Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-11 - RESOLUTIONS - SAND CYN JOINT VENTURE (4)RESOLUTION NO. 02-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SAND CANYON JOINT VENTURE PROJECT, FEIR SCH NO. 2000021012, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS THAT WEIGHS PROJECT BENEFITS AGAINST THE PROJECT'S SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS FOR PROJECT SITE 1: MASTER CASE NO. 97-230 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 52355, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-016, OAK TREE PERMIT 97-029, AND HILLSIDE REVIEW 97-002 AND PROJECT SITE 2: MASTER CASE NO. 97-069 FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-004, ZONE CHANGE 97-001, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 53074, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-011, AND HILLSIDE REVIEW 97-001. of fact: THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council makes the following findings a. Project Site 1: The applicant, Sand Canyon Properties LLC, formally requested certain project entitlements related to the Sand Canyon Joint Venture Project development on December 9, 1997 (Master Case 97-230). Such entitlement requests included Tentative Tract Map 52355, Conditional Use Permit 97-016, Oak Tree Permit 97-029, and Hillside Review 97-002. The 34.3 -acre project site is owned by Sand Canyon Properties LLC. Project Site 2: The applicant, Sand Canyon Gateway LLC, formally requested certain project entitlements related to the Sand Canyon Joint Venture Project development on May 12, 1997 (Master Case 97-069). Such entitlement requests included General Plan Amendment 97-004, Zone Change 97-001, Tentative Tract Map 53074, Conditional Use Permit 97-011, and Hillside Review 97-001. The 55 -acre project site is owned by Sand Canyon Gateway LLC. b. Project Site 1: The Sand Canyon Joint Venture Project Site 1 area is located on 34.3 acres in the Santa Clarita Valley, in the City of Santa Clarita. The site is situated east of Sand Canyon Road and approximately 1,000 feet north of Soledad Canyon Road. The Assessor's Parcel Number is 2839-005-030. Project Site 2: The Sand Canyon Joint Venture Project Site 2 area is located on 55 acres in the Santa Clarita Valley, in the City of Santa Clarita. The site is located at the northeast corner of Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. The Assessor's Parcel Numbers for the site are 2839-006-052, 053, 054, and 058. Resolution No. 02-91 Page 2 C. Project Site 1: The Sand Canyon Joint Venture Project Site 1 area is currently vacant. The property is privately owned by Sand Canyon Properties LLC. The Project Site 1 area is generally characterized as undeveloped, and in primarily a natural state with native vegetation, an oak tree, and varying hilly terrain. The varied topography is dominated by a northeasterly trending secondary ridgeline. The western portion of the site consists of a natural drainage area. Project Site 2: The Sand Canyon Joint Venture Project Site 2 area is partially developed with a 136 -unit mobile home park along its western boundary. The remaining portion of the 66 -acre site is undeveloped vacant land. The property is privately owned by Sand Canyon Gateway LLC. The Project Site 2 area is relatively flat along its western site boundary on which the mobile home park is developed, with the remainder of the site comprised of hilly terrain with north -south trending ridges. d. Project Site 1: On December 9, 1997, the applicant submitted Master Case No. 97-230, requesting entitlement requests for a tentative tract map, conditional use permit, hillside review, and an oak tree permit to subdivide 34.3 acres into 100 single family detached homes, which included encroachment on the secondary ridgeline and removing the heritage oak tree on site. After City of Santa Clarita Planning staff reviewed the project, numerous modifications were made to the submittal which resulted in reducing the number of units from 100 to 63 in order to avoid construction or modification to the secondary ridgeline and preserve the heritage oak tree on site. The project application was deemed complete on January 16, 2000. The project site would be developed into 68 lots - 63 residential lots, four open space lots, and one debris basin lot which will all be maintained by a Homeowner's Association. In addition, the square footage of a majority of the single-family homes would range from 2,000 to 2,800. The applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit to cluster the 63 single family home toward the western portion of the site and to import 300,000 cubic yards of earth; an oak tree permit that would allow to encroach within the protected zone of a heritage oak tree; and a hillside review permit to develop on land that exceeds a 10% average cross slope. The project would be required to provide full improvements along Sand Canyon Road, which would include right-of-way dedication 46 feet from centerline. Included within the right-of-way are vehicle lanes, a bike lane, landscaped parkway, and sidewalk. Sound walls would be required along areas of the roadway where residential homes may be impacted by the noise. The project site would have two points of access from Sand Canyon Road. The applicant has proposed to grade the westerly portion of the site, which would consist of 60,000 cubic yards of cut earth and 360,000 cubic yards of fill earth. Of the 360,000 cubic yards would be imported from the southern Resolution, No. 02-91 Page 3 adjacent site (Project Site 2) to accommodate the proposed single family homes. Project Site 2. On May 12, 1997, the applicant submitted Master Case No. 97-069, requesting entitlement requests for a tentative tract map, zone change, conditional use permit, and hillside review. After City of Santa Clarita Planning staff reviewed the project, numerous modifications were made to the submittal which resulted in reducing the commercial square footage from 130,000 to 110,000 and the residential units from 26 to 24 single family homes. The applicant also added mobile home pads to reduce the net loss of mobile homes from 62 to 44. The project application was deemed complete on January 15, 2000. The project site would be developed into 33 lots — 24 residential lots, 6 commercial lots, 2 open space lots, and one designated remainder lot consisting of the existing mobile home park. The 24 residential lots are to be located along the eastern portion of the project site, which will consist of single family detached homes with minimum lot sizes of 5,000 square feet. The residential lots will be maintained by a Homeowner's Association. The commercial lots will be located along the southwestern portion of the site �+ which will consist of a maximum of 110,000 square feet of commercial budding. The proposed project would remove 62 mobile home spaces from the 136 -unit mobile home park called Canyon Breeze. Eighteen new mobile home spaces will be created within the park, which would result in a 92 -unit mobile home park creating a permanent loss of 44 mobile home spaces. The applicant is also requesting a general plan amendment from RS (Residential Suburban), CC (Community Commercial), RVL (Residential Very Low) to RS, CC, a zone change from RS, RVL, CCPD (Community Commercial Planned Development overlay) to RS, MHP (Mobile Home Park), CCPD; a conditional use permit to exceed the 35 foot building height limit and to implement the PD (Planned Development) overlay zone and to export 300,000 cubic yards of earth; and a hillside review permit to develop on land that exceeds a 10% average cross slope. The project would be required to provide full improvements to Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. These improvements include but are not limited to landscaped parkways, sidewalk, right turn pockets, medians, and bus turnouts. f The project is proposed to grade the site which would consist of 1.1 million ! cubic yards of cut earth and .8 million cubic yards of fill earth. The remaining 300,000 cubic yards of fill earth would be export to the northern adjacent site (Project Site 1) to accommodate development. Resolution No. 02-91 Page 4 e. Project Site 1: An Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Sand Canyon Joint Venture project were circulated in January 2000. Subsequently, a Draft EIR was prepared by the City's EIR Consultant (Impact Sciences) that addresses the comments received in response to the NOP. The Draft EIR has identified three environmental areas that would have significant impact that could not be mitigated for Project Site 1. These include: project specific noise construction impacts, project specific impacts to coastal sage scrub and human and domestic animal use of natural habitat areas, cumulative project impacts to coastal sage scrub and human and domestic animal use of natural habitat areas and cumulative impacts to alluvial scrub, and cumulative solid waste impacts. There are two environmental areas where no significant impacts would occur (no mitigation required). These are Energy/Mineral Resources and Utilities (Natural Gas, Electricity, Telephone, and Wastewater). The remaining environmental areas in the DEIR have been identified where significant impact would occur; however, mitigation measures have been recommended to reduce the impacts to levels of less than significant or less. On January 14, 2002, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public review and comment and the review period closed February 28, 2002. The Draft EIR was given to the Commission on February 5, 2002 for their review. Staff received three written responses from outside agencies, which are addressed in the Final EIR. The DEIR was also routed to all of the City Divisions, which responded to the Draft and are addressed in the FEIR. Project Site 2: An Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Sand Canyon Joint Venture project were circulated in January 2000. Subsequently, a Draft EIR was prepared by the City's EIR Consultant (Impact Sciences) that addresses the comments received in response to the NOP. The Draft EIR has identified four environmental areas that would have significant impact that could not be mitigated for Project Site 2. These include: project specific noise construction impacts, project specific impacts to NOs emissions, project specific impacts to coastal sage scrub and human and domestic animal use of natural habitat areas, cumulative project impacts to coastal sage scrub and human and domestic animal use of natural habitat areas and cumulative impacts to alluvial scrub, and cumulative solid waste impacts. There are two environmental areas where no significant impacts would occur (no mitigation required). These are Energy/Mineral Resources and Utilities (Natural Gas, Electricity, Telephone, and Wastewater). Resolution No. 02-91 Page 5 The remaining environmental areas in the DEIR have been identified where significant impact would occur, however, mitigation measures have been recommended to reduce the impacts to levels of less than significant or less. On January 14, 2002, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public review and comment and the review period closed February 28, 2002. The Draft EIR was given to the Commission on February 5, 2002 for their review. Staff received three written responses from outside agencies, which are addressed in the Final EIR. The DEIR was also routed to all of the City Divisions, which responded to the Draft and are addressed in the FEIR. f. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee met and supplied the applicant with draft conditions of approval. g. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the Sand Canyon Joint Venture project entitlements on February 5, 2002, March 5, 2002, and April 2, 2002. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on April 2, 2002 and continued the item to the April 16, 2002 meeting for the purposes of finalizing their recommendation to the City Council for certification of the FEIR, approval of Project Site 1 — Master Case 97-230: Tentative Tract Map 62355, Conditional Use Permit 97-016, Oak Tree Permit 97-029, and Hillside Review 97-002 and Project Site 2 — Master Case 97-069: General Plan Amendment 97-004, Zone Change 97-001, Tentative Tract Map 53074, Conditional Use Permit 97-011, and Hillside Review 97-001. On April 16, 2002, the Planning Commission adopted a recommendation that the City Council approve Master Case No. 97-230 and Master Case No. 97-069, and consider the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), and ultimately certify the FEIR. Notice of said public hearings was given in the manner required by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code and State law. h. During the Planning Commission public hearings for the Sand Canyon Joint Venture project, public testimony and meeting public comment cards with comments on issues addressed in the environmental document were forwarded to the Commission and to the consultants designated by the City to prepare the EIR. Written responses were prepared for the comments received prior to the close of the public hearing. These written responses to comments will be forwarded to the City Council in 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 will also be incorporated as additional chapters in the Final EIR. i. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Sand Canyon Joint Venture Project entitlements, including Zone Change 97-001 on June 11, 2002 which resulted in the meeting being continued to July 9, 2002. All public hearings on the project were held at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The City Council public hearing was advertised in The Signal, through on-site posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first class mail to property owners within 500 feet of the project area. Resolution No. 02-91 Page 6 SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND FINDINGS. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita hereby makes the following findings of fact: a. CEQA provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Emphasis added.) The procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." (Emphasis added.) CEQA also provides that "in the event that specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects." b. The mandate and principles announced in CEQA are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must `issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." The second permissible finding is that "such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the fording. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." The third potential conclusion is that "specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." CEQA defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. C. The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. 'Feasibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. d. Where a significant impact can be substantially lessened solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives with respect to that mitigated impact, even if the alternative would mitigate the impact in question to a greater degree than the project as mitigated. (Pub. Resources Code § 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association, supra. 83 Ca1.App.3d at Resolution No. 02-91 Page 7 521; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731 [270 Cal.Rptr. 6501; and Laurel Heights Immnrovement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 400-403 [253 Cal.Rptr. 426].) e. CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. Further, in devising mitigation measures, "a public agency may exercise only those express or implied powers provided by law other than [CEQA]." In fashioning mitigation measures, the lead agency must ensure that the mitigation actually relates to impacts caused by the project in question; an applicant cannot be required to provide a generalized public benefit unrelated to project impacts or that would do more than fully mitigate the impacts. f. 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." Should the City Council, upon independent review of the Final EIR, choose to approve the project, a Statement of Overriding Considerations should set 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 EIR that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. g. CEQA requires that a DEIR be recirculated for additional public review and comment if: (1) substantial changes in the Draft EIR that would deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project, a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect, or a feasible project alternative; (2) new information identifies new potential significant environmental effects or substantially increases the potential severity of the previously identified significant effects disclosed in the Draft EIR; (3) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft EIR that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment; (4) new information or changes in the Draft EIR render the Draft EIR so fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment would be precluded. h. CEQA requires that a lead agency exercise independent judgment in reviewing the adequacy of an EIR and that the decision of a Lead Agency in certifying a Final EIR and approving a project not be predetermined. The recommendations of the Planning Commission contained herein are intended to provide guidance to the City Council. The Planning Commission's recommendations are not intended to predetermine the City Council's Resolution No. 02-91 Page 8 decision regarding the Project or the EIR, nor should such recommendations be so construed by any member of the City Council, the City staff, the Applicant, or the Public. CEQA requires decision -makers to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for those mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR that would mitigate or avoid each significant effect identified in the EIR and to incorporate the mitigation monitoring and reporting program including all mitigation measures as conditions of project approval. The Draft EER 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 for EIRs. j. 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. Although new material will be added to the Draft EIR through preparation of the Final EIR, this new material provides clarification to points and information already included in the Draft EIR and is not considered to be significant new information or a substantial change to the Draft EIR that would necessitate recirculation. k. The CEQA Guidelines [California Code of Regulations Section 15003 (c) and (i)] note that state courts have held 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. 1. Comments received on the Draft EIR during, and even after, the public review period show that there may be disagreements among experts. The Final EIR will include 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 Draft EIR. Further, the clarifying narrative and exhibits in the Final EIR serve the purpose of fully disclosing the information sources and reasoning used by various public and agency Draft EIR 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 Draft EIR for Master Case No. 97-230 for Tentative Tract Map 52355, Conditional Use Permit 97-016, Oak Tree Permit 97-029, and Hillside Review 97-002 and Master Case No. 97-069 for General Plan Amendment 97-004, Zone Change 97-001, Tentative Tract Map 53074, Conditional Use Permit 97-011, and Hillside Review 97-001 identifies and discloses project -specific impacts and cumulative project impacts. Environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR, findings, and facts in support of findings are herein incorporated as "Findings Required by CEQA" identified as follows: Resolution No. 02-91 Page 9 a. The Draft EIR identifies issue areas as "Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant." These include: project specific construction noise impacts; project specific impacts to coastal sage scrub and human and domestic animal use of natural habitat areas, cumulative project impacts to coastal sage scrub and human and domestic animal use of natural habitat areas and cumulative impacts to alluvial scrub; and cumulative solid waste impacts. b. The Draft EIR identifies issue areas as "Environmental Areas Where No Significant Impacts Would Occur." These include energy and mineral resources and utilities (natural gas, electricity, telephone, and wastewater. All other issues identified in the Draft EIR are classified as "Environmental Effects Which Have Been Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant." 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 determine whether the Final EIR analyzes a reasonable range of project alternatives which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would substantially lesson any of the significant effect of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of each alternative. a. Where a significant impact can be substantially lessened (i.e., mitigated to an "acceptable level") solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the City Council, in drafting its findings, will have no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives with respect to those impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant levels, even if an alternative would mitigate such impacts to a greater degree than the mitigation provided in the proposed Project. (Pub. Resources Code § 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association, supra. 83 Ca1.App.3d at 521; seg also Kings County Farm Bureau. supra. 221 Cal.App.3d at 730-731; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association, supra. 47 Ca1.3d at 400-403). b. The City Council, therefore, in considering project alternatives, need only determine whether any alternatives are environmentally superior with respect to those project impacts that remain potentially significant and unavoidable despite the incorporation of mitigation measures. If any alternatives are superior with respect to such impacts, the City Council will then be required to determine whether the alternatives are feasible in attaining most of the basic objectives of the project. If the City Council determines that no alternative is both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the significant unavoidable impacts, the City Council may approve the proposed project after adopting a statement of overriding considerations. C. Based upon the Draft EIR, the original project poses the following potentially significant unavoidable impacts: (1) specific noise construction impacts; (2) specific impacts to coastal sage scrub and human and domestic animal use of natural habitat areas, cumulative site impacts to coastal sage scrub and human and domestic animal use of natural habitat areas, and cumulative site impacts to alluvial scrub; and (3) cumulative solid waste impacts. Resolution No. 02-91 Page 10 d. Project Site 1: The objectives of the project site, as specified in the Draft EIR, are: Land Use Planning • Create a new community, which allows for residential development, while preserving significant natural resources and open area. • Avoid leapfrog development and accommodate projected regional growth in a location, which is adjacent to existing and planned infrastructure, urban services, public transit, transportation corridors. • Cluster development within the site to preserve regionally significant resource areas. • Provide development and traditional land use patterns, which integrate and are compatible with surrounding development and land uses. Economic • Provide a tax base to support public services for future area residents. • Create an economically feasible project. Mobility • Provide an efficient street circulation system that minimizes impacts on residential neighborhoods. Resource Conservation Objectives • Preserve designated Ridgeline Preservation areas. • Encourage the preservation of Oak trees. Project Site 2: The objectives of the project, as specified in the Draft EIR, are: Land Use Planning • Create a new community, which allows for residential development, while preserving significant natural resources and open area. • Create a community, which provides for commercial services to support proposed residential development. • Avoid leapfrog development and accommodate projected regional growth in a location, which is adjacent to existing and planned infrastructure, urban services, public transit, transportation corridors. • Provide development and traditional land use patterns, which integrate and are compatible with surrounding development and land uses. Economic • Maintain the mobile home park to provide for more affordable housing opportunities for the community as a whole. Resolution leo. 02=91 Page 11 • Provide a tax base to support public services for future area residents. • Create an economically feasible project. Mobility • Provide an efficient street circulation system that minimizes impacts on residential neighborhoods. Resource Conservation Objectives • Preserve designated Ridgeline Preservation areas. These objectives are used as the basis for comparing project alternatives and determining the extent that the objectives would be achieved relative to the proposed project. e. Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative. This Alternative is required by the CEQfA Guidelines and it compares 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. This alternative assumes that the project is not constructed, and that the site remains in its current undeveloped and vacant state. This alternative is an environmentally superior to the proposed 68 lot residential development for each described focused impact area referenced in the DEIR. This alternative will not meet the project objectives of providing housing and a tax base for the community. This alternative was therefore rejected in the EIR in favor of the proposed project site. f. Alternative 2, Project Site 1 Receives Approval and Project Site 2 is Denied. Under this alternative, the project would be developed except that it would be required to receive fill soil from another location other than Project Site 2. This alternative would meet project objectives of providing housing and a tax base. However, air quality impacts would increase because trucks from another location would be required to travel to the site to deposit soil in order to construct the project. The additional air quality emissions would exacerbate the exceedance of air quality standards already experienced in the Santa Clarita Valley. However, public services (Sheriff, fire, water, libraries, parks and recreation, solid waste disposal) would have similar impacts when compared to the proposed project. Impacts to geotechnical resources, flood, trafficlaccess, cultural resources, human made hazards, population/housing and aesthetics would all have similar impacts to the proposed project. This alternative was therefore rejected in the EIR in favor of the proposed project site. g. Alternative S, Project Site 1 is Denied and Project Site 2 Receives Approval. Denial of project activity at Project Site 1 would essentially result in reduced environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. No grading or landform alteration would result in less geotechnical hazards. The lack of new development on Project Site 1 would result in no new traffic impacts and subsequently no associated noise or air quality impacts. Biological resources on the project site would not be impacted Resolution No. 02-91 Page 12 (including the oak tree) and therefore this Alternative would meet the project goal of preserving the ridgeline. There would be no need for public services such as Sheriff, fire, water, libraries, parks and recreation, solid waste disposal. This alternative would not provide housing necessary to meet the jobs/housing balance within the Santa Clarita Valley or a tax base for the community. This alternative was therefore rejected in the EIR in favor of the proposed project site. h. Alternative 4, Project Site 1 density is reduced by 40 percent. This reduction would result in 25 fewer dwelling units resulting in a total of 88 dwelling units. The commercial use square footage for Project Site 2 under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project. Alternative 4 would remove the proposed 24 single-family. dwelling units from the Project Site 2 development plan. Developing Project Site 1 with fewer residential units would generally either result in fewer environmental impacts due to a reduction of density or in similar impacts. For example, because Alternative 4 proposed fewer residential units, environmental topical areas such as traffidaccess, air quality, noise, water resources, solid waste disposal, education, libraries, parks and recreation, fire protection, Sheriff services, aesthetics, human made hazards and land use would all result in fewer impacts. Consequently because the development footprint would remain the same as the proposed project it is expected that similar impacts would occur to the environmental topical areas of geotechnical resources, flood, biological resources, cultural resources and human made hazards. This alternative was therefore rejected in the EIR. in favor of the proposed project site. i. Alternative 5, Project Site 1 density is reduced by 40 percent. This reduction would result in 25 fewer dwelling units resulting in a total of 88 dwelling units. Project Site 2 would allow 20,000 square feet of commercial development (a reduction of 80 percent from the proposed project). Developing Project Site 1 with fewer residential units would generally either result in fewer environmental impacts due to a reduction of density or in similar impacts., For example, because Alternative 4 proposed fewer residential units, environmental topical areas such as trafliclaccess, air quality, noise, water resources, solid waste disposal, education, libraries, parks and recreation, fire protection, Sheriff services, aesthetics, human made hazards, and land use would all result in fewer impacts. Consequently, because the development footprint would remain the same as the proposed project it is expected that similar impacts would occur to the environmental topical areas of the geotechnical resources, flood, biological resources, cultural resources and human made hazards. This alternative was therefore rejected in the EIR in favor of the proposed project site. 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: Resolution No. 02-91 Page 13 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 independently reviewed and considered the Final EIR in reaching its 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 Final EIR includes a description of each potentially significant impact and rationale for finding that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect. e. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081, modifications have occurred to the project to reduce significant effects based on alternatives analyzed in the environmental impact report. 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 Sand Canyon Joint Venture project 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. The Statement of Overriding Considerations identifies and weighs the significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant with the community benefits from this project. h. That the Final EIR reflects the decision -maker's independent judgment and analysis. SECTION 6. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. 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 finds that there is substantial evidence that supports that the Project will have community benefits, including specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits, that may outweigh the significant effects on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. Significant impacts include project specific construction noise impacts, project specific impacts to coastal sage scrub and human and domestic animal use of natural habitat areas, cumulative project impacts to coastal sage scrub and human and domestic animal use of natural habitat areas, and cumulative impacts to alluvial scrub and cumulative solid waste impacts. Resolution No. 02-91 Page 14 Project Site 1: Project benefits that may outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant include: • Creation of a new community that allows for residential, while preserving significant natural resources and open space. • Develop, build, and pay for full improvements for the expansion of Sand Canyon Road. Improvements will consist of vehicle lanes, a bike lane, landscaped parkway, and sidewalk. ■ Provision of development and transitional land use patterns, which integrate and are compatible with surrounding communities and land uses. ■ Avoid of leapfrog development and accommodate projected regional growth in a location, which is adjacent to existing and planned infrastructure, urban services, public transit, transportation corridors, and major employment centers. ■ Provision of a variety of residential housing types to respond to economic and market conditions over several years. Project Site 2: Project benefits that may outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant include: • Creation of a new community that allows for residential, while preserving significant natural resources and open space. ■ Develop, build, and pay for full improvements for the expansion of Sand Canyon Road. Improvements will consist of vehicle lanes, a bike lane, landscaped parkway, and sidewalk. ■ Provision of development and transitional land use patterns, which integrate and are compatible with surrounding communities and land .uses. ■ Avoid of leapfrog development and accommodate projected regional growth in a location, which is adjacent to existing and planned infrastructure, urban services, public transit, transportation corridors, and major employment centers. ■ Provision of a variety of residential housing types to respond to economic and market conditions over several years. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken. Resolution.No. 02-91 Page 1.5 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June, 2002. ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )as. CITY OF SANTA CLARTTA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of 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, on the 11`" day of June, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: COLTNCILMEM 3ERS: COLTNCILMEM 3ERS: molejz ul_ 31 Waste, McLean, Smyth Ferry DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Kellar I . L"Wat)"M4 11=1 , JWH:MAM s:\pbs\current\11997\97.M\ccenvironland2.doc