Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-28 - RESOLUTIONS - NEWHALL PARTNERS GVR (2)r r RESOLUTION NO. 00-150 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CERTIFYING FEIR SCH#1999061064 AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE NEWHALL PARTNER'S GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD PROJECT THAT WEIGHS PROJECT BENEFITS AGAINST THE PROJECT'S SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE I WACTS FOR MASTER CASE NO. 97-143 FOR ZONE CHANGE 99-001 TO RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (RSPD), VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 48892 (ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH MODIFICATIONS), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-013, VARIANCE 99-001, OAK TREE PERMIT 99-009. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: ,. . SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT- The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. The applicant, Zephyr Newhall, LP, formally requested certain project entitlements related to the Newhall Partners Golden Valley Road development on August 11, 1997 (Master Case 97-143). Such entitlement requests included Zone Change 99-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 48892, Conditional Use Permit 97- 013, Variance 99-001, and Oak Tree Permit 99-009. The 61.23 -acre project site is owned by Zephyr Newhall LP. b. The Newhall Partners Golden Valley Road project area is located on 61.23 acres in the Santa Clarita Valley, in the City of Santa Clarita. The site is situated south of Sierra Highway, north of Green Mountain Drive, and east of Valley View Elementary School C. The Newhall Partners Golden Valley Road project area is currently vacant. The property is privately -owned by Zephyr Newhall, LP. The Project area is generally characterized as undeveloped, and in primarily a natural state with native vegetation, oak trees, and varying hilly terrain. The dominant natural feature on the project site is the hilly terrain specifically the primary ridgeline running along the northwestern portion of the site. d. The project site originally consisted of two 1990 approved projects (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 48892 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 45022). The original VTTM 48892 consisted of 38 acres and located on the eastern portion of today's new VTTM 48892. The western portion of the new project site was VTTM 4502 and consisted of 25 acres. The original VTTM 48892 consisted of 118 single family units and VTTM 45022 included 103 detached condominium units. �^ e. As a result of both properties (VTTM 48892 and VTTM 45022) being involved in I litigation with three other surrounding property owners and the City during 1993/1994, both maps were deemed expired per the settlement agreement that was finalized on February 14, 1996. The settlement agreement also stipulated Resolution Page No. 2 that if both of the properties (previously VTTM 48892 and VTTM 45022) were resubmitted with new maps within five years of the date the settlement agreement was finalized that they would be exempt form the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance, and any additions or amendments tot he City's currently existing ordinances affecting density or setbacks, and any new City development fees f. On August 11, 1997, the applicant submitted Master Case No. 97-143, requesting entitlement requests for a vesting tentative tract map and conditional use permit to subdivide 34.5 acres into 101 single family detached condominium units, which included the extension of Golden Valley Road within the development area. After the City of Santa Clarita planning staff reviewed the project, numerous modifications were mad to the submittal and a revised project was re -submitted to the City on February 23, 1999. The revised project, included additional entitlements and an oak tree permit for the removal of up to seven oak trees. The vesting tentative tract map was also revised to include an additional 26.8 acres (for a total area of 61.23 acres) to be subdivided into a total of 185 lots. In addition, as a result of submitting the entitlement requests prior to the five year deadline outlined in the settlement agreement, the applicant is exempt from the Hillside Development Ordinance. The project site would be developed into 185 lots - 177 residential lots (176 of which are proposed for the construction of residential homes and one 45,320 square foot residential lot that will remain vacant), 2 open space lots, l recreation lot, 4 street lots, and 1 recreational vehicle storage lot which will all be maintained by a Homeowner's Association. In addition, the square footage of a majority of the single family homes would range from 2,000 to 2,800 which keeps in mind the setback requirements. The project also includes a 7.64 acre "remainder parcel" located on the southwest side of the site. The remainder parcel will remain vacant until such time the applicant comes in with a new submittal for the property. The 7.64 acres is included in the total project acreage. The project also includes a zone change by separate ordinance to incorporate the PD (Planned Development) overlay zone on the property, thereby allowing for the development of private drives internal to the project site; a variance to allow for lot widths less than the 50 feet required under the City's Unified Development Code (UDC), front yard setbacks of up to 8 feet from back of sidewalk, and lot sizes less than the 5,000 square foot minimum lot size required under the UDC, a conditional use permit to implement the PD (Planned Development) overlay zone, and an oak tree permit that would allow for the removal of up to seven oak trees. The project would be required to construct the entire 116 -feet of right-of-way for Golden Valley Road which extends from the existing roadway that currently ends Resolution Page No. 3 at Green Mountain Road and goes westerly approximately 2,700 feet through the northern portion of the site to its intersection with Sierra Highway. The alignment shown on the project site is consistent with the alignment set forth in the City's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The applicant is required to fully improve the six -lane divided highway link form its current terminus to Sierra Highway. The roadway will consist of 6' landscaped parkways, 6' sidewalks, an 14' landscaped median, a 12' bike lane on the north side of the road, and 6 vehicle lanes (3 on each side). g. An Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Newhall Partners Golden Valley Road project were circulated n June of 1999. A scoping meeting attended by approximately 13 people was held in November of 1999. Subsequently, a Draft EIR was prepared by the City's EIR Consultant (Planning Consortium) that addresses the comments received in response to the NOP and at the scoping meeting. The Draft EIR has identified four environmental areas that would have significant impact that could not be mitigated. These are project specific impacts on a primary ridgeline, project specific and cumulative air pollutant generation, cumulative biotic resource and open space impacts, and cumulative solid waste impacts. There are two environmental areas where no significant impacts would occur (no mitigation required). These are Energy/Mineral Resources and Population/Housing. The remaining environmental areas in the DEER have been identified where significant impact would occur, however, mitigation measures have been recommended to reduce the impacts to levels of less than significant or less. On June 30, 2000, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public review and comment and the review period closed on August 14, 2000. The Draft EER was given to the Commission on July 12, 2000 for their review. Staff received nine written responses from outside agencies and citizens which are addressed in the Final EIR. The DEIR was also routed to all of the City Divisions which responded to the Draft and are addressed in the FEIR. h. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee met and supplied the applicant with draft conditions of approval. i. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the Newhall Partners Golden Valley Road project entitlements on July 18, 2000, and continuing on July 26, August 1, September 6, September 19, 2000, and October 3, 2000. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on September 19, 2000 and continued the item to the October 3, 2000 meeting for the purposes of Resolution Page No. 4 finalizing their recommendation to the City Council for certification of the FEIR, approval of the "147 Unit Alternative Project," and denial of the variance, Conditional use permit, and zone change. On October 3, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted a recommendation that the City Council approve VTTM 48892 (147 Unit Alternative Project), and Oak Tree Permit 99-009, and consider the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), and ultimately certify the FEIR and deny Conditional Use Permit 97-013, Variance 99-001, and Zone Change 99- 001. Notice of said public hearings was given in the manner required by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code and State law. j. During the Planning Commission public hearings for the Newhall Partners Golden Valley Road project, letters and public testimony and meeting public comment cards with comments on issues addressed in the environmental document were forwarded to the Commission and to the consultants designated by the City to prepare the EIR. Written responses were prepared for the comments received prior to the close of the public hearing. These written responses to comments will be forwarded to the City Council in their consideration of this project as part of the agenda report documentation and included in the City Clerk's reading file for this project. These written responses to comments will also be incorporated as additional chapters in the Final EIR. k. At the regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting on July 18, 2000, the Commission received an overview presentation of the Newhall Partner's Golden Valley Road project site. The Commission requested more information on the project's settlement agreement and wanted more information for the public regarding local parks, drainage, oak trees and Golden Valley Road issues. The Commission received public testimony on this item. The public hearing was continued to the July 26,2000 Planning Commission meeting. 1. A duly noticed special meeting of the Planning Commission was held on July 26, 2000 at 6:30 p.m. to conduct a field visit to the Newhall Partners Golden Valley Road project site. All five Planning Commissioners were in attendance. The public hearing was continued to the August 1, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. In. At the regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting on August 1, 2000, the Commission received a focused environmental presentation on geology, circulation, public services, utilities, recreation, biology, drainage, noise, air quality, aesthetics, and alternatives. The Commission discussed the 13/4 to 1 slope, removal of oak trees, Golden Valley Road, local parks, drainage specifically regarding the Honby Channel, truck traffic, speeding, and the School Districts. The Commission requested staff to come back with more information on Golden Valley Road, traffic signals on Golden Valley Road, truck traffic on Golden Valley Road, drainage related to the Honby Channel, 1 3/4 to 1 slope along Sierra Highway, and school district impacts (Hart and Sulpher Springs), park issues and Resolution Page No. b removal of oak trees. The Commission received public testimony on this item. The public hearing was continued to the September b, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. n. At the regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting on September 5, 2000, the Commission received a staffs presentation that focused on Golden Valley Road, traffic signals on Golden Valley Road, truck traffic on Golden Valley Road, drainage related to the Honby Channel, 1 V4 to 1 slope along Sierra Highway, school district impacts, park issues, and oak trees. In addition to responding to the issues brought up at the last meeting, staff received one letter from a citizen requesting a response to issues related to trees, viewscapes, and Golden Valley Road. At the end of the meeting, the remaining issues left were Golden Valley Road specifically related to downsizing of the road, truck traffic, traffic signals, and speed limits, pedestrian bridge, architecture, Hart School District, and oak trees. The Commission received public testimony on this item. The public hearing and item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting on September 19, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers for staff to return with additional information related to the outstanding issues in order for the Planning Commission to formalize a recommendation to the Council. o. At the regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting on September 19, 2000, the Planning Commission resolved the outstanding issues related to the pedestrian bridge, Golden Valley Road, architecture, oak trees and further discussed school issues. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on September 19, 2000 and made a motion to direct staff to comeback to the October 3, 2000 meeting with resolutions recommending certification to the City Council for the FEIR, approval of the "147 Unit Alternative Project," and oak tree permit, and denial of the variance, conditional use permit and zone change. P. On October 3, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted a recommendation that the City Council approve VTTM 48892(147 Unit Alternative Project), and Oak Tree Permit 99-009 and consider the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), and ultimately certify the FEIR and deny Conditional Use Permit 97-013, Variance 99- 001, and Zone Change 99-001. Notice of said public hearings was given in the manner required by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code and State law. q. During the Planning Commission public hearings for the Newhall Partners Golden Valley Road project, letters, public testimony, e-mails and meeting public comment cards with comments on issues addressed in the environmental document were forwarded to the Commission and to the consultants designated by the City to prepare the EIR. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND GUIDELINES - The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does hereby make the following findings of fact: Resolution Page No. 6 a. CEQA provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Emphasis added.) The procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." (Emphasis added.) CEQA also provides that "in the event that specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects." „ .. b. The mandate and principles announced in CEQA are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must 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. The first such finding is 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." The second permissible finding is that "such changes or alterations are within the responsibility 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." The third potential conclusion is that "specific 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 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. C. The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. `Feasibility under CEQA encompasses'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. d. Where a significant impact can be substantially lessened solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives with respect to that mitigated impact, even if the alternative would mitigate the impact in question to a greater degree than _ the project as mitigated. (Pub. Resources Code § 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association, supra, 83 CalApp.3d at 521;e@�ela so Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 CalApp.3d 692, 730-731 [270 Ca1.Rptr. 6501; and Resolution Page No. 7 Laurel Hei hg is Improvement Association v. Reeents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403 [253 Ca1.Rptr. 426].) e. CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. Further, in devising mitigation measures, "a public agency may exercise only those express or implied powers provided by law other than [CEQAI." In fashioning mitigation measures, the lead agency must ensure that the mitigation actually relates to impacts caused by the project in question; an applicant cannot be required to provide a generalized public benefit unrelated to project impacts or that would do more than fully mitigate the impacts. f. 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." Should the City Council, upon independent review of the Final EIR, choose to approve the project, a Statement of Overriding Considerations should set forth the project benefits or reasons why the Lead Agency is in favor of approving and weighs these benefits against the Project's adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. g. CEQA requires that a DEIR be recirculated for additional public review and comment if (1) substantial changes in the Draft EIR that would deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project, a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect, or a feasible project alternative; (2) new information identifies new potential significant environmental effects or substantially increases the potential severity of the previously identified significant effects disclosed in the Draft EIR; (3) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft EIR that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment; (4) new information or changes in the Draft EIR render the Draft EIR so fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment would be precluded. h. CEQA requires that a lead agency exercise 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 recommendations of the Planning Commission contained herein are intended to provide guidance to the City Council. The Planning Commission's recommendations are not intended to predetermine the City Council's decision regarding the Project or the EIR, nor Resolution Page No. 8 should such recommendations be so construed by any member of the City Council, the City staff, the Applicant, or the Public. i. 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 effect identified in the EIR and .to incorporate the mitigation monitoring and reporting program including all mitigation measures as conditions of project approval. The Draft EIR includes an analysis of the extent to which the proposed project's direct and indirect impacts will commit nonrenewable resources to uses that future generations will probably be unable to reverse as required for EIRs. j. CEQA requires that the responses to comments in the Final EIR must demonstrate good faith and a well -reasoned analysis, and may not be overly conclusory. Although new material will be 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 that would necessitate recirculation. k. The CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15003 (c) and (i)] note that state courts have held that the EIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public generally of the environmental impact of a proposed project. CEQA does not require technical perfection in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good -faith effort at full disclosure. A court does not pass upon the correctness of an EIR's environmental conclusions, but only determines if the EIR is sufficient as an informational document. 1. Comments received on the Draft EIR, during, and even after, the public review period show that there may be disagreements among experts. The Final EIR will include additional clarifying narrative and clarifying exhibits for the purpose of fully disclosing the information sources and reasoning by which levels of impact and mitigation measures were established in the Draft EIR. Further, the clarifying narrative and exhibits in the Final EIR serve the purpose of fully disclosing the information sources and reasoning used by various public and agency Draft EIR commentors who arrived at divergent conclusions. CEQA provides that disagreement among experts regarding conclusions in the EIR is acceptable, and perfection is not required. Also, exhaustive treatment of issues is not required in an EIR. SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CEQA- The City Council does hereby find that the Draft EIR for Master Case No. 97-143 for Zone Change 99-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 48892, Conditional Use Permit 97-013, Variance 99-001, and Oak Tree Permit 99-009 identifies and discloses project -specific impacts and cumulative project impacts. Environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR, findings, and facts in support of Resolution Page No. 9 findings are herein incorporated as "Endings Required by CEQA" identified as follows: a. The Draft EIR identifies issue areas as "Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant." These include: specific impacts on a primary ridgeline; project specific and cumulative air generation; cumulative biotic resource; open space impacts, and cumulative solid waste impacts. b. The Draft EIR identifies issue areas as "Environmental Areas Where No Significant Impacts Would Occur." These include population and housing and energy and mineral resources. All other issues identified in the Draft EIR are classified as "Environmental Effects Which Have Been Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant." These include land use planning, geophysical, water/hydrology, transportation/circulation, noise, biological resources, aesthetics, cultural resources, hazards, public services, recreation, and utility systems. SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF EIR ALTERNATIVES- 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 determine whether the Final EIR analyzes a reasonable range of project alternatives which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would substantially lesson any of the significant effect of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of each alternative. a. Where a significant impact can be substantially lessened (i.e., mitigated to an "acceptable level") solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the City Council, in drafting its findings, will have no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives with respect to those impacts that can be mitigated to leas than significant levels, even if an alternative would mitigate such impacts to a greater degree than the mitigation provided in the proposed Project. (Pub. Resources Code § 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association, supra 83 CalApp.3d at 521; sgg AIN Mugs County Farm Bureau. Agra, 221 CalApp.3d at 730-731; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association, supra. 47 Ca1.3d at 400-403.) b. The City Council, therefore, in considering project alternatives, need only determine whether any alternatives are environmentally superior with respect to those project impacts that remain potentially significant and unavoidable despite the incorporation of mitigation measures. If any alternatives are superior with respect to such impacts, the City Council will then be required to determine whether the alternatives are feasible in attaining most of the basic objectives of the project. If the City Council determines that no alternative is both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the significant unavoidable impacts, the City Council may approve the proposed project after adopting a statement of overriding considerations. C. Based upon the Draft EIR, the original project poses the following potentially Resolution Page No. 10 significant unavoidable impacts: (1) specific impacts on a primary ridgeline; (2) specific and cumulative air pollutant generation; (3) cumulative biotic resource; (4) open space impacts; and (5) cumulative solid waste impacts. d. The objectives of the project, as specified in the Draft EIR, are: ■ To design an attractive residential community that Minimizes visual effects and is compatible with adjacent development in the City; ■ To develop a variety of homes for the existing and future residents of the City of Santa Clarita; ■ To provide an attractive private recreation area which will include the following amenities: heated pool, tot lot, men and women restrooms, picnic benches all within a heavily landscaped and well manicured park like setting; • To provide for a traditional parkway design, which will include a landscaped area between the edge of the curb and the sidewalk along the private drives internal to the project site; ■ To vary building orientation and setbacks to create an articulated street -scene; ■ To provide for safe pedestrian circulation; ■ To fully comply with the City's Oak Tree and Preservation and Protection Ordinance; ■ To provide the City with permanent open space as designated on the TTM; ■ To implement a circulation pattern consistent with the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan; ■ To stabilize the soils both on site and to the north of the property thereby resolving landslide issues on the property. Sierra Highway and the property will be stabilized as a result of prgject development; ■ To develop, build, and pay for full improvements for the extension of Golden Valley Road, a six lane divided arterial highway form its current terminus at Green Mountain Road to Sierra Highway. Improvements will consist of a landscaped and irrigated median, Class I bike path, sidewalks, streetlights, signs, and striping; ■ To implement the land use policies, plans and designations of the City's zoning standards and General Plan as further permitted by the terms and conditions of a Settlement Agreement applicable to the Newhall Partner's Golden Valley Road project. The Settlement Agreement dated February 15, 1996 resolved a lawsuit brought by the City against Vista Terrace Properties and other, the predecessor in interests of Newhall Partners Golden Valley Road project. The settlement of this litigation resulted in, among other things, an exemption of the Newhall Partner's Golden Valley Road project from the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinances; ■ To achieve a reasonable return on private investment, consistent with development and building industry standards. These objectives are used as the basis for comparing project alternatives and determining the extent that the objectives would be achieved relative to the I Resolution Page No. 11 proposed project. e. Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative. This Alternative is required by the CEQfA Guidelines and it compares the impacts which might occur if the site is left in its present condition with those that would be generated by the project as proposed. This alternative assumes that the project is not constructed, and that the site remains in its current undeveloped and vacant state. This alternative is an environmentally superior to the proposed 176 unit residential development for each described focused impact area referenced in the DEER except land use and traffic/circulation. The Santa Clarita General Plan and the EIR on the General Plan assumed residential development of between 3.4 to 6.6 units per acre on approximately 61 acres. In addition, this alternative would result in no extension of Golden Valley Road through the project site which is in the City s Master Plan of Arterial Highways. It would contribute to ongoing circulation constraints and traffic congestion in the eastern portion of the City if this planned arterial highway extension is not made. Therefore, it would not fulfill two of the major objectives of the project. This alternative was therefore rejected. f. Alternative 2, Less Dense Project Alternative. This alternative assumes that the project is required to provide minimum 60 -foot wide residential lots and that the off-street parking is increased that serves the private recreation area. This results in a reduction in dwelling units from 176 to 161. Off-street parking that serves the private recreation area would be expanded from 60,670 square feet to 64,270 square feet. In addition, this alternative would have the same unavoidable significant impacts as the applicant's project site. Impacts under this alternative associated with geophysical — seismicity; water/hydrology — impervious surfaces; traffic and circulation; air quality — short-term construction and long term operational impacts; noise; hazards — wildfire and traffic accidents; public services and facilities; recreation; and utility systems would be less than the proposed project. This alternative has been rejected by the Planning Commission in favor of Alternative 3 which is compliant with the Unified Development Code. In addition, the City Council adopted Alternative 3 with modifications over this alternative and the applicant's project. g. Alternative 3, Compliance with City Development Standards. This alternative assumes project compliance with all development standards set forth in the City of Santa Clarita's Unified Development Code. This alternative assumes project redesign to avoid the deviations and variances from RS, Residential Suburban Development Standards. The redesign of the project site results in a reduction in dwelling unit from 176 to 147. Off-street parking serving the project's recreation area would increase from seven to sixteen, and the private recreation area would be expanded by approximately 3,600 square feet. Both entry road right-of-way would be expanded to meet code. Larger lot sizes and lot widths would allow for compliance with front yard setbacks. This alternative also rovides all slo es at 2:1 or 3:1 p p gradients. The resulting gross density is 2.4 Resolution Page No. 12 dwelling units per acre, well below the density range allowed. This alternative would have the same unavoidable significant impacts as the proposed project. Impacts under this alternative associated with land use — code compliant development, geophysical - slope gradient; water/hydrology — impervious surfaces; traffic and circulation — incremental reduction and wider streets; air quality — short term construction and long term operational impacts; noise — incremental reduction; hazards — incremental reduction in wildfire exposure and traffic accidents; public services and facilities - incremental reduction; recreation — larger off street parking area; and utility systems — incremental reduction would be less than the proposed project site. On October 3, 2000 the Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending to the City Council for approval of the "147 Unit Alternative 3 Project." The Planning Commission believed the applicant should be in compliance with the development standards of the Unified Development Code. h. Alternative 4, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change From RS to RM(PD). This alternative examines the impacts and benefits associated with changing the project's General Plan and Zoning Land Use Classification from RS, Residential Suburban to RM(PD), Residential Moderate (Planned Development). This would result in the same project design and would require the same entitlement requests with the exception of the General Plan Amendment. The RM designation corresponds more to small groupings of dwelling units. The Planning Commission and City Council rejected this alternative in favor of lot sizes and widths that correspond to the RS standards in the Unified Development Code. SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR- 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: a. That the Final Environmental Impact Report 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 independently reviewed and considered the Final EIR. C. That the Final Environmental Impact Report was presented to the City Council, the decision-making body, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, prior to approving the project. d. That, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, the Final EIR includes a description of each potentially significant impact and rationale for finding that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect. Resolution Page No. 13 e. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081, modifications have occurred to the project to reduce significant effects based on alternatives analyzed in the environmental impact report. E That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 16091, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the Newhall Partner's Golden Valley Road project 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. g. The Statement of Overriding Considerations identifies and weighs the significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant with the community benefits from this project. h. That the Final EIR, reflects the decision maker's independent judgment and analysis. SECTION 6. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS - 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 finds that there is substantial evidence that supports that the Project will have community benefits, including specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits, that may outweigh the significant effects on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. Significant impacts include specific impacts on a primary ridgeline, project specific and cumulative air pollutant generation, cumulative biotic resource and open space impacts, and cumulative solid waste impacts. Should the City Council determine, upon its independent review of the Final EIR, that a Statement of Overriding Considerations is warranted, the City Council shall adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Project benefits that may outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant include: ■ Creation of a new community that allows for residential, while preserving significant natural resources and open space; ■ Stabilize the soils both on site and to the north of the property thereby resolving landslide issues on the property. Sierra Highway and the property will be stabilized as a result of project development; • Develop, build, and pay for full improvements for the extension of Golden Valley Road, a six lane divided arterial highway form its current terminus at Green Mountain Road to Sierra Highway. Improvements will consist of a landscaped and irrigated median, Class I bike path, sidewalks, streetlights, signs, and r striping; ■ Provision of development and transitional land use patterns which integrate and are compatible with surrounding communities and land uses. Resolution Page No. 14 ■ Avoid of leapfrog development and accommodate projected regional growth in a location which is adjacent to eusting and planned infrastructure, urban services, public transit, transportation corridors, and major employment centers. ■ Provision of a variety of residential housing types to respond to economic and market conditions over several years. ■ Provision of neighborhood parks and improvements which satisfy park dedication requirements and meet the recreational needs of local residents. SECTION 7. CERTIFICATION OF FEIR AND ADOPTION OF A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS- Once the City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Final EIR and determines that it is adequate and in compliance with CEQA, the City Council should certify the Final EIR and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken. Resolution Page No. 15 PASSED AND APPROVED this 28" day of November, 2000. ATTEST: a '-�< C., 11 _ CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) as CITY OF SANTA CLARITA) I Sharon L. Dawson. Ci�p Cler of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 00-150 was regularly introduced and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 28th day of November, 2000 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Ferry, Kellar, Waste, Smyth, Darcy NOES: COUNCILMEM 3ERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMEERS: None JWH S:\ pbs/current/97143/ccresenv