction for certain improvements, the following permits would be required:
• Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (if jurisdictional aquatic resources are impacted)
• Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (if jurisdictional aquatic resources are impacted) • Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 (if jurisdictional aquatic resources are impacted)
• Domestic Water Supply Permit Amendment with the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency from the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water. • Encroachment Permit from the California Department of Transportation. • Transportation Permit from the California Department of Transportation for the use of heavy construction equipment and/or materials that require the use of oversized transport vehicles on State highways.
2.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives of the project include the following:
• Create a new mixed -use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources. • Provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adj acent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments.
• Provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding communities and land uses and are consistent with the City’s General Plan. • Arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage the use of transit.
• Design neighborhoods to locate residential and non -residential land uses in close proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit and trails. • Provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails. • Implement waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, and use of water efficiency measures.
1.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 7
• Provide a meandering trail with public access along Wiley Canyon Road and within the project site along Wiley Canyon Creek.
• Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting streetscapes.
• Enhance and augment the City’s housing market by providing a variety of housing product to meet the needs of future residents.
• Maintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife.
• Incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces. • Incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections. • Provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways. • Provide publicly accessible passive and active recreational opportunities for prospective residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site. • Include amenities to spe cifically support senior residents requiring senior services including memory care, supporting amenities for basic -needs nursing care, and housekeeping service.
• Include recreational amenities to improve quality of life of prospective on -site residents and existing off -site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles.
1.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 8
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City conducted an extensive review of this project, which included a Draft EIR and this Final EIR, including technical reports, along with a public review and comment period. The following is a summary of the City’s environmental review of this project:
• Pursuant to the provision of CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to public agencies, organizations, and members of the public who had requested such notice for a 30 -day period. The NOP was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk on March 24, 2022, with the 30- day review period ending on April 25, 2022.
• The NOP public review period ran for 30 days. The City received comment letters from State, regional, and local public agencies, as well as comment letters and comment cards from local organizations and individuals; these comment letters were included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.
• A scoping meeting was held at Santa Clarita City Hall, Century Conference Room on April 14, 2022, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR.
Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper , in addition to approximately 51 agencies, interested parties, and individuals who requested to be notified of the project. Approximately 58 persons from or members of the public attended the scoping meeting.
• The Draft EIR was distributed for public review, and a Notice of Availability (NOA) and Notice of Completion (NOC) were filed with the State Clearinghouse on February 21 , 202 4, to commence a 45-day review period, beginning on March 1, 2024, and ending on April 15, 2024.
The NOA was filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk on February 21, 2024. The NOA was also mailed to approximately 57 agencies, interested parties, and individuals who requested to be notified of the project, and was published in The Signal. • The project and the Draft EIR were presented at four Planning Commission meetings held on March 19 , 202 4, June 18, 2025 , August 19, 2025, and September 16, 2025 to solicit comments from the public and the Planning Commission on the Draft EIR . Notice of the Planning Commission meeting in March 2024 was published in The Signal newspaper. Notice of the Planning Commission in August 2025 was also published in the Signal newspaper. • The City received a total of 60 comment letters on the Draft EIR from public agencies and the public, as well as numerous letters from organizations and members of the public regarding the merits of the project or questions regarding the project. The City prepared responses to all written comments. The comments and responses are contained in Section 2.0, Responses to Comments, of the Final EIR.
• In accordance with CEQA, the City provide d written responses to the public agenci es that commented on the Draft EIR at least 10 days before certification of the EIR.
1.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 9
This page intentionally left blank.
1.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 10
4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING
The City solicited proposals from independent consultants to prepare the Wiley Canyon Project EIR. Subsequently, the City selected and retained Dudek to prepare the Wiley Canyon Project EIR. Dudek prepared the EIR under the supervision and direction of the City of Santa Clarita staff.
All findings set forth herein are based on substantial evidence in the record as indicated with respect to each specific finding.
FINDING:
The EIR for the project reflects the City’s independent judgment. The City exercised independent judgment in accordance with PRC Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environme ntal consultant and directing the consultant in the preparation of the EIR. The City independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR and accompanying studies and finds that the report reflects the independent judgment of the City.
The Planning Commission considered all the evidence presented in its consideration of the project and the EIR including, without limitation, the Final EIR and its supporting studies, written and oral evidence presented at hearings on the project, and written evidence submitted to the City by individuals, organizations, regulatory agencies, and other entities. On the basis of such evidence, the Planning Commission finds that, with respect to each environmental impact identified in the review process, the impact (1) is less than signific ant and would not require mitigation; (2) is potentially significant but would be avoided or reduced to a less -than-significant level by implementation of identified mitigation measures; or (3) would be significant and not fully mitigated but would be, to the extent feasible, lessened by implementation of identified mitigation measures.
The Final EIR identifies certain significant adverse environmental effects of the project which cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. Before approving this project, the Planning Commission adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations which finds, based on specific reasons and substantial evidence in the record (as specified in Section 7.0), that certain identified economic, social, or other benefits of the project outweigh such unavoidable adverse environmental effects.
1.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 11
This page intentionally left blank.
1.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 12
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
5.1 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACT IN THE EIR
The Wiley Canyon Project EIR found that the project would have no impact on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis of these topic areas is provided in Section 4.1, 4.3, 4.6, 4.8, 4.12, and Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR.
FINDING:
The EIR for the project reflects the City’s independent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with PRC Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant and directing the consultant in the preparation of the EIR. The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR and accompanying studies and finds that the report reflects the independent judgment of the City.
Aesthetics
e) Would the projec t result in changes to the topography of a Primary or Secondary Ridgeline?
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
a) Would the project c onvert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Would the project result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non - forest use?
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use?
Biological Resources
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
j) Would the project result in a disturbance to any Significant Ecological Area (SEA) as identified by the City of Santa Clarita?
Geology and Soils
1.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 13
a) Would the project directly or indirectly ca use potential adverse effects , including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faults
e) Would the project 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?
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
e) Would the project be 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, and would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Population and Housing
b) Would the project d isplace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)?
5.2 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
WITHOUT MITIGATION IN THE EIR
The Wiley Canyon Project EIR found that the project would have a les s-than-significant impact on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis of these topic areas is provided in Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16,
4.18, and 4.19 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project.
FINDING:
The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission , having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices , Final EIR, and administrative record, finds that based on substantial evidence in the record, impacts related to the following topics , to the extent they result from the project, would be less than significant.
Aesthetics
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Would the project c reate a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
1.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 14
Cumulative Aesthetics Impacts
Air Quality
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
Biological Resources
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? g) Would the project result in the removal of any heritage oak trees, as defined in Unified Development Code §17.17.090, removal of more than five (5) oak trees from a project on a site that has an existing single-family residence, or the removal of more than three (3) oak trees, proposed as part of any other project?
Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts
Energy
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable energy impact? Cumulative Energy Impacts
Geology and Soils
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential adverse effects , including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
ii) Seismic Ground Shaking
iii) Seismic-Ground Failure (Liquefaction)
iv) Landslides
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Would the project 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?
1.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 15
d) Would the project 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? g) Would the project result in the movement or grading of earth exceeding 100,000 cubic yards?
Cumulative Geology and Soils Impacts
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emission, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Cumulative Greenhous Gas Emissions Impacts
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions invol ving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation)?
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Would the project 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? f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
Hydrology and Water Quality
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management in the basin?
c) Would the project 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:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
1.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 16
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
iii. 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?
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct impleme ntation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts
Land Use and Planning
a) Would the project d isrupt or physically divide an established community (including a low-income or minority community)?
Cumulative Land Use and Planning Impacts
Mineral Resources
a) Would the project r esult in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Would the project 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? Cumulative Mineral Resources Impacts
Noise
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Population and Housing
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned 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)? Cumulative Population and Housing Impacts
Public Services
a) Would the project result in s ubstantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmen tal 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?
1.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 17
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Cumulative Public Services Impacts
Recreation
a) Would the project 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?
Cumulative Recreation Impacts
Transportation
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Cumulative Transportation Impacts
Utilities and Service Systems
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? c) Would the project 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? d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction?
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Cumulative Utilities and Service Systems Impacts
Wildfire
1.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 18
a) Would the project s ubstantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
d) Would the project 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?
Cumulative Wildfire Impacts
5.3 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS -THAN-
SIGNIFICANT LEVELS IN THE EIR
The Wiley Canyon EIR found that the project would have a less -than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis of these topic areas is provided in Sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.12, 4.15,
4.17, and 4.19 of the Draft EIR.
FINDING:
The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices , Final EIR, and administrative record, finds, pursuant to PRC Section 21081 (a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which would avoid or substantially lessen to below a level of significance potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Draft EIR. The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that can be mitigated are listed below. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission finds that based on substantial evidence in the record, the impacts discussed below, to the extent they result from the project, would be less than significant after implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR.
AIR QUALITY
The project’s impacts related to air quality that can be mitigated or are ot herwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4. 2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential substantial adverse effects related to a cumulatively considerable new increase of any criteria pollutant ; exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations ; and exceeding the most recent air quality thresholds as determined by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, as published in its “Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook.” Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
Construction of the project woul d result in emissions that exceed the NO X regional threshold.
However, i mplementation of Mitigation Measure (MM)
MM-AQ-1, which establishes construction equipment emissions standards , would reduce construction emission impacts below the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) standards to a less-than-significant level. In addition, MM-AQ-1 would reduce health
1.b
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 19
risk impacts relating to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and relating to exceeding the most recent air quality thresholds to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
MM-AQ-1: Construction Equipment Features. The project must utilize off -road diesel - powered construction equipment that meets or exceeds the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Tier 4 Final off- road emissions standards or equivalent for equipment rated at 50 horsepower (hp) or greater during project construction. Such equipment must be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT), which means a CARB-certified Level 3 diesel particulate filter (DPF) or equivalent.
An exemption from this requirement may be granted by the Director of Community Development, or designee, if (1) the City do cuments equipment with Tier 4 Final engines are not reasonably available, and (2) the required corresponding reductions in criteria air pollutant emissions can be achieved for the project from other combinations of construction equipment. Before an exemption may be granted, the permittee must (1) demonstrate that at least three construction fleet owners/operators in Los Angeles region were contacted and that those owners/operators confirmed Tier 4 Final equipment could not be located within Los Angeles County during the desired construction schedule, and (2) the permittee must provide evidence to the Director that the proposed replacement equipment was evaluated using California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) or other industry standard emission estimation method, and documentation was provided to confirm that necessary project-generated emissions reductions are achieved.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The project’s impacts to biological resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential substantial adverse effects related to candidate, sensitive, or special -status species; riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities; State- or federally-protected wetlands; movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory corridors, or impedes the use of native wildlife nursery sites; disturbance or encroachment of any river, river tributary, riparian habitat, stream or similar waterway identified on a United States Geological Survey map as a “blue -line” watercourse, or any waterway otherwise identified as a significant resource by the City; and disturbance of any habitat known or suspected to contain a plant or animal species listed as endangered on such Federal and/or State lists.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
As potentially suitable habitat for special -status wildlife species exists on the project site, implementation of the project would potentially impact existing habitat. Mitigation Measures
1.b
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 20
MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-3, which involve focused, protocol, and pre-construction surveys for Crotch bumble bee nests, least Bell’s vireo, and Cooper’s hawk and avoidance measures, would reduce the potential to impact candidate, sensitive, or special -status species, including Crotch bumble bee, least Bell’s vireo, and Cooper’s hawk to a less-than-significant level.
The project site supports three sensitive plant communities considered high priority by CDFW , Fremont cottonwood/mulefat forest, Fremont cottonwood forest, and the California sycamore woodland. To reduce potentially significant impacts to these sensitive habitats, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -BIO-4 requires on -site or off -site restoration or enhancement of sensitive plant communities at a ratio of no less than 1:1 to mitigate for impacts to sensitive plant communities. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-4, impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The project site includes 1.081 -acres (3,209 linear feet) of federally and state protected waters (e.g., wetlands or drainages). The project would impact 0.19 acre of waters of the U.S. and about
1.1 acre of CDFW jurisdiction. The proposed impact is approximately 1,400 linear feet in length, with approximately 400 feet of the 1,400 linear feet being within the existing concrete drainage channel at the northeast end of the project site. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-5 requires on-site or off -site restoration or enhancement of United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)/Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB) and CDFW jurisdictional waterways and aquatic resources at a ratio of at least 2:1 for permanent impacts and the restoration of impacted areas to pre-project conditions for temporary impacts. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-5 would reduce permanent impacts to protected waters to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-5 would reduce potential impacts to State- or federally-protected wetlands to less-than-significant levels.
The project site and adjacent areas support potential nesting habitat for migratory and residential birds covered under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Project activities may result in direct and/or indirect loss of an active nest. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3 would require that pre-construction surveys for active nests be conducted during the breeding season for Cooper’s hawk. If active nests are found during the surveys, buffers around the nests would be established and work within these buffers would be postponed or halted until the nest is vacated. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3, impacts to wildlife nurseries would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The Study Area contains 1.081 -acres (3,209 linear feet) of federally and state protected water, including two aquatic features considered to be waters of the U.S., waters of the State, and features subject or Fish and Game Code Section 1600, et seq., which ma y be impacted by the proposed project. The project would impact 0.19-acre of waters of the U.S. and about 1.1 -acres of CDFW jurisdiction. The proposed impact would be approximately 1,400 linear feet in length, with approximately 400 feet of the 1,400 being within the existing concrete drainage channel at the northeast end of the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-5, which requires on-site or off -site restoration or enhancement of USACE/RWQCB and CDFW jurisdictional waterways and aquat ic resources at a ratio of at least 2:1 for permanent impacts and the restoration of impacted areas to pre -project conditions for temporary impacts , would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level of less-than-significant.
The project design is anticipated to impact 0.78 acre of marginally suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo. In addition, Cooper’s hawk could potentially occur as nesting occurs in the woodlands and
1.b
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 21
forests in adjacent to the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-3, which involve focused, protocol, and pre -construction surveys and avoidance measures, would reduce any potential impacts to special-status wildlife to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
MM-BIO-1: Crotch Bumble Bee. Surveys for Crotch bumble bee must be conducted within one year of Project ground-disturbing. Surveys must include 1) a habitat assessment and 2) focused surveys, both of which shall adhere to the “Survey Considerations for California Endangere d Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species,” released by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on June 6, 2023, or the most current at the time of construction.
The habitat assessment must include historical and current species occur rences; document potential habitat onsite including foraging, nesting, and/or overwintering resources; and identify which plant species are present.
Focused surveys must be performed by a qualified entomologist with appropriate handling permits and familiarity with identification, behavior, and life history of the species. Surveys must include at least three survey passes that are not on sequential days or in the same week, preferably space d two to four weeks apart.
The timing of these surveys must coincide with the Colony Active Period (April 1 through August 31 for Crotch bumble bee). Surveys must occur between one hour after sunrise and two hours before sunset. Surveys may not be conducte d during wet conditions (e.g., foggy, raining, or drizzling). Optimal surveys are when there are sunny to partly sunny skies that are greater than 60° Fahrenheit. Surveys may not be conducted when it is windy (i.e., sustained winds greater than 8 mph). The qualified entomologist must seek out nest/hive resources suitable for bumble bee use. Ensuring that all nest resources receive 100% visual coverage, the qualified entomologist must watch the nest resources for up to five minutes, looking for exiting or entering worker bumble bees. Worker bees should arrive and exit an active nest site with frequency, such that their presence would be apparent after five minutes of observation. If a bumble bee worker is detected, then a representative individual must be identified to species to determine if it is Crotch bumble bee or one of the common, unregulated species. It is up to the discretion of the biologist regarding the actual survey viewshed limits from the chosen vantage point which would provide 100% visual cove rage; this could include a 30 - to 50-foot-wide area. If a nest is suspected, the surveyor may block the entrance of the possible nest with a sterile vial or jar until nest activity is confirmed (not longer than 30 minutes).
Identification must include the qualified entomologist netting/capturing the representative bumble bee in appropriate insect nets, per the protocol in U.S.
National Protocol Framework for the Inventory and Monitoring of Bees (Droege, Engler, Sellers, and O’Brien (2016)).
If Crotch bumbl e bee nests are not detected, no further mitigation is required.
However, if construction in a given phase area does not start within a year of the last survey, surveys must be repeated for that phase area. Additionally, if construction
1.b
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 22
stops for 14 days o r longer, surveys would be repeated if construction resumes in the nesting season. Outside of the nesting season, it is assumed that no live individuals would be present within the nest as the daughter queens (gynes) usually leave by September, and all other individuals disperse to outside of the construction footprint to surrounding open space areas.
Following the habitat assessment and focused surveys, a written survey report must be submitted to the Director and CDFW before Project activities. The report will include survey methods, weather conditions, a description and map of the survey area, and survey results, including a list of insect species observed and a figure showing the locations of any Crotch bumble bee nest sites or individuals observed.
The survey report must include the qualifications/resumes of the entomologist(s) for identification of photo vouchers, detailed habitat assessment, and photo vouchers.
If Crotch bumble bee s are observed, the qualified entomologist must provide the location of all nests within and adjacent to the Project site. The survey report must also include the physical (e.g., soil, moisture, slope) and biological (e.g., plant composition) conditions where each nest/colony is found. This includes native plant composition (e.g., density, cover, and abundance) within affected habitat (e.g., species list separated by vegetation class; density, cover, and abundance of each species). The qualified entomologist must also draft an Avoidance Plan with specific avoidance measures that will be implemented before and during Project activities.
The Avoidance Plan must be submitted to CDFW before Project activities for review.
Upon CDFW approval of an Avoidance Plan , the qualified entomologist must demarcate an appropriate buffer zone around all identified nest(s).
If complete avoidance of Crotch’s bumble bee is not feasible, the permittee continue consultation with CDFW to determine if take authorization from CDFW is required.
Any measures determined to be necessary through th e Incidental Take Permit process to offset impacts to Crotch bumble bee supersede measures provided in this CEQA document.
In the event an Incidental Take Permit is needed, the Project proponent must provide compensatory mitigation at a minimum 1:1 nesting habitat replacement of equal or better functions and values to those impacted by the project, or as otherwise determined through the Incidental Take Permit process. Mitigation must be accomplished either through off-site conservation and the permittee must provide an endowment determined through the Incidental Take Permit process.
MM-BIO-2: Least Bell’s Vireo. Before starting construction, a qualified biologist must conduct eight focused surveys within suitable least Bell’s vireo habitat between April 10 and July 31, and be spaced a minimum of 10 days apart, in accordance with the 2001 United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Least B ell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines. The eight focused protocol surveys must be completed, and the results of the surveys be submitted in a draft report to the Director for review within 21 days of the completion of surveys. A final report must be prepared and s ubmitted to the Director and USFWS within 45 days following the completion of the surveys. If least Bell’s vireo is determined to be absent, no further action is required.
1.b
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 23
If least Bell’s vireo is determined to be present based on the results of the proto col surveys, no construction may begin before consulting with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and USFWS for compliance with both the federal and State endangered species acts. Compensatory mitigation for impacts to 0.78 acre of marginally suitable least Bell’s vireo habitat must be achieved in conjunction with Mitigation Measure BIO-4 for impacts to a jurisdictional drainage with mitigation ratio of at least 2:1.
MM-BIO-3: Nesting Birds. Before construction that would require removal of po tential habitat for raptor and songbird nests between January 15 and September 1, the Project applicant must have a qualified biologist that is approved by the City conduct surveys for any and all active avian nests. Pre -construction nesting bird surveys m ust be conducted weekly, within 30 days before initiation of ground -disturbing activities to determine the presence of active nests. The surveys should continue on a weekly basis with the last survey being conducted not more than three days before the start of clearance/construction work. Surveys should include examination of trees, shrubs, and the ground, within grasslands, for nesting birds, as several bird species known to the area are shrub or ground nesters, including mourning doves. If ground- disturbing activities are delayed, additional preconstruction surveys may be recommended by the City so that not more than three days elapse between the survey and ground-disturbing activities.
If active nests are located during pre-construction surveys, clearing and construction activities within 300 feet of the nest (500 feet for raptors) must be postponed or halted until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest must be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers and construction personnel should be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. The nest buffers may be reduced by the monitoring biologist when there is a biologist present to observe the nest for changes in behavior. The biologist must serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests will occur. The results of the survey, and any avoidance measures taken, shall be submitted to the City within 30 days of completion of the pre-construction surveys and/or construction monitoring to document compliance with applicable state and federal laws pertaining to the protection of native birds.
MM-BIO-4: Sensitive Plant Communities. Before the Building Official issues a grading permit, impacts to sensitive plant communities (e.g., Fremont cottonwood/mulefat forest, Fremont cottonwood forest, and California sycamore woodland) must be mitigated through enhancement or restoration of rem aining on -site sensitive plant communities at a ratio of 1:1 or the creation of new sensitive plant communities within the newly created channel area. A habitat mitigation and monitoring plan must be prepared by a City -approved biologist or restoration eco logist and approved by the City before the Public Works Director, or designee, issues a grading permit. The mitigation and monitoring plan must focus on the removal of nonnative elements within disturbed habitat areas of the project site or depict creation areas, planting/restoration methods and success criteria. In addition, this plan must provide
1.b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 24
details as to its implementation, maintenance, and future monitoring including the following components:
• Description of existing sensitive plant communities on the Project site; • Summary of permanent impacts to the sensitive community based on approved Project design;
• Proposed mitigation location areas, with description of existing conditions before mitigation implementation;
• Detailed description of restoration or enhancement goals; • Description of implementation schedule, site preparation, erosion control measures, planting plans, and plant materials;
• Provisions for mitigation site maintenance and control on non -native invasive plants; and
• Monitoring plan, including performance standards, adaptive management measures, and
• Monitoring reporting to the City of Santa Clarita
Alternatively, mitigation for sensitive plant community impacts may be achieved through off -site restoration or enhancement at a ratio no less than 1:1 and may include the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency- approved off-site mitigation bank or an in lieu fee program within Los Angeles County acceptable to the City.
MM-BIO-5: Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources. Before the Public Works Director, or designee, issues any grading permit for permanent or temporary impacts in the areas designated as jurisdictional features, the applicant must obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), a Clean Water Act Section 401 permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and Streambed Alteration Agreement permit under Fish and Game Code Section 1602 from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The following shall be incorporated into the permitting, subject to approval by the regulatory agencies:
• On- or off-site restoration or enhan cement of USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional “waters of the U.S. /“waters of the State” and wetlands at a ratio no less than 2:1 for permanent impacts, and for temporary impacts, restore impact area to pre-project conditions (i.e., revegetate with native species, where appropriate).
Off-site restoration or enhancement at a ratio no less than 2:1 may include the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency -approved off-site mitigation bank or in lieu fee program within Los Angeles County or within the same watershed acceptable to the City, where the location has comparable ecological parameters such as habitat types and species mix;
• On- or off-site restoration or enhancement of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat at a ratio no less than 2:1 for permanent impacts, and for temporary impacts, restore impact area to pre -project conditions (i.e., revegetate with native species, where appropriate). Off -site
1.b
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 25
restoration or enhancement at a ratio no less than 2:1 may include the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency -approved off-site mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program within Los Angeles County or within the same watershed acceptable to the City, here the location has comparable ecological parameters such as habitat types and species mix.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The project’s impacts to cultural resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential substantial adverse effects related to historical and archaeological resources, and potential disturbance of human remains.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorpo rated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
No historical resources or unique archaeological resources as defined by CEQA were identified within the project site as a result of either the California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) records search or as a result of the cultural resources survey . The existing structures within the project site do not meet the age thresholds for cons ideration as historical resources under CEQA. However, the geoarchaeological review revealed that there is a potential for the project site to contain subsurface archaeological deposits. As a result, the project has a potential to impact and thus cause a s ubstantial adverse change in the significance of a yet unknown historical resources and inadvertent discovery of intact archaeological resources. Therefore, the project incorporated Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4. MM-CUL-1 requires the retention of a qualified archaeologist to carry out all mitigation measures related to archeological resources. MM-CUL-2 requires that all project construction personnel participate in a cultural resources sensitivity training given by the qua lified archaeologist. MM-CUL-3 involves requires archaeological and Native American monitoring for ground disturbing activities within areas of the project site mapped as containing Holocene-age undifferentiated alluvium. MM-CUL- 4 includes the protocols and procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4 would reduce potential impacts to historical and archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level.
No prehistoric or historic -period burials, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, were identified within the project site as a result of the CHRIS records search, NAHC SLF search and informal tribal outreach, or pedestrian survey. Therefore, the likeli hood of encountering human remains within the subsurface of the project site is low. However, the possibility of encountering human remains within the project site exists such that potentially significant impacts could occur. The discovery of human remains would require handling in accordance with PRC 5097.98, which states that in the event that human remains are discovered during construction, construction activity shall be halted, and the area shall be protected until consultation and treatment can occur as prescribed by law . In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-5, which includes the protocols and procedures for the inadvertent discovery of human remains, would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level of less-than-significant.
1.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 26
Mitigation Measures
MM-CUL-1: Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist. Before the Public Works Director, or designee, issues grading permit and before starting any ground -disturbing activity, the applicant must retain a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archeology (U.S.
Department of Interior 1983) to carry out all mitigation measures related to archeological resources.
MM-CUL-2: Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training. Before starting ground -disturbing activities, the qualified archaeologist must conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel. Construction personnel will be informed of the types of archaeological resources that may be enc ountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant must ensure that construction personnel attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance.
MM-CUL-3: Archaeological and Native American Monitoring. An archaeological monitor (working under the direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist) and a Native American monitor must be present during all ground-disturbing activities within areas of the Project mapped as containing Holocene -age undifferentiated alluvium. The qualified archaeologist, in coordination with the City’s Project Manager, may reduce or discontinue monitoring if it is determined that the possibility of encountering buried archaeological deposits is low based on observations of soil stratigraphy or other factors. Archaeological monitoring must be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered within the Project area. The Native American monitor must be selected from the Native American groups identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as having affiliation with the Project area. The archaeological monitor and Native American monitor are empower ed to halt or redirect ground -disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment. The archaeological monitor must keep daily logs detailing the type s of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. After monitoring is completed, the qualified archaeologist must prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring. The report must be submitted to the City and any Native American groups who request a copy. A copy of the final report must be filed at the SCCIC.
MM-CUL-4: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources. Should unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials occur, the contractor must immediately cease all work activities in the area (within approximately 100 feet) of the discovery until it can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked -stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat- affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic -period materials might include stone or concrete footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass,
1.b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 27
and/or ceramic refuse. Construction may not resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with the City’s Project Manager on the significance of the resource.
If it is determined by the qualified archaeological monitor that the discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historical resource or unique archaeological resource under CEQA, avoidance and preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigation. Preservation in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and also serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource.
Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that pre servation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, an Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City that provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The qualified archaeologist and City’s Project Manager must consult with appropriate Native American representatives in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond those that are scientifically important, are considered.
MM-CUL-5: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, the contractor must halt work in the vicinity (within 100 feet) of the discovery and contact the Los Angeles County Coroner in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code section 7050.5. The City’s Project Manager must also be notified. If the County Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission NAHC must be notified in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 7050.5(c) a nd PRC Section 5097.98. The NAHC will designate a most likely descendent (MLD) for the remains per PRC section 5097.98. Until the landowner has conferred with the MLD, the contractor must ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not disturbed by further activity, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The project’s impacts related to geology and soils that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4. 6, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential adverse effects to paleontological resources.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
1.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 28
Although the potential to encounter fossil resources from recent alluvial deposits is relatively low, these sediments are underlain by older alluvial deposits that have increased paleontological sensitivity at depth. These older alluvial deposits and the Plio-Pleistocene Saugus Formation have a high potential for containing fossil resources due to their older age and from previously recorded fossil localities from the same and/or similar sediments found outside of the proposed project area.
Mitigation Measures MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-4, which require the retention of a qualified paleontologist before the initiation of grading activities , sensitivity and awareness training, monitoring, and procedures to follow in the event of inadvertent discovery, would reduce the potential to damage such resources to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
MM-GEO-1: Retain Qualified Paleontologist. Before starting construction activities, the developer must retain a Qualified Paleontologist that meets the standards of the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) to carry out all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources.
MM-GEO-2: Paleontological Resources Sensitivity Training. Before any person commences ground-disturbing activities, the Qualified Paleontologist must conduct pre - construction worker paleontological resources sensitivity training. The training must include information on what types of paleontological resources could be encountered during excavations, what to do in case an unanticipated discovery is made by a worker, and laws protecting paleontological resources. All construction personnel must be informed of the possibility of encountering fossils and instructed to immediately inform the construction foreman or supervisor if any bones or other potential fossils are unexpectedly unearthed in an area where a paleontological monitor is not present. The developer must ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance.
MM-GEO-3: Paleontological Monitoring. The Qualified Paleontologist must supervise a paleontological monitor meeting the SVP standards (2010) and be present during all excavations extending beyond a depth of 5 feet. Monitoring must consist of visually inspecting fresh exposures of rock for larger fossil remains and, where appropriate, collecting wet or dry screened standard sediment samples (up to 4.0 cubic yards) of promising horizons for smaller fossil remains (SVP 2010). Per the SVP standards (2010), once 50 percent of excavations or other ground disturbing activities are complete within geologic units assigned high paleonto logical sensitivity and no fossils are identified, monitoring can be reduced to part -time inspections or ceased entirely if determined adequate by the Qualified Paleontologist in consultation with the City’s Project Manager. Monitoring activities must be d ocumented in a Paleontological Resources Monitoring Report to be prepared by the Qualified Paleontologist at the completion of construction and be provided to the City within six months of Project completion. If fossil resources are identified during monitoring, the report will also be filed with the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.
MM-GEO-4: Inadvertent Discoveries. If a paleontological resource is discovered during construction, the paleontological monitor is empowered to temporarily divert o r redirect grading and excavation activities in the area of the exposed resource to
1.b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 29
facilitate evaluation of the discovery. An appropriate buffer area must be established by the Qualified Paleontologist around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue. Work may be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area.
At the Qualified Paleontologist’s discretion and to reduce any construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor must assist in removing rock samples for initial processing and evaluation of the find. All significant fossils must be collected by the paleontological monitor and/or the Qualified Paleontologist. Collected fossils must be prepared to the point of identification and catalogued before they are submitted to their final repository. Any fossils collected must be curated at a public, non -profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, if such an institution agrees to accept the fossils. If no institution accepts the fossil collection, they may be donated to a local school in the area for educational purposes. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs must also be filed at the repository and/or school.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The project’s impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4. 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential adverse effects related to the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
The project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) , and therefore the project has the potential to expose people or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM- FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE-3, which involve additional requirements for construction activities in hazardous fire areas and limiting or ceasing construction work during high-wind weather events; vegetation management requirements implemented at the start of and throughout all phases of construction; and ensure that plant selection for the project would be in accordance with the fuel modification plant selection guidelines of the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) , would reduce impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, and specifically impacts associated with potential exposure to wildfire risks, to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
See MM-FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE-3 under Wildfire of Section 5.3 below.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The project’s impacts related to hydrology and water quality that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR.
Identified impacts include potential adverse effects relating to impeding or redirecting flood flows and relating to the risk of release of pollutants in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiches zones.
1.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 30
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
Based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), the project site is located in an area mapped as either Zone A Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) (without base flood elevation) or Zone AO SFHA (with base flood elevation of 3 feet). Placement of the proposed project would impede and potentially redirect flood flows if not addressed appropriately. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1, which requires that design plans including the site modifications meet FEMA requirements to remove the site from the SFHA, and meet National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements, would reduce potential flooding impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
MM-HYD-1: The applicant must submit an application for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) along with a hydrology a nd hydraulics report prepared by a California licensed engineer. The LOMR must be based on the implementation of all physical measures that affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of the flooding source for the site that are to be included as part of the project before obtaining a building permit. The hydrologic and hydraulics report must demonstrate how modification of the existing regulatory floodway or the Special Flood Hazard Area for the project site will reduce flooding risks to within FEMA requirements. Once the LOMR is approved by FEMA and revises the Flood Insurance Rates Map or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map for the project site, construction of the proposed project may commence in accordance with applicable law.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
The project’s impacts related to land use and planning that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential adverse effects relating to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Findings
Changes or alterations have be en required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
As shown in Table 4.10 -2, General Plan Land Use Consistency Analysis, within Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR, the project is either consistent or partially consistent with the City’s General Plan’s applicable goals, objectives, and policies with the implementation of MM-AQ-1, MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-5, MM-HYD-1, MM-NOI-1, MM-NOI-2, and MM-FIRE- 1 through MM-FIRE-3, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
1.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 31
See MM-AQ-1, MM-BIO-1 through MM -BIO-5, MM-HYD-1, MM-NOI-1 through MM -NOI-2, and MM-FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE-3.
RECREATION
The project’s impacts related to recreation that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.15, Recreation, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential adverse effects relating to recreational facilities or the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
Construction activities related to the proposed recreational components of the project would involve introducing heavy machinery to the project site for grading, excavation, and development.
Impacts associated with project construction would be temporary and short in duration, as the project is proposed to be constructed over a period of approximately 24 months . As discussed throughout the EIR, impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project, including the project’s recreational amenities, would result in either no impact or less than significant impacts, either with or without mitigation, for all issues areas wit h the exception of construction noise. For construction noise, construction impacts associated with the recreational components of the project could result in potentially significant impacts such that mitigation would be required. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1, MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-4, MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-5, MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-4, MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2, and MM-FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE 3 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
See MM-AQ-1, MM -BIO-1 through MM -BIO-4, MM -CUL-1 through MM -CUL-5, MM -GEO-1 through MM -GEO-4, MM -NOI-1 through MM -NOI-2, and MM -FIRE-1 through MM -FIRE-3 in Section 5.3.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The project’s impacts to tribal cultural resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4. 17, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. Identified potential impacts include those related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or local register, and significant to a California Native American Tribe.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
1.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 32
No tribal cultural resources (TCRs) were identified within the project site; however, the potential to discover TCRs still exists on the project site. Implementation Mitigation Measures MM-CUL- 1 through MM-CUL-5, which involve retention of a qualified archaeologist; project construction personnel participating in a cultural resources sensitivity training ; archaeological and Native American monitoring for ground disturbing activities within areas of the project site mapped as containing Holocene-age undifferentiated alluvium ; and protocols and procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
See MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-5 under Cultural Resources in Section 5.3 above.
WILDFIRE
The project’s impacts related to wildfire that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4. 19, Wildfire, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential adverse effects relating to exacerbating wildfire risks and thereby exposing project occupants to pollutants concentrations from or spread of a wildfire; and installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
Project construction would introduce potential ignition sources to the project site, including the use of heavy machinery and the potential for sparks during welding activities or other hot work .
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE-3, which involve additional requirements for construction activities in hazardous fire area s and limiting or ceasing construction work during high -wind weather events ; vegetation management requirements implemented at the start of and throughout all phases of construction; and ensure that plant selection for the project would be in accordance with the fuel modification plant selection guidelines of the LACFD, would reduce potential wildfire impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
MM-FIRE-1: Extreme Fire Day Ignition Avoidance. All construction and maintenance activities must temporarily cease during Red Flag Warnings. The contractor’s superintendent must coordinate with personnel to determine which low fire hazard activities may occur. Should the Fire Department declare a Red Flag Warning affecting the Wiley Canyon Project site, t he same work activity restrictions occurring during National Weather Service Red Flag Warning periods apply.
MM-FIRE-1: Pre-Construction Requirements . Vegetation management must be conducted before the start of construction and throughout all construction phases. Perimeter fuel modification must be implemented and approved by the Fire Department before bringing combustible materials on site. Existing fla mmable vegetation must be
1.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 33
reduced by 50% on vacant lots upon commencement of construction. Caution must be used to avoid causing erosion or ground (including slope) instability or water runoff due to vegetation removal, vegetation management, maintenance, landscaping or irrigation.
Before delivering lumber or combustible materials onto the site, site improvements within the active development area must be in place, including utilities, operable fire hydrants, an approved, temporary roadway surface, and fuel modification zones established. These features must be approved by the Fire Department before combustibles being brought on site.
MM-FIRE-1: LACFD FMZ Plant Selection Guideline Compliant . The Fire Department publishes a list of plants that would not contr ibute to extreme fire behavior are suitable for Fuel Modification Zones. All plants included within fuel modification zones of the proposed project must be from this list and if a minimum distance from structures is stated for the species, such listed species may not be planted closer to any structures associated with the proposed project than the stated minimum distance. No plant that is not listed by the Fire Department on its Fuel Modification Zone Plant Selection Guidelines may be included within a Fuel Modification Zone of the proposed Project without approval by Fire Department.
5.4 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND
UNAVOIDABLE BUT MITIGATED TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE
The Wiley Canyon Project Draft EIR found that the project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to noise during construction. A detailed analysis of th is topic area is provided in Section 4.12 of the Draft EIR.
FINDING:
The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission having reviewed and con sidered the information contained in the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, Final EIR, and administrative record, finds, pursuant to PRC Section 21081 (a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), that changes or alterations have been required in, or in corporated into, the project, which would lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Draft EIR to the extent feasible but not to a less -than-significant level. Therefore, the City of Santa Clarita finds, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR, and, therefore, the project would cause significant unavoidable impacts related to construction noise and cumulative construction noise, as summarized below.
NOISE
As further described in Section 4.12, Noise, of the Draft EIR, identified significant impacts related to noise are associated with the project’s potential to result in temporary construction noise levels that would exceed exterior daytime noise standards at identified sensitive receptors.
Findings
1.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 34
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.
2. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
During the City’s permitted construction hours, project construction would result in noise levels at adjacent sensitive receiver locations exceeding the ambient noise (57.7 to 70 dBA [A-weighted decibels] Leq [Equivalent Continuous Sound Pressure Level ]) plus 5 dBA (62.7 to 77 dBA L eq) significance threshold. Additionally, the senior living facility would be occupied for approximately 18 months while construction continues on the additional residential (and commercial) buildings at the project site. Based on the site plan, the senior living facility would be approximately 50 feet from the construction area of other residential buildings. Once these nearest residential buildings have been constructed, they would function as barriers shielding construction activity in areas beyond these residential buildings nea rest to the senior living facility. Construction noise would reach a maximum of 88.8 dBA Leq at a receiver as close as 50 feet to the construction area thereby resulting in a potentially significant impact. Therefore, mitigation measures are required to protect sensitive receivers. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI- 2 would require construction equipment within 200 feet of the northern and eastern boundary of the project site be limited to small, reduced noise equipment that has a maximum noise generation level of 77 dBA L eq at 50 feet and require noise barriers to be installed during construction with sufficient height to block the line -of-sight between the project construction area and adjacent sensitive receivers , would reduce noise impacts to the extent feasible. As no mitigation measures are feasible to reduce noise impacts to a less than sig nificant level, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
MM-NOI-1: Construction equipment within 200 feet of the northern and eastern boundary of the project site is limited to small, reduced noise equipment that has a maximum n oise generation level of 77 dBA Leq at 50 feet. This measure also applies to construction equipment during the later phases of construction for residential buildings within 200 feet of the Senior Living Building after it is occupied.
MM-NOI-2: Construction noise barriers must be installed d uring project construction with sufficient height to block the line-of-sight between the project construction area and adjacent sensitive receivers, including proposed on -site residential uses that are completed and occupied while construction in other par ts of the project site continues.
5.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
As set forth in these findings, the implementation of the project would not result in significant impacts that are considered unavoidable , with the exception of impacts related to construction noise and cumulative construction noise . CEQA requires that an EIR include an analysis of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to a proposed project capable of avoiding or
1.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 35
substantially lessening any significant adverse environmental impact associated with the project.
The Draft EIR addressed the environmental effects of alternatives to the project. A description of these alternatives, a comparison of their environmental impacts to the project, and the City’s findings are listed below. These alternatives are compared against the project relative to the identified project impacts, summarized in the sections above, and to the project objectives, as stated in Section 2.2, Statement of Objectives, above.
In making the alternatives findings below, the City of Santa Clarita certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information o n alternatives provided in the EIR, including the information provided in the comments on the Draft EIR and the responses thereto.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS IN THE EIR Alternatives that were considered but rejected during the scoping process for detailed evaluation in the EIR are discussed below.
Alternative Site
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2), the City considered the potential for alternative locations to the project. As stated in CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(f) (2)(A), the key question and first step in analyzing alternative sites is whether any of the significant effects of a project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting that project in another location.
Only locations that would avoid or substan tially lessen any of the significant effects of a project need to be considered in the EIR.
The project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction noise even with the incorporation of mitigation measures MM -NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2, as detailed in Section
4.12, Noise, of this Draft EIR. Similarly, the project would result in cumulatively considerable construction noise impacts. In particular, a significant impact would occur as a result of a temporary exceedance in the ambient no ise thresholds during construction, as well as an exceedance in significance thresholds related to the proposed Senior Living residences on site.
There are no significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project that relate to the location of the project site, and development of the project on another site in the City is not likely to lessen or avoid the environmental impacts that required mitigation. Moreover, the objectives of the proposed project are closely tied to redeveloping the former Smiser Mule Ranch.
Consideration of the potential to development the proposed project on another site within the City was given. The surrounding vicinity is characterized as urban and suburban development, vacant land, which has been previously disturbed by past agricultural activities, and limited commercial uses. Underutilized developed areas would have the potential to be redeveloped to provide additional housing units, however, the project applicant does not control another site within the area of comparable land that is available for development of the project.
Given the site’s location, site zoning, and site designations for development, it is also not reasonable to assume that the use of another site would result in the project site being vacan t and impacts related to the site conditions avoided. Other surrounding areas are also in other jurisdictions outside the control of the City. Development of the proposed project on an alternate site would result in a similar construction scenario, similar quantities of criteria air pollutant emissions during construction, similar levels of construction noise, and similar levels of energy consumption. Additionally, because of the City’s urban nature, mix of land uses, and the presence
1.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 36
of a variety of sensitive receptors throughout the City, it is unlikely that an alternate site would be situated far enough from sensitive receptors to substantially lessen the air quality and noise impacts of the proposed project during construction.
Regardless of its location, the proposed project would generally place similar demands on public services, utilities and services systems, and energy resources. With regard to the visibility and appearance of the project, the aesthetic impact on the project is largely relat ed to its height and density, which would not substantially change at an alternative location. For these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
The following alternatives were selected for evaluation in the Draft EIR:
• Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
• Alternative 2: Affordable Housing Alternative
• Alternative 3: Private Recreational Facility Alternative • Alternative 4: Construction Noise Setback Alternative Additionally, another alternative was proposed and evaluated as part of the project’s Final EIR. • Alternative 5: Mixed Use Alternative
Table 1 provides a comparison of environmental impacts for each of the alternatives in relation to environmental impacts associated with the project.
Table 1
Summary Comparison of the Impacts of the Alternatives
Impact Topic Project
Alternative 1
No
Project/No
Build
Alternative 2
Affordable
Housing
Zoning
Alternative 3
Private
Recreational
Facility
Alternative 4
Construction
Noise
Setback
Alternative 5
Mixed Use
Aesthetics LTS Less/NI Similar/LTS Greater/LTS Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Air Quality LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Less/LTSM Less/LTSM Less/LTSM Biological Resources LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Cultural Resources LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Energy LTS Less/NI Similar/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Geology and Soils LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM GHG Emissions LTS Less/NI Greater/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Hydrology and Water
Quality
LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Land Use and
Planning
LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Mineral Resources LTS Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Noise SU Less/NI Similar/SU Similar/SU Less/LTSM Similar/SU Population and
Housing
LTS Less/NI Greater/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS
Public Services LTS Less/NI Greater/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS
1.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 37
Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative for a project on an identifiable property consists of the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) states that, “in certain instances, the no project alternative means ‘no build’ wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.” Accordingly, for purposes of this analysis, Alternative 1, the No Project/No Build Alternative, assumes that no development would occur on the project site. The project site would continue to be vacant.
Findings
1. Alternative 1 would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with construction noise and cumulative construction noise.
2. Alternative 1 would reduce or eliminate the less-than-significant impacts with mitigation or less-than-significant impacts for aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.
3. Alternative 1 would result in similar impacts for mineral resources.
4. Alternative 1 would not meet any of the basic Project objectives and is, therefore, rejected as infeasible.
5. The findings of the project set forth in this document provide support for the project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Under the Alternative 1, the Wiley Canyon Project would not be implemented, and no development would occur on the project site. The project site would continue to be vacan t.
Because no construction or new operational activities would occur under this alternative, the less- than-significant impacts with mitigation or less-than-significant impacts for aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public Recreation LTSM Less/NI Greater/LTSM Less/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Transportation LTS Less/NI Greater/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Tribal Cultural
Resources
LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Utilities and Service
Systems
LTS Less/NI Greater/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS
Wildfire LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Notes:
LTS = Less Than Significant Similar = Impact Similar to the Project LTSM = Less Than Significant with Mitigation Greater = Impact Greater than the Project NI = No Impact Less = Impact Less than the Project
PSI = Potentially Significant Impact
SU = Significant and Unavoidable Impact
1.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 38
services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems , and wildfire would be eliminated.
In addition, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives, as identified below in Table 2.
Table 2
Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 1
Project Objective
Alternative 1:
No Project
Alternative
Create a new mixed-use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources.
Does Not Meet
Provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments.
Does Not Meet
Provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding communities and land uses and are consistent with the City’s General Plan.
Does Not Meet
Arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage the use of transit.
Does Not Meet
Design neighborhoods to locate residential and non -residential land uses in close proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit and trails.
Does Not Meet
Provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails. Does Not Meet Implement waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, and use of water efficiency measures.
Does Not Meet
Provide a meandering trail with public access along Wiley Canyon Road and within the project site along Wiley Canyon Creek.
Does Not Meet
Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and invi ting streetscapes.
Does Not Meet
Enhance and augment the City’s housing market by providing a variety of housing product to meet the needs of future residents.
Does Not Meet
Maintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife.
Does Not Meet
Incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces. Does Not Meet Incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections.
Does Not Meet
Provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways. Does Not Meet Provide publicly accessible passive and active recreational opportunities for prospective residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site.
Does Not Meet
Include amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including memory care, supporting amenities for basic-needs nursing care, and housekeeping service.
Does Not Meet
Include recreational amenities to improve quality of life of prospective on -site residents and existing off-site residents and encourage sen ior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles.
Does Not Meet
1.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 39
Alternative 2: Affordable Housing Alternative
Alternative 2, the Affordable Housing Alternative, would allow the development of the project site with 837 apartment units , including 201 units designated for low - and very -low-income households. The maximum height of the proposed buildings would be 65 feet under this alternative. The proposed floor-area-ratio for this alternative is 0.63. U nder Alternative 2, a total of 1,026 parking spaces would be provided, in compliance with State Density Bonus requirements. In comparison to the proposed project, th e recreational areas located on the southern portion of the project site would not be developed under this alternative. Infrastructure improvements, including the northern water quality basin and the southern drainage basin on site, are proposed under this alternative. In addition, off-site street improvements along Wiley Canyon Road and its intersecting streets, including Fourl Road, Canerwell Street, Valley Oak Court, and Calgrove Boulevard would remain.
Findings
1. Alternative 2 would result in similar significant and unavoidable impacts after mitigation associated with construction noise and cumulative construction noise.
2. Alternative 2 would result in greater impacts associated with recreation which would be less- than-significant with mitigation incorporated.
3. Alternative 2 would result in greater less-than-significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems.
4. Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire.
5. The findings of the project set forth in this document provide support for the project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration.
Facts in Support of Findings:
In comparison to the project, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts relative to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning , mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire . However, this alternative would result in potentially greater impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems for the following reasons:
• Under Alternative 2, an increase in GHG emissions is anticipated due to an increase of 312 vehicle trips as a result of the proposed land use. Given this, Alternative 2 is anticipated to result in GHG impacts slightly greater than the proposed project. • Under Alternative 2, 837 multifamily residential units are proposed on the project site.
Utilizing the City’s average persons per household of 3.08 (as identified in Section 4.13 of this EIR), this alternative is anticipated to result in approximately 2,578 r esidents.1 The
1 837*3.08 = 2577.95 or 2,578 (rounded to the nearest whole person)
1.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 40
population projections under Alternative 2, therefore, would be greater than the 1,371 residents anticipated under the proposed project.
• Under Alternative 2, an increase in population is anticipated when compared to the proposed project (se e the discussion above regarding population and housing). Given this, the alternative is anticipated to result in an increased demand for police, fire, schools, parks, and other public services (libraries), as well as recreational facilities. • Under Alterna tive 2, an increase of approximately 312 average daily vehicle trips is anticipated during operations when compared to the project . Given this, Alternative 2 is anticipated to result in transportation impacts slightly greater than the proposed project. • Under Alternative 2, future development would have the same development footprint as the proposed project. Connections to utilities and service systems to the project site would remain. However, due to the potential increase in population generated as a result of 837 multifamily residential units, an increase in demand for potable water, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications is anticipated. Similarly, an increase in the generation of solid waste and wastewater is expected.
In addition, Alternative 2 would not meet some of the project objectives, as identified below in Table 3.
Table 3
Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 2
Project Objective
Alternative 2:
Affordable
Housing
Alternative
Create a new mixed -use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources.
Partially Meets
Provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments.
Meets
Provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding communities and land uses and are consistent with the City’s General Plan.
Meets
Arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage the use of transit.
Partially Meets
Design neighborhoods to locate residential and non -residential land uses in close proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit and trails.
Meets
Provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails. Partially Meets Implement waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, and use of water efficiency measures.
Meets
Provide a meandering trail with public access along Wiley Canyon Road and within the project site along Wiley Canyon Creek.
Meets
Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting streetscapes.
Meets
Enhance and augment the City’s housing market by providing a variety of housing product to meet the needs of future residents.
Meets
1.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 41
Alternative 3: Private Recreational Facility Alternative This alternative includes the development of a private recreational facility , which would include various recreational uses along with a 10,000 square foot clubhouse/restaurant. Development under this alternative would consist of eight tennis courts, seven pickleball courts, a soccer field, a football field, baseball field and outdoor basketball court. All courts and fields would include overhead lighting. Under Alternative 3, parking would be included to support th e recreational facility. In addition, on -site infrastructure improvements along the creek off -site street improvements would be included.
Findings
1. Alternative 3 would not eliminate the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts associated with construction noise and cumulative construction noise.
2. Alternative 3 would result in greater impacts related to aesthetics which would be less-than- significant with mitigation incorporated.
3. Alternative 3 would reduce, but not eliminate, the less -than-significant impacts with mitigation incorporated for air quality and would reduce less-than-significant impacts related to energy, greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems.
4. Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire.
5. The findings of the project set forth in this document provide support for the project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration.
Facts in Support of Findings:
In comparison to the project, Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts relative to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and Maintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife.
Meets
Incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces. Meets Incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections.
Meets
Provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways. Meets Provide publicly accessible passive and active recreational opportunities for prospective residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site.
Partially Meets
Include amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including memory care, supporting amenities for basic-needs nursing care, and housekeeping service.
Does Not Meet
Include recreational amenities to improve quality of life of prospective on -site residents and existing off-site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles.
Partially Meets
1.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 42
water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire.
Alternative 3 would have reduced impacts relative to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems due to the reduced scale of the proposed development compared to the project.
Alternative 3 would still require mitigation measures associated with air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. However, this alternative would result in potentially greater impacts related to aesthetics for the following reasons:
• Under Alternative 3, the recreational facil ity would require overhead lighting . I mpacts related to lighting and glare would be greater than the proposed project.
In addition, Alternative 3 would not meet some project objectives, as identified below in Table 4.
Table 4
Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 3
Project Objective
Alternative 3:
Private
Recreational
Facility
Alternative
Create a new mixed -use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources.
Does Not Meet
Provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments.
Meets
Provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding communities and land uses and are consistent with the City’s General Plan.
Meets
Arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles tra veled and to encourage the use of transit.
Partially Meets
Design neighborhoods to locate residential and non -residential land uses in close proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit and trails.
Meets
Provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails. Partially Meets Implement waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, and use of water efficiency measures.
Meets
Provide a meandering trail with public access along Wiley Canyon Road and within the project site along Wiley Canyon Creek.
Meets
Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting streetscapes.
Meets
Enhance and augment the City’s housing market by providing a variety of housing product to meet the needs of future residents.
Does Not Meet
Maintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife.
Meets
Incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces. Meets
1.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 43
Alternative 4: Construction Noise Setback Alternative
This alternative includes development of the site with a 139 -bed assisted living facility, 47 detached condos, and 237 apartment units. The proposed senior living facility would be 3-stories in height and the multifamily apartments would range from 2- and 4-stories. Under Alternative 4, a 200-foot open space/landscaped buffer is proposed between the mobile home park to the north and the project site. This alternative would include development of a recreational building and pool located in the center of the project site surrounded by the proposed apartment buildings. In addition, recreational/ open space uses are proposed on the southern portion of the site.
Infrastructure improvements, including the northern water quality basin and the southern drainage basin on site, are proposed under this alternative as well as off -site street improvements along Wiley Canyon Road and its intersecting streets.
Findings
1. Alternative 4 would eliminate the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts associated with construction noise and cumulative construction noise to a level of less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated.
2. Alternative 4 would reduce, but not eliminate, the less -than-significant impacts with mitigation incorporated for air quality and would reduce less-than-significant impacts for energy, greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems.
3. Alternative 4 would result in similar impacts for aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire.
4. The findings of the project set forth in this document provide support for the project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration.
Facts in Support of Findings:
In comparison to the project, Alternative 4 would result in simil ar impacts relative to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. Alternative 4 would have reduced impacts relative to air quality, energy, Incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections.
Meets
Provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways. Meets Provide publicly accessible passive and active recreational opportunities for prospective residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site.
Partially Meets
Include amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including memory care, supporting amenities for basic-needs nursing care, and housekeeping service.
Does Not Meet
Include recreational amenities to improve quality of lif e of prospective on -site residents and existing off-site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles.
Partially Meets
1.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 44
greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems due to the reduced scale of the proposed development compared to the project. Alternative 4 would still require mitigation measures associated with air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire.
In addition, Alternative 4 would not fully meet all project objectives, as shown below in Table 5.
Table 5
Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 4
Project Objective
Alternative 4:
Construction
Noise Setback
Alternative
Create a new mixed -use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources.
Partially Meets
Provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments.
Meets
Provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding communities and land uses and are consistent with the City’s General Plan.
Meets
Arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage the use of transit.
Meets
Design neighborhoods to locate residential and non-residential land uses in close proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit and trails.
Meets
Provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails. Meets Implement waste reduction, drought -tolerant la ndscaping, and use of water efficiency measures.
Meets
Provide a meandering trail with public access along Wiley Canyon Road and within the project site along Wiley Canyon Creek.
Meets
Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood charac ter and inviting streetscapes.
Meets
Enhance and augment the City’s housing market by providing a variety of housing product to meet the needs of future residents.
Meets
Maintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife.
Meets
Incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces. Meets Incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections.
Meets
Provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways. Meets Provide publicly accessible passive and active recreational opportunities for prospective residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site.
Meets
Include amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including memory care, supporting amenities for basic-needs nursing care, and housekeeping service.
Meets
1.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 45
Alternative 5: Mixed Use Alternative
Alternative 5 removes the for-rent residential component of the proposed project (379 units and up to four stories) and replaces it with 232 townhome and/or detached condominium re sidential units. The townhome/condominium units would be two -story in height. Under Alternative 5, the size of the senior facility/assisted living facility would reduce to 140,000 square feet (120 assisted living units) when compared to the proposed projec t. The commercial component under this alternative would remain at 9,000 square feet. The residential area would be 16.5 acres, and the assisted living/commercial area would be 3.5 acres. A total of 601 parking spaces would be provided for residential uses , 64 spaces for commercial use, and 66 spaces for senior living parking. The open space proposed on site would total 120,330 square feet, including 15,000 square feet for recreational amenities (e.g., pool, tot -lot, restroom), an 80,045-square-foot park, 16,850 square feet for the small lot single -family development private yards, and 8,435 square feet for townhome private yards. Under this alternative, the proposed grading activities, bank protection along Wiley Canyon Creek, and off-site infrastructure would all remain the same as the proposed project.
Findings
1. Alternative 5 would not eliminate the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts associated with construction noise and cumulative construction noise.
2. Alternative 5 would reduce, but not eliminate, the less -than-significant impacts with mitigation incorporated for air quality and would reduce less -than-significant impacts for energy, greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recr eation, transportation, and utilities and service systems.
3. Alternative 5 would result in similar impacts for aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire.
Facts in Support of Findings:
In comparison to the project, Alternative 5 would result in similar impacts relative to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geolog y and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. Alternative 5 would have reduced impacts relative to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems due to the reduced scale of the proposed development compared to the project. Alternative 5 would still require mitigation measures associated with air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire.
Alternative 5 would meet all project objectives, as shown below in Table 6.
Include recreational amenities to improve quality of life of prospective on -site residents and existing off-site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles.
Meets
1.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 46
Table 6
Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 5
Project Objective
Alternative 5:
Mixed Use
Alternative
Create a new mixed -use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources.
Meets
Provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments.
Meets
Provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding communities and land uses and are consistent with the City’s General Plan.
Meets
Arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage the use of transit.
Meets
Design neighborhoods to locate residential and non -residential land uses in close proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit and trails.
Meets
Provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails. Meets Implement waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, and use of water efficiency measures.
Meets
Provide a meandering trail with public access along Wiley Canyon R oad and within the project site along Wiley Canyon Creek.
Meets
Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting streetscapes.
Meets
Enhance and augment the City’s housing market by providing a variety of housing product to meet the needs of future residents.
Meets
Maintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife.
Meets
Incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces. Meets Incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections.
Meets
Provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways. Meets Provide publicly accessible passive and active recreational opportunities for prospective residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site.
Meets
Include amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including memory care, supporting amenities for basic-needs nursing care, and housekeeping service.
Meets
Include recreational amenities to improve quality of life of pro spective on -site residents and existing off-site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles.
Meets
1.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 47
6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR
The Planning Commission finds that no new significant information as de fined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 was received by the Planning Commission after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR.
The Planning Commission certifies the Final EIR based on the following findings and conclusions.
6.1 FINDINGS
The project would have the potential for creating significant adverse impacts. These significant adverse environmental impacts are identified in the Draft EIR and require mitigation as set forth in the Findings. Significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance after mitigation include noise impacts during project construction.
6.2 CONCLUSIONS
1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the project are identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to less -than-significant level s, with the exception of construction noise and cumulative construction noise.
2. Alternatives to the project, which could potentially achieve the basic objectives of the project, have been considered. The project and Alternatives 1 through 4 have been rejected in favor of Alternative 5.
3. Environmental, economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from t he development of the proposed project, as further discussed in Section 7.0, override and make infeasible any alternatives to the project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the project.
1.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 48
This page intentionally left blank.
1.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 49
7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Santa Clarita is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review, and certification of the Final EIR for the Wiley Canyon Project. As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the pr oposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the project. In making this determination, the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, which provides as follows:
a) CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specifi c economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project appro val and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
In addition, PRC Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that s pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and the reby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of Alternative 5.
Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b) and th e CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the Alternative 5 against the one unavoidable adverse impact associated with the Alternative 5 and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to this impact.
The Plannin g Commission, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Wiley Canyon Draft EIR, the Final EIR, including responses to comments, and the public record in its entirety, hereby adopt s this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which ba lances the benefits of Alternative 5 against the one unavoidable adverse impact in reaching a decision on this project.
7.2 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
1.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 50
Although all potential project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated as described in the preceding findings, there is no complete mitigation for project impact related to construction noise and cumulative construction noise . Details of this significant unavoidable adverse impact were discussed in the EIR and are summarized or were otherwis e provided in the Statement of Facts and Findings (above).
7.3 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Planning Commission finds that each of the specific economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, and other considerations, and the benefits of the project separately and independently outweigh the remaining significant, adverse impact related to noise impacts associated with construction and is an overriding consideration independently warranting approval of the project. The remaining significant adverse impact identified in Section 7.2, above, is acceptable in light of each of these overriding considerations, and the substantial evidence that supports the enumerated benefits of Alternative 5 can be found in the St atement of Facts and Findings herein, the Final EIR, Alternative 5 itself, and the record of all proceedings in connection with the approval of Alternative 5. In the event that any court decision or regulatory action results in a determination that there are additional remaining significant impacts resulting from the City’s approval of the project that cannot be avoided even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the project, the Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Over riding Considerations herein shall be deemed to apply to such additional remaining significant impacts.
After examining the proposed project in light of its alternatives, the City determined that adoption and implementation of one of the alternatives (Alternative 5) is the most desirable, feasible, and appropriate action.
The City finds and determines that (1) all significant environmental effects of Alternative 5 are substantially lessened where feasible; (2) Alternative 5 will result in certain significan t adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level even with incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures; and (3) there are no other feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that will further mitigate, avoid, or reduce the remaining significant environmental effects to a less-than-significant level.
The City finds that the adoption and implementation of Alternative 5 will have the economic, social, legal, and other considerable benef its listed below. The City finds that each of the separate benefits listed below is determined to be unto itself an overriding consideration, independent of other benefits, that warrants approval of Alternative 5 and outweighs and overrides the significant unavoidable impacts related to construction noise and cumulative construction noise described in Section 5.4, and thereby justifies approval of Alternative 5.
The specific economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, and other considerations, and the benefits of Alternative 5 that outweigh the significant unavoidable impact of the project are:
1. Alternative 5 would c reate a new mixed -use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources.
2. Alternative 5 would provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments.
1.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 51
3. Alternative 5 would provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding communities and land uses and are consistent with the City’s General Plan.
4. Alternative 5 would arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage the use of transit.
5. Alternative 5 would provide designs and neighborhoods to locate residential and non - residential land uses in close proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit and trails.
6. Alternative 5 would provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails.
7. Alternative 5 would implement waste reduction, drought-tolerant landscaping, and use of water efficiency measures.
8. Alternative 5 would provide a meandering trail wit h public access along Wiley Canyon Road and within the project site along Wiley Canyon Creek.
9. Alternative 5 would provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting streetscapes.
10. Alternative 5 would enhance and augment the City’s housing market by providing a variety of housing product to meet the needs of future residents.
11. Alternative 5 would m aintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife.
12. Alternative 5 would incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces.
13. Alternative 5 would incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections.
14. Alternative 5 would provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways.
15. Alternative 5 would provide publicly accessible passive and active recr eational opportunities for prospective residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site.
16. Alternative 5 would i nclude amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including memory care, supporting amenities for basic-needs nursing care, and housekeeping service.
17. Alternative 5 would include recreational amenities to improve quality of life of prospective on-site residents and existing off -site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles.
Therefore, the Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered all of the information contained in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the public record, adopt s the Statement of Overriding
1.b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 52
Considerations, which balances the benefits of Alternative 5 against the unavoidable adverse impact related to operational air quality in reaching a decision on this project.
1.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 53
This page intentionally left blank.
1.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 54
8.0 STATEMENT OF LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF
DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e), the City of Santa Clarita, as the Lead Agency, specifies that copy of the FEIR and all supporting documents are available at the City Clerk’s Office, located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120, Santa Clarita, California, 91355.
1.b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
September 2025 55
This page intentionally left blank.
1.b
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. P25-13
EXHIBIT B
Final EIR; and
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project SCH No. 2022030626
Incorporated by Reference
Document can be found at
https://santaclarita.gov/planning/environmental-impact-reports-under-review/wiley-canyon- mixed-use-project/
1.c
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: P25-13-Exhibit B Final EIR-MMRP (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
RESOLUTION P25-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING MASTER CASE 20- 238, CONSISTING OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 20-023, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-005, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 20-017, MINOR USE PERMIT 20-013, OAK TREE PERMIT 425-004, AND TENTATIVE MAP 83295, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 24924 HAWKBRYN AVENUE
(ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS: 2825-012-007, 2825-007-010, 2825-012-011, 2825-012- 901, AND 2825-012-902), IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (EXHIBIT A).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS FOR MASTER CASE 20-238. The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact and conclusions:
A. On October 28, 2020, the applicant (Community Multihousing, Inc.) filed Master Case 20- 238, consisting of Architectural Design Review (ADR) 20-023, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 20-005, Development Review (DR) 20-017, Minor Use Permit (MUP) 20-013, Oak Tree Permit (OTP) 425-004, and Tentative Map (TM) 83295. The properties affected by the application are Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 2825-012-007, 2825-007-010, 2825-012- 011, 2825-012-901, and 2825-012-902;
B. The approximately 31-acre Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project (Project) site is located at 24924 Hawbryn Avenue, and has a General Plan land use and zoning designation of Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN). The Project site is also located within the area designated by the General Plan as the Calgrove Corridor/Smiser Ranch Special Development Area (Smiser Ranch Area), and located within the Planned Development Overlay (PD) zone; C. The project includes the proposed development of 45 two-story detached, single-family condominium units, eight of which would include an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU); 179 two-story townhome units; a four-story, 120-unit assisted-living facility; and 9,000 square feet of commercial floor area, including the merger and subdivision into seven lots;
D. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”; Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.), including the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15000, et seq.) the City of Santa Clarita (City) is the lead agency and the Planning Commission is the decision-making body for the Project. The findings, conclusions, and actions set forth in Resolution No. P25-14 are incorporated by reference; and
E. This Resolution and its findings are made based upon the entire administrative record, including, without limitation, testimony and evidence presented to the Planning Commission at its public hearings, including the staff report.
SECTION 2. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 20-238. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for Master Case 20-238, the Planning Commission determines as follows:
1.d
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Resolution P25-14 (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Resolution P25-14
Master Case 20-238
September 16, 2025
A. That the proposal is consistent with the General Plan;
The Project site is designated as Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MXN) under the Santa Clarita General Plan (Land Use Element), which is intended for mixed-use development “in order to create neighborhoods that integrate residential uses with complementary commercial services, including retail and office uses.” In addition, the Project site is located within an approximately 38-acre area that is specifically identified in the General Plan as the Calgrove Corridor/Smiser Ranch Special Development Area (Smiser Ranch area). The General Plan establishes a limitation on the overall allowable floor area of 830,000 square feet of total residential and commercial combined development (excluding parking facilities) in the Smiser Ranch area.
The proposed Project would develop an underutilized site with a mixed-use development, inclusive of new residential units, assisted-living units, and commercial floor area for neighborhood-serving commercial uses. The proposed development is within the allowable floor area established by the General Plan for the Smiser Ranch area.
In addition, the proposed Project would be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, including, without limitation.
The proposed Project is consistent with the following Land Use goals, and their associated objectives and policies: Goal LUE 1; Objective LU 1.2; Policy LU 1.2.1; Goal LU 2; Objective LU 2.1; Objective LU 2.3; Goal LU 3; Objective LU 3.1; and Policy LU 3.1.2. The development proposal is consistent with the intent and goals of the General Plan. The Project would provide new housing opportunities in a variety of housing types, and new commercial floor area to provide neighborhood serving commercial retail and office uses, helping to meet the housing and business needs of both current and future residents.
B. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC);
The proposed Project is a mixed-use development, located in the MXN zone, which is intended for mixed-use development. Multifamily and single-family residential units are permitted by right in the MXN zone. The assisted-living facility is permitted with the approval of a CUP. In addition, commercial development is permitted in the MXN zone, subject to the objective development standards in SCMC Chapters 17.51 and 17.55. Any future commercial uses will be subject to the requirements of SCMC Section 17.35.020(B), the permitted use chart for the MXN zone.
The MXN zone establishes minimum and maximum density for residential units, and establishes minimum and maximum floor area ratios (FAR) for commercial uses. The FAR for commercial uses is 0.2, and the maximum FAR is 0.5. Based on the 31-acre Project site, the commercial uses should provide between 270,072 and 675,180 square feet of floor area.
The required residential density is a minimum of six units per acre and a maximum of 18
1.d
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Resolution P25-14 (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Resolution P25-14
Master Case 20-238
September 16, 2025
units per acre. Based on the Project site area, the Project should provide between 186 to 558 units.
The Project includes 232 residential units, meeting the minimum and maximum residential density of the MXN zone. The Project request includes an MUP to provide a commercial FAR that is less than that required by the MXN zone. The applicant proposes a 149,000 square feet of commercial floor area, inclusive of the assisted-living and commercial floor area.
The proposed Project is within the allowable building height of 50 feet in the MXN zone. In general, the residential units are two stories, with a maximum height of 35 feet. The assisted living facility is four stories with a maximum height of 50 feet. The architecture was reviewed for conformance with the Community Character and Design Guidelines (CCDG) for the community of Newhall.
The Project complies with the objective development standards for the MXN zone, and with approval of the CUP and MUP, the Project would be consistent with the underlying zoning requirements.
C. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and
The permittee is required to comply with all applicable laws, including, without limitation, the California Building Standards Code and Fire Code. Sufficient access for firefighting purposes is provided and verified by the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (LACFD), and the permittee must comply with all LACFD requirements. As described above, the Project complies with the zoning regulations for the MXN zone and would not create a hazard to the public health, safety, and welfare. The Project complies with all applicable law. There is no evidence demonstrating that the Project, if constructed, would endanger public health and safety.
D. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the proposal’s physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable for the proposed use;
The Project complies with the City’s objective standards for mixed-use development, including, without limitation, setbacks, building height, drive aisle width, outdoor space, and landscaping, and sufficient parking is provided for both the commercial and residential components as required by the SCMC. As described in the above findings, with approval of the CUP and MUP, the Project would be consistent with the underlying
1.d
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Resolution P25-14 (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Resolution P25-14
Master Case 20-238
September 16, 2025
zoning requirements.
2. The highways or streets that provide access to the site are of sufficient width and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such proposal would generate;
The Project would include several off-site roadway improvements along Wiley Canyon Road. Wiley Canyon Road is currently a two-lane roadway along the Project frontage to Calgrove Boulevard. The are no signalized intersections along this stretch of Wiley Canyon Road. The roadway improvements for the Project include the installation of three new roundabout intersections: 1) at the Project entrance on Wiley Canyon Road; 2) at Canerwell and Wiley Canyon Road; and 3) at Calgrove Boulevard and Wiley Canyon Road. In addition, a Class I trail (two-lane bicycle path and separated, five-foot wide pedestrian path) would be installed along the Project frontage on Wiley Canyon Road from the Project entrance to Calgrove Boulevard. As discussed throughout the public hearing process, the Project trips do not necessitate the build out of 4 lanes, however, the Wiley Canyon Road right-of-way could accommodate four lanes if needed in the future.
The Project would also improve bicycle trail connections in the vicinity of the Project along Wiley Canyon Road from Lyons Avenue to Calgrove Boulevard. A Class III bicycle lane (signage to indicate a shared bicycle lane in the traffic lane) would be installed on Wiley Canyon Road from Lyons Avenue to Wabuska Street. This would transition to a Class II bicycle lane (striped bicycle lane in the traffic lane right-of-way) at Wabuska Street to the Project entrance. A Class II trail would be installed on Calgrove Boulevard from Wiley Canyon Road to The Old Road. Ultimately, these improvements would make bicycle path connections from existing bicycle trails at the north side of Lyons Avenue to The Old Road. This would provide for a future trail connection to the Towsley Canyon Open Space, on the south side of the intersection of Calgrove Boulevard and The Old Road.
3. Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection and Sheriff protection) are readily available; and
The Project site is located in an established, urban environment that is serviced by existing public protection services provided by both the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) and LACFD, and will not require any significant additional resources or services from those organizations as a result of its operation. The proposal must comply with all applicable requirements of the LACFD and LASD. In addition, the developer will be required to pay applicable fees to the law enforcement and fire protection agencies to assist in offsetting any impacts to the services necessary to properly service the Project.
4. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal) is adequate to serve the site.
1.d
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Resolution P25-14 (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Resolution P25-14
Master Case 20-238
September 16, 2025
The Project is in a portion of the City that is surrounded by developed communities with access to the necessary utilities to service the Project site. Additionally, the Conditions of Approval require necessary utility connections to support the Project.
SECTION 3: ADDITIONAL FINDINGS FOR THE OAK TREE PERMIT. Based on foregoing facts and findings for OTP 425-004, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. It is necessary to remove, relocate, prune, cut or encroach into the protected zone of an oak tree to enable reasonable use of the subject property which is otherwise prevented by the presence of the tree and no reasonable alternative can be accomodated due to the unique physical development constraints on the property.
A total of 36 oak trees are located on the Project site and/or adjacent to planned roadway improvements associated with the Project. The Project would remove four, non-heritage oak trees that are located on the Project site. In addition, there are encroachment impacts identified for 19 oak trees, including encroachment into the dripline of two heritage oak trees.
Removing oak trees requires mitigation in accordance with the City’s Oak Tree regulations.
The Conditions of Approval require the permittee to prepare a mitigation plan that is equal to the full appraisal value of the oak trees proposed to be removed. The mitigation plan could include on-site planting of oak trees, payment of a fee to the City’s oak tree fund, or donation of land for planting of oak trees.
SECTION 4: FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE MAP 83295. Pursuant to SCMC § 16.25.110, the Planning Commission finds that there is no basis for denying TM 83295 under Government Code § 66474 and further finds, determines, and declares that:
A. The proposed Tentative Map is consistent with the General Plan as required in Government Code § 65451. 1. As set forth in Section 3, this Project meets the goals and objectives of the General Plan.
B. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development; C. The design of the Project and the proposed improvements are unlikely to cause substantial damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed type of improvements are unlikely to cause serious public health problems. There is no evidence demonstrating that the approval of a tentative map is likely to cause any serious public health problems; and E. The design of the Project or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed Project. The on-site roadways necessary for the Project will be installed and accessible for
1.d
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Resolution P25-14 (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Resolution P25-14
Master Case 20-238
September 16, 2025
the future residents, law enforcement, and emergency services.
SECTION 5: APPROVALS. The Planning Commission takes following actions:
Approves Master Case 20-238 consisting of ADR 20-023, CUP 20-005, DR 20-017, MUP 20-013, OTP 425-004, and TM 83295, for the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 232 residential units, inclusive of eight ADUs; a 120-unit assisted-living facility; and 9,000 square feet of commercial, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A).
SECTION 6: RELIANCE ON RECORD. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the Planning Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
SECTION 7: SUMMARIES OF INFORMATION. All summaries of information in the findings, which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.
SECTION 8: NOTICE. The Secretary is directed to provide a copy of this Resolution to the Planning Commission and any other person requesting a copy.
SECTION 9: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution becomes effective immediately upon adoption and memorializes the Planning Commission’s final decision made on September 16, 2025.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 2025.
LISA EICHMAN, CHAIRPERSON
PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
RACHEL CLARK, SECRETARY
PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
1.d
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Resolution P25-14 (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Resolution P25-14
Master Case 20-238
September 16, 2025
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I, Rachel Clark, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of September, 2025, by the following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
1.d
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Resolution P25-14 (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION P25-14
MASTER CASE 20-238:
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 20-023, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-005, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 20-017, MINOR USE PERMIT 20-013, OAK TREE PERMIT 425- 004, AND TENTATIVE MAP 83295
In addi tion to all applicable provisions of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC), Wiley Canyon, LLC (permittee) agrees to comply with the following provisions as conditions for the City of Santa Clarita’s (City) approval of Master Case 20-238 (MC20-238).
GENERAL CONDITIONS
GC1. The approval of this project will expire if the approved use is not commenced within two years from the date of this approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the SCMC.
GC2. To the extent the use approved with this project is a different use than previously approved for the property, the prior approval is terminated along with any associated vested rights to such use, unless such prior approved use is still in operation, or is still within the initial pre-commencement approval period. Once commenced, any discontinuation of the use approved with this project for a continuous period of two years or more terminates the approval of this use, along with any associated vested rights to such use. The use may not be re-established or resumed after the two-year period.
Discontinuation includes cessation of a use regardless of intent to resume.
GC3. The permittee may file for an extension before the date of expiration. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed not later than 60 days before the date of expiration.
GC4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term “permittee” includes the permittee and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The permittee must defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this project by the City, including any related environmental approvals. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City will promptly notify the permittee. If the City fails to notify the permittee or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee is not thereafter responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City.
Nothing contained in this condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both of the following occur: 1) the City bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The permittee is not required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the permittee.
GC5. The permittee and property owner must comply with all inspections requirements as deemed necessary by the Director.
1.e
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
Master Case 20-238,
Conditions of Approval
September 16, 2025
GC6. The project site must be developed and/or used in the manner requested and must be in substantial conformity with the submitted plans, date-stamped unless revisions and/or additional conditions are specifically required herein.
GC7. This approval runs with the land. All rights and obligations of this approval, including the responsibility to comply with the Conditions of Approval, are binding upon Permittee’s successors in interest. The Conditions of Approval may be modified, terminated, or abandoned in accordance with applicable law, including, without limitation, the SCMC.
GC8. Any proposed deviations from the Exhibits, Project Description, or Conditions of Approval must be submitted to the Director for review and approval. Any unapproved deviations from the project approval will constitute a violation of the permit approval.
GC9. When exhibits and/or written Conditions of Approval are in conflict, the written Conditions of Approval prevail.
GC10. The effectiveness of this project will be suspended for the time period that any Condition of Approval is appealed, whether administratively or as part of a legal action filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. If any Condition of Approval is invalidated by a court of law, the project must be reviewed by the City and substitute conditions may be imposed.
GC11. The permittee is responsible for ascertaining and paying all City fees as required by the SCMC. This condition serves as notice, pursuant to Government Code § 66020(d), that the City is imposing development impact fees (DIFs) upon the project in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code § 66000, et seq.) and the SCMC. The permittee is informed that it may protest DIFs in accordance with Government Code § 66020.
GC12. The permittee must sign these Conditions of Approval, as set forth below, to acknowledge acceptance, within 30 days from the date of approval by the Planning Commission.
GC13. The City will only issue permits for the development when the construction documents (e.g., building plans) substantially comply with the approved plans. Substantial conformity is determined by the Director.
GC14. This decision is not effective until the permittee acknowledges acceptance of all project conditions and any appeal period has lapsed, or a waiver of right to appeal is filed, or if there is an appeal, until a final decision has been made on the appeal. By use of the entitlements granted by a development application, the permittee acknowledges agreement with the Conditions of Approval.
GC15. Anything which is not shown on the application/plans, or which is not specifically approved, or which is not in compliance with this section, is not approved. Any application and/or plans which are defective as to, without limitation, omission, dimensions, scale, use, colors, materials, encroachments, easements, etc., will render any entitlements granted by this approval null and void. Construction must cease until all
1.e
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
Master Case 20-238,
Conditions of Approval
September 16, 2025
requirements of this approval are complied with. Development entitlements may be withheld until violations of the SCMC are abated.
GC16. The Building Official will not issue a final Certificate of Occupancy until the permittee complies with all project conditions.
GC17. Permittee must reimburse the City for all attorneys' fees expended by the City that are directly related to the processing of this project. The City will not issue a Final Certificate of Occupancy or other final occupancy approval until all attorneys' fees are paid by the Permittee.
PLANNING DIVISION
PL1. The permittee is granted approval for the subdivision and construction of the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project (Project), with up to 232 two-story residential units, inclusive of a maximum of eight attached Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); a 120-unit, four- story assisted-living facility; and up to 9,000 square feet of commercial floor area. The construction of the Project must be consistent with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division under MC20-238. Any modification to the approved plans is subject to further review and approval of the Director.
PL2. Attached ADUs are not permitted to be sold separately from the primary residential unit, unless otherwise permitted under state law.
PL3. The final map submitted to the City Engineer for approval and subsequent recordation must substantially comply with Alternative 5, as approved by the Planning Commission.
PL4. Before the City Engineer issues a precise grading permit, the permittee must submit an Architectural Design Review (ADR) and a Development Review (DR) for review and approval by the Director. An ADR and a DR are required for each development phase of the Project. The ADR and DR can be submitted for the entire Project or by individual planning phase.
PL5. Parking must be provided in accordance with the parking plan shown on Alternative 5, on file with the Director under MC20-238.
PL6. All walls and fencing must be shown on the development plans. A minimum six-foot-tall block wall must be installed along the northerly property line. A minimum 10-foot combination of berm and block wall must be installed along the west property line in any area that is not separated from the Interstate-5 freeway by the Metro sound wall.
PL7. Before the Building Official issues a Certificate of Occupancy for the assisted-living facility, the permittee must provide the Director with a copy of the Emergency and Disaster Plan approved by the California Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), or other state agency as may be referred to by DHHS.
PL8. All construction-related staging, construction equipment, and construction worker parking must be provided on the Project site. No off-site construction parking or staging
1.e
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
Master Case 20-238,
Conditions of Approval
September 16, 2025
is permitted.
PL9. Heavy earthwork construction is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development upon written formal notification.
PL10. No signage is approved by this permit. All future signage requires a sign permit application in accordance with the SCMC.
PL11. The permittee must comply with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Project, which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth.
Landscaping Conditions
LR1. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, the permittee must provide final landscape, lighting and irrigation plans (Landscape Document Package) for Director review and approval. The plan must be prepared by a California-registered landscape architect and must be designed with the plant palette suitable for Santa Clarita (Sunset Western Garden Book Zone 18, minimum winter night temperatures typically 20º to 30º F; maximum summer high temperatures typically 105º F to 110º F). The landscape design plan must meet the design criteria of the State Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance and the SCMC.
LR2. Before the Building Official issues a final Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must install all proposed irrigation and landscaping, including irrigation controllers, staking, mulching, etc., to the satisfaction of the Director. The Director may impose inspection fees for more than one landscape installation inspection.
LR3. Before the Building Official issues a final Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must submit to the Director a letter from the Project landscape architect certifying that all landscape materials and irrigation were installed and function according to the approved landscape plans.
ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION
General Requirements
EN1. Before the Building Official issues first Certificate of Occupancy, all new and existing power lines and overhead cables less than 34 KV within or fronting the Project site must be installed underground.
EN2. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues grading permit or approves Final Map, whichever occurs first, the permittee must cooperate, at permittee’s expense, with the City to acquire Los Angeles County properties (Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN): 2825- 001-904, portion of APN: 2825-013-913, and portion of APN: 2825-013-914) for the proposed improvements shown on their properties per Tentative Map (TM) 83295.
1.e
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
Master Case 20-238,
Conditions of Approval
September 16, 2025
EN3. Before the City Engineer, or designee approves grading plan, the permittee must obtain a notarized Letter of Permission for access and grading outside the property lines/tract boundary from all affected adjacent property owner(s), including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
EN4. Before Street Plan approval, the permittee must obtain a notarized Letter of Permission from the affected property owner(s) for the proposed driveway closure with the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of Wiley Canyon Road and Canerwell Street.
EN5. Before the City Engineer issues grading permit, the permittee must acquire the necessary right of way from each property owner for the construction of proposed roundabouts at the intersection of Wiley Canyon Road/Calgrove Boulevard and Wiley Canyon Road/Canerwell Street, and the proposed Class I Trail from the north side of the Project to Rivendale Park. The permittee must acknowledge and agree with the requirements of EN9.
Subdivision Requirements
EN6. Before the Building Official issues first building permit, a Tract Map prepared by or under the direction of a person licensed to practice land surveying in the State of California must be filed in the Office of the County Recorder, in compliance with applicable City, County, and State Subdivision Map Act.
EN7. This tentative map approval is subject to the permittee's acceptance of the following conditions for acquisition of easements/right-of-way:
A. The permittee must secure, at the permittee's expense, sufficient title, or interest in land to permit construction of any required off-site improvements.
B. If the permittee is unable to acquire sufficient title or interest to permit construction of the required off-site improvements, the permittee must notify the City of this inability not less than six months prior to approval of the Tract Map. In such case, the City may thereafter acquire sufficient interest in the land, which will permit construction of the off-site improvements by the permittee.
C. The permittee must pay all of the City's costs of acquiring said off-site property interests pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5. Permittee must pay such costs irrespective of whether the Tract Map is recorded or whether a reversion occurs.
The cost of acquisition may include, but is not limited to, acquisition prices, damages, engineering services, expert fees, title examination, appraisal costs, acquisition services, relocation assistance services and payments, legal services and fees, mapping services, document preparation, expenses, and/or damages as provided under Code of Civil Procedures Sections 1268.510-.620 and overhead.
D. The permittee agrees that the City will have satisfied the 120-day limitation of Government Code Section 66462.5 and the foregoing conditions relating thereto when it files its eminent domain action in superior court within said time.
E. At the time the permittee notifies the City as provided in “B” hereinabove, the permittee must simultaneously submit to the City in a form acceptable to the City all appropriate appraisals, engineering specifications, legal land descriptions, plans,
1.e
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
Master Case 20-238,
Conditions of Approval
September 16, 2025
pleadings, and other documents deemed necessary by the City to commence its acquisition proceedings. Said documents must be submitted to the City for preliminary review and comment at least 30 days prior to the permittee's notice described hereinabove at “B”
F. The permittee agrees to deposit with the City, within five days of request by the City, such sums of money as the City estimates to be required for the costs of acquisition.
The City may require additional deposits from time-to-time.
G. The permittee must not sell any lot/parcel/unit shown on the Tract/Parcel Map until the City has acquired said sufficient land interest.
H. If the superior court thereafter rules in a final judgment that the City may not acquire said sufficient land interest, the permittee agrees that the City may initiate proceedings for reversion to acreage.
I. The permittee must execute any agreements mutually agreeable prior to approval of the Tract Map as may be necessary to assure compliance with the foregoing conditions.
J. Failure by the permittee to notify the City as required by “B” hereinabove, or simultaneously submit the required and approved documents specified in “E” hereinabove, or make the deposits specified in “F” hereinabove, must constitute permittee's waiver of the requirements otherwise imposed upon the City to acquire necessary interests in land pursuant to Section 66462.5. In such event, subdivider must meet all conditions for installing or constructing off-site improvements notwithstanding Section 66462.5.
EN8. Before the Tentative Map being recorded with the County Recorder, the permittee must not grant or record easements within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets or highways, access rights, building restriction rights, or other easements; unless subordinated to the proposed grant or dedication. If easements are granted after the date of tentative map approval, subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing of the Tentative Map.
EN9. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must label driveways as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" on the map, as directed by the City Engineer.
EN10. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must dedicate any necessary easements or rights-of-ways for public improvements (such as sewer, storm drain, sidewalk and roadway), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
EN11. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must remove existing structures.
EN12. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must vacate and/or relocate easements running through proposed structures or other improvements, as directed by the City Engineer.
EN13. At map check submittal, the permittee must provide a preliminary subdivision report. A final subdivision guarantee is required prior to Tract Map approval.
EN14. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must provide a Will Serve Letter stating that Community Antenna Television service (CATV) will be provided to this project.
1.e
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
Master Case 20-238,
Conditions of Approval
September 16, 2025
EN15. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must provide a Will Serve Letter from all necessary utilities, stating that service will be provided to this property.
EN16. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of building(s) and other structures within open space lots.
EN17. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must adjust, relocate, and/or eliminate lot lines, lots, streets, easements, grading, geotechnical protective devices, and/or physical improvements to comply with ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the City determined the application to be complete, all, as directed by the City Engineer.
EN18. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must show on the map all Los Angeles County Flood Control District Easements. A permit will be required for any construction affecting the right-of-way or facilities.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions Requirements
EN19. Before a Final Map is approved, the permittee must obtain approval from the City Engineer and the City Attorney for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for this development. The permittee must reimburse the City for the City Attorney’s review and approval fee. The CC&Rs must include a disclosure to comply with the Geologist's recommendations in the Geology Report concerning restrictions on watering, irrigation, and recommend plant types. The CC&Rs must grant the City the authority to review and approve/disapprove amendments (including dissolution) of the CC&Rs/association. The CC&Rs must grant the City the right (though not the obligation) to enforce the CC&Rs (at a minimum those provisions related to City-required items).
EN20. Before the Building Official issues first building permit, the permittee must record the approved CC&Rs with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s office.
EN21. Before the Building Official issues first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must establish a Property Owners’ Association (POA), or similar entity, to ensure the continued maintenance of all shared/common lots and drainage devices are not transferable to the County Flood Control District.
EN22. Before the Building Official issues first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must transfer ownership of open space lots to the POA. The grant deed must be submitted to Engineering Services for review and approval by the City Engineer before a Final Map is approved.
Access Requirements
EN23. Before the Building Official issues building permits, the permittee must record a covenant for easement of all shared driveways and drive aisles, and common landscaping/slope maintenance areas, as directed by the City Engineer. This condition may be satisfied by incorporating the appropriate provisions into the CC&Rs.
Condominium/Lease Requirements (for residential only)
EN24. Before final map approval, the permittee must submit a notarized affidavit to the City Engineer, signed by all owners of record at the time of filing of the map with the City, stating that any proposed condominium building have not been constructed or that all buildings have not been occupied or rented and that said building will not be occupied
1.e
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
Master Case 20-238,
Conditions of Approval
September 16, 2025
or rented until after the recording of the map with the Los Angeles County (County) Recorder.
Grading and Geology Requirements
EN25. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues a grading permit, the permittee must submit a grading plan consistent with the approved Plan, oak tree report, and Conditions of Approval. The grading plan must be based on a detailed engineering geotechnical report specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer that addresses all submitted recommendations, including seismic hazards associated with landslide and liquefaction.
EN26. Before the Building Official issues building permit, the permittee must construct all grading and drainage facilities within the Project site, obtain rough grade certifications, and a compaction report approved by the City Engineer.
EN27. The Preliminary Grading Plan shows an import of 85,000 Cubic Yards of dirt to the Project.
A. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues a grading permit for this Project, the permittee must submit a copy of the grading permit for the export/receiving site and an exhibit of the proposed haul route. The permittee is responsible to obtain approval from all applicable agencies for the dirt hauling operation.
B. The permittee must comply with the following requirements for the dirt hauling operation:
1. Obtain an encroachment permit for the work.
2. The hours of operation is between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
3. Provide non-stop street sweeping service on all City streets along the haul route during all hours of work to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4. Provide traffic control and flagging personnel along the haul route to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
C. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues a grading permit, the permittee must pay a Haul Route Pavement Repair Security Cash Deposit (Deposit) of $100,000, which may be increased or decreased based upon an estimated cost to complete the repairs of streets damaged during the dirt hauling operation. The limits and scope of the repairs must be determined by the City Engineer. To receive a refund of the Deposit, the permittee or subsequent property owners must complete the pavement repairs to the satisfaction of the City Engineer within one year from the completion of the dirt hauling operation. If the pavement repairs are not completed within one year, the City may use the Deposit to complete the repairs. Any funds remaining at the completion of the repairs will be refunded to the permittee. If the Deposit is insufficient to complete the repairs, the City will seek additional funds from the permittee.
D. Before the Building Official issues building permits, the permittee must repair any pavement damaged by the dirt hauling operation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The limits of the road repairs must be consistent with the approved haul route.
1.e
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
Master Case 20-238,
Conditions of Approval
September 16, 2025
EN28. Before the City Engineer, or designee issues a grading permit, the permittee must obtain a notarized Letter of Permission for grading and/or improvements over all easements, including the California Department of Transportation.
Drainage Requirements
EN29. Before the City Engineer, or designee issues a grading permit, the permittee must obtain approval and connection permit from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Land Development Division/Construction Division as appropriate to connect on- site drainage system to the County-maintained drainage channel.
EN30. Before the soil-cement bank protection and retaining wall plans approval, the permittee must obtain approval from Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) for the proposed improvement on their property.
EN31. Before the City Engineer issues the first building permit, the permittee must form a maintenance district, such as DBAA, to fund the ongoing maintenance of natural channel (Lot 5) and other associated improvements that are not transferable to the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) but required to be maintained by the City.
EN32. Before the storm drain plan approval, all existing and proposed storm drain inlets/catch basins within or adjacent to the property along with all new storm drain inlets/catch basins constructed as part of the Project must be provided with filter inserts and/or screen covers, as directed by the City Engineer.
EN33. Specific drainage requirements for the site will be established at building permit application. Before Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must submit a precise grading plan.
FEMA Flood Zone Requirements
EN34. The Project is located in FEMA Flood Zone (A, AO) in accordance with the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs).
A. For the proposed improvements within the Floodway, the permittee is required to comply with FEMA requirements to revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRMs).
Before the Building Official issues Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must complete a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
B. For the proposed improvements within the Flood fringe, the permittee must comply with FEMA requirements to revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRMs). Prior to issuance of grading permit, the permittee must complete a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and prior to first building final, the permittee must complete a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
Water Quality Requirements
EN35. This Project will disturb one acre or more of land. Therefore, the permittee must obtain coverage under a statewide General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit (General Permit). In accordance with the General Permit, the permittee must file with the State a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the proposed Project. Before the City Engineer, or designee issues a grading permit, the permittee must have approved by the City Engineer a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must include a copy of the
1.e
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
Master Case 20-238,
Conditions of Approval
September 16, 2025
NOI and shall reference the corresponding Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number issued by the state upon receipt of the NOI.
EN36. This Project is a development planning priority Project under the City’s NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit as a development with equal to one acre or greater of disturbed area that adds more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. Before the City Engineer, or designee issues a grading permit, the permittee must have approved by the City Engineer, an Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP) that incorporates appropriate post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), maximizes pervious surfaces, and includes infiltration into the design of the Project. Refer to the Low Impact Development ordinance and the County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development manual for details.
EN37. Before the final map recordation, the permittee must establish a POA to maintain all SUSMP devices/systems identified on the latest approved Drainage Concept/Storm drain plan. SUSMP devices/systems shall include, but are not limited to, catch basin inserts, debris excluders, biotreatment basins, vortex separation type systems, and other devices/systems for stormwater quality. The permittee must be responsible for the maintenance of all SUSMP devices/systems until the POA has been established.
Street Light Requirements
EN38. Before street plan approval, the permittee must submit a Street Light Plan to the City Engineer, or designee, for review and approval. Street-lighting systems must be designed as City-owned and maintained on the LS-3 rate schedule, using LED fixtures approved by the City’s Streetlight Maintenance District Division.
EN39. Before the Building Official issues a final Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must install street lights per the approved plans, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Street Improvement Requirements
EN40. Before any construction (including, without limitation, drive approaches, sidewalks, sewer laterals, curb and gutter, etc.), trenching or grading within public street right-of- way, the permittee must submit a street improvement plan consistent with the approved Plan, Oak Tree Report, and Conditions of Approval; and obtain encroachment permits from the City Engineer, or designee.
EN41. The property boundaries of the site abut the Caltrans jurisdiction. Encroachments into Caltrans jurisdiction must be permitted by Caltrans before the Director considers issuing any permit(s).
EN42. Before street plan approval, the permittee must submit a street tree location plan to the City’s Urban Forestry Division for review and approval by the Director. The location of the street trees shall not conflict with sewer or storm drain infrastructure. The plan must include proposed sewer lateral locations and storm drain infrastructure for reference.
EN43. Before final map approval or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the permittee must dedicate to the City the right-of-way required for off-site street improvements (roundabout at Calgrove & Wiley Canyon Road, at Canerwell Street & Wiley Canyon Road, and other locations shown on the TM 83295)
1.e
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
Master Case 20-238,
Conditions of Approval
September 16, 2025
EN44. Before final map approval, the permittee must dedicate sidewalk easements sufficient to encompass ADA requirements for sidewalks installed with drive approaches per the current City standard APWA 110-2, Type C, or equivalent.
EN45. Before Building Official issues first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must construct the following street improvements within the Project site, on Wiley Canyon Road from Wabuska Street to Calgrove Blvd, and on Calgrove Boulevard from Wiley Canyon Road to Old Road, as directed by the City Engineer:
Street Name Inverted
Shoulder
Curb &
Gutter
Base &
Paving
Street
Lights
Street
Trees
Sidewalk
(5’min)
Landscaped
Median
Wiley Canyon Road (including
roundabouts) x x x x x x
Calgrove Boulevard * x x x x x
Private driveways/Fire Lanes x x
Hawkbryn Avenue x x
* Improvements include trail connection to Rivendale Park, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
EN46. Before the Building Official issues first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must construct wheelchair ramps at the roundabouts and various intersections along Wiley Canyon Road between the roundabouts, as directed by the City Engineer.
EN47. Before final map approval, the permittee must pay an in-lieu fee for landscaping and irrigation of the medians on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard per plans, at the discretion of the City Engineer. The in-lieu fee must be based on a cost estimate calculated by the permittee and approved by the City Engineer.
EN48. Before the Building Official issues Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk and refurbish the half section of pavement on streets abutting the Project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A revised street plan and encroachment permit is required.
Sewer Improvement Requirements
EN49. Before final map approval, the permittee must dedicate all necessary sewer easements.
The sewer plans must be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (Sewer Maintenance Division), Los Angeles County Sanitation District, and the City Engineer.
EN50. Before Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must annex the property into the County Sanitation District. The permittee must provide the City’s Building & Safety Division with written confirmation from the Sanitation District that the property has been annexed.
EN51. The on-site sewer must be a publicly maintained sewer. The public sewer plan must be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (Sewer Maintenance Division), Los Angeles County Sanitation District, and the City Engineer;
1.e
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
Master Case 20-238,
Conditions of Approval
September 16, 2025
and all necessary easement for maintenance of the sewer must be dedicated to the City of Santa Clarita.
EN52. Before the Building Official issues building permits, the on-site sewer main with building laterals must be connected to existing public sewer in Wiley Canyon Road (per PC 7599).
Before the Building Official issues building permits, the permittee must coordinate with the Building Official, or designee, regarding payment of additional annexation fees, if required, to annex the property into the Los Angeles County Sanitation District.
EN53. Before the Building Official issues Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must construct all sewer upgrades per the approved sewer area study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Bonds, Fees and Miscellaneous Requirements
EN54. Before City Engineer, or designee issue encroachment permits for public improvements (Street, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Drain, and Street Lights), the permittee, by agreement with the City Engineer, must guarantee installation of the improvements through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or any other acceptable means. Certificate of Occupancy/Occupancies must be withheld if the improvements are not completed.
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
TE1. Before final map approval, the permittee must acquire and dedicate to the City the right- of-way required for all street improvements as identified in the traffic study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
TE2. Before the Building Official issues the first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must construct all street improvements as identified in the traffic study required to adequately serve this development.
TE3. Project access along Wiley Canyon Road must be designed and constructed as a roundabout. The roundabout must be designed according to appropriate design standards including radius, deflection, and design speed. The City Engineer may require permittee to pay for the submitted design being peer reviewed by a third-party consultant. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issuing the first building permit.
TE4. The Project must construct a roundabout at the intersection of Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard. The roundabout must be designed according to appropriate design standards, including radius, deflection, and design speed. The City Engineer may require permittee to pay for the submitted design being peer reviewed by a third-party consultant.
This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issuing the first building permit.
TE5. The Project must construct a roundabout at the intersection of Wiley Canyon Road and Canerwell Street and close/relocate the existing driveway on the west side of the intersection. The roundabout must be designed according to appropriate design standards, including radius, deflection, and design speed. The City Engineer may require permittee to pay for the submitted design being peer reviewed by a third-party consultant. This
1.e
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
Master Case 20-238,
Conditions of Approval
September 16, 2025
must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issuing the first building permit.
TE6. The permittee must install a median at the intersection of Wiley Canyon Road and Fourl Road to prohibit westbound left-turns exiting Fourl Road. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues the first building permit.
TE7. Before the Building Official issues the first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must provide a Class I trail on the west side of Wiley Canyon Road between Calgrove Boulevard and the terminus of Old Wiley Canyon Road. The trail must be 11 feet wide at a minimum and include an adjacent walking path of at least 5 feet wide. On the east side of Wiley Canyon Road, the permittee must install Class II bicycle lanes between the same aforementioned limits.
TE8. Before the Building Official issues the first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must extend existing Class II bicycle lanes along both sides of Calgrove Boulevard from Wiley Canyon Road to the intersection of The Old Road and Calgrove Boulevard. Crosswalks must be provided on both the western and southern legs of the intersection. All necessary intersection improvements to ensure ADA compliance will be the responsibility of the permittee.
TE9. Before the Building Official issues the first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must install Class II bike lanes on both sides of Wiley Canyon Road from the northern terminus of the Class I trail to Wabuska Street.
TE10. Before the Building Official issues the first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must design and install bicycle facilities on Wiley Canyon Road between Wabuska Street and 200-feet north of Lyons Avenue, subject to approval by the City Engineer.
TE11. The permittee must install new conduit for the installation or future installation of fiberoptic cable due to street improvements associated with the Project. This must be shown on all applicable plans and installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This interconnect conduit and cable is required along new frontage improvements. All improvement plans for the above interconnect must be approved by the City Engineer.
The interconnect conduit and cable must be installed at the time of the respective traffic signal and/or frontage improvements.
TE12. Sidewalks must be provided on all internal roadways that are not alley-type driveways.
This must be shown on all appropriate cross sections.
TE13. Before the Building Official issues the first building occupancy permit, the permittee must obtain approval from the LACFD for any private driveway sections.
TE14. Before the Building Official issues the first building occupancy permit for each phase, the permittee must post “No Parking– Fire Lane” signs along all driveways with a curb-to- curb width of less than 34 feet. This must be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit.
TE15. All dead-end driveways must extend five feet beyond the last parking stall or garage to provide back-up area. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issuing the first building permit.
1.e
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
Master Case 20-238,
Conditions of Approval
September 16, 2025
TE16. Provide access gates for vehicles and bikes/pedestrians at the northerly terminus of the trail (roundabout). Provide vehicle terminus and turnaround at the southerly terminus of the trail. The trail must be designed to meet ADA requirements. Fencing material and design to be decorative, not galvanized chain link. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues the first building permit.
TE17. The permittee must provide a connection from the southerly end of the trail to Wiley Canyon Road. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues the first building permit.
TE18. The permittee must provide a trail around the westerly perimeter of the site as a continuation of the on-site trail/maintenance road. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues the first building permit.
TE19. The permittee must provide a trail connection to Rivendale Park and Open Space. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues the first building permit.
TE20. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, the permittee must conduct vehicle counts on Canerwell Street, Ebelden Avenue, Fambrough Street, and Kalmar Avenue (Oak Ridge Estates neighborhood) and submit the counts to the City Engineer. Within one year of full occupancy of the project, if requested by the City Engineer, the permittee must conduct new vehicle counts in Oak Ridge Estates neighborhood. If the new vehicle counts demonstrate a significant diversion of vehicles, as determined by the City Engineer, into the Oak Ridge Estates neighborhood, the permittee will be required to implement appropriate traffic calming measures that must be approved by the City Engineer to discourage such diversion.
TE21. Before the Building Official issues building permits, the permittee must pay the applicable Bridge and Thoroughfare (B&T) District Fee to implement the Circulation Element of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this Project.
This Project is located in the Via Princessa B&T District. The current rate for this District is $23,170. The B&T rate is subject to change and is based on the rate at the time of payment.
Standard B&T Fee Calculation:
Townhomes = number of units (232) x the district rate ($23,170) x 0.8 = $4,300,352
Commercial = gross acreage (3.5) x the district rate ($23,170) x 5 = $405,475
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
Urban Forestry
UF1. The Conditions of Approval herein are based on the arborist report dated February 2024.
Oak tree removals are limited to trees numbers 450, 452, 455, and 456, as described and proposed in the arborist report.
1.e
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
Master Case 20-238,
Conditions of Approval
September 16, 2025
UF2. Permittee must mitigate for the loss of trees 450, 452, 455, and 456. The mitigation value is the International Society of Arboriculture appraised value:
a. Oak tree number 450 (Quercus agrifolia) – ISA appraised value $26,000 b. Oak tree number 452 (Quercus agrifolia) – ISA appraised value $15,600 c. Oak tree number 455 (Quercus agrifolia) – ISA appraised value $170,200 d. Oak tree number 456 (Quercus agrifolia) – ISA appraised value $91,600 UF3. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, permittee must submit a comprehensive oak tree mitigation plan to Urban Forestry for review and approval by the Director. The oak tree mitigation plan shall include, without limitation: a map identifying the proposed location of replacement mitigation oak trees and the quantities. The mitigation plan must equal no less than $303,400.
UF4. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, permittee must submit International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree appraisal values for all oak trees in the arborist report identified to be encroached on: tree numbers 451, 453, 454, 457, 459, QA4, QA5, QA6, QA8, QA9, QA10, QA11, QL12, QL13, QL15, QL16, QL17, QL18, and 463.
UF5. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, and before removal or encroachment of any oak trees, permittee must secure a Bond equal to 1) the full appraised value for all the oak trees proposed for removal, and 2) the full appraised value of all oak trees proposed for encroachment.
The Bond shall be exonerated 24 months after the conclusion of all phases of construction if all conditions of the oak tree permit have been met to the satisfaction of the Director of Administrative Services or their designee.
UF6. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, permittee must submit a maintenance and care program to Urban Forestry, prepared by the Project’s oak tree consultant. The program shall be initiated to ensure the continued health and care of oak trees being preserved, throughout all phases of construction.
UF7. Two years after the conclusion of all phases of grading and construction activities, the permittee must submit and affidavit by a qualified oak tree consultant to the Director.
Such affidavit shall certify compliance with the conditions of the oak tree permit and the health of all replacement mitigation oak trees.
UF8. Permittee must adhere to all oak tree preservation and protection recommendations prescribed in the arborist report. In addition, permittee must adhere to the City’s Oak Tree Preservation Guidelines, for the protection of all oak trees being preserved.
Street Light Maintenance District
SD1. The permittee must annex all parcels into the Santa Clarita Landscaping and Lighting District, Streetlighting Zone B. The annexation fee will be based on the current maximum assessment rate per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) for each parcel. There is a one-time annexation fee of $500.00 plus $100.00 per EBU. A minimum of 120 days is required to process the annexation, which must be completed before final map approval, grading, or the issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first.
1.e
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
Master Case 20-238,
Conditions of Approval
September 16, 2025
SD2. Existing streetlights must be protected, preserved, and remain in operation during any modification. Any existing streetlight proposed for removal and/or relocation must be approved by Special Districts, Streetlight Maintenance Districts (SMD).
SD3. Within the public right-of-way fronting the Project site or as required by Engineering, the permittee must replace existing streetlights with the City’s standard streetlight pole.
Before street plan approval, the permittee must obtain approval from SMD on the Light Emitting Diode (LED) fixtures to be installed on public streets and whether the new streetlights will be metered (LS-3 rate) or unmetered.
SD4. All new streetlights installed on public streets, per the approved plans, will be owned by the City. A Geographic Information Systems file mapping the underground facilities is required before streetlight acceptance by the City.
Landscape Maintenance District
SD5. This parcel is located within Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Areawide Zone 2008-1, which was established to fund the construction and maintenance of landscaped medians on major thoroughfares throughout the City of Santa Clarita. Before the Building Official issues a certificate of occupancy, the applicant must financially contribute to the Areawide Zone in a manner reflective of this LMD zone’s assessment methodology.
SD6. All medians and turnabouts must be landscaped to the satisfaction of the Director.
SD7. Landscape must include, without limitation, installation of concrete pavers, irrigation, trees, shrubs, groundcover, and mulch.
SD8. All landscape proposed within the medians and turnabouts must be installed according to the LMD “Design Standards, Notes, Details & Specifications for Median Landscaping in Santa Clarita.”
SD9. No on-site landscaping will be maintained by the LMD.
SD10. The permittee must be required to install a separate water meter, electric meter, and pedestal specifically for medians and parkways. Upon successful completion of all required landscape establishment and maintenance period, both meters will be turned over to the City.
SD11. The applicant is required to install an approved irrigation controller to be used for all landscape located within both the medians and parkways. Applicant shall contact Special Districts for the approved controller and model number. Typically, the controller is a 48 station WeatherTrak® Pro 3.
SD12. Upon completion of the Project and after the final walk for acceptance, the permittee must submit a completed turnover sheet with all the required information and materials to the Director.
Street Trees
SD13. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, the permittee is required to submit a site plan which indicates existing parkway tree location and includes a Tree Preservation
1.e
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
Master Case 20-238,
Conditions of Approval
September 16, 2025
and Protection Plan to the City’s Urban Forestry Division for review and approval by the Director.
SD14. Prior to street tree plan approval and issuance of the building permit, the permittee is required to submit a street tree location plan for proposed parkway tree installations to the City’s Urban Forestry Division for review and approval. Location of tree wells and parkway trees must be shown to scale on all required sets of site plans including grading and construction plans. Landscape plans must be prepared by a California licensed landscape architect and comply with the latest edition of the LMD landscape guidelines.
Permittee must install parkway trees within the public right of way fronting the Project site along Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard before the Building Official issues a final Certificate of Occupancy.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
ES1. Before building permit issuance, permittee must submit a Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (CDMMP) and receive approval from the Environmental Services Manager or Designee if the project meets the parameters below (SCMC§15.46.300):
ES2. All demolition projects (regardless of valuation), all commercial projects of new construction or additions over 1,000 square feet and all tenant improvements, alterations or new construction valued greater than $200,000, all new residential construction projects and all residential additions and improvements that increase building area, volume, or size must comply with the City’s Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance. SCMC§15.46.200.
ES3. A minimum of 65% of the entire Project’s inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and 65% of the remaining C&D waste must be recycled or reused rather than disposing in a landfill.
SCMC§15.46.610 and CALGreen sections 4.408, 5.408, 301.1.1 and 301.3.
ES4. For renovation or tenant improvement projects and new construction projects, a deposit of 2% of the estimated total project cost or $15,000, whichever is less, is required. For demolition projects, a deposit of 10% of the estimated total project cost or $15,000, whichever is less, is required. The full deposit will be returned to the permittee upon proving that 65% of the inert and remaining C&D waste was recycled or reused.
SCMC§15.46.400.
ES5. All projects within the City that are not self-hauling waste materials must use one of the City’s franchised haulers for temporary and roll-off bin collection services.
SCMC§15.44.220.
PARKS PLANNING
PP1. Prior to issuance of building permit, the permittee must pay the required Park Dedication Fee equal to the value of the amount of land established per the City’s General Plan, “Parks and Recreation Element.” The permittee may be required to provide a certified
1.e
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
Master Case 20-238,
Conditions of Approval
September 16, 2025
MAI real estate appraisal to establish the fair market value (FMV) of an acre of land within this Project. Final Parkland dedication obligation calculation to be based on current density per dwelling and FMV rates at time of payment.
PP2. Prior to issuance of building permit, permittee must dedicate in fee public park parcel to the City, to the satisfaction of the Director of Neighborhood Services.
TRANSIT DIVISION
TD1. A bus stop is required on the Project’s frontage just past the entrance. Additionally, a bus stop is required opposite the Project on Wiley Canyon Road with a pedestrian crossing for access. Bus stops require ROW, and turnout. The bus stop(s) must comply with all ADA regulations as specified in the most recent version of the California Disabled Accessibility Guidebook (CalDag). Proposed disabled access must be drawn on all plans.
TD2. Permittee must construct a pedestrian path from the bus stop to the development.
TD3. The bus stop must consist of a 10-foot by 25-foot concrete passenger waiting pad placed behind the sidewalk and include a stylized shelter, a stylized bench, and a trash receptacle. Proposed amenities must be approved by the City Engineer, or designee, before installation. Bench and trash receptacle specifications and all appropriate paperwork for the bus stop(s) must be supplied to the City Engineer, or designee, before installation.
TD4. The bus stop(s) location must be a minimum of 100 feet from the curb return or as specified by the Director.
TD5. Permittee must provide a site plan showing amenities within a 100-foot radius of the bus stop(s). This plan must show the locations of all utility meters, utility structures, landscaping, buildings, pedestrian walkways, and parking spaces. This plan must also show all other items not listed above located within a 100-foot radius of the bus stop(s).
TD6. Before the Building Official issues a certificate of occupancy for the first building, the bus stop must be installed to the satisfaction of the Director.
TD7. Permittee must construct an in-street concrete pad pursuant to the current City standard APWA 131-2.
TD8. Due to the proposed assisted-living, senior apartment, and skilled nursing components of the Project, the permittee must provide a dedicated passenger loading and un-loading area on-site capable of accommodating a van with the approximate dimensions of: 9 feet (height) by 8 feet (width) by 23 feet (length) at each of these locations. In addition, there should be an eight-foot free and clear area for wheelchair access to the front door of the van.
CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (“FIRE DEPARTMENT”)
1.e
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
Master Case 20-238,
Conditions of Approval
September 16, 2025
FD1. A digital copy of the Final Map must be submitted to the Fire Department's Land Development Unit for review before approval. Submittal must be provided through EPIC-LA using the following Plan Type: Fire Land Development–City Request–Final Map (Tract).
FD2. The driveways required for Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be indicated on the Final Map as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" with the widths clearly depicted.
FD3. A common access agreement is required for the private driveway since multiple units are sharing the same access.
FD5. A digital copy of the Water Plans for the required public fire hydrants shall be submitted to the Fire Department's Land Development Unit for review and approval. Compliance is required prior to Project construction. Submittal shall be provided through EPIC-LA using the following Plan Type: Fire Land Development–City Request–Water Plan & System Review.
FD7. All on-site Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be labeled as “Private Driveway and Fire Lane” on the site plan, along with the widths clearly depicted on the plan.
FD8. The designation allows for appropriate signage prohibiting parking. Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be installed and maintained in a serviceable manner before and during the time of construction in accordance with County of Los Angeles Fire Code (Fire Code) Section 501.4.
FD10. The Fire Apparatus Access Roads and designated fire lanes must be measured from flow line to flow line.
FD11. For buildings where the vertical distance between the access roadway and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet from the lowest level of the Fire Apparatus Access Road, provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet, exclusive of shoulders and an unobstructed vertical clearance “clear to sky” Fire Apparatus Access Roads to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. At least one required access route meeting this condition must be located such that the edge of the Fire Apparatus Access Roadway, not including shoulders, that is closest to the building being served, is between 10 feet and 30 feet from the building, as determined by the Fire Code official, and must be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the Fire Apparatus Access Road is positioned must be approved by the Fire Code official.
Fire Code 503.1.1; 503.2.1.2; 503.2.1.2.2 & 503.2.1.2.2.1.
FD12. When the Fire Apparatus Access Road is separated by a divided roadway, the width must be not less than 15 feet for residential use and 20 feet for commercial/industrial uses. Fire Code 503.1.1 & 503.6.
FD13. The dimensions of the approved Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be maintained as originally approved by the Fire Code official. Fire Code 503.2.2.1.
FD14. Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing 75,000 pounds and shall be surfaced so as to provide all- weather driving capabilities. Fire Code 503.2.3.
1.e
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
Master Case 20-238,
Conditions of Approval
September 16, 2025
FD15. The Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be provided with a minimum of a 32-foot centerline turning radius. Fire Code 503.2.4.
FD16. Provide approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words “NO PARKING - FIRE LANE” must be provided for Fire Apparatus Access Roads.
Signs must have a minimum dimension of 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs must be provided for fire apparatus access roads to clearly indicate the entrance to such road or prohibit the obstruction thereof, and at intervals, as required by the Fire Inspector. A no-parking designation must meet the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 22500.1 and be approved by the Fire Code official. Fire Code 503.3.
FD17. The method of gate control is subject to review by the Fire Code official. Where security gates are installed, they must have an approved means of emergency operation, and be in compliance with following criteria: (a) Gates must be of the swinging or sliding type; (b) Construction of gates must be of materials that allow manual operation by one person; (c) Gate components must be always maintained in an operative condition and replaced or repaired when defective; (d) Electric gates must be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices must be approved by the Fire Code official; (e) Methods of locking must be submitted for approval by the Fire Code official. All locking devices must comply with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Regulation 5, Compliance for Installation of Emergency Access Devices; (f) An approved key box, listed in accordance with UL 1037, must be provided as required by Fire Code 506. The location of each key box must be determined by the Fire Inspector. Fire Code Sections 503.5; 503.5.1; 503.2; 503.6; (g) Where a single gate is provided, the gate width may not be less than 28 feet, clear-to-sky, with all gate hardware is clear of the access way; (h) he keypad location must be located a minimum of 50 feet from the public right-of-way.
FD18. A minimum 5-foot-wide approved firefighter access walkway leading from the Fire Department Access Road to all required openings in the building's exterior walls must be provided for firefighting and rescue purposes. Fire Code 504.1.
FD19. Security barriers, visual screen barriers, or other obstructions may not be installed on the roof of any building in such a manner as to obstruct firefighter access or egress in the event of fire or other emergency. Parapets cannot exceed 36 inches from the top of the parapet to the roof surface on more than two sides. These sides should face an access roadway or yard sufficient to accommodate ladder operations. Fire Code 504.5.
FD20. Approved building address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification must be provided and maintained so as to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. The numbers must contrast with their background, be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters, and be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inches. Fire Code 505.1.
FD21. Multiple residential and commercial buildings having entrances to individual units not visible from the street or road must have unit numbers displayed in groups for all units within each structure. Such numbers may be grouped on the wall of the structure or mounted on a post independent of the structure and shall be positioned to be plainly
1.e
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
Master Case 20-238,
Conditions of Approval
September 16, 2025
visible from the street or road as required by Fire Code 505.3 and in accordance with Fire Code 505.1.
FD22. All fire hydrants must measure 6”x 4"x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal, and shall be installed in accordance with the Fire Code.
FD23. The required fire flow for the public fire hydrants for this Project is 2375 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure for two hours. Two public fire hydrants flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow. Fire Code 507.3 & Appendix B.
FD24. For Building 1-Senior Living Facility to comply with the public fire flow requirement, the building shall be separated into 5 zones as "approved" by the Fire Prevention Engineering Section-Building Plan Check Unit on 07/22/2022.
FD25. The permittee must install 10 public fire hydrants as noted by the Fire Department. All required public fire hydrants must be installed, tested, and accepted before beginning construction. All fire hydrants must measure 6”x 4"x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal, and be installed in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Fire Code. Fire Code 501.4.
FD26. Planning Area 2 multi-family residential buildings must be constructed to R-3 Standards to comply for NFPA 13D Standards.
FD27. Planning Area 3 multi-family residential buildings must be constructed to R-3 Standards to comply for NFPA 13D Standards.
FD28. The required fire flow for more than one on-site fire hydrant is 2500 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure for 2 hours. Two on-site fire hydrants flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow, with one being located the furthest from the public fire hydrant. Fire Code C106.1.
FD29. Install 8 private on-site fire hydrants as noted by the Fire Department. All required private fire hydrants must be installed, tested, and approved before the Building Official issues a certificate of occupancy for any building. Fire Code 901.5.1.
FD30. All private fire hydrants must be installed a minimum of 25 feet from a structure or protected by a two (2) hour-rated firewall. For fully sprinkled multi-family structures, private fire hydrants may be installed a minimum of 10 feet from the structure. Fire Code Appendix C106.1.
FD31. Plans showing underground piping for private on-site fire hydrants must be submitted to the Sprinkler Plan Check Unit for review and approval prior to installation. Fire Code 901.2 & County of Los Angeles Fire Department Regulation 7.
FD32. This property is located within the area described by the Fire Department as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. A “Fuel Modification Plan” must be submitted to the Fuel Modification Unit before building plan approval.
1.e
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
1.f
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: Alternative 5 Site Plan (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
1.g
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
1.g
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) August 22, 2025 R. Weston Monroe 25418 Avenida Escalera Valencia, CA 91355 Re: Letters received August 21, 2025 Dear Mr. Monroe: Your letters (received by the City on August 21, 2025) were forwarded to my attention. Thank you for your correspondence. In one letter, you assert that the Planning Commission denied your request to speak during the meeting and expresses your ongoing complaint that notice regarding Master Case No. 20-238 was defective (“Letter 1”). The other letter asks that the Chairperson recuse herself because of your business relationship with her (“Letter 2”). As to Letter 1, the video and written record show that you were allowed to voice your objection at the beginning of the public hearing; were recalcitrant in following the instructions of the Chair during your disruption of a legal meeting; and then spoke again during the public hearing for this item. Contrary to your assertions in Letter 1, therefore, you were permitted more time than other members of the public when lodging your objections to the proceedings. The actions by the Chair were obviously intended to help facilitate a legal meeting and allow additional public comment regarding the matter. Your continuing allegation that Master Case No. 20-238 may not be heard by the Planning Commission because of defective notice is unfounded. Relevant to your complaint, Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC) § 17.06.110(B)(3) requires an applicant to (1) post a sign 14 days before a scheduled public hearing; (2) ensure that the size adheres with the dimensions in the SCMC and include content required by the City; (3) erect the sign on public road frontage to be legible and accessible; (4) provide a photograph confirming the posting; and (5) maintain the signs “in satisfactory condition” and ensure continuous display. Failure to comply may result in the “postponement” of the public hearing (not cancellation).
1.g
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) R. Weston Monroe
August 22, 2025
Here, as reported by the Planning Manager during the meeting on August 19, 2025, the applicant complied with these requirements. While you provided photographs to the Planning Commission depicting instances where the posted sign was illegible or on the ground, neither California law nor the SCMC demand perfection, only reasonableness.
Based upon the information available to the City, it appears that the applicant was diligent in its attempts to maintain the sign in accordance with the SCMC.
Noticing requirements are intended to provide interested persons with sufficient information to decide whether to participate in the decision-making process regarding an item. Given the robust public comment – during three public hearings that has now been continued to a fourth – regarding this project (including multiple press articles), it is apparent that the noticing met both the legal requirements of California law and the SCMC.
Note that even if an individual did not receive notice, however, that does not invalidate decisions rendered by the Planning Commission: SCMC § 17.06.110(C) states “[t] he failure of any person or entity to receive notice provided in compliance with this section, or with the State Government Code, shall not invalidate the actions of the review authority.” There are individuals who spoke during public comment stating that they did not receive personal notice. Yet they appeared and spoke during the meeting. That is exactly what noticing requirements are intended to accomplish.
For Letter 2, there does not appear to be a legal or common law conflict of interest requiring Chairperson Eichman to recuse herself. Indeed, contrary to your suggestions in Letter 2, Chair Eichman provided you additional time to voice your objections. No further action will be taken in response to Letter 2.
Please note that you are certainly welcome and encouraged to provide input for the Planning Commission’s consideration. Disrupting legal meetings, however, denies and delays the right of other members of the public to participate in such meetings. I encourage you to adhere to the rules of decorum for these meetings and respect your fellow neighbors who wish to speak on this matter.
Very truly yours,
Karl H. Berger
Assistant City Attorney
cc: Planning Commission
Joe Montes, City Attorney
Jason Crawford, Community Development Director
1.g
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
SCOPE SCOPE SCOPE SCOPE
Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment
TO PROMOTE, PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT, ECOLOGY
AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY
POST OFFICE BOX 1182, SANTA CLARITA, CA 91386
www.scope.org
September 9th , 2025
Erica Iverson, Staff and
Santa Clarita Planning Commission
23i20 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Sent via email to
[email protected]
Please copy to all Commissioners
Commissioners and Ms. Iverson:
This letter will register our continued concern with this project regarding wildfire evacuation through an existing community, fire evacuation and the height of the buildings.
We understand that the developer is going to present new information on the road width at this meeting.
We believe such a presentation violates CEQA as the public will have had no opportunity to review or comment on this material before the Commission takes action.
Last, we ask that the new commissioner recuse himself from a vote on this ProJet, since he did not attend prior hearings on the matter.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
President
1.g
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) From: Annette Lucas
To: Erika Iverson; Ken Striplin; Jason Crawford; Joel Bareng; Patrick Leclair; Rachel A. Clark; PLANNING Subject: September 9,2015 submitted letter
Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 2:21:51 PM
CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments.
To: City Clerk, City of Santa Clarita
CC:[email protected],jcrawford@santa-
clarita.com,[email protected],[email protected], [email protected],[email protected],planning@santa- clarita.com
Re: Objection to Late Disclosure of Four-Lane Wiley Canyon Exhibits – and lack of Los Angeles Fire Department exhibits showing the roundabout usage for the Wiley Canyon Project (4th Hearing)
Dear Commissioners,
I hereby submit this written objection to the introduction of any new four-lane roadway future expansion for Wiley Canyon at tonight’s hearing and the lack of any representation from the LAFD to show how they will handle the roundabouts. We only have your say, no factual information or exhibits.
Basis for Objection
1. Late Disclosure Violates CEQA Public Review Requirements
1. CEQA requires that the Draft EIR include all relevant project information for public review and comment.
2. Presenting four-lane proposed future widening for the very first time at the final hearing deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment.
2. Significant New Information Requires Recirculation
1. CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 require recirculation of an EIR if significant added information that changes the project’s impacts or analysis.
2. A new four-lane roadway exhibit forms significant added information because it affects traffic, circulation, noise, right-of-way needs, and neighborhood impacts.
3. Denial of Fair Participation
1.g
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
1. The late introduction of these exhibits undermines the public’s ability to prepare informed comments.
2. Forcing the public and commissioners to evaluate new material in real time is procedurally unfair and inconsistent with CEQA’s intent.
Concerns Regarding Roundabouts and Fire Department Usage
1. Emergency Response Times
1. Roundabouts can potentially delay emergency response times due to their design, which may not be suitable for large emergency vehicles.
2. The lack of exhibits showing how the LAFD will navigate these roundabouts raises concerns about the efficiency and safety of emergency responses.
2. Operational Challenges
1. Roundabouts require specific maneuvering techniques that may not be feasible for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles, especially in high-traffic situations.
2. Without clear representation from the LAFD, it is unclear how these operational challenges will be addressed.
3. Safety and Accessibility
1. The introduction of roundabouts without proper analysis and visuals from the LAFD could compromise the safety and accessibility of the area for emergency services.
2. It is essential to have detailed information on how the LAFD plans to handle these roundabouts to ensure the safety of residents and the effectiveness of emergency responses.
Community Feedback on Roundabouts
- Many community members have expressed concerns about the potential impact of roundabouts on emergency response times and overall traffic flow. - Residents have highlighted the need for clear and detailed information on how the LAFD will navigate these roundabouts to ensure their safety and well- being.
- The community's feedback underscores the importance of transparency and thorough analysis in the planning process.
1.g
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Requested Action
I respectfully ask that the Planning Commission:
1. Continue this hearing to a 5th meeting so that the public has adequate time to review the newly introduced four-lane exhibits.
2. Alternatively, require recirculation of the EIR to include the four-lane roadway exhibits and analysis before any certification or project approval.
3. Request testimony from the Los Angeles Fire Department about their ability to navigate and use the roundabouts in emergency situations.
Conclusion
If the Commission continues tonight without allowing proper public review of the four-lane exhibits, the approval will be vulnerable to appeal. I ask that this objection letter be entered into the public record for the Wiley Canyon project.
Sincerely
· Annette Lucas
24618 Fourl Road, Newhall, CA. 91321
661-904-5208
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
1.g
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) From: Annette Lucas
To: Ken Striplin; Jason Crawford; Patrick Leclair; PLANNING; Erika Iverson Subject: For Planning Commission Review
Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 2:19:26 PM
CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments.
I will be delivering 2 hard copy letters from Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy to be delivered to the Planning Commissioners to review for the September 16,2025 meeting.
Respectfully
Annette Lucas
24618 Fourl Road
Newhall, CA 91321
661-904-5208
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
1.g
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
1.g
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
1.g
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
1.g
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
1.g
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
1.g
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
1.g
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
1.g
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) From: Weston Monroe
To: Erika Iverson
Subject: Master Case 20-238 Wiley Canyon Project 09-16-2025 Agenda Packet Letter Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 4:41:30 PM
CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments.
Master Case 20-238 Wiley Canyon Project
Letter for the record for September 16th , 2025, Agenda Packet
1. Introduction and Purpose
My name is R. Weston Monroe, a resident of Santa Clarita, and I respectfully submit this letter for the permanent record in connection with Master Case No. 20-238, the proposed Wiley Canyon Project. This submission is directed to the Planning Commission, the City Attorney, City staff, and the public at large, including any newly appointed commissioners who may not have had the benefit of reviewing prior hearings, written objections, or public comments.
The purpose of this letter is threefold.
First, to document procedural defects that have occurred throughout the review of this project, including violations of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (“SCMC”), the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and the Ralph M.
Brown Act (“Brown Act”). These defects are not minor or technical; they strike at the heart of due process and public participation. Under California law, they undermine the validity of any action taken to approve the project.
Second, to highlight substantive inconsistencies between the proposed project and the City’s adopted General Plan, particularly with respect to circulation, roadway capacity, and public safety standards. The General Plan is, in the words of the California Supreme Court, the “constitution for all future development” within a jurisdiction. (Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540). No project may lawfully be approved that is inconsistent with its provisions. The proposed Wiley Canyon Project, as currently configured, is in direct conflict with these mandates.
Third, to ensure that a complete and accurate record is created for both the Planning Commission and any reviewing court. Given that my lawful attempts to rise and object during prior hearings were cut off or dismissed, it is all the more essential that this letter preserves in writing all relevant facts, statutory requirements, case law precedent, and evidentiary materials. Should the City proceed to approve this project despite the defects outlined herein, this record will provide the necessary foundation for administrative appeal and judicial review.
This submission is therefore more than a public comment. It is a formal legal objection, intended to preserve rights under the Brown Act, CEQA, and the Santa Clarita Municipal Code. It is also intended to inform the commissioners, particularly those newly appointed, of the full procedural history and substantive requirements before casting a vote.
The public deserves nothing less than transparency, accountability, and fidelity to the law. This letter seeks to ensure that outcome, or, if denied, to preserve the record for higher review.
2. Defective Public Notice
The public notice requirements of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (“SCMC”) are not optional. They are
1.g
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) jurisdictional prerequisites to any lawful public hearing. If they are not satisfied, the hearing itself is procedurally defective and cannot stand.
Under SCMC §17.06.110(B)(3), notice signs must:
Be posted at least fourteen (14) calendar days before the scheduled hearing.
Be located on each public road frontage adjoining the subject property.
Be “legible and accessible by foot from said public road(s).” Be verified by photograph and affidavit of posting.
Be maintained “in satisfactory condition” and “continuously displayed” until the close of the hearing.
Evidence of Noncompliance
My photographic evidence, submitted in writing and in 10 copies prior to the third hearing, demonstrates beyond dispute that these requirements were not met.
First sign: Found face down on the ground. Photographs show it remained in that condition for months.
Additional evidence from another resident shows this sign was face down as early as May 2025, predating my own photographs taken in July 2025.
Second sign: Completely obstructed by trash and overgrown branches. With no sidewalks in the area, the sign was invisible and inaccessible to the public.
Now since the hearing on August 19th , 2025, the First sign face down has been reposted on September 2nd , 2025, The Second sign remains the same, no corrective measure taken, is still overgrown with branches and trash. Obstructed from view. See new attached photographic evidence.
These conditions persisted even though the Code explicitly requires continuous display and maintenance in “satisfactory condition.” A notice lying face down for months or blocked from view does not meet even a minimal standard of compliance. See attached photographs of past and present-day noncompliance.
Legal Authority
California courts have consistently invalidated proceedings where notice was defective, misleading, or not reasonably calculated to inform the public.
Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 348 – Held that defective signage, including signs that were not properly posted or maintained, invalidated subsequent public actions.
Scott v. City of Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541 – The California Supreme Court confirmed that public notice must be meaningful and reasonably calculated to inform, not perfunctory.
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. East Bay MUD (1980) 26 Cal.3d 183 – Reinforced that procedural defects in notice undermine the fairness and legality of the entire proceeding.
Together, these cases establish that attendance at a hearing cannot cure defective notice. The City Attorney’s suggestion that public participation “proves” adequacy of notice is a legal fallacy. Proper posting is a separate jurisdictional requirement.
Nor does SCMC §17.06.110(C) provide an escape. That section excuses non-receipt of notice by individuals if
1.g
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) proper notice was actually given. It does not excuse situations where notice signs were missing, obstructed, or illegible.
Consequence for the Third Hearing
The third hearing on Master Case No. 20-238 should never have been called to order. My objections were raised in advance and included in the City’s own agenda packet (p. 17). My prehearing letter gave the City notice that the signs were defective. Yet, the hearing was convened and proceeded despite this fatal jurisdictional defect.
Because it was agenda-noticed and convened, the hearing must still be counted for purposes of the statutory timeline. However, it should not have lawfully proceeded. Allowing it to continue deprived the public of fair notice and procedural due process.
The City’s failure to cure this defect despite timely objections, photographic evidence, and legal citations leaves a permanent procedural flaw in the record. This defect alone is sufficient to invalidate the proceedings and any subsequent approval tied to them.
3. Right to Rise and Object Under the Brown Act
The Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code §54950 et seq.) is the bedrock of California’s open government law. It guarantees the public the right to participate meaningfully in legislative decision-making. That right is not a courtesy extended at the discretion of the chair — it is a statutory obligation that agencies must honor.
Statutory Authority
Government Code §54954.3(a) provides:
“Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest… before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item.”
The Legislature’s intent is explicit: public objections must be heard before or during consideration of the item in question — not relegated to general comment periods when the decision is already framed.
Case Law Affirming the Right
California courts have consistently reinforced this principle:
Galbiso v. Orosi Public Utility District (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 652 – Held that denying public comment at the proper time was a Brown Act violation. The right to speak is tied to meaningful influence on decision- making.
McKee v. Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 354 – Confirmed that input must be received before a decision is “baked in.” Public comment that comes after the decision has effectively been made is legally insufficient.
Olson v. Hornbrook Community Services Dist. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 502 – Reaffirmed that the Brown Act is to be liberally construed in favor of public participation. Attempts to narrow or restrict that participation are contrary to the statute’s purpose.
These authorities make clear that a member of the public has the legal right to rise and object when a procedural defect is occurring or imminent.
Application to Master Case No. 20-238
1.g
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) At the August 19, 2025, hearing, I rose calmly, cited case law, and objected to defective notice. I was briefly recognized but cut off before finishing my objection. I stated, for the record, that denying my objection preserved my standing to appeal, and then I sat down.
This conduct was lawful, timely, and within my rights. It was not “disruptive” under the Brown Act. A disruption occurs only when conduct actually prevents the body from conducting its business. Simply rising to state an objection with statutory authority is not disruption; it is participation as guaranteed by law.
Further, my objection was procedurally necessary. By raising notice defects before deliberation, I ensured that commissioners were aware of the jurisdictional defect before voting. Cutting me off not only violated the Brown Act but also deprived the Commission of critical information.
Request for Acknowledgment
I again request acknowledgment that my actions at the hearing were legal, timely, and within my rights under the Brown Act and SCMC. This acknowledgment must be made at or before the next hearing to cure the ongoing procedural defect in the record.
Failure to provide this acknowledgment perpetuates a Brown Act violation, exposes the City to litigation under Gov. Code §54960.1 and risks judicial invalidation of any project approval.
4. Recusal Request – Chairperson Eichmann
Legal Standard for Recusal
This section disheartens me, as I had sent two polite requests to the City Attorney and Planning Department, both refused. With advice I sent a lone copy of this section again for better understanding of why it is important, with an offer to redact this section of recusal request and information contained in it. That third request offer was met with silence and no response in a timely manner that would not have allowed it into this letter by the given deadline. Sadly, compelling me to include it.
California law requires decisionmakers to avoid even the appearance of bias. A fair hearing is guaranteed by the Due Process Clauses of the state and federal Constitutions, as well as by common law principles of impartiality.
Nasha v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 470 – Held that a commissioner’s personal involvement created an appearance of bias requiring disqualification, even absent proof of actual prejudice.
Woody’s Group, Inc. v. City of Newport Beach (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1012 – Reaffirmed that recusal is required where there is a “probability of actual bias,” not only proven bias.
Break Zone Billiards v. City of Torrance (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1205 – Due process requires a decisionmaker to be impartial, and participation by a biased commissioner invalidates the action.
These cases make clear that the integrity of the process is compromised when a commissioner with significant personal or professional entanglements participates in a matter affecting those relationships.
Basis for Recusal
Chairperson Eichmann has served as my accountant, tax preparer, and financial advisor since the 1990s. Since 2003, she has also served in this same capacity for both me and my business partner through our jointly held company. This relationship extended beyond professional services — at one time it was social as well.
In recent years, and particularly in the past twelve months, this relationship has deteriorated sharply. Chair Eichmann has:
1.g
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Refused to include my business partner in communications, even on joint financial matters, breaking with past practice.
Required me to obtain financial documents on a flash drive to share with my partner, rather than sending them directly as she once did.
Snapped at both me and my partner on multiple occasions, often invoking “I am a professional” when challenged, including snapping at me by name in public session to sit down when I calmly rose to object.
The breakdown has reached the point where my partner and I have begun interviewing alternative accountants and financial advisors, and documentation of these interviews exists.
The deterioration is not just interpersonal but professional. At one point when my partner and I considered dividing our co-owned business, Chair Eichmann’s husband and my partner worked closely while I was told to “find my own attorney.” This raised questions of fiduciary duties and conflict of interest at that time. Though we ultimately did not divide the company, the imbalance in treatment and divided loyalties has never been fully resolved.
Current Compromising Position
These strained and adversarial circumstances create a compromising position for both Chair Eichmann and me.
By continuing to preside over this case, she places me in the position of being compelled to disclose in the public record details of our now-deteriorated business and personal dealings — something I had hoped to avoid out of respect for all involved.
I have already politely and professionally requested that Chair Eichmann recuse herself. That request was denied. I now state plainly that if she does not voluntarily step aside, I will be forced to fully disclose the facts outlined above, and additional details of the breakdown between her and my business partner, including the involvement of his family members. Once disclosed, it will be unmistakably clear why her recusal was necessary.
Legal and Ethical Imperative
Recusal in this case is not optional. Given her long-standing financial advisory role, her recent adversarial conduct, and the appearance of bias it creates, participation by Chair Eichmann violates both due process and the principles of fairness that underlie administrative hearings.
The law does not require proof of actual bias — only a probability of bias or an appearance of unfairness. By any reasonable measure, that standard is met here.
Requested Action
I respectfully request that:
Chair Eichmann voluntarily recuse herself from Master Case No. 20-238 to preserve the integrity of the Commission’s proceedings.
If she refuses, the record will reflect that my objection was timely raised, documented, and supported by factual evidence and case law.
The Commission acknowledges that continued participation by Chair Eichmann may compromise the legality of any approval and render the City vulnerable to appeal and judicial reversal.
5. Substantive General Plan Conflicts – Roadway Width and Circulation The General Plan as Controlling Law
1.g
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) California law is clear: a city’s General Plan is the “constitution for future development.” Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531 – A project inconsistent with the General Plan is invalid and cannot be approved.
Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176 – Local agencies must show actual consistency with adopted circulation policies; speculative or “word salad” reasoning is insufficient.
The Santa Clarita General Plan’s Circulation Element explicitly designates Wiley Canyon Road as a four-lane secondary highway. This designation is not advisory; it is binding. It connects directly to the Via Princessa six- lane major highway corridor, which itself is a critical east-west cross-valley connector.
The circulation element further confirms this corridor runs from the SR-14 freeway at Via Princessa, across to Lyons Avenue, and ultimately west to Calgrove Boulevard and the I-5 freeway. This is not speculative future development—it is expressly adopted policy.
Historical Right-of-Way Standards
Before incorporation, Los Angeles County’s master plan for the same corridor designated an 80-foot right-of- way. This was imposed on prior developments both north and south of the current project. Historic right-of-way dedications in those areas confirm this standard.
The current project, however, attempts to reduce this to 40–46 feet of paved roadway for a two-lane configuration, with vague assurances that four lanes could be “accommodated in the future.” This is directly inconsistent with both:
1. The General Plan’s current 84-foot requirement, and
2. The historic 80-foot requirement imposed under the County prior to incorporation.
Physical Constraints – Retaining Wall and Culvert
Even if the City were to argue that “future accommodation” is possible, physical reality says otherwise. I personally measured the constrained segment adjacent to the giant retaining wall and flood control culvert.
Measurements taken from the edge of the existing 7’ sidewalk to the culvert and retaining wall demonstrate:
Narrowest widths as small as 35.66 feet,
Other points at 39’9”, 42.91’, 44.5’, and 45.5’.
These figures fall short of the 40–46 feet the City staff now claim are sufficient, and far short of the required 84 feet. No combination of striping or reduced shoulders could legally or safely transform these dimensions into a four-lane arterial with sidewalks, bike lanes and ADA compliant pathways.
This constraint was well known to both City staff and the developer. Indeed, the original LA County plan placed the ultimate four-lane roadway west of the creek, where sufficient land was secured through prior right-of-way dedications. The City even acquired land north of the project from the Mulberry Mobile Home Park under eminent domain for this purpose. To now abandon that plan would waste taxpayer funds and strand the acquired land as an unused triangle of landscaping.
Word Salad and Evasion
At hearings and in correspondence, staff have claimed that no future development “is anticipated” that would
1.g
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) necessitate four lanes. Yet in the same breath, they admit that if four lanes are ever required, “it can be done.” This is word salad semantics — it avoids the clear requirement of the General Plan by pretending that growth projections are speculative.
The facts prove otherwise:
Over 750 acres of undeveloped land lies between Via Princessa and Whites Canyon.
The Old Saugus Speedway site has already begun development.
The General Plan designates this corridor as a 6-lane east-west cross-valley connector, with Wiley Canyon as a critical four-lane secondary link.
Caltrans has already built improved ramps at Calgrove Boulevard on the I-5 freeway, anticipating increased traffic from this corridor.
To claim ignorance of foreseeable development is not only misleading but also contradicted by the City’s own adopted planning documents.
Legal Consequences of Inconsistency
Courts have repeatedly invalidated approvals where projects undermine circulation elements:
Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777 – County violated General Plan by failing to maintain required roadway capacity.
Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Bd. of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332 – Project approval reversed where circulation element was ignored.
Approving a project based on 40–46 feet of pavement, while the General Plan requires 84 feet, would expose the City to the same vulnerability.
Requested Action
I respectfully request that the Commission:
Acknowledge that the proposed two-lane configuration is inconsistent with the General Plan.
Recognize that physical constraints (retaining wall, culvert) make future widening infeasible in the current alignment.
Require the project to conform to the historic and current four-lane designation, utilizing the west-of-creek alignment preserved for this purpose.
Deny approval until such conformity is established, consistent with Lesher and related case law.
6. Deferred Roadway Construction – Requirement of Plans and Performance Bonds Legal Framework for Deferred Improvements
When a city permits a developer to defer construction of required infrastructure — such as a roadway expansion mandated by the General Plan — it must ensure that the deferred improvements are both feasible and secured.
California law makes clear that local governments cannot approve speculative promises of future improvements without concrete, enforceable mechanisms.
Concerned Citizens of Calaveras County v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 90 – The court
1.g
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) invalidated approval where roadway mitigation was deferred without binding performance measures.
Deferral must be accompanied by specific plans and guarantees.
Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777 – Agencies cannot simply “promise” to address circulation deficiencies later; mitigation must be tied to enforceable conditions.
Gov. Code §65300.5 – All land use decisions must be consistent with the General Plan. Deferral without enforceable guarantees creates inconsistency by leaving circulation policies unmet.
Thus, if Wiley Canyon Road is designated as a four-lane secondary highway, the City cannot lawfully approve a project that provides only two lanes while deferring the remainder without a full plan and financial assurance.
Requirements for Deferred Road Plans
For a deferral to be valid, the following conditions must be satisfied:
1. A complete engineering plan must be prepared showing how the ultimate four-lane cross-section will be constructed, including precise right-of-way, grading, and utility relocation.
2. Demonstration of feasibility must be made, including physical constraints (such as retaining walls and culverts) and available right-of-way. Mere statements that “it can be done in the future” are insufficient.
3. Performance bonds or equivalent financial guarantees must be secured to ensure that the improvement will occur when required, even if the developer has sold the property or dissolved its business entity.
4. Timing triggers must be specified — for example, roadway expansion must occur upon buildout of adjacent developments or when traffic volumes reach certain thresholds.
Without these elements, a deferral is meaningless and leaves taxpayers or future developers to bear the costs.
Current Failures in Master Case No. 20-238
The Wiley Canyon Project fails each of these requirements:
No plan exists for the full four-lane roadway. The current project materials show only the interim two-lane configuration, with vague assurances about “future accommodation.” No feasibility analysis has been provided. My personal measurements and photographic evidence show that in constrained areas near the retaining wall and culvert, available space is as little as 35.66 feet, far below what is required. Without relocating the road west of the creek — as shown in the historic LA County alignment plan — widening is physically impossible.
No performance bond or financial assurance has been offered. If this project is approved as-is, future taxpayers will inevitably shoulder the enormous cost of condemnation, grading, and reconstruction when the four-lane becomes necessary.
No timing mechanism has been proposed. Instead, staff rely on empty language that expansion “may occur someday if needed.” This evasion violates both CEQA (as an improper deferral of mitigation) and the General Plan (as an inconsistency).
Wasted Public Resources
Further compounding this failure, the City previously acquired right-of-way land north of the project from Mulberry Mobile Home Park through eminent domain. That land was intended to preserve the alignment for the four-lane roadway west of the creek. If the current project is approved as a two-lane roadway on the east
1.g
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) side, that acquisition becomes a wasted public expenditure — leaving a triangular parcel stranded as mere landscaping rather than fulfilling its intended transportation purpose.
Legal and Fiscal Risks
Approval under these conditions exposes the City to both legal challenge and financial liability:
Courts have invalidated approvals where mitigation was improperly deferred (Concerned Citizens of Calaveras; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296).
Taxpayers may be forced to fund future condemnation and construction costs that should lawfully be borne by the developer.
The City risks creating a precedent whereby any developer can promise to “address problems later” without enforceable commitments.
Requested Action
I respectfully request that the Commission:
Require submission of a complete four-lane roadway plan consistent with the General Plan and historic LA County alignment.
Require that a performance bond or equivalent financial guarantee be secured before any approval is granted, ensuring that the four-lane expansion will occur when needed.
Reject approval of Master Case No. 20-238 unless and until such plans and assurances are submitted in compliance with Gov. Code §65300.5, CEQA, and controlling case law.
7. Late Disclosure of Four-Lane Exhibits – CEQA Recirculation Requirement Legal Framework
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that all significant information relevant to a project’s environmental impacts be made available for meaningful public review and comment before a decision is made.
CEQA Guidelines §15087(a): The Draft EIR must be circulated for a minimum of 45 days to allow public scrutiny of all relevant data.
CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(a): When “significant new information” is added to an EIR after public review, the document must be recirculated.
Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376: The California Supreme Court held that meaningful public participation requires circulation of all substantial project revisions; failure to recirculate invalidates certification.
Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296: Agencies may not defer essential environmental studies or analyses until after project approval.
Vermont Citizens for Responsible Gov’t v. City of Montclair (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1389: Deficiencies in circulation and disclosure require recirculation of environmental documents.
Together, these rules and precedents make clear that the late disclosure of critical roadway exhibits is a material violation of CEQA.
1.g
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Late Disclosure of Roadway Exhibits
Throughout the first three hearings, both City staff and the developer defended the proposed two-lane roadway design. Public comments were consistently dismissed with assurances that “future expansion to four lanes” was possible if needed.
Only at or just before the fourth hearing have four-lane roadway exhibits been introduced. These materials were never made available during the Draft EIR circulation period and were withheld from earlier hearings.
This disclosure is not a minor clarification. The cross-section of Wiley Canyon Road is central to the projects:
Traffic and circulation analysis,
Air quality and greenhouse gas impacts,
Noise studies,
Right-of-way acquisition (including past eminent domain actions), and Growth-inducing impacts along the Via Princessa corridor.
By withholding these exhibits until late in the process, the City has denied both the public and independent experts the opportunity to review and comment meaningfully. Commissioners themselves are now forced to evaluate new, complex information “on the fly,” which courts have consistently found to be procedurally unfair.
Why This is “Significant New Information”
CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(b) identify three scenarios requiring recirculation, all of which apply here:
1. A new or substantially more severe significant impact – A four-lane cross-section creates fundamentally different traffic, noise, and air quality impacts compared to a two-lane road.
2. A new feasible mitigation or alternative – A properly designed four-lane roadway west of the creek (as shown in historic LA County plans) constitutes a feasible alternative that was never considered in the Draft EIR.
3. A fundamentally different project design – Introducing a four-lane design after certifying a two-lane “interim” road is not a minor adjustment; it is a change in project description that undermines the validity of the environmental review.
Because each of these conditions is satisfied, recirculation of the EIR is mandatory.
Case Law Precedent
California courts have repeatedly invalidated project approvals where agencies attempted to “ambush” the public with late-submitted information:
Laurel Heights (1988): Held that significant new information requires recirculation to preserve the public’s right of participation.
Sundstrom (1988): Struck down approvals where agencies deferred essential analyses to future dates, reasoning that CEQA does not permit “approve now, study later.” Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859: Found that late disclosure of circulation changes undermined the adequacy of the EIR.
1.g
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502: Reiterated that an EIR must provide sufficient detail to allow informed public review and agency decision-making.
These cases demonstrate that the City’s current handling of roadway exhibits cannot withstand judicial review.
Combined CEQA and Brown Act Failures
The harm is compounded by the City’s refusal to allow timely objections under the Brown Act (Gov. Code §54950 et seq.). Not only has the City introduced significant new information too late for CEQA compliance, but it has also constrained the public’s ability to object when it matters most.
This combination of CEQA and Brown Act violations deprives the public of both the information necessary for informed participation and the procedural opportunity to influence decision-making Requested Action Because of these violations, the Planning Commission cannot lawfully proceed with certification or approval of Master Case No. 20-238 at the fourth hearing. The only legally defensible remedies are:
Continue the hearing and circulate the new four-lane roadway exhibits for at least 30 days of public review, or
Recirculate the Draft EIR under CEQA §15088.5 to include the four-lane roadway exhibits and updated traffic, air quality, and noise analyses.
8. Fire Protection and Response Times
Legal Framework
Adequate fire protection is a mandatory element of public health and safety under CEQA and California law.
When approving a project, an agency must ensure that fire response times and emergency services are sufficient to protect both new and existing residents.
Los Angeles County Fire Department Standard: Emergency response times must be 8 minutes or less for travel to all neighborhoods served.
CEQA Appendix G (Environmental Checklist): A project has a significant impact if it results in “substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the need for new or expanded fire protection facilities, the maintenance of acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.”
Pub. Res. Code §21083(b): Agencies must adopt thresholds of significance to identify substantial effects on public services such as fire protection.
California courts have repeatedly struck down projects where agencies ignored or understated deficiencies in fire protection and emergency response:
Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099 – Agencies may not gloss over service deficiencies when those deficiencies create new safety risks.
City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341 – Agencies cannot simply defer or disclaim responsibility for public service impacts; they must mitigate them or identify enforceable funding mechanisms.
Napa Citizens for Honest Gov’t v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342 – CEQA requires full disclosure and analysis of whether emergency services will be degraded below established standards.
1.g
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Project-Specific Deficiencies
In the case of the Wiley Canyon Project (Master Case No. 20-238), the Draft EIR addressed only the proposed development’s internal emergency plan but ignored the broader regional service impacts. This is a fundamental flaw.
Existing Service Levels: LA County Fire response times already exceed the 8-minute standard, with neighborhoods south and east of the project experiencing delays approaching or exceeding 9 minutes.
Impact of Additional Growth: Adding hundreds of new residential units and associated traffic congestion will only increase travel times for emergency vehicles attempting to access both the new development and existing neighborhoods beyond it.
Lack of Fire Department Exhibits: Despite CEQA’s clear requirements, the record contains no Fire Department exhibits, correspondence, or response-time studies addressing this impact.
This omission is not an oversight; it is a fatal defect in the environmental analysis.
Requirement for a New Fire Station
Under Los Angeles County Fire Department planning policies, when response times exceed the 8-minute threshold, a new fire station or equivalent facility must be established before additional development is approved. This is not discretionary — it is a precondition of adequate service.
The City’s failure to identify or condition approval of this project on a new fire station (or equivalent mitigation such as expanded staffing, equipment, or relocation of resources) violates CEQA Appendix G and undermines public safety.
Why the EIR is Defective
By limiting its analysis to the project’s own on-site emergency plan, the Draft EIR:
Failed to analyze the impact on existing residents in outlying neighborhoods already underserved by current response times.
Failed to identify mitigation such as requiring a new fire station, enhanced staffing, or funding mechanisms.
Failed to disclose whether LA County Fire even reviewed or approved the project’s impacts on response times.
As the California Supreme Court held in City of Marina (2006), an agency cannot disclaim responsibility by stating that “other entities” (here, LA County Fire) are responsible. The City must ensure impacts are identified and mitigated before approval.
Legal Consequences
Proceeding without addressing fire response deficiencies exposes the City to litigation risk:
A court could find the EIR legally inadequate for failing to disclose and mitigate a significant public safety impact.
Under Pub. Res. Code §21168.9, a court may issue a writ of mandate setting aside project approvals until fire service deficiencies are corrected.
1.g
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) The City may also be ordered to identify and secure enforceable funding or bonding mechanisms to provide the necessary fire protection facilities.
Requested Action
I respectfully request that the Planning Commission:
1. Require the City to obtain and disclose formal input from LA County Fire Department regarding response times for the Wiley Canyon Project and surrounding neighborhoods.
2. Reopen the environmental record to analyze whether response times exceed the 8-minute standard, including impacts on existing communities beyond the project boundary.
3. Condition any approval of the construction or funding of a new fire station or equivalent facility to restore response times to acceptable levels.
4. If these actions cannot be taken, the Commission must continue the hearing or require recirculation of the EIR to cure these defects.
9. Anticipated Litigation Risk and Remedies
Heightened Litigation Exposure
The cumulative defects in this proceeding—defective notice, violations of the Brown Act, inconsistencies with the General Plan, late disclosure of critical roadway exhibits, and failure to address fire protection standards—create extraordinary litigation risk for the City of Santa Clarita. Each of these defects, standing alone, would be sufficient to invalidate approval of Master Case No. 20-238. Taken together, they create a textbook case for judicial intervention.
Courts across California have consistently found agency approvals unlawful where statutory safeguards of due process, transparency, and consistency with planning law are disregarded.
The City’s exposure is not hypothetical. Any approval under these circumstances would be immediately vulnerable to both administrative appeal and judicial review under California Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5 (administrative mandamus) and Public Resources Code §21168.5 (CEQA enforcement). Such litigation would not only halt the project but would likely expose the City to significant attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5 for prevailing parties enforcing important public rights.
CEQA Litigation Risks
CEQA litigation is particularly likely here. Courts have held repeatedly that failure to recirculate an EIR when significant new information emerges renders the approval invalid. The late disclosure of four-lane roadway exhibits is precisely the kind of “significant new information” contemplated by CEQA Guidelines §15088.5. Furthermore, the omission of fire department response time analysis leaves a gaping hole in the environmental review. In Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, the court struck down an approval where agencies improperly deferred essential studies until after project approval. Similarly, Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of Univ. of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 held that public review must include all significant information before approval. Failure to cure these deficiencies ensures CEQA litigation will succeed.
Brown Act Litigation Risks
Brown Act exposure is equally grave. Government Code §54960.1 authorizes courts to invalidate actions taken in violation of the Act. Courts interpret the Brown Act liberally in favor of public participation. In Galbiso v. Orosi Public Utility Dist. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 652, a failure to allow timely public comment rendered agency action unlawful. In Olson v. Hornbrook CSD (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 502, procedural shortcuts were struck down because they deprived the public of meaningful opportunity to be heard. The City’s practice of cutting off lawful objections
1.g
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) and relegating public concerns to compressed three-minute slots after decisions have already been framed directly contravenes these precedents. Litigation risk is magnified by the video record, now publicly available, which contradicts the City’s prior characterization of my conduct and affirms my lawful exercise of rights under the Brown Act.
General Plan Consistency Litigation Risks
California law is unequivocal: all land use approvals must be consistent with the General Plan. Government Code §65300.5 and Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531 make clear that a project inconsistent with the General Plan is invalid. Here, Wiley Canyon is designated as a four-lane secondary highway directly tied into the Via Princessa six-lane cross-valley connector. Approval of a two-lane configuration, absent a binding plan and performance bond for the required four-lane buildout, would be flatly inconsistent with the General Plan. This inconsistency alone would be sufficient for a court to set aside project approval.
Remedies Likely to be Ordered by a Court
If litigation is pursued, a court could order multiple remedies, including:
Writ of Mandate: Setting aside any project approval until the City cures CEQA, Brown Act, and General Plan inconsistencies.
Injunctions: Prohibiting further construction activity until a legally adequate review and approval process is completed.
Recirculation of the EIR: Mandated recirculation under CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 with full public review of four-lane roadway exhibits and fire protection analysis.
Performance Bond or Equivalent Guarantees: Court-ordered requirement that the developer secure enforceable assurances for the full four-lane buildout prior to any phased approval.
Attorney’s Fees: Under CCP §1021.5, the City would be exposed to substantial fee awards for prevailing parties, as enforcement of transparency and General Plan consistency are quintessential public rights.
Precedent-Setting Potential
Finally, the City should be mindful that proceeding under these circumstances' risks creating a new statewide precedent. Courts are increasingly attentive to agency practices that erode transparency and public participation.
Should this case advance to litigation, it may result in published opinions that further strengthen public rights to object, to meaningful notice, to enforce General Plan consistency, and to demand that CEQA analysis be complete before approval. What is now a local dispute could, through appeal, become a landmark case shaping public rights across California.
Requested Action
To avoid the substantial litigation risk outlined above, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission and City Attorney take the following actions:
Do not approve Master Case No. 20-238 at the September 16, 2025, hearing.
Require recirculation of the Draft EIR with full disclosure of four-lane roadway exhibits and fire department response time analysis.
Acknowledge the validity of objections lawfully raised under the Brown Act and include them in the record.
Require Chair Eichmann’s recusal to avoid even the appearance of bias or partiality.
1.g
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Secure enforceable plans and performance guarantees for the four-lane roadway as required by the General Plan and CEQA mitigation standards.
Absent these actions, approval of this project would not only invite litigation but would virtually guarantee judicial invalidation of the City’s actions.
10. New Commissioner Issue and Due Process Concerns
Appointment of a New Commissioner
The September 16, 2025, hearing on Master Case No. 20-238 will be the very first hearing for a newly appointed Planning Commissioner. By definition, this commissioner did not participate in any of the three prior hearings and has not personally heard the testimony, objections, or evidentiary submissions made part of the record. This circumstance raises serious questions of fairness, due process, and legal validity of any decision in which the commissioner participates.
Legal Requirement of an Informed Decision
California law requires quasi-judicial decision-makers such as planning commissioners to base their determinations on the full administrative record. Due process is violated when a commissioner votes without adequate exposure to the evidence.
In Break Zone Billiards v. City of Torrance (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1205, the court emphasized that decision- makers must base their actions on the record and cannot lawfully participate without review.
In Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152, the court explained that failure to provide a fair hearing, including consideration of all relevant evidence, constitutes a due process violation.
If the new commissioner has not thoroughly reviewed prior testimony, public objections, and all submitted exhibits, then his vote would be procedurally defective.
Importance of Prior Hearings and Evidence
The first hearing on March 19, 2024, introduced the project and initial public concerns, but it did not include evidence of defective notice signs. That evidence arose later, with the first known photograph of the fallen face- down sign in May 2025, followed by my own photographs in July 2025. At the same time, the second notice sign had become obstructed by overgrown branches and discarded trash, rendering it illegible and inaccessible. These defects were central to my later objections and were formally submitted with supporting case law.
The second and third hearings also addressed critical issues of roadway configuration, General Plan consistency, and procedural rights under the Brown Act. My lawful objection at the third hearing was improperly curtailed, itself becoming part of the evidentiary and procedural record.
The new commissioner, having not been present for any of this, must review the complete video recordings, written submissions, and exhibits to even begin to fulfill the due process obligation to consider the “whole record.” Accountability Through Questions
One safeguard against this defect would be to require the new commissioner to answer on the record specific questions regarding evidence already submitted. For example:
Has the commissioner reviewed the photographs and affidavits of defective notice signs? Has the commissioner read the legal authorities submitted, including Cohan v. Thousand Oaks and related
1.g
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) case law?
Has the commissioner reviewed the circulation element of the General Plan and compared it with staff’s representations about roadway widths?
They could be asked an obscure but relevant question about a critical detail, statement or document.
If the commissioner cannot answer such questions knowledgeably, it would show that he lacks the necessary understanding of the record and should not vote.
Danger of an Uninformed Vote
Allowing a commissioner to vote without full review of the record is tantamount to rubber-stamping the decision.
Courts have repeatedly invalidated actions taken in such circumstances. Moreover, the appearance of fairness is just as critical as actual fairness. As noted in Nasha v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 470, even the appearance of bias or lack of informed participation is grounds for disqualification.
Requested Safeguards
To preserve the legality of this proceeding:
The new commissioner must review in full all video, transcripts, and written submissions from the three prior hearings.
He must affirm on the record that he has done so.
He should be prepared to demonstrate familiarity with the evidence through specific questioning if necessary.
If these steps cannot be met, he must recuse himself from voting.
Litigation Risk
Any vote involving a commissioner who has not meaningfully reviewed the record would be vulnerable to appeal and judicial reversal. This risk compounds the already substantial CEQA, Brown Act, and General Plan defects surrounding Master Case No. 20-238.
Conclusion
The participation of a new commissioner at this late stage creates a serious due process problem. Unless he can demonstrate full familiarity with the record, his vote will taint the proceedings and further jeopardize the legality of any decision reached on September 16, 2025.
11. Contradictory Staff and Developer Statements
Recorded Statements from Staff
In a recorded meeting attended by me, Annette Lucas, and three City planning staff members — Ian Pari, Patrick LeClair, and Erika Iverson — we directly questioned whether City staff guide or instruct developers on the form of their submissions. Since this was following the first hearing and a plan obviously different from the General Plan had been presented and different from a diagram of a known historic plan I presented. After the hearing I had approach Tom Clark and asked why two lanes? His answer was the same “The City planning staff told me it was okay and not necessary" Each staff member unequivocally stated that “we never tell developers what to do.” Their position was that developers submit their own designs, which the City then reviews for adequacy and compliance. This is one of the reasons a meeting was requested and questions asked in that meeting. To understand the contradictions.
1.g
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) This assurance was significant. It established the expectation that all project proposals are the independent work of the developer, not shaped or directed by City staff.
Developer’s Public Admissions
Yet, in direct contradiction, developer Tom Clark has repeatedly stated in public forums that City staff did instruct him. At two separate community “ Barn Meetings” hosted by the developer, and another small gathering at the Stevenson Ranch Public library, when asked who decided that Wiley Canyon Road would remain a two-lane road with roundabouts rather than be designed for four lanes, Mr. Clark answered: “The City planning staff told me it was okay and not necessary" . When pressed, he identified by name staff members Ian Pari, Patrick LeClair, and Ericka Iverson, and later, Jason Crawford, the City’s Director of Community Development. At a later small meeting I posed the questions again, same answers and when I asked about the round abouts and whose idea they were, He said the planning staff, he could not state an individual's name, just the planning department.
This is no minor misstatement. Mr. Clark has never explained who, if anyone, suggested or required the inclusion of three roundabouts — only that “the planning staff told him.” Legal Implications of Contradictions
These conflicting statements create an unstable and inaccurate project description, which is fatal under CEQA.
California courts have been clear:
County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185: An unstable project description renders CEQA review inadequate. The public cannot evaluate a moving target.
Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502: Agencies must provide accurate, consistent, and understandable descriptions of projects. Contradictions or omissions prevent informed decision-making and violate CEQA.
Here, the contradiction is direct and material: City staff claim they never give instructions; the developer claims City staff explicitly did. This undermines the integrity of the administrative record. If City staff truly gave direction, then the project’s independence and the neutrality of review are compromised. If not, then the developer has misrepresented City actions in a way that misled the public.
Impact on Credibility and Legality
These contradictions strike at the heart of transparency and credibility. Either:
1. City staff improperly influenced the project by directing a two-lane submission, or
2. The developer misled the public by attributing responsibility to City staff.
Both possibilities taint the record. The public cannot have confidence in a process clouded by contradictory accounts from the very people charged with proposing and reviewing the project.
Requested Action
To cure this defect, the Commission must:
Investigate and clarify on the record whether City staff instructed the developer to submit a two-lane plan.
Identify which statements are accurate — the staff’s denials or the developer’s admissions.
Ensure the administrative record reflects a consistent, stable project description before proceeding.
1.g
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) Absent such clarity, the project remains legally vulnerable to challenge under CEQA and due process law.
12. Conclusion and Requests
The record now before the Planning Commission demonstrates a project riddled with procedural and substantive defects. From defective public notice and Brown Act violations to fundamental inconsistencies with the General Plan, late disclosure of critical roadway exhibits, inadequate fire protection, and contradictory statements between staff and the developer, every stage of this process has been compromised. Each defect alone would warrant denial, continuation, or recirculation; together, they create a record so deficient that any approval would not withstand judicial review.
The law is not ambiguous here. The Santa Clarita Municipal Code requires continuous, unobstructed notice; it was not provided. The General Plan requires Wiley Canyon to function as part of an 84-foot secondary highway corridor connected to a six-lane regional cross-valley connector; the project proposes far less, constrained by physical barriers of walls and culverts. CEQA requires recirculation when significant new information—such as late- introduced four-lane exhibits—appears; that has not occurred. The Brown Act requires timely, meaningful participation; my lawful right to rise and object was denied. Case law from Cohan, Scott, Galbiso, McKee, Laurel Heights, Sundstrom, County of Inyo, and others make clear that such failures cannot be ignored or excused.
The appearance of bias stemming from Chair Eichmann’s longstanding personal and professional relationship with myself and my business partner only compounds these issues. Recusal is not optional when impartiality is reasonably in doubt; it is required to preserve public trust in the process.
The City must now make a choice: to proceed unlawfully and risk certain appeal and litigation, or to pause, cure these defects, and restore credibility to the review process.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission and City staff:
Deny approval of Master Case No. 20-238 as currently presented.
Alternatively, continue the hearing to allow proper notice, CEQA recirculation, and submission of required plans, including roadway buildout and fire protection.
Require Chair Eichmann’s recusal from all further proceedings in this matter.
Acknowledge formally that my prior actions—rising, objecting, submitting written evidence, and citing case law—were lawful and consistent with statutory rights.
Provide in writing the case law and statutory authority the City relies upon to reject these objections, without deferring such disclosure into a Public Records Act request.
Failure to take these steps will not only invite appeal but may also result in judicial rulings that create precedent, further strengthening public rights statewide in similar situations. That outcome, while perhaps beneficial for future citizens, would represent an avoidable failure by the City of Santa Clarita to follow its own laws and the laws of the State of California today.
A man who plants a tree who's shade he may never rest or lie under, is a good man. I did not plant this seed or tree; I just spoke out for the citizens of Santa Clarita Valley and the future ones yet to arrive. I merely watered and fertilized the preservation of a good traffic pattern designed by smart men and woman traffic engineers of the past.
Their layout vision of the city, with laws, rules, and plans created and recorded into law by them. Some of these same experts now speak against it yet having been on the same committee that created it (OVOV and the General Plan) and have reviewed the General Plan amendments two times. Never seeing a need for any change on this corridor. If they felt it was needed then, and in each subsequential review and the requirements in that recorded lawful document, why do they speak out against their own work now? For over 50 years this design has survived
1.g
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238)) each review and upgrading of documents and laws. Which are clear and leave no room for interpretation. Why now? What Changed? Not the projected growth or topography of the Santa Clarita Valley.
For these reasons, I again urge the Commission to act lawfully, transparently, and impartially in this matter and
VOTE NO
Respectfully submitted,
R. Weston Monroe
25418 Avenida Escalera
Valencia, CA 91355
[email protected]
(661) 478-4186
1.g
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
1.g
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
1.g
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
1.g
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
1.g
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
1.g
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use (MC20-238))
1.g
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use
1.g
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use
1.g
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use
1.g
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use
1.g
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use
1.g
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use
1.g
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use
1.g
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use
1.g
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use
1.g
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Public Comments (Wiley Canyon Mixed-Use
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
~ Minutes ~
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 6:00 PM City Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Eichman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
OATH OF OFFICE
Amanda Santos, PTS Deputy City Clerk, conducted the swearing in of new Planning Commissioner, Daniel Faina.
ROLL CALL
Chair Eichman, Commissioner Burkhart, Commissioner Faina, Commissioner Keith, and Commissioner Verner were all present.
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Faina led the flag salute.
COMMISSION SECRETARY ANNOUNCEMENT
Kelly Zelaya gave the Secretary Announcement.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Commissioner Keith and seconded by Commissioner Verner to approve the minutes from the August 19, 2025, regular meeting. Said motion was carried by a 5-0 voice vote.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM 1
WILEY CANYON MIXED-USE PROJECT (MASTER CASE 20-238)
A continuation of the public hearing for the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project Master Case 20- 238.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Planning Commission:
1. Receive the staff presentation in response to Planning Commission direction;
2. Open the continued public hearing;