Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-25 - RESOLUTIONS - EIR MC 22-105 GPA 22-003 ZC 22-001 SP 22-002RESOLUTION NO. 24-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2023120123) FOR MASTER CASE 22-105 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 22- 003, ZONE CHANGE 22-001, SPECIFIC PLAN 22-002), MAKING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council makes the following findings of fact: A. The City of Santa Clarita (City) included the Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) (Project) as part of the Santa Clarita 2025 Plan on March 23, 2021. The entitlement requests (collectively Entitlements) include: 1. General Plan Amendment 22-003 to amend the General Plan Land Use Map in order to designate the entirety of the SPA as Specific Plan (SP). 2. Zone Change 22-001 to amend the zoning map in order to designate the entirety of the SPA as SP. 3. Specific Plan 22-002 to create the TCSP document. B. The approximately I I I -acre Town Center Specific Plan Project (Project) site is located in the community of Valencia and is bounded by Magic Mountain Parkway to the north, Valencia Boulevard to the south and east, and generally by McBean Parkway to the west, with a 3.7- acre portion of the Project site located on the southwest side of McBean Parkway connecting to the McBean Regional Transit Center. The Project site is located within the Regional Commercial (CR) zone and General Plan land use designation and the City's Jobs Creation Overlay Zone (JCOZ). C. On June 14, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-61, adopting the City's General Plan, and Resolution No. 11-62 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report analyzing the General Plan. The City's General Plan presently designates the Project site as CR. D. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the Project site is to establish the Town Center Specific Plan as the long-range land use plan for the Project area. The current CR zoning designation allows for a FAR of 2:1 (87,120 square feet of floor area per acre) and residential density between a minimum of 18 units and a maximum of 50 units per acre. The Town Center Specific Plan maintains this FAR of 2:1 and the residential densities of up to 50 units per acre. E. The Project site is immediately surrounded on all sides by land with a General Plan land use designation and zoning classification of CR, with the exception of the McBean Regional Transit Center (zoned PI-Public/Institutional), which is located immediately west of the Page 1 of 10 McBean and Valencia Subarea. Land to the west of the Specific Plan Area, across McBean Parkway, is designated and zoned as CR, with PI and Open Space zoning beyond. Land to the south and east, across Valencia Boulevard, is designated and zoned as CR, with Urban Residential 4, Urban Residential 3, and Urban Residential 2 zoning beyond. Land to the north, across Magic Mountain Parkway, is designated and zoned CR with Specific Plan designation (the North Valencia Specific Plan) farther to the north. Uses adjacent to the TCSP Area include auto dealerships and retail commercial uses to the north; restaurants, banks, supermarket, retail commercial uses, a medical office building, and Santa Clarita City Hall to the south; banks, medical clinics, restaurants, and retail stores to the east; and multifamily residential uses, a hotel, restaurants, retail stores, the Santa Clarita Conference Center, and Santa Clarita McBean Regional Transit Center to the west. F. The Project site is an approximately I I I -acre site and includes four subareas: Subarea 1 (Valencia Town Center), Subarea 2 (Town Center East), Subarea 3 (Town Center Drive, and Subarea 4 (McBean and Valencia). The Project is a long-range land use plan that establishes the vision of the City for the Town Center Specific Plan area as a regional destination incorporating a balanced mix of uses. The Town Center Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies three buildout scenarios that represent low buildout, full buildout, and high buildout scenarios of uses, which are anticipated to include a mix of residential, commercial, retail, dining and entertainment uses. The intent of these three scenarios is to frame the anticipated buildout of the Town Center Specific Plan area with the low estimate representing a scaled -back version of the City's envisioned full buildout of the Town Center Specific Plan area and the high estimate being additional growth beyond the City's envisioned full buildout. The estimates are for planning and analysis purposes only and do not compel the construction or redevelopment of any individual property. G. The environmental impacts of the proposed Project were reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., CEQA) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the CEQA Guidelines). In accordance with CEQA, the City of Santa Clarita is the lead agency and the City Council is the decision -making body for the Town Center Specific Plan Project. H. The City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for the Project to evaluate potential environmental impacts related to the following topics: aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. 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 December 6, 2023, and ending on January 8, 2024. Agencies that received the NOP include, without limitation, the State Clearinghouse, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, water agencies, and utility companies serving the Page 2 of 10 Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with CEQA's consultation requirements. Comments from public agencies were received in response to the NOP for the Project. J. A duly noticed scoping meeting was held at City of Santa Clarita City Hall on December 13, 2023, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. environmental topics of concern were raised at the meeting. K. The City prepared a Draft EIR, for the Town Center Specific Plan 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 Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from March 5, 2024, to April 29, 2024 (extended from April 19, 2024). A Public Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was mailed to all organizations and individuals previously requesting notice and was published in The Signal on March 15, 2024. The City received written comments throughout the comment period. L. 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 21 days prior to the public hearing and through on -site posting 14 days prior to the public hearing. M. The Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public meeting on the Project on April 16, 2024, and on May 21, 2024. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the Project and received presentations from staff on the Project setting, requested Entitlements, and Project description. Staff also made a detailed presentation on the Draft EIR. N. After considering the matter, the Planning Commission by unanimous vote recommended the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts of the TCSP that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, and recommended certification of the DFEIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), and approve the Master Case 22-105 by Resolutions Nos. P24-009 and P24-010, adopted on May 21, 2024. O. The City Council held a duly noticed hearing on Master Case 22-105 on June 25, 2024. At the close of the public hearing, the City Council certified the Final EIR prepared for the Project and approved Master Case 22-105 with associated entitlements for the Project. P. The location of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is based, for the Master Case 22- 105 project file, with the Community Development Department; the record specificallyis in the custody of the Director of Community Development. Page 3 of 10 SECTION 2. CEQA REQUIREMENTS. The City Council makes the following findings of fact: 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 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 City Council has conducted its own review and analysis, and is exercising its independent judgment when acting as herein provided. Page 4 of 10 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 mitigation monitoring and reporting program, 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. G. CEQA Guidelines § 15003 notes that state courts have held that the purpose of an EIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public generally of the environmental impacts of a proposed project. CEQA does not require technical perfection or exhaustive treatment of issues in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good -faith effort at full disclosure. SECTION 3. CEQA FINDINGS. The City Council finds that the Final EIR, referred to as Exhibit B, incorporated by reference, for Master Case 22-105 (Specific Plan Adoption 22- 002; General Plan Amendment 22-003; Zone Change 22-001) identifies and discloses Project - specific impacts and cumulative Project impacts. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR, findings, and facts in support of findings are herein incorporated as CEQA Facts and Findings referred to as Exhibit A attached and identified as follows: A. The 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 Final EIR also identifies less -than -significant impacts, as set forth in Section 5.2 of Exhibit A. C. The less -than -significant impacts set forth in Section 5.2 of Exhibit A will not contribute to cumulative impacts. D. The MMRP, included as Chapter 4 of Exhibit B, which is incorporated by reference, is required to mitigate Project impacts. E. The Final EIR identifies effects determined to be significant and unavoidable but mitigated to the extent possible, as set forth in Section 5.4 of Exhibit A. SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public Page 5 of 10 hearings held on the 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 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 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 Proiect/No Build 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, the buildings and other improvements in the Town Center Specific Plan Area would remain and no new development or redevelopment would occur. Individual building tenants might change over time, but the overall mix of uses in the Town Center Specific Plan Area would remain, primarily consisting of various commercial, retail, restaurant, office, and civic uses. This alternative would have the least impact compared to the Project as it would not alter the existing conditions. Alternative 1 is the only alternative that would not result in any new significant and unavoidable impacts and would not require any of the mitigation measures proposed by the Project. Consequently, Alternative 1 would be considered the environmentally superior alternative. However, the alternative would not attain any of the Project Objectives as summarized in Section 2.2 of the CEQA Facts and Findings (Exhibit A). C. Alternative 2 — No Project/Infill Development and Redevelopment Under Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations Alternative. Under this alternative, the Town Center Specific Plan Area would be further built out in accordance with the existing applicable zoning regulations and General Plan land use designation criteria. The entire approximately I I I- acre Specific Plan Area is zoned Regional Commercial (CR) and has an equivalent General Plan Land Use designation of Regional Commercial (CR). The density standards in the CR zone are 18-50 units per acre for residential uses and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2:1 for non- residential uses. The proposed Specific Plan would not change these density standards. Consequently, buildout under Alternative 2 is assumed to be the same as the Project in terms of the future number of residential units and square footage of non-residential uses, i.e., the Project's low, full, and high buildout scenarios also apply to Alternative 2. However, the primary difference between the Project and Alternative 2 is that the Project would implement a Specific Plan that would regulate the buildout of the Town Center Specific Plan Area in a cohesive and coordinated manner to create a variety of community benefits, including a pedestrian -friendly environment, circulation improvements, parks/plazas, trails/paseos, and monumental architecture. Without these regulations, buildout of the Town Center Specific Plan Area would be expected to occur largely on a parcel -by -parcel basis without a governed unified approach. Page 6 of 10 Alternative 2 would not meet the Project Objectives, as summarized in Section 2.2 of the CEQA Facts and Findings (Exhibit A), and would have greater impacts on aesthetics, air quality, GHG emissions, and transportation. Therefore, Alternative 2 is infeasible. D. Alternative 3 — Reduced Scale Specific Plan Alternative. Under this alternative, the Los Angeles County government center in Subarea 2 (Town Center East) would be excluded from the Specific Plan Area. In this alternative, the remaining portions of Subarea 2 would continue to be within the Specific Plan Area, including the existing 31,000-square-foot retail/commercial center along Citrus Street, the two private office buildings near Valencia Boulevard, and the City -owned land. Subarea 1 (Valencia Town Center), Subarea 3 (Town Center Drive), and Subarea 4 (McBean and Valencia) would also remain within the Specific Plan Area. Under Alternative 3, buildout of Subareas 1, 3, and 4 would be the same as buildout under the proposed Project. Except for the Los Angeles County government center, which would remain, buildout of Subarea 2 would be similar to buildout of the Project. Given the reduction in acreage, total buildout projections of Alternative 3 would be less than those of the proposed Project. Buildout of Alternative 3 would be within the range of the Project's low and full buildout scenarios, but is not expected to achieve the Project's high buildout scenario. As there are no current plans to end the operations of the Los Angeles County government center, Alternative 3 is intended to evaluate a scenario in which Los Angeles County continues to utilize its government center into the future indefinitely. Alternative 3 would reduce but not eliminate air quality impacts associated with the Project. This alternative would also reduce impacts related to energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public services, and utilities and service systems. Therefore, Alternative 3 is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, other than the No Project/No Build Alternative (Alternative 1). SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Final EIR, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council finds: A. That the Final EIR for the Project is adequate, complete, has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, and should be certified on that basis. B. That the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Final EIR in reaching its conclusions. C. That the Final EIR was presented and reviewed prior to taking final action to recommend certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Town Center Specific Plan Project. Page 7 of 10 D. That, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the Final EIR includes a description of each potentially significant impact and rationale for finding that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as detailed in Exhibit A attached hereto. The analyses included in the Final EIR to support each conclusion and recommendation therein is hereby incorporated into these findings. E. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081, modifications have occurred to the Project to reduce significant effects. F. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen its significant environmental effects, with the exception of operational air quality impacts, because feasible mitigation measures, including those in the MMRP, are made conditions of approval for the Project. G. The Final EIR identifies one significant unavoidable adverse impact of the Project related to operational air quality emissions, as set forth in Section 7.0 of Exhibit A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that will lessen this Project impact but that will not avoid or reduce all of the potential impact to a less -than - significant level. This remaining significant impact is balanced against Project benefits and is found to be overridden by the Project benefits, as stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 6, below. H. That the Final EIR reflects the decision -maker's independent judgment and analysis. I. That a MMRP has been prepared and is recommended for adoption to enforce the mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and Project approvals. 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 City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council finds that there is substantial evidence that supports the conclusion that the Town Center Specific Plan 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 operational air quality emissions, as further described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Page 8 of 10 b. The benefits of the Town Center Specific Plan 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. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Draft Final EIR (SCH No. 2023120123), and hereby determines that it is adequate and in compliance with CEQA. Accordingly, the City Council certifies the Final EIR and associated documents, and adopts the MMRP. SECTION 8. By the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council has not granted any approval or entitlement on this Project. SECTION 9. RELIANCE ON RECORD. Each and every one of the-indins 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 finding& and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. SECTION 10. LIMITATIONS. The City Council's analysis and evaluation of the Project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a Project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the Project will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the Project is the City Council's lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework. SECTION 11. 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 12. A copy of this resolution will be mailed to the applicant and to any other person requesting a copy. SECTION 13. 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. Page 9 of 10 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 251h day of June, 2024. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK DATE: Z�y���� STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk, of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 24-40 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 251h day of June, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: McLean, Weste, Gibbs, Miranda, Smyth NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY CLERK Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOR THE TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT SCH NO. 2023120123 Lead Agency. - CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 May 21, 2024 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS......................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................................3 2.1 Description of Project Proposed for Approval............................................................... 3 2.2 Statement of Objectives................................................................................................4 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.................................................7 4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING..................................................................9 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS............................................................11 5.1 Effects Determined to Have No Impact inthe EIR...................................................11 5.2 Effects Determined to Be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation inthe EIR .........13 5.3 Effects Determined to Be Mitigated to Less -Than -Significant Levels inthe EIR .......19 5.4 Effects Determined to Be Significant and Unavoidable but Mitigated tothe ExtentPossible............................................................................................................25 5.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project...........................................................................26 6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR...........................................................................37 6.1 Findings.......................................................................................................................37 6.2 Conclusions.................................................................................................................37 7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS..................................................39 7.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 39 7.2 Significant Unavoidable Impacts........................................................................40 7.3 Overriding Considerations.................................................................................40 8.0 STATEMENT OF LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS ............................45 May 2024 i Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. May 2024 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report 1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a Lead Agency make specific findings prior to approving a project that would generate a significant impact on the environment. In this Statement of Facts and Findings, the Lead Agency 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 has been 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 ofanother 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. 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 Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City's Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find and certify that the EIR was reviewed, and information contained in the EIR was considered prior to approving the Town Center Specific Plan Project, herein referred to as the "Project." Based upon its review of the EIR, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find 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 composed of the following elements.- * Town Center Specific Plan Project Initial Study (December 2023) • Town Center Specific Plan Project Draft EIR and Technical Appendices (March 2024) • Town Center Specific Plan Project Final EIR (May 2024) May 2024 1 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. May 2024 2 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The Town Center Specific Plan (Project) is located in the community of Valencia in the City of Santa Clarita (City). The Town Center Specific Plan Area (Specific Plan Area) is bounded by Magic Mountain Parkway to the north, Valencia Boulevard to the south and east, and generally by McBean Parkway to the west, with a 3.7-acre portion of the Specific Plan Area located on the southwest side of McBean Parkway connecting to the McBean Regional Transit Center. Citrus Street bisects the Specific Plan Area from north to south. Town Center Drive traverses the Specific Plan Area, connecting to both McBean Parkway and Magic Mountain Parkway and forming a loop road around the Valencia Town Center Mall, which is one of the primary existing land uses in the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan Area is approximately 111 acres in size and comprises four subareas: • Subarea 1 — Valencia Town Center • Subarea 2 — Town Center East • Subarea 3 — Town Center Drive • Subarea 4 — McBean and Valencia The City's goals for the Specific Plan are to create a mix of residential, commercial, retail, dining and entertainment uses with a robust jobs -to -housing balance; create a distinct sense of place; create a flexible framework for future development that fosters the potential for numerous development possibilities; and create a practical, timeless and buildable plan that is consistent with the City's General Plan and implements the Housing Element. In general, the Specific Plan content is presented in three chapters, including an introduction and the proposed Specific Plan's vision and goals; a development framework and standards chapter that seeks to establish the components, expectations, and general requirements for all future development plans for sites within the Specific Plan area and provides development and design standards regulating future development in the Specific Plan Area; and an implementation plan that could be utilized to implement the goals of the Specific Plan. Within the Specific Plan Area, the existing Regional Commercial (CR) zone allows for a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2:1 (87,120 square feet of floor area per acre) and the provision for residential densities between a minimum of 18 units and a maximum of 50 units per acre. The Specific Plan maintains this FAR of 2:1 and the residential densities of up to 50 units per acre. While no development is currently proposed, in general, the Specific Plan would incentivize mixed -use development and promote a blend of residential, commercial, and recreational spaces, integrating different land uses and creating a walkable community. The Specific Plan envisions the development of nodes within the Specific Plan Area, which includes, programmable gathering space and other smaller gathering spaces such as public May 2024 3 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report plazas, courtyards, amphitheaters, pedestrian streets, parklets, children's playgrounds, and parks. 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 • Recommendation by the Planning Commission for approval by the City Council that the EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and other applicable codes and guidelines. • Recommendation by the Planning Commission for approval by the City Council of the Project or an alternative to the Project. • Certification of the EIR prepared for the Project. • Adoption of the Town Center Specific Plan. • General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use Map in order to designate the entirety of the Town Center Specific Plan Project site as the Town Center Specific Plan, and a text amendment to the Land Use Element. • Zone Change to amend the zoning map in order to designate the entirety of the Town Center Specific Plan Project site as Specific Plan. 2.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The underlying purpose of the Project is to provide a long-range land use plan that establishes the City's vision for the Town Center Specific Plan area as a regional destination incorporating a balanced mix of uses. The City's goals for the Specific Plan are to create a mix of residential, commercial, retail, dining and entertainment uses with a robust jobs -to -housing balance; create a district sense of place; create a flexible framework for future development that fosters the potential for numerous development possibilities; and create a practical, timeless, and buildable plan that is consistent with the City's General Plan and implements the Housing Element. The Vision and Goals of the proposed Specific Plan together constitute the Project objectives, and are as follows: The Vision Statement for the Proposed Specific Plan is The Santa Clarita Town Center is a lively hub that embodies a spirit of community, inviting people from all walks of life to live, work, shop, play, and socialize. It features a balance of retail, office, restaurants, recreational, hospitality, and residential spaces, seamlessly integrated with a pedestrian and bike friendly setting. The Town Center features an efficient multimodal transportation system, providing easy connectivity to regional and local trail systems. The Town Center provides a community identity and is a vibrant place for people to gather, socialize, and celebrate in the City of Santa Clarita. May 2024 4 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report The primary goals of the proposed Specific Plan are to: • Create a balanced mix of uses within the Town Center Specific Plan area that combines commercial and service opportunities with a residential environment that creates a more livable and pedestrian oriented space. • Further establish and enhance the Specific Plan Area as a regional destination for employment, entertainment, dining, retail, and services. • Provide a long-term vision for development within the most intensive commercial and residential district of the City of Santa Clarita that facilitates the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan including, but not limited to, the creation of a robust jobs -to - housing balance, and implements the City's Housing Element. May 2024 5 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. May 2024 6 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City of Santa Clarita conducted an extensive review of this Project, which included a Draft EIR and a Final EIR, including technical reports, along with a public review and commentperiod. The following is a summary of the City's environmental review of this Project: • Pursuant to the provision of CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, as amended, the City of Santa Clarita 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 December 6, 2023, with the 30-day review period ending on January 8, 2024. • The NOP public review period ran for 30 days. The City received response letters from State and regional public agencies; these comment letters were included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. • A duly noticed scoping meeting was held at the City of Santa Clarita City Hall, Carl Boyer Room, on December 13, 2023, 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 and was sent to agencies, interested parties, and individuals who requested to be notified of the Project. • 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. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from March 5, 2024, to April 29, 2024 (extended from April 19, 2024). A Public Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was mailed to all organizations and individuals previously requesting notice and was published in The Signal on March 15, 2024. The City submitted the complete Draft EIR with appendices to the State Clearinghouse and filed the Notice of Availability (NOA) with the Los Angeles County Clerk for posting during the Draft EIR comment period. • The Project and the EIR were presented at two duly noticed Planning Commission meetings held on April 16, 2024, and May 21, 2024. • The City received a total of seven comment letters on the Draft EIR from public agencies and organizations 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, Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses, of the Final EIR. • In accordance with CEQA, the City provided written responses to the public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR at least 10 days prior to certification of the EIR. • Hearings before the City Council are expected following a recommendation from the Planning Commission. May 2024 7 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. May 2024 8 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report 4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING The City solicited proposals from independent consultants to prepare the Town Center Specific Plan Project EIR. Subsequently, the City selected and retained Michael Baker International, Inc. (Michael Baker) to prepare the Town Center Specific Plan Project EIR. Michael Baker 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 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. The Planning Commission has considered all the evidence presented in its consideration of the Project and the EIR, including, but not limited to, 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 significant 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. Prior to approving this Project, the Planning Commission also recommends that the City Council adopt 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. May 2024 9 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. May 2024 10 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS 5.1 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACT IN THE EIR The Town Center Specific Plan 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 the Initial Study, included as Appendix A 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 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? Agriculture and Forestry Resources a) Would the Project convert 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 b) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, May 2024 11 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 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? g) Would the Project affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita SEA Delineation Map? Geology and Soils 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? h) Would the Project involve development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10% natural grade? j) Would the Project result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? Hazards and Hazardous Materials e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Hydrology and Water Quality g) Would the Project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Would the Project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Would the Project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1) Would the Project result in other modification of a wash, channel creek, or river? Land Use and Planning a) Would the Project disrupt or physically divide an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? May 2024 12 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report c) Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Noise e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Utilities and Service Systems g) Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? &MI70 9V a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, 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? 5.2 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITHOUT MITIGATION IN THE EIR The Town Center Specific Plan Project EIR found that the Project would have a less -than - significant impact on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis of these topic areas is provided in the Initial Study prepared for the Project, included as Appendix A of the Draft EIR, and in Sections 4.1 through 4.11 and Section 4.13 of the Draft EIR. FINDING: The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study, Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, Final EIR, May 2024 13 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report 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? c) In non -urbanized areas, would the Project 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 create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Cumulative Aesthetics Impacts Air Quality d) Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Biological Resources a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? d) Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Cultural Resources a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? c) Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? 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? May 2024 14 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report b) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Cumulative Energy Impacts Geology and Soils a) Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) 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? 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? f) Would the Project result in a change in topography or ground surface relief features? g) Would the Project result in earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? i) Would the Project result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? 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 Greenhouse 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 involving explosion orthe May 2024 15 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report 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? g) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? i) Would the Project expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards (e.g., electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? 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 deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) 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, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Would the Project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?? k) Would the Project result in changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water and/or groundwater? m) Would the Project impact stormwater management in any of the following ways: i) Potential impact of project construction and project post -construction activity on stormwater runoff? May 2024 16 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report '— ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff? iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion of the Project Site or surrounding areas? v) Stormwater discharges that would significantly impair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)? vi) Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies? vii) Include provisions for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy? Land Use and Planning b) Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Cumulative Land Use and Planning Impacts Mineral and Energy Resources a) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 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? c) Would the Project use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Noise a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) Would the Project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? May 2024 17 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental ImpactReport Cumulative Noise Impacts 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)? b) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? c) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Public Services a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? 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? b) Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Transportation a) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? May 2024 18 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report 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 exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. b) Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. c) Would the Project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. d) Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed. e) Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it [does not have] adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. f) Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs. Cumulative Utilities and Service Systems Impacts 5.3 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS -THAN - SIGNIFICANT LEVELS IN THE EIR The Town Center Specific Plan Project 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 4.3, 4.5, 4.7, and 4.12 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, May 2024 19 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report 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 significantafter implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. CULTURAL RESOURCES The Project's impacts related to cultural resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.3, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential substantial adverse effects related to archaeological 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 Soils throughout the Specific Plan Area have been previously disturbed from excavation and grading activities. Any archaeological resources that may have existed may have been previously disturbed from existing and past development. Additionally, according to the South Central Coastal Information Center records search conducted for the Project, no archaeological resources have been recorded in the Project Site. However, future development within the Specific Plan Area could require ground -disturbing activities at greater depths than existing foundations. Thus, it cannot be precluded that future grading activities would not encounter, and potentially damage or destroy, previously unidentified archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure MM-CR-1, which involves assessment by a qualified archaeologist, preparation and execution of Research Design and Data Recovery Program in the event that unidentified archaeological resources are discovered, avoidance or preservation -in -place, as well as collection, treatment, and curation of discovered significant archaeological resources, would reduce potential impacts to such resources during construction and cumulative impacts to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measure MM-CR-1: Treatment of previously unidentified archaeological deposits: If suspected prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits are discovered during construction, all work within 60 feet of the discovery must be redirected and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards must assess the situation and make recommendations regarding the treatment of the discovery. For significant cultural resources meeting the definition of a historical resource per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or a unique archaeological resource per PRC Section 21083.2(g) as determined by the City of Santa Clarita, if avoidance and preservation -in -place is not feasible, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program to mitigate impacts must be prepared by the consulting archaeologist and approved by the City of Santa Clarita before being implemented using professional archaeological methods. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the Data Recovery Program must be completed to the satisfaction of May 2024 - 20 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report the City of Santa Clarita. Work may continue on other parts of the construction site while consultation and treatment are concluded. All significant archaeological resources collected must be taken to a properly equipped archaeological laboratory, where they must be cleaned, analyzed, and prepared for curation. At a minimum, and unless otherwise specified in any treatment plans prepared for the development, all resources must be identified, analyzed, catalogued, photographed, and labeled. At the close of construction, the collection must be donated to a public institution with a research interest in the materials and the capacity to care for the materials in perpetuity. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs must also be filed at the repository, as appropriate. The cost of curation is assessed by the repository and is the responsibility of the project applicant. All costs must be borne by the project applicant. 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 4.5, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential impacts 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 The Project area is sensitive for paleontological resources. Mitigation Measures MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-5, which involve implementation of a Worker's Environmental Awareness Program, monitoring, preparation and execution of a paleontological treatment plan in the event inadvertent discovery of fossils, as well as collection, treatment, curation, and reporting of discovered significant paleontological resources, would reduce potential impacts to such resources during construction and cumulative impacts to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measures MM-GEO-1 Before starting construction for development projects in the Town Center Specific Plan Area, the applicant must retain a qualified professional paleontologist as defined by Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) standards. The paleontologist must create a Worker's Environmental Awareness Program pamphlet that is provided as training to construction personnel to understand regulatory requirements for the protection of paleontological resources. Additionally, the paleontologist must conduct training class(es) that include examples of paleontological resources to look for and protocols to follow if discoveries are made. The paleontologist must develop Project -specific training and supply any supplemental materials necessary to execute the training. MM-GEO-2 Paleontological resources monitoring must be conducted under the guidance of a qualified professional paleontologist and by a qualified paleontological resource monitor(s) as defined by SVP (2010) standards during grading/excavation activities for development projects building out the TSCP Area, unless it is demonstrated to May 2024 21 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita that such grading/excavation activities would be limited to engineered fill materials and/or the younger Quaternary Alluvium that makes up the surface layer. Monitoring must include visual inspection of excavated or graded area and trench sidewalls. The monitor has authority to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment in order to investigate and salvage finds. The paleontological monitor has the authority to take sediment samples and test for microfossils at the discretion of the qualified professional paleontologist. If no significant fossils are exposed or the qualified professional paleontologist otherwise finds that the scientific value of the resource is exhausted, the qualified professional paleontologist may determine that full-time monitoring is no longer necessary or, with the approval of the City, may reduce or eliminate monitoring. MM-GEO-3 Should a paleontological resource be encountered when a monitor is not on -site or a potentially significant resource is encountered that requires additional investigation or cannot be quickly salvaged by the paleontological monitor, all construction must cease within 50 feet of the discovery and the qualified professional paleontologist must be immediately notified. If the monitor is present at the time of discovery, then the monitor may temporarily divert the construction equipment around the find and notify the qualified professional paleontologist. The qualified professional paleontologist must then visit the site and assess the resource for its scientific significance. Project excavations may continue elsewhere, monitored by a paleontological resource monitor. The qualified professional paleontologist must evaluate the find and contact the City as soon as possible with recommendations as to the significance and potential treatment of the find. Depending on the nature of the find, the determination of significance may require additional excavation, potentially including the preparation and execution of a Paleontological Testing Plan. If significant, depending on the nature of the resource, treatment may require the preparation and execution of a Paleontological Treatment Plan. The City, acting with the advice of the qualified professional paleontologist, must determine the significance and treatment of the discovered resources. MM-GEO-4 All significant fossils collected must be prepared in a properly equipped paleontology laboratory to a point ready for permanent curation to the satisfaction of the City. Preparation must include the careful removal of excess matrix from fossil materials and stabilizing and repairing specimens, as necessary. Any fossils encountered and recovered must be prepared to the point of identification. Following the initial laboratory work, all fossil specimens must be identified to the lowest taxonomic level, analyzed, photographed, and catalogued, before being delivered to an accredited local museum repository for permanent curation and storage. All costs must be borne by the project applicant. MM-GEO-5 At the conclusion of laboratory work and preparation for museum curation, a final report must be prepared describing the results of the paleontological monitoring efforts and submitted to the City of Santa Clarita. The report must include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the geology and paleontology in the Project vicinity, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. If the monitoring efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report must also be submitted to the May 2024 22 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report designated museum repository. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs must also be filed at the repository. The cost of curation is assessed by the repository and is the responsibility of the Project applicant. 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 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, ofthe Draft EIR. 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 There is an active Leaking Underground Storage Tank site within the Town Center Specific Plan Area, specifically at the former Los Angeles County Sheriff Station, located at 23740 Magic Mountain Parkway. This site is undergoing ongoing remediation of a leaking underground gasoline tank (GeoTracker Case #T0603704904). In addition, there is an active site that is located just west of the Specific Plan Area, specifically at 24375 Valencia Boulevard, that is associated with remediation of hydrocarbon -contaminated soil and groundwater due to a leaked pipeline (GeoTracker Case #SL2048Y1711). Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1, which involves the submittal of letters of completion for remediation actions or letters indicating contamination would not exceed applicable thresholds for occupancy from the applicable oversight agency (e.g., Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board [LARWQCB]), would reduce the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or environment to a less -than -significant level. Mitiaation Measure MM-HAZ-1: Prior to development approval for future development within 200 feet of the leaking underground storage tank (Case # T0603704904) site associated with the Los Angeles County Sheriff Station, located at 23740 Magic Mountain Parkway, a letter of completion for remediation actions or letter indicating contamination would not exceed applicable thresholds for occupancy from the applicable oversight agency (e.g., LARWQCB) shall be submitted to the City of Santa Clarita. Prior to development approval for future development within 100 feet of the western boundary of Subarea 4 (McBean and Valencia), a letter of completion for remediation actions (Case # SL2048Y1711), located at 24375 Valencia Boulevard, or letter indicating contamination would not exceed applicable thresholds for occupancy from the applicable oversight agency (e.g., LARWQCB) shall be submitted to the City of Santa Clarita. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES The Project's impacts related to tribal cultural resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.12, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. Identified potential impacts include those related to a substantial adverse change in the May 2024 23 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report 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 The Project area is sensitive for tribal cultural resources based on AB 52 consultation with the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians regarding the Project's location. Mitigation Measures MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-3, which involve periodic inspection of construction sites, archaeological assessment and tribal consultation on disposition and treatment of discovered tribal cultural resources, monitoring during ground disturbance in the event that significant tribal cultural resources are discovered, and coordination with the County Coroner if human remains or funerary objects are encountered, would reduce potential tribal cultural resources impacts to during construction and cumulative impacts to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measures MM-TCR-1 In the Event of an Inadvertent Discovery: If cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60- foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior Professional Qualification Standards retained by the project applicant shall assess the find. Work on the portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA, the Project applicant shall retain a professional tribal monitor procured by the FTBMI to observe all remaining ground -disturbing activities including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavating, digging, trenching, plowing, drilling, tunneling, quarrying, leveling, driving posts, auguring, blasting, stripping topsoil or similar activity, and archaeological work. MM-TCR-2 Disposition and Treatment of Inadvertent Discoveries: The Lead Agency and/or Project applicant shall, in good faith, consult with the FTBMI on the disposition and treatment of any tribal cultural resource encountered during all ground disturbing activities. MM-TCR-3 In the Event of Inadvertent Discovery, Human Remains: If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code shall be enforced for the duration of the Project. a) Inadvertent discoveries of human remains and/or funerary object(s) are subject to California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the subsequent disposition of those discoveries shall be decided by the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), should those findings be determined as Native American in origin. May 2024 24 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report 5.4 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE BUT MITIGATED TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE The Town Center Specific Plan Project EIR found that the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to air quality during operation. A detailed analysis of this topic area is provided in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR. rM1►►11AIRILL1% 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 lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Draft EIRto the extentfeasible but notto a less -than -significant level. Therefore, the City of Santa Claritafinds, pursuantto PRCSection 21081 (a)(3) and CEQAGuidelines 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 air quality during Project operation, as summarized below. AIR QUALITY As described above, identified significant air quality impacts are associated with operation, as detailed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. Findings 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 Under the Project's full buildout scenario, the net increase of operational emissions would exceed the regional thresholds of significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for volatile organic compounds (VOC). Under the Project's high buildout scenario, the net increase of operational emissions would exceed the regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for VOC and respirable particulate matter (PM,o). Therefore, under these buildout scenarios, the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants for which the South Coast Air Basin is non -attainment under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards or the California Ambient Air Quality Standards. As such, regional operational impacts and impacts related to the implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan would be potentially significant. However, as a Specific Plan, the Project would not include any direct demolition or development. Future individual development projects within the Specific Plan would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1, which requires implementation of energy efficiency and transportation measures to reduce emissions to the extent feasible. As no mitigation May 2024 25 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report measures are feasible at the Specific Plan level to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, thus, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Mitiaation Measure MM-AQ-1: To reduce emissions at the site -specific level, prior to issuance of a building permit for each project implementing the Town Center Specific Plan and to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita, the applicant must develop and commit to implementing a list of project-specific/building-specific emission reduction features. Such features must include, without limitation: • Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program Plans will be required by the following projects: o Multi -family residential developments with 100 or more units o Any mixed use or commercial project that generates 50 full-time employees or more. TDM Program Plans must meet the satisfaction of the City's Traffic and Transportation Planning Division (or future iteration thereof) prior to the issuance of a building permit. • Consideration of energy -efficient design features beyond those required by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the CALGreen Code, as adopted by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code. • Consideration of electric landscape maintenance equipment. 5.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT As set forth in these findings, the implementation of the Project would not in result in significant impacts that are considered unavoidable, with the exception of impacts related to air pollutant emissions during operation. CEQA requires that an EIR include an analysis of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to a proposed project capable of avoiding or 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 those of 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 on alternatives provided in the EIR, including the information provided in the comments on the Draft EIR and the responses thereto. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED Alternatives that were considered but rejected during the scoping process for detailed evaluation in the EIR are discussed below. May 2024 26 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report Reduced Residential Density Alternative The Reduced Residential Density Alternative consists of a version of the Town Center Specific Plan that decreases the currently allowable residential density of 18-50 units per acre. While this alternative has the potential to reduce the significant air quality impacts of the proposed Project by reducing the residential buildout of the Specific Plan Area, it would be inconsistent with the City's Housing Element. In particular, this alternative would be inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of City's Housing Element related to identifying and maintaining adequate sites for housing to accommodate the City's regional housing need. Portions of the Town Center Specific Plan Area are identified in the City's Housing Element as housing opportunity sites and reducing the allowable residential density would have an adverse effect on the City's ability to meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation obligations. In addition, reducing the allowable residential density is prohibited by various recent amendments to California law, including Senate Bill (SB) 330 (which amended Public Resources Code Section 66300), which prohibits a city from enacting a policy, standard, or condition that would have the effect of reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation or zoning district. Consequently, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), this alternative is infeasible and was rejected from further consideration. Commercial -Intensive Alternative A Commercial -Intensive Alternative in which commercial land uses would be prioritized over residential land uses was considered as an option for the Town Center Specific Plan. However, commercial uses generate more vehicle trips than residential uses per square foot. Accordingly, developing more commercial uses in lieu of residential uses would not reduce the significant and unavoidable air quality impacts of the Project. In addition, like the Reduced Residential Density Alternative, the Commercial -Intensive Alternative would be inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of City's Housing Element related to identifying and maintaining adequate sites for housing to accommodate the City's regional housing need, as portions of the Specific Plan Area are identified in the City's Housing Element as housing opportunity sites. Finally, the Commercial - Intensive Alternative would not satisfy the basic project objectives of the Project related to creating a balanced mix of uses within the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), this alternative was rejected from further consideration. Enhanced Residential Uses Alternative The Enhanced Residential Uses Alternative consists of prioritizing residential land uses over commercial land uses. While reducing commercial land uses could reduce the Project's trip generation and, as a result, reduce the Project's significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, this alternative would not satisfy the basic objectives of the Project related to creating a vibrant place and a balanced mix of uses within the Town Center Specific Plan Area. In addition, the Enhanced Residential Uses Alternative would adversely affect the City's jobs -to -housing ratio which would conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan, related to job growth, including Policy LU 4.2.2: Achieve a balanced ratio of jobs to housing through business expansion and economic development programs, with a goal of at least 1.5 jobs per household. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), this alternative was rejected from further consideration. May 2024 27 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report Other Land Uses Land uses other than a mix of residential, commercial, and hospitality uses were rejected from consideration because they would not meet any of the basic Project objectives of creating a vibrant place and a balanced mix of uses or enhancing the Specific Plan Area as a regional destination for employment, entertainment, dining, retail, and services. Alternative Sites Alternative sites were rejected from consideration, as the intention of the Town Center Specific Plan is to develop a land use plan for the subject site. Therefore, establishing a Specific Plan for an alternative site would not satisfy the basic Project objective of providing a long-term vision for development within the most intensive commercial and residential district of the City of Santa Clarita. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS IN THE EIR The following alternatives were selected for evaluation in the Draft EIR: • Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative • Alternative 2: No Project/Infill Development and Redevelopment Under Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations Alternative • Alternative 3: Reduced Scale Specific Plan Alternative May 2024 28 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report 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 Alternative 2: No Project/Infill Development Alternative 1: and Redevelopment Under Alternative 3: No Project/No Build Existing Zoning and General Reduced Scale Specific Plan Impact Topic Project Impact Alternative Plan Designations Alternative Alternative Aesthetics Less Than Significant Less No Impact) Greater (Less Than Significant) Similar (Less Than Significant) Less Greater than the Project After Less Air Quality Significant and Unavoidable (No Impact) Mitigation (Significant and Unavoidable) (Significant and Unavoidable) Cultural Resources Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less (No Impact) Similar (Less than Significant) Similar (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) Energy Less Than Significant Less No Impact) Similar (Less Than Significant) Less (Less Than Significant) Geology and Soils (Paleontological Resources) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less (No Impact) Similar (Less than Significant) Similar (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less Than Significant Less No Impact) Greater Potential) Significant) Less (Less Than Significant) Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less Than Significant with Mitigation Similar (Less Than Significant) Similar (Less Than Significant) Less (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) Land Use and Planning Less Than Significant Greater (Less Than Significant) Similar (Less Than Significant) Similar (Less Than Significant) Noise Less Than Significant Less No Impact) Similar (Less Than Significant) Less (Less Than Significant) Public Services Less Than Significant Less No Impact) Similar (Less Than Significant) Less (Less Than Significant) Transportation Less Than Significant Less No Impact) Greater (Less Than Significant) Similar (Less Than Significant) Tribal Cultural Resources Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less (No Impact) Similar (Less than Significant) Similar (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) Utilities and Service Systems Less Than Significant Less No Impact) Similar (Less Than Significant) Less (Less Than Significant) May 2024 29 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), when a proposed project is revises an existing land use or regulatory plan, as with the proposed Specific Plan, "the `no project' alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan, policy or operation into the future. Thus, the projected impacts of the proposed plan or alternative plans would be compared to the impacts that would occur under the existing plan." Here, if the proposed Town Center Specific Plan is not approved, it is uncertain whether the Specific Plan Area would remain mostly unchanged from its current configuration or if portions of the Specific Plan would be redeveloped or further built out with additional uses and increased density in accordance with the existing zoning regulations. Thus, as described below, this EIR evaluates two "no project" alternatives: Alternative 1: No Project/No Build; and Alternative 2: No Project/Infill Development and Redevelopment Under Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations. Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the buildings and other improvements in the Town Center Specific Plan Area would remain and no new development or redevelopment would occur. Individual building tenants might change over time, but the overall mix of uses in the Specific Plan Area would remain, primarily consisting of various commercial, retail, restaurant, office, and civic uses. Findings Alternative 1 would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality during operation. 2. Alternative 1 would reduce or eliminate the less -than -significant impacts with mitigation or less -than -significant impacts for aesthetics, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. 3. Alternative 1 would result in similar impacts for hazards and hazardous materials. 4. Alternative 1 would result in potentially greater impacts for land use and planning. 5. Alternative 1 would not meet any of the basic Project objectives and is, therefore, rejected as infeasible. 6. The findings of the Project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic, and other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the Project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. Facts in Support of Findings: Under the Alternative 1, the Town Center Specific Plan Project would not be implemented. The buildings and other improvements in the Town Center Specific Plan Area would remain and no new development or redevelopment would occur. Individual building tenants might change over time, but the overall mix of uses in the Specific Plan Area would remain. As no construction or new operational activities would occur under this alternative, this alternative would not generate construction emissions and would not increase the generation of operational emissions from the site. This alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable air quality impacts that would May 2024 30 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental ImpactReport -- occur during Project operations. In addition, as 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, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems would be eliminated. However, this alternative would result in similar impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and potentially greater impacts related to land use and planning for the following reasons: • As discussed above, a leaking underground storage tank site was identified within the Specific Plan Area, and a contaminated site with hydrocarbon -contaminated soil was identified adjacent to and outside the Specific Plan Area. Remediation for both cases is ongoing and would be required to be completed at these sites to the satisfaction of the oversight agency even if there is no new redevelopment or redevelopment under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant and similar to the mitigable impacts of the Project. • Alternative 1 would not provide housing in a transit -rich area, result in circulation improvements, or create a more livable and pedestrian oriented space within the site, portions of which have been identified as housing opportunity sites by the City's Housing Element. As such, Alternative 1 would not implement the City's land use plans to the same extent as the Project. Therefore, land use impacts under this alternative would be less than significant but would be greater when compared to the less -than -significant impacts of the Project. In addition, Alternative 1 would not achieve the underlying purpose of the Project to provide a long-range land use plan that establishes the City's vision for the Town Center Specific Plan Area as a regional destination incorporating a balanced mix of uses. Similarly, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives, as identified below in Table 2. Table 2 Annlicability of Proiect Obiectives for Alternative 1 Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Project Objective Alternative The Santa Clarita Town Center is a lively hub that embodies a spirit of community, Does Not Meet inviting people from all walks of life to live, work, shop, play, and socialize. It features a balance of retail, office, restaurants, recreational, hospitality, and residential spaces, seamlessly integrated with a pedestrian and bike friendly setting. The Town Center features an efficient multimodal transportation system, providing easy connectivity to regional and local trail systems. The Town Center provides a community identity and is a vibrant place for people to gather, socialize, and celebrate in the City of Santa Clarita. Create a balanced mix of uses within the Town Center Specific Plan area that Does Not Meet combines commercial and service opportunities with a residential environment that creates a more livable and pedestrian oriented space. Further establish and enhance the Specific Plan Area as a regional destination for Does Not Meet employment, entertainment, dining, retail, and services. Provide a long-term vision for development within the most intensive commercial Does Not Meet and residential district of the City of Santa Clarita that facilitates the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan including, but not limited to, the creation of a robust jobs -to -housing balance, and implements the City's Housing Element. May 2024 31 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report Alternative 2: No Project/Infill Development and Redevelopment Under Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations Alternative Under Alternative 2, the Town Center Specific Plan Area would be further built out in accordance with the existing applicable zoning regulations and General Plan land use designation criteria. The entire approximately 111-acre Specific Plan Area is zoned Regional Commercial (CR) and has an equivalent General Plan Land Use designation of Regional Commercial (CR). The density standards in the CR zone are 18-50 units per acre for residential uses and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2:1 for non-residential uses. The proposed Specific Plan would not change the density standards. Consequently, buildout under Alternative 2 is assumed to be the same as the Project in terms of the future number of residential units and squarefootage of non-residential uses, i.e., the Project's low, full, and high buildout scenarios also apply to Alternative 2. However, the primary difference between the Project and Alternative 2 is that the Project would implement a Specific Plan that would regulate the buildout of the Town Center Specific Plan Area in a cohesive and coordinated manner to create a variety of community benefits, including a pedestrian -friendly environment, circulation improvements, parks/plazas, trails/paseos, and monumental architecture. Without these regulations, buildout of the Town Center Specific Plan Area would be expected to occur largely on a parcel -by -parcel basis without a governed unified approach. Findings 1. Alternative 2 would result in greater significant and unavoidable impacts after mitigation associated with air quality during operation. 2. Alternative 2 would result in greater impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions, which would be potentially significant. 3. Alternative 2 would result in greater less -than -significant impacts for aesthetics and transportation. 4. Alternative 2 would eliminate the Project's mitigation measures associated with cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources, and impacts would be similar and less than significant. 5. Alternative 2 would result in similar less -than -significant impacts for energy, land use and planning, noise, public services, and utilities and service systems. 6. Alternative 2 would partially achieve some of the Project objectives but to a lesser degree than the Project. 7. Alternative 2 would not eliminate or substantially reduce any of the Project's significant impacts and, conversely, would result in greater significant and unavoidable impacts and is, therefore, rejected as infeasible. 8. The findings of the Project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic, and other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations 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 associated with energy, land use and planning, noise, public services, and utilities and service systems. As Alternative 2 would not involve adoption of a Specific Plan with an accompanying CEQA document, equivalent May 2024 32 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report -- mitigation measures for cultural resources (archaeological resources), geology and soils (paleontological resources), and tribal cultural resources would not apply comprehensively to future development activity under Alternative 2. While certain future individual development projects under Alternative 2 may require project -specific CEQA documentation with mitigation imposed to protect such resources, it is expected that certain future development projects would be exempt from CEQA (e.g., ministerial). As a result, specific mitigation measures under CEQA may not be implemented. Nevertheless, any such exempt projects would still be subject to California law governing discovery of human remains, archaeological discoveries, paleontological discoveries, and Native American artifacts. Consequently, while it cannot be assumed that future grading activities on -site under Alternative 2 would not encounter, and potentially impact, previously unidentified resources, the contrary is equally valid, i.e., by complying with applicable law such resources would be adequately protected. With regard to active contaminated sites, given that both identified cases are open and currently subject to oversight agency review, as with the Project, any future development resulting from Alternative 2 on or adjacent to these sites would be required to address contamination issues at these sites to the satisfaction of the oversight agency. Therefore, impacts related to significant hazards to the public or the environment under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, and similar to the mitigable impacts of the Project. However, this alternative would result in potentially greater impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions for the following reasons: • Buildout under Alternative 2 is assumed to be the same as the Project in terms of the future number of residential units and square footage of nonresidential uses, i.e., the Project's low, full, and high buildout scenarios also apply to Alternative 2. During operations, similar to the Project, air quality impacts under Alternative 2 would exceed the regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for VOC during the full buildout scenario and VOC and PM,o during the high buildout scenario. Unlike the Project, since Alternative 2 would not involve adoption of a Specific Plan with a corresponding CEQA document, Alternative 2 would not be subject to the mitigation measures included in this EIR which require implementation of emission reduction features. Thus, emissions from Alternative 2 would be greater than those of the Project after mitigation. • Alternative 2 would not put in place a Specific Plan that would provide additional regulations and provisions to guide the buildout of the Town Center Specific Plan Area, including those related to reducing GHG emissions, including the enhancement of multi - modal transportation opportunities, improving access to the McBean Regional Transit Center, providing for affordable housing, and requiring the installation of EV charging stations at the highest voluntary CALGreen standards. As a result, Alternative 2 would be less consistent with the plans, policies, regulations, and GHG emissions reduction actions/strategies outlined in the California Air Resources Board's 2022 Scoping Plan, Southern California Association of Governments' 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and the Santa Clarita General Plan than the Project. The incremental increase in GHG emissions under Alternative 2 would be a potentially significant impact on the environment. In addition, Alternative 2 would not achieve the underlying purpose of the Project to provide a long-range land use plan that establishes the City's vision for the Town Center Specific Plan Area May 2024 33 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report as a regional destination incorporating a balanced mix of uses. Similarly, Alternative 2 would not meet some of the Project objectives and would only partially meet the others, as identified below in Table 3. Table 3 Applicabilitv of Proiect Obiectives for Alternative 2 Alternative 2: No Project/Infill Development and Redevelopment Under Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations Project Objective Alternative The Santa Clarita Town Center is a lively hub that embodies a spirit of community, Partially Meets inviting people from all walks of life to live, work, shop, play, and socialize. It features a balance of retail, office, restaurants, recreational, hospitality, and residential spaces, seamlessly integrated with a pedestrian and bike friendly setting. The Town Center features an efficient multimodal transportation system, providing easy connectivity to regional and local trail systems. The Town Center provides a community identity and is a vibrant place for people to gather, socialize, and celebrate in the City of Santa Clarita. Create a balanced mix of uses within the Town Center Specific Plan area that Partially Meets combines commercial and service opportunities with a residential environment that creates a more livable and pedestrian oriented space. Further establish and enhance the Specific Plan Area as a regional destination for Does Not Meet employment, entertainment, dining, retail, and services . Provide a long-term vision for development within the most intensive commercial Does Not Meet and residential district of the City of Santa Clarita that facilitates the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan including, but not limited to, the creation of a robust jobs -to -housing balance, and implements the City's Housing Element. Alternative 3: Reduced Scale Specific Plan Alternative Under Alternative 3, the Los Angeles County government center in Subarea 2 (Town Center East) would be excluded from the Specific Plan Area. In this alternative, the remaining portions of Subarea 2 would continue to be within the Specific Plan Area, including the existing 31,000- square-foot retail/commercial center along Citrus Street, the two private office buildings near Valencia Boulevard, and the City -owned land. Subarea 1 (Valencia Town Center), Subarea 3 (Town Center Drive), and Subarea 4 (McBean and Valencia) would also remain within the Specific Plan Area. Under Alternative 3, buildout of Subareas 1, 3, and 4 would be the same as buildout under the proposed Project. Except for the Los Angeles County government center —which would remain—buildout of Subarea 2 would be similar to buildout of the Project. Given the reduction in acreage, total buildout projections of Alternative 3 would be less than those of the proposed Project. Buildout of Alternative 3 would be within the range of the Project's low and full buildout scenarios, but is not expected to achieve the Project's high buildout scenario. As a reduced -scale alternative, Alternative 3 is intended to potentially reduce the overall impacts of the Project, including its significant air quality impacts. In addition, as there are no current plans to end the operations of the Los Angeles County government center, Alternative 3 is intended to evaluate a scenario in which Los Angeles County continues to utilize its government center into the future indefinitely. May 2024 34 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report Findings 1. Alternative 3 would reduce, but not eliminate, the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality during operation. 2. Alternative 3 would result in similar less -than -significant impacts for aesthetics, land use and planning, and transportation. 3. Alternative 3 would result in similar less -than -significant impacts with mitigation for cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources. 4. Alternative 3 would reduce, but not eliminate, the less -than -significant impacts for energy, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public services, and utilities and service systems. 5. Alternative 3 would not eliminate or substantially reduce any of the Project's significant impacts and is, therefore, rejected as infeasible. 6. The findings of the Project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic, and other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the Project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. Facts in Support of Findings: As Alternative 3 would be within the range of the full buildout scenario, it would still exceed the regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for VOC, as with the Project, but would avoid the Project's exceedance in regional thresholds for PM,o under the high buildout scenario. Like the Project, Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1 of this EIR would be required for Alternative 3, which would require implementation of emission reduction features. However, as described for the Project, since implementation of the development would introduce land use intensification in the Specific Plan Area, it cannot be determined with certainty that mitigation would reduce impacts below SCAQMD's thresholds in all cases. Therefore, while operational air quality impacts under Alternative 3 may be less than those of the Project, impacts under Alternative 3 would remain significant and unavoidable. Of further note, while the air pollutant emissions attributable to Alternative 3 would be less than those of the Project, the total air pollutant emissions generated from Project's 111-acre area would not be measurably reduced, as the under Alternative 3 the Los Angeles County government center would continue to operate and generate air pollutants from vehicles accessing the facility, onsite combustion of fossil fuels, maintenance activities, and other area sources. As a reduced -scale alternative and reduction in acreage, Alternative 3 would have reduced impacts associated with energy, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public services, and utilities and service systems. Impacts related to aesthetics, land use and planning, and transportation would remain less than significant. However, based on anticipated ground -disturbing activities, Alternative 3 would still require mitigation measures associated with cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources. Alternative 3 would meet all Project objectives, as shown below in Table 4, but to a lesser extent when compared to the Project, which includes the high buildout scenario excluded by Alternative 3. May 2024 35 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report Table 4 Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 3 Alternative 3: Reduced Scale Specific Plan Project Objective Alternative The Santa Clarita Town Center is a lively hub that embodies a spirit of community, Meets inviting people from all walks of life to live, work, shop, play, and socialize. It features a balance of retail, office, restaurants, recreational, hospitality, and residential spaces, seamlessly integrated with a pedestrian and bike friendly setting. The Town Center features an efficient multimodal transportation system, providing easy connectivity to regional and local trail systems. The Town Center provides a community identity and is a vibrant place for people to gather, socialize, and celebrate in the City of Santa Clarita. Create a balanced mix of uses within the Town Center Specific Plan area that Meets combines commercial and service opportunities with a residential environment that creates a more livable and pedestrian oriented space. Further establish and enhance the Specific Plan Area as a regional destination for Meets employment, entertainment, dining, retail, and services . Provide a long-term vision for development within the most intensive commercial and Meets residential district of the City of Santa Clarita that facilitates the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan including, but not limited to, the creation of a robust jobs - to -housing balance, and implements the City's Housing Element. May 2024 36 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report 6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council declare that no new significant information as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 has been received by the Planning Commission after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify 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 have been identified in the Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in the Findings. Significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance after mitigation include air quality impacts during Project operation. 6.2 CONCLUSIONS 1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the Project have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to less -than -significant levels, with the exception of air quality impacts during Project operation. 2. Alternatives to the Project, which could potentially achieve the basic objectives of the Project, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Project. 3. Environmental, economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from the 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. May 2024 37 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. May 2024 38 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report 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 Town Center Specific Plan Project. As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 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 specific 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 approval 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 specific 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 SEIR and thereby 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 the project. Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b) and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the Project against the one unavoidable adverse impact associated with the Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to this impact. The City also has examined alternatives to the Project, none of which both meet the Project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the Project for the reasons discussed in the Statement of Facts and Findings (above). The Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR, the Final SEIR, including responses to comments, and the May 2024 39 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report public record in its entirety, hereby recommends that the City Council adopt this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which balances the Project's benefits against the one unavoidable adverse impact in reaching a decision on this Project. 7.2 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 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 air quality impacts associated with operation. Details of this significant unavoidable adverse impact were discussed in the EIR and are summarized or were otherwise provided in the Statement of Facts and Findings (above). 7.3 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find 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 air quality impacts associated with operation 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 the Project can be found in the Statement of Facts and Findings herein, the Final EIR, the Project itself, and the record of all proceedings in connection with the approval of the Project. 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 Overriding Considerations herein shall be deemed to apply to such additional remaining significant impacts. The specific economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, and other considerations, and the benefits of the Project that outweigh the significant unavoidable impact of the Project are: 1. The Project would achieve various objectives that will provide a benefit to the community, namely: a. Creates a balanced mix of uses within the Town Center Specific Plan area that combines commercial and service opportunities with a residential environment that creates a more livable and pedestrian oriented space. b. Further establishes and enhances the Specific Plan Area as a regional destination for employment, entertainment, dining, retail, and services. c. Creates a distinct sense of place that is unique to the Specific Plan area via creative use of urban design, iconic architecture, signature vistas, a vibrant public realm, and gathering spaces. d. Establishes a vision, framework, and development and design standards that provide for a coordinated and cohesive approach to redevelopment and infill development in the Town Center Specific Plan area. May 2024 40 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report e. Provides for implementation of the Specific Plan over time with a continual balanced mix of residential and commercial uses while maintaining a favorable jobs -to -housing ratio. f. Provides for enhanced connectivity to the McBean Regional Transit Center. g. Includes development and design standards to ensure development is attractive and consistent with the visual character of the Project area. h. Provides for appropriate development block sizes and a modified grid pattern of internal roads to guide development in an organized manner that will organically create great places. Provides for an efficient vehicular and multi -modal circulation system that ensures ease of movement throughout the site. 2. The Project implements the goals and policies of the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan, including, but not limited to: • Policy LU 1.1.5: Increase infill development and re -use of underutilized sites within, and adjacent to, developed urban areas to achieve maximum benefit from existing infrastructure and minimize loss of open space, through re -designation of vacant sites for higher density and mixed use, where appropriate. • Policy LU 1.2.2: In Valencia, promote business development, job creation, and expansion of regional commercial, civic, cultural, and entertainment uses, to create a vibrant Town Center serving as a community focal point for the entire Santa Clarita Valley. • Policy LU 4.1.1: Promote expansion and enhancement of the Valencia Town Center to provide a focal point for cultural, civic, educational, and shopping activities serving the entire Santa Clarita Valley. • Policy LU 4.1.3: Direct business creation and expansion for larger companies within and adjacent to existing and planned business centers and major transportation corridors. • Policy LU 4.2.3: Encourage businesses to locate in all appropriate areas of the community to encourage job creation in closer proximity to workforce housing. • Policy C 1.2.1: Develop coordinated plans for land use, circulation, and transit to promote transit -oriented development that concentrates higher density housing, employment, and commercial areas in proximity to transit corridors. • Policy CO 1.5.5: Promote concentration of urban uses within the center of the Santa Clarita Valley through incentives for infill development and rebuilding, in order to limit impacts to open space, habitats, watersheds, hillsides, and other components of the Valley's natural ecosystems. 3. Establishment of the Town Center Specific Plan will serve to promote the production of housing units to meet the City's identified housing needs. Consistent with the objectives of the City's Housing Element, the Town Center Specific Plan eliminates unneeded regulatory constraints to the production of housing through the establishment of objective development May 2024 41 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report and design standards, streamlining the CEQA process, and eliminating the public hearing process for residential and mixed use projects within the Town Center Specific Plan area. 4. The Town Center Specific Plan provides for the extension of Town Center Drive to Citrus Street, and potentially to Valencia Boulevard, thereby creating enhanced vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation and expanding upon the existing pedestrian -friendly streetscape. 5. The Town Center Specific Plan provides for the development of programmable gathering spaces and other smaller gathering spaces such as public plazas, courtyards, amphitheaters, pedestrian streets, parklets, children's playgrounds, and parks for the benefit of the community, the City, and its residents and visitors. At least one large public space (at least one acre in size) will be provided that will be large enough to be programmed for community events including concerts, farmers and specialty markets, viewing 4th of July fireworks, plays, lectures, art displays, and celebrations. Common spaces (at least 2,500 square feet in size) will be provided at various locations and may include village lawns, well - shaded gathering areas, playgrounds, areas for small musical performances, appropriately - sized water features or fountains, gardens, and sitting areas. In addition to their intrinsic recreation and leisure value, benefits of gathering spaces include acting as focal points along significant vistas, contributing to creating great places that foster community involvement, encouraging pedestrianism, creating vibrant outdoor settings for retail and dining, establishing community character, and creating recognizable landmarks. 6. The Town Center Specific Plan provides for the development of various pedestrian and bicycle paths and circulation improvements that provide recreational benefits in addition to multi -modal transportation benefits. An extensive and functional network of pedestrian and bicycle paths throughout the Specific Plan area will be provided that include robust linkages across the full extent of the Specific Plan area. The onsite pedestrian and bicycle network will integrate into the City's existing sidewalks, paseos, paseo bridges and bicycle paths, and bus stops surrounding the Specific Plan area. The existing pedestrian bridges will be enhanced with landing areas that have direct pedestrian connectivity into adjacent developments within the Specific Plan area and are equipped with wayfinding signage. 7. The Town Center Specific Plan embodies the tenets of sustainable development and implements many of the intents of the California Air Resource Board's Climate Change Scoping Plan and the Southern California Association of Governments' Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Plan, as it consists of infill, mixed -use, pedestrian -friendly development with a balance of jobs and housing in a transit rich location with access to a variety of multi -modal transportation opportunities. These sustainable development attributes contribute to reductions in vehicle miles traveled per capita, air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions, and energy and water consumption. 8. The development projects implementing the Specific Plan will be designed and constructed to incorporate environmentally sustainable design features in compliance with or exceeding code requirements, including the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code. These sustainable design features in particular include providing electric vehicle charging infrastructure in accordance with the highest voluntary CALGreen standards, unbundling of parking from residential uses, and various other energy -efficiency measures, onsite renewable energy generation, recycling infrastructure, enhanced indoor air quality, and water conservation measures. By integrating sustainable features into the design and May 2024 42 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report construction of future development in the Specific Plan area, the Project reduces energy and water usage and waste generation. Therefore, the Santa Clarita Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered all of the information contained in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the public record, recommends that the City Council adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations, which balances the Project's benefits against the unavoidable adverse impact related to operational air quality in reaching a decision on this Project. May 2024 43 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. May 2024 44 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report 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, shall specify the location and custodian of the documents of other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision has been based. A copy of the EIR and all other materials that constitute the record is in the custody of the Director of Community Development and located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, California, 91355. May 2024 45 EXHIBIT B Draft EIR; Final EIR; and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Town Center Specific Plan SCH No. 2023120123 Incorporated by Reference Document can be found at https://santaclarita.gov/planning/environmental-impact-reports-Linder-review/town- center-specific-plan-2/