RESOLUTION NO. 24-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2023120123) FOR MASTER CASE 22-105 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 22- 003, ZONE CHANGE 22-001, SPECIFIC PLAN 22-002), MAKING THE REQUIRED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND
ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council makes the following findings of fact:
A. The City of Santa Clarita (City) included the Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) (Project) as part of the Santa Clarita 2025 Plan on March 23, 2021. The entitlement requests (collectively Entitlements) include:
1. General Plan Amendment 22-003 to amend the General Plan Land Use Map in order to designate the entirety of the SPA as Specific Plan (SP).
2. Zone Change 22-001 to amend the zoning map in order to designate the entirety of the SPA as SP.
3. Specific Plan 22-002 to create the TCSP document.
B. The approximately 111-acre Town Center Specific Plan Project (Project) site is located in the community of Valencia and is bounded by Magic Mountain Parkway to the north, Valencia Boulevard to the south and east, and generally by McBean Parkway to the west, with a 3.7- acre portion of the Project site located on the southwest side of McBean Parkway connecting to the McBean Regional Transit Center. The Project site is located within the Regional Commercial (CR) zone and General Plan land use designation and the City's Jobs Creation Overlay Zone (JCOZ).
C. On June 14, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-61, adopting the City’s General Plan, and Resolution No. 11-62 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report analyzing the General Plan. The City’s General Plan presently designates the Project site as CR.
D. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the Project site is to establish the Town Center Specific Plan as the long-range land use plan for the Project area. The current CR zoning designation allows for a FAR of 2:1 (87,120 square feet of floor area per acre) and residential density between a minimum of 18 units and a maximum of 50 units per acre. The Town Center Specific Plan maintains this FAR of 2:1 and the residential densities of up to 50 units per acre.
E. The Project site is immediately surrounded on all sides by land with a General Plan land use designation and zoning classification of CR, with the exception of the McBean Regional Transit Center (zoned PI-Public/Institutional), which is located immediately west of the
McBean and Valencia Subarea. Land to the west of the Specific Plan Area, across McBean Parkway, is designated and zoned as CR, with PI and Open Space zoning beyond. Land to the south and east, across Valencia Boulevard, is designated and zoned as CR, with Urban Residential 4, Urban Residential 3, and Urban Residential 2 zoning beyond. Land to the north, across Magic Mountain Parkway, is designated and zoned CR with Specific Plan designation (the North Valencia Specific Plan) farther to the north.
Uses adjacent to the TCSP Area include auto dealerships and retail commercial uses to the north; restaurants, banks, supermarket, retail commercial uses, a medical office building, and Santa Clarita City Hall to the south; banks, medical clinics, restaurants, and retail stores to the east; and multifamily residential uses, a hotel, restaurants, retail stores, the Santa Clarita Conference Center, and Santa Clarita McBean Regional Transit Center to the west.
F. The Project site is an approximately 111-acre site and includes four subareas: Subarea 1 (Valencia Town Center), Subarea 2 (Town Center East), Subarea 3 (Town Center Drive, and Subarea 4 (McBean and Valencia). The Project is a long-range land use plan that establishes the vision of the City for the Town Center Specific Plan area as a regional destination incorporating a balanced mix of uses. The Town Center Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies three buildout scenarios that represent low buildout, full buildout, and high buildout scenarios of uses, which are anticipated to include a mix of residential, commercial, retail, dining and entertainment uses. The intent of these three scenarios is to frame the anticipated buildout of the Town Center Specific Plan area with the low estimate representing a scaled-back version of the City’s envisioned full buildout of the Town Center Specific Plan area and the high estimate being additional growth beyond the City’s envisioned full buildout. The estimates are for planning and analysis purposes only and do not compel the construction or redevelopment of any individual property.
G. The environmental impacts of the proposed Project were reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., CEQA) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the CEQA Guidelines). In accordance with CEQA, the City of Santa Clarita is the lead agency and the City Council is the decision-making body for the Town Center Specific Plan Project.
H. The City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for the Project to evaluate potential environmental impacts related to the following topics:
aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems.
I. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project EIR was circulated to affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, for 30 days, beginning on December 6, 2023, and ending on January 8, 2024. Agencies that received the NOP include, without limitation, the State Clearinghouse, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, water agencies, and utility companies serving the
Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with CEQA’s consultation requirements. Comments from public agencies were received in response to the NOP for the Project.
J. A duly noticed scoping meeting was held at City of Santa Clarita City Hall on December 13, 2023, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. environmental topics of concern were raised at the meeting.
K. The City prepared a Draft EIR, for the Town Center Specific Plan Project, that addressed all 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 Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from March 5, 2024, to April 29, 2024 (extended from April 19, 2024). A Public Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was mailed to all organizations and individuals previously requesting notice and was published in The Signal on March 15, 2024. The City received written comments throughout the comment period.
L. The Planning Commission public hearings for the Project were duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for each of the Entitlements. The Project was advertised in The Signal 21 days prior to the public hearing and through on -site posting 14 days prior to the public hearing.
M. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public meeting on the Project on April 16, 2024, and on May 21, 2024. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the Project and received presentations from staff on the Project setting, requested Entitlements, and Project description. Staff also made a detailed presentation on the Draft EIR.
N. After considering the matter, the Planning Commission by unanimous vote recommended the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts of the TCSP that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, and recommended certification of the DFEIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), and approve the Master Case 22-105 by Resolutions Nos. P24-009 and P24-010, adopted on May 21, 2024.
O. The City Council held a duly noticed hearing on Master Case 22-105 on June 25, 2024.
At the close of the public hearing, the City Council certified the Final EIR prepared for the Project and approved Master Case 22-105 with associated entitlements for the Project.
P. 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 22 -105 project file, 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 makes the following findings of fact:
A. CEQA provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21002). 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” (Id.).
B. CEQA’s mandates and principles are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions:
(1) “[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, legal and technological factors. (CEQA §21061.1; CEQA Guidelines §15364.).
C. 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, then, encompasses “desirability” to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
D. 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 its own review and analysis, and is exercising its independent judgment when acting as herein provided.
E. CEQA requires decision-makers to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for those mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR that would mitigate or avoid each significant impact identified in the EIR and to incorporate the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, including all mitigation measures, as a condition of Project approval.
F. 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.
G. CEQA Guidelines § 15003 notes 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 finds that the Final EIR for Master Case 22-105 (Specific Plan Adoption 22-002; General Plan Amendment 22-003; Zone Change 22-001) identifies and discloses Project-specific impacts and cumulative Project impacts. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR, findings, and facts in support of findings are herein incorporated as CEQA Facts and Findings referred to as Exhibit A, incorporated by reference and identified as follows:
A. The Final EIR identifies significant but mitigated impacts, as set forth in Section 5.3 of Exhibit A. 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.
B. The Final EIR also identifies less-than-significant impacts, as set forth in Section 5.2 of Exhibit A.
C. The less-than-significant impacts set forth in Section 5.2 of Exhibit A will not contribute to cumulative impacts.
D. The MMRP, included as Chapter 4 of the Final EIR, which is incorporated by reference, is required to mitigate Project impacts.
E. The Final EIR identifies effects determined to be significant and unavoidable but mitigated to the extent possible, as set forth in Section 5.4 of Exhibit A.
SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES.
Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public
hearings held on the Project and the Final EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council further finds the Final EIR analyzes a reasonable range of Project alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project, would lessen any of the significant impacts of the Project, and adequately evaluates the comparative merits of each alternative.
A. The objectives of the Project are specified in the Final EIR and Section 2.2 of Exhibit A. 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.
B. Alternative 1 – No Project/No Build Alternative. This alternative is required by the CEQA Guidelines and compares the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present condition with those that would be generated by the proposed Project. Under this Alternative, the buildings and other improvements in the Town Center Specific Plan Area would remain and no new development or redevelopment would occur. Individual building tenants might change over time, but the overall mix of uses in the Town Center Specific Plan Area would remain, primarily consisting of various commercial, retail, restaurant, office, and civic uses.
This alternative would have the least impact compared to the Project as it would not alter the existing conditions. Alternative 1 is the only alternative that would not result in any new significant and unavoidable impacts and would not require any of the mitigation measures proposed by the Project. Consequently, Alternative 1 would be considered the environmentally superior alternative. However, the alternative would not attain any of the Project Objectives as summarized in Section 2.2 of the CEQA Facts and Findings (Exhibit A).
C. Alternative 2 – No Project/Infill Development and Redevelopment Under Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations Alternative. Under this alternative, the Town Center Specific Plan Area would be further built out in accordance with the existing applicable zoning regulations and General Plan land use designation criteria. The entire approximately 111- acre Specific Plan Area is zoned Regional Commercial (CR) and has an equivalent General Plan Land Use designation of Regional Commercial (CR). The density standards in the CR zone are 18-50 units per acre for residential uses and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2:1 for non- residential uses. The proposed Specific Plan would not change these density standards. Consequently, buildout under Alternative 2 is assumed to be the same as the Project in terms of the future number of residential units and square footage of non-residential uses, i.e., the Project’s low, full, and high buildout scenarios also apply to Alternative 2. However, the primary difference between the Project and Alternative 2 is that the Project would implement a Specific Plan that would regulate the buildout of the Town Center Specific Plan Area in a cohesive and coordinated manner to create a variety of community benefits, including a pedestrian-friendly environment, circulation improvements, parks/plazas, trails/paseos, and monumental architecture.
Without these regulations, buildout of the Town Center Specific Plan Area would be expected to occur largely on a parcel-by-parcel basis without a governed unified approach.
Alternative 2 would not meet the Project Objectives, as summarized in Section 2.2 of the CEQA Facts and Findings (Exhibit A), and would have greater impacts on aesthetics, air quality, GHG emissions, and transportation. Therefore, Alternative 2 is infeasible.
D. Alternative 3 – Reduced Scale Specific Plan Alternative. Under this alternative, the Los Angeles County government center in Subarea 2 (Town Center East) would be excluded from the Specific Plan Area. In this alternative, the remaining portions of Subarea 2 would continue to be within the Specific Plan Area, including the existing 31,000-square-foot retail/commercial center along Citrus Street, the two private office buildings near Valencia Boulevard, and the City-owned land. Subarea 1 (Valencia Town Center), Subarea 3 (Town Center Drive), and Subarea 4 (McBean and Valencia) would also remain within the Specific Plan Area. Under Alternative 3, buildout of Subareas 1, 3, and 4 would be the same as buildout under the proposed Project. Except for the Los Angeles County government center, which would remain, buildout of Subarea 2 would be similar to buildout of the Project. Given the reduction in acreage, total buildout projections of Alternative 3 would be less than those of the proposed Project. Buildout of Alternative 3 would be within the range of the Project’s low and full buildout scenarios, but is not expected to achieve the Project’s high buildout scenario. As there are no current plans to end the operations of the Los Angeles County government center, Alternative 3 is intended to evaluate a scenario in which Los Angeles County continues to utilize its government center into the future indefinitely.
Alternative 3 would reduce but not eliminate air quality impacts associated with the Project. This alternative would also reduce impacts related to energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public services, and utilities and service systems. Therefore, Alternative 3 is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, other than the No Project/No Build Alternative (Alternative 1).
SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Final EIR, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council finds:
A. That the Final EIR for the Project is adequate, complete, has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, and should be certified on that basis.
B. That the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Final EIR in reaching its conclusions.
C. That the Final EIR was presented and reviewed prior to taking final action to recommend certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Town Center Specific Plan Project.
D. That, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, 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 A 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 Public Resources Code Section 21081, modifications have occurred to the Project to reduce significant effects.
F. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen its significant environmental effects, with the exception of operational air quality impacts, because feasible mitigation measures, including those in the MMRP, are made conditions of approval for the Project.
G. The Final EIR identifies one significant unavoidable adverse impact of the Project related to operational air quality emissions, as set forth in Section 7.0 of Exhibit “A.” Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that will lessen this Project impact but that will not avoid or reduce all of the potential impact to a less-than- significant level. This remaining significant impact is balanced against Project benefits and is found to be overridden by the Project benefits, as stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 6, below.
H. That the Final EIR reflects the decision-maker’s independent judgment and analysis.
I. That a MMRP has been prepared and is recommended for adoption to enforce the mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and Project approvals.
The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings on which this decision is based are under the custody of the Director of Community Development 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 Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Final EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, 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 Town Center Specific Plan will result in community benefits, including specific economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits, that outweigh the one significant effect of the Project on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant.
a. One significant unavoidable impact relates to operational air quality emissions, as further described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
b. The benefits of the Town Center Specific Plan outweigh its one significant unavoidable impact that cannot be mitigated to a level below significant.
These benefits are listed in Section 7.3 of Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 7. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Draft Final EIR (SCH No. 2023120123), and hereby determines that it is adequate and in compliance with CEQA.
Accordingly, the City Council certifies the Final EIR and associated documents, and adopts the MMRP.
SECTION 8. By the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council has not granted any approval or entitlement on this Project.
SECTION 9. RELIANCE ON RECORD. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
SECTION 10. LIMITATIONS. The City Council’s analysis and evaluation of the Project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a Project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the Project will not exist.
One of the major limitations on analysis of the Project is the City Council’s lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions.
Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.
SECTION 11. SUMMARIES OF INFORMATION. All summaries of information in the findings, which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record.
The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.
SECTION 12. A copy of this resolution will be mailed to the applicant and to any other person requesting a copy.
SECTION 13. 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.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of June, 2024.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
DATE:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk, of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 24- was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 25th day of June, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
EXHIBIT A
Draft EIR; Final EIR; and
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Town Center Specific Plan SCH No. 2023120123
Incorporated by Reference
Document can be found at
https://santaclarita.gov/planning/environmental-impact-reports-under-review/town- center-specific-plan-2/