Agenda Item: 1
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL:
DATE: May 21, 2024
SUBJECT: The Town Center Specific Plan (Master Case 22-105) - Response to Comments
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
LOCATION: Approximately 111 acres generally bounded by Magic Mountain Parkway to the north, Valencia Boulevard to the south and east, and by McBean Parkway to the west
CASE PLANNER: David Peterson
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Planning Commission:
1. Receive staff presentation;
2. Open the public hearing and receive testimony from the public;
3. Close the public hearing; and
4. Adopt Resolution P24-09, recommending the City Council certify the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023120123) prepared for the project;
5. Adopt Resolution P24-10, recommending the City Council approve the Town Center Specific Plan under Master Case 22-105 and associated entitlements; and
6. Take other action as determined by the Planning Commission.
REQUEST
The request includes General Plan Amendment 22-003, Zone Change 22-001, and Specific Plan 22-002 for the creation of the Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP). The TCSP would provide a long-term vision for development within the specific plan area (SPA) to create a balanced mix of land uses identified by the City Council and the community as desirable and further establish the Valencia Town Center area as a regional destination.
1 Packet Pg. 11
BACKGROUND
At the regular meeting on April 16, 2024, staff presented an overview of the TCSP and received feedback from the public and Planning Commission. Staff also provided a summary of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), and the associated statement of overriding consideration and mitigation measures. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to May 21, 2024, and directed staff to return with:
• Recommended language that reflects the Planning Commission’s direction for minor amendments to the proposed TCSP document;
• Additional information on a handful of items the Planning Commission directed staff to research; and
• A discussion of responses to comments to the DEIR.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The SPA is approximately one mile east of the Interstate-5 freeway and is generally bounded by Magic Mountain Parkway to the north, Valencia Boulevard to the south and east, and McBean Parkway to the west, creating a roughly triangular project site. The McBean Regional Transit Center is directly adjacent to the southwest corner of the SPA.
The SPA includes approximately 111 acres of largely urbanized land and is divided into four distinct subareas. Unlike other specific plans, the TCSP does not include a static site plan.
Rather, it establishes a flexible framework to guide overall development. Several potential development scenarios were analyzed by the DEIR and prepared in conjunction with the TCSP.
It is important to note that these scenarios do not represent the actual ultimate buildout of the SPA, but rather demonstrate concepts that reflect the framework elements and standards established by the TCSP.
A detailed summary and analysis of the proposed TCSP was provided in the staff report prepared for the April 16, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, and is included in the reading file.
ANALYSIS
Proposed Amendments
A portion of the Planning Commission’s motion included proposed amendments to the text of the draft TCSP in specific areas. The following is a summary of the recommended amendments, and the full, proposed text is attached for reference.
• Furniture in the Activity Zone: Chapter Two of the TCSP includes requirements for outdoor dining and/or the display of merchandise in the Activity Zone of the public realm within Element MO2 - Pedestrian Streetscapes. New proposed language would encourage all outdoor street furniture and merchandise in the Activity Zone to be brought indoors when an associated business is not open.
• Maintenance of Micro-Mobility: Chapter Two of the TCSP incudes requirements for micro- mobility infrastructure within Development Framework and Standard MO5 - Micro Mobility. 1 Packet Pg. 12
New proposed language alerts potential operators of micro-mobility services that the City may place conditions on operators regarding the timeframe by which vehicles must be returned to the station they are associated with.
• Parking Management Plans: Chapter Two of the TCSP defines parking requirements within Development Framework and Standard PK1 - Parking Strategy. New proposed language would include, at the discretion of the City, the ability to require a parking management plan for ongoing operation of any project approved within the SPA.
• Private Funding of Significant Community Amenities: Chapter Three of the TCSP includes a declaration that all required and proposed improvements within the SPA are the financial responsibility of the property owner or future builder. For clarity, new proposed language adds a specific reference to the need for significant community amenities to be funded entirely by developers of projects the amenity is associated with.
• Coordination of Construction Management Plans: Chapter Three of the TCSP includes a requirement for all projects approved within the SPA to prepare a construction management plan to address a variety of temporary on-site and off-site impacts due to construction. New proposed language specifies the need for all construction management plans for projects that are built contemporaneously to be prepared in coordination with one another.
Additional Information
During the April 16, 2024, public hearing, members of the Planning Commission requested staff return with additional information on the following topics:
• Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: The TCSP requires electric vehicle charging stations to be provided at a rate and in locations identified by Tier 2 of the CalGreen Code, which exceeds the City’s current requirement for the baseline provision of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. The Planning Commission requested additional information on the difference between the City’s current baseline requirement and the proposed Tier 2 requirement.
The tables, below, compare the City’s current requirement for new development under the baseline CalGreen Code and the Tier 2 requirement that would be implemented for projects within the SPA. The example in the table contemplates a new conceptual commercial development and a new conceptual residential development that each result in 100 new parking spaces. The tables indicate how many of the conceptually required parking spaces must be either clean are or EV.
1 Packet Pg. 13
TABLE 1: Commercial Project: 100 New Parking Spaces
Current City
Requirement
Tier 2
Requirement
Number of “Clean Air”
Vehicles1
0 10
Number of EV Spaces 17 (4 installed) (13 pre-
wired)
40 (13 installed)
(27 pre-wired)
1 Required to be “zero emitting, fuel efficient, and/or carpool/vanpool vehicles.
TABLE 2 Residential Project: 100 New Parking Spaces
Current City
Requirement
Tier 2
Requirement
Number of “Clean Air”
Vehicles1
N/A N/A
Number of EV Spaces 50 (10 installed) (40
pre-wired)
75 (20 installed)
(55 pre-wired)
1 Required to be “zero emitting, fuel efficient, and/or carpool/vanpool vehicles.
• Affordable Housing at The Collection: The Planning Commission requested information on whether The Collection, a commercial property in Oxnard which is a part of the RiverPark Specific Plan, included a requirement for affordable housing.
The City of Oxnard is currently implementing a 10% inclusionary housing requirement citywide. However, the RiverPark Specific Plan requires 15% of new housing units to be affordable.
• Requirements for Photo-Voltaic Solar: The Planning Commission requested information about whether new multi-family and commercial structures are required to have photo- voltaic solar facilities installed prior to occupancy. The current Energy Code generally requires this. The only caveat to this is if the building can demonstrate a level of energy efficiency in its design that would not require the installation of solar facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The comment period for the DEIR began on March 5, 2024, and closed on April 29, 2024.
During that time, the City received written comments from the following parties:
• California Department of Toxic Substances Control;
• Los Angeles County Fire Department;
• Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department;
• Western States Regional Council of Carpenters; and
• Sierra Club, Santa Clarita Chapter.
The complete response to comments is included in the Final Draft EIR (FDEIR), and are summarized below:
1 Packet Pg. 14
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
• Comment: The DTSC notes that there are active and non-active sites under their jurisdiction that could impact future construction activities.
Response: The DEIR includes mitigation measures for the current remediation project located within the SPA at 23740 Magic Mountain Parkway, and a second located adjacent to the SPA at 24375 Valencia Boulevard. The DTSC suggested that their database be consulted for determining the location and nature of any other sites within the SPA. However, this has been completed and is described in the DEIR.
• Comment: The DTSC suggests that the City should coordinate with its offices should any additional hazardous sites be discovered.
Response: The DEIR identified all hazardous sites within and adjacent to the SPA.
Should additional sites be discovered, the City will coordinate with the DTSC as needed.
Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD)
• Comment: The LACFD has no comments regarding the DEIR, however the comment letter does include a reminder that various design features must be incorporated in all future projects.
Response: These will be required as part of any development review process for proposed projects.
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD)
• Comment: The LASD notes that the TCSP will result in additional residential and commercial density which will increase the demand for public safety services.
Response: The residential density as well as the commercial intensity of the TCSP is consistent with the specifications of the underlying zone and is, therefore, consistent with the level of development contemplated by the General Plan. The City meets regularly with the LASD regarding the existing contract for services. As development occurs, the City will continue to work with the LASD to ensure appropriate services are being provided for the community.
• Comment: The LASD recommends the need for construction management plans as development occurs.
Response: This is currently required as part of the TCSP.
Western States Regional Council of Carpenters (WSRCC)
• Comment: The WSRCC provided research and opinions regarding the potential for the use of a local workforce to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) and air pollution emissions.
The comment further discusses training programs they implement to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus.
• Response: The DEIR concluded that impacts to GHG emissions from the TCSP would be less than significant. Also, COVID-19 is not an issue analyzed under CEQA, so the 1 Packet Pg. 15
comment is noted.
• Comment: The WSRCC contends that the DEIR failed to properly assess the TCSP’s energy impacts and suggests an alternative methodology for doing so.
Response: Assessment for potential impacts to energy must satisfy two tests: 1) whether the project would result in wasteful or inefficient consumption of energy resources; and 2) whether the project conflicts with State or local renewable energy plans and programs.
After applying six criteria identified in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, the DEIR found that the TCSP would not use energy inefficiently and would not conflict with energy plans. Further, the methodology proposed in the WSRCC’s comment does not identify how their suggested methodology would assist in determining the level of impact from the project.
• Comment: The WSRCC contends that the DEIR failed to properly analyze impacts associated with GHG emissions and is not consistent with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan.
• Response: The DEIR provides a robust analysis of how the Project complies with the CARB Scoping Plan. Further, the project itself would be consistent with the various reduction strategies included in the CARB Scoping Plan, as it incorporates a mix of commercial and residential land uses, has direct access to mass transit, and incorporates design standards that promote pedestrianism as well as bicycle and micro-mobility transportation. Last, the DEIR identifies that the TCSP meets the screening criteria within the City’s Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) ordinance. Accordingly, the TCSP would have less than significant impacts from VMT.
• Comment: The WSRCC contends that additional mitigation measures should be incorporated regarding air quality.
• Response: The comment does not describe what additional measures should be taken, however, it specifically identifies that a proposed mitigation measure states the projects should only consider including various reduction strategies. However, the TCSP includes requirements for several of these strategies including the installation of electric vehicle charging stations at the maximum voluntary rate required by the CalGreen Code, travel demand management plans for residential and commercial projects, and encouraging the use of electric landscaping equipment for landscape maintenance activities.
• Comment: The WSRCC contends that the DEIR should be recirculated to address concerns included in the comment letter.
• Response: CEQA Guidelines requires recirculation only if “significant new information” is presented. “Significant new information” is defined by four specific criteria: 1) a new significant impact; 2) a substantial increase in the severity of an impact; 3) a feasible alternative or mitigation measure that is considerably different from others that have been analyzed; and 4) that the DEIR is fundamentally inadequate. Based on this definition, the WSRCC comment letter has not identified any new information that would require recirculation.
• Comment: The WSRCC provided a draft technical report regarding local hire requirements and suggestions for GHG modelling.
1 Packet Pg. 16
• Responses: The comment does not address the adequacy of the DEIR, and is noted.
The Sierra Club, Santa Clarita Chapter (SCSC)
• Comment: The SCSC notes a concern for the lack of affordable housing in the Project.
Note that this is a comment regarding a policy, and not a comment on the DEIR specifically.
Response: The TCSP strongly encourages the inclusion for 20% of units constructed in the SPA to be affordable; under the full buildout scenario this equates to approximately 440 units.
• Comment: The SCSC notes the increase in traffic and associated air pollution.
Response: Mitigation measures included with the DEIR would reduce impacts on air pollution from traffic. Further, the TCSP requires all proposed projects to submit a traffic study to identify impacts to the surrounding roadway network which could result in additional mitigations to address level of service.
• Comment: The SCSC asserts that the DEIR’s traffic analysis was prepared using data from May of 2022 and is, therefore, outdated.
Response: Caltrans guidelines provide that traffic data prepared on or after January 31, 2022 reflects post-pandemic conditions.
• Comment: The SCSC states that the TCSP should be designed for safe and convenient walking, bicycling and pedestrian access, include “complete streets”, and accessibility to public transportation.
Response: This is a comment on policy, and not a comment on the DEIR specifically.
The TCSP includes specific design guidelines that require all of these to be implemented with proposed projects in the SPA.
• Comment: The SCSC is concerned about providing enough parks and recreational space as well as the need to plant more trees.
Response: This is a comment on policy, and not a comment on the DEIR itself. The TCSP proposes standards for the provision of gathering spaces that range in size between large public spaces of at least one-acre in size to smaller, community spaces that must be a minimum of 2,500 square feet in size. Further, the TCSP would rely on the existing UDC regarding landscaping and tree planting with special emphasis placed on gateways to the SPA.
• Comment: The SCSC suggests that the TCSP be evaluated for potential hydrology and water quality impacts.
Response: The entire SPA is almost completely urbanized, and any proposed project within the SPA must comply with all applicable law regarding low impact development.
• Comment: The SCSC asks that recycled water be used for irrigation.
Response: The City will continue to partner with the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency regarding this issue. Last, the comment notes the importance of drought tolerant and native landscaping. These standards exist in the City’s UDC and are a part of every 1 Packet Pg. 17
landscape plan review performed by the City.
• Comment: The SCSC recommends that the solid waste disposal capacity be reevaluated, particularly based on the status of Chiquita Canyon Landfill.
Response: The DEIR identified that, should Chiquita Canyon Landfill close, there would still be sufficient capacity at other landfills for future projects developed within the SPA.
• Comment: The SCSC requests consideration for the inclusion of performance standards in the TCSP.
Response: The TCSP includes a comprehensive set of design standards for land use, placemaking, mobility, and parking along with a robust implementation plan to ensure the goals of the TCSP are realized.
NOTICING
The public hearing of April 16, 2024 was continued to a date certain, and required no additional public notification. As of the drafting of this document, staff has not received any additional public comment other than those described.
ATTACHMENTS
RESOLUTION P24-09
P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS
P24-09 - EXHIBIT B-FINAL EIR-MMRP
RESOLUTION P24-10
P24-10 - EXHIBIT A-GPA AND ZONE CHANGE
P24-10 - EXHIBIT B-GP TEXT CHANGE
P24-10 - EXHIBIT C-TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - APRIL 16, 2024 STAFF REPORT (AVAILABLE IN THE
PLANNING COMMISSION READING FILE)
1 Packet Pg. 18
RESOLUTION NO. P24-009
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF 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 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact, and recommends that the City Council make 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.
1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: RESOLUTION P24-09 (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Resolution P24-009
Master Case 22-105
May 21, 2024
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. The City’s Planning Commission is a recommending body for the 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, but are not limited
1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: RESOLUTION P24-09 (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Resolution P24-009
Master Case 22-105
May 21, 2024
to, 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. Staff 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 hearing and through on-site posting 14 days prior to the hearing.
M. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public meeting on the Project on April 16, 2024. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the Project and received a presentation from staff on the Project setting, requested Entitlements, and Project description. Staff also made a detailed presentation on the Draft EIR.
N. Based upon staff presentations and staff reports, the Planning Commission finds that the Project will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor will the Project be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the Project site; nor will the Project jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the Project is compatible with surrounding land uses.
O. 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 Planning Commission of the City does recommend that the City Council make 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
1.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: RESOLUTION P24-09 (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Resolution P24-009
Master Case 22-105
May 21, 2024
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 Planning Commission 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;
1.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: RESOLUTION P24-09 (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Resolution P24-009
Master Case 22-105
May 21, 2024
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; and
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 Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the Final EIR for Master Case 22-105 (Specific Plan Adoption; 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, 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 Planning Commission, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission further finds and recommends that the City Council find that the Final EIR analyzes a reasonable range of Project alternatives that would feasibly attain
1.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: RESOLUTION P24-09 (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Resolution P24-009
Master Case 22-105
May 21, 2024
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.
1.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: RESOLUTION P24-09 (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Resolution P24-009
Master Case 22-105
May 21, 2024
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, GHG 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 Planning Commission, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission further recommends the City Council find:
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 Planning Commission 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.
1.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: RESOLUTION P24-09 (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Resolution P24-009
Master Case 22-105
May 21, 2024
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 Planning Commission, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission further recommends the City Council find 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.
1.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: RESOLUTION P24-09 (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Resolution P24-009
Master Case 22-105
May 21, 2024
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 Planning Commission recommends that the City Council review and consider the Final EIR (SCH No. 2023120123), and hereby determines that it is adequate and in compliance with CEQA. Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council certify a Final EIR and associated documents, and adopt the MMRP.
SECTION 8. By the adoption of this Resolution, the Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
SECTION 10. Limitations. The Planning Commission’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 Planning Commission’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. This Resolution is the Planning Commission’s final decision and will become effective immediately upon adoption.
SECTION 14. The Planning Commission Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken.
1.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: RESOLUTION P24-09 (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Resolution P24-009
Master Case 22-105
May 21, 2024
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of May, 2024.
TIM BURKHART, CHAIRPERSON
PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
RACHEL CLARK, SECRETARY
PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Rachel Clark, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 21st day of May, 2024, by the following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
1.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: RESOLUTION P24-09 (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. P24-009
EXHIBIT “A”
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS
REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
FOR THE
TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
SCH NO. 2023120123
Lead Agency:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
May 21, 2024
1.b
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
1.b
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS ............... ................................................... .... 1
2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY ............................... ................................................... .................. 3
2.1 Description of Project Proposed for Approval .. ............................................................ 3
2.2 Statement of Objectives ....................... ......................................................................... 4
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ..... ............................................ 7
4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING .............. ................................................... . 9
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS ............ ................................................. 11
5.1 Effects Determined to Have No Impact in the EIR ..................................................... 11
5.2 Effects Determined to Be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the EIR ......... 13
5.3 Effects Determined to Be Mitigated to Less-Than -Significant Levels in the EIR ....... 19
5.4 Effects Determined to Be Significant and Unavoi dable but Mitigated to the Extent Possible ........................................................................................................... 25
5.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project .......... ................................................................ 26
6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR ................ ................................................... ........ 37
6.1 Findings ...................................... ................................................................................. 37
6.2 Conclusions ................................... ............................................................................. 37
7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ........ ........................................... 39
7.1 Introduction .................................. ................................................... ................... 39
7.2 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ............... ................................................... ...... 40
7.3 Overriding Considerations ..................... ................................................... .......... 40
8.0 STATEMENT OF LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENT S ............................ 45
1.b
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 ii
This page intentionally left blank.
1.b
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 1
1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) req uires that a Lead Agency make specific findings prior to approving a project that would generate a significant impact on the environment.
In this Statement of Facts and Findings, the Lead Agency identifies the significant impacts of the Project, presents facts supporting the conclusions reached in the analysis, makes one or more of three potential findings for each impact, and explains the reasoning behind the agency’s findings.
This Statement of Facts and Findings has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, specifically Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) provides that:
No public agency shall approve or carry out a proje ct for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief e xplanation of the rationale for each finding.
The three findings available for the Statement of Facts and Findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 are as follows:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the respo nsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained work ers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
The City of Santa Clarita (City), the CEQA Lead Agency, finds and declares that the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City’s Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find and certify that the EIR was reviewed, and information contained in the EIR was considered prior to approving the Town Center Speci fic Plan Project, herein referred to as the “Project.”
Based upon its review of the EIR, the Planning Comm ission recommends that the City Council find that the EIR is an adequate assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project, represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City, and sets forth an adequate range of alternatives to this Project.
The EIR for the Project is composed of the following elements:
• Town Center Specific Plan Project Initial Study (D ecember 2023) • Town Center Specific Plan Project Draft EIR and Te chnical Appendices (March 2024) • Town Center Specific Plan Project Final EIR (May 2 024)
1.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 2
This page intentionally left blank.
1.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 3
2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The Town Center Specific Plan (Project) is located in the community of Valencia in the City of Santa Clarita (City). The Town Center Specific Plan Area (Specific Plan Area) is bounded by Magic Mountain Parkway to the north, Valencia Boule vard to the south and east, and generally by McBean Parkway to the west, with a 3.7-acre portion of the Specific Plan Area located on the southwest side of McBean Parkway connecting to the McBean Regional Transit Center. Citrus Street bisects the Specific Plan Area from north to south. Town Center Drive traverses the Specific Plan Area, connecting to both McBean Parkway and Magic Mountain Parkway and forming a loop road around the Valencia Town Center Mall, which is one of the primary existing land uses in the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan Area is approximately 111 acres in size and comprises four subareas:
• Subarea 1 – Valencia Town Center
• Subarea 2 – Town Center East
• Subarea 3 – Town Center Drive
• Subarea 4 – McBean and Valencia
The City’s goals for the Specific Plan are to create a mix of residential, commercial, retail, dining and entertainment uses with a robust jobs-to-housin g balance; create a distinct sense of place; create a flexible framework for future development that fosters the potential for numerous development possibilities; and create a practical, timeless and buildable plan that is consistent with the City’s General Plan and implements the Housing Element.
In general, the Specific Plan content is presented in three chapters, including an introduction and the proposed Specific Plan’s vision and goals; a development framework and standards chapter that seeks to establish the components, expectation s, and general requirements for all future development plans for sites within the Specific Pla n area and provides development and design standards regulating future development in the Spec ific Plan Area; and an implementation plan that could be utilized to implement the goals of the Specific Plan.
Within the Specific Plan Area, the existing Regional Commercial (CR) zone allows for a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2:1 (87,120 square feet of floor are a per acre) and the provision for residential densities between a minimum of 18 units and a maximum of 50 units per acre. The Specific Plan maintains this FAR of 2:1 and the residential densities of up to 50 units per acre.
While no development is currently proposed, in gene ral, the Specific Plan would incentivize mixed-use development and promote a blend of residential, commercial, and recreational spaces, integrating different land uses and creating a walkable community.
The Specific Plan envisions the development of node s within the Specific Plan Area, which includes, programmable gathering space and other sm aller gathering spaces such as public
1.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 4
plazas, courtyards, amphitheaters, pedestrian stree ts, parklets, children’s playgrounds, and parks.
AGREEMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS
This EIR is intended to inform and provide clearance under CEQA for all governmental approval actions necessary to authorize the project to proceed. These approvals include those listed below.
City of Santa Clarita
• Recommendation by the Planning Commission for appr oval by the City Council that the EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and other applicable codes and guidelines. • Recommendation by the Planning Commission for appr oval by the City Council of the Project or an alternative to the Project.
• Certification of the EIR prepared for the Project.
• Adoption of the Town Center Specific Plan.
• General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan L and Use Map in order to designate the entirety of the Town Center Specific Plan Proje ct site as the Town Center Specific Plan, and a text amendment to the Land Use Element.
• Zone Change to amend the zoning map in order to de signate the entirety of the Town Center Specific Plan Project site as Specific Plan.
2.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The underlying purpose of the Project is to provide a long-range land use plan that establishes the City’s vision for the Town Center Specific Plan area as a regional destination incorporating a balanced mix of uses. The City’s goals for the Spec ific Plan are to create a mix of residential, commercial, retail, dining and entertainment uses with a robust jobs-to-housing balance; create a district sense of place; create a flexible framework for future development that fosters the potential for numerous development possibilities; and create a practical, timeless, and buildable plan that is consistent with the City’s General Plan and impl ements the Housing Element. The Vision and Goals of the proposed Specific Plan together constitute the Project objectives, and are as follows:
The Vision Statement for the Proposed Specific Plan is:
The Santa Clarita Town Center is a lively hub that embodies a spirit of community, inviting people from all walks of life to live, work, shop, play, and socialize. It features a balance of retail, office, restaurants, recreational, hospi tality, and residential spaces, seamlessly integrated with a pedestrian and bike friendly sett ing. The Town Center features an efficient multimodal transportation system, providi ng easy connectivity to regional and local trail systems. The Town Center provides a community identity and is a vibrant place for people to gather, socialize, and celebrate in the City of Santa Clarita.
1.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 5
The primary goals of the proposed Specific Plan are to:
• Create a balanced mix of uses within the Town Cent er Specific Plan area that combines commercial and service opportunities with a residen tial environment that creates a more livable and pedestrian oriented space.
• Further establish and enhance the Specific Plan Ar ea as a regional destination for employment, entertainment, dining, retail, and services. • Provide a long-term vision for development within the most intensive commercial and residential district of the City of Santa Clarita t hat facilitates the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan including, but not lim ited to, the creation of a robust jobs-to- housing balance, and implements the City’s Housing Element.
1.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 6
This page intentionally left blank.
1.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 7
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City of Santa Clarita conducted an extensive re view of this Project, which included a Draft EIR and a Final EIR, including technical reports, along with a public review and comment period.
The following is a summary of the City’s environmental review of this Project:
• Pursuant to the provision of CEQA Guidelines Secti on 15082, as amended, the City of Santa Clarita circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to public agencies, organizations, and members of the public who had requested such notice for a 30-day period. The NOP was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk on December 6, 2023, with the 30-day review period ending on January 8, 2024. • The NOP public review period ran for 30 days. The City received response letters from State and regional public agencies; these comment l etters were included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.
• A duly noticed scoping meeting was held at the Cit y of Santa Clarita City Hall, Carl Boyer Room, on December 13, 2023, to obtain information f rom the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the scopi ng meeting was published in The Signal newspaper and was sent to agencies, interest ed parties, and individuals who requested to be notified of the Project.
• The Draft EIR was distributed for public review, a nd a Notice of Availability (NOA) and Notice of Completion (NOC) were filed with the Stat e Clearinghouse. 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 Availabili ty (NOA) of the Draft EIR was mailed to all organizations and individuals previously reques ting notice and was published in The Signal on March 15, 2024. The City submitted the complete Draft EIR with appendices to the State Clearinghouse and filed the Notice of Ava ilability (NOA) with the Los Angeles County Clerk for posting during the Draft EIR comment period. • The Project and the EIR were presented at two duly noticed Planning Commission meetings held on April 16, 2024, and May 21, 2024.
• The City received a total of seven comment letters on the Draft EIR from public agencies and organizations regarding the merits of the Proje ct or questions regarding the Project.
The City prepared responses to all written comments. The comments and responses are contained in Section 2.0, Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses, of the Final EIR. • In accordance with CEQA, the City provided written responses to the public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR at least 10 days prior to certification of the EIR. • Hearings before the City Council are expected foll owing a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
1.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 8
This page intentionally left blank.
1.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 9
4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING
The City solicited proposals from independent consu ltants to prepare the Town Center Specific Plan Project EIR. Subsequently, the City selected and retained Michael Baker International, Inc. (Michael Baker) to prepare the Town Center Specific Plan Project EIR. Michael Baker prepared the EIR under the supervision and direction of the City of Santa Clarita staff. All findings set forth herein are based on substantial evidence in the record as indicated with respect to each specific finding.
FINDING:
The EIR for the Project reflects the City’s indepen dent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with PRC Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant and directing the consultant in the preparation of the EIR. The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR and accompanying studies and finds that the report reflects the independent judgment of the City.
The Planning Commission has considered all the evid ence presented in its consideration of the Project and the EIR, including, but not limited to, the Final EIR and its supporting studies, written and oral evidence presented at hearings on the Proj ect, and written evidence submitted to the City by individuals, organizations, regulatory agen cies, and other entities. On the basis of such evidence, the Planning Commission finds that, with respect to each environmental impact identified in the review process, the impact (1) is less than significant and would not require mitigation; (2) is potentially significant but would be avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation of identified mitigation measures; or (3) would be significant and not fully mitigated but would be, to the extent feasible, lessened by implementation of identified mitigation measures.
The Final EIR identifies certain significant advers e environmental effects of the Project which cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. Prior to approving this Project, the Planning Commission also recommends that the City Council ad opt a Statement of Overriding Considerations which finds, based on specific reasons and substantial evidence in the record (as specified in Section 7.0), that certain identified economic, social, or other benefits of the Project outweigh such unavoidable adverse environmental effects.
1.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 10
This page intentionally left blank.
1.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 11
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
5.1 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACT IN THE EIR
The Town Center Specific Plan Project EIR found tha t the Project would have no impact on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis of these topic areas is provided in the Initial Study, included as Appendix A of the Draft EIR.
FINDING:
The EIR for the Project reflects the City’s indepen dent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with PRC Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant and directing the consulta nt in the preparation of the EIR. The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the EI R and accompanying studies and finds that the report reflects the independent judgment of the City.
Aesthetics
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic re sources, including, but not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
a) Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the ma ps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Cali fornia Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned T imberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Would the Project result in the loss of forestla nd or conversion of forestland to non- forest use?
e) Would the Project involve other changes in the e xisting environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use?
Biological Resources
b) Would the Project have a substantial adverse eff ect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Would the Project have a substantial adverse eff ect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
1.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 12
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
f) Would the Project conflict with the provisions o f an adopted habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
g) Would the Project affect a Significant Ecologica l Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita SEA Delineation Map? Geology and Soils
e) Would the Project have soils incapable of adequa tely supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems wh ere sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
h) Would the Project involve development and/or gra ding on a slope greater than 10% natural grade?
j) Would the Project result in the destruction, cov ering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature?
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private a irstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Hydrology and Water Quality
g) Would the Project place housing within a 100-yea r flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Ra te Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Would the Project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Would the Project expose people or structures t o a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Would the Project result in inundation by seich e, tsunami, or mudflow? l) Would the Project result in other modification o f a wash, channel creek, or river? Land Use and Planning
a) Would the Project disrupt or physically divide a n established community (including a low-income or minority community)?
1.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 13
c) Would the Project conflict with any applicable h abitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or policies by age ncies with jurisdiction over the project?
Noise
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Utilities and Service Systems
g) Would the Project comply with federal, state, an d local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Wildfire
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project substantia lly impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project, due to sl ope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby exp ose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project require th e installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel brea ks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project expose peo ple or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
5.2 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
WITHOUT MITIGATION IN THE EIR
The Town Center Specific Plan Project EIR found tha t the Project would have a less-than- significant impact on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis of these topic areas is provided in the Initial Stu dy prepared for the Project, included as Appendix A of the Draft EIR, and in Sections 4.1 through 4.11 and Section 4.13 of the Draft EIR.
FINDING:
The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission, havi ng reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study, Draft E IR and Technical Appendices, Final EIR,
1.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 14
and administrative record, finds that based on substantial evidence in the record, impacts related to the following topics, to the extent they result from the Project, would be less than significant.
Aesthetics
a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse eff ect on a scenic vista? c) In non-urbanized areas, would the Project substa ntially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Would the Project create a new source of substan tial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Cumulative Aesthetics Impacts
Air Quality
d) Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Would the Project create objectionable odors aff ecting a substantial number of people?
Biological Resources
a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse eff ect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candi date, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or re gulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? d) Would the Project interfere substantially with t he movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Would the Project conflict with any local polici es or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Cultural Resources
a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse ch ange in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
c) Would the Project disturb any human remains, inc luding those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Energy
a) Would the Project result in potentially signific ant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy r esources, during project construction or operation?
1.b
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 15
b) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a st ate or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Cumulative Energy Impacts
Geology and Soils
a) Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineat ed on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the St ate Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known f ault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liqu efaction? iv) Landslides?
b) Would the Project result in substantial soil ero sion or the loss of topsoil? c) Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and pot entially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? f) Would the Project result in a change in topograp hy or ground surface relief features? g) Would the Project result in earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more?
i) Would the Project result in the destruction, cov ering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature?
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a) Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissi on, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Would the Project conflict with an applicable pl an, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition s involving explosion or the
1.b
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 16
release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation)?
c) Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or ha ndle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? g) Would the Project impair implementation of or ph ysically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wil dlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? i) Would the Project expose people to existing sour ces of potential health hazards (e.g., electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
Hydrology and Water Quality
a) Would the Project violate any water quality stan dards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Would the Project substantially deplete groundwa ter supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Would the Project substantially alter the existi ng drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Would the Project substantially alter the existi ng drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Would the Project create or contribute runoff wa ter which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Would the Project otherwise substantially degra de water quality?? k) Would the Project result in changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water and/or groundwater?
m) Would the Project impact stormwater management i n any of the following ways:
i) Potential impact of project construction and pro ject post-construction activity on stormwater runoff?
1.b
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 17
ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials s torage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery a reas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas?
iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase i n the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff?
iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increas es in erosion of the Project Site or surrounding areas?
v) Stormwater discharges that would significantly i mpair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)? vi) Cause harm to the biological integrity of drain age systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies?
vii) Include provisions for the separation, recycli ng, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy?
Land Use and Planning
b) Would the Project cause a significant environmen tal impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for th e purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Cumulative Land Use and Planning Impacts
Mineral and Energy Resources
a) Would the Project result in the loss of availabi lity of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Would the Project result in the loss of availabi lity of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? c) Would the Project use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Noise
a) Would the project result in generation of a subs tantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordi nance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Would the Project result in generation of excess ive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) Would the Project result in a substantial perman ent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) Would the Project result in a substantial tempor ary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
1.b
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 18
Cumulative Noise Impacts
Population and Housing
a) Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and b usinesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? c) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Public Services
a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the con struction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to main tain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Cumulative Public Services Impacts
Recreation
a) Would the Project increase the use of existing n eighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Would the Project include recreational facilitie s or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Transportation
a) Would the Project conflict with an applicable pl an, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of th e circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
1.b
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 19
b) Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent wi th CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Cumulative Transportation Impacts
Utilities and Service Systems
a) Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment re quirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.
b) Would the Project require or result in the reloc ation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, electric power, natura l gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
c) Would the Project require or result in the const ruction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
d) Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed. e) Would the Project result in a determination by t he wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it [does not have] adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
f) Would the Project be served by a landfill with s ufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs.
Cumulative Utilities and Service Systems Impacts
5.3 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS-THAN -
SIGNIFICANT LEVELS IN THE EIR
The Town Center Specific Plan Project EIR found tha t the Project would have a less-than- significant impact with mitigation incorporated on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis of these topic areas is provided in Sections 4.3, 4.5, 4.7, and 4.12 of the Draft EIR.
FINDING:
The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission havin g reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft EIR and Technica l Appendices, Final EIR, and administrative record, finds, pursuant to PRC Secti on 21081 (a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
1.b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 20
the Project, which would avoid or substantially les sen to below a level of significance potentially significant environmental effects ident ified in the Draft EIR. The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that can be mitigated are listed below. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission finds that bas ed on substantial evidence in the record, the impacts discussed below, to the extent they result from the Project, would be less than significant after implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Project’s impacts related to cultural resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.3, Cult ural Resources, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential substantial adverse effects related to archaeological resources.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or in corporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
Soils throughout the Specific Plan Area have been p reviously disturbed from excavation and grading activities. Any archaeological resources that may have existed may have been previously disturbed from existing and past development. Addit ionally, according to the South Central Coastal Information Center records search conducted for the Project, no archaeological resources have been recorded in the Project Site. However, fu ture development within the Specific Plan Area could require ground-disturbing activities at greater depths than existing foundations. Thus, it cannot be precluded that future grading activities would not encounter, and potentially damage or destroy, previously unidentified archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure MM-CR-1 , which involves assessment by a qualified archaeologist, preparation and execution of Research Design and Data Recovery Program in the event that unidentified archaeological resources are discovered, avoidance or preservation-in-place, as well as collection, treatment, and curation of discovered significant archaeological resources, wo uld reduce potential impacts to such resources during construction and cumulative impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure
MM-CR-1: Treatment of previously unidentified archaeologica l deposits: If suspected prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits are discovered during construction, all work within 60 feet of the discovery must be re directed and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior ’s Professional Qualification Standards must assess the situation and make recomm endations regarding the treatment of the discovery.
For significant cultural resources meeting the defi nition of a historical resource per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or a unique archaeological resource per PRC Section 21083.2(g) as determined by the City of San ta Clarita, if avoidance and preservation-in-place is not feasible, a Research D esign and Data Recovery Program to mitigate impacts must be prepared by the consulting archaeologist and approved by the City of Santa Clarita before being implemented using professional archaeological methods. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the Data Recovery Program must be completed to the satisfaction of
1.b
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 21
the City of Santa Clarita. Work may continue on oth er parts of the construction site while consultation and treatment are concluded. All significant archaeological resources collected must be taken to a properly equipped archaeological laboratory, where they must be cleaned, analyzed, and prepared for curation. At a minimum, and unless otherwise specified in any treatment plans prepared for the development, all resources must be identified, analyzed, catalog ued, photographed, and labeled.
At the close of construction, the collection must be donated to a public institution with a research interest in the materials and the capaci ty to care for the materials in perpetuity. Accompanying notes, maps, and photograp hs must also be filed at the repository, as appropriate. The cost of curation is assessed by the repository and is the responsibility of the project applicant. All co sts must be borne by the project applicant.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The Project’s impacts related to geology and soils that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.5, Geology a nd Soils, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential impacts to paleontological resources.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or in corporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
The Project area is sensitive for paleontological r esources. Mitigation Measures MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-5, which involve implementation of a Worker’s Enviro nmental Awareness Program, monitoring, preparation and execution of a paleontological treatment plan in the event inadvertent discovery of fossils, as well as collec tion, treatment, curation, and reporting of discovered significant paleontological resources, w ould reduce potential impacts to such resources during construction and cumulative impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
MM-GEO-1 Before starting construction for development proje cts in the Town Center Specific Plan Area, the applicant must retain a qualified pr ofessional paleontologist as defined by Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP ) (2010) standards. The paleontologist must create a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program pamphlet that is provided as training to construction person nel to understand regulatory requirements for the protection of paleontological resources. Additionally, the paleontologist must conduct training class(es) that include examples of paleontological resources to look for and protocols to follow if discoveries are made.
The paleontologist must develop Project-specific tr aining and supply any supplemental materials necessary to execute the training.
MM-GEO-2 Paleontological resources monitoring must be condu cted under the guidance of a qualified professional paleontologist and by a qual ified paleontological resource monitor(s) as defined by SVP (2010) standards during grading/excavation activities for development projects building out the TSCP Area , unless it is demonstrated to
1.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 22
the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita that such grading/excavation activities would be limited to engineered fill materials and/or the younger Quaternary Alluvium that makes up the surface layer. Monitoring must in clude visual inspection of excavated or graded area and trench sidewalls. The monitor has authority to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment in order to investigate and salvage finds. The paleontological monitor has the authorit y to take sediment samples and test for microfossils at the discretion of the qualified professional paleontologist. If no significant fossils are exposed or the qualified professional paleontologist otherwise finds that the scientific value of the resource is exhausted, the qualified professional paleontologist may determine that full-time monitoring is no longer necessary or, with the approval of the City, may reduce or eliminate monitoring.
MM-GEO-3 Should a paleontological resource be encountered w hen a monitor is not on-site or a potentially significant resource is encountered that requires additional investigation or cannot be quickly salvaged by the paleontologica l monitor, all construction must cease within 50 feet of the discovery and the quali fied professional paleontologist must be immediately notified. If the monitor is present at the time of discovery, then the monitor may temporarily divert the construction equipment around the find and notify the qualified professional paleontologist. T he qualified professional paleontologist must then visit the site and assess the resource for its scientific significance. Project excavations may continue else where, monitored by a paleontological resource monitor. The qualified pro fessional paleontologist must evaluate the find and contact the City as soon as possible with recommendations as to the significance and potential treatment of the find. Depending on the nature of the find, the determination of significance may req uire additional excavation, potentially including the preparation and execution of a Paleontological Testing Plan.
If significant, depending on the nature of the reso urce, treatment may require the preparation and execution of a Paleontological Treatment Plan. The City, acting with the advice of the qualified professional paleontolo gist, must determine the significance and treatment of the discovered resources.
MM-GEO-4 All significant fossils collected must be prepared in a properly equipped paleontology laboratory to a point ready for permanent curation to the satisfaction of the City.
Preparation must include the careful removal of exc ess matrix from fossil materials and stabilizing and repairing specimens, as necessary. Any fossils encountered and recovered must be prepared to the point of identifi cation. Following the initial laboratory work, all fossil specimens must be identified to the lowest taxonomic level, analyzed, photographed, and catalogued, before bein g delivered to an accredited local museum repository for permanent curation and storage. All costs must be borne by the project applicant.
MM-GEO-5 At the conclusion of laboratory work and preparatio n for museum curation, a final report must be prepared describing the results of t he paleontological monitoring efforts and submitted to the City of Santa Clarita. The report must include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the geology and paleontology in the Project vicinity, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and rec ommendations. If the monitoring efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report must also be submitted to the
1.b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 23
designated museum repository. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs must also be filed at the repository. The cost of curation is assessed by the repository and is the responsibility of the Project applicant.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The Project’s impacts related to hazards and hazard ous materials that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Se ction 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or in corporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
There is an active Leaking Underground Storage Tank site within the Town Center Specific Plan Area, specifically at the former Los Angeles County Sheriff Station, located at 23740 Magic Mountain Parkway. This site is undergoing ongoing r emediation of a leaking underground gasoline tank (GeoTracker Case #T0603704904). In addition, there is an active site that is located just west of the Specific Plan Area, specifically a t 24375 Valencia Boulevard, that is associated with remediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated soil a nd groundwater due to a leaked pipeline (GeoTracker Case #SL2048Y1711). Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1 , which involves the submittal of letters of completion for remediation actions or letters indicating contamination would not exceed applicable thresholds for occupancy from the applicable oversight agency (e.g., Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board [LARWQCB]), would reduce the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or environment to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure
MM-HAZ-1: Prior to development approval for future developme nt within 200 feet of the leaking underground storage tank (Case # T0603704904) site associated with the Los Angeles County Sheriff Station, located at 23740 Magic Mountain Parkway, a letter of completion for remediation actions or letter ind icating contamination would not exceed applicable thresholds for occupancy from the applicable oversight agency (e.g., LARWQCB) shall be submitted to the City of Santa Clarita.
Prior to development approval for future development within 100 feet of the western boundary of Subarea 4 (McBean and Valencia), a letter of completion for remediation actions (Case # SL2048Y1711), located at 24375 Vale ncia Boulevard, or letter indicating contamination would not exceed applicable thresholds for occupancy from the applicable oversight agency (e.g., LARWQCB) sha ll be submitted to the City of Santa Clarita.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Project’s impacts related to tribal cultural re sources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.12 , Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR.
Identified potential impacts include those related to a substantial adverse change in the
1.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 24
significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or local register, and significant to a California Native American Tribe.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or in corporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
The Project area is sensitive for tribal cultural r esources based on AB 52 consultation with the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians regardi ng the Project’s location. Mitigation Measures MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-3, which involve periodic inspection of construction sites, archaeological assessment and tribal consultation o n disposition and treatment of discovered tribal cultural resources, monitoring during ground disturbance in the event that significant tribal cultural resources are discovered, and coordination with the County Coroner if human remains or funerary objects are encountered, would reduce pote ntial tribal cultural resources impacts to during construction and cumulative impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
MM-TCR-1 In the Event of an Inadvertent Discovery: If cultu ral resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediat e vicinity of the find (within a 60- foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior Professional Qualification Standards retained by the project applicant shall assess the find. Work on the portions of the project outsi de of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA, the Project applicant shall retain a professional tribal monitor procured by the FTBMI to observe all remaining grou nd-disturbing activities including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, e xcavating, digging, trenching, plowing, drilling, tunneling, quarrying, leveling, driving posts, auguring, blasting, stripping topsoil or similar activity, and archaeological work.
MM-TCR-2 Disposition and Treatment of Inadvertent Discoveri es: The Lead Agency and/or Project applicant shall, in good faith, consult with the FTBMI on the disposition and treatment of any tribal cultural resource encounter ed during all ground disturbing activities.
MM-TCR-3 In the Event of Inadvertent Discovery, Human Remai ns: If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code shall be enforced for the duration of the Project. a) Inadvertent discoveries of human remains and/or funerary object(s) are subject to California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the subsequent disposition of those discoveries shall be decided by the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), as determined by the Native Ameri can Heritage Commission (NAHC), should those findings be determined as Native American in origin.
1.b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 25
5.4 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND
UNAVOIDABLE BUT MITIGATED TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE
The Town Center Specific Plan Project EIR found tha t the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to air quality during operation. A detailed analysis of this topic area is provided in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR.
FINDING:
The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission havin g reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft EIR and Technica l Appendices, Final EIR, and administrative record, finds, pursuant to PRC Secti on 21081 (a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which would lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Draft EIR to the extent feasible but not to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the City of Santa Clarita finds, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR, and, therefore, the Project would cause significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality during Project operation, as summarized below.
AIR QUALITY
As described above, identified significant air qual ity impacts are associated with operation, as detailed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR.
Findings
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR.
2. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained work ers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
Under the Project’s full buildout scenario, the net increase of operational emissions would exceed the regional thresholds of significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for volatile organic compounds (V OC). Under the Project’s high buildout scenario, the net increase of operational emissions would exceed the regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for VOC and respirable particulate matter (PM 10 ).
Therefore, under these buildout scenarios, the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants for which the South Coast Air Basin is non-attainment under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards or the California Ambient Air Quality Standards. As such, regional operational impacts and impacts related to the implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Ma nagement Plan would be potentially significant. However, as a Specific Plan, the Proje ct would not include any direct demolition or development. Future individual development projects within the Specific Plan would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1, which requires implementation of energy efficiency and transportation measures to reduce emissions to the extent feasible. As no mitigation
1.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 26
measures are feasible at the Specific Plan level to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, thus, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure
MM-AQ-1: To reduce emissions at the site-specific level, pr ior to issuance of a building permit for each project implementing the Town Center Speci fic Plan and to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita, the applicant must develop and commit to implementing a list of project-specific/building-sp ecific emission reduction features. Such features must include, without limitation:
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program Pla ns will be required by the following projects:
o Multi-family residential developments with 100 or more units o Any mixed use or commercial project that generates 50 full-time employees or more.
TDM Program Plans must meet the satisfaction of the City’s Traffic and Transportation Planning Division (or future iterati on thereof) prior to the issuance of a building permit.
• Consideration of energy-efficient design features beyond those required by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the CALGreen Code, as adopted by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code.
• Consideration of electric landscape maintenance eq uipment.
5.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
As set forth in these findings, the implementation of the Project would not in result in significant impacts that are considered unavoidable, with the e xception of impacts related to air pollutant emissions during operation. CEQA requires that an EIR include an analysis of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to a proposed project capa ble of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant adverse environmental impact associated with the project. The Draft EIR addressed the environmental effects of alternatives to the Pr oject. A description of these alternatives, a comparison of their environmental impacts to those of the Project, and the City’s findings are listed below. These alternatives are compared against the Project relative to the identified Project impacts, summarized in the sections above, and to t he Project objectives, as stated in Section
2.2, Statement of Objectives, above.
In making the alternatives findings below, the City of Santa Clarita certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the informati on on alternatives provided in the EIR, including the information provided in the comments on the Draft EIR and the responses thereto.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED Alternatives that were considered but rejected during the scoping process for detailed evaluation in the EIR are discussed below.
1.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 27
Reduced Residential Density Alternative
The Reduced Residential Density Alternative consist s of a version of the Town Center Specific Plan that decreases the currently allowable residential density of 18-50 units per acre. While this alternative has the potential to reduce the signifi cant air quality impacts of the proposed Project by reducing the residential buildout of the Specifi c Plan Area, it would be inconsistent with the City’s Housing Element. In particular, this alterna tive would be inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of City’s Housing Element related to identifying and maintaining adequate sites for housing to accommodate the City’s regional housing need. Portions of the Town Center Specific Plan Area are identified in the City’s Hou sing Element as housing opportunity sites and reducing the allowable residential density would ha ve an adverse effect on the City’s ability to meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation obligations.
In addition, reducing the allowable residential density is prohibited by various recent amendments to California law, including Senate Bill (SB) 330 (which amended Public Resources Code Section 66300), which prohibits a city from enacting a poli cy, standard, or condition that would have the effect of reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation or zoning district. Consequently, in accordance with C EQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), this alternative is infeasible and was rejected from further consideration.
Commercial-Intensive Alternative
A Commercial-Intensive Alternative in which commerc ial land uses would be prioritized over residential land uses was considered as an option f or the Town Center Specific Plan. However, commercial uses generate more vehicle trips than residential uses per square foot. Accordingly, developing more commercial uses in lieu of residential uses would not reduce the significant and unavoidable air quality impacts of the Project. In addition, like the Reduced Residential Density Alternative, the Commercial-Intensive Alternative would be inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of City’s Housing Element related to i dentifying and maintaining adequate sites for housing to accommodate the City’s regional housing need, as portions of the Specific Plan Area are identified in the City’s Housing Element as housing opportunity sites. Finally, the Commercial- Intensive Alternative would not satisfy the basic project objectives of the Project related to creating a balanced mix of uses within the Specific Plan Are a. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), this alternative was rejected from further consideration.
Enhanced Residential Uses Alternative
The Enhanced Residential Uses Alternative consists of prioritizing residential land uses over commercial land uses. While reducing commercial lan d uses could reduce the Project’s trip generation and, as a result, reduce the Project’s s ignificant and unavoidable air quality impacts, this alternative would not satisfy the basic object ives of the Project related to creating a vibrant place and a balanced mix of uses within the Town Ce nter Specific Plan Area. In addition, the Enhanced Residential Uses Alternative would adverse ly affect the City’s jobs-to-housing ratio which would conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City’s General Plan, related to job growth, including Policy LU 4.2.2: Achieve a balanced ratio of jobs to housing through business expansion and economic development program s, with a goal of at least 1.5 jobs per household . Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sec tion 15126.6(f), this alternative was rejected from further consideration.
1.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 28
Other Land Uses
Land uses other than a mix of residential, commerci al, and hospitality uses were rejected from consideration because they would not meet any of th e basic Project objectives of creating a vibrant place and a balanced mix of uses or enhanci ng the Specific Plan Area as a regional destination for employment, entertainment, dining, retail, and services.
Alternative Sites
Alternative sites were rejected from consideration, as the intention of the Town Center Specific Plan is to develop a land use plan for the subject site. Therefore, establishing a Specific Plan for an alternative site would not satisfy the basic Project objective of providing a long-term vision for development within the most intensive commercial an d residential district of the City of Santa Clarita.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS IN THE EIR The following alternatives were selected for evaluation in the Draft EIR:
• Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
• Alternative 2: No Project/Infill Development and R edevelopment Under Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations Alternative
• Alternative 3: Reduced Scale Specific Plan Alterna tive
1.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report
May 2024
Table 1 provides a comparison of environmental impacts for each of the alternatives in relation to environmental impacts associated with the Project.
Table 1
Summary Comparison of the Impacts of the Alternatives
Impact Topic Project Impact
Alternative 1:
No Project/No Build
Alternative
Alternative 2:
No Project/Infill Development
and Redevelopment Under
Existing Zoning and General
Plan Designations Alternative
Alternative 3:
Reduced Scale Specific Plan
Alternative
Aesthetics Less Than Significant Less
(No Impact)
Greater
(Less Than Significant)
Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Air Quality Significant and Unavoidable Less
(No Impact)
Greater than the Project After
Mitigation
(Significant and Unavoidable)
Less
(Significant and Unavoidable)
Cultural Resources Less Than Significant with Mitig ation Less (No Impact)
Similar
(Less than Significant)
Similar
(Less Than Significant with
Mitigation)
Energy Less Than Significant Less
(No Impact)
Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Less
(Less Than Significant)
Geology and Soils
(Paleontological Resources) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less (No Impact)
Similar
(Less than Significant)
Similar
(Less Than Significant with
Mitigation)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less Than Significant Less
(No Impact)
Greater
(P otentially Significant)
Less
(Less Than Significant)
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials Less Than Significant with Mitigation Similar (Less Than Significant)
Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Less
(Less Than Significant with
Mitigation)
Land Use and Planning Less Than Significant Greater
(Less Than Significant)
Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Noise Less Than Significant Less
(No Impact)
Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Less
(Less Than Significant)
Public Services Less Than Significant Less
(No Impact)
Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Less
(Less Than Significant)
Transportation Less Than Significant Less
(No Impact)
Greater
(Less Than Significant)
Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Tribal Cultural Resources Less Than Significant wit h Mitigation Less (No Impact)
Similar
(Less than Significant)
Similar
(Less Than Significant with
Mitigation)
Utilities and Service Systems Less Than Significant Less (No Impact)
Similar
(Less Than Significant)
Less
(Less Than Significant)
29 1.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 30
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6( e)(3)(A), when a proposed project is revises an existing land use or regulatory plan, as with the proposed Specific Plan, “the ‘no project’ alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan, policy or operation into the future. Thus, the projected impacts of the proposed plan or alternative plans would be compared to the impacts that would occur under the existing plan.” Here, if the proposed Town Center Specific Plan is not approved, it is uncertain whether the Specific Plan Area would remain mostly unchanged from its current configuration or if portions of the Specific Plan would be redeveloped or further b uilt out with additional uses and increased density in accordance with the existing zoning regu lations. Thus, as described below, this EIR evaluates two “no project” alternatives: Alternative 1: No Project/No Build; and Alternative 2: No Project/Infill Development and Redevelopment Under Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations.
Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the buil dings 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 Specific Plan Area would remain, primarily consisting of various commercial, retail, restaurant, office, and civic uses.
Findings
1. Alternative 1 would eliminate the significant an d unavoidable impacts associated with air quality during operation.
2. Alternative 1 would reduce or eliminate the less -than-significant impacts with mitigation or less-than-significant impacts for aesthetics, cultu ral resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems.
3. Alternative 1 would result in similar impacts fo r hazards and hazardous materials.
4. Alternative 1 would result in potentially greate r impacts for land use and planning.
5. Alternative 1 would not meet any of the basic Pr oject objectives and is, therefore, rejected as infeasible.
6. The findings of the Project set forth in this do cument and the overriding social, economic, and other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the Project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Under the Alternative 1, the Town Center Specific P lan Project would not be implemented. The buildings and other improvements in the Town Center Specific Plan Area would remain and no new development or redevelopment would occur. Indiv idual building tenants might change over time, but the overall mix of uses in the Specific P lan Area would remain. As no construction or new operational activities would occur under this a lternative, this alternative would not generate construction emissions and would not increase the generation of operational emissions from the site. This alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable air quality impacts that would
1.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 31
occur during Project operations. In addition, as no construction or new operational activities would occur under this alternative, the less-than-signifi cant impacts with mitigation or less-than- significant impacts for aesthetics, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems would be eliminated. However, this alternative would result in similar impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and potentially greater impacts related to land use and planning for the following reasons:
• As discussed above, a leaking underground storage tank site was identified within the Specific Plan Area, and a contaminated site with hy drocarbon-contaminated soil was identified adjacent to and outside the Specific Pla n Area. Remediation for both cases is ongoing and would be required to be completed at th ese sites to the satisfaction of the oversight agency even if there is no new redevelopm ent or redevelopment under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts related to hazard s and hazardous materials would be less than significant and similar to the mitigable impacts of the Project. • Alternative 1 would not provide housing in a trans it-rich area, result in circulation improvements, or create a more livable and pedestri an oriented space within the site, portions of which have been identified as housing opportunity sites by the City’s Housing Element. As such, Alternative 1 would not implement the City’s land use plans to the same extent as the Project. Therefore, land use impacts under this alternative would be less than significant but would be greater when compared to the less-than-significant impacts of the Project.
In addition, Alternative 1 would not achieve the un derlying purpose of the Project to provide a long-range land use plan that establishes the City’s vision for the Town Center Specific Plan Area as a regional destination incorporating a balanced mix of uses. Similarly, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives, as identified below in Table 2 .
Table 2
Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 1
Project Objective
Alternative 1:
No Project/No Build
Alternative
The Santa Clarita Town Center is a lively hub that embodies a spirit of community, inviting people from all walks of life to live, wor k, shop, play, and socialize. It features a balance of retail, office, restaurants, recreational, hospitality, and residential spaces, seamlessly integrated with a pe destrian and bike friendly setting. The Town Center features an efficient mult imodal transportation system, providing easy connectivity to regional and local t rail systems. The Town Center provides a community identity and is a vibrant place for people to gather, socialize, and celebrate in the City of Santa Clarita.
Does Not Meet
Create a balanced mix of uses within the Town Cente r Specific Plan area that combines commercial and service opportunities with a residential environment that creates a more livable and pedestrian oriented space.
Does Not Meet
Further establish and enhance the Specific Plan Area as a regional destination for employment, entertainment, dining, retail, and services.
Does Not Meet
Provide a long-term vision for development within t he most intensive commercial and residential district of the City of Santa Clari ta that facilitates the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan including, but not limited to, the creation of a robust jobs-to-housing balance, and implements the City’s Housing Element.
Does Not Meet
1.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 32
Alternative 2: No Project/Infill Development and Redevelopment Under Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations Alternative
Under Alternative 2, 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 Are a 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 Speci fic Plan would not change the 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 scenario s also apply to Alternative 2. However, the primary difference between the Project and Alternat ive 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.
Findings
1. Alternative 2 would result in greater significan t and unavoidable impacts after mitigation associated with air quality during operation.
2. Alternative 2 would result in greater impacts as sociated with greenhouse gas emissions, which would be potentially significant.
3. Alternative 2 would result in greater less-than- significant impacts for aesthetics and transportation.
4. Alternative 2 would eliminate the Project’s miti gation measures associated with cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources, and impacts would be similar and less than significant.
5. Alternative 2 would result in similar less-than- significant impacts for energy, land use and planning, noise, public services, and utilities and service systems.
6. Alternative 2 would partially achieve some of th e Project objectives but to a lesser degree than the Project.
7. Alternative 2 would not eliminate or substantial ly reduce any of the Project’s significant impacts and, conversely, would result in greater significant and unavoidable impacts and is, therefore, rejected as infeasible.
8. The findings of the Project set forth in this do cument and the overriding social, economic, and other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the Project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration.
Facts in Support of Findings:
In comparison to the Project, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts associated with energy, land use and planning, noise, public services, and utilities and service systems. As Alternative 2 would not involve adoption of a Specific Plan with an accompanying CEQA document, equivalent
1.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 33
mitigation measures for cultural resources (archaeo logical resources), geology and soils (paleontological resources), and tribal cultural re sources would not apply comprehensively to future development activity under Alternative 2. Wh ile certain future individual development projects under Alternative 2 may require project-sp ecific CEQA documentation with mitigation imposed to protect such resources, it is expected that certain future development projects would be exempt from CEQA (e.g., ministerial). As a resul t, specific mitigation measures under CEQA may not be implemented. Nevertheless, any such exem pt projects would still be subject to California law governing discovery of human remains, archaeological discoveries, paleontological discoveries, and Native American artifacts. Consequently, while it cannot be assumed that future grading activities on-site under Alternative 2 woul d not encounter, and potentially impact, previously unidentified resources, the contrary is equally valid, i.e., by complying with applicable law such resources would be adequately protected.
With regard to active contaminated sites, given that both identified cases are open and currently subject to oversight agency review, as with the Pro ject, any future development resulting from Alternative 2 on or adjacent to these sites would b e required to address contamination issues at these sites to the satisfaction of the oversight ag ency. Therefore, impacts related to significant hazards to the public or the environment under Alte rnative 2 would be less than significant, and similar to the mitigable impacts of the Project.
However, this alternative would result in potential ly greater impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions for the following reasons:
• Buildout under Alternative 2 is assumed to be the same as the Project in terms of the future number of residential units and square foota ge of nonresidential uses, i.e., the Project’s low, full, and high buildout scenarios al so apply to Alternative 2. During operations, similar to the Project, air quality impacts under Alternative 2 would exceed the regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for VOC during the full buildout scenario and VOC and PM
10 during the high buildout scenario. Unlike the Project, since Alternative 2 would not involve adoption of a Specific Plan with a corresponding CEQA document, Alternative 2 would not be subject t o the mitigation measures included in this EIR which require implementation of emission reduction features. Thus, emissions from Alternative 2 would be greater than those of the Project after mitigation. • Alternative 2 would not put in place a Specific Pl an that would provide additional regulations and provisions to guide the buildout of the Town Center Specific Plan Area, including those related to reducing GHG emissions, including the enhancement of multi- modal transportation opportunities, improving acces s to the McBean Regional Transit Center, providing for affordable housing, and requi ring the installation of EV charging stations at the highest voluntary CALGreen standards. As a result, Alternative 2 would be less consistent with the plans, policies, regulatio ns, and GHG emissions reduction actions/strategies outlined in the California Air R esources Board’s 2022 Scoping Plan, Southern California Association of Governments’ 202 0-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and the Sant a Clarita General Plan than the Project. The incremental increase in GHG emissions under Alternative 2 would be a potentially significant impact on the environment.
In addition, Alternative 2 would not achieve the un derlying purpose of the Project to provide a long-range land use plan that establishes the City’s vision for the Town Center Specific Plan Area
1.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 34
as a regional destination incorporating a balanced mix of uses. Similarly, Alternative 2 would not meet some of the Project objectives and would only partially meet the others, as identified below in Table 3 .
Alternative 3: Reduced Scale Specific Plan Alternative
Under Alternative 3, the Los Angeles County government center in Subarea 2 (Town Center East) would be excluded from the Specific Plan Area. In t his 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 S treet, the two private office buildings near Valencia Boulevard, and the City-owned land. Subare a 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 Subarea s 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 a reduced-scale alternative, Alternative 3 is intended to potentially reduce the overall impacts of the Project, including its significant air quality impacts. In addition, 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 con tinues to utilize its government center into the future indefinitely.
Table 3
Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 2
Project Objective
Alternative 2:
No Project/Infill
Development and
Redevelopment Under
Existing Zoning and
General Plan Designations
Alternative
The Santa Clarita Town Center is a lively hub that embodies a spirit of community, inviting people from all walks of life to live, wor k, shop, play, and socialize. It features a balance of retail, office, restaurants, recreational, hospitality, and residential spaces, seamlessly integrated with a pe destrian and bike friendly setting. The Town Center features an efficient mult imodal transportation system, providing easy connectivity to regional and local t rail systems. The Town Center provides a community identity and is a vibrant place for people to gather, socialize, and celebrate in the City of Santa Clarita.
Partially Meets
Create a balanced mix of uses within the Town Cente r Specific Plan area that combines commercial and service opportunities with a residential environment that creates a more livable and pedestrian oriented space.
Partially Meets
Further establish and enhance the Specific Plan Area as a regional destination for employment, entertainment, dining, retail, and services .
Does Not Meet
Provide a long-term vision for development within t he most intensive commercial and residential district of the City of Santa Clari ta that facilitates the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan including, but not limited to, the creation of a robust jobs-to-housing balance, and implements the City’s Housing Element.
Does Not Meet
1.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 35
Findings
1. Alternative 3 would reduce, but not eliminate, t he Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality during operation.
2. Alternative 3 would result in similar less-than- significant impacts for aesthetics, land use and planning, and transportation.
3. Alternative 3 would result in similar less-than- significant impacts with mitigation for cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources.
4. Alternative 3 would reduce, but not eliminate, t he less-than-significant impacts for energy, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public services, and utilities and service systems.
5. Alternative 3 would not eliminate or substantial ly reduce any of the Project’s significant impacts and is, therefore, rejected as infeasible.
6. The findings of the Project set forth in this do cument and the overriding social, economic, and other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the Project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration.
Facts in Support of Findings:
As Alternative 3 would be within the range of the f ull buildout scenario, it would still exceed the regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for VOC, as with the Project, but would avoid the Project’s exceedance in regional th resholds for PM 10 under the high buildout scenario. Like the Project, Mitigation Measure MM-A Q-1 of this EIR would be required for Alternative 3, which would require implementation o f emission reduction features. However, as described for the Project, since implementation of the development would introduce land use intensification in the Specific Plan Area, it canno t be determined with certainty that mitigation would reduce impacts below SCAQMD’s thresholds in all cases. Therefore, while operational air quality impacts under Alternative 3 may be less tha n those of the Project, impacts under Alternative 3 would remain significant and unavoida ble. Of further note, while the air pollutant emissions attributable to Alternative 3 would be less than those of the Project, the total air pollutant emissions generated from Project’s 111-acre area wo uld not be measurably reduced, as the under Alternative 3 the Los Angeles County governme nt center would continue to operate and generate air pollutants from vehicles accessing the facility, onsite combustion of fossil fuels, maintenance activities, and other area sources.
As a reduced-scale alternative and reduction in acr eage, Alternative 3 would have reduced impacts associated with energy, greenhouse gas emis sions, noise, public services, and utilities and service systems. Impacts related to aesthetics, land use and planning, and transportation would remain less than significant. However, based on anticipated ground-disturbing activities, Alternative 3 would still require mitigation measur es associated with cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources.
Alternative 3 would meet all Project objectives, as shown below in Table 4 , but to a lesser extent when compared to the Project, which includes the high buildout scenario excluded by Alternative 3.
1.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 36
Table 4
Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 3
Project Objective
Alternative 3: Reduced
Scale Specific Plan
Alternative
The Santa Clarita Town Center is a lively hub that embodies a spirit of community, inviting people from all walks of life to live, work, shop, play, and socialize. It features a balance of retail, office, restaurants, recreatio nal, hospitality, and residential spaces, seamlessly integrated with a pedestrian and bike friendly setting. The Town Center features an efficient multimodal transportat ion system, providing easy connectivity to regional and local trail systems. T he Town Center provides a community identity and is a vibrant place for peopl e to gather, socialize, and celebrate in the City of Santa Clarita.
Meets
Create a balanced mix of uses within the Town Cente r Specific Plan area that combines commercial and service opportunities with a residential environment that creates a more livable and pedestrian oriented space.
Meets
Further establish and enhance the Specific Plan Are a as a regional destination for employment, entertainment, dining, retail, and services .
Meets
Provide a long-term vision for development within t he most intensive commercial and residential district of the City of Santa Clarita that facilitates the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan including, but not limited to, the creation of a robust jobs-to-housing balance, and implements the City’s Housing Element.
Meets
1.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 37
6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR
The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council declare that no new significant information as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 has been received by the Planning Commission after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR.
The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify the Final EIR based on the following findings and conclusions.
6.1 FINDINGS
The Project would have the potential for creating s ignificant adverse impacts. These significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified in the Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in the Findings. Significant adverse i mpacts which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance after mitigation include air quality impacts during Project operation.
6.2 CONCLUSIONS
1. All significant environmental impacts from the i mplementation of the Project have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementatio n of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to less-than-significant levels, with the exception of air quality impacts during Project operation.
2. Alternatives to the Project, which could potenti ally achieve the basic objectives of the Project, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Project.
3. Environmental, economic, social, and other consi derations and benefits derived from the development of the proposed project, as further discussed in Section 7.0, override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Project or furth er mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Project.
1.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 38
This page intentionally left blank.
1.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 39
7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Santa Clarita is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review, and certification of the Final EIR for the Town Center Specific Plan Project. As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a le vel of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the Project.
In making this determination, the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, which provides as follows:
a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to bala nce, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to app rove the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adve rse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
b) When the lead agency approves a project which wi ll result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but a re not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reas ons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding con siderations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
In addition, PRC Section 21081(b) requires that whe re a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other co nsiderations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly tr ained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an SEIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding ec onomic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project.
Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b) and the CEQA Guide lines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the Project against the one unavoidable adverse impact associated with the Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to this impact. The City also has examined alternatives to the Project, none of which both meet the Project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the Project for th e reasons discussed in the Statement of Facts and Findings (above).
The Planning Commission, having reviewed and consid ered the information contained in the Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR, the Final SEIR, including responses to comments, and the
1.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 40
public record in its entirety, hereby recommends th at the City Council adopt this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which balances the Proje ct’s benefits against the one unavoidable adverse impact in reaching a decision on this Project.
7.2 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Although all potential project impacts have been su bstantially avoided or mitigated as described in the preceding findings, there is no complete mit igation for Project impact related to air quality impacts associated with operation. Details of this significant unavoidable adverse impact were discussed in the EIR and are summarized or were oth erwise provided in the Statement of Facts and Findings (above).
7.3 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find that each of the specific economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, and other considerations, and the benefits of the Project separately and independently outweig h the remaining significant, adverse impact related to air quality impacts associated with oper ation and is an overriding consideration independently warranting approval of the Project. T he remaining significant adverse impact identified in Section 7.2, above, is acceptable in light of each of these overriding considerations, and the substantial evidence that supports the enum erated benefits of the Project can be found in the Statement of Facts and Findings herein, the Final EIR, the Project itself, and the record of all proceedings in connection with the approval of the Project. In the event that any court decision or regulatory action results in a determination tha t there are additional remaining significant impacts resulting from the City’s approval of the P roject that cannot be avoided even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures i nto the Project, the Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations herein shall be deemed to apply to such additional remaining significant impacts.
The specific economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, and other considerations, and the benefits of the Project that outweigh the significant unavoidable impact of the Project are:
1. The Project would achieve various objectives tha t will provide a benefit to the community, namely:
a. Creates a balanced mix of uses within the Town C enter Specific Plan area that combines commercial and service opportunities with a residential environment that creates a more livable and pedestrian oriented space.
b. Further establishes and enhances the Specific Pl an Area as a regional destination for employment, entertainment, dining, retail, and services. c. Creates a distinct sense of place that is unique to the Specific Plan area via creative use of urban design, iconic architecture, signature vistas, a vibrant public realm, and gathering spaces.
d. Establishes a vision, framework, and development and design standards that provide for a coordinated and cohesive approach to redevelo pment and infill development in the Town Center Specific Plan area.
1.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 41
e. Provides for implementation of the Specific Plan over time with a continual balanced mix of residential and commercial uses while maintaining a favorable jobs-to-housing ratio.
f. Provides for enhanced connectivity to the McBean Regional Transit Center. g. Includes development and design standards to ens ure development is attractive and consistent with the visual character of the Project area. h. Provides for appropriate development block sizes and a modified grid pattern of internal roads to guide development in an organized manner that will organically create great places.
i. Provides for an efficient vehicular and multi-mo dal circulation system that ensures ease of movement throughout the site.
2. The Project implements the goals and policies of the City of Santa Clarita’s General Plan, including, but not limited to:
• Policy LU 1.1.5: Increase infill development and re -use of underutilized sites within, and adjacent to, developed urban areas to achieve m aximum benefit from existing infrastructure and minimize loss of open space, through re-designation of vacant sites for higher density and mixed use, where appropriate.
• Policy LU 1.2.2: In Valencia, promote business deve lopment, job creation, and expansion of regional commercial, civic, cultural, and entertainment uses, to create a vibrant Town Center serving as a community focal po int for the entire Santa Clarita Valley.
• Policy LU 4.1.1: Promote expansion and enhancement of the Valencia Town Center to provide a focal point for cultural, civic, educa tional, and shopping activities serving the entire Santa Clarita Valley.
• Policy LU 4.1.3: Direct business creation and expan sion for larger companies within and adjacent to existing and planned business cente rs and major transportation corridors.
• Policy LU 4.2.3: Encourage businesses to locate in all appropriate areas of the community to encourage job creation in closer proximity to workforce housing. • Policy C 1.2.1: Develop coordinated plans for land use, circulation, and transit to promote transit-oriented development that concentra tes higher density housing, employment, and commercial areas in proximity to transit corridors. • Policy CO 1.5.5: Promote concentration of urban use s within the center of the Santa Clarita Valley through incentives for infill development and rebuilding, in order to limit impacts to open space, habitats, watersheds, hillsi des, and other components of the Valley’s natural ecosystems.
3. Establishment of the Town Center Specific Plan w ill serve to promote the production of housing units to meet the City’s identified housing needs. Consistent with the objectives of the City’s Housing Element, the Town Center Specific Plan eliminates unneeded regulatory constraints to the production of housing through the establishment of objective development
1.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 42
and design standards, streamlining the CEQA process , and eliminating the public hearing process for residential and mixed use projects within the Town Center Specific Plan area.
4. The Town Center Specific Plan provides for the e xtension of Town Center Drive to Citrus Street, and potentially to Valencia Boulevard, thereby creating enhanced vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation and expanding upon the existing pedestrian-friendly streetscape.
5. The Town Center Specific Plan provides for the d evelopment of programmable gathering spaces and other smaller gathering spaces such as p ublic plazas, courtyards, amphitheaters, pedestrian streets, parklets, children’s playgrounds, and parks for the benefit of the community, the City, and its residents and visitors. At least one large public space (at least one acre in size) will be provided that will be large enough to be programmed for community events including concerts, farmers and sp ecialty markets, viewing 4th of July fireworks, plays, lectures, art displays, and celeb rations. Common spaces (at least 2,500 square feet in size) will be provided at various locations and may include village lawns, well- shaded gathering areas, playgrounds, areas for small musical performances, appropriately- sized water features or fountains, gardens, and sit ting areas. In addition to their intrinsic recreation and leisure value, benefits of gathering spaces include acting as focal points along significant vistas, contributing to creating great places that foster community involvement, encouraging pedestrianism, creating vi brant outdoor settings for retail and dining, establishing community character, and creating recognizable landmarks.
6. The Town Center Specific Plan provides for the d evelopment of various pedestrian and bicycle paths and circulation improvements that provide recreational benefits in addition to multi-modal transportation benefits. An extensive and functional network of pedestrian and bicycle paths throughout the Specific Plan area will be provided that include robust linkages across the full extent of the Specific Plan area. T he onsite pedestrian and bicycle network will integrate into the City’s existing sidewalks, paseos, paseo bridges and bicycle paths, and bus stops surrounding the Specific Plan area. T he existing pedestrian bridges will be enhanced with landing areas that have direct pedest rian connectivity into adjacent developments within the Specific Plan area and are equipped with wayfinding signage.
7. The Town Center Specific Plan embodies the tenet s of sustainable development and implements many of the intents of the California Ai r Resource Board’s Climate Change Scoping Plan and the Southern California Associatio n of Governments’ Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Plan, a s it consists of infill, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development with a balance of jobs and housing in a transit rich location with access to a variety of multi-modal transportat ion opportunities. These sustainable development attributes contribute to reductions in vehicle miles traveled per capita, air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions, and energy and water consumption.
8. The development projects implementing the Specif ic Plan will be designed and constructed to incorporate environmentally sustainable design features in compliance with or exceeding code requirements, including the California Green B uilding Standards (CALGreen) Code.
These sustainable design features in particular inc lude providing electric vehicle charging infrastructure in accordance with the highest voluntary CALGreen standards, unbundling of parking from residential uses, and various other en ergy-efficiency measures, onsite renewable energy generation, recycling infrastructu re, enhanced indoor air quality, and water conservation measures. By integrating sustain able features into the design and
1.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 43
construction of future development in the Specific Plan area, the Project reduces energy and water usage and waste generation.
Therefore, the Santa Clarita Planning Commission, h aving reviewed and considered all of the information contained in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the public record, recommends that the City Council adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations, which balances the Project’s benefits against the unavoidable adverse impact related to o perational air quality in reaching a decision on this Project.
1.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 44
This page intentionally left blank .
1.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Town Center Specific Plan Project Final Env ironmental Impact Report
May 2024 45
8.0 STATEMENT OF LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF
DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a )(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e), the City of Santa Clarita, as the Lead Agency, shall specify the location and custodian of the documents of other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision has been based. A copy of the EIR and all other materials that constitute the record is in the custody of the Director of Community Developmen t and located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, California, 91355.
1.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT A-CEQA FINDINGS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. P24-09
EXHIBIT B
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/
1.c
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: P24-09 - EXHIBIT B-FINAL EIR-MMRP (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) RESOLUTION NO. P24-010
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE MASTER CASE 22-105 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 22-003, ZONE CHANGE 22-001, SPECIFIC PLAN 22-002) FOR THE TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC
PLAN IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact, and recommends that the City Council make 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;
B. The TCSP is a long-rang planning document that provides a framework for new development within the specific plan area (SPA);
C. The TCSP includes the following entitlements:
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.
D. The SPA includes approximately 111 acres of largely urbanized land and is divided into four distinct subareas. The SPA is approximately one mile east of the Interstate-5 freeway and is generally bounded by Magic Mountain Parkway to the north, Valencia Boulevard to the south and east, and McBean Parkway to the west, creating a roughly triangular project site.
The McBean Regional Transit Center is directly adjacent to the southwest corner of the SPA;
E. The four subareas within the SPA include:
• Valencia Town Center: Measuring approximately 68 acres in size, the Valencia Town Center Subarea is the largest subarea within the SPA. The subarea is primarily characterized by the existing Valencia Town Center Mall, The Patios lifestyle center, and the eastern portion of Town Center Drive. The total complex includes approximately one million square feet of retail and commercial space.
• Town Center East: Separated from the Valencia Town Center Subarea by Citrus Street, the Town Center East Subarea is approximately 23 acres in size and primarily built out with existing structures and surface parking. The subarea contains approximately 245,000 square feet of public services, office space, personal services, and retail space. Primary
1.d
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: RESOLUTION P24-10 (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Resolution P24-010
Master Case 22-105
May 21, 2024
uses include the Valencia Branch of the Santa Clarita Public Library, two private office buildings, and a small commercial/retail center. Other uses include the former Santa Clarita Station of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department Station 126, Santa Clarita Superior Court, and government offices for Los Angeles County.
• Town Center Drive: The Town Center Drive Subarea represents a transition from the retail mall and lifestyle uses associated with the Valencia Town Center Subarea into a total of 460,000 square feet of office space, entertainment, dining, personal services, and specialty retail uses that front on Town Center Drive. Prominent land uses include several office buildings measuring between four and six stories in height with ground-floor retail, restaurants, and services, a twelve-theater Regal Cinema, several one and two-story retail/office buildings, and two multi-level shared parking structures. The subarea is primarily built-out and is approximately 16 acres in size. • McBean and Valencia: At approximately four acres, this is the smallest of the subareas but occupies a prominent location on the northwest corner of Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway. The majority of the property is vacant, but in 2016 the property was entitled for the construction of a five-story hotel and free-standing restaurant.
F. The City conducted an extensive public outreach program, including meetings with the general public, focus groups with the business and development community, in-person interviews of businesses within the SPA, an online survey and also on the City’s social media platforms;
G. 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 SPA as Regional Commercial (CR);
H. The entirety of the SPA has an underlying zoning designation of CR;
I. The SPA is entirely surrounded by the CR zone with land uses including major retail centers, automobile dealerships, high-density residential developments, professional and medical office buildings, and a fuel sales use. Land uses beyond the immediate boundaries of the SPA include low- to moderate-density housing, and a private golf course;
J. The goals of the TCSP are as follows:
1. Define a Vision for Development: Create a timeless, long-term vision for development within the SPA that is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Housing Element.
2. Provide a Balance of Land Uses: Create a balanced mix of retail, dining, entertainment, hospitality, commercial, and residential opportunities to further establish the SPA as a premier regional destination.
1.d
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: RESOLUTION P24-10 (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Resolution P24-010
Master Case 22-105
May 21, 2024
3. Create Great Places: Create a distinct sense of place that is unique to the SPA via creative use of urban design, iconic architecture, signature vistas, a vibrant public realm, and gathering spaces.
4. Establish a Flexible Framework: Create a flexible framework for future development that is practical, buildable, and fosters the potential for numerous development possibilities.
K. The environmental impacts of the proposed TCSP were reviewed under the CEQA (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.) 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 TCSP. The City’s Planning Commission is a recommending body for the Project;
L. The City determined that a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for the Project. The City determined that the following areas must be addressed in the Draft Program EIR (DEIR) for the Project: aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems;
M. 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.
N. 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;
O. The City prepared a DEIR, for the TCSP, that addressed all issues raised in comments received on the NOP. The DEIR 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 DEIR was advertised on March 5, 2024, for a 45- day public review period that ended on April 19, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. in accordance with CEQA. The comment period was subsequently extended through April 29, 2024. Staff received written comments throughout the comment period as well as oral testimony at the April 16, 2024 and May 21, 2024 Planning Commission meetings for the TCSP;
P. 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 newspaper, and through on-site posting 14 days before the hearing. A courtesy notice was also sent to all property owners east of Citrus Street in the Town Center East subarea;
Q. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public meeting on the Project on April 16, 2024. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the Project and received a presentation from staff on the Project setting, requested Entitlements, and Project description.
Staff also made a presentation on the Draft EIR, and the Planning Commission received
1.d
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: RESOLUTION P24-10 (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Resolution P24-010
Master Case 22-105
May 21, 2024
public testimony regarding the Project. The Planning Commission provided staff with recommendations for minor amendments to the text of the TCSP, asked for additional information on the California Green Building Code and continue the public hearing to their regularly scheduled meeting on May 21, 2024;
R. At its duly notice meeting on May 21, 2024, the Planning Commission received a presentation from staff on the follow-up items from the April 18, 2023 meeting, and a summary of responses to comments on the DEIR.
S. The Draft Final EIR (DFEIR) includes the DEIR, comments on the DEIR, and the following:
responses to written comments on the DEIR. The DEIR was presented to the Planning Commission on April 16, 2024 and May 21, 2024. On May 15, 2024 a copy of the responses to comments from the Draft Final EIR was made available for public review on the City of Santa Clarita’s website.
T. The Draft Final EIR, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project prepared and circulated in compliance with CEQA.
U. After considering the matter, the Planning Commission recommends 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 recommends certification of the DFEIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (“MMRP”), by Resolution No. P24-009, adopted on May 21, 2024.
V. A draft copy of the Town Center Specific Plan is attached at Exhibit “C”.
W. 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. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 22-105. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire administrative record, including, without limitation, the entire TCSP DEIR, oral and written testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports, and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds, as follows:
1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan;
The TCSP is consistent with the following Goals, Policies and Objectives identified within the General Plan:
Policy LU 1.1.5: Increase infill development and re-use of underutilized sites within, and adjacent to, developed urban areas to achieve maximum benefit from existing
1.d
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: RESOLUTION P24-10 (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Resolution P24-010
Master Case 22-105
May 21, 2024
infrastructure and minimize loss of open space, through re-designation of vacant sites for higher density and mixed use, where appropriate.
Policy LU 1.2.2: In Valencia, promote business development, job creation, and expansion of regional commercial, civic, cultural, and entertainment uses, to create a vibrant Town Center serving as a community focal point for the entire Santa Clarita Valley.
Policy LU 4.1.1: Promote expansion and enhancement of the Valencia Town Center to provide a focal point for cultural, civic, educational, and shopping activities serving the entire Santa Clarita Valley.
Policy LU 4.1.3: Direct business creation and expansion for larger companies within and adjacent to existing and planned business centers and major transportation corridors.
Policy LU 4.2.3: Encourage businesses to locate in all appropriate areas of the community to encourage job creation in closer proximity to workforce housing.
Policy C 1.2.1: Develop coordinated plans for land use, circulation, and transit to promote transit-oriented development that concentrates higher density housing, employment, and commercial areas in proximity to transit corridors.
Policy CO 1.5.5: Promote concentration of urban uses within the center of the Santa Clarita Valley through incentives for infill development and rebuilding, in order to limit impacts to open space, habitats, watersheds, hillsides, and other components of the Valley’s natural ecosystems.
2. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of this code;
The underlying General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation for the entirety of the SPA is Regional Commercial (CR). The CR zone contemplates the highest intensity of commercial and residential development in the City, with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0 and a maximum of 50 residential units per acre, respectively. All future development within the SPA will be consistent with the specifications of the CR zone regarding unit density and FAR. As such, the TCSP is consistent with the General Plan regarding the type and intensity of development contemplated within the SPA.
3. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and
1.d
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: RESOLUTION P24-10 (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Resolution P24-010
Master Case 22-105
May 21, 2024
The TCSP provides a long-term vision for development within the SPA and supersedes applicable portions of the SCMC. However, the TCSP will be consistent with specifications of the underlying zone for both commercial floor area and residential density. The TCSP is consistent with the level and development intensity contemplated by the General Plan. No new construction is associated with the approval of the TCSP itself, and any future development projects proposed within the SPA will be subject to both the requirements and standards of the plan itself as well as the SCMC.
4. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the proposal’s physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable for the proposed use;
The underlying General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation for the entirety of the SPA is Regional Commercial (CR). The CR zone contemplates the highest intensity of commercial and residential development in the City, with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0 and a maximum of 50 residential units per acre, respectively. All future development within the SPA will be consistent with the specifications of the CR zone regarding unit density and FAR. The TCSP is consistent with the General Plan regarding the type and intensity of development contemplated within the SPA.
b. The highways or streets that provide access to the site are of sufficient width and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such proposal would generate;
Because the SPA is located within ½ of a mile of the Mcbean Regional Transit Center, an identified major transit stop, and because the TCSP represents a regulatory document that will create a mix of uses with emphasis on alternative transportation within the urban center of Santa Clarita, the City’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) ordinance screens out the project from further analyzis. Hence, the TCSP will not result in a significant impact to VMT.
Projects that propose new construction will be required to provide a traffic analysis that identifies impacts to level of service (LOS). Mitigation measures will be required on a project-by-project basis that may include, but not be limited to, physical improvements to intersections, roadways, and/or adjustments to traffic signal timing.
c. Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriff protection, etc.) are readily available; and
Impacts to public services were analyzed as part of the DEIR prepared for the project and determined that they would be less than significant.
1.d
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: RESOLUTION P24-10 (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Resolution P24-010
Master Case 22-105
May 21, 2024
d. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.) is adequate to serve the site.
Impacts to the provision of utilities were analyzed as part of the DEIR prepared for the project and determined that they would be less than significant.
SECTION 3. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 22-105. A text amendment to the General Plan is attached as Exhibit “A”. Based on the above findings and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire DEIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds, as follows:
A. Properties which benefit from increased density or intensity of development resulting from the General Plan Amendment shall fully mitigate their increased sewer impact at the time that development occurs on the properties.
The TCSP is long-range planning document that provides a vision for future development within the SPA. No new construction is included with the proposal. The DEIR included an analysis of the provision of public utilities and determined that he project would not create a significant impact. All new construction projects would be required to complete all necessary technical studies and connect to the sanitary sewer system on a case-by-case basis.
B. The proposed General Plan amendment is consistent with other elements of the City’s General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65300.5;
The General Plan identifies the Valencia Town Center area as a “major [center] of the community” and “…a focal point for cultural, civic, educational, and shopping activities serving the entire Santa Clarita Valley.”
The proposed General Plan amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of other elements of the City’s General Plan and will maintain integrated, consistent and compatible policies. Specifically, as discussed in Section 2 above, the Land Use Element, Circulation Element and Conservation Element include goals, objectives, and policies that increase opportunities for infill development, promote strengthening the local economy, promote the SPA as a regional destination, actively direct and incentivize high quality employers to the SPA, encourage a mixture of residential and commercial uses that are transit and pedestrian oriented, and focus development away from natural areas within the Santa Clarita Valley.
SECTION 4. ZONE CHANGE FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 22-105. The Zoning Map is amended to show a zone change from CR to SP as set forth in attached as Exhibit “B,” and incorporated by reference. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire
1.d
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: RESOLUTION P24-10 (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Resolution P24-010
Master Case 22-105
May 21, 2024
record including, without limitation, the DEIR, oral and written testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports, and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find, as follows:
A. Principles and Standards for Zone Changes. The Council shall approve a Zone Change only after the applicant substantiates all of the following required findings:
1. That modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning map as it pertains to the area under consideration;
The proposed zone change would re-designate the underlying zone from CR to SP. The purpose of this re-designation is to provide a specific set of development standards and requirements that fulfill the identified goals of the TCSP in a manner that is more efficient than the current SCMC allows. Examples include the adoption of a streamlined permitting system, and specific design incentives that will incentivize the types of land uses that have been identified as desirable by the City Council and the community. Together, these will serve to achieve the General Plan goals, policies and objectives identified in Section 2, above.
2. That a need for the proposed zone classification exists within such area;
The purpose of this re-designation is to provide a specific set of development standards and requirements that fulfill the identified goals of the TCSP in a manner that is more efficient than the current SCMC allows. Examples include the adoption of a streamlined permitting system, and specific design incentives that will incentivize the types of land uses that have been identified as desirable by the City Council and the community. Together, these will serve to achieve the General Plan goals, policies and objectives identified in Section 2, above.
3. That the particular property under consideration is a proper location for said zone classification within such area:
a. That placement of the proposed zone at such location will be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare, and in conformity with good zoning practice; and
As identified previously, the TCSP is a long-range planning document that provides a vision for future development within the SPA. The TCSP will not only be consistent with the commercial and residential density requirements of the underlying zone, but will also incentivize the types of land uses identified by the City Council and the community as desirable, and fulfills several goals, objectives and policies identified in the Land Use, Circulation and Conservation Elements of the General Plan.
1.d
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: RESOLUTION P24-10 (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Resolution P24-010
Master Case 22-105
May 21, 2024
b. That the proposed change is consistent with the adopted General Plan for the area unless a General Plan Amendment is filed concurrently and approve with said zone change.
As identified previously, the TCSP will be consistent with the commercial and residential density requirements of the underlying zone. Further, the permitted use chart included with the TCSP includes commercial and residential use types that are currently contemplated by the underlying zone. The TCSP will result in future development that is consistent with the type, nature, and intensity of development contemplated within the SPA by the General Plan.
SECTION 5. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Master Case 22-105; General Plan Amendment 22-003; Zone Change 21-001; and Specific Plan 22-002.
SECTION 6. 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 Planning Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
SECTION 7. Limitations. The Planning Commission’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 Planning Commission’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 8. 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 9. A copy of this Resolution will be mailed to the Applicant and to any other person requesting a copy.
SECTION 10. This Resolution is the Planning Commission’s final decision and will become effective immediately upon adoption.
SECTION 11. The Planning Commission Secretary will certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken.
1.d
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: RESOLUTION P24-10 (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Resolution P24-010
Master Case 22-105
May 21, 2024
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of May, 2024.
TIM BURKHART, CHAIRPERSON
PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
RACHEL CLARK, SECRETARY
PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Rachel Clark, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 21ST of May 2024, by the following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
1.d
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: RESOLUTION P24-10 (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) Exhibit A:
Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation and
Zoning Designation Amendment
1.e
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: P24-10 - EXHIBIT A-GPA AND ZONE CHANGE (Town Center Specific Plan - Regional Commercial (CR)
Land Use Designation &
Zoning Designation
Existing Land Use and Zoning Designation
1.e
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: P24-10 - EXHIBIT A-GPA AND ZONE CHANGE (Town Center Specific Plan - Specific Plan (SP)
Land Use Designation &
Zoning Designation
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Designation
1.e
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: P24-10 - EXHIBIT A-GPA AND ZONE CHANGE (Town Center Specific Plan - EXHIBIT B:
TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA GENERAL PLAN
The following language would be included in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, under Item F, Specific Plans, Approved Specific Plans:
The Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) was adopted in 2024 and encompasses approximately 111 acres of land in the community of Valencia. The specific plan area is bound by Magic Mountain Parkway to the north, Valencia Boulevard to the south and east, and by McBean Parkway to the west, with a 3.7-acre portion of the TCSP area located adjacent to the McBean Regional Transit Center.
The primary goals of the TCSP are to create a balanced mix of residential, commercial, retail, dining, and entertainment uses with a robust jobs-to-housing balance; create a distinct sense of place; create a flexible framework for future development that fosters the potential for numerous development possibilities; and create a practical, timeless, and buildable plan that is consistent with the General Plan and implements the Housing Element.
1.f
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: P24-10 - EXHIBIT B-GP TEXT CHANGE (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments)
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. P24-10
EXHIBIT C
DRAFT TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
Incorporated by Reference
Document can be found at
https://santaclarita.gov/planning/specific-plans/
1.g
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: P24-10 - EXHIBIT C-TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments)
PROPOSED TEXT ADDITIONS TO THE TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN (Recommended language appears in blue underlined text)
• Chapter 2 – Development Framework and Standards:
o Element MO2 – Pedestrian Streetscapes, pages 2-62 and 2-64.
The following is recommended to be added to the requirements for Outdoor Dining within the Activity Zone of the public realm:
• Furniture in the Activity Zone is strongly encouraged to be brought indoors during hours when the business is not in operation.
The following is recommended to be added to the requirements for outdoor display of merchandise within the Activity Zone of the public realm:
• Merchandise displayed in the Activity Zone is strongly encouraged to be brought indoors during hours when the business is not in operation.
• Element MO5 – Micro Mobility, page 2-75.
The following is recommended to be added to the development standards identified within the element:
3. All maintenance of micro-mobility stations and the removal of abandoned vehicles is the responsibility of the property owner or station operator. Timelines for the prompt removal of abandoned vehicles may be conditioned at the discretion of the Director of Community Development.
• Element PK1 – Parking Strategy, page 2-79.
The following is recommended to be added to Other Parking Standards:
• At the discretion of and to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, a parking management plan describing the operation of on-site, project-related parking enforcement must be prepared.
1.h
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments) • Chapter 3 - Implementation:
o 3. Illustrative Full Buildout Plan, page 3-12.
The following is recommended to be added to Financing Strategies:
Section 65451 of the California Government Code requires that a specific plan include financing measures necessary to implement a proposed project. Typically, a variety of financing measures can be used to finance project construction; they include but are not limited to special assessment districts, general obligation bonds, exactions, and other private financing methods. All of the required and proposed improvements, including the provision of significant community amenities, within the SPA are the financial responsibility of the property owner(s) and future builder(s).
o 4. Development Review Process, page 3-13.
The following is recommended to be added to Construction Traffic & Access Management Plans:
Construction Traffic and Access Management Plans are used to avoid construction- related safety hazards and to reduce disruptions of traffic operations. Construction Traffic and Access Management Plans will be required of development project applicants, to address temporary traffic impacts that could occur during the construction of the TCSP.
The plans will be subject to approval by the City of Santa Clarita Department of Public Works. They will address construction traffic routing (e.g., detours and/or lane closures) and traffic control (e.g., with signage and construction flaggers), as well as vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian safety. The plans will also be required to identify designated haul routes and construction staging areas, construction crew parking, emergency access provisions, traffic control procedures, and avoidance of traffic safety impacts during construction. The construction management plan will coordinate and ensure business, resident, and customer parking, traffic flow, and business operations are maintained throughout the construction period. Construction management plans must be prepared in coordination when two or more projects are to be in construction simultaneously within the SPA.
1.h
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS (Town Center Specific Plan - Response to Comments)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
~ Minutes ~
Tuesday, May 21, 2024 6:00 PM City Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Burkhart called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chair Burkhart, Vice-Chair Ayala, Commissioner Berlin, Commissioner Eichman, and Commissioner Ostrom were all present.
FLAG SALUTE
Vice-Chair Ayala led the flag salute.
COMMISSION SECRETARY ANNOUNCEMENT
Rachel Clark gave the secretary announcement.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Rachel Clark read that changes would be made to the April 16, 2024, meeting minutes to reflect that Michael Platt is with Centennial, a property owner within the Town Center Specific Plan area and to clarify that Commissioner Eichman would like to encourage more “affordable” housing. A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to approve the minutes, as amended, from the April 16, 2024 meeting. Said motion carried by a voice vote of 5-0.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM 1
THE TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN (MASTER CASE 22-105) - RESPONSE TO
COMMENTS
The Town Center Specific Plan would provide a flexible, long-range vision for a balanced mix of retail, dining, entertainment, hospitality and commercial and residential uses across a 111-acre specific plan area within the Regional Commercial (CR) zone in the community of Valencia.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Planning Commission:
1. Receive staff presentation;
2. Open the public hearing and receive testimony from the public;
3. Close the public hearing; and
4. Adopt Resolution P24-09, recommending the City Council certify the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023120123) prepared for the project;
5. Adopt Resolution P24-10, recommending the City Council approve the Town Center Specific Plan under Master Case 22-105 and associated entitlements; and
6. Take other action as determined by the Planning Commission.
David Peterson, Senior Planner, presented on the item.
Vice-Chair Ayala requested that, prior to public comments, staff communicate to the public the primary goals of the project. David Peterson responded that the plan focuses on three things, balance, flexibility, and creating great places. He noted that the plan has a variety of different design requirements and design incentives to help us achieve that goal.
There were no public speakers on this item.
Chair Burkhart opened and closed the public comment portion of the public hearing at 6:17 p.m.
Commissioner Berlin commended staff on a clear staff report and hard work. She noted her hope that Transit headways for routes servicing the McBean Transit Center, which are currently 50 minutes to an hour and are not conducive for transit use, be examined while updating the Transit Service Development Plan. Commissioner Berlin asked that an option be added to the Transit Demand Management plan (TDM) for a peak-period shuttle service to major employment sites and Metrolink stations throughout the City, and be paid for by developers, to encourage use of public transit. She also requested that considerations be made, by Centennial and other property owners, to include mobility scooters (and the like) for ADA accessibility to get through the mall and SPA.
Commissioner Berlin asked staff to confirm that approved “affordable” housing would remain as “affordable” for a period of 55 years. David Peterson confirmed that is the case. Commissioner Berlin asked that senior housing is considered as well.
Commissioner Berlin requested that future contracts include the timeframe requirement for scooter (or micro-mobility) retrieval, similar to a prior BIRD contract with the City. David Peterson responded confirming that the TCSP does not preclude such requirements.
Commissioner Berlin asked for clarification regarding the Electric Vehicle (EV) chart as it relates to the 50% additional required per the (Green Code) Tier 2 requirement and if that is operational at opening. David Peterson provided clarification while noting that it does not preclude the Commission from asking for more to be provided at occupancy, consistent with previous projects approved by the Planning Commission.
Chair Burkhart asked what would trigger the complete installation of the pre-wired spaces to become operational. David Peterson deferred to the Building Code and noted that this could be looked at and addressed by the Code as projects come in.
The Commissioners discussed the triggers and percent of required EV spaces that are operational
at opening. The Commission agreed to recommend that 50% of EV spaces be operational at opening, with incorporated language to include “except for good cause shown, subject to the Director’s discretion.” David Peterson stated that the proposed text updates will include the Planning Commission’s text additions and changes for City Council’s consideration.
Commissioner Berlin reiterated her request that the option be added to the TDM for a peak- period shuttle service and, as previously discussed, the BIRD contract language be used as reference. She also requested that “no overnight parking” signs as part of parking management noting concern of residents parking in commercial parking for extended periods. David Peterson stated that the current plan provides flexibility to incorporate those signs, at the property owner’s discretion.
Chair Burkhart asked if there is an existing code to regulate period of time for commercial parking. David Peterson noted that private property owners can establish requirements on their properties. Patrick Leclair clarified that the code does allow for time limit requirements but due to the mixed-use nature of the plan, flexibility would be needed to condition projects, as needed, to find balance for the shared parking between residential, guest, and commercial parking. Chair Burkhart agreed and mentioned that enforcement would be difficult due to commercial operations.
Vice-Chair Ayala requested clarification on location of residential parking. David Peterson noted that parking specifics will be reviewed as development is proposed.
Vice-Chair Ayala asked about the expected economic impact would be as a result of this project.
David Peterson responded that a specific study has not been done but by nature of the project that it would be a significant positive impact over time as development is completed to the Jobs Housing Balance, to the community, and other economic indicators.
Vice-Chair Ayala also asked about plans for public amenities and community spaces to create economic development. David Peterson provided information on requirements within the TCSP for those spaces and amenities.
Vice-Chair Ayala asked about the fuel storage tank located at the Sheriff’s station. David Peterson stated that a mitigation measure as part of the TCSP requires any development within a specific distance of that tank would be required to provide a certification ensuring the location is safe for development.
Vice-Chair Ayala asked about the timeline of development. David Peterson noted that the Plan provides a vision for development over the next 40-50 years but anticipates some short-term improvement to the area.
Vice-Chair Ayala asked how the remodeling would enhance the accessibility and inclusivity of the mall. David Peterson referenced the placemaking and how it addresses and contemplates accessibility and incentivizes use of the spaces.
Vice-Chair Ayala asked how the Plan ensures public safety and security of visitors during and
after construction. David Peterson noted that the construction management plan and continued public safety services that will address these impacts and resources are reviewed and adjusted on an ongoing basis.
Commissioner Ostrom shared concerns regarding cost, impact, and marketability as it relates to the requirement of installed EV spaces.
Vice-Chair Ayala noted the continued need for sustainability (solar).
The Commissioners discussed different EV charger capacity types, ease of use, access, consumer/developer cost.
Vice-Chair Ayala asked if the state requires a specific type of EV charger. Patrick Leclair noted that there is no requirement and is at the property owner’s discretion.
A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Vice-Chair Ayala adopting Resolution P24-09, recommending the City Council certify the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023120123) prepared for the project and adopting Resolution P24-10, recommending the City Council approve the Town Center Specific Plan under Master Case 22- 105 and associated entitlements, with aforementioned recommendations regarding 50% EV chargers operational at opening and shuttle service option for the TDM. Said motion carried by a roll-call vote of 5-0.
RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Renee Berlin, Chair
SECONDER: Patsy Ayala, Commissioner
AYES: Eichman, Ostrom, Burkhart, Berlin, Ayala
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM 2
MASTER CASE 23-210: FERRY COURT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP
Tentative parcel map to create two airspace commercial condominium parcels associated with an existing, two-story, 17,995 square-foot industrial building at 26332 Ferry Court.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Planning Commission:
1. Receive Staff’s report;
2. Conduct the public hearing;
3. Find that Master Case 23-210 is exempt from additional review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15000, et seq.) Section 15301 as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption; and
4. Adopt Resolution P24-07, approving Master Case 23-210, Tentative Parcel Map 84330, to allow for the subdivision of one commercial lot into two airspace condominium
parcels associated with an existing industrial building located at 26332 Ferry Court (Assessor’s Parcel Number: 2836-070-004), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); and
5. Take other action as determined by the Planning Commission.
Mikaela Manion, Associate Planner, presented on the item.
Vice-Chair Ayala asked about expected impacts to traffic. Mikaela Manion responded that this project will not impact tenants or operations as it is to divide airspace only.
There were no public speakers on this item.
Chair Burkhart opened and closed the public comment portion of the public hearing at 6:55 p.m.
A motion was made by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Commissioner Eichman finding Master Case 23-210 exempt from additional review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15000, et seq.) Section 15301 as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption and adopting Resolution P24-07 approving Master Case 23-210, Tentative Parcel Map 84330, to allow for the subdivision of one commercial lot into two airspace condominium parcels associated with an existing industrial building located at 26332 Ferry Court (Assessor’s Parcel Number: 2836-070-004), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). Said motion carried by a roll-call vote of 5-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Dennis Ostrom, Commissioner
SECONDER: Lisa Eichman, Commissioner
AYES: Eichman, Ostrom, Burkhart, Berlin, Ayala
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Patrick Leclair gave the Planning Manager's report providing an update to the anticipated Planning Commission meeting schedule.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
There were no reports made by the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Addressing the Planning Commission were Marcos Montoya, Robert McSweeney, Kevin McDonald, R. Weston Monroe, Lorraine Cuomo, and Duncan Mandel providing comments in opposition to the Wiley Canyon Project. Two additional written comments were provided by Geovanni Jarquin and Jose Ruelas in opposition to the Wiley Canyon Project. In addition, Missy provided comments on the Town Center Specific Plan.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made at 7:18 p.m. by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Commissioner Eichman to adjourn the meeting. Said motion carried by a voice-vote of 5-0.
______________________________________
ATTEST: PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR
______________________________________
PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY