Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-11 - RESOLUTIONS - CERT FEIR NORTH VALENCIA 2 (2)RESOLUTION NO. 00-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CERTIFYING FEIR SCH#98111201, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS THAT WEIGHS PROJECT BENEFITS AGAINST THE PROJECT'S SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS FOR MASTER CASE NOS. 98-183,,99-055 FOR ANNEXATION NO. 98-02 (NORTH VALENCIA 2), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98- 002 "A" TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT AND LAND USE MAP AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT "B" TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT TEXT, PREZONE 98-003 TO SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE (SP), ADOPTION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENT (TEXT), ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 98-001, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 44831 "A" AND "B", VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 52667, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-006, OAK TREE PERMIT 98-020 AND HILLSIDE REVIEW 99-002 TO ALLOW FOR THE ANNEXATION OF THE 576.2 ACRE NORTH VALENCIA 2 ANNEXATION AREA AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE 596.2 ACRE NORTH VALENCIA NO.2 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT- The City Council does hereby make'the following findings of fact: a. On July 14, 1998, the City Council approved a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Valencia Company, herein referred to as the "Applicant", regarding certain aspects of the potential annexation of approximately 1054 acres located in unincorporated Los Angeles County that included the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan and North Valencia 2 Annexation area and the North Park Annexation area. Both the North Valencia 2 and North Park annexations were to occur concurrently. At the time the MOU was adopted, the applicant stated their intention to request entitlement for up to 2,500 dwelling units and a maximum of 310,000 square feet of commercial/mixed uses. The annexations proposed included the following existing Los Angeles County approved entitlements: 92,000 square foot Northpark shopping center, 67,000 square foot Plaza Del Rancho shopping center, 80,000 square foot retail center at the northeast corner of Copper Hill Drive and Newhall Ranch Road, approximately 45 acres of industrial property within the Valencia Industrial Center south of Smyth Drive, tentative tract 45440 (North Park) and tentative tract 46389 (North Park). b. The applicant formally requested certain project entitlements on August 17, 1998 (Master Case 98-183). Entitlements requested include the following: an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map (GPA 98-002"A") to designate Reso No. Page No. 2 approximately 576.2 acres of the North Valencia 2 Annexation Area to a Specific Plan (SP) land use designation and an amendment to the Circulation Element (GPA 98-002 "B") to allow modification of the cross sections for certain roadways on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways through adoption of a specific plan; a Specific Plan Prezone and adoption of a North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan document (text) to cover approximately 596.2 acres including the North Valencia 2 Annexation area and the Decoro Drive Bridge area and requests for up to 1,900 dwelling units and 210,000 square feet of commercial uses (SP 98-002); annexation requests to annex the 576.2 acre North Valencia 2 Annexation area (Annexation No. 98-02, uninhabited); Vesting Tentative Tract Map 44831 "A" (Eastcreek), and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 44831 'B" (Eastcreek); Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52667 (Decoro South); a Conditional Use Permit to allow for grading of over 100,000 cubic yards, a haul route, construction of multi -family structures up to 38 feet in height within two North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan planning sub -areas and access gates for the private streets in North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan Eastcreek sub -area four (CUP 98-006); an Oak Tree Permit to allow for removals of oak tree numbers 15, 16, 17, and 18 necessary for site preparation and construction and encroachment upon or removal of oak tree numbers 50, 51, 52, 54, and 55 as needed to construct the bridge at Decoro Drive (OTP 98-020); an Annexation and Development Agreement providing the public with certain "above and beyond" benefits and the applicant with certain benefits including a 15 -year project build -out (DA 98-001); and a request for an initial study to determine the appropriate environmental review for the project. On March 1, 1999, the applicant submitted an additional entitlement request (Master Case No. 99-055) for a Hillside Review Permit to allow for grading on slopes in excess of 15% grade (HR 99-002). C. The North Valencia 2 Annexation area is approximately 576.2 acres generally located north of Newhall Ranch Road, south of Copper Hill Drive, east of San Francisquito Creek and Copper Hill Drive, and west of the existing City boundary in the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita. The North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan area is 596.2 acres and encompasses the 576.2 -acre North Valencia 2 Annexation area. The 20 -acre Decoro Drive Bridge area accounts for the acreage difference between the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan area and the North Valencia Annexation area. The Decoro Drive Bridge area is included in the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan; however, this bridge is excluded from the North Valencia 2 Annexation area at the request of the applicant. Portions of the North Valencia 2 Annexation area form a contiguous boundary with the City of Santa Clarita. The North Valencia 2 Annexation is an uninhabited annexation. d. A prezone (MC98-183, PZ98-002) was approved on February 9, 1999 by the City Council for an 1,054 acre prezone area covering the area known as the North Valencia No. 2 area through Ordinance No. 99-2. The North Valencia No. 2 area prezone includes the area known as the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan and Reso No. Page No. 3 North Valencia 2 Annexation area (Annexation No. 98-02) and the North Park Annexation (Annexation No. 98-03) area. The prezones assigned through Ordinance No. 99-2 are consistent with the City's existing General Plan. In adopting Ordinance No. 99-2 for the prezone, the Council found that the subject property is in a proper location zones Business Park (BP), Community Commercial (CC), Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential High (RH), Residential Medium High (RMH), Residential Suburban (RS), Residential Low (RL), and Residential Estate (RE) as identified on the City's Zoning Map, consistent with the location of the BP, CC, CN, RH, RMH, RS, RE and RL land use designations on the City's General Plan Land Use Map. f. An annexation request for the North Valencia 2 Annexation (Annexation No. 98- 02) was filed with LAFCO in July 1999 following the direction of the City Council on June 23, 1999 (Resolution 99-127). The City's annexation request is processing at LAFCO at the request of the City and the applicant pending the approval of the environmental review document and the above entitlements and an election into the City's Stormwater Utility. g. In addition to the annexation requests, the development application includes entitlement requests as follows. The application requests amendment to two elements of the General Plan. An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Map (GPA 98- 002"A") is requested to designate approximately 576.2 acres of the North Valencia 2 Annexation Area to a Specific Plan (SP) land use designation. An amendment to the Circulation Element (GPA 98-002 "B") text is requested to allow modification of the description of major and secondary arterial highways to allow modifications of the typical street cross sections within a specific plan area through adoption of a specific plan; A prezone request (PZ98-003) was filed to amend portions of 1,054 acres previously prezoned through Ordinance 99-2 to establish the City of Santa Clarita prezone Specific Plan (SP) over the 596.2 -acre North Valencia No.2 Specific Plan area. The acreage in the North Park Annexation area would remain as prezoned by Ordinance No. 99-2. A Specific Plan Document (text) request includes up to 1,900 dwelling units; 210,000 square feet of new commercial/mixed uses; a 20 -acre junior high school site; a 15.9 -acre public park; a 3.5 -acre undeveloped Los Angeles County park site give to the County as a condition of approval for the North Park development; 4.1 acres of private recreation areas; 93.4 acres of open space (47.5 acres of San Francisquito Creek and 45.9 acres of undeveloped upland preserve zone); three trailhead staging areas including at least one for equestrians, 1.7 acres of paseos, and 7.3 acres of community trails. The Specific Plan Document (text) contains two different land use alternatives for the Eastcreek Planning Reso No. Page No. 4 area, the project and Option B. The project includes the future junior high school and joint public park on SP -Commercial zoning (SP -Com) at the northwest corner of Newhall Ranch Road and McBean Parkway in Eastcreek Sub -area One and 150,000 square feet of mixed uses and up to 250 attached residential units on SP -Mixed Use zoning (SP -MU) at the northwest corner of McBean Parkway and Decoro Drive in Eastcreek Sub -area Three. Option B includes 50,000 square feet of mixed uses and up to 250 attached residential units on SP -Mixed Use zoning (SP -MU) at the northwest corner of Newhall Ranch Road and McBean Parkway in Eastcreek Sub -area One and the future junior high school and joint public park on SP- Commercial (SP -Com) at the northwest corner of McBean Parkway and Decoro Drive in Eastcreek Sub -area Three. The decision of which land use option is built rests with the ultimate location of the future junior high school; however, it is believed that the William S, Hart Union High School District favors the site on the northwest corner of Newhall Ranch Road and McBean Parkway. The request includes approval of two vesting tentative tract maps, one of those with two tentative tract options. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 44831 "A" and 44831 "B" cover the Specific Plan areas known as Eastcreek and San Francisquito Creek. The primary difference between the two options of VTTM 44831 is the location of a future junior high school site. VTTM 44831 "A" includes 297.2 acres and 36 lots. VTTM 44831 "B" includes 297.2 acres and 34 lots. VTTM 44831 "B" has a larger developable acreage than the "A" option due to increased encroachment into the creek area in order to provide the necessary acreage for a junior high school. The total number of units proposed for both VTTM 44831 "A" and "B" is 1,200 dwelling units with unit type as allowable as described in the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan Document. The second vesting tentative tract map request is for VTTM 52667 covering the Specific Plan area known as Decoro South. VTTM 52667 includes 91.5 acres and 13 lots. The total number of units proposed for VTTM 52667 is 700 dwelling units. The application includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to approve the following items A) grading of over 100,000 cubic yards, B) a haul route, C) construction of multi -family structures up to 38 feet in height within North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan Eastcreek Sub -area One (project) or Eastcreek Sub- area Three (Option B) and Decoro South Sub -area Six, and D) access gates for the private streets in North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan Eastcreek Sub -area Four (CUP 98-006). An Oak Tree Permit is requested to allow for removals of oak tree numbers 15, 16, 17, and 18 for the purposes of site preparation and construction. The Oak Tree Permit includes a request for encroachment upon or possible removal of oak tree numbers 50, 51, 52, 54, and 55 as needed to construct the Decoro Drive Reso No. Page No. 5 Bridge (OTP 98-020). An Annexation and Development Agreement is requested to provide the applicant with certain benefits including a 15 -year project build -out in exchange for providing "above and beyond" public benefits (DA 98-001). A Hillside Review Permit is requested to allow for grading on slopes in excess of 15% grade (HR 99-002). Following a preliminary review of the project and preparation of an initial study, the applicant was informed that preparation of an environmental impact would be required for this project. Preparation, review and certification of Environmental Impact Report (SCH#98111201) are requested. h. 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 Business Park (BP), Community Commercial (CC), Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Residential High (RH), Residential Medium High (RMH), Residential Suburban (RS), Residential Low (RL), and Residential Estate (RE) with a Valley Center Concept (VCC) Overlay on a portion of Eastcreek Sub -area One and a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) Overlay over San Francisquito Creek. The General Plan does not specifically mention the North Valencia No. 2 site as an area ideal for a specific plan; however, the site meets the minimum Specific Plan 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 A-2-5, RPD -5000-8.6U, RPD -5000-5U, RPD -5000-7.8U, RPD -5000-16U, C-3 and MPD and has already been prezoned City of Santa Clarita zones CC, CN, BP, RE, RL, RS, RMH and RH. i. The North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan area is developed with commercial, industrial and a high school use, although a majority of the site is vacant. In the past, portions of the site were used for agricultural purposes and for sludge disposal in conjunction with the agricultural uses. Hillside features do occur on portions of the project site (Eastcreek Sub -area One, Eastcreek Sub -area Four and Decoro South Sub -area Six) which exceed 15% grade but are not shown to have either major or secondary ridgeline status on the City's Ridgeline Map. Major features of the North Valencia 2 Annexation area include San Francisquito Creek, a portion of the San Gabriel Fault Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, the Metropolitan Water District aqueduct easement and pipeline and electrical transmission corridors. j. The City circulated copies of the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 44831 and 52667 for agency review on August 18, 1998. Copies of revised Vesting Reso No. Page No. 6 Tentative Tract Maps 44831 "A", 44831"B", and 52667 and copies of the draft North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan were circulated for public agency review together with the draft environmental impact report on March 30, 1999. k. In accordance with CEQA, the City of Santa Clarita is the identified lead agency for this project and the City Council is the decision-making body for this project. The City's Planning Commission is a recommending body for this project. 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. The Initial Study determined that the following issue areas should be addressed in this EIR: land use and planning, population and housing, geology, water, air quality, transportation/circulation, biological resources, hazards, noise, public services, utilities, and service systems, recreation, aesthetics, and cultural resources. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the annexation, annexation and development agreement, tentative tract maps, conditional use permit and oak tree permit was circulated for a 30 -day review period on November 2, 1998 to affected agencies. The agencies mailed a NOP include, but are not limited to, Los Angeles County, law enforcement agencies, school districts, waste haulers, water agencies and transportation agencies serving the Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with consultation requirements in the CEQA statutes and guidelines. (Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Section 21082.1, Public Resources Code; Section 21151.9 Public Resources Code; Section 15083.5 and Section 15086, California Code of Regulations). 1. A scoping meeting was held in the Council Chambers at City Hall on November 9, 1998 from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. to obtain information from the public as to issues which should be addressed in the environmental document. Notice of the scoping meeting was sent to agencies as part of the NOP and to surrounding property owners and residents within the Northbridge and North Park areas. Approximately 10 people attended the scoping meeting. In. The Planning Commission received an informational presentation about the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan proposal at their regularly scheduled meeting on December 15, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The purpose of this meeting was to provide a general overview of the requested entitlements and schedule a field visit for the Commission. n. A duly noticed Planning Commission meeting to conduct a field visit to the North Valencia No.2 site was scheduled for Thursday, January 8, 1999 beginning in the Council Chambers for the purpose of becoming familiar with the annexation and Specific Plan area. This meeting was cancelled because of lack of a quorum; however, staff provided a site tour for Commissioner Mllmeyer and for Commissioner Ostrom. Reso No. Page No. 7 o. The City Council held a study session on January 5, 1999 and received an informational report on the status of the North Valencia No 2 Specific Plan and entitlements and the North Valencia 2 and NorthPark Annexations. The City Council was presented with the results of a fiscal impacts analysis of the North Valencia 2 Annexation and the North Park annexation that showed that these annexations would be, at least, marginally positive five years following commencement of the project. p. The Planning Commission received an informational presentation about the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan proposal at their regularly scheduled meeting on December 15, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. Another informational presentation was provided on March 16, 1999 and copies of the Specific Plan were distributed to the Commissioners. This presentation was given by staff and copies of proposed North Valencia Specific Plan dated March 1999 and proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 44831 "A" dated revised March 15, 1999, 44831 "B" dated revised March 15, 1999 and 52667 dated revised March 15, 1999, were distributed to the Commission. The purpose of the presentation was to review the organization of the Specific Plan document with the Commission. When copies of the Specific Plan, tract maps and the DEIR were distributed for outside agency review, the applicant provided a different version of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 44831 "A' and 44831 "B" dated revised March 26, 1999 which were subsequently distributed. q. At the Planning Commission meeting on June 15, 1999, the Commissioners who had not had an opportunity to view the site requested the scheduling of a field visit. At that meeting a field visit was set for Friday, June 18, 1999; however, since only two Commissioners were interested in attending, this field visit was not noticed as a meeting. The public was invited to attend. On June 18, 1999, Chairperson Hoback and Commissioner Kellar visited the annexation and Specific Plan area with staff, seeing the same sites as the Commissioners on the January 8, 1999 tour. r. The City Council held a second study session on July 6, 1999, following the close of the DEIR public comment period, to receive an update on the status of the Planning Commission's processing of the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan and entitlements and North Valencia 2 Annexation project. The City Council raised the issues of potential parkland deficiencies in the project and throughout the North River area, the location and types of trails, trail connections to neighboring developments and the Angeles National Forest, impacts to and protection for the San Francisquito Creek SEA, disposition of open space, acreage and use of the joint school -park site, calculation of Quimby Credit and park site development over MWD property, concern over who will develop and maintain the public parks and trails, and items of benefit that the Valencia Reso No. Page No. 8 Company was offering the City through a development agreement. The City Council gave direction staff and the applicant to specifically address these issues when the project is brought before the Council in fall 1999. S. The North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was circulated for review and comment by the affected governmental agencies and all comments received have been considered. The DEIR (SCH#98111201) was distributed to the Planning Commission, the public and affected governmental agencies for a 45 -day public review period beginning on March 30, 1999 and ending on May 15, 1999. The public comment period was subsequently extended by the Planning Commission until June 17, 1999, for a public review comment period of 79 days, or 34 more days than CEQ,A requires. Late written and oral comments received during the Planning Commission public hearings (through September 16, 1999) were accepted for inclusion in the Final EIR Response to Comments. t. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the North Valencia 2 Annexation and North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan and related entitlements including the DEIR commencing on March 30, 1999 and continuing on April 6, April 15, April 20, April 29, May 4, May 13, May 18, June 15, June 17, June 29, July 8, July 15, July 20, 1999, August 10, 1999, September 2,1999, September 9, 1999 and September 16, 1999. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on September 16, 1999 and continued the item to the meetings of September 21, 1999 and September 28, 1999 for the purposes of finalizing their recommendation to the City Council. Regularly scheduled hearings have been held at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. Special Planning Commission meetings were held at 7:00 p.m. in the Century Room, 23920 Valencia Blvd, Santa Clarita, with the exception of the April 29, 1999 and September 2, 1999 special meetings held in the Century Room beginning at 6:00 p.m., and the June 29, 1999 special meeting held in the Council Chambers beginning at 6:30 p.m., and the September 9, 1999 special meeting held in the Council Chambers beginning at 6:00 p.m., and the September 16, 1999 special meeting held in the Orchard Rooms, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, beginning at 6:30 p.m. U. The Final EIR, herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit A, includes the DEIR and the following: copies of written comments received on the DEIR during the DEIR public review period, responses to written comments on the DEIR, a list of persons or entities commenting on the DEIR, responses to public testimony regarding DEIR issues raised at the public hearings during the public comment period, modifications to the DEIR text, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP, the City's (Lead Agency) responsibilities to the comments received on the DEIR, additional responses to late comments received on the DEIR. The DEIR was provided to the Commission on March 30, 1999. The Final Reso No. Page No. 9 EIR document was provided to the Planning Commission on August 15, 1999. On August 30, 1999, a copy of the response to comments from the FEIR was sent to each agency and individuals who submitted timely written comments on the DEIR. Additional responses to late comments received on the DEIR were presented to the Planning Commission on September 9, 1999 and on September 16, 1999. The Proposed Specific Plan Text dated March 1999 with amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission in Resolution P99-020, herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit B'also contains specific development standards and policies that mitigate potential environmental impacts. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution P99-19 recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR on September 28, 1999. V. Copies of the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan Final EIR dated Revised October 1999) incorporating all late oral and written comments and responses regarding the DEIR, the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan dated October 1999 incorporating all the Specific Plan changes recommended by the Planning Commission, revised VTTM 44831 "A", revised VTTM 44831 `B", revised VTTM 52667, and Planning Commission recommendation Reso. P99-19 recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Reso. No. P99-20 recommending that the City Council approve the project were forwarded to the City Council for consideration on October 15, 1999. W. The City Council public hearing for the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan and related entitlements and for the North Valencia 2 Annexation were advertised in an V8 page ad in the Signal on October 5, 1999, through on-site posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first-class mail to property owners within the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan project area and within 500 feet of the project area. Property owners within the adjacent potential North Park Annexation area and within 500 feet of the North Park Annexation also received direct first-class mailing of the public notice. X. The City Council held duly noticed public hearings on the North Valencia 2 Annexation and North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan and related entitlements including consideration of the FEIR commencing on October 26, 1999 and continuing on November 9, 1999, November 23, 1999, and November 30, 1999. With the exception of the public hearing on November 30, 1999, these hearings were held at or after 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita for the purpose of providing an opportunity for the Council and the public to consider the proposed project entitlements and environmental issue areas discussed in the FEIR. On October 26, 1999, the Council received an overview presentation from Impact Sciences, preparer of the EIR, concerning the environmental impacts and proposed mitigation for this project. On November 9, 1999 and November 23, 1999, the City Council received Reso No. Page No. 10 information from staff and the applicant as responses to questions raised at previous hearings and public testimony. On November 30, 1999, the City Council held a special meeting beginning at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita for the purpose of taking a site tour of the North Valencia 2 project area. This tour was open to the public. Immediately following the tour the Council closed the public hearing portion of the project and continued this item to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting of January 11, 2000 for the purposes of considering approval documents for this project. Y- During the City Council public hearings for the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan project, letters, public testimony, emails and meeting public comment cards with comments on issues addressed in the environmental document were forwarded to the Council and to Impact Sciences. Impact Sciences prepared written responses to these comments received prior to the close of the public hearing on November 30, 1999. These written responses to comments were forwarded to the City Council throughout their consideration of this project as part of the agenda report documentation and included in the City Clerk's reading file for this project. These written responses to comments have also been incorporated as additional chapters in the Final EIR presented for certification by the City Council on January 11, 2000 SECTION 2. STATE CEQA LAW AND GUIDELINE CONSIDERATIONS- 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 identified in the FEIR that would mitigate or avoid each significant effect identified in the EIR and to incorporate the mitigation monitoring and reporting program including all mitigation measures as conditions of project approval. The DEIR includes an analysis of the extent to which the proposed project's direct and indirect impacts will commit nonrenewable resources to uses that future generations will probably be unable to reverse as required EIRs addressing Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) actions including annexations. .—• Reso No. Page No. 11 C. CEQA requires that the responses to comments in the Final EIR must demonstrate good faith and a well -reasoned analysis, and may not be overly conclusory. In response to several of the comments received, portions of the DEIR have been revised. Although new material has been added to the DEIR through preparation of the FEIR, this new material provides clarification to points and information already included in the DEIR and is not considered to be significant new information or a substantial change to the DEIR that would necessitate recirculation. d. The CEQA Guidelines [California Code of Regulations Section 15003 (c) and (i)] note that state courts have identified that the EIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public generally of the environmental impact of a proposed project. CEQA does not require technical perfection in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness,'and a good -faith effort at full disclosure. A court does not pass upon the correctness of an EIR's environmental conclusions, but only determines if the EIR is sufficient as an informational document. e. Comments received on the DEIR during, and even after, the public review period show that there may be disagreements among experts, particularly in the issue areas of water service and biological resources. The FEIR includes additional clarifying narrative and clarifying exhibits for the purpose of fully disclosing the information sources and reasoning by which levels of impact and mitigation measures were established in the DEIR. Further, the clarifying narrative and exhibits in the FEIR serve the purpose of fully disclosing the information sources and reasoning used by various public and agency DEIR commentors who arrived at divergent conclusions. CEQA provides that disagreement among experts regarding conclusions in the EIR is acceptable, and perfection is not required. Also, exhaustive treatment of issues is not required in an EIR. SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CEQA- The City Council does hereby find that the FEIR for Master Case Nos. 98-183 and 99-055 for GPA 98-002, DA 98-001, Annexations No. 98-02, Specific Plan Prezone (SP Prezone 98-03), the Specific Plan document; VTTM 44831 "A" and VTTM 44831 "B", VTTM 52667, CUP 98-006, OTP 98-020, and HR 99-002 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 "Findings Required by CEW Exhibit C and identified as follows: a. The FEIR identifies issue areas as "Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant", Section 1 of Exhibit C. b. The FEIR identifies issue areas as "Environmental Effects Which Have Been Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant", Section 2 of Exhibit C. Reso No. Page No. 12 C. The FEIR identifies issue areas as "Environmental Areas Where No Significant Impacts Would Occur", Section 3 of Exhibit C. d. The FEIR identifies issue areas as "Cumulative Impacts Which Cannot be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant", Section 4 of Exhibit C. e. The FEIR identifies issue areas as "Cumulative Impacts Which Have Been Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant", Section 5 of Exhibit C. SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF EIR ALTERNATIVES- 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 in its present condition with those that would be generated by the project as proposed. A subsection of this alternative also includes the project that would be allowed under the City's General Plan. A separate subsection of this alternative includes a discussion of the no project alternative consistent with the County Santa Clarita Valley (SCV) Areawide Plan. The No Project Alternative will have reduced environmental impacts but will not meet the project objectives of constructing a balanced project consisting of residential, commercial and recreational uses within the project area to meet anticipated future demands. This alternative will not bring population/employment opportunities to the presently employment poor Santa Clarita Valley. Given the amount of commercial square footage and residential units allowable under both the City's General Plan and the County's SCV Areawide Plan, it is doubtful whether an "upland preserve zone" could be accommodated. In relation to the proposed project and for both the City and County plans, this alternative would have a greater demand on water service, wastewater, solid waste, education, libraries, parks and recreation, fire and police protection, gas and electricity. Project viewsheds would be more intensively developed and there would be increases in traffic and corresponding noise and air quality impacts. Implementation of Alternative 1 with development under either the City's General Plan or under the County SCV Areawide Plan would increase significant impacts in all of these areas previously mentioned and is not preferred over the project from an environmental perspective. This alternative was rejected because it has greater overall impacts than the project. b. Alternative 2, Avoid Development within the 100 -year Floodplain or the County SEA Line. This alternative assumes that development of the project will avoid the 100 -year floodplain, Q -Cap line, and the County SEA Line- whichever poses the most restrictive boundaries. Under this alternative, 1,650 residential units (1,300 single family, 350 multi -family) would be constructed. This is a reduction Reso No. Page No. 13 of 250 residential units. Both the junior high school use and commercial square footage would remain the same as the proposed project. The limitation of development outside of the 100 -year floodplain, Q -Cap Line, and the County SEA limits development to areas outside of these areas of environmental sensitivity. This alternative would meet the project objectives of a balanced community providing for residential, commercial and recreational opportunities. However, it would provide somewhat fewer housing opportunities to meet the anticipated demand for housing expected for the area and there would have to be greater or more dense development in other areas to match this future housing demand. A reduction in housing opportunities without a reduction in housing demand results in high housing costs and fewer opportunities for affordable housing throughout the planning area. Although Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior to the proposed project, this alternative has been rejected in favor of the proposed project because this 'alternative would limit the range of housing opportunities and not provide the same housing opportunities as the project. Furthermore, housing unit reductions are contrary to citywide goals of making housing affordable. C. Alternative 3, The Avoidance of Hillsides Greater Than 10 Percent Slopes. The purpose of this alternative would be to avoid slopes over 10 percent and avoid oak trees (except as necessary for the construction of Decoro Drive Bridge). The number of dwelling units would remain the same, but because of the clustering, a more limited range of housing types could be offered. The housing and commercial mix would remain the same. The alternative would still provide varied residential, commercial and recreational opportunities. The City's General Plan also envisions higher density dwelling units in the project area and Specific Plan that would most likely require development on areas greater than 10 percent. There would be less usable land for the school facility due to compression of the development area to avoid slopes. This alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. However, this alternative has been rejected in favor of the proposed project because this alternative would limit housing opportunities, and thus would not meet the project objectives. d. Alternative 4, The 30 Percent Reduced Density Alternative. This alternative would reduce dwelling units and commercial square footage on the project site by 30 percent. This alternative would still provide varied housing, commercial and recreational opportunities. The City's General Plan envisions higher density dwelling units in the project area and Specific Plan. This alternative does not meet the project objectives because it reduces the number of housing units available and reduces commercial square footage. The reduction in 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. This alternative would be environmentally superior to the project and the other alternatives. However, Reso No. Page No. 14 this alternative would limit the amount of housing and employment opportunities, and thus would not accommodate the housing or employment opportunities to meet growth demands. Limitations on housing opportunities and reductions in housing units without a reduction in demand result in higher housing costs, contrary to affordable housing goals. Therefore, this alternative does not meet the project's objectives. In order to meet the anticipated demand for housing and jobs expected for the area, there would have to be greater, denser, development in other areas. Because this alternative produces the least degree of impacts among the alternatives analyzed, it is identified as the environmentally superior alternative as required by CEQA. e. Modification of Project Description Based on Alternatives Discussions. During the Planning Commission consideration of this project, there was extensive discussion of oak tree preservation, particularly redesigning the proposed grading to avoid oak tree impacts and minimize earth movement along slopes (Alternative 3) and increasing setbacks to minimize impacts to the SEA and sensitive habitat area (Alternative 2). The resulting Planning Commission project recommendation includes a modification of the project whereby removals of scrub oaks would be allowed; however proposed removal of the Coast Live Oaks and Valley Oaks on the project area were prohibited. As a result of this project modification based on Alternative 3, the grading was redesigned and reduced to save the Coast Live Oaks and Valley Oaks. No modifications were made to the project for the proposed encroachment or removal of several oaks necessary to allow for the construction of Decoro Drive Bridge, a secondary highway shown on the Circulation Element Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The Planning Commission recommended that the proposed section of the river trail on the west side of the creek be moved adjacent to Dickason Drive with the elimination of a trail undercrossing at Decoro Drive Bridge for the purpose of minimizing impacts upon sensitive habitat within San Francisquito Creek. Increasing setbacks in a portion of the project area to minimize impacts to the SEA and sensitive habitat area is a modification to the project based on information provided in Alternative 2. With these actions, the Planning Commission's recommendation reflects a variation of the project with modifications based on discussions of both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR- 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: 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 Reso No. Page No. 15 recommendation to the City Council. C. That the Final Environmental Impact Report was presented to the City Council, the decision-making body, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project. d. That, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, the FEIR 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 C. e. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081, modifications have occurred to the project to reduce significant effects based on alternatives (Alternative 2 and Alternative 3) analyzed in the environmental impact report as described above in Section 4(e). 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 North Valencia No. 2 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. g: That the Final EIR reflects the decision -maker's independent judgment and analysis. SECTION 6. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (SOC)- 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 there is substantial evidence that supports that the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan and related entitlements, the North Valencia 2 Annexation and the North Park Annexation project will have community benefits, including specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits, that outweigh the significant effects on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. The Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), herein incorporated as Exhibit D, identifies and weighs the significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant with the community benefits from this project. SECTION 7. CERTIFICATION OF FEIR AND ADOPTION OF SOC- The City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Final EIR SCH No. 98111201 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 Public Resources Code Section 12081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has considered the project benefits as balanced against the unavoidable adverse environmental effects and hereby determines that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse Reso No. Page No. 16 environmental effects; therefore, the City Council determines that the adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable. The City Council certifies the Final EIR documents and adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. SECTION 9. 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 LHS. S:\pbs\advance\nva2\resfeir PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SANTA CLARITA this 1 1 t h day of 4 MO -OR J 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 11 th day of Ja n n n ry , 200-0_ by the following vote of the City Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: S: \pbs/advance/nv2/ResLU COUNCILMEMBERS: Ferry, Weste, Darcy COUNCILMEMBERS: Heidt, Klajic COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY CLERK Reso No. Page No. 17 Exhibit A Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Incorporated by Reference Reso No. Page No. 18 Exhibit B Specific Plan Document and Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 44831 "A', 44831 "B", and 52667 Incorporated by Reference Reso No. Page No. 19 FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CEQA Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project where an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless the public agency makes one or more findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale of each finding. The possible findings, which must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (hereafter, "Finding 1"). (2) Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency (hereafter, "Finding 2"). (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR (hereafter, "Finding 3"). For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the public agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City adopts these findings as part of its certification of the Final EIR for the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan. SECTION 1 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH Reso No. Page No. 20 CANNOT BE TO A LEVEL LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The City Council has determined that, although EIR mitigation measures and conditions of approval imposed on the project will provide substantial mitigation of the identified significant environmental effects, these environmental effects cannot be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance. Consequently, in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared (see below) to substantiate the City's decision to accept these unavoidable significant effects when balanced against the significant benefits afforded by the project. This section sets forth the significant unavoidable effects of the project and, with respect to each significant impact, identifies one or more of the required CEQA findings, states facts in support of these findings and refers to the Statement of Overriding Considerations. It should be noted that the EIR addressed both the proposed project and "Option B". Option B differs in the location of a proposed Junior High School and adjacent park site compared to the proposed project. All of the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project are the same for Option B. Therefore, unless otherwise noted, all of the discussion listed below is applicable to both the project and Option B. 1.1 AIR, QUALITY 1.1.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. CO, VOC, NOx and PM10 emissions would be expected to exceed recommended thresholds during the construction phases. During the finishing phases of development, emissions of VOC would exceed recommended thresholds. These emissions would consist of evaporative emissions from architectural coatings and building materials (i.e., paints, solvents, roofing materials, etc.). This analysis assumes that only readily -available surface -coating materials meeting all current SCAQMD rules would be used to paint the surfaces of the proposed structures (materials not meeting SCAQMD rules are not available for sale or use within the Basin). While such emissions would be no different and no more severe than any other coating activities (e.g., repainting an existing structure), these emissions do exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds and construction -related finishing impacts would be considered significant. Reso No. Page No. 21 The project at buildout and in full operation would generate total emissions of CO, VOC, NOx, and PM10 which would exceed SCAQMD recommended thresholds. As the amount of emissions would exceed the recommended thresholds, this impact would be considered significant. 1.1.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3. 1.1.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that the identified significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible; however, those impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated to below a level of significance, and the remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (see discussion below): Mitigation Measures 4.1-1 through 4.4-27. 1.2 BIOTA 1.2.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Because of the high biological value of the riparian woodland on the site and because the biological values of these areas after planting and restoration will likely not be realized for some time and never be truly replicated, impacts on riparian ecosystem as a result of loss of riparian habitat are significant. Due to the overall sensitivity of SERs, and because any permanent loss of habitat within a SEA will effectively reduce the overall size of the SEA, any net loss of land within a SEA is considered a significant impact. 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 the signage and retaining barriers. With respect to recreational 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 increased human and domestic animal presence Reso No. Page No. 22 on the riparian resources of the site remain a significant adverse impact. Potential impacts on the ability of UTS to move upstream as a result of higher velocity water flows in San Francisquito Creek in the Decoro Bridge area remains a significant impact. In summary, impacts on the riparian ecosystem as a result of vegetation removal, the net loss of SEA 19 habitat, increased human and domestic animal use, potential impacts on unarmored threespined stickleback movement are significant. All of these are considered unavoidable significant impacts that cannot be fully mitigated. 1.2.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3. 1.2.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that the identified significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible; however, those impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated to below a level of significance, and the remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (see discussion below): Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 through 4.6-36 1.3 SOLID WASTE 1.3.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Assuming no solid wastes from the proposed project would be recycled (a worst-case scenario), the proposed project would generate approximately 22,458 pounds of solid waste per day, which is equivalent to approximately 4;099 tons per year. Until other disposal alternatives that will be adequate to serve existing and future uses for the foreseeable future are found and because landfill space is a finite resource, project solid and hazardous waste impacts within the City and County are considered unavoidably significant. 1.3.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3. Reso No. Page No. 23 1.3.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that the identified significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible; however, those impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated to below a level of significance, and the remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (see discussion below): Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 through 4.11-17. 1.4 VISUAL RESOURCES 1.4.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The project would result in a change in the visual character of the project site, in that the site would be converted from vacant land to a man-made urban environment. The proposed project would be most visible from McBean Parkway, Newhall Ranch Road, Copper Hill Drive, Decoro Drive/Bridge, and would also be visible from the existing and future residential neighborhoods to the north and east of the project site. The construction of Decoro Bridge would introduce a large structure that would significantly modify northern and southern viewsheds of the creek. Additionally, both easterly and westerly perspectives of the creek (from existing and proposed residential units) would be significantly modified as a result of the Decoro Bridge construction. For this reason, construction of Decoro Bridge will have a significant effect on visual resources. 1.4.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQtA Findings 1 and 3. 1.4.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that the identified significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible; however, those impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated to below a level of significance, and the remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (see discussion below): Mitigation Measures 4.8-1 through 4.8-7. Reso No. Page No. 24 1.5 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 1.5.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The conversion of prime agricultural land, an irreplaceable resource, is a significant impact. No feasible mitigation exists for the conversion of approximately 23 acres of prime agricultural land due to implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, its conversion would be considered an unavoidable significant project impact. 1.5.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3. 1.5.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that the identified significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible; however, those impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated to below a level of significance, and the remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (see discussion below): Mitigation Measures 4.18-1 and 4.18-2 Reso No. Page No. 25 SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH HAVE BEEN MITIGATED TO A LEVEL LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT All EIR mitigation measures (as discussed below and as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan) are incorporated by reference into these findings. It should be noted that the EIR addressed both the proposed project and "Option B". Option B differs in the location of a proposed Junior High School and adjacent park site compared to the proposed project. All of the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project are the same for Option B. Therefore, unless otherwise noted, all of the discussion listed below is applicable to both the project and Option B. The Council has determined that these mitigation measures and conditions of approval will result in substantially mitigating the following environmental effects, and that these effects have been mitigated to below a level of significance. 2.1 GEOLOGIC 2.1.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Some portions of the site have expansive soils, existing landslides areas, which are proven to failure during intense rainfall and/or earthquake generated ground motions, and has the potential for debris flow. Proposed transition lots could cause water to be collected on graded pads which in turn would aggravate seepage and groundwater related problems. 2.1.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 2.1.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The environmental effects identified in the Final EIR are mitigated to below a level of significance with the following adopted mitigation measures: Mitigation Measures 4.1-1 through 4.1-24. Reso No. Page No. 26 2.2 FLOODWATER QUALITY 2.2.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. As proposed, implementation of the Drainage Concept Plan would reduce post -development storm water flows from each drainage area compared to existing conditions during a Capital Flood event. Furthermore, on-site storm drain conveyance facilities would be designed and constructed to accommodate flows from a Capital storm, and standard mitigation measures would be applied. Changes to the project site would reduce site sedimentation to below existing levels and would eliminate debris volume generation (approximately 16,470 cy) throughout the project site. Consequently, downstream lands would benefit, as flood flows would be reduced through removal of sediment material from the water. Lastly, velocities would not increase; therefore, there would be no increase in scouring. In summary, the bulking of the floodwaters by sedimentation would be reduced, resulting in lower flood rates. 2.2.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 2.2.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The environmental effects identified in the Final EIR are mitigated to below a level of significance with the following adopted mitigation measures: Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 through 4.2-4. 2.3 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION 2.3.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The proposed project development would generate 31,865 average daily trips (ADT) of which 16,713 (52 percent) would come from residential land uses and the rest from non-residential land uses. Without mitigation, the intersection of Valencia Boulevard and Magic Mountain Parkway, I-5 northbound ramp at Magic Mountain Parkway and also Bouquet Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road would be significantly impacted and some other twelve intersections are impacted. These roadways include: McBean Parkway north of Magic Mountain Parkway, Newhall Ranch Road east of Reso No. Page No. 27 McBean Parkway, Rye Canyon east of Avenue Scott, Copper Hill Drive east of Newhall Ranch Road, Bouquet Canyon Road north of Newhall Ranch Road, Bouquet Canyon Road south of Newhall Ranch Road, Magic Mountain Parkway east of I-5, Valencia Boulevard north of Magic Mountain Parkway, Avenue Tibbitts south of Newhall Ranch Road, Newhall Ranch Road west of Bouquet Canyon Road, and Avenue Tibbitts south of Avenue Scott. 2.3.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 2.3.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The significant effects identified in the Final EIR are mitigated to below a level of significance with the following adopted mitigation measures: Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 through 4.3-13. 2.4 NOISE 2.4.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Project construction may intermittently exceed noise standards and could, without mitigation, result in short-term significant noise impacts. Noise at buildout would be traffic generated by the project as well as human activities on the site. Redistribution of traffic due to project -related roadway improvements, traffic on Newhall Ranch Road west of Bouquet Canyon Road and on Seco Canyon Road south of Copper Hill Drive would be redistributed, resulting in a reduction in noise by 2.5 and 0.1 dB(A) CNEL on these roadway segments, respectively, which would be a positive noise impact. 2.4.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 2.4.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The environmental effects identified in the Final EIR are mitigated to below a level of significance with the following adopted mitigation measures: Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 through 4.5-9. Reso No. Page No. 28 2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 2.5.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The surface field inspection did not locate significant prehistoric, historic, or modern period sites or materials. Information provided from the record search and from field surveys did not indicate the presence of cultural resources on the project site and standard mitigation measures would be applied. 2.5.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 2.5.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The environmental effects identified in the Final EIR are mitigated to below a level of significance with the following adopted mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure 4.7-1. 2.6 WATER RESOURCES 2.6.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Existing water demand in V WC service area is approximately 22,000 acre-feet per year and existing water supply is approximately 45,000 acre-feet per year. Although site grading and development would be continuous until project buildout and because water demand for grading activities (discussed above) would be less than would be consumed by project development at buildout, water demand from both construction and operational activities on the site would not exceed project buildout demand of 1,244 acre- feet per year. The supplies of water which would be needed from Valencia Water Company for both construction and operation of the proposed project are currently available, and standard mitigation measures would be applied. 2.6.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 2.6.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The environmental effects identified . in the Final EIR are mitigated to below a level of significance with the following adopted mitigation measures: Reso No. Page No. 29 Mitigation Measures 4.9-1 through 4.9-8. 2.7 WASTEWATER DISPOSAL 2.7.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Project generated wastewater treatment generation of 0.50 mgd plus existing wastewater treatment generation of 15.04 mgd, would result in a total wastewater treatment generation of 15.54 mgd. The existing treatment capacity of the SCVJSS is 19.10 mgd, which is more than adequate to handle project related increases and standard mitigation measures would be applied. 2.7.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding, 1. 2.7.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The environmental effects identified in the Final EIR are mitigated to below a level of significance with the following adopted mitigation measures: Mitigation Measures 4.10-1 through 4.10-5. 2.8 UTILITIES 2.8.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Given that supplies of these materials are adequate, and no element of this proposed project would require excessive use of any of these energy resources and standard mitigation measures would be applied. 2.8.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 2.8.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The environmental effects identified in the Final EIR are mitigated to below a level of significance with the following adopted mitigation measures: Mitigation Measures 4.12-1 through 4.12-3. Reso No. Page No. 30 2.9 LIBRARY SERVICES 2.9.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Development of the project would result in increased demands on library facilities and would, according to the County Library planning standards, create a demand for 2,002 square feet of library space with 11,438 items (books, periodicals, audio cassettes, videos etc.). It is the opinion of the County Board of Supervisors and the County Public Library that payment of the library fee of $569.87 per unit of residential development would mitigate new development impacts on the County Public Library and standard mitigation measures would be applied. 2.9.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 2.9.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The environmental effects identified in the Final EIR are mitigated to below a level of significance with the following adopted mitigation measure: Mitigation measure 4.14-1. 2.10 FIRE SERVICES 2.10.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Access to the project site would be provided from Newhall Ranch Road, McBean Parkway, Copper Hill Road, Dickason Drive, Smyth Drive and Decoro Road. The internal circulation system for the project would be consistent with City and County standards regarding access (i.e., roadway widths, length of single access streets, cul-de-sac dimensions, and street parking restrictions, etc). The proposed water supply system would include water mains and fire hydrants, and the provision of fire flows to meet County standards. As development of the project site occurs, fire hazards associated with the natural vegetative cover will be eliminated due to its replacement with urban landscape vegetation, which is irrigated and less combustible than the existing vegetation. The potential for wildland fire hazards will still exist at the wildland/urban interface due to: 1) the presence of brush in the San Francisquito Creek; 2) increased human activity; and 3) the potential for fires due to accidental and arson -related causes. Reso No. Page No. 31 2.10.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 2.10.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The environmental effects identified in the Final EIR are mitigated to below a level of significance with the following adopted mitigation measures: Mitigation Measures 4.15-1 through 4.15-13. i111k "l�;7� CfiY\�l7�N si7 sl;�l CiI►1 2.11.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Project park requirements would be met based on the City Ordinance and Quimby Act standards through a combination of the methods/project features. The proposed project also includes the creation of a system of open space of substantial size, which is referred to as the San Francisquito Creek Conservation Area. Included in this area are San Francisquito Creek and the areas adjacent to the Creek referred to as the "upland preserve zone." All totaled, these features occupy approximately 93.2 acres, or 24 percent of the project site. The City may receive a donation of 93.2 acres of open space from the project applicant. This feature of the project is considered to be an important local and regional recreational and scenic amenity of the project. In fact, because the project proposes active park facilities that will serve more than local residents, it would actually help alleviate the existing negative condition of a citywide shortage of parkland. Consequently, impacts to local parks would be considered beneficial and standard mitigation measures would be applied. 2.11.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 2.11.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The environmental effects identified in the Final EIR are mitigated to below a level of significance with the following adopted mitigation measures: Mitigation measures 4.16-1 through 4.16-7. Reso No. Page No. 32 2.12 SHERIFF SERVICES 2.12.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. During the construction phase, Sheriffs service requirements on the project site will be increased over existing demands. Due to the presence of building materials, construction equipment, and related temporary office buildings, the potential for vandalism and theft is greater, thereby increasing Sheriffs service demands for property protection. The project would be developed in an area that is surrounded by similar types of land uses (i.e., residential, commercial, recreation, etc.) and would expand the service area of the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriffs Station under the agreement between the City of Santa Clarita and the County of Los Angeles. Without mitigation, significant impacts on Sheriffs Department response times to the project area are anticipated, due to exceedance of response to an immediate incident. It is not anticipated that the design of the project would preclude implementation of an evacuation plan which would provide for the safe movement of future residents and employees. All new development in the City of Santa Clarita would be responsible for funding increases in demand for Sheriff services attributable to them through the same funding mechanism as the project. Therefore, with the continued allocation of General Fund revenues by the City of Santa Clarita to maintain existing policing levels of service to the City, no significant impacts to Sheriff services within the. City would occur as it builds out. 2.12.2 FINDINGS, The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 2.12.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The environmental effects identified in the Final EIR are mitigated to below a level of significance with the following adopted mitigation measures: Mitigation measures 4.19-1 through 4.19-6. 2.13 HUMAN MADE FIAZARDS 2.13.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The mineral leases with the operating companies require the clean-up of sites in conjunction with abandonment of the lease. Once Reso No. Page No. 33 these sites have been remediated to local, Federal and State standards, they would be considered safe for development, would not pose a hazard to people, animal, or plant populations, and would, therefore, not result in a significant impact. Due to easement restrictions, the proposed project designates only open areas, trails, recreation, utilities, drainage structures, parking and roadway uses within the SCE transmission line easements; no permanent habitable structures (i.e., residences, businesses, schools, etc.) would be located within these easements. There is no established scientific basis to suggest that the project as designed will result in any significant adverse biological effects from EMF exposure. Laboratory testing and analyses indicated that constituents likely to be present as a result of sludge disposal on the site are not present in concentrations considered to be hazardous to human health and life. The report concluded that, "...based on all information acquired during this assessment, that little to no impact has been made on the soil or groundwater at the site as a result of the disposal of sludge." Results from a health risk assessment of adjacent properties indicate that the total estimated cancer risks to future residents, employees, and visitors from agricultural usage are below the "one in a million" lifetime cancer risk level considered by the DHS to be acceptable and standard mitigation measures would be applied. 2.12.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 2.12.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The environmental effects identified in the Final EIR are mitigated to below a level of significance with the following adopted mitigation measures: Mitigation measures 4.10-1 through 4.20-4. Reso No. Page No. 34 SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS WHERE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WOULD OCCUR (NO AUTIGATION REQUIRED) 3.1 EDUCATION The City has determined that, due to agreements already in place, impacts to educational facilities will not occur, consequently no mitigation measures are required. 3.2 POPULATION/HOUSING/EMPLOYMENT The proposed project would not result in greater growth or concentration of population in the area than already permitted under the existing General Plan, consequently, it would not have a significant impact on population. Because this project is adding supply to the housing forecasts for this area, the housing units proposed are consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation for the project site, and the project would not induce substantial growth or concentration of population not otherwise envisioned, development of this project would not result in significant housing impacts. Given the above consideration, the city has determined that no mitigation measures are required. Reso No. Page No. 35 SECTION 4 SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT 4.1 BIOTA 4.1.1 SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS. Significant cumulative impacts that remain unavoidably significant under both the proposed project and Option B include the loss of riparian habitat as part of the San Francisquito Creek ecosystem; the net loss of SEA 19 habitat; and the increase in human and domestic animal use of riparian and upland habitat areas. 4.1.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 3. 4.1.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. Because of the high biological value of the riparian woodland on the site and other areas and because the biological values of these areas after planting and restoration will likely not be realized for some time and never be truly replicated, impacts on riparian resources and the riparian ecosystem remain cumulatively significant. Because the net loss of SEA habitat can't be replaced, impacts to SEA 19 remain cumulatively significant. In addition, because it is unknown whether measures to mitigate increased human and domestic animal impacts on biological resources can feasibly reduce these impacts, and because human and domestic animal use of riparian and upland habitat areas is expected to continue to occur as a result of project implementation, this impact will remain cumulatively significant. 4.2 SOLID WASTE 4.2.1 SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS. Cumulative development Reso No. Page No. 36 within the Santa Clarita Valley area would generate 626,230 tons per year of solid waste, as well as hazardous waste. The project's 4,099 tons per year (without recycling) would represent 0.6 percent of this Valley total. Land suitable for landfill development or expansion is quantitatively finite and limited due to numerous environmental, regulatory and political constraints. 4.2.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3. 4.2.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. Alternative solid waste disposal technologies that could substantially reduce landfill disposal will be developed and legislatively approved in the future; given the market forces that drive the solid waste industry, it is reasonable to assume they will. However, until other disposal alternatives that will be adequate to serve existing and future uses for the foreseeable future are found and because landfill space is a finite resource project, cumulative solid and hazardous waste impacts within the City and County are considered unavoidably significant. 4.3 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 4.3.1 SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS. The conversion of prime agricultural land to urban uses constitutes a loss of an irreplaceable resource and would result in the loss of 23 acres of prime agricultural land. Given that implementation of the project would eliminate 23 acres of prime farmland, the project's contribution to the cumulative impact of development on prime agricultural land in the region is significant. 4.3.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 3. 4.3.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. Conversion of agricultural land to urban uses has a long history in Los Angeles County. According to the Los Angeles County crop reports, acreage in production for fruit and nut trees, vegetable crops, cut flowers, and field crops decreased over the period extending from 1965 to 1996, whereas acreage in production for nursery products and rangeland increased over this period. Of the total acreage under crop production in Los Angeles in 1996, approximately 55.7 percent was cultivated for alfalfa, grain, barley, and miscellaneous field crops, which contributed to only 4.2 percent of the County's total Reso No. Page No. 37 crop revenues of $222.2 million for that year. Conversely, 11.2 percent of the land was used to cultivate nursery products, which made up 74.1 percent of the total 1996 crop revenues. While it is not within the scope of this document to quantify the amount of prime agricultural land which is under pressure to be converted to urban uses in Los Angeles County and the remainder of southern California, it is highly likely (and probably certain) that such cumulative development pressure exists and will continue with or without implementation of the proposed project. Given that implementation of the project would eliminate 23 acres of prime farmland, the project's contribution to the cumulative impact of development on prime agricultural land in the region is significant. The conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses is a policy issue which lies in the hands of the local jurisdiction. Reso No. Page No. 38 SECTION 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN MITIGATED TO A LEVEL LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT 4.6 TRAFFIC/ACCESS 4.6.1 SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS. Using the Alternative Highway Plan network, several roadway links would be significantly impacted because the volume to capacity ratios would exceed 1.00. If cumulative projects are approved, additional improvements beyond what has been identified for project mitigation will be required. 4.6.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 2. 4.6.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The significant effects identified in the Final EIR are mitigated to below a level of significance with the adoption of the following feasible mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure 4.3-13. With respect to impacts on the regional transportation system, project -specific environmental analysis for other cumulative projects shall comply with the requirements of the Congestion Management Program which provides lead agencies with the opportunity to assess each project's improvement program to ensure that it meets its mitigation goal. Assuming that the mitigation measures discussed above that are attributable to the proposed project are implemented along with the project, and assuming that the City/County requires fair -share participation of other projects in the mitigation measures, no unavoidable significant project or cumulative traffic and access impacts would occur. 4.7 NOISE 4.7.1 SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS. Even though, significant noise Reso No. Page No. 39 impact are expected to occur at this location as a result of cumulative development, the traffic study indicates that the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan project would only contribute a small fraction to the long-range cumulative noise to the roadway segment and that, after mitigation, the project's contribution would be negligible. 4.7.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 4.7.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The significant effects identified in the Final EIR are mitigated to below a level of significance with the adoption of the following feasible mitigation measures: • For single family residential lots located within the 60 dB(A) CNEL or greater noise contour as identified in Table 4.5-8, Predicted Cumulative Roadway Noise Levels at Noise Sensitive Locations, of the Draft EIR, an acoustic analysis shall be submitted concurrently with submittal of precise development plans. The acoustic analysis shall show that exterior noise in outdoor living areas (e.g., back yards, patios, etc.) will be reduced to 60 dB(A) CNEL or less. • For multi -family residential lots located within the 65 dB(A) CNEL or greater noise contour as identified in Table 4.5-8, Predicted Cumulative Roadway Noise Levels at Noise Sensitive Locations, of the Draft EIR, an acoustic analysis shall be submitted concurrently with submittal of precise development plans. The acoustic analysis shall show that exterior noise in outdoor living areas (e.g., back yards, patios, etc.) will be reduced to 65 dB(A) CNEL or less and that each building is sited and/or designed so that interior noise levels resulting from outside sources will be no greater than 45 dB(A) CNEL. 4.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.8.1 SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS. Impacts upon cultural resources tend to be site specific and are assessed on a site -by -site basis. Where resources exist, implementation of cumulative development in the region would represent an incremental adverse impact to cultural resources. However, provided that proper mitigation, as defined by CEQA, is implemented in conjunction with cumulative project development in the area, no Reso No. Page No. 40 significant cumulative impacts are anticipated. In fact, if mitigation is properly carried out, a positive impact on cumulative cultural resource information would occur; that is, mitigation measures would result in the acquisition of additional scientific information about the prehistory of the region, thereby serving to clarify our reconstruction of prehistoric lifeways. The artifacts obtained from the sites during mitigation procedures would be preserved for future analysis and study. 4.8.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. 4.8.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. Provided that proper mitigation, as defined by CEQA, is implemented in conjunction with cumulative project development in the area, no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated. 4.9 WATER RESOURCES 4.9.1 SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS. A number of development projects are pending or approved in the vicinity of the Project site. The effects of those projects, in conjunction with the Project, could have a significant cumulative impact on water service. Total cumulative demand under DMS Buildout Scenario would be for approximately 31,861 acre-feet of water, which would be 13,139 acre-feet less than the projected supply of 45,000 acre- feet per year (see Table 4.9-5). As a result, given existing and near -future water supplies of Valencia Water Company, there is adequate water for the project and no cumulative water supply impacts would occur under the DMS Buildout Scenario. The second scenario, herein referred to as the "Santa Clarita Valley [SCV] Cumulative Buildout Scenario," and Scenario 2, is based on the CLWA Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP). The assumptions contained in the IWRP are based on the growth projections and land use specification of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan, Los Angeles County General Plan (Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan), and the Ventura County General Plan (Piro Area Plan). This includes the proposed project, plus all known active pending Area Plan and General Plan amendment requests for additional urban development in the County unincorporated area and the City of Santa Clarita, respectively. Reso No. Page No. 41 A mid -point total water demand under this scenario would be 157,500 acre-feet per year, with consideration of water recycling measures. Demand has been declining on a per capita basis after normalizing usage for precipitation, conservation and growth. Under the SCV Cumulative Buildout Scenario, CLWA has a projected water supply of 156,700 - 165,700 acre-feet per year. Of this amount, 32,500 acre-feet would come from the Alluvial Aquifer. A series of studies conducted between 1986 and 1988 estimated that amount could be pumped annually from the aquifer on a long term basis and during dry year conditions wtihout causing problems with drawdown or water quality. Since 1994, purveyors of water in the CLWA service area have pumped more than 32,500 acre-feet annually, pumping 36,648 acre- feet in 1998. Even with this level of withdrawl, however, data from representative wells placed the level of water in the Alluvial aquifer higher than the historic low measured in 1965, and the water meets all State and Federal quality standards. These data indicate that the aquifer is in good condition and can supply more than 32,500 acre-feet annually during wet years. An _ additional 11,000 — 20,000 acre-feet of groundwater per year will be supplied from the Saugus Aquifer. Imported water entitlements constitute the remaining 95,200 acre-feet per year of the projected supply, which includes a recent acquisition of an additional 41,000 acre-feet entitlement from the Kern County Water Authority. The projected imported water supply properly reflects the full entitlement, taking into consideration the plans and programs in existence within the CLWA and the State of California to increase the reliability of existing entitlements, to augment water supplies and to enhance demand management practices. The demand projected under this scenario has a range (800 acre-feet per year less than the CLWA's 2020 projected water supply up to 8,200 acre-feet more than CLWA's 2020 projected water supply.) Even without the Project, water demand from Santa Clarita Valley build -out could exceed projected supplies, which would be a significant cumulative impact. Because the water demand for CLWA supplies at Santa Clarita Valley buildout, including the proposed Project, could exceed CLWA's projected supplies, the SCV Cumulative Buildout Scenario could result in a significant cumulative impact to water availability. Reso No. Page No. 42 Given CLWA's efforts to expand its sources of water supply, and the January 10, 1996 CLWA- adopted resolution which changes CLWA's method of water allocation to the four water purveyors, it is not unreasonable to assume that water could be made available to development within the CLWA service area (including the Valencia Water Company service area) as it builds out. There is the potential for the cumulative impacts on CLWA and Valencia Water Company to be significant; however, because neither CLWA nor Valencia Water Company has fully expanded their sources of supply, there is the potential for the cumulative impacts on CLWA and Valencia Water Company to be significant. CLWA, however, has updated its Capital Facilities Program and prepared an Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP) in order to address long-range future water needs of the four water purveyors within its service area, including Valencia Water Company. The Capital Facilities Program and IWRP are necessary steps for the agency to take in order to plan for water supplies, facilities and financing programs to provide for the long range water service within its territory. 4.9.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 2. 4.9.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. All future subdivisions proposed in the Santa Clarita Valley planning area (in addition to the project) are required to demonstrate that an adequate supply of water exists prior to map recordation. Maps shall not be permitted to be recorded until proof of adequate water supply is provided. With this requirement in place, no significant cumulative impacts to water availability or water quality would occur. 4.10 WASTEWATER DISPOSAL 4.10.1 SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS. Buildout of the DMS scenario without the proposed project would result in an additional wastewater generation of 11.60 mgd, resulting in a total generation of 26.64 mgd. With the proposed project, total generation would increase by 0. 50 mgd, to a total generation at DMS Buildout of 27.14 mgd for both Districts 26 and 32 combined. Given that the existing combined capacity for Districts 26 and 32 is 19.10 mgd and that their capacities are not anticipated to be expanded the additional 9.0 mgd (to 28.1 Reso No. Page No. 43 mgd) until 2002, development of this scenario without treatment plant expansion would result in a significant wastewater treatment and disposal impact if all pending, approved, and recorded project were to come on-line before the year 2002. Numerous safeguards exist within the County's project approval process to ensure available treatment capacity for new development within the service areas of CSDLAC. As previously indicated, Sanitation Districts 26 and 32 collect connection fees to pay for the full cost of facility expansions (including increasing water reclamation plant capacity). With the safeguards in place no significant cumulative wastewater treatment impacts would occur. A third scenario evaluated in the cumulative impact analysis is buildout of the CSDLAC Facilities Plan for the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System which completed its own environmental review (a draft EIR was circulated in July 1997). The Facilities Plan, with a horizon year of 2015, estimates future wastewater generation for the probable future service area of County Sanitation Districts 26 and 32 in order to anticipate the future treatment capacity and wastewater conveyance needs of the SCVJSS. According to CSDLAC estimates, total flows projected from the Santa Clarita Valley in 2015, exclusive of those that would be treated at the proposed Newhall Ranch WRP, would be 34.1 mgd. The Facilities Plan anticipates that a treatment capacity of 34.1 mgd would be constructed by 2015. As a result, cumulative impacts on the SCVJSS would not be significant under this scenario. 4.10.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 2. 4.10.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. All new development projects within Santa Clarita Valley are reviewed under the DMS and shall be approved by the City of Santa Clarita and the County only if the project applicants can demonstrate that adequate wastewater treatment capacity will be available to serve the project. In order to fund required capacity expansions, all new development projects would be required to pay wastewater connection fees to pay for the cost of providing service. In the long-term (i.e., the year 2015), no significant impacts would occur because the combined District capacity would be expanded accordingly to accommodate new development and because safeguards exist within the CSDLAC to ensure that adequate treatment capacity exists within the SCVJSS before new development is approved. Reso No. Page No. 44 4.14 PARKS AND RECREATION 4.14.1 SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS. Upon buildout of this scenario (without the proposed project), and using household figures required by the City of Santa Clarita, there would be a total population of 465,229 persons, which generates a demand for 1,396 acres of parkland. This figure is derived assuming 3 acres/1000 persons per the State requirements of the Quimby Act. When the additional demand for 17.1 acres of parkland created by the project is added to this figure, there is a cumulative demand of approximately 1,413 acres. Cumulative impacts under this scenario would exacerbate the current shortage of local parks, and would be considered a cumulatively significant impact without mitigation. 4.14.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 2. 4.14.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. Implementation of cumulative projects would incrementally increase demand for local park facilities in an area where such facilities are already below locally -adopted standards. Compliance with the mitigation outlined above would ensure that future projects meet the City and Quimby Act standards for local parks. This action would mitigate each future project's demand for local parks, and no significant cumulative impact is expected. However, a parkland deficit would remain. The significant effects identified in the Final EIR are mitigated to below a level of significance with the adoption of the following mitigation measure: The City of Santa Clarita Unified Development Code (as provided for through the State of California's Quimby Act) mandates that for each 1,000 residents in a new development project, 3.0 acres of parkland shall be dedicated, or the equivalent value of park improvements shall be constructed, or in -lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Santa Clarita. A combination of the three actions may also be used to satisfy these requirements. Each cumulative project shall meet its City (and Quimby Act) parkland requirement. Reso No. Page No. 45 SECTION 6 FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION MEASURES Potential mitigation measures were suggested by various commentators in response to the significant impacts of the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan project. As presented throughout the Final EIR, suggested mitigation measures were either adopted, adopted with revisions or rejected. The City Council has reviewed the Final EIR, including the suggested mitigation measures that were either adopted, adopted with revisions or rejected. Based upon that review, the City has either adopted, adopted with revisions or rejected the various suggested mitigation measures. Presented below are two tables which show, by environmental topic, the letter or testimony from an agency, a group, or a person that presented a suggested mitigation measure, the specific comment containing the measure(s), and the specific response presented in the Final EIR explaining how the measure was addressed (i.e., adopted, adopted with revisions or rejected). Table 1 addresses suggested mitigation measures that were adopted or adopted with revisions, and Table 2 addresses suggested mitigation measures that were rejected. Reso No. Page No. 46 Table 1 Suggested Mitigation Measures -Adopted or Adopted with Revisions Topic Letter Presenting Suggested Response Presenting Reason ft Mitigation Measures Adopting/Revising Suggested Mitigation Fire Letter Received from C.F. Raysbrook, State of California Department of Fish and Game, dated May 12, 1999 Biota Letter Received from C.F. Raysbrook, State of California Department of Fish and Game, dated May 12, 1999 Letter Received from Michael Jarocki, The Trail Riders Association, June 10, 1999 Letter Received from Lynn Plambeck, Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment, dated July 25, 1999 Traffic/Access Letter Received from Stephen Buswell, California Department of Transportation, District 7, IGR/CEQA Program, dated May 11, 1999 Libraries Planning Commission Hearing of May 13, 1999 Response 3 Responses 3, 7, 9 and 11 Response 14 Responses 4 and 8 Responses 2 and 3 Response 14 Human Health Hazards Letter Received from Jason Response 3 Marshall, State of California Department of Conservation, dated May 13, 1999 Reso No. Page No. 47 Topic Human Health Hazards Table 2 Suggested Mitigation Measures -Rejected Letter Presenting Suggested Mitigation Measures Letter Received from Jason Marshall„ State of California Department of Conservation, dated May 13, 1999 Biota Letter Received from C.F. Raysbrook, State of California Department of Fish and Game, dated May 12, 1999 Letter Received from Lynn Plambeck, Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment, July 13, 1999 Letter Received from Lynn Plambeck, Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment, dated July 25, 1999 Water Resources Letter Received from Lynn Plambeck, Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment, July 13, 1999 Response Presenting Reason fr Rejection Response 1 Response 10 Responses 7 and 9 Responses 7 and 9 Response 9 Reso No. Page No. 48 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, for those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to less than a level of significance, the public agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment based on substantial evidence in the record. In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, this Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared to identify and weigh those unavoidable significant effects which cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant with the community benefits that the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan and entitlements, North Valencia 2 Annexation and North Park Annexation project provides. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is organized into three sections: Section 1: Project Specific Effects that are Unavoidable Significant Effects Which Cannot be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant; Section 2: Cumulative Project Effects that are Unavoidable Significant Effects Which Cannot be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant; and Section 3: Specific Overriding Community Benefits of the Project That Outweigh the Significant Effects on the Environment. The mitigations are included in the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program included as part of the FEIR. SECTION 1 PROJECT SPECIFIC EFFECTS UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE TO A LEVEL LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The City Council has determined that, although EIR mitigation measures and conditions of approval imposed on the project will provide substantial mitigation of the identified significant Reso No. Page No. 49 environmental effects, these environmental effects cannot be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance. Consequently, in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared (see below) to substantiate the City's decision to accept these unavoidable significant effects when balanced against the significant benefits afforded by the project. This section sets forth the significant unavoidable effects of the project and, with respect to each significant impact, identifies one or more of the required CEQA findings, states facts in support of these findings and refers to the Statement of Overriding Considerations. It should be noted that the EIR addressed both the proposed project and "Option B". Option B differs in the location of a proposed Junior High School and adjacent park site compared to the proposed project. All of the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project are the same for Option B. Therefore, unless otherwise noted, all of the discussion listed below is applicable to both the project and Option B. 1.1 AIR QUALITY 1.1.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. CO, VOC, NOx and PMi0 emissions would be expected to exceed recommended thresholds during the construction phases, During the finishing phases of development, emissions of VOC would exceed recommended thresholds. These emissions would consist of evaporative emissions from architectural coatings and building materials (i.e., paints, solvents, roofing materials, etc.). This analysis assumes that only readily -available surface -coating materials meeting all current SCAQMD rules would be used to paint the surfaces of the proposed structures (materials not meeting SCAQMD rules are not available for sale or use within the Basin). While such emissions would be no different and no more severe than any other coating activities (e.g., repainting an existing structure), these emissions do exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds and construction -related finishing impacts would be considered significant. The project at buildout and in full operation would generate total emissions of CO, VOC, NOx, and PM10 which would exceed SCAQMD recommended thresholds. As the amount of emissions would exceed the recommended thresholds, this impact would be considered significant. Reso No. Page No. 50 1.1.2 FINDINGS. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment; however, even after mitigation effects remain significant. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make it infeasible to mitigate or adopt a project alternative that reduces all project specific air quality impacts to a level less than significant. 1.1.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that the identified significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible; however, those impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated to below a level of significance, and the remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations described in the Community Benefits (see discussion in Section 3 below): Mitigation Measures 4.1-1 through 4.4-27. 1.2 BIOTA 1.2.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Because of the high biological value of the riparian woodland on the site and because the biological values of these areas after planting and restoration will likely not be realized for some time and never be truly replicated, impacts on riparian ecosystem as a result of loss of riparian habitat are significant. Due to the overall sensitivity of SEAS, and because any permanent loss of habitat within a SEA will effectively reduce the overall size of the SEA, any net loss of land within a SEA is considered a significant impact. 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 the signage and retaining barriers. With respect to recreational 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 increased human and domestic animal presence on the riparian resources of the site remain a significant adverse impact. Reso No. Page No. 51 Potential impacts on the ability of UTS to move upstream as a result of higher velocity water flows in San Francisquito Creek in the Decoro Bridge area remains a significant impact. In summary, impacts on the riparian ecosystem as a result of vegetation removal, the net loss of SEA 19 habitat, increased human and domestic animal use, potential impacts on unarmored threespined stickleback movement are significant. All of these are considered unavoidable significant impacts that cannot be fully mitigated. 1.2.2 FINDINGS. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment; however, even after mitigation effects remain significant. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to mitigate or adopt a project alternative that reduces all project specific impacts to biota to a level less than significant. 1.2.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that the identified significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible; however, those impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated to below a level of significance, and the remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations described in the Community Benefits (see discussion in Section 3 below): Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 through 4.6-36 1.3 SOLID WASTE 1.3.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Assuming no solid wastes from the proposed project would be recycled (a worst-case scenario), the proposed project would generate approximately 22,458 pounds of solid waste per day, which is equivalent to approximately 4,099 tons per year. Until other disposal alternatives that will be adequate to serve existing and future uses for the foreseeable future are found and because landfill space is a finite resource, project solid and hazardous waste impacts within the City and County are considered Reso No. Page No. 52 unavoidably significant. 1.3.2 FINDINGS. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment; however, even after mitigation effects remain significant. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make it infeasible to mitigate or adopt a project alternative that reduces all project specific solid waste impacts to a level less than significant. 1.3.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that the identified significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible; however, those impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated to below a level of significance, and the remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations described in the Community Benefits (see discussion in Section 3 below): Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 through 4.11-17. 1.4 VISUAL RESOURCES 1.4.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The project would result in a change in the visual character of the project site, in that the site would be converted from vacant land to a man-made urban environment. The proposed project would be most visible from McBean Parkway, Newhall Ranch Road, Copper Hill Drive, Decoro Drive/Bridge, and would also be visible from the existing and future residential neighborhoods to the north and east of the project site. The construction of Decoro Bridge would introduce a large structure that would significantly modify northern and southern viewsheds of the creek. Additionally, both easterly and westerly perspectives of the creek (from existing and proposed residential units) would be significantly modified as a result of the Decoro Bridge construction. For this reason, construction of Decoro Bridge will have a significant effect on visual resources. 1.4.2 FINDINGS. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment; however, even Reso No. Page No. 53 after mitigation effects remain significant. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to mitigate or adopt a project alternative that reduces all project specific impacts to visual resources to a level less than significant. 1.4.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that the identified significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible; however, those impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated to below a level of significance, and the remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations described in the Community Benefits (see discussion in Section 3 below): Mitigation Measures 4.8-1 through 4.8-7. 1.5 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 1.5.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The conversion of prime agricultural land, an irreplaceable resource, is a significant impact. No feasible mitigation exists for the conversion of approximately 23 acres of prime agricultural land due to implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, its conversion would be considered an unavoidable significant project impact. 1.5.2 FINDINGS. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment; however, even after mitigation effects remain significant. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to mitigate or adopt a project alternative that reduces all project specific impacts to agricultural resources to a level less than significant. ^^ Reso No. Page No. 54 1.5.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that the identified significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible; however, those impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated to below a level of significance, and the remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations described in the Community Benefits (see discussion in Section 3 below): Mitigation Measures 4.18-1 and 4.18-2 Reso No. Page No. 55 SECTION 2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT 4.1 BIOTA 4.1.1 SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS. Significant cumulative impacts that remain unavoidably significant under both the proposed project and Option B include the loss of riparian habitat as part of the San Francisquito Creek ecosystem; the net loss of SEA 19 habitat; and the increase in human and domestic animal use of riparian and upland habitat areas. 4.1.2 FINDINGS. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to mitigate or adopt a project alternative that reduces all cumulative impacts to biota to a level less than significant. 4.1.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. Because of the high biological value of the riparian woodland on the site and other areas and because the biological values of these areas after planting and restoration will likely not be realized for some time and never be truly replicated, impacts on riparian resources and the riparian ecosystem remain cumulatively significant. Because the net loss of SEA habitat can't be replaced, impacts to SEA 19 remain cumulatively significant. In addition, because it is unknown whether measures to mitigate increased human and domestic animal impacts on biological resources can feasibly reduce these impacts, and because human and domestic animal use of riparian and upland habitat areas is expected to continue to occur as a result of project implementation, this impact will remain cumulatively significant. These significant cumulative impacts are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations described in the Community. Benefits (see discussion in Section 3 below): 4.2 SOLID WASTE Reso No. Page No. 56 4.2.1 SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS. 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 4,099 tons per year (without recycling) would represent 0.6 percent of this Valley total. Land suitable for landfill development or expansion is quantitatively finite and limited due to numerous environmental, regulatory and political constraints. 4.2.2 FINDINGS. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment; however, even after mitigation effects remain significant. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to mitigate or adopt a project alternative that reduces all cumulative solid waste impacts to a level less than significant. 4.2.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. Alternative solid waste disposal technologies that could substantially reduce landfill disposal will be developed and legislatively approved in the future; given the market forces that drive the solid waste industry, it is reasonable to assume they will. However, until other disposal alternatives that will be adequate to serve existing and future uses for the foreseeable future are found and because landfill space is a finite resource project, cumulative solid and hazardous waste impacts within the City and County are considered unavoidably significant. These significant cumulative solid waste impacts are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations described in the Community Benefits (see discussion in Section 3 below): 4.3 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 4.3.1 SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS. The conversion of prime agricultural land to urban uses constitutes a loss of an irreplaceable resource and would result in the loss of 23 acres of prime agricultural land. Given that implementation of the project would eliminate 23 acres of prime farmland, the project's contribution to the cumulative impact of development on prime agricultural land in the region is significant. Reso No. Page No. 57 4.3.2 FINDINGS. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to mitigate or adopt a project alternative that reduces all cumulative impacts to agricultural resources to a level less than significant. 4.3.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. Conversion of agricultural land to urban uses has a long history in Los Angeles County. According to the Los Angeles County crop reports, acreage in production for fruit and nut trees, vegetable crops, cut flowers, and field crops decreased over the period extending from 1965 to 1996, whereas acreage in production for nursery products and rangeland increased over this period. Of the total acreage under crop production in Los Angeles in 1996, approximately 55.7 percent was cultivated for alfalfa, grain, barley, and miscellaneous field crops, which contributed to only 4.2 percent of the County's total crop revenues of $222.2 million for that year. Conversely, 11.2 percent of the land was used to cultivate nursery products, which made up 74.1 percent of the total 1996 crop revenues. While it is not within the scope of this document to quantify the amount of prime agricultural land which is under pressure to be converted to urban uses in Los Angeles County and the remainder of southern California, it is highly likely (and probably certain) that such cumulative development pressure exists and will continue with or without implementation of the proposed project. Given that implementation of the project would eliminate 23 acres of prime farmland, the project's contribution to the cumulative impact of development on prime agricultural land in the region is significant. The conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses is a policy issue which lies in the hands of the local jurisdiction. These significant cumulative impacts to agricultural resources are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations described in the Community Benefits (see discussion in Section 3 below): ^" Reso No. Page No. 58 SECTION 3 SPECIFIC OVERRIDING COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT THAT OUTWEIGH THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT The project recommended for approval by the City Council implements the Valley Center Concept of the General Plan with implementation of the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan as proposed. 2. The project will provide the City with infrastructure including improvements to portions of major and secondary highways designated on the City's Master Plan of Arterial Highways as follows: Newhall Ranch Road, Copper Hill Drive, McBean Parkway, Decoro Drive, Dickason Drive. 3. The project is consistent with: 1) the site's City General Plan and Zoning Land Use 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 and adoption of the Specific Plan document; and 3) the City's Circulation Element with City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element to allow for modification of roadway cross sections as shown in the Specific Plan. 4. 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 North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan, herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit C, includes a detailed explanation of how the North Valencia No 2 Specific Plan project integrates with 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." Reso No. Page No. 59 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." 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." Reso No. Page No. 60 Program l.c "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 for the elderly 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: 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." 5. The North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan 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). Affordable housing needs were considered during the development and processing of this Specific Plan project. 6. The project provides significant public benefits including employment opportunities, increased residential densities in proximity to transportation corridors, an improved Reso No. Page No. 61 circulation network including improvements to portions of Newhall Ranch Road, Copper Hill Drive, McBean Parkway, Decoro Drive and Dickason Drive, identification and preservation of a riparian buffer area along the San F rancisquito Creek Significant Ecological Area (SEA), and significant expansion of the City's River Trail system of bicycle, pedestrian and equestrian paths.