Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-10-13 - RESOLUTIONS - EIR MC 09-108 (2)SOLUTION No. 15-71 RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SC NO. 200909111 0) ADOPTINGTHE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND ADOPTING T ENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE VIA PRINCESPRINCESSA EAST EXTENSIONPROJECT (MASTER CASE NO. 09-108), IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLA ITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS. -FOLLOWS. - SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. On June 25 1 1991 . the City Council adopted the City of Santa Clarita (C ity) General Plan by adoption of Resolution No. 91-98. On June 14, 2011. the City Council adopted an update to the City General Plan by adoption of Resolution No. 11 -6 1. Th* City's General Plan presently designates the project site as Business Park (BP) and Urban Residential i Zoning o ` project r is BP and UR5. b. The Circulation Element of the General Plan and the Joint HighwayPlan designate Via Princessa as a major arterial roadway. c. • Element r iGeneral i r M, identifies : future improvements needed r r r build -out of the Joint Highway Plan. Roadway improvements i Via • segment, r six -lane major highway, from r • eastern r terminus east e r �r Court, to i western r terminus west o Sheldon ', do Ait d. The City received a grant in the amount of $11,577,000 from the 2007 Metro Call for Projects eC 25%) ., construction of this roadway. e. On August 25, 2009, the City Council awarded a contract to Impact Sciences, Inc. (consultant) complete the Environmental Impact ! e ort (EIR) for the pro*ect. On September 14, 2009, Master Case No. 09-108 was filed for the Via Princessa East Extension project (project). ` project r development extension of ViaPrincessa, between Golden Valley Road and the eastern terminus near Sheldon Avenue. The roadway would be 116 feet in width and consist of six lanes, a raised median, a sidewalk/parkway on each side, and a two-lane bike path along the south g. Surrounding land uses include vacant, undeveloped properties to the north and south of the project, which are zoned BP and UR5. Residential located to the north and northwest of the project site is the storage and testing facilities for National Technical Systems (NTS), which is zoned BP. Also located to the south of the project site is Golden Valley High School, which is zoned Public/Institutional (PI). h. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita is the identified lead agency, with the City Council as the decision-making body for the Via Princessa East Extension project. i. TheCity -Dre-Dared an Initial Study for the Droject. which determined that the project X X X 0 may have a significant effect on' the environment and that an EIR must be prepared, The Initial Study determined that the following areas must be addressed in the EIR: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, transportation and circulation, hydrology and water quality, cultural resources, land use and planning, noise, and water services. n. Two duly -noticed public outreach meetings were held on September 6, 2012, and September 27, 2012, to receive public comments on the Draft i public outreach meetings were advertised by ® to all property owners within 1,000 0, feet of the project site. The meetings were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, to Clarita, at 6:00 p.m. The following occurred at the public outreach meetings.* September 6 and 27, 2012, City staff conducted public outreach meetings on the project. Staff provided a summary of the project description and the Draft EIR and received public testimony regarding the project. Approximately 50 people'attended the public outreach meetings. Comments received during these meetings include, but are not limited to,, concerns related to existing traffic conditions and vehicle speeds along Isabella Parkway and requests for multiway stop controls along Isabella Parkway. o. As a result of comments received at the public outreach meetings, City staff evaluated traffic conditions along Isabella Parkway and recommended two multiway stop controls be placed along Isabella Parkway. On March 26, 2013, the City Council approved the installation of two multiway stop controls for the intersections of Isabella Parkway and Gratland Drive, and Isabella Parkway and Aurora Lane. p. Following the public outreach meetings, the City prepared the Final EIR (June 2015; SCH No. 2009091110). The Final EIR contained copies of all written comment letters-, responses to all oral and written comments received on the Draft EIR. q. Notice of the Final EIR's availability was provided on June 15, 2015, to commenting agencies, organizations, and persons. T-1 I The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Via Princessa hast Extension project and Final EIR on October 13, 2015, at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:00 p.m. At this meeting, the City Council received a presentation on the Via Princessa East Extension project from staff and the environmental consultant,, and received public testimony regarding the project. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council closed the public hearing adopted all of the necessary approval documents (resolutions, findings of fact, responses to comments'. gation monitoring, reporting program, etc.) for certification of the Via Princessa East Extension Final EIR and for approval of the Via Princessa East Extension project. s. The Final EIR, incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit C, includes the Draft EIR,, comments on the Draft EIR, responses to public testimony regarding issues raised at the public meetings and during the public comments period, and modifications to the Draft EIR text. The Final EIR also includes the gation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which is incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B. The Draft EIR identifies various significant unavoidable impacts necessitating the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) in compliance with CEQA. The Final EIR, the MMRP, and a SOC for the Via Princessa East Extension project have been prepared and circulated in compliance with CEQA. K u. The City Council considered staff and consultant presentations, staff reports,, information presented to the City Council to assist in its understanding of the project, the Draft EIR, public comments, public testimony, and the Final EIR at the public hearings for the project. v. The location of the documents and other materials, which constitute the record of proceeding upon which the decision of the City Council is based, is the Master Case 09-108 project file, and is located within the Community Development department, and is in the custody of the Director of Community Development. SECTION 2. CEQA REQUIREMENTS. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) provides that "Public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible gation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Pub. Resources Code § 21002; emphasis added). The procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation ' measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." (Ibid); b. CEQA also provides that "in the event [that] speciiic economic, sociaL or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects (Pub. Resources Code § 21002). CEQA provides that a public agency has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, envirom-nental, and social factors and in particular the goal of providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian (Pub. Resources Code § 2108 1; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14!, § 15 021 (d)). CEQA requires decision -makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, and if the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts may be considered "acceptable" by adopting a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15 093). The Statement of Overriding Considerations must set forth the project benefits or reasons why ' the lead agency is in favor of approving the project and must weigh these benefits against the project's adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that cannot be mitigated to a less -than- significant level; c. CEQA's mandates and principles are implemented, in part, through the requirement f� * that agencies adopt tindings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions: 1! 1. that "[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 EM, 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 considerat ions . including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR." (Cal. Code Regs., CEQA defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful e'thin a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, mannr wi environmentaL social, legal, and technological factors" (Pub. Resources Code, §21061.1; Cal. Code Regs.,§15364); d. The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. "Feasibility under CEQA, then, encompasses "desirability" to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors; e. CEQA requires that the lead agency exercise its independent judgment in reviewing the adequacy of an EIR and that the decision of a lead agency in certifying a Final 0 EIR and approving a project not be predetermined. The City Council has conducted its own review and analysis, and is exercising its independent judgment when acting as herein provided; f. CEQA requires decision -makers to adopt a MMRP for those mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR that would mitigate or avoid each significant impact identified in the EIR and to incorporate the MMRP, including all gation measures, as a condition of project approval; g. CEQA requires that the responses to comments in the Final EIR demonstrate good faith and a well -reasoned analysis, and not be overly conclusory. In response to several of the comments received, portions of the Draft EIR have been revised. Although new material has been added to the Draft EIR through preparation of the Final EIR, this new material provides clarification to points and information already included in the Draft EIR and is not considered to be significant new information or a substantial change to the Draft EIR or to the project that would necessitate recirculation; anu h. State CEQA Guidelines section 15003(c) and (i) note that state courts have held that the purpose of an EIR is to infonn 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 EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good -faith effort at full disclosure. N SECTION 3. CEQA FINDINGS. The City Council does hereby find that: a. The Final EIR for the Via Princessa East Extension project (Master Case No. 09-108) has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, has been reviewed and considered by the City Council, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. b. The Final EIR for the Via Princessa East Extension project (Master Case No. 09-108), which consists of the Draft EIR (August 2012) and Final EIR (June 2015), identifies and discloses proj ect- specific impacts and cumulative project impacts attributable to the project. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR, findings, an " d facts in support of findings are herein incorporated by reference as dings Required By CEQA," referred to as Exhibit A, and identified as follows: 1. The Final EIR identifies significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the project, a set forth in Section 2.0 of Exhibit A. Changes or alterations have been required i or incorporated into, the project that will avoid'or lessen certain of the project impacts, but that will not avoid or reduce all of the potential impacts to a less- than- significant level. These remaining significant impacts are balanced against project benefits and are found to be overridden by the project benefits, as stated i the SOC m Section 6. below. 2. The Final EIR also identifies significant but mitigated impacts, as set forth in Section 3.0 of Exhibit A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that will avoid or reduce these potential impacts to a less -than- significant level. 3. The Final EIR identifies less than significant impacts, as set forth in Section 4.0 of Exhibit A. 4. As issues that are noted in Section 3 (b)(3), above, have no significant environmental impacts and require no mitigation, those issues also will have no contribution to cumulative impacts. The ,incorporated 1 5 herein by reference as Exhibit B, is required to mitigate . MMRP project impacts. SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTER -NATIVES. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record iincluding the Via Pr* incessa, East Extension F inal, Ell'. ora and written testimony and other evidence receivect at the public hearings held on the Via Princessa East Extension project (project) and the Final EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council further finds the Final EIR analyzes a reasonable range of project alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Via Princessa East Extension project and would lessen any of the significant impacts of the project, and adequately evaluates the comparative merits of each alternative. 2 M . The objectives of the Via Princessa East Extension project are speect in the Final EIR and SectionExhibit A. These objectives are used as the basis for comparing the project alternatives and determining the extent the objectives would be achieved relative to the proposed project. Only those impacts found significant and unavoidable are relevant in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts in four environmental issue areas: 1. Air Quality - short-term construction impacts (PMand1►M2.5 emissions). 2. Biology - construction and cumulative impactl 3. Noise - short-term construction impactl 4. Visual Resources - long-term (operational) and cumulative impacts. b. Alternative I — No Project Alternative. This alternative is required by the State CEQA Guidelines and compares the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present condition with those that would e- by the proposed project. Under this alternative, the eastward extension of Via Princessa, between Golden Valley Road and Sheldon Avenue, would not occur and the proposed project would not be constructed. The No Project Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR and all otheridentified significant impacts and; therefore, is considered environmentally superior. This alternative would not attain the basic objectives of the project. The No Project Alternative would not close a gap segment in the City's planned roadway system, thus, not implementing a goal of the General Plan Circulation Element. Furthermore,, this alternative would not provide improved local access to residential and commercial areas within the City. This alternative is infeasible because it would not attain the basic project objectives and would not provide any of the project benefits. c. Alternative 2 — Robert C. Lee Parkway Alternative. This alternative would connect the east extension of Via Princessa at the cul-de-sac of Robert C. Lee Parkway. Robert C. Lee Parkway would extend north, paralleling the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power transmission lines to connect at the existing Via Princessa terminus near Sheldon Avenue. The length of the Robert C. Lee Parkway alternative would be approximately 0.5 mile. The proposed roadway would consist of a six -lane facility with a 14 -foot raised landscaped median, a I 0 -foot sidewalk/parkway on eact side, and a 12 -foot two-lane bike path along the south side. The vehicle lanes adjacen to the median would be 12 feet wide, the middle lanes would be I I feet wide, and the right lanes would be 12 feet wide. The typical right-of-way width would be 116 feet (similar features to the proposed project). The portion of Via Princessa between h Sheldon Avenue and Rainbow Glen Drive would be completed by constructing the south side of the roadway (similar to the proposed project). 0 This alternative would result in less impacts than the project in 4 categories,, greater Empacts in 2 categories, and similar impacts in 5 categories. In general, this ,9.1ternative is considered the "environmentally superior" alternative for purposes of CEQA. This alternative would not fully meet or impede the following project ob ective which is defined in Section 1.4 of Exhibit A: Implement the goals of the Circulation Element of the Santa Clarita General Plan, including connectivity between Golden Valley Road and Rainbow Glen Drive. Therefore, this alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy project objectives, and would not provide all of ths project benefits. d. Environmentally Superior Alten ative. The determination of an environmentally superior alternative is based on the consideration of how the alternative fulfills the project objectives and how the alternative either reduces significant, unavoidable impacts or substantially reduces the impacts to the surrounding environment. CEQ Guidelines Section 15126.6 indicates that if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an eriviroriffiell-Lafty superior al-ternd-tive -a mong L11C Other aiternatives. In consideration of these factors, the Robert C. Lee Parkway Alternative would hav the least impact overall by avoiding short-term construction impacts to visual resources, substantially reducing short-term construction impacts to air quality and noise, and the operational impact to visual and biological resources. However, this alternative would not fully satisfy project objectives and would not provide all of thl project benefits. I SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record I including, without limitation, the Via Princessa East Extension Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received, at the public hearings held on the Via Princessa East Extension project and the Via Princessa East Extension Final EIR,, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council finds the following: a. That the Final EER for the Via Princessa East Extension project is adequate, complete, and has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). b. That the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the in EIR in reaching its conclusions. c. That the Final EI R was presented and reviewed prior to taking final action to East recommend certification of the Final EIS. and approval of the Via Princessa East Extension project. 0 d. That, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, the Final EIR includes a description of each potentially signcant impact and rationale for finding that changes or alterations have been requiredincorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as detailed in Exhibit A. incorporated herein by this reference. The analyses included in the Final EIR to support each conclusion and recommendation therein is hereby incorporated into these findings. e. That,, in accordance with the Public Resources Code Section 2108,1,, modifications have occurred to the pro*ect to reduce significant effects. 9 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 Via Princessa East Extension project that avoid or substantially lessen its significant environmental effects because feasible gation measures, including those in the MMR -P, are made conditions of approval for the project. g. The Statement of Overriding Considerations identifies and weighs the revised project's significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level below significant against the community benefits from this revised project, and concludes based on substantial evidence in the record that the revised project's benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant impacts. h. That the Final EIR reflects the decision -maker's independent judgment and analysis. i. That a MMRP has been prepared and is adopted to enforce the gation measure required by the Final EIR and project approvals. I j. The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings on which this decision is based are under the custody of the City Clerk and are located at the City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, California 91355. SECTION 6. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. Based upon the above 0 r 'tals and the entire record ncl ding the Via Princessa East Extension Final EIR oral and eci i u written testimony and other evidence, received at the public hearings held on the Via Princessa East Extension project and the Via Princessa East Extension Final EIR and'otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council finds there is substantial evidence that supports the conclusion that the Via Princessa East Extension project will result in community benefits, including specific ecological, economic, legal, social, technical, and other benefits, that outweigh the significant effects of the Via Princessa East Extension project on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. 9 a. Significant unavoidable impacts include the following, as further described in Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference: quality1. Air - short-term construction impacts (P 10, and 2.5 emissions). 2. Biology - construction and cumulative impacts. 3. Noise - short-term construction impacts. 4. Visual Resources - long-term (operational) and cumulative impacts. b. The benefits of the Via Princessa East Extension project outweigh its significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. These benefits include the following. - L The project will implement goals of the Circulation Element of the City General Plan, by providing for an improved circulation network, consisting of connectivity between Golden Valley Road and Rainbow Glen Drive. 2. The project will improve local access to residential and commercial areas within the City. The project will improve roadway 'level of service and the circulation network. 4. The project will provide the City with substantial improvements to portions of major highways designated in the City's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. 5. The project will reduce vehicle miles traveled by creating a more direct route for motorists, eliminating circuitous driving patterns. 6. The project will promote opportunities for new development by extending neectect infrastructure systems. SECTION 7. The City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Final EIR SCH No. 2009091110 and CEQA Findings (Exhibit A), and hereby determines that it is adequate and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 12081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has considered the project benefits as balanced against its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and hereby determines the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects; therefore, the City Council determines the unavoidable adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR and associated documents, and adopts the MMRP (Exhibit B) and Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 8. By the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council has not granted any approval of entitlement on this project. LEI SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken. PASSED', APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13 1h day of October 2015. DATE.- STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA MAYOR 1, Kevin Tonoian, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on th 13 th day of October, 2015, by the following vote: I AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS.- Kellar, Boydston, Weste, Acosta, McLean 191