Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-12 - RESOLUTIONS - MC 97-102 FEIR (2)RESOLUTION NO. 98-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CERTIFYING FEIR SCH#97081065, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS THAT WEIGHS PROJECT BENEFITS AGAINST THE PROJECTS SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS FOR MASTER CASE NO. 97-102 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-002, ZONE CHANGE 97-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-012 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 98-001), TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 12.36 ACRES OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE BOUQUET SENIORS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT, LOCATED WESTERLY AND ADJACENT TO BOUQUET CANYON ROAD BETWEEN FESTIVIDAD DRIVE AND ESPUELLA DRIVE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. On June 18, 1997, an entitlement was Sled with the Planning & Building Services Department which included the following requests: an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Map to redesignate approximately 12.36 acres of RS (Residential Suburban) land use to RMH (Residential Medium High) land use; a zone change modifying the Unified Development Code zoning designation and standards of approximately 12.36 acres of property from RS (Residential Suburban - 5 dwelling units per acre) to RMH (Residential Medium High - 20 dwelling units per acre); and a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a three story, 261 unit senior affordable housing apartment project, to permit a 25% density bonus for the property, to provide an amenities bonus for partial waiver of development fees, and to allow for the installation of gates for the residential project. Staffs review of the entitlements filed further determined that an application for a development agreement was required under the density bonus provisions of the Unified Development Code, and that the preparation of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was necessary. A 30 - year development agreement application was filed with the City on January 16, 1998. b. Modifications to the project were made over the course of the project's review. Such changes include a proposal for 264 units, as opposed to the 261 originally requested, a modified site design increasing the project's northerly setback from 120 feet to 133 feet, the addition of a gardening area for the residents of the project, and the addition of an internal walking path for the future residents. C. The project was previously approved under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County as a 192 unit, market rate senior housing project, with the development of the site consisting of the construction of 12 separate housing structures. Under Los Angeles County, the project underwent a zone change from A-2-5, an agricultural zoning designation, to RPD -5,000-23U, a zoning designation allowing for residential units with a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size, up to 23 units per acre. The project was approved by the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission on November 25, 1992. Along with the approval of the site plan, the Regional Planning Commission also approved Tentative Tract Map 44830, dividing the site plan into one condominium lot with 192 fee in ownership parcels. An Environmental Impact Report (SCH#89091306) was prepared for the previously approved project, which was certified as final in November of 1992. Los Angeles County Regional Planning adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the previous project's cumulative impact to air quality. d. In March of 1997, the City of Santa Clarita finalized the Northbridge Annexation (Annexation No. 1992-04), thereby incorporating the project site into the City's boundaries. Upon annexation, the property's zoning designation was determined to be RS (Residential Suburban), and was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Map. e. The site is known as the Bouquet Seniors Affordable. Housing Project and is located westerly and adjacent to Bouquet Canyon Road, between Festividad Drive and Espuella Drive. f. The General Plan presently designates the project site as Residential Suburban, which corresponds to the typical single-family detached tract home developments found throughout the planning area. The density range in this category is from 3.4 to 6.6 dwellings per gross acre with a mid-range density of 5 dwellings per gross acre. Contingent upon the approval of the zone change, the General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Map would be amended to reflect the site under the RMH (Residential Medium High) General Plan designation, which corresponds to grouped housing in townhomes, triplexes, fourplexes and larger group homes. Specialized developments, such as senior housing and affordable housing, are economically possible at the upper end of the density range for this category. The density of development for this category ranges from 15.1 to 25.0 units per gross acre, with a mid-range density of 20 dwellings per gross acre. The project's density equals 21 dwellings per gross acre, which is consistent with the RMH General Plan designation proposed. The approval of a conditional use permit for a density and amenities bonus permits densities above the mid -point General Plan designation. g. An RMH zoning designation for the project site permits a density of up'to 20 dwelling units per acre. The 8.8 net acreage of the site, however, creates a density of approximately 30 dwelling units per acre. The density bonus provisions of the Unified Development Code are intended to facilitate the construction of senior, very low, and low income units that will serve the current and long term City need while maintaining a high degree of quality in project design, construction, and environmental protection. The proposed project meets all of the density bonus applicability requirements of the UDC, including the provision for a 100% affordable housing project, the submittal of a preliminary proposal prior to the request for the General Plan amendment and zone change, and the submittal of an independently prepared fiscal impact analysis detailing the project's effects on the City's budget.. The project is an infill development project, and therefore the area infrastructure is in place or is being constructed as a part of the project. The site is not located in an area designated as "hillside," and the zone change of the project site to RMH would qualify the property for a density bonus. The site is also located proximate to commercial establishments, service providers, grocery stores, drug stores, banks, and public transit. h. The City may grant a density bonus of 25% in excess of the maximum density of the zone, which would allow a density of 25 dwelling unit per gross acre. However, in areas where higher densities are appropriate and services are available, densities of up to 35 dwelling units per acre may be permitted. Re - designating the project site to the RMH designation is therefore consistent with the Unified Development Code. The Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project site is vacant, and incorporates a portion of both the concrete -lined Seco drainage channel and the concrete -lined Bouquet drainage channel. The property is surrounded by urban development, and is thus considered an infill development project. The project site is located in close proximity to local transit routes, grocery stores, banks, drug stores, restaurants, and other convenience stores, and is therefore well-suited for a senior population project. j. The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the project which determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and that a subsequent environmental impact report must be prepared. A Notice of Preparation (N.O.P.) for the General Plan amendment, zone change, and conditional use permit requests was mailed in September 1997 to affected agencies. k. The City Council held a study'session regarding fee reductions for senior housing projects on June 3, 1997. During this meeting, the Council directed staff to ensure that applicants requesting such fee reductions address the need for affordable senior housing projects within the City, and address the potential impacts of such projects to the City's budget. In response to this request, staff directed the applicant for the Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project to prepare both a fiscal impact analysis and a market study to address the aforementioned issues. Both reports were considered by the Planning Commission prior to forwarding a recommendation to the City Council regarding the project. 1. A duly noticed Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) hearing was held by the City Council on November 25, 1997. At this public hearing, the Council adopted Resolution No. 97-138 approving the issuance by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) of not to exceed 3 $17,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds for the project. The TEFRA hearing is required by the CSCDA prior to their issuance of pass-through tax exempt bond financing for multi -family housing projects. No financial or legal obligation/liability to the City exists in the approval of the above-mentioned resolution. in. At the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of February 3, 1998, the Commission received a preliminary schedule identifying upcoming public hearing dates and topics for discussion regarding the project. During this meeting, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Draft Subsequent EIR - SCH#97081065) was distributed to the Planning Commission for their review. The first meeting identified on the preliminary schedule commenced on March 3, 1998, thus allowing the Commissioners approximately one month to begin reviewing the document prior to the first public hearing. The preliminary schedule also identified specific project topics to be discussed at each of the meetings. The goal of this processing schedule was to reduce redundancy and allow the Commission and the public to better prepare for the meetings. The Planning Commission's tentative schedule, including information identifying areas of discussion, was published in a local newspaper of areawide distribution, and was also distributed to all property owners within a 500' mailing radius of the subject site. n. While the Draft Subsequent EIR for this project was distributed to the Planning Commission on February 3, 1998, a Notice of Completion (N.O.C.) was formally distributed to the public on January 23, 1998. The Draft Subsequent EIR was circulated for a 45 -day public review beginning on January 23, 1998 and ending on Manch 8, 1998, in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). o. A total of three community meetings were held by the applicant (with the Monteverds Homeowner's Association) in order to assess neighborhood concerns regarding the project. The meetings were held at the residence of the President of the Homeowner's Association on February 18, 1997, on July 10, 1997, and on February 12, 1998. Project modifications were incorporated as a result of these meetings, including the addition of conditions of approval addressing the aesthetics of the proposed property. Landscaping and architectural designs for the project are being developed in cooperation with the residential neighborhood located directly north of the project site, and in compliance with the City's draft design guidelines. P. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on this issue commencing on March 3, 1998 and continuing on March 17, 1998 and April 7, 1998. These public hearings were held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. q. The March 3, 1998 public hearing held on the project specifically discussed the project's Draft Subsequent EIR. The purpose of discussing the environmental document on this date was to further enhance public participation: verbal testimony from the Commissioners and the public could therefore be incorporated into the response to comments prior to the close of the public review period of the Draft Subsequent EIR on March 8, 1998. While the Draft Subsequent EIR was discussed in detail during the public hearing of March 3, 1998, further testimony regarding the Draft Subsequent EIR was not limited at subsequent meetings. A more detailed discussion of project parameters, including the deal points of the development agreement, was held during the public hearing of March 17, 1998. Outstanding issues regarding the project were discussed on April 7, 1998. r. The Bouquet Seniors Draft Subsequent EIR review and comments by the affected governmental agencies and all other comments received have been considered. A Final EIR (FEIR) dated March 24, 1998 and attached as Exhibit "A" was prepared in accordance with CEQA and includes the Draft Subsequent EIR, responses to comments received on the Draft Subsequent EIR, minor corrections and clarifications to the EIR text, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). As a result of staff, public and Planning Commission comments on the project and the Draft Subsequent EIR, the applicant has made modifications to the project. None of the modifications would result in additional environmental impacts. S. On April 7, 1998 the Planning Commission: 1) adopted Resolution P98-12 recommending that the City Council approve the project's requested r entitlements; 2) adopted Resolution P98-11 recommending that the City Council f certify the FEIR and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project; and 3) forwarded two draft ordinances to the Council, one recommending that the City Council approve the development agreement for the project (Ordinance No. 98-11), and one recommending approval of the requested zone change (Ordinance No. 98-10). The deal points of the development agreement were discussed during the public hearings of March 17, 1998 and April 7, 1998. The requested zone change was also discussed during the hearings of March 3, 1998, March 17, 1998 and April 7, 1998. Both draft ordinances were reviewed and discussed during the aforementioned public hearings prior to being forwarded to the Council for final adoption. t. The Planning Commission considered the Final EIR, as well as information provided in staff reports, the amendment text, the deal points of the development agreement, and public testimony prior to recommending project approval. U. The City Council held duly noticed public hearings regarding the project on April 21, 1998, May 12, 1998, and May 26, 1998. All meetings were held at or before 6:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, 91355. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does hereby make the following findings of fact: i b a. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires decision -makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental impacts. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable" by adopting a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." This statement sets forth the project benefits or reasons why the Lead Agency is in favor of approving a project and weighs these benefits against the project's adverse environmental impacts identified in the FEIR that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. b. CEQA requires decision -makers to adopt a MMRP for those mitigation measures which are conditions of the project. SECTION 9. The City Council hereby finds that the FEIR for the Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project (Master Case 97-102 [General Plan Amendment 97-002 / Zone Change 97-002 / Conditional Use Permit 97-012 / Development Agreement 98-0011) identifies cumulative project impacts and project specific impacts. Environmental impacts identified in the FEIR are summarized as follows: a• The Draft Subsequent EIR, herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit A, identifies the following issue area as significant but unavoidable: Air Quality. b. The Draft Subsequent EIR identifies the following issue areas as significant but feasibly mitigable to a less than significant level: earth/grading, water, plant life, animal life, noise, light and glare, land use, natural resources, risk of upset/man- made hazards, traffic/access, public services, utilities, aesthetics/visual qualities, recreation, and cultural resources. A MMRP has been prepared to mitigate these potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level and is included as part of the FEIR. C. The Draft Subsequent EIR identifies the following issue areas as less than significant: population, housing, energy, and human health. SECTION 4. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, the Council further finds: a. That the FEIR for this project is adequate, complete, and has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). b. That the City Council has reviewed and considered the FEIR in reaching its decision. C. That changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project and related entitlements which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect because feasible mitigation measures included in the MMRP are made conditions of approval for this project. SECTION 5. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council further finds that the FEIR analyzes a range of project alternatives. Such alternatives include: Alternative 1- No Proiect: Section 15126(dX2) of the State CEQA guidelines requires that the "No Project" alternative be evaluated along with its respective impacts. This alternative would leave the site in its current condition, with no development of any kind occurring. The "No Project" alternative is an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project in terms of impacts regarding earth/grading, air quality, noise, land use, traffic, public services, and aesthetics/visual qualities. However, this alternative is not consistent with the project site's RS land use designation in the City's General Plan which would allow some degree of residential development. This alternative does not meet any of the basic objectives of the project applicant to develop this property, which is surrounded by urbanized land uses, with the proposed senior housing project. Therefore, this alternative does not fulfill the intent of the Santa Clarity General Plan Land Use Element. While the "No Project" alternative would not generate any significant grading, air quality, noise, land use, traffic, public services; or viewshed impacts, the respective impacts associated with the proposed project in these environmental issues have been found not to be significant. Alternative 2 - Previously-Anorov d Project: Both the previously -approved project alternative and the proposed project are senior -oriented, and would therefore result in fewer impacts compared to a general population project with regard to traffic, air quality, and noise. This is basically because of the fewer average daily trips under the previously -approved project. This alternative would result in less long-term traffic and noise effects than the proposed project, however, these same effects have been found not to be significant for the proposed project. Both the previously -approved project and the proposed project add to cumulative impacts on air quality: the previously -approved project resulted in the adoption of a SOC, as would the approval of the proposed project. This alternative could result in greater short-term grading impacts and viewshed blockage compared to the proposed project. In addition, while the previously -approved project would provide additional market -rate apartment/condominium senior housing units in the City, it would not provide for low-income rental housing for seniors and meet the current need in the City for such housing. Land use impacts are very similar between the previously -approved project and the proposed project. This alternative does not, however, meet one of the primary objectives of the project applicant to develop this property with a low-income senior housing project. From an environmental perspective, though, this environmentally superior alternative has fewer dwelling units and would generate less traffic over the proposed project. Alternative 3 - Current General Plan Land s • Under the project site's RS General Plan land use designation, the property could be developed with up to 61 single-family residential units. Such a development would be typical of the single-family suburban residential neighborhoods found in the Santa Clarita Valley area. Based on the City'a development standards, the residences could be up to 35 feet in height with 15 foot rear yard setbacks. This alternative is environmentally superior over the proposed project with regard to fire services, paramedic services and sheriffs services. Due to the age of the population, the proposed senior residential project would result in increased demands for such services. The impacts to library services could be similar between these developments, although seniors do typically utilize library services to a greater extent than the general population. This alternative is not environmentally superior over the proposed project with regard to air quality, noise, land use, traffic, education services and aesthetics. This alternative does not meet the primary development objective of the proposed project: providing affordable senior rental housing. Overall, this alternative does not represent an environmentally superior development over the proposed project. Alternative 4 - Project Without the Third Flo : This alternative involves the implementation of the proposed senior affordable housing project without its third floor. By lowering the overall height of the building by a minimum of 10 feet (to a 25 foot height), distant views of hills and mountains to the south from the existing adjacent residential uses would not be obstructed to the same extent as under the proposed project. Removing the third floor would also reduce the bulk of the single large residential building for adjacent neighbors. While some units could be retained with an adjustment of the site plan, for this alternative it is assumed that one-third of the proposed dwelling units would not be developed, leaving a 176 -unit senior affordable housing project. The fewer dwelling units would result in reduced traffic, noise, air quality, public services and aesthetics/ viewshed impacts than the proposed project. Although the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project can be reduced to a less than significant level with the mitigation measures recommended in the Draft Subsequent EIR, this alternative would further reduce impact, particularly with regard to view obstruction, and represents the environmentally superior alternative over the proposed project. Even though the number of units would be reduced, the basic development objectives would still be met under this alternative.' SECTION 6. By adoption of this Resolution, the City Council finds that the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects and feasible mitigation measures that mitigate potential significant impacts to levels less than significant for all environmental impact areas with the exclusion of Air Quality. With regard to the project's impacts to air quality, the City Council hereby adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) stating that the project's benefits outweigh its environmental impacts to cumulative air quality. In accordance with CEQA Sections 15091 and 15093, a description of each 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 identified in the Final EIR is detailed below: a. Air Quality: The EIR for the previously approved County project (192 unit market -rate senior condominiums) found that the project would commensurately contribute to existing significant adverse cumulative air quality impacts. The Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission adopted a SOC stating that the project's benefits outweighed its environmental impact to air quality. The air quality assessment of the 264 -unit Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project indicates that the implementation of mitigation measures discussed in the Air Quality section of the Draft Subsequent EIR, and thus incorporated into the project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would reduce the project's potential emissions to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are consistent with the goals of the Air Quality Management Plan for reducing the impacts associated with new development. However, any contribution of emissions within a non -attainment area would cumulatively worsen the existing significant adverse air quality impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. As the proposed project incorporates an additional 72 units over the previously -approved project, and a SOC was adopted by the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission for the previously approved project, a SOC for the Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project should be adopted. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures AQ1 through AQ10 as identified in the FEIR would reduce the magnitude of construction -related and operation -related emissions to some extent. However, the project will commensurately contribute to the negative air quality conditions already existent in the Southern California non -attainment basin. Therefore, the cumulative air quality impacts of the proposed residential uses and impacts due to the construction and operation of the project would be unavoidably significant. SECTION 7. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, the Council further finds that the Bouquet Seniors Affordable Housing Project and related entitlements will have community benefits. The City Council finds that the following benefits are overriding considerations which support adoption of a SOC: a. The project as approved provides for a 100% affordable senior housing project as encouraged under the City's General Plan Housing Element. b. The City s General Plan encourages the provision of affordable senior housing through the following goals and policies, listed in the Housing Element: Goal 1: To provide opportunities for the production of a range of new housing in the planning area to meet the needs of all income groups. Policy 1.1: Review and support, as appropriate, programs to increase the supply of housing throughout the region. Give full consideration to the impacts on the environment, market, infrastructure, public services, utilities, human resources, and other factors. Goal 2: To provide sites suitable for a variety of housing types for all income levels and assist in the development and provision of affordable and proportionally priced and sized homes to meet the needs of al community residents, including low and moderate income, large families, handicapped, families with female heads of household, and the elderly. s 9 Policy 3.7: Provide opportunities for the development of adequate housing to provide the City's fair share of low and moderate income households. Policy 3.8: Encourage and participate in low and moderate income and senior citizen housing programs financed by other levels of government. Policy 3.9: Promote the dispersal of low and moderate income housing throughout the Santa Clarita planning area. C. The Bouquet Seniors project will provide residential housing opportunities for the low income and very low income seniors as required by the Housing Element of the General Plan, the Housing Allocation for the City of Santa Clarita as set forth by SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and the City's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) component of the City's Consolidated Plan prepared for the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). d. The project will provide the City with infrastructure including improvements to portions of the Bouquet Canyon Road major highway as designated on the City's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. e. The project is consistent with: 1) the site's City General Plan and Zoning Land Use Classifications as amended by the City Council, with the inclusion of an approved conditional use permit allowing up to a 26% density and amenities bonus. f. The project provides significant public benefits including employment opportunities, a partnership with a local management corporation, extensive on- site mature landscaping, the dedication of additional right-of-way along a major arterial, a 100% senior population housing project, and a 100% affordable housing project located in close proximity to transportation corridors, shopping centers, community trails, religious institutions, and local transit routes. SECTION 8. By adoption of this Resolution, the City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the FEIR (SCH No. 97081066) and determines that it is adequate and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 at seq.). In compliance with CEQA Section 16093, the City Council has considered the project benefits as balanced against the unavoidable adverse environmental effects and hereby determines that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects; therefore, the City council determines that this Resolution comprises a Statement of Overriding Considerations and the adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable. SECTION 9. By the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council certifies the environmental impact report and adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations that identifies the benefits of the project as balanced against its unavoidable environmental risks. 10 SECTION 10. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. SECTION 11. The Council shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of May ; 19 9B . ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the ! 2th day of may 19g� by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: r aajfc, Darcy, Ferry, Weate, Hefdt NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Now ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY CLERK Pbs\council\reso9841 it -