HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-10-13 - RESOLUTIONS - APPROVAL OF MC 94-038 (2)RESOLUTION NO. 98-122
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA CLARITA UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF MASTER CASE 94-038,
WHICH CONSISTS OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 44896, CONDITINAL USE PERMIT 94-001, OAK
TREE PERMIT 94-007, HILLSIDE REVIEW 94-007, AND
AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DESIGNATED
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 95021005.
MASTER CASE 94-038 SUBDIVIDES APPROXIMATELY
56 ACRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 251 UNITS
INCLUDING 95 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS,
156 TOWNHOME UNITS, AND ONE INDUSTRIAL
ZONED PARCEL. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST
OF SAN FERNANDO ROAD, WEST OF THE
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT PIPELINE AND
ON BOTH SIDES OF VIA PRINCESSA WITHIN THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Ccuncil does hereby make the following findings of
fact:
a. An application was filed for Master Case 94-038 was filed by Beazer Homes
Southern California (the applicant) with the City of Santa Clarita (City) on
October 24, 1994. The application proposed to subdivide the 56 -acre site into
a total of 348 residential units. This specific proposal was withdrawn by the
applicant and revised based upon comments received from staff and input
from -the surrounding community.
b. A revised application for Master Case 94-038 was filed by Beazer Homes
Southern California (the applicant) with the City of Santa Clarita (City) .The
application proposes:
Approval of the vesting map of Tentative Tract 44896 to subdivide
approximately 56 acres into 252 units including 95 single family residential
lots, 157 townhome units and one (1) zoned parcel. The project has since
been revised by the Planning Commission to eliminate one of the multiple
family units;
�. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow gating of the driveways of the
townhome units;
Resolution 98-122
Page 2
3. Approval of an Oak Tree Permit to allow for the removal of up to nine (9) of
the 35 [including the removal of one (1) Heritage Oak] oak trees on the site;
4. Approval of a Hillside Review to ensure conformance with the City's codes
for development on land with average cross slopes in excess of 10%; and
C. The project site is designated RM (Residential Moderate) and I (Industrial) by
the City's General Plan. The subject site is zoned RM (Residential Moderate)
and I (Industrial).
d. All utilities would be extended to the site.
e. The City notified all responsible and trustee agencies, interested citizen groups,
and individuals of the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(Draft EIR) for the proposed Circle "J" Ranch Residential Development; and
f. The City public participation process included a program for the Notice of
Preparation, Notice of Completion, Draft EIR, and Response to Comments/Final
EIR; and
g. The City solicited public input and comment on the proposed project and
environmental documentation; and
h. The City caused to be prepared an Environmental Assessment and an
Addendum to the Environmental Assessment both of which are designated as
the Initial Study of December 15, 1997 by the City of Santa Clarita. A copy of
the Initial Study was included in the Draft EIR; and
The City caused to be prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on January 25,
1998. A copy of the NOP was included in the Draft EIR; and
j. The City conducted a public scoping meeting on February 26, 1998 related to
the solicited public input and comment on the proposed project and
environmental documentation; and
k. Written comments were received in response to the NOP and Initial Study. A
copy of these comments was included in the Draft EIR; and
1. The Draft EIR reflected changes to the project based upon the comments
received; and
M. At the direction of the City a Notice of Completion of Draft Environmental
Impact Report for the Circle "J" Ranch Residential Development — Master Case
No. 94-038 Vesting Tentative Map 44896 was filed with the State of California
and Los Angeles County on May 27, 1998; and
Resolution 98-122
Page 3
n. At the City's request the State established an official review period for the Draft
EIR beginning on May 27, 1998 and ending on July 10, 1998; and
o. A copy of the Notice of Completion and Notice of Completion and Draft EIR -
Mailing List was provided in the Response to Comments/Final EIR; and
P. The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on June 2, 1998 to the
solicited public input and comment on the proposed project and environmental
documentation. Further, at the June 2, 1998 Planning Commission Public
Hearing the Commission heard testimony from the City Staff, applicant, and
interested parties related to the project description, background and
environmental status; and
q. The City Staff prepared a Staff Report for the Public Hearing on June 2,
1998; and
The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on June 16, 1998 to
solicit public input and comment on the proposed project and environmental
documentation and to tour the proposed project site. Further, during the tour
of the site the City Staff, City's environmental consultants, the applicant and
their consultants, and interested citizens discussed details of the project
including but not limited to traffic patterns, oak trees, noise impacts, grading,
ridgelines, and the park site. Further, that the City Staff directed the
preparation of a presentation package related to all exhibits presented during
the tour. This package is and has been available for public review and
inspection at the City; and
S. The City Staff prepared a Staff Report for the Public Hearing on June 16,
1998; and
t. The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on July 7, 1998 to
solicit public input and comment on the proposed project and environmental
documentation. Further, the purpose of the Public Hearing was to answer the
Commission's questions and to discuss the issues that were raised by the
Commission at the previous public meetings on the item. Further, that during
the Public Hearing the Commission and public requested information related to
a variety of environmental topics that was provided by the City Staff and their
consultants; and
U. The City Staff prepared a Staff Report for the Public Hearing on July 7, 1998;
and
V. The City prepared a Response to Comment/Final EIR that responded to each
comment received during the public review period for the Draft EIR; and
Resolution 98-122
Page 4
W. The City mailed the document to all those responsible and trustee agencies,
interested citizens, and groups that commented on the Draft EIR.
X. The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on July 28, 1998 to
solicit public input and comment on the proposed project and environmental
documentation. Further that the purpose of the Public Hearing was to answer
the Commission's questions and to elaborate on the issues that have been
raised by the Commission at the previous public meetings on the item. Further,
that during the Public Hearing the Commission and public requested
information related to a variety of environmental topics that was provided by
the City Staff and their consultants. At this meeting, the Planning Commission
approved Master Case 94-038 (as revised), subject to the conditions of approval
including modifications thereto made by the Commission; and
Y. The Planning Commission's approval of Master Case 94-038 (as revised) was
appealed on August 12, 1998 by the following persons: Councilmember Laurens
Weste, Carl Kanowsky, and the Law Firm of Bowie, Arneson, Wiles and
Giannone, representing the Newhall School District. Copies of these appeal
letters have been made a part of the permanent file for this project.
Z. The City Council conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing on October 13,
1998, at 6:30 p.m. on the appeal of Master Case 94-038 (as revised) to solicit
public input and comment on the proposed project and environmental
documentation. City staff prepared an agenda report and all written
materials, including correspondence, was transmitted to the Council.
SECTION 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED the City
Council does hereby make the findings as outlined in the CEQA Statement of
Findings and Facts, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Project Findings
and Fact as they pertain to the Master Case 94-038 and further finds that each
finding is supported by substantial evidence provided in said documents and the
public record.
SECTION 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY FURTHER
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita that:
a. This City Council does hereby certify the Final Environmental Impact Report as
complete and adequate in that it addresses all environmental effects of the
proposed Circle "J" Ranch Residential Development project and fully complies
with the requirements of CEQA, the Guidelines, and the City of Santa Clarita
guidelines for implementation of CEQA and the Guidelines. The Final
Environmental Impact Report is composed of the following elements:
0 Draft Environmental Impact Report - May, 1998;
Resolution 98-122
Page 5
• Response to Comments/Final EIR, July 1998;
• All attachments, incorporations, and references delineated
above;
• City Staff Reports for the Planning Commission Meetings of
June 2, 1998, June 16, 1998, July 7, 1998 and July 28, 1998;
• Minutes of the Planning Commission Meetings of June 2, 1998,
June 16, 1998, July 7, 1998 and July 28, 1998;
• City Agenda Report for the City Council Meeting of October 13,
1998;
• Minutes of the City Council Meeting of October 13, 1998;
• CEQA Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings;
• Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
• Mitigation Monitoring Program.
b. The City Council makes the findings contained in the CEQA Statement of
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings with respect to significant impacts
defined in the Final Environmental Impact Report and finds that each fact in
support of finding is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record,
including the Final Environmental Impact Report. The CEQA Statement of
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Attachment to the October 13, 1998
Agenda Report) is incorporated herein by this reference.
c. The City Council makes the finding that the facts set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Consideration are true and are supported by substantial evidence in
the record, including the Final Environmental Impact Report. The Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Attachment to the October 13, 1998 Agenda Report)
is incorporated herein by this reference.
d. The City Council finds that the Final Environmental Impact Report has
identified all significant environmental effects of the project and that there are
no known potentially significant environmental effects of the project not
addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report.
e. The City Council finds that all significant effects of the project are set forth in
the CEQA Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and the Final
—� Environmental Impact Report.
Resolution 98-122
Page 6
f. The City Council finds that the Environmental Impact Report reflects its
independent judgment and that of the City as reflected in the recommendations
of the City.
g. The City Council finds that the unavoidable adverse impacts of the project, as
identified in the CEQA Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings,
that have not been reduced to a level of insignificance have been reduced in their
impacts by the impositions of mitigation measures which shall be incorporated
into conditions of approval. The City Council finds that the remaining
unavoidable adverse impact is clearly outweighed by any one (1), or any
combination of the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the
project as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
h. The City Council finds that although the Final Environmental Impact Report
identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project
is approved, all significant effects that can be mitigated or avoided have been
reduced to an acceptable level by theimposition of mitigation measures. In
accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, a
Mitigation Monitoring Program has been developed for the project. The
Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be incorporated as a condition of approval.
The list of mitigation measures is as shown in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program (Attachment to the October 13, 1998 Agenda Report), which is
incorporated herein by this reference.
i. The City Council finds that potential mitigation measures of project alternatives
not incorporated into the project (including the "no project/no development"
alternative) are rejected as infeasible based upon specific economic, legal, social,
technological or other considerations are as set forth in the CEQA Statement of
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and the Final Environmental Impact
Report. Further the City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to
incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact
Report and all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of
the Final Environmental Impact Report and ultimate decisions on the project.
j. Upon approval of this Resolution the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a Notice
of Determination with the County Recorders Office, County of Los Angeles and
the California State Clearinghouse pursuant to Section 21152 of the Public
Resources Code.
SECTION 4. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of
fact as they pertain to the Master Case 94-038 related to approval of the Vesting
Map of Tentative Tract Number 44896:
Findings
Resolution 98-122
Page 7
1. The City Council finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the
provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the Santa
Clarita General Plan, the Zoning Code, and/or any specific plan;
2. The City Council finds that the site is physical suitable for the type of
development;
3. The City Council finds that the site is suitable for the proposed density of
development;
4. The City Council finds that the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat;
5. The City Council finds that the design of the subdivision or type of
improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, and
6. The City Council finds that the design of the subdivision or type of
improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at
large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
Facts in Support of Findings
1. The facts in support of these findings are as outlined in the Circle "J" Ranch
Residential Development CEQA Statement of Findings and Facts, Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and Project Findings and Facts.
SECTION 5. The City Council does hereby make the following findings
based upon the facts presented in support of findings as they pertain to the Master
Case 94-038 related to approval of the Conditional Use Permit 94-001:
Finding
1. The City Council finds that the propose location, size, design, and
operation characteristics of the proposed use is in accordance with the
purpose of the Development Code, the purpose of the zone in which
the site is located„ the Santa Clarita General Plan, and the
development policies and standards of the city; and
2. That the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the
proposed use will be compatible with and will not adversely affect or
be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, residents, buildings,
structures, or natural resources, with consideration give to:
3. That the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the
proposed use will be compatible with and will not adversely affect or
Resolution 98-122
Page 8
be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, residents, buildings,
structures, or natural resources, with consideration give to:
a. Harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density;
b. The availability of public facilities, services and utilities;
C. The harmful effect, if an, upon desirable neighborhood
character;
d. The generation of traffic and the capacity and physical
character of surrounding streets;
e. The suitability of the site for the type and intensity of use or
development which is proposed;
f The harmful effect, if any, upon environmental quality and
natural resources; and
4. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of this Code, except for an approved variance or
adjustment.
Facts in Support of Findings
1. The facts in support of these findings are as outlined in the Circle "J" Ranch
Residential Development CEQA Statement of Findings and Facts, Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and Project Findings and Facts.
SECTION 6. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of
fact as they pertain to the Master Case 94-038 related to approval of the Oak Tree
Permit 94-007:
Finding
1. The condition or location of the oak tree(s) requires cutting to maintain or aid its
health, balance or structure.
2. The condition of the tree(s) with respect to disease, danger of falling, proximity to
existing lots, pedestrian walkways or interference with utility services cannot be
controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative
procedures and practices.
3. It is necessary to remove, relocate, prune, cut or encroach into the protected zone
of an oak tree to enable reasonable use of the subject property which is otherwise
prevented by the presence of the tree and no reasonable alternative can be
Resolution 98-122
Page 9
accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints of the
property.
4. The approval of the request will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general
purpose and intent of the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance.
5. No Heritage Oak Tree shall be removed unless one or more of the above findings
are made and the decision maker also finds that the Heritage Oak Tree's
continued existence would prevent any reasonable development of the property
and that no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique
physical constraints of the property. It shall further be found that the removal of
such Heritage Oak Tree will not be unreasonably detrimental to the community
and surrounding area.
Facts in Support of Findings
1. The facts in support of these findings are as outlined in the Circle "J" Ranch
Residential Development CEQA Statement of Findings and Facts, Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and Project Findings and Facts.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY FURTHER RESOLVED by the City
Council of the City of Santa Clarita that the following actions are taken:
ACTION 1 CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AS DESCRIBED HEREIN;
ACTION 2 ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
IN FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE;
ACTION 3 ADOPTING THE CEQA FINDINGS AND FACTS IN
SUPPORT OF FINDINGS IN FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S
OFFICE; '
ACTION 4 ADOPTING THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS IN FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S
OFFICE;
ACTION 5 CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE VESTING MAP OF
TENTATIVE TRACT NUMBER 44896, CONDITIONS IN
FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE;
ACTION 6 APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-001
ACTION 7 APPROVE OAK TREE PERMIT 94-007
Resolution 98-122
Page 10
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at City of Santa Clarita City Council
Meeting on the 13th day of October 1998.
AT'T'ESTED
J "� a..� ,
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
}
}ss
}
YOR
I, Sharon Dawson. CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at the meeting
thereof, held on the 13`" day of October, 1998, by the following vote of the City
Council.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Darcga Ferry, Weste, &lajic, Heidt
NOES: COUNCILMEMERS: None
ABSENT: OOUNCILMEMBERS: None
)/, KK ,/.
CITY CLERK
s:\cound1\reso98122.doc