HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-06-14 - RESOLUTIONS - FINAL EIR MC 10 128 GP AMEND (2)RESOLUTION 11-62
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (SCH 200807113 3)) FOR MASTER CASE NO. 10-128 (GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 10-002) INCLUDING ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM, REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ADOPTION OF
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following
findings of fact:
a. In 2000, the City Council initiated the One Valley One Vision (OVOV) process in
partnership with the County of Los Angeles to create a new General Plan to be a
long-range policy-making document to guide and respond to anticipated growth,
development, environmental protection, and economic trends over the next several
decades.
b. The County of Los Angeles is simultaneously processing a general plan amendment
to the Santa Clarita Valley Local Area Plan that encompasses the majority of the
goals policies and objectives of the OVOV document.
C. The City of Santa Clarita's OVOV entitlement request (Project) consists of:
General Plan Amendment (GPA) 10-002: To amend and provide General Plan
land use map designations and to amend and provide the seven required General
Plan elements plus one additional element: Conservation/Open Space, Land Use,
Noise, Circulation, Housing, Safety, and Economic Development in a manner
consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the City. This would replace
the existing City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Land Use Map.
d. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of
Santa Clarita is the identified lead agency with the Planning Commission as the
recommending body and the City Council as the decision-making body for the
project. A Draft Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan ("Draft EIR) was
prepared and circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies
and the public;
e. On September 6, 2007, the City Council awarded a contract for Impact Sciences (the
"consultant") to prepare the EIR for the project;
f. An initial Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Entitlement was circulated to
affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 14, §15000 et seq.), for 30 days, beginning on July 25, 2008. Agencies that
received NOPs included, but were not limited to, California Department of
Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, County Sanitation Districts
of Los Angeles County; County of Ventura, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy,
Native American Heritage Commission, law enforcement agencies, school districts,
waste haulers, water agencies and transportation agencies serving the Santa Clarita
Valley in accordance with CEQA's consultation requirements. Numerous comments
from public agencies, organizations, and members of the public were received in
response to the NOPs.
g. A scoping meeting was held at the City of Santa Clarita Council Chambers on August
4, 2008, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in
the EIR.
h. The Planning Commission held duly -noticed Study Sessions on April 15, 2008, June
17, 2008, July 15, 2008, October 21, 2008, November 18, 2008, February 17, 2009
and March 16,'2010, in accordance with the noticing requirements. The Study
Sessions were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The
following occurred at the public meetings:
1. On April 15, 2008, the Planning Commission received a presentation on
the draft proposed Safety Element of the General Plan. At that meeting
staff received comments from both the Planning Commission and the
public.
2. On June 17, 2008, the Planning Commission received a presentation on
the draft proposed Conservation and Open Space Elements of the General
Plan. At that meeting staff received comments from both the Planning
Commission and the public.
3. On July 15, 2008, the Planning Commission received a presentation on the
draft proposed Land Use Element of the General Plan. At that meeting
staff received comments from both the Planning Commission and the
public.
4. On October 21, 2008, the Planning Commission received a presentation on
the draft proposed Circulation Element of the General Plan. At that
meeting staff received comments from both the Planning Commission and
the public.
5. On November 18, 2008, the Planning Commission received a presentation
on the draft proposed Housing Element of the General Plan. At that
meeting staff received comments from both the Planning Commission and
the public.
6. On February 17, 2009, the Planning Commission received a presentation
on the draft proposed Noise Element of the General Plan. At that meeting j
staff received comments from both the Planning Commission and the
public.
2
7. On March 16, 2010, the Planning Commission received a presentation on
the draft proposed Economic Development Element of the General Plan.
At that meeting staff received comments from both the Planning
Commission and the public.
The City of Santa Clarita prepared a Draft EIR for the General Plan that substantively
responded to issues raised in comments received on the NOP. The Draft EIR was
circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public,
in compliance with CEQA. Specifically, the Notice of Availability/Notice of
Completion for the Draft EIR was filed, posted and advertised on September 22,
2010, and the 150 -day public review period ended on February 22, 2011, 5:00 p.m. in
accordance with CEQA. Late written comments received prior to March 2, 2011,
were responded to in the Final EIR . (Exhibit A) Responses to Comments.
Additionally, oral comments expressed at the Planning Commission Public Hearings
prior to and including March 1, 2011, were topically responded to in the April 2011
Final EIR Responses to Comments. Oral and written comments received on or after
March 2, 2011, may be responded to prior to certification and approval of the project
as directed by the City Council.
j. The Planning Commission held duly -noticed public hearings on October 5, 2010,
November 16, 2010, December 7, 2010, January 18, 2011 and March 1, 2011, in
accordance with the noticing requirements of the entitlement. The project was
advertised in The Signal newspaper. The hearings were held at City Hall, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. An additional public meeting,
following the close of the public hearing, was held on April 19, 2011. The following
occurred at the public hearings and public meeting:
1. On October 5, 2010, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing,
received City staff's presentation summarizing the proposed project, project
description and Draft EIR, received public testimony regarding the project and
staff received comments and questions from the Planning Commission
regarding the project;
2. On November 16, 2010, staff provided answers to questions that were raised
by the Commission on October 5, 2010, and staff presented the draft Land
Use and Circulation Elements and related contents from the Draft EIR. The
Planning Commission received public testimony regarding the project and
staff received comments and questions from the Planning Commission
regarding the project;
3. On December 7, 2010, staff provided answers to questions that were raised by
the Commission on November 16, 2010, and staff continued the presentation
on draft Land Use and Circulation Elements and related contents from the
Draft EIR. The Planning Commission received public testimony regarding
the project and staff received comments and questions from the Planning
Commission regarding the project;
3
4. On January 18, 2011, staff provided answers to questions that were raised by
the Commission on December 7, 2010, and staff presented the General Plan
subject areas of Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas, Air Quality, Water
Resources and related contents from the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission
received public testimony regarding the project and staff received comments
and questions from the Planning Commission regarding the project;
5. On March 1, 2011, staff provided answers to questions that were raised by the
Commission on January 18, 2011. The Planning Commission received public
testimony, closed the public hearing and directed staff to prepare the Final
EIR and return on April 19, 2011 with resolutions of recommendation to the
City Council;
6. On April 19, 2011, the Planning Commission continued the project to May 17,
2011; and
7. On May 17, 2011, the Planning Commission received the Final EIR, staff
presented the necessary approval documents (resolutions, findings of fact,
mitigation monitoring and reporting program) and the Planning Commission
took action on the resolutions of recommendation to the City Council.
k. The Final EIR, incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A," includes the
Draft EIR, mitigation monitoring and reporting program, comments on the Draft
EIR, and the following: responses to written comments on the Draft EIR, topical
responses to public testimony regarding Draft EIR issues raised at the October 5,
November 16, December 7, January 18 and March 1 public hearings, and
modifications to the Draft EIR text and mitigation measures. The Draft EIR was
presented to the Planning Commission on October 5, 2010, and the remaining
Final EIR documents were prepared and provided to the Planning Commission
prior to its May 17, 2011 meeting. On May 6, 2011, a copy of the responses to
comments from the Final EIR was sent to each agency and individual who
submitted timely comments on the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission has
considered the Final EIR prepared for the General Plan, as well as information
provided in staff reports, presented to the Planning Commission from experts, and
presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the Planning
Commission following the close of the Draft EIR public comment period up
through March 1, 2011, prior to recommending approval of the General Plan.
At its hearings on the Project, the Planning Commission considered staff and
consultant presentations, staff reports, information presented to the Commission
to assist its understanding of the General Plan, its EIR, and public comments and
testimony on the General Plan and Final EIR.
M. Based upon the staff and consultant presentations, staff reports, and public
comments and testimony, the Planning Commission finds that the General Plan,
as modified, will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of
11
persons residing in the area; nor will the General Plan jeopardize, endanger or
otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare.
n. The location of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is based for the
Master Case 10-128 project file is with the Community Development Department;
the record specifically is in the custody of the Director of Community
Development.
o. The City Council subsequently held a duly public hearing on the General Plan on
June 14, 2011. This hearing was held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard,
Santa Clarita, at 6;00 p.m. The City Council closed the public hearing on June 14,
nnli
L.V11.
P. On June 14, 2011, the City Council received public testimony, closed the public
hearing, certified the Final EIR and adopted the necessary resolutions for approval
of the project. The Draft EIR (September .2010) and Final EIR (May 2011) have
been prepared and circulated in compliance with CEQA.
q. Based upon the Draft EI -R (September 2010) and Final EIR (May 20-11), staff
presentation, staff report, and public comments and testimony, the City Council
finds that the General Plan, as modified, will not adversely affect the health,
peace, comfort, or welfare of residents in the planning area; nor will the General
Plan be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in
planning area.
r. Additionally, the City Council finds that the public hearing pertaining to General
Plan project were duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for
this entitlement. The project was advertised in The Signal on may 20, 2011, the
newspaper of general circulation.
S. The location of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is based for the Master
Case 10-128 project file is with the Community Development Department; the
record specifically is in the custody of the Director of Community Development.
SECTION 2. CEQA REQUIREMENTS. The City Council does hereby make the following
findings of fact:
a. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.)
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[.]" (CEQA
§ 21002; 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." (CEQA § 21002; emphasis added.);
5
b. 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.
(CEQA § 21002.) CEQA provides that a public agency has an obligation to balance a
variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors
and in particular the goal of providing a decent home and satisfying living
environment for every Californian. (CEQA § 21081; CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.
Code of Regulations, § 15021(d).) CEQA requires decision -makers to balance the
benefits of a proposed project against its significant unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts, and, if the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the
significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts may be considered "acceptable" by adopting a "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" (CEQA Guidelines § 15093). The Statement of
Overriding Considerations must set forth the project benefits or reasons why the Lead
Agency is in favor of approving the project and must weigh these benefits against the
project's adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that cannot be
mitigated to a less -than -significant level;
c. CEQA's mandates and principles are implemented, -in part, through the requrrement
that agencies adopt findings (Exhibit B) before approving projects for which EIRs are
required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a
proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or
more of three permissible conclusions: (1) that "[c]hanges or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR," (2) [s]uch changes or
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency or
can and should be adopted by such other agency," or (3)[s]pecific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines § 15091.) CEQA
defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental,
social and technological factors." (CEQA § 21061.1.) CEQA Guideline section
15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations;
d. The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular
alternative promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. "Feasibility
under CEQA encompasses "desirability" to the extent that desirability is based on a
reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and
technological factors;
e. CEQA requires that the lead agency exercise its independent judgment in reviewing
the adequacy of an EIR and that the decision of a lead agency in certifying a Final
EIR and approving a project not be predetermined. The City Council has conducted
0
its own review and analysis, and is exercising its independent judgment when acting
as herein provided;
f. CEQA requires decision -makers to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting
program for those mitigation measurers identified in the Final EIR that would
mitigate or avoid each significant impact identified in the EIR and to incorporate the
mitigation monitoring and reporting program, including all mitigation measures;
g. CEQA requires that the responses to comments in the Final EIR demonstrate good
faith and a well -reasoned analysis, and not be overly conclusory. In response to
several of the comments received, portions of the Draft EIR have been revised.
Although new material has been added to the Draft EIR through preparation of the
Final EIR, this new material provides clarification to points and information already
included in the Draft EIR and is not considered to be significant new information or a
substantial change to the Draft EIR or to the project that would necessitate
recirculation; and
h. CEQA Guidelines section 15003(c) and (i) note that state courts have held that the
purpose of an EIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public generally
of the environmental impacts of a proposed project. CEQA does not require technical
perfection or exhaustive treatment of issues in an EIR, but rather adequacy,
completeness, and a good -faith effort at full disclosure.
SECTION 3. CEQA FINDINGS. The City Council does hereby find that the Final EIR for
Master Case 10-002 (General Plan Amendment 10-128), identifies and discloses program -level
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
CEQA" referred to as Exhibit B, and identified as follows:
a. The Final EIR identifies issue areas as "Unavoidable Significant Environmental
Impacts Which Cannot be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant," as set forth in
Section 1 of Exhibit B. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project that will avoid or lessen certain of the project impacts, but that will
not avoid or reduce all of the potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. These
remaining significant impacts are balanced against project benefits and are found to
be overridden by the project benefits, as stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations in Section 6, below.
b. The Final EIR identifies issue areas as "Environmental Impacts Which Have Been
Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant," as set forth in Section 2 of Exhibit B.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will avoid or reduce these potential impacts to a less -than -significant level.
c. The Final EIR identifies issue areas as `Environmental Impacts Where No Significant
Impacts Would Occur," as set forth in Section 3 of Exhibit B.
7
d. As issues that are noted in Section 3(c), above, have no significant environmental
impacts and require no mitigation, those issues also will have no contribution to
cumulative impacts.
e. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached in Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by this reference, is required to mitigate impacts.
SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES.
Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the General Plan EIR, oral and
written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the General Plan
project and the General Plan EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the City
Council and on its behalf, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City
Council, the City Council find that the Final EIR analyzes a reasonable range of project
alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the General Plan project but
would lessen any of the significant impacts of the project, and adequately evaluates the
comparative merits of each alternative.
a. The objectives of the General Plan project are specified in the Final EIR. These
objectives are used as the basis for comparing the project alternatives and determining
the extent that the objectives would be achieved relative to the proposed project.
Only those impacts found significant and unavoidable are relevant in making the final
determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior of inferior to the
proposed project. The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable
impacts in seven environmental issue areas:
1. Air Quality - short-term construction impacts, operational impacts, and
cumulative.
2. Global Warming and Climate Change — cumulative.
3. Agricultural Resources — loss of 192 -acre farmland designation in City's Sphere
of Influence.
4. Biological Resources — cumulative.
5. Water Services — for two areas outside of the Castaic Lake Water Agency service
area and/or the East Subbasin.
6. Solid Waste - long-term (operational) and cumulative impacts
7. Noise — short term (construction), operational, cumulative.
b. Alternative 1 — No Project Alternative. The No Project/No Development Alternative
is required by the State CEQA Guidelines and compares the impacts that might occur
if land uses and buildout within the City and its adopted Sphere of Influence would
continue to occur under the existing General Plan (adopted in 1991) and subsequent
amendments and adopted Specific plans. All of the significant and avoidable impacts
i
E
identified in the Environmental Impact Analysis of the DEIR for the Project would
not be reduced a level of less than significant.
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not achieve the objective
established for the project designating mixed-use land uses to result in increased jobs,
fewer vehicle trips, decreased greenhouse gas emissions and compliance with
Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375. Further, the City would fail to meet the
objectives and requirements of its Housing Element.
c. Alternative 2 — General Plan with Mixed Use Eliminated Alternative. Under this
alternative, land designated as Mixed Use under the proposed General Plan, would
instead be designated as CC, "Community Commercial." This mixed use designation
would encourage new housing and innovative retail that is less automobile dependent
and would help create pedestrian -oriented neighborhoods where local residents have
services, shops, jobs and access to transit. Alternative 2 would maintain older
commercial areas as commercial land uses. The opportunity to provide housing units
consistent and compatible next to these areas would be small. Mixed -Use land uses
near commercial land uses provide the Valley's residents opportunities to choose to
use. alternate means of transportation when living close to these centers. All of the
significant and avoidable impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Analysis of
the DEIR for the Project would not be reduced a level of less than significant.
Implementation of the Mixed Use Eliminated Alternative would not achieve the
objective established for the project designating mixed-use land uses to result in
increased jobs, fewer vehicle trips, decreased greenhouse gas emissions and
compliance with Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375. Further, the City would fail
to meet the objectives and requirements of its Housing Element.
d. Alternative 3 — Downgrade Vacant Urban Residential Parcels by One Land Use
Designation Alternative. Under this alternative, vacant parcels that are designated
Urban Residential (URI, UR2, UR3, UR4 or UR5) and are not presently entitled
would be downgraded in density by one land use designation. For example, a vacant,
not entitled parcel designated UR3 (11.0 dwelling units per acre) by the proposed
General Plan would instead be designated UR2 (5.0 dwelling units per acre) under
this alternative. The URI designation (2.0 dwelling units per acre) would be
downgraded to NUS, "Rural Residential/Non-Urban 5" (1.0 dwelling unit per acre).
All of the significant and avoidable impacts identified in the Environmental Impact
Analysis of the DEIR for the Project would not be reduced a level of less than
significant. Further, the City would fail to meet the objectives and requirements of its
Housing Element.
Alternative 3 would eliminate the UR5 designation from the Land Use Policy Map of
the proposed General Plan. The UR5 designation provides for medium to high density
multi -family housing, such as apartment and condominium complexes, in areas easily
accessible to transportation, employment, retail, and other urban services. Allowed
uses include multi -family housing at a minimum density of 18 dwelling units per acre
and a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre, configured in buildings of two
to three stories in height. Alternative 3 would still allow the development of medium
M
to high density multi -family housing of up to 30 dwelling units per acre under the
mixed use designation. The overall development of new medium to high-density
housing would be reduced with elimination of the UR5 designation.
Under Alternative 3, a general plan similar to the proposed General Plan would be
implemented, except development density would be reduced on vacant parcels
designated as Urban Residential by the proposed General Plan. The mix and diversity
of housing options would therefore be limited. The downgrade of vacant urban
residential parcels would eliminate UR5 land use. This land use would provide multi-
family housing opportunities which could potentially be used for the development of
affordable dwelling units. This alternative would limit the City's ability to identify
adequate affordable housing sites. As described above, the limit in the different
residential land uses would limit the number of multi -family housing locations and
dwelling units. As there would be one less land use designation, there would be fewer
opportunities to promote mixed density of housing units.
e. Environmentally Superior Alternative. The determination of an environmentally
superior alternative is based on the consideration of how the alternative fulfills the
project objectives and how the alternative either reduces significant, unavoidable
impacts or substantially reduces the impacts to the surrounding environment. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6 indicates that if the No Project Alternative is the
environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
For the OVOV project, based on the analysis included herein, the Downgrade Vacant
Urban Residential Parcels by One Land Use Category Alternative would be
considered environmentally superior to the proposed General Plan because it would
avoid and/or substantially reduce the severity of significant impacts associated with
implementing the proposed General Plan. Alternative 3 would be consistent with the
proposed SEAs within the City's Planning Area. However, Alternative 3 does not meet
certain objectives of the proposed General Plan and would not meet the requirements
of the City's Housing Element.
SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Based upon the above
recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the General Plan Final EIR, oral and
written testimony and other evidence received, at the public hearings held on the General Plan
project and the General Plan Final EIR, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council
and on its behalf, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the
City Council finds the following:
a. That the Final EIR for the General Plan project is adequate, complete, and has been
prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
b. That the Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the Final
EIR in reaching its conclusions.
10
c. That the Final EIR was presented and reviewed prior to taking action to approve the
General Plan 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, as detailed in
Exhibit B attached hereto. The analyses included in the Final EIR to support each
conclusion and recommendation therein is hereby incorporated into these findings.
e. That, in accordance with the CEQA Section 21081, modifications have occurred to
the project to reduce significant effects.
f. That, in accordance with the CEQA Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section
15091, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the new
General Plan project that avoid or substantially lessen its significant environmental
effects because of feasible mitigation measures.
g. The Statement of Overriding Considerations identifies and weighs the revised
project's significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant
against the community benefits from this revised project, and concludes based on
substantial evidence in the record that the revised project's benefits outweigh its
unavoidable significant impacts.
h. That the Final EIR reflects the decision -maker's independent judgment and analysis.
i. That a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared and is
adopted to enforce the mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and project
approvals.
j. The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings on
which this decision is based are under the custody of the City Clerk and are located at
the City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, California 91355.
SECTION 6. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. Based upon the above
recitals and the entire record, including the General Plan Final EIR, oral and written testimony
and other evidence, received at the public hearings held on the General Plan project and the
General Plan EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, or on
its behalf, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City
Council finds that there is substantial evidence that supports the conclusion that the General Plan
project will result in community benefits, including specific ecological, economic, legal, social,
technical and other benefits, that outweigh the significant effects of the General Plan project on
the environment that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant.
a. Significant unavoidable impacts include the following, as further described in Exhibit
B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
1. Air Quality - short-term construction impacts, operational impacts, and
cumulative.
2. Global Warming and Climate Change — cumulative.
3. Agricultural Resources — loss of 192 -acre farmland designation in City's Sphere
of Influence.
4. Biological Resources — cumulative.
5. Water Services — for two areas outside of the Castaic Lake Water Agency service
area and/or the East Subbasin.
6. Solid Waste - long-term (operational) and cumulative impacts
7. Noise — short term (construction), operational, cumulative.
b. The benefits of the General Plan project outweigh its significant unavoidable impacts
that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. (see Exhibit B)
SECTION 7. The City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental information
contained in the Final EIR SCH No. 2008071133 (Exhibit A) and hereby 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 its unavoidable adverse environmental effects and hereby determines that the
benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects; therefore, the City Council
determines that the unavoidable adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable. The
City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR and associated documents, and adopt the project's
Mitigation Monitoring and Program and adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(SOC).
SECTION 8. By the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council has not granted any approval
of entitlement on this project.
SECTION 9. 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.
J
12
1
PASSED AND APPROVED this 14th day of June, 2011.
y
ATTEST:
ACT Gr- Y CLERK
DA
v
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Kevin Tonoian, Acting City Clerk, of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and passed at a regular meeting of the City
Council on the 14th day of June, 2011 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS.:. Ferry, Kellar, Ender, McLean
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
RECUSED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Weste
13
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
CERTIFICATION OF
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
I, , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do
hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Resolution 11-62 adopted by .the
City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California on June 14, 2011, which is now on file in
my office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this day of
2011.
City Clerk
By
Deputy City Clerk
14
1
L
1
EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION 11-62
FINAL EIR INCLUDING DEIR ANIS MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM (Compact Discs)
15
EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION 11-62
FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CEQA
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091
(Title 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 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 environmental
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, "CEQA Finding I").
(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, "CEQA
Finding-2")-.-
(3)
inding2")-.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR (hereafter, "CEQA
Finding 3").
For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a level below 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.
All Final EIR mitigation measures, as discussed below are incorporated by reference into
these findings. In addition, the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Sections 6
and 7 (Statement of Overriding Considerations), above, are incorporated by reference into these
findings. In accordance with the provisions of CEQA (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.)
and the CEQA Guidelines, the City adopts these findings as part of its certification of the Final
EIR for the new General Plan.
1
It
SECTION 1
UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE
MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The Planning Commission has determined that, although project design, modifications to
the project as originally proposed, EIR mitigation and/or conditions of approval imposed on the
project will either avoid or provide substantial mitigation of the project's identified significant
environmental effects, the following environmental effects cannot be feasibly mitigated to a level
of insignificance. Consequently, in accordance with CEQA Guideline 15093, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations has been prepared 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 (SOC).
1.1 AIR QUALITY
1.1.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. While policies would reduce air pollutant
emissions, the potential for impacts on air quality from implementation of the
proposed General Plan and Area Plan would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impacts would be considered potentially significant and mitigation measures are
required. Nonetheless, even with mitigation, impacts to air quality are potentially
significant and unavoidable.
1.2.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3.
1.2.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts, together with
Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-9, indicate that the significant effects of the project have
been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that certain significant impacts on air quality
remain and are thus unavoidable.
Air quality impacts are considered a regional impact and therefore the complete OVOV plarming
area was included in the analysis. The EIR for the City's OVOV general plan has identified
three air quality issue areas. The first area is construction impacts. The EIR assumes that
buildout of the General Plan would be ongoing and in a relatively evenly distributed schedule.
The EIR uses the South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds for determining
construction emissions that are generally geared towards individual projects. In using this
criteria, the majority of targeted emissions are significantly exceeded even with the long list of
mitigation measures.
The second area that is identified is the operational impacts from both stationary and mobile
sources. The EIR identifies an increase in the amount of selected emissions with the buildout of
the OVOV plan. It also indicated that some emissions would be reduced through the buildout of
the plan. The ETR used an air quality model called URBEMIS2007. As indicated, this is a 2007
17
model and does not include new regulations, such as AB375 and new Title 24 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards. In addition, emissions from vehicles will continue to decrease as they
become more efficient over the life of the General Plan. Over the lifetime of the General Plan,
we accept that technologies will continue to evolve and therefore a further reduction over the
emissions indicated in the EIR.
Lastly, the area of toxic air contaminants (TAC's) near sensitive receptors was identified. The
EIR identifies sensitive receptors as residences, hospitals, schools and other health care facilities.
While the EIR identifies mitigation measures to reduce the impact to new sensitive receptors, the
increase of traffic on I-5 and SR14, from both the OVOV project and ambient traffic growth,
there will be impacts to existing sensitive receptors in proximity to these thoroughfares.
While policies would reduce air pollutant emissions, the potential for impacts on air quality from
implementation of the proposed General Plan and Area Plan would remain significant and
unavoidable. Nonetheless, even with mitigation, impacts to air quality are still considered
potentially significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of the General Plan project would generate construction -related air pollutant
emissions- _Construction -related emissions_ would be_generated by on-site stationarysources,_ on -
and off-road heavy-duty construction vehicles, and construction worker vehicles. During project
construction, emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and respirable particulate matter (PM10)
would exceed the thresholds of significance for regional impacts recommended by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). In addition, a localized air quality impact
would occur as project construction would result in PM10 and PM2.5 emissions that exceed the
localized significance thresholds at nearby sensitive receptors.
Mitigation measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-9 would be implemented that would reduce construction -
related emissions to the maximum extent feasible. However, no feasible mitigation exists that
would reduce the project's construction -related emissions of NOx, PM10, or PM2.5 to below the
SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance or the localized significance thresholds.
Therefore, the project's construction -related emissions would be considered significant and
unavoidable.
The relevant SCAQMD criteria were used to assess cumulative air quality impacts. Based on this
analysis, cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant given the cumulative
project thresholds of significance found in the SCAQMD's California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook.
For the reasons stated here, in the Alternatives and in the SOC, the remaining unavoidable
significant impacts on air quality are outweighed by the project's benefits and are acceptable
when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other
considerations.
1.2. GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE
18
. 1.2.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Implementation of the proposed General Plan and
Area Plan would increase GHG emissions over existing -conditions. While General Plan and Area
Plan policies would reduce GHG emissions, potential impacts on climate change from
implementation of the proposed General Plan and Area Plan would be potentially significant and
unavoidable after mitigation given the increase in emissions. In conjunction with the proposed
General Plan policies, mitigation measures 3.4-1 through 3.4-16 are proposed to reduce these
impacts.
1.2.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3.
1.2.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. Like air quality, global warming and
climate change is considered a regional impact. The EIR demonstrates that the project is
consistent with the project design requirements and rnitigau n irn sures reCoir nmended by
California Air Resources Board, California Office of Planning and Research the California
Climate Action Team and the California Attorney General's Office. In addition, the City of
Santa Clarita has committed to preparing a Climate Action Plan (CAP) within 18 months of the
adoption of the OVOV general plan.
While General Plan and Area Plan policies would reduce GHG emissions as compared to
existing plans for future development, potential impacts on- climate change from -implementation
of the proposed General Plan and Area Plan would be potentially significant and unavoidable
after mitigation given the increase in emissions over existing conditions
Development potential under the existing General Plan or the new General Plan incorporate
goals, objectives, policies that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions through effective land use
planning, or in the case of the new general plan, implementation of greenhouse gas policies that
would further reduce impacts. However, both plans would potentially increase the level of
greenhouse gas emissions from existing conditions by substantial margins. For the reasons
stated here, in the Alternatives and in the SOC, the remaining unavoidable significant impacts on
Global Warming and Climate Change are outweighed by the project's benefits and are
acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological
or other considerations.
1.3 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
1.3.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The potential loss of Important Farmland, while
small in acreage, is not consistent with Policy CO 10.1.9, which promotes the preservation of
agricultural lands to provide carbon sequestration benefits. Implementation of the Land Use
Policy Map would also have a significant impact on agricultural land because it would convert
some of the Important Farmlands within the City's planning area to urban -based land uses.
1.3.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3.
1.3.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS The OVOV General Plan includes a number of
goals, policies, and objectives that would preserve open space such as agricultural lands.
However, there is an area located in the City's Sphere of Influence, but outside the City limits
that is designated as Important Farmland by the State of California. The 192 -acre area is located
19
in the area of the existing Lombardi Ranch on Bouquet Canyon Road near Vasquez Canyon
Road. The OVOV Land Use Element identifies the site as Non Urban 5, which allows for a
density of one unit per acre: Any potential loss of Important Farmland, regardless of how small
in acreage, would be a significant and unavoidable impact. For the reasons stated here, in the
Alternatives and in the SOC, the remaining unavoidable significant impacts on Agricultural
Resources are outweighed by the project's benefits and are acceptable when balanced against the
specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations.
1.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1.4.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The proposed goals, objectives, and policies do not
provide a mechanism for the compensation of lost habitats when avoidance or minimization of
+ d 7 t l.oinfeasible, rl tho. m;tin�ta fir the rliraot mortality of individuals
impacts is cold cr eI-L VV lu nor Uv 111V �' itii �i�tAc�. Iva 1- u 1_1 aaav
of listed, proposed, or candidate species. In conjunction with the proposed General Plan policies,
mitigation measures 3.7-1 through 3.7-3 are proposed to reduce these impacts. However, special -
status species are dependent on a variety of habitat .types, including non -sensitive annual
grassland and various common scrub and chaparral types, and habitat loss of these types would
therefore not be compensated for under mitigation measure 3.7-3. Thus, the conversion of all
types of currently undeveloped wildlife habitat to Residential, Commercial and Industrial uses
permitted -under -the -General Plan would -result -in impacts -to- special -status species -that--will
remain significant at the plan level.
The proposed goals, objectives, and policies do not provide for the compensation of lost wildlife
movement opportunities or nursery sites when avoidance or minimization of impacts is
considered to be infeasible. Loss of connectivity between the two units of the Angeles National
Forest could not be compensated for since the intervening habitats would be the only ones which
could provide the necessary avenues of exchange. Therefore, this potential loss could not be
adequately mitigated, and the impact of development would remain significant in the event that
avoidance of impacts on habitat linkages arising from said development is considered infeasible.
This remaining significant and unavoidable impact to Biological Resources is outweighed by the
project's benefits and are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic,
legal, social, technological or other considerations.
1.4.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3
1.4.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts, together with
Mitigation Measures 3.7-1 through 3.7-3, indicate that the significant effects of the project have
been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that a significant impact to the coastal sage
scrub habitat remains and is, thus, unavoidable.
Anytime any development or physical change occurs to a vacant undeveloped property, whether
on the City's fringe or on an urbanized area, there will be a reduction in natural habitat. In
OVOV, policies and mitigation measures are proposed to reduce these impacts. However,
special -status species are dependent on a variety of habitat types, including non -sensitive annual
grassland and various common scrub and chaparral types, and habitat loss of these types would
therefore not be fully compensated for. Thus, the conversion of all types of currently
'Fill
undeveloped wildlife habitat to Residential, Commercial and Industrial uses permitted under the
General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to special -status species.
The proposed project would contribute to projected urban development throughout the planning
area. Increasing urbanization of the area will impact biological resources by reducing total
habitat area. The impacts to direct mortality of special -status species and on sensitive habitats
contributes to the cumulative loss of this habitat for a variety of common and special -status
wildlife species within the region. Consequently, the loss of this habitat as a result of
implementation of the proposed project and other related projects within the City of Santa Clarita
represents a significant cumulative impact.
Although mitigation measures require biological site surveys and acquisition of lands, the project
still contributes to the cumulative 'loss of these plant communities and open space in the Santa
Clarita region. There is no mitigation that would reduce the significance of this cumulative
impact to the coastal sage scrub habitat and open space. The remaining cumulative significant
and unavoidable impact to sensitive habitats are outweighed by the project's benefits and are
acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological
or other considerations.
1.5 WATER SERVICES
1.5.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. An adequate supply of water would be available to
serve the portion of the OVOV Planning Area and within the CLWA service area boundary and
the East Subbasin, and therefore, impacts would be less than significant. In areas outside the
CLWA service area and the East Subbasin however, local groundwater supplies are not adequate
to meet the needs of all existing residents due to the apparent overreliance on the groundwater
deposits as evidenced by declining water levels and dry wells. Consequently, local supplies
would not be able to meet the needs of OVOV buildout in this area and impacts would be
significant after mitigation.
1.5.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3.
1.5.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. As indicated in the OVOV EIR, an
adequate supply of water would be available to serve the portion of the OVOV Planning Area
and within the CLWA service area boundary and the East Subbasin, and therefore, impacts
would be less than significant. (see 2.5.1) This portion includes the vast majority of the City's
Planning Area.
There are two areas of the City's Planning Area that do not meet the criteria identified above.
The first area is a 150 -acre parcel located in the eastern portion of Whitney Canyon in the
Angeles National Forest and is within the City of Santa Clarita limits, yet is not within the
CLWA service boundary. Since this area was purchased as open space, no need for any future
water,service is envisioned.
The second area is located at the northern portion of San Fransciquito Canyon within the City's
Sphere of Influence but outside of the City limits. The area is generally located upslope from the
canyon floor and comprises approximately 100 acres. This area is currently served by water
21
wells and is proposed to be Non Urban 3, which allows a density of one unit for every five acres. w
Since this area is included in the City's Sphere it was analyzed as part of this DEIR.
In areas outside the CLWA service area and the East Subbasin however, local groundwater
supplies are not adequate to meet the needs of all existing residents due to the apparent
overreliance on the groundwater deposits as evidenced by declining water levels and dry wells.
Consequently, local supplies would not be able to meet the needs of OVOV buildout in these
area and impacts would be significant even after mitigation measures 3.13-1 through 3.1-46 are
in place. The remaining significant and unavoidable impact to Water Services are outweighed by
the project's benefits and are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic,
legal, social, technological or other considerations.
1.6 SOLID WASTE
1.6.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The City's Planning Area uses three landfills within
or near the OVOV Planning Area. They include the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, Antelope Valley
Landfill, and the Sunshine Canyon Landfill. Landfills throughout the state have permitted
maximum capacities. In 2007, the amount of waste disposed by the City's Planning Area was
163,000 tons or 5.62 pounds per capita per day. With the projected buildout the estimated
amount of waste disposed and, generated by the City's Planning Area, would be 233,267.9 tons
per year. Nearby landfills are approaching full capacity for waste disposal and the projected
amount of landfill capacity, for the City's Planning Area, would be in a shortfall of 22,626 tons
per day, six days per week in the year 2021. Therefore, the impacts from buildout to the solid
waste system would be significant and unavoidable even with the incorporation of mitigation
measures 3.17-1 through 3.17-6.
1.6.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3.
1.6.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts, together with
Mitigation Measures 3.17-1 through 3.17-6, indicate that the significant effects of the project
have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that certain significant solid waste
impacts remain and are thus unavoidable.
As identified in the EIR, there would be a shortage of landfill capacity in the City's Planning
Area by the year 2021 if additional landfill capacity is not identified. A combination of
compliance with the City of Santa Clarita's diversion ordinances and specific solid waste
mitigation measures identified for OVOV EIR will significantly reduce the collection
and hauling of solid waste to the areas landfills in the County of Los Angeles that has the
capacity and approval to accommodate the solid waste demands for the next nine years. In
addition, it is reasonable to assume that the solid waste or trash fees collected from residents and
businesses will be used by the solid waste companies to obtain approvals to expand existing
landfills, to identify/entitle new landfills and to construct new recycling facilities to
accommodate the existing and future solid waste demands in the City. In fact, as identified in
the Draft EIR, there are landfill expansion plans in the County, including Chiquita Canyon
Landfill, currently being proposed that would continue to meet the solid waste demands of the
City.
22
However, at this time it is also too speculative to assume that there is unlimited space for
landfills for the next 100 years, thus, City staff is . taking the conservative approach,
and acknowledging that landfill space is could be considered finite. Therefore, the EIR identifies
has come to the very conservative conclusion that solid waste is an unavoidable significant
impact even with the six mitigation measures identified in the EIR.
Land suitable for landfill development or expansion is quantitatively finite and limited due to
numerous enviromnental, regulatory, and political constraints. This is not to say, though, that
alternative solid waste disposal technologies that could substantially reduce landfill disposal will
not be developed and legislatively approved in the future; given the market forces that drive the
solid waste industry, it seems 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, the potential project and cumulative
solid and hazardous waste impacts are considered unavoidably significant. For the reasons stated
here and in the SOC, the remaining unavoidable significant solid waste impacts are outweighed
by the project's benefits and are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding
economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations.
1.7 NOISE
1.7.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The implementation of the proposed General Plan
is designed to reduce construction source noise through development review and comment,
adopted noise ordinances and code provisions, use of noise -absorbing barriers, where
appropriate, and regulating noise from construction activities near residential neighborhoods.
Nonetheless, construction noise impacts could temporarily exceed allowable noise standards.
None of the proposed policies address vibration impacts. In the event that pile driving or other
activity occurs in close proximity to another structure and continuous (or steady-state) vibration
that exceeds 0.2 inch/second peak particle velocity (PPV) occurs on a project -by -project basis, a
significant vibration impact would occur.
It is not always possible to reduce construction noise impacts to below standards set forth in the
City ordinances; therefore, short-term construction noise impacts are unavoidably significant for
the duration of the construction activities. Short-term noise and vibration impacts from the pile
driving would be unavoidably significant for the duration of the pile driving. While the City
proposes noise policies to reduce impacts, operational noise impacts would exceed noise
standards and would be significant and unavoidable.
The second significant impact associated with noise is that in the area operational (vehicular)
noise. With OVOV and with buildout of the existing General Plan documents, 14 roadway links
in the City's Planning Area would exceed the identified significance threshold of 5dB over the
buildout of the Circulation Element. While the increase of noise on these roadway links would
exceed the threshold of 5dB over existing levels, the changes between the buildout of the
existing and proposed OVOV documents would be considered imperceptible. While the City
proposes noise policies to reduce impacts, operational noise impacts would exceed CEQA noise
thresholds and would be significant and unavoidable.
1.7.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3.
23
1.7.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts, together with
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1, indicate that the significant effects of the project have been reduced or
avoided to the extent feasible, but that certain significant noise impacts associated with
construction -related, operational and cumulative remain, and are thus, unavoidable. All other
impacts related to noise are either at less than significant levels or can be reduced to less than
significant levels with the imposition of mitigation measures.
The significant impacts associated with noise are two -fold, constructional and operational.
Construction noise impacts under the proposed General Plan may exceed the City's noise
standards and a significant noise impact could occur. It is not always possible to reduce
construction noise impacts to below City standards. Therefore, short-term construction noise
impacts are unavoidably significant for the duration of the construction activities. Short-term
noise and vibration impacts from the pile driving could be unavoidably significant for the
duration of the pile driving. These activities are considered to be short-term.
Noise levels from grading, utility infrastructure installation and other construction activities for
the project may periodically exceed suggested maximum noise levels. Compliance with the
City's construction hour requirement along with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8-1
would reduce construction noise impacts, but not to less than significant levels.
For the reasons stated here, in Alternatives of the EIR, and in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, the remaining project -related significant and unavoidable impacts related to
noise cannot feasibly be reduced to a level less than significant. The project -related significant
and unavoidable noise impacts are outweighed by the project's benefits and are acceptable when
balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other
considerations.
J
24
SECTION 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT HAVE BEEN MITIGATED TO A LEVEL
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The Planning Commission has determined that, where the Final EIR found the project would
have potentially significant project level effects, project revisions, mitigation measures and
conditions of approval will substantially mitigate those environmental effects, and that, as a
result, those effects have been mitigated to a level less than significant, as follows.
This section sets forth the potentially significant effects of the project and, with respect to each
such impact, identifies one or more of the required CEQA findings and states facts in support of
these findings.
2.1 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2.1.1 POTENTIAL. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. General plan policies would reduce
circulation impacts as compared to existing plans for future development. Comparison of
existing conditions to the proposed OVOV plan indicates that four of the five roadway segments
that exceed LOS F for existing conditions are forecast to operate at LOS E or better with the
proposed OVOV plan. The fifth segment that is at LOS F for existing conditions, McBean
Parkway south of Avenue Scott, is shown to remain at LOS F with the OVOV plan. However,
the V/C ratio at that location does not increase with the OVOV plan. Nonetheless, without
implementation of mitigation measures 3.2-1 through 3.2-3 impacts would be potentially
significant. Adherence to.the proposed General Plan goals, objectives, and policies would ensure
that the planned improvements to the Interstate 5 and State Route 14 freeways would be
implemented. With these roadway improvements, operating conditions along both freeways
would improve. Operating conditions along CMP roadways would improve with buildout of the
proposed City General Plan and County Area Plan in place of the current City General Plan and
County Area Plan; impacts on CMP roadways would be less than significant.
2.1.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.1.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The proposed General Plan goals,
objectives, and policies in combination with Mitigation measures 3.2-1 through 3.2-3 would
encourage the creation of walkable communities and neighborhoods by considering pedestrian
access in all phases of development planning, including site design, subdivision design, and
public improvement projects. Additionally, the policies seek to create a unified and well-
maintained bikeway system, which includes connection of the gaps in the existing system. The
proposed General Plan has been designed to reduce, as opposed to cause, hazards, and barriers to
pedestrians and bicyclists; therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.
2.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES
IN
2.2.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The City Planning Area is rich with
many different cultural and archeological resources with many of the potential archeological
resources still buried under soil. The disturbance of the soil has the potential to uncover any
unknown resources that have contributed to the contribution of California's history. The
implementation . of the General Plan would have the potential to negatively impact these
resources. If a site is deemed to have an archeological resource then the appropriate measures
will be applied. If the site does not meet the criteria defined but meets the definition of a unique
archeological resource, the site shall be treated in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines. As
the City approaches buildout there is the potential to demolish existing buildings which are in the
timeline or timeframe of becoming historic landmarks or buildings.
2.2.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.2.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. Cultural resources are defined as
prehistoric and historic sites, structures, and districts, or any other physical evidence associated
with human activity considered important to a culture, a subculture, or a community for
scientific, traditional, religious, or any other reason. For analysis purposes, cultural resources
may be categorized into three groups: archaeological resources, historic resources, and
contemporary Native American resources. Paleontological resources, while not generally
considered a "culturahresource, are afforded protection under State CEQA Goeines an as
such are evaluated. All impacts related to cultural and paleontological resources would be less
than significant with mitigation measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-7 are incorporated.
2.3 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
2.3.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The proposed General Plan would
provide adequate mitigation for potential fault rupture hazards which has been identified to
provide flexibility to the City in requiring site-specific geotechnical investigations in any area
falling within identified or yet as unidentified fault zones, including Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones.
Adherence to mitigation measure 3.9-1 and the proposed General Plan would reduce potential
impacts from rupture of unidentified fault zones to a less than significant level. Implementation
and adherence to mitigation measures 3.9-2 to 3.9-4, and the goals, objectives, and policies of the
General Plan would reduce potential impacts related to seismically associated ground shaking to
less than significant.
To ensure that potential impacts associated with the issue of liquefaction are reduced to a less
than significant level, mitigation measure 3.9-5, have been identified to provide flexibility to the
City in requiring site-specific liquefaction assessments. With the implementation of this
mitigation measure and the proposed General Plan goals, objectives, and policies, potential
impacts from liquefaction would be less than significant. To ensure that potential impacts
associated with landslide hazards are reduced to a less than significant level, mitigation measure
3.9-6 has been identified to provide flexibility to the City in requiring site-specific landslide
hazard assessments. The goals, objectives, and policies of the proposed General Plan provide
specific requirements to identify, evaluate, and mitigate potential impacts associated with soil
erosion and loss of topsoil throughout the City's Planning Area as buildout occurs. Mitigation
measures 3.9-7 and 3.9-9, would provide more direct methods to reduce impacts from erosion
26
and loss of topsoil. Implementation of the proposed General:Plan goals, objectives, and policies
and mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts on soil erosion and loss of topsoil to
less than significant.
The proposed goals, objectives, and policies provide specific requirements to identify, evaluate,
and mitigate potential impacts associated with subsidence and collapsible soils. Implementation
of the policies, in accordance with the ordinances adopted by the City, would reduce impacts
from subsidence to less than significant.
The aforementioned policy would require any site-specific developments within the City's
Planning Area to incorporate City Building Code Standards that would help reduce the risk of
expansive soils damaging structures. Implementation of the above policy and incorporation of
any ordinances already adopted by the City of Santa Clarita would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level. No additional mitigation measures would e required.
The proposed goals, objectives, and policies would reduce the potential of any septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems being located on soils that cannot support such
infrastructure. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Future developments would be
subject to CEQA review and any additional mitigation measures developed on a project -by -
project basis.
2.3.2 , FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.3.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. Implementation of the above mitigation
measures along with the implementation of the General Plan's goals, objectives, and policies
would reduce soil and seismic impacts to a less than significant level.
2.4 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
2.4.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The goals, objectives, and policies
outlined in the proposed General Plan provide and promote the use of design and engineering
techniques that would promote infiltration, reduce the volume and rate of stormwater runoff, and
reduce the pollutants in stormwater runoff. However, the proposed goals, objectives, and policies
would not solely reduce the impacts associated with exceeding the capacity of existing
stormwater drainage systems or reduce the amount of polluted runoff that would occur from
development. Implementation of mitigation measures 3.12-1 and 3.12-2 would reduce potential
impacts on surface water runoff to less than significant.
The goals, objectives, and policies would be implemented in order to provide protection to
residential and commercial units that are proposed for areas within the City's Planning Area that
are within 100 -year flood plains. These policies would provide guidance on the measures that
should be taken for any residential or commercial units planned for development within the 100 -
year floodplain. However, these policies do not implement specific requirements to protect
residential and housing units that are planned for development within a 100 -year flood plain.
27
Therefore, mitigation measures 3.12-3 through 3.12-5 are recommended to reduce potentially
significant impacts from the 100 -year flood hazard to less than significant.
Implementation of the proposed General Plan's goals, objectives, and policies related to dam
inundation hazards would reduce potentially significant adverse impacts from dam inundation
hazards to less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required.
2.4.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.4.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. Implementation of the above mitigation
measures along with the implementation of the General Plan's goals, objectives, and policies
would reduce Hydrology and Water Quality impacts to a less than significant level.
2.5 WATER SERVICE
2.5.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The OVOV Planning Area is
composed of the City's Planning Area and the County's Planning Area. The City's Planning
Area consists of its incorporated boundaries and adopted Sphere of Influence (SOI). The
County's Planning Area consists of unincorporated land outside of the City's boundaries and the
adopted SOI but within the OVOY-Plarinirig Area boundaries. In thin environiriental -"impact
report (EIR) water service section, water service is analyzed on a regional basis for the OVOV
Planning Area based on the existing conditions in the Planning Area, and proposed buildout of
the City's General Plan and the County's Area Plan. The OVOV Planning Area is also referred
to in this section as the Santa Clarita Valley.
For the purposes of buildout under the proposed Plan, this analysis emphasizes water use over
the next 40 years (2050). The proposed buildout of the OVOV Planning Area would generate a
total water 2050 demand of 135,450 acre-feet per year (afy) with 10 percent water conservation
within the Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA service area and East Subbasin, plus another
6,000 afy outside the CLWA boundary and East Subbasin. Water demand would be served by
local groundwater, recycled water, and State Water Project (SWP) and non-SWP water supplied
by the CLWA and the other Santa Clarita Valley water purveyors. Portions of the County's
Planning Area outside the service area of CLWA would be served by local groundwater supplied
by private wells. Non -potable water demand would be supplemented with th(, use of recycled
(reclaimed) water from the existing Valencia Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) and the approved
(but unbuilt) Newhall Ranch WRP.
2.5.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.5.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. Potable water would be supplied from
the existing groundwater resources, and other existing and planned water supplies of CLWA,
including imported water from CLWA's SWP sources. The use of these water supplies is
assessed in this EIR. Based on the information presented, an adequate. supply of water would be
available to serve the portion of the OVOV Planning Area within the CLWA service area
boundary and the East Subbasin, and impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of
the mitigation measures 3.13-1 through 3.13-46 along with the implementation of the General
Plan's goals, objectives, and policies would reduce Hydrology and Water Quality impacts to a
'1
less than significant level.
2.6. PUBLIC SERVICES (LIBRARIES, FIRE PROTECTION, POLICE PROTECTION)
2.6.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS (Libraries) Currently, there are
560,314 available library items and 182,672 square feet of library space for the libraries located
within the OVOV Planning Area. Based on the service level guidelines, there is currently a
surplus of 62,620 library items and a deficit of 46,718 square feet of library space. At buildout
under the proposed General Plan there would be a deficit of 195,936 library items and a surplus
of 45,172 square feet of library space.
(Fire Protection) Fire protection within the City's Planning Area is supplied by the
c Limo`s
l� ��.. /1......4�r Tli .r., rfm + T A Hri\ iN 14 �'�]i�l�l'� HHPHi'�l) COPY\/1111Y t11P I I :JI 1\J
!-1ngeles Count file Depal Department (L! -1V V1 LJ vv'iL11 1 stations cur.en'ly serving he v v 111
Planning Area. The LACoFD has several standards to maintain to adequately meet the fire
protection needs of the residents of the City's Planning Area. The 2008 median response time for
the City's Planning Area was 5 minutes 24 seconds. To adequately meet the standards for each
area, there would need to be an increase in the number of fire stations. Joint cooperation between
the City, County, state, and federal agencies would also contribute to maintaining adequate
response times.
(Police Protection) The Sheriff's Department, which contains one station in Valencia and
a storefront station in Newhall, standard to maintain effective police protection is one officer per
1,000 people. The current number of sworn officers, within the City's Planning Area, is 171,
which provides one officer per 439 residents. With the projected buildout of the Planning Area,
the number of officers required to maintain a standard of one officer per 1,000 residents would
need to be 275 for the projected population of 275,000 residents.
2.6.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.6.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS (Libraries) To determine the potential
impacts on community facilities from the proposed buildout of the City's Planning Area, an
analysis of the number of library items, such as books, periodicals, videos, CDs and CD-ROM
software, audio recordings, audio books, DVDs, and pamphlets; and library space was
conducted. Each service level guideline, from the County of Los Angeles Public Library system,
consisted of. 2.75 items per 1,000 residents, and 0.5 square foot per 1,000 residents. With
implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and mitigation measure 3.15-1, the
potential impacts on community facilities would be less than significant.
(Fire Protection) Joint cooperation between the City, County, state, and federal agencies would
contribute to maintaining adequate response times. Implementation of the proposed goals,
objectives, and policies, and mitigation measures 3.15-2 and 3.15-3 would reduce potential
impacts on fire protection to less than significant.
(Police Protection) Law enforcement in the City's Planning Area is served by the Los Angeles
Sheriffs Department with the California Highway Patrol maintaining jurisdiction over the State
highways. In order to maintain adequate service the City's Planning Area would need an
additional 104 sworn officers. With the implementation of the proposed General Plan goals,
29
objectives, and policies and mitigation measure 3.15-4 potential impacts on law enforcement
would be less than significant.
2.7 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE (ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS)
2.7.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. (Electricity and Natural Gas) The
proposed General Plan includes goals, objectives, and policies to,reduce or minimize the effects
of the additional demand and consumption of electricity and natural gas associated with the
prospective growth within the City's Planning Area. Implementation of the goals, objectives, and
policies would reduce the effects of growth and development on energy resources. However, the
proposed General Plan does not provide concrete means of implementation and enforcement.
Many policies lack performance standards that ensure appropriate actions and parameters would
be achieved.
2.7.2 FINDINGS The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.7.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. (Electricity and Natural Gas) Impacts
on energy resources due to the additional demand for and consumption of natural gas associated
with the prospective growth within the City's Planning Area can be further minimized through
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.17-7 and 3.17-8. With implementation of these
mitigation measures, potential impacts on electricity and natural gas would be less than
significant.
SECTION 3
ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS WHERE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
WOULD OCCUR AND NO MITIGATION REQUIRED
The Planning Commission has determined that, where the Final EIR found the project
would have no significant project -level or cumulative effects, the project will have no significant
project -level or cumulative impacts in the following areas and that, as a result, no mitigation is
required.
3.1 LAND USE
The proposed General Plan incorporates goals, objectives, and policies that would ensure
buildout of the City's Planning Area does not physically divide an existing community (for
example, by construction of a major roadway) and would ensure that a community's character is
maintained. Land use policies are included to promote revitalization, promote green building,
sustainability, and development of diverse housing options to serve residents of the City's
Planning Area. Potential impacts on land uses would be less than significant.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the regional planning authority
for the Southern California Region. The proposed General Plan and Land Use Map would be
consistent with SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan Policies and Compass/Growth Visioning
Principles, and,ensure that habitat conservation plans and natural community conservation plans
30
are not impacted within the City's Planning Area. The proposed General Plan's goals, objectives,
and policies protect and designate areas of natural environmental importance such as the Santa
Clara River floodplain, local SEAS, and rivers, streams, and associated tributaries throughout the
City's Planning Area as Open Space or Non -Urban Land Use designations. The City's proposed
General Plan would not conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations and
impacts would be less than significant.
3.2 AESTHETICS
Resources within the City's Planning Area as well as the County's Planning Area include a
variety of natural and manmade elements as well as the viewsheds to those elements that serve as
visual landmarks and contribute to the unique character of the City's Planning Area. Although
•rt_ -- n7�_.o .. Tll _,_-----� n___ .1 ..��.1 r. ...7 •� • a��-1 ,.,1 k�
spec111G SCGIIIC resources 111 t11G lily J r1Q1ll1111� t11Gtl are �UG11Lill U, 1L is no' 1r11G11UGU LU prUv1UG
an exhaustive inventory, as the nature of these resources is somewhat subjective and not easily
quantified. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would increase development within the
unincorporated portion of the Santa Clarita Valley, which, if unregulated, would contribute to the
obstruction of views, damage scenic resources, conflict with the Valley's rural character, and
generate substantial levels of light and glare. However, the proposed General Plan includes
goals, objectives, and policies that would ensure the protection of scenic resources and corridors,
promote quality construction that enhances the City Planning Area's urban form, increase open
space, and landscaping, and limit light overspill. For these reasons, implementation of the City's
General Plan would result in a less than significant impact on aesthetics.
3.3 MINERAL RESOURCES
Implementation of the proposed General Plan goals, objectives, and policies related to mineral
resources ensures that future development in. the City would not have significant adverse impacts
on mineral resources nor would future mineral resource extraction create significant adverse
impacts on the environment or future development. Avoiding adverse impacts would be achieved
by potentially adhering to these policies, reviewing all development proposals adjacent to
Mineral Resource Zone -2 (MRZ-2) designated land or mining activity to safeguard against
incompatible land uses, providing buffer zones between urban development mining activity, and
requiring that development adhere to state mining policies and regulations.
Potential adverse impacts on mineral resources would be less than significant because the goals,
objectives, and policies within the proposed General Plan state to identify, preserve from
encroachment, conserve, and maintain the significant MRZ-2 lands. Implementation of the
proposed General Plan goals, objectives, and policies related to mineral resources ensure that
future development in the City would not have any significant adverse impacts on mineral
resources nor would future limited reasonable mineral resource extraction have any significant
adverse impacts on the environment or on future development
3.4 HUMAN MADE HAZARDS
The policies of the proposed General Plan are designed to reduce any significant hazards to
residents or the environment within the City's Planning Area due to the transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials. Freeways within the City's Planning Area are protected in
31
regards to hazardous materials transportation through guidelines and policies of Caltrans. Any
new development that would be located in an area where businesses would use hazardous
materials would be required to go through a review process ensuring that adequate setback and
buffer features are established to protect residents and the environment from possible
contamination. All new development that includes businesses that use hazardous waste will be
required to verify their procedures for storage, use, and disposal of hazardous waste materials to
reduce exposure to residents and the environment. Implementation of these policies will
therefore, reduce the possibility of exposure of hazardous materials to the public or environment
through transportation, use, and disposal. Impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed General Plan goals, objectives, and policies will help guide future development
and prnvirie prntectinn of public safety and property by identifying sites within the Citv's
Planning Area that may contain hazardous materials, and require their cleanup. They also
provide guidance on handling hazardous waste by local citizens and businesses. Implementation
of these policies would minimize the potential impacts on the release of hazardous materials into
the environment to less than significant.
The proposed goals, objectives, and policies are designed to provide guidance on adopting any
future _emergency..response_plans- or evacuation plans that will be complementary to the._proposed
General Plan. Since the policies would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, but strengthen these plans
and any future adopted plans, potential impacts on emergency or evacuation plans from
implementation of the proposed General Plan would be less than significant.
The proposed goals, objectives, and policies are designed to guide the City in taking preventive
measures against wildland fires. Since the City's Planning Area contains and is,adjacent to high
hazard wildland fires areas appropriate measures must be taken to avoid the risk of a
conflagration spreading into the OVOV Planning Area. The policies offer ways in which to
address the problems associated with the possibility of wildland fires occurring within the City's
Planning Area. With their implementation, potential impacts from wildland fires would be
reduced to less than significant.
3.5 COMMUNI'T'Y SERVICES
(Seniors and Youth) The potential impacts on senior and youth services found within the City's
Planning Area included an analysis on the number of affordable senior housing (851 units). The
2008 senior population (age 65 and over) consisted of 14,164 residents, or 8 percent of the 2008
population. As the population of the City's Planning Area reaches buildout, the number of senior
citizens would be expected to increase as the existing population ages.The 2007 youth (age 18
and younger) population was 22,058. The City would need to work with childcare facilities and
providers to provide adequate services as the City's Planning Area reaches buildout. Greater
utilization of park resources would need to meet the future demands of youth programs and
youth sports. Impacts on senior and youth services were found to be less than significant with the
implementation of the General Plan goals, objectives, and policies.
32
(Cultural Amenities) This cultural amenities -subsection describes the various social, cultural, and
arts resources available within the City's Planning Area. Cultural amenities in the City's
Planning Area include theatres, auditoriums, and recreational facilities. Cultural organizations
range from arts organizations; to faith -based organizations. Cultural programs include arts
programs run by the City's Department of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services as well as
those sponsored by private organizations. As the build out of the City's Planning Area increases
the demand on different cultural amenities will increase. This increase will require more meeting
space to accommodate the increase in population. Impacts on cultural amenities would be less
than significant with implementation of the proposed General Plan goals, objectives, and
policies.
(Homeless and Emergency Shelter Services) The implementation of the proposed General Plan
goals, objectives, and policies would help to ensure that there are adequate emergency shelters in
the case of an emergency. The policies also encourage assistance to homeless persons through
social service agencies and suitable shelters. Implementation of the proposed goals, objectives,
and policies would minimize potentially adverse impacts on homelessness and emergency shelter
services. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the proposed General
Plan goals,_objectiv_es,_and policies:
3.6 PUBLIC SERVICES
(Health Services) The City's Planning Area has a diverse range of age groups requiring adequate
medical facilities in order to maintain a healthy life. As of 2007, 8.0 percent of the population
consists of the. age group 65 or older. At buildout, 42,350 people of the projected 275,000
residents would be age 65 or older. Every population would require adequate health care within
the City's Planning Area, not just newborns and the elderly. With the implementation of the
proposed General Plan goals, objectives, and policies, potentially significant impacts on health
and social services would be less than significant.
(Education) The City's Planning Area currently has five school districts: Newhall Elementary;
Saugus Union Elementary; Castaic Union; Sulphur Springs Union Elementary; William S. Hart
Union High School. The school districts, as of 2008, educate 149,669 students from kindergarten
to grade 12. The school districts design capacity is 54,844 students. There are no school districts
over capacity; however there are 14 schools over capacity. Implementation of the General Plan
would potentially increase the number of new students within the City's Planning Area.
Implementation of the proposed General Plan goals, objectives, and policies, and Senate Bill 50
would reduce impacts on school districts to less than significant.
(Recreation) Parks and open space are important land use components in an urban environment,
providing both visual relief from the built environment and contributing to residents' quality of
life through aesthetic, recreational, and social value. The City's Planning Area currently has 246
acres of parkland through a combination of neighborhood, community, and regional parks.
Additionally, it has 4,092 acres of open space within the City. The Quimby Act, established by
state law, requires that every county and city meet the standard of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000
residents. The City's proposed General Plan requires the City meet a goal of 5 acres of parkland
per 1,000 residents. The highest standard allowed under the Quimby Act is 5 acres of parkland
33
per 1,000 residents. The existing and planned parkland would total 459 acres at buildout. With
buildout of the proposed General Plan, the City's Planning Area parkland would need a total of
366 acres• to reach the Quimby Act requirement and would need 916 acres of parkland for the
General Plan criterion.
3.7.1 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
ffastewater• Treatment) With implementation of the proposed goals, objectives, and policies the
potential impacts of the General Plan's buildout on the wastewater treatment system capacity
would be less than significant. As the City reaches its General Plan buildout population of
275,000 residents, new projects would be evaluated for their potential impact on the capacity and
effectiveness of the wastewater treatment system to treat additional sources of wastewater. The
need for construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities as buildout occurs would be determined by the Santa Clarita Valley- Sanitation District
(SCVSD). The SCVSD provides wastewater conveyance, treatment, and disposal services for
residential, commercial, and industrial users in the City of Santa- Clarita and the County of Los
Angeles. The construction of new facilities would be subject to CEQA review. No mitigation
measures are required.
(Telecommunications) The existing telecommunications services provided in the City's Planning
Area includes telephone service, television service, and internet services. In order for the City to
meet the demand of the residents at buildout, new utility corridors, or at least upgrades to these
corridors, would need to be addressed. New facilities would be subject to CEQA. Specific scope,
type, and location is unknown at this time and would be defined as technology is defined and
continue to evolve.
3.8 POPULATION AND DOUSING
The potential impacts on the existing and projected population and housing supply in the City's
Planning Area and the potential of the proposed General Plan to induce population growth,
displace existing housing, or displace existing populations were reviewed. Information on
population, housing, and employment for the City's Planning Area was derived from SCAG and
the Economic Development Element. Buildout of the City's proposed General Plan would
increase the population and the number of housing units within the City's Planning Area.` The
population at General Plan buildout would be consistent with SCAG's long-term growth
forecasts for the City's Planning Area. Additionally, implementation of the proposed General
Plan would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of housing or people since
several proposed policies promote growth and development within underutilized and vacant
areas of the City's Planning Area. For these reasons, implementation of the City's Area Plan on
population and housing would be less than significant.
1
34