Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-09 - RESOLUTIONS - EIR GEN PLAN AMEND NO 95-002 (2)RESOLUTION NO. 97-143 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA TO RESCIND RESOLUTION 97-112, TO CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT AND TO ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS THAT WEIGHS PROJECT BENEFITS AGAINST SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FOR THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT MASTER CASE NO. 97-111 (PREVIOUS MASTER CASE NO. 93-198) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 95-002 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine as follows: a. On June 25, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-98, adopting the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita and Certifying the Environmental Impact Report. b. An Initial Study was prepared for this project on November 4, 1996. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) SCH No. 96112028 was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA )by Rincon Consultants, Inc following the 30 -day public review period for the Notice of Preparation (NOP) beginning November 4, 1996 and a formal scoping meeting held on December 5, 1996. Following the scoping meeting, the NOP circulation period was extended two additional weeks to December 19, 1996. The Draft EIR and Notice of Circulation (NOC) for this project was released for a 45 -day public review period on June 16, 1997. Two duly noticed public hearings on the Draft EIR were held before the Planning Commission during the public review period on July 15, 1997 and on July 23, 1997. The public review period ended on July 31, 1997. The Draft EIR analyzes seven circulation network alternatives, including Alternative 1 which is the No Project Alternative under CEQA. C. The Draft EIR, herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit A, identifies the following issue areas as significant but unavoidable: earth resources (roads crossing active fault lines), air quality (pollutant emissions during construction), biological resources (degradation of riparian habitat; intrusion into significant ecological area), noise (during construction)and aestheticsAight and glare (alteration of important ridgelines; change in community character/viewshed alteration; community -wide change in nighttime lighting conditions). These impacts are the same level of significance for all alternatives studied in the Draft EIR. d. The Draft EIR identifies the following issue areas as significant but feasibly mitigable to a less than significant level: hydrology/flooding, noise (traffic noise on new roadways), risk of upset, public services/utilities/energy, cultural resources. These impacts are the same level of significance for all alternatives studied in the Draft EIR. A mitigation monitoring reporting program has been prepared to mitigate these potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level and is included as part of the Final EIR. Reso. 97-143 Page 2 The Draft EIR identifies the following issue areas as less than significant: earth resources (slope destabilization due to grading; fill settling or rebounding; landslide movements; seismic ground shaking; liquefaction); air quality (San Joaquin Valley Fever; long-term vehicle emissions); hydrology/flooding (increase in flood height from construction in floodplains), population and housing (displacement; growth inducing impacts), and public services/utilities/energy. These impacts are the same level of significance for all alternatives studied in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR identifies beneficial impacts for transportation/circulation. These impacts are the same level of significance for all alternatives studied in the Draft EIR. g.. Duly noticed public hearings were held by the Planning Commission on July 15, 1997, July 23, 1997, August 19, 1997, September 2, 1997, and September 10, 1997 in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. h. The Response to Comments on the DEIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MAW) was prepared and provided to the Planning Commission on September 2, 1997. The Draft EIR together with the Responses to Comments and the MMRP, herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit B, together are considered the Final EIR. The Proposed Circulation Element Text dated June 1997, herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit C, also contains circulation policies that mitigate potential circulation impacts and was considered by the Commission. The Planning Commission considered the Final EIR, as well as information provided in staff reports, the amendment text and through public testimony, prior to adopting Resolution P97-15 recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and prior to adopting Resolution P97-16 recommending that the City Council approve the Circulation Element Amendment as modified by the resolution. The City Council received the Proposed Circulation Element Text on June 3, 1997, the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project on June 17, 1997 and the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project on September 9, 1997. Copies of all the Planning Commission staff reports and minutes have been provided to the Council in the City Council reading file 10 days prior to the November 25, 1997 public hearing. Noticed public hearings were held by the City Council on November 25, 1997 and December 9, 1997 in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. The public notice for this project was mailed to over 300 residents/businesses who expressed interest in this project and an eighth -page ad was placed in the main section of the Signal Paper on November 3, 1997. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council finds: �— Reso.97-143 Page 3 a. That the Final Environmental Impact Report for this project is adequate and complete. b. That the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in reaching its recommendation to the City Council and that the City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in reaching its decision. C. That changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the circulation element amendment project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect because the policies of the element itself reduce impacts upon the transportation system and mitigation measures included in the MMPR are made conditions of approval for this project. SECTION 3. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council finds that the Circulation Element Amendment will have the following benefits: a. Promotes an acceptable local and regional transportation system that accommodates land use expansion as envisioned in the City General Plan and the Los Angeles County Area Plan. b. Provides for roadways that will accommodate regional growth, including local regional housing needs, as projected by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). C. Provides for efficient transportation including policies for reducing single -occupancy vehicle trips, trip reduction methods, roadway design (e.g. augmented intersections and cross sections for class one and class two bikeways) and technological advances (e.g. traffic light synchronization and alternate fuel vehicle usage) that minimize air quality impacts upon the Valley and the region. d. Encourages a variety of transportation options that stimulate economic development opportunities in the Santa Clarita Valley and aid in providing for the jobs -housing balance. e. Reduces Circulation Element environmental impacts because removal of SR -126 east of Golden Valley Road from the Arterial Network of Highways will reduce the need for a bridge crossing of the Santa Clara River in the Canyon Country area, reduce impacts upon biology, particularly the Santa Clara River Significant Ecological Area (SEA), reduce the amount of earth movement, and not dislocate residential units. f. Responds to the concerns of numerous residents that SR -126 would be placed through their neighborhood by removing the SR -126 designated link on Newhall Ranch Road east of Golden Valley. g. Provides policies to encourage pedestrian -friendly environments, encourage construction .� Reso.97-143 Page 4 of bikeways, and encourage roadways appropriate for neighborhoods by providing for traffic calming and vehicle weight limits. h. Identifies and encourages expansion of transit opportunities in Santa Clarita including local bus service, commuter bus service, dial -a -ride service, Metrolink commuter train service, and possible extension of light-rail and high-speed rail. SECTION 4. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and by the City Council and on its behalf, the Council further finds that the Final EIR analyzes a whole range of project alternatives at a program level and that the environmental impacts of the proposed eight -lane divided major highway links recommended for approval are not significantly different from the impacts of six - lane divided major highways anticipated under the seven alternatives studied, particularly Alternative 4, the recommended alternative. The existing Circulation Element already identifies an eight -lane major highway cross section and identifies a portion of Bouquet Canyon Road as an eight -lane major highway, so precedent exists for the identification of additional eight -lane major arterials in the General Plan. The reasons for supporting the finding that the additional environmental impacts anticipated from an eight -lane rather than a six -lane major arterial are less than significant are as follows for each proposed eight -lane roadway link: a. Magic Mountain Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and I-5 Freeway- Approximately half of this roadway link, from Citrus Street to McBean Parkway has already been constructed to accommodate an eight -lane roadway. The link between McBean Parkway to the Southern California Edison Powerline easement, approximately .5 miles, is already studied at the project level as an eight -lane arterial and is analyzed a part of the traffic analysis for the North Valencia Specific Plan EIR. This leaves less than one mile of roadway widening for further analysis. Given that this area is would not bisect a significant ecological area, ridgeline, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone or other unique topographical or biologically unique area, widening the roadway an extra two lanes may result in additional impacts, however, these would not be significant given the program level of analysis in the Circulation Element Amendment Final EIR. As shown in the Final EIR traffic analysis for Alternative 4, changing the designation of Magic Mountain Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and I-5 Freeway from a six -lane to an eight -lane divided major arterial would mitigate traffic impacts on this roadway link at buildout from LOS "F" as shown in the Draft EIR, to LOS "E", thereby improving traffic circulation. b. McBean Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and Newhall Ranch Road- Approximately half of this roadway link, from Valencia Boulevard to Creekside Drive has already been constructed to accommodate an eight -lane roadway. The link between Creekside Drive to Newhall Ranch Road, approximately .5 miles, is already studied at the project level as an eight -lane arterial as part of the traffic analysis for the North Valencia Specific Plan and Annexation EIR. This link includes the widening of the bridge over McBean Parkway which is already identified as a significant impact and subject to a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) under the North Valencia Specific Plan and Reso. 97-143 Page 5 Annexation EIR. Given that the remainder of this roadway link would not bisect a ridgeline, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone or other unique topographical or biologically unique area, widening the roadway an extra two lanes may result in additional impacts, however, these would not be significant given the program level of analysis of the Circulation Element Amendment Final EIR. As shown in the Final EIR traffic analysis for Alternative 4, changing the designation of McBean Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and Newhall Ranch Road from a six -lane to an eight -lane divided major arterial would mitigate traffic impacts on this roadway link at buildout from LOS "F" as shown in the Draft EIR, to LOS "E", thereby improving traffic circulation. C. Newhall Ranch Road between Bouquest Canyon Road and I-5 Freeway - Alternative 1 of the Final EIR includes an analysis of Newhall Ranch Road as an eight -lane major highway. Additionally, a portion of this roadway is within the City and the remaining area is proposed for annexation into the City as part of the North Valencia annexation, presently under application at LAFCO. The portion of Newhall Ranch Road between Bouquet Canyon Road and the San Francisquito Creek Bridge is already analyzed as an eight -lane divided major highway at the project level through the North Valencia Specific Plan and Annexation EIR. d. Valencia Boulevard between McBean Parkway and I-5 Freeway - The widening of this link of Valencia Boulevard has been analyzed in the'EIR for the North Hills project and was approved in Spring 1997. Since environmental impacts of this link have already been analyzed at the project level and have been found to be less than significant as approved, the environmental impacts of this roadway link would likewise be less than significant at a program level analysis. As shown in the Final EIR traffic analysis for Alternative 4, changing the designation of Valencia Boulevard between McBean Parkway and I-5 Freeway from a six -lane to an eight -lane divided major arterial would mitigate traffic impacts on this roadway link at buildout from LOS "F" as shown in the Draft EIR to LOS "E", thereby improving traffic circulation. SECTION 5. By adoption of this Resolution, the City Council finds that the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies certain significant environmental effects and feasible mitigation measures that mitigate potential significant impacts to levels less than significant for each of these impacts with the exclusion of earth resources, air quality, biological resources, noise and aesthetics/light & glare. In accordance with CEQA Sections 15091 and 15093, a description of each significant impact and rational 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 identified in the Final EIR is detailed below: a. Air Quality: Implementation of the proposed circulation element amendment would directly generate.emissions during construction of roadways and indirectly contribute to regional air pollution by accommodating motor vehicle traffic in the City. Project - related construction activity would occur sporadically over a number of years. Alternative 4 would exceed maximum daily significance thresholds within the South Coast Air Quality Management Districts (SCAQMD) Air Quality Handbook for NOx and Reso. 97-143 Page 6 PM10. Although construction activity would occur only sporadically, impacts on worst- case construction days are considered significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce the impacts. New transportation infrastructure would not directly generate long-term air emissions but would accommodate an increase in traffic and associated air pollutant emissions. Once construction activities are concluded, the project, with mitigation measures AQ(a)-1, AQ(a)-2 and AQ(a)-3 as identified, would not create significant long-term impacts to local air quality. Air quality impacts are significant, even though the mitigation measures identified above will provide a certain reduction in air quality impacts; however, the benefits of the project identified above in Section 3 outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects on air quality and the adverse environmental effect on air quality is considered acceptable. b. Earth Resources: Implementation of the proposed circulation element amendment would result in roadways across active faults which would pose a potentially significant impact from fault rupture during a seismic event. Design and construction solutions are generally available to reduce all seismic and geologic hazards to risk levels considered acceptable. Mitigation measures ER -1(a), ER -1(b), ER -1(c), ER -3(a), ER -5(a) and ER -6(a) -� have been identified to reduce the significance of impacts although some risk of damage to roadway infrastructure would remain. Ground rupture on active fault lines could damage roads, which is considered a potentially significant and unavoidable impact. Earth resource impacts are significant, even though the mitigation measures identified above will provide a certain reduction in these impacts; however, the benefits of the project identified above in Section 3 outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects on earth resources and the adverse environmental effect on air quality is considered acceptable. C. Biological Resources: Buildout of the roadway system as envisioned under Alternative 4 for the Circulation Element would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to biological resources within the City. The most significant impacts are associated with the loss of riparian habitats and disturbance to the significant ecological areas along the Santa Clarity River, San Francisquito Creek and the oak savanna west of Interstate 5. Mitigation measures B -2(a), B -2(b), B -2(c), B -2(d), B -2(e), B -2(f), B -2(g), B-3, B -4(a), B - 4(b), B -5(a), B-5(b)are proposed to reduce the effects on plant and animal resources through realignment or elimination of certain roadways and the requirement for site specific survey and mitigation plans for sensitive plants and animals prior to construction. Nonetheless, biological impacts associated with the roadway network buildout and accompanying growth of the City is anticipated to result in unavoidable significant impacts. Overall biological resource impacts are considered lowest under Alternative 4, and are lower than those anticipated under the existing major arterial highway network. Reso.97-143 Page 7 Biological resources impacts are significant, even though the mitigation measures identified above will provide a certain reduction in these impacts; however, the benefits of the project identified above in Section 3 outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects on biological resources and the adverse environmental effect on biological resources is considered acceptable. d. Noise: Construction activity associated with Alternative 4 would have the potential to generate significant impacts to sensitive receptors in the vicinity of construction sites. Traffic noise would potentially exceed normally acceptable levels on all major roadway segments and would be greater under the existing major arterial network than under Alternative 4. Mitigation measures N -1(a), N -1(b), N -1(c), N -1(d) N -2(a), and N -2(b) have been added to the project to reduce short-term roadway construction noise impacts and long-term traffic noise impacts. Long-term traffic -related noise impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level through the use of sound walls, berms, setbacks, and/or the use of rubberized asphalt in street paving. Short-term noise impacts from roadway construction are significant, even though the mitigation measures identified above in Section 3 will provide a certain reduction in construction noise; however, the benefits of the project identified above outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects on earth resources and the adverse environmental effect on air quality is considered acceptable. e. Aesthetics: Implementation of the proposed circulation element amendment would result in significant alteration of important ridgelines, change in community character/viewshed alteration, and communitywide change in nighttime lighting conditions. The substantial amount of grading that would occur under Alternative 4, although less than that required for the existing master plan of arterial highways, would result in substantial changes to the natural topography of the City, altering primary and secondary ridgelines. Such alteration potentially conflicts with City policies for ridgeline preservation and hillside development and is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. New roadways under Alternative 4, as under the existing planned roadway network, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on viewsheds as well. Mitigation measures AES -1(a), AES -1(b), AES -1(c), AES -1(d), AES -2(a), AES -2(b), AES - 2(c), AES -2(d), AES -3(a), AES -3(b), AES -3(c) have been added to the project to reduce the amount of landform alteration, particularly on ridgelines, to minimize the potential for roadways to affect scenic vistas and to reduce light and glare produced from development of roadways that would extend the urban lighted area of the City, alter the nighttime sky view, and produce daytime glare from reflective metallic materials and glass associated with vehicles. While these mitigation measures may reduce potential impacts to some degree, impacts relating to alteration of the overall rural nature of the public view cannot generally be mitigated, although Alternative 4 would have less impacts on public views than the existing planned roadway network because Alternative 4 proposes fewer roadway miles. Likewise, the mitigation measures may reduce the significant effects, yet the increase in artificial light and glare resulting from roadway development would Reso. 97-143 Page 8 remain as a significant and unavoidable under both Alternative 4 and the existing roadway network, although Alternative 4 would have lesser impacts because of its fewer roadway miles. Aesthetic impacts are significant, even though the mitigation measures identified above will provide a certain reduction in aesthetic impacts; however, the benefits of the project identified above in Section 3 outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects on aesthetics and the adverse environmental effect on aesthetics is considered acceptable. SECTION 6. By adoption of this Resolution, the City Council rescinds Resolution 97- 112. The City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Final EER SCH No. 96112028 and determines that it is adequate and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.). In compliance with CEQA Section 15093, the City Council has considered the project benefits in Section 3 as balanced against the unavoidable adverse environmental effects in Section 5 and hereby determines that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects; therefore, the City Council determines that this resolution comprises a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) that considers project benefits in light of significant adverse project impacts and the adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR documents and adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) that is contained herein in Section 3 and Section 5. SECTION 7. By the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council rescinds Resolution 97- 112, certifies the environmental impact report and adopt an SOC that identifies the benefits of the project as balanced against its unavoidable environmental risks, but has not granted any approval or entitlement on this project. SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. Reso.97-143 Page 9 PASSED, APPROVED AND December , 1997. ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) ADOPTED this 9th day YOR of I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the Qrh day of r 1997 by the following vote of the City Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEM 3ERS: s: \cd\cou neiAcvcresUhs alyth, Boyer, Klajic, Darcy, Heidt None 1`.-M CITY CLERK Reso. 97-143 Page 10 Exhibit A Draft Environmental Impact Report June 1997 Incorporated by Reference On file in the Department of Planning and Building Services ..� Reso.97-143 Page 11 Exhibit B Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Incorporated by Reference on file in the Department of Planning and Building Services Reso. 97-143 Page 12 Exhibit C Proposed Circulation Element Text June 1997 Incorporated by Reference On file in the Department of Planning and Building Services