Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-08 - RESOLUTIONS - FEIR SCH#96071077 (2)RESOLUTION NO. 97-126 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF FEIR SCH#96071077, AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS THAT WEIGHS PROJECT BENEFITS AGAINST THE PROJECTS SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS FOR MASTER CASE NOS. 95-242, 96-120, 97-041, 97-063 FOR ANNEXATION NO. 95-006 (NORTH VALENCIA), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-001 TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT AND LAND USE MAP, PREZONE 97-001 TO SPECIFIC PLAN (SP) AND OPEN SPACE (OS), ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 96-001, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51931, OAK TREE PERMIT 97-009 AND HAUL ROUTE TO ALLOW FOR THE 858 ACRE NORTH VALENCIA ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF A 706.6 ACRE PROPERTY WITHIN THE ANNEXATION AREA KNOWN AS THE NORTH VALENCIA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. The North Valencia Annexation area is approximately 858 acres generally located east of Anza Drive, south of Newhall Ranch Road, west of Bouquet Canyon Road and Valencia Boulevard, and north of Magic Mountain Parkway and the Auto Center in the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita. The North Valencia Specific Plan area is approximately 706.6 acres within the North Valencia Annexation area and is generally located south of Avenue Hopkins and east of Anza Drive and the west side of San Francisquito Creek, south of Newhall Ranch Road, west of Bouquet Canyon Road and Valencia Boulevard, and north of Magic Mountain Parkway and the Auto Center in the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita. b. In November 1995, the City and the Valencia Company entered into a non- binding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding certain aspects of the potential annexation of approximately 969 acres of unincorporated area in the North Valencia area. At the time the MOU was adopted, the Valencia Company stated their intention to request approvals for up to 3,690 dwelling units, approximately 850,000 square feet of commercial uses, and 223,000 square feet of industrial square footage. Entitlements to be requested at the time of MOU approval included a prezone, an annexation and development agreement, and tract maps. C. A prezone (MC: 95-242, PZ: 95-006) was approved on April 16, 1996 by the City Council for portions of the North Valencia Annexation area through Ordinance Reno 97-186 No. 96-12. An annexation request for the North Valencia Annexation (Annexation No. 95-006) was filed with LAFCO in June, 1996 following the direction of the City Council on June 11, 1996 (Resolution 96-84). Following the prezone and filing of the annexation request by the City, the Valencia Company, herein referred to as the "applicant", submitted the entitlement requests noted above for a portion of the annexation area known as the North Valencia Specific Plan Area, which are subject to environmental review. The City's annexation request is on hold at LAFCO at the request of the City and the applicant pending approval of the environmental review document and the above entitlements. d. On June 5, 1996, the applicant submitted the following entitlement requests (Master Case No. 96-120): Annexation and Development Agreement 96-001, Annexation 95-006, Conditional Use Permit 96-010, TPM 20496 (Builder's South), TPM 20669 (Valencia Industrial Center), TPM 18417 (Pony League), TPM 24516 (Overall Project Area), VTTM 51931 (Valencia Del Lago), VTTM 51281 (South River) and VTTM 44832 (Arbor Park). Incomplete letters were sent on these entitlement requests in July with staff noting that an Oak Tree Permit would also be required. In January 1997, the applicant formally withdrew the application for a conditional use permit and all of the tract and parcel maps except for VTTM 51931. The applicant then submitted the following entitlement requests: a Specific Plan document, including a comprehensive plan of development and development standards for the North Valencia Specific Plan area, and Prezone 97-001 to change the zoning within the area to the City zone SP (Specific Plan). Following review of the Specific Plan document and revised site plan, staff recommended that a general plan amendment be filed in order for the requested entitlements to be consistent with the City's General Plan. On March 12, 1997 the applicant filed a request for an oak tree permit (OTP: 97-009) to allow for possible encroachment upon oak trees, and a general plan amendment (GPA: 97-001) to modify the text of the Land Use Element Valley Center Concept narrative to allow for a North Valencia Specific Plan, and to also allow for an amendment to the Land Use Map. The development application includes the proposed annexation of approximately 858 acres of unincorporated Los Angeles County land located adjacent to the City boundary. This request would amend portions of Ordinance No. 96-12 to establish the City of Santa Clarita prezone Specific Plan (SP) over 706.6 acres on the areas known as the North Valencia Specific Plan area. The remaining acreage in the annexation area would remain as previously prezoned by Ordinance No. 96-12. The Specific Plan request includes entitlement for up to 2,000 dwelling units (750 single family detached, 1,250 multi -family attached), 636,000 square feet of commercial/retail, 167,000 square feet of industrial/business park space, a 6.5 -acre elementary school site, a 15.2 -acre lake/park, a 12.4 -acre community park, 4.9 acres of neighborhood parks, 355.6 acres of open space and over 5 miles of community trails, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM 51931) to subdivide 706 acres into 138 lots, an oak tree permit 2 Rew 97.126 to allow construction within 200 feet of the oak trees with no removals or encroachments currently proposed, and review and certification of the Environmental Impact Report (SCH#96071077) prepared for the project. e. The original North Valencia Specific Plan request excluded a .6 acre Southern California Gas Facility located on Magic Mountain Parkway; however, the City proposes to include this area within the Specific Plan area to avoid the issue of spot zoning. The North Valencia Specific Plan area is bisected by the approximately 13 acre Metropolitan Water District (MWD) property which is excluded from the Specific Plan prezone; however, the City proposes to prezone this area Open Space (OS) in order to be consistent with the surrounding uses proposed in the Specific Plan. f. 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. The City's General Plan presently designates the annexation area as Commercial Town Center (CTC), Community Commercial (CC), Business Park (BP), and Residential Moderate (RM), with a Valley Center Concept (VCC) Overlay on the majority of the site and a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) Overlay over the Santa Clara River and San Francisquito Creek. The General Plan does not specifically mention the North Valencia site as an area ideal for a specific plan; however, the site does meet the minimum size of 100 contiguous --� acres under single ownership as identified in the Specific Plan zoning standards of the City's Unified Development Code . Zoning on the site is presently Los Angeles County zones C2, M11/2, and A2-5 and has already been prezoned City of Santa Clarita zones CTC (Commercial Town Center), CC (Community Commercial), BP (Business Park), and RS (Residential Moderate). g. The North Valencia Specific Plan area is vacant, generally flat, and was used for agricultural purposes. The approximately 153 acres of the annexation area that is excluded from the Specific Plan is flat and improved with industrial, commercial and public utility uses. Major features of the annexation area include the Santa Clara River, the South Fork of the Santa Clara River, San Francisquito Creek, Bouquet Creek, a portion of the San Gabriel Fault Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, the MWD aqueduct pipeline and electrical transmission corridors. h. The design of the project concentrates development within areas previously used for agricultural uses and includes preservation of approximately 348.3 acres of the Santa Clara River and San Francisquito Creek and 84 acres of upland buffer area located adjacent to the River and Creek as identified in the North Valencia Specific Plan document. The project proposes grading on approximately 281 acres of the 858 acre project site. The total amount of grading involves approximately 1.4 million cubic yards of cut and 2.7 million cubic yards of on-site fill, with earth to be imported from the northeast corner of McBean Parkway and Newhall Ranch Road through Conditional Use Permit No. 96-013 (MC#96-236) 3 Re" 97-126 and from the area known as the Center City Specific Plan area located east of the present terminus of Newhall Ranch Road, east of Bouquet Canyon Road. i. The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the project which determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and that an environmental impact report must be prepared. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the annexation, annexation and development agreement, tentative tract maps, conditional use permit and oak tree permit was mailed in July 1996 to affected agencies. A scoping meeting was held at the Valencia Town Center Conference Room on August 7, 1996 to obtain information from the public as to issues which should be addressed in the environmental document. Following a revision to the project with the withdrawal of the conditional use permit application, withdrawal of tentative tract maps and submittal of the prezone, specific plan document, general plan amendment, and revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51931 applications, a subsequent NOP was prepared and mailed in May 1997. j. The Planning Commission went on a field visit to the North Valencia site on Saturday, May 31, 1997 at 9:00 a.m., beginning in the Council Chambers for the purpose of becoming familiar with the annexation and Specific Plan area. k. The City Council held a study session on this project on June 3, 1997 and .--, received an informational report on the status of this project. At that Council Study Session the Council approved a preliminary processing schedule for this project which identified various Planning Commission public hearing dates and specific project topics to be discussed at each of these meetings. The goal of this processing schedule was to reduce redundancy and allow the Commission and the public to better prepare for the meetings. This processing schedule allowed for each issue area of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) to be discussed in a public forum during the DEIR public comment period, allowing for maximum public participation with numerous opportunities for the public to ask questions and receive information concerning the environmental document and the project. 1. The Planning Commission received an informational presentation about the North Valencia Specific Plan proposal at their regularly scheduled meeting on June 17, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. This presentation was given by staff to distribute copies of the proposed North Valencia Specific Plan dated June 1997 and the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51931 version dated June 13, 1997, to provide the Commission with a background on the project application, and to provide the Commission with a review of the entitlements requested. in. The North Valencia Specific Plan DEIR (SCH#96071077) was circulated for review and comment by the affected governmental agencies and all comments received have been considered. The DEIR was distributed to the Planning Rego 97.126 Commission, the public and affected governmental agencies for a 45 -day public review period beginning on August 1, 1997 and ending on September 15, 1997. Late comments were accepted until September 22, 1997 to allow for mail delays. n. Following the processing schedule set by the Council on June 3, 1997, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the North Valencia Annexation and Specific Plan and related entitlements commencing on July 1, 1997 and continuing on July 9, 1997, July 23, 1997, August 5, 1997, August 13, 1997, August 19, 1997, August 25, 1997, September 2, 1997, September 10, 1997, September 24, 1997, October 7, 1997, October 15, 1997, and October 30, 1997. These public hearings have been held at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. Five of the public hearings were held between August 5, 1997 and September 2, 1997 which was during the public comment period. These public hearings were held for the purpose of providing an opportunity for the Commission and the public to consider focused discussions on each of the environmental issue areas discussed in the DEIR.. These hearings, however, did not limit the public testimony to the topic at hand, but allowed for comments/questions regarding all materials presented throughout the DEIR. o. The DEIR prepared for the project identified an option for bank stabilization at -� the River/Creek edge: as termed throughout the DEIR, the "proposed project" included the placement of 2.7 miles of bank stabilization along the edge of the Santa Clara River and San Francisquito Creek. This bank stabilization would be visible from within the project site and would also be visible to the public along major roadway corridors. The option presented in the DEIR included the use of buried bank stabilization set back from the River/Creek edge approximately 100 feet. The Buried Bank Stabilization Option was identified and mitigated separately throughout the DEIR, as the impacts of this option differed from the impacts of the proposed project (which incorporated bank stabilization along the edge of the River/Creek). During the course of the public hearings, the Planning Commission determined that the Buried Bank Stabilization Option was the preferred option. However, the Commission received public testimony from the project biologist and a third party biologist indicating that, with heavy revegetation efforts, a 75 foot setback from the River edge in the project's Lego de Valencia planning area was adequate. The Commission therefore accepted a setback approximately 25 feet less than what was originally analyzed in the DEIR for the Lago de Valencia planning area only, and has recommeded that the City Council also accept such a setback. P. The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit A, includes the DEIR and the following: responses to written comments on the DEIR, responses to public testimony regarding DEIR issues raised at the public hearings during the public comment period, modifications to Reap 97.126 the DEIR text, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The DEIR was provided to the Commission on August 1, 1997 and the remaining Final EIR documents were prepared and provided to the Planning Commission on October 3, 1997. The Proposed Specific Plan Text dated June 1997, herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit B, also contains specific development standards and policies that mitigate potential environmental impacts which were considered by the Planning Commission. Discussions regarding the annexation and development agreement commenced during the public hearing of October 15, 1997, and continued at the hearing on October 30, 1997. The Planning Commission considered the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, information provided in staff reports, the general plan amendment text, the proposed specific plan, the entitlement requests, the deal points of the annexation and development agreement, and public testimony prior to recommending project approval to the City Council. q. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on November 4th, 1997, commencing at 6:30 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this meeting, the Council considered the project's Draft EIR, the Final EIR, information provided in staff reports, the general plan amendment text, the proposed specific plan document, the entitlement requests, the proposed prezone for the property, the Annexation and Development Agreement, the Planning Commission's considerations, and public testimony regarding the project. The public hearing for the project was continued, with subsequent meetings being held on November 25, 1997, December 2, 1997, December 9, 1997, and December 18, 1997. The City Council formally closed the public hearing on December 9, 1997, and continued the item for action to the meeting of December 18, 1997. The meeting of December 18 was held at 8:00 a.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires decision -makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental impacts. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable" by adopting a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." This statement sets forth the project benefits or reasons why the Lead Agency is in favor of approving and weighs these benefits against the project's adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. b. CEQA requires decision -makers to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for those mitigation measures which are conditions of the M Reno 97.186 SECTION 3. The City Council does hereby find that the Final EIR for the North Valencia Annexation 95-006, Prezone 97-001, General Plan Amendment 97-001, North Valencia Specific Plan 97-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51931, and Oak Tree Permit 97-009 identifies cumulative project impacts and project specific impacts. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR are summarized as follows: a. The DEIR, herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit A, identifies the following issue areas as significant but unavoidable: Air Quality; Visual Resources; Agricultural Resources; Solid Waste Disposal; and Biota. b. The DEIR identifies the following issue areas as significant but feasibly mitigable to a less than significant level: Geotechnical Hazards; Flooding; Noise; Cultural Resources; Human Made Hazards; Traffic/Access; Water Service; Wastewater Disposal; Utilities (Energy Resources); Fire Protection; Sheriff Services; Parks and Recreation; Library Services; Education; and Population/ Housing/Employment. 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. C. The DEIR identifies the following issue areas as less than significant: Biota - Creation of Upland Preserve Zone; and Parks and Recreation - Connection to Existing Trail System. SECTION 4. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by theCity Council and on its behalf, the City Council further finds: a. That the Final Environmental Impact Report for this project is adequate, complete, and has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). b. That the City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in reaching its recommendation. c. That changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the North Valencia Specific Plan and related entitlements which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect because feasible mitigation measures included in the MMRP are made conditions of approval for this project. SECTION 5. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council further finds that the Final EIR analyzes a range of project alternatives. a. Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative. This Alternative is required by the CEQA Guidelines and it compare the impacts which might occur if the site is left Resp 97.126 in its present condition with those that would be generated by the project as proposed. The No Project Alternative is considered to be the "environmentally superior" alternative since the following environmental areas would not be affected without the implementation of the project: public services and utilities, solid waste, education, libraries, parks and recreation, fire/Sheriff services, gas and electricity, visual resources, traffic/access, air quality, and noise. However, this alternative is less desirable in terms of sedimentation/runoff and effects of agricultural operations, and does not provide the upland habitat which the proposed project with the Buried Bank Stabilization Option includes. This alternative was therefore rejected. b. Alternative 2, Buildout According to the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. The purpose of this alternative is to describe the impacts of developing the site according to the General Plan land use designations and to compare such impacts with those generated by the proposed project. Under Alternative 2, impacts associated with geotechnical resources/grading, biota, cultural resources, fire protection, agricultural resources, and human made hazards would be similar to the proposed project. Impacts generated by Alternative 2 associated with flood, traffic and access, air quality, noise, water service, wastewater, solid waste, utilities, housing, and education would be greater than the proposed project. Impacts generated by Alternative 2 associated with library services, parks and recreation, employment and Sheriff services would be less than those anticipated under the proposed project. The Buried Bank Stabilization Option under Alternative 2 would have the same impacts as this option under the proposed project. This alternative was rejected because overall it has greater environmental impacts than the project. On the basis of environmental impacts alone, this alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed project. C. Alternative 3, The Biological Alternative. The purpose of this Alternative is to provide more clustering of units, by reducing the residential footprint, thereby providing more open space and fewer impacts to biological resources. The number of residential units would remain the same. Under Alternative 3, impacts associated with geotechnical resources, library services, fire protection, Sheriff demands, and population/housing/employment would be similar to the proposed project. This alternative would allow only clustered units and a smaller residential footprint which would be preferred to the proposed project in terms of flood, traffic/access, air quality, biota, cultural resources, visual, water, wastewater, solid waste, utilities, education, parks and recreation, agricultural resources and human made hazards. The Buried Bank Stabilization Option under Alternative 3 would have the same impacts as this option under the proposed project. On the basis of environmental impacts alone, this Alternative is "environmentally superior' to the proposed project. This Alternative would not meet project objectives in that it would not provide as great a variety or mix of residential housing types as the proposed project nor would it meet the anticipated housing market conditions over several years. Alternative 3 would Reed 97.126 limit the range of housing opportunities, and would not reflect the housing opportunities demand under which the project site could be developed. Therefore, Alternative 3, the Biological Alternative, was rejected. d. Alternative 4, The 20 Percent Reduced Density Alternative. This Alternative would reduce dwelling units and commercial square footage on the site by 20 percent, down to 1,600 residential units, 508,000 commercial square feet, and 167,000 square feet of industrial uses. Alternative 4 would have a reduced project footprint to reflect reduced unit counts. Impacts under this alternative associated with geotechnical resources, flood, traffic/access, biota, cultural resources, air quality, noise, water service, wastewater, solid waste, utilities, education, library services and fire/Sheriff services, parks and recreation, agricultural resources and human made hazards would be less than the proposed project. The Buried Bank Stabilization Option under Alternative 4 would have the same impacts as the proposed project. Alternative 4 is an "environmentally superior" project, but it does not meet the project objectives of providing a mix of residential and commercial opportunities as it reduces the number of housing units available and reduces commercial square footage. The reduction of housing units does not meet the project objectives of responding to economic conditions by providing as great a variety of housing types. The reduction of commercial square feet reduces the subsequent tax base available to the City to support public services as compared to the project objectives. Alternative 4 has been rejected in favor of the proposed project because this Alternative would limit housing and employment opportunities, and thus would not accommodate the housing or employment demands of the regional area under which the project site could be developed. e. Alternative 5, The 40 Percent Reduced Density Alternative. This Alternative results in a 40 percent reduction in residential units and commercial square footage. The reduction would result in a total of 1,200 residential units, and 381,600 square feet of commercial uses. Other aspects of the project would remain consistent with the proposed project. In reducing the project by 40 percent, Alternative 5 will create a reduced development footprint for both residential and commercial uses. This Alternative also includes a grade separated crossing of Avenue Scott at Bouquet Canyon Road and a bridge over Bouquet Creek Channel for Avenue Scott. Impacts under this alternative associated with geotechnical resources, flood, traffic/access, biota, cultural resources, air quality, noise, water service, wastewater, solid waste, utilities, education, library services, fire/Sheriff services, parks and recreation, agricultural resources and human made hazards would be less than the proposed project. The Buried Bank Stabilization Option under Alternative 5 would have the same impacts as the option under the proposed project. Alternative 5 is an "environmentally superior" project, but was rejected over the proposed project because it does not meet the project objectives of providing a mix of residential and commercial opportunities. This Alternative reduces the number of housing Q Reap 97-126 units available and reduces commercial square footage. The reduction of housing units does not meet the project objectives of responding to economic conditions by providing a great variety of housing types. The reduction of commercial square feet reduces the subsequent tax base available to the City to support public services as compared to the project objectives. Alternative 5 would not accommodate the housing or employment demands of the regional area under which the project site could be developed. SECTION 6. By adoption of this Resolution, the City Council finds that the Final EIR 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 Air Quality, Visual Resources, Agricultural Resources, Solid Waste Disposal, and Biota. In accordance with CEQA Sections 15091 and 15093, a description of each 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 identified in the Final EIR is detailed below: a. AirQuality: Construction -related emissions would be generated by on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, and energy use. Operation -related emissions would be generated by on-site and off-site stationary sources and by mobile sources. During both the construction and operation phases, emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic compounds (ROC), oxides of nitrogen (No.) and particulate matter (10 micron) (PM,o) would exceed thresholds of significance recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Furthermore, the actual rate of growth in vehicle miles traveled, and hence vehicular air emissions caused by the proposed residential and non-residential uses of the project would occur at a higher rate than the rate of growth associated with the expected on-site resident and employee population. The Buried Bank Stabilization Option's construction -related and operation -related emissions are also considered unavoidably significant. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures Al through A76 as identified in the Final EIR would reduce the magnitude of construction -related and operation -related emissions to some extent. However, no feasible mitigation exists which would reduce these emissions to below the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance. This is inconsistent with the Air Quality Management Plan performance standards; therefore, the cumulative air quality impacts of the proposed residential uses, non-residential uses, and impacts due to construction of the Buried Bank Stabilization Option would be unavoidably significant. b. Visual Resources: The project is an infill development of a developed urban area. This area is envisioned by the City of Santa Clarity General Plan for the type of development proposed. The change in character of the project site would represent the replacement of open space/agricultural uses with urban uses but is not considered an unavoidable 10 Reno 99.226 significant impact because such uses already occur immediately surrounding the project site. However, bank stabilization at the rivers edge is a significant alteration to the basic visual character of the region, as well as to the river itself. The loss of riparian vegetation and the associated change in visual character of the River and Creek due to the placement of bank stabilization along the River/Creek edge would be significant and unavoidable. In the event that the preferred buried bank stabilization were to remain buried, no significant impacts would occur as most of the existing riparian vegetation along the banks would remain. However, the buried bank lining may become exposed in the event that future flood waters erode the existing banks and intervening upland preserve zone, exposing the buried reinforced concrete lining. In the event such erosion and exposure were to occur in the future, impacts of this option would be similar to the proposed project and would be significant, albeit further removed from the watercourse. Mitigation Measures: With the implementation of the buried bank stabilization and mitigation measures VQ1 through VQ6 (as identified in the Final EIR), the visual impacts of the project will be reduced to a less than significant level. This finding assumes that the buried bank stabilization will remain buried. If the buried bank lining is exposed due to future flood water erosion, then the impacts to visual resources will be considered unavoidably significant. C. Azricultural Resources: The cumulative conversion of prime agricultural land to urban uses constitutes a loss of an irreplaceable resource and would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime agricultural land. No feasible mitigation exists for this conversion and it would be an unavoidable significant impact. Like the proposed project, the Buried Bank Stabilization Option would result in the loss of the conversion of all of the available agricultural land in the site, and is thus considered to have an unavoidably significant impact. Mitigation Measures: The Final EIR identifies three mitigation measures listed as AG1, AG2 and AG3 which would reduce the magnitude of the project's impacts to agricultural resources. However, no feasible mitigation exists which would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level, therefore the project's impacts to agricultural resources remain unavoidable and significant. d. Solid Waste: Upon buildout and assuming no solid wastes from the proposed project would be recycled (a worst-case scenario), the proposed project would generate approximately 40,428 pounds of solid waste per day, which is equivalent to approximately 7,378 tons per year. However, given the City's current overall waste diversion rate of 47 percent, it is estimated that the project will actually generate 20,214 pounds of solid waste per day, which is equivalent to 3,689 tons per year. The project may also generate household -type hazardous wastes. Cumulative development within the Santa Clarita Valley area would generate 626,230 tons per year of solid waste, as well as hazardous waste. The project's 7,378 tons per year would represent 1.2 percent of this Valley total and an approximately 6 percent increase in the incorporated City area. Land suitable for landfill development or expansion is quantitatively finite and 11 Reap 97.186 limited due to numerous environmental, regulatory and political constraints. Until long- term landfill space or other disposal alternatives will be adequate to serve the existing and future uses for the forseeable future, project and cumulative solid waste and hazardous waste impacts within the City will be considered unavoidably significant. As with the proposed project, landfill space is finite and until long-term space or other disposal alternatives are identified, the solid waste impacts of the project with the Buried Bank Stabilization Option and cumulative solid waste and hazardous waste impacts are considered unavoidably significant. Mitigation Measures: As identified in the Final E1R, mitigation measures SW 1 through SW17 would reduce the magnitude of the project's solid waste impacts to some extent. However, no feasible mitigation exists which would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The cumulative solid waste impacts of the proposed project, along with the implementation of the Buried Bank Stabilization Option, will remain unavoidably significant. e. Biota: Temporary and permanent direct impacts on biological resources will occur as a result of the following project -related actions or activities: construction and grading for urban lots, roads, parks, recreational areas, buildings, and other facilities and structures; construction of the Avenue Scott bridge over San Francisquito Creek and the Santa Clara River; and maintenance activities associated with bank stabilization, bridges, water quality basins, and storm drain outlets. Project implementation will result in the permanent loss of 165.4 acres of agricultural fields, 89.3 acres of disturbed/ruderal fields, 3.97 acres of coastal sage scrub, 4.74 acres of cottonwood -willow riparian woodland, 0.83 acres of alluvial scrub, 3.41 acres of mule fat scrub, and 6.56 acres of riparian scrub. A portion of the cottonwood -willow riparian woodland and alluvial scrub habitat will be temporarily lost as a result of bank stabilization activities and will be replanted upon completion of the stabilization. Although the project proposes mitigation measures which will reduce impacts to the riparian ecosystem and wildlife species that utilize the riparian and upland habitats, it is assumed that human and domestic animal use of adjacent habitat areas will continue to occur as a result of project implementation and cannot be entirely prevented, despite signage and barriers. With respect to equestrian use, enforcement of rules and regulations will be difficult and the trails may invite access by other non -compatible uses such as off-road vehicles. Therefore, the effects of these project activities on the riparian resources of the site remains an unavoidable significant impact. The loss of wildlife habitat and open space areas as a result of development within the proposed project site represents an unavoidable significant cumulative impact to biological resources. Unavoidable significant cumulative impacts include the loss of riparian habitat, disturbance to riparian wildlife due to nearby urban development, and effects on habitat for the unarmored three -spine stickleback and least Bell's vireo. 12 Rew 97.126 The implementation of the Buried Bank Stabilization Option results in a net loss of habitat that is less than the construction of bank lining at the River/Creek edge. However, losses to these habitats are still considered to have an unavoidably significant impact to biological resources. Potentially significant unavoidable impacts could occur to the three special -status fish species as a result of sedimentation, erosion, and loss of riparian habitat along the edges of the river channel, and to special -status bird species potentially nesting in the riparian vegetation (and in the case of burrowing owl, within the upland agricultural and ruderal fields). In the event of a substantial flood event, or as a result of ongoing flooding and erosion over time, the preserved upland habitat areas may eventually erode so much as to be of little or no value as upland habitat. This loss of upland habitat would substantially affect the overall ability of the riparian ecosystem to maintain the current level of terrestrial species diversity and abundance. Therefore, this loss would be considered an unavoidable significant impact under this option. In addition, because there will still be only 67 percent of the remaining upland habitat that meets the 100 -foot minimum preservation criteria (with exception given to the 75 -foot setback in the project's Lago de Valencia planning area), the resultant impact on the riparian ecosystem remains a significant unavoidable impact under the Buried Bank Stabilization Option. The overall permanent conversion of 2.6 acres of habitat within the SEAs to urban development represents a net loss of SEA habitat. This loss is also considered an unavoidable impact under this option. Mitigation Measures: As identified in the Final EIR, mitigation measures B 1 through B40 and the Buried Bank Stabilization Option mitigation measures would reduce the magnitude of the project's biota impacts to some extent. However, no feasible mitigation exists which would reduce these impacts to less than significant with project implementation. The cumulative impacts of the project, including the construction of the buried bank stabilization lining, would be unavoidably significant. SECTION 7. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, the Council further finds that the North Valencia Annexation, North Valencia Specific Plan and related entitlements will have community benefits. The City Council finds that the following benefits are overriding considerations which support adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations: a. The project recommended for approval by the City Council implements the Valley Center Concept of the General Plan with implementation of the General Plan Amendment as proposed. b. The project will provide the City with infrastructure including improvements to portions of major highways designated on the City's Master Plan of Arterial Highways as follows: Newhall Ranch Road, Magic Mountain Parkway, Bouquet Canyon Road, Valencia Boulevard, McBean Parkway, Avenue Scott and Avenue Tibbitts. C. The project is consistent with: 1) the City's General Plan and Zoning Land Use 13 Reed 9%126 Classifications; and 2) the intensity of development allowed in the Specific Plan area with: City Council approval of the Specific Plan General Plan Amendment approval of a zone change to SP (Specific Plan Zone) as identified in the Specific Plan for this project, adoption of the Specific Plan document, and the approval of a zone change for the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) site to OS (Open Space). d. The project proposes a range of uses including residential, commercial, industrial and recreational in support of City's General Plan Goals and Policies. Appendix A of the Specific Plan, herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit C, includes a detailed explanation of how the North Valencia Specific Plan project integrates the goals and policies of the City's General Plan. The following are a sample of the goals, policies and implementation features of the City's General Plan which are supported by the project: The project supports the Land Use Element including policies promoting a mixed- use town center, with higher density residential, in proximity to public transportation, as follows: Policy 3.1 "Promote the development of City centers where more intensive land uses will be encouraged." Policy 3.3 'Identify a primary town center... which encourage(s) a pedestrian orientation and can accommodate a clustered mix of commercial, entertainment, recreation, town square/meeting place(s), multi -use complexes, and multi -modal transportation activity opportunities." Policy 3.6 "Locate higher density residential development in close proximity to regional and sub -regional centers and public transportation corridors." The Project supports the Open Space and Conservation Element including policies to preserve special natural features and protect the natural environment as follows: Policy 1.6 Link buffer areas, wherever possible, to provide for contiguous areas of open space. Policy 3.7 Preserve to the extent feasible natural riparian habitat and ensure that adequate setback is provided between riparian habitat and surrounding urbanization. The project supports the Air Quality Element which seeks to reduce pollution from automobiles by relating land uses to transportation, facilitating non -automotive travel, and encouraging a jobs/housing balance, including the following. Goal 10 "To reduce vehicle emissions by creating an urban form that efficiently utilizes urban infrastructure and services." 14 Reap 97.186 Policy 10.1 "Contribute to the reduction of vehicle miles traveled by achieving a more reasonable job/housing balance." Policy 10.2 "Develop and encourage efficient transportation systems and land use patterns which minimize total trips and vehicle miles traveled." Goal 12 "To reduce mobile source emissions by promoting a shift from single occupancy to higher occupancy vehicles." The project supports the Housing Element which has numerous sections calling for mixed use projects, flexibility in standards, a mix of housing types, and using the specific plan process, as shown in the following sections: Policy 1.4 'Promote the development of compatible mixed use projects in order to create a village concept, with various interacting uses... to stimulate activity." Program La "Alternative Development Standards. Use the specific plan process... to permit alternative housing design where such projects result in attractive, desirable housing types, including affordable housing." Program Lc "Specific Plan/Planned Development. Permit flexible development standards in specific plans... that encourage housing developments which meet the needs of the community. Flexible development standards should allow for clustering, and a variety of site design characteristics as appropriate." Policy 2.2 "Locate higher density residential development and housing... in close proximity to public transportation and commercial land uses..." Policy 3.3 "Encourage a mix of housing types and densities in new large scale development." Policy 3.11 "Consider alternative development standards where practical ... to promote desired housing types and benefits...." The project supports the Community Design Element, which in the following policies are also supportive of this theme, as follows: 15 Reed 97.186 Policy 2.2 'Provide for residential uses in proximity to business/commercial centers in a manner which promotes the neighborhood/village/town center planning concept and maintains... the concept of the Valley Center." Policy 3.3 "Encourage the establishment of mixed use and village commercial centers..., urban open spaces, and the effective use of street furniture in downtown areas. Policy 3.4 "Encourage design and uses of commercial districts and related housing that add pedestrian orientation and that provide for safe and secure daytime and nighttime activities." e. The North Valencia project will provide various residential housing opportunities for different economic levels with a mix of single family and multi -family dwelling units as required by the Housing Element of the General Plan, the Housing Allocation for the City of Santa Clarita as set forth by SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and the City's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) component of the City s Comprehensive Plan prepared for the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The project provides significant public benefits including employment opportunities, increased residential densities in proximity to transportation corridors, an improved circulation network including improvements to portions of Newhall Ranch Road, Magic Mountain Parkway, Bouquet Canyon Road, McBean Parkway, Avenue Scott and Avenue Tibbitts, identification and preservation of a riparian buffer area along the Santa Clara River and San Francisquito Creek Significant Ecological Areas (SEAS), and significant expansion of the City's River Trail system of bicycle, pedestrian and equestrian paths. SECTION 8. By adoption of this Resolution, the City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Final EIR (SCH#96071077) 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 Planning Commission has considered the project benefits as balanced against the unavoidable adverse environmental effects 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) and the adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council certify the Final EIR documents and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). . SECTION 9. By the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council approves certification of the environmental impact report and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations 16 Reed 97.186 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 10. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. SECTION 11. The Council shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED thisi Jth day of December , 1997 OR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) 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 J arhday of D P r P M h P r 1997, by the following vote of the City Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: cd\council\nvlccre 1.eir Boyer, Kl.aj?c, Darcy, Smyth, Heidt None None i t /.11 11 17 Exhibits on file in the Department of Planning and Building Services