Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-28 - RESOLUTIONS - NEWHALL PARTNERS GVR MOU (2)RESOLUTION NO. 00-151 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA FOR MASTER CASE NO. 97-143 APPROVING THE MOU FOR GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 48892 (ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH MODIFICATIONS 150 UNITS), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-013, VARIANCE 99-001, AND OAK TREE PERMIT 99-009, TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 61.23 - ACRE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE "NEWHALL PARTNERS GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD PROJECT " IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. 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 terraiA. The dominant natural feature on the project site is the hilly terrain specifically the primary ridgeline running along the northwestern portion of the site. 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 45022 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 litigation with 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 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 Resolution Page No. 2 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, 1 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 at Green Mountain Road and goes westerly approximately 2,700 feet f rResolution Page No. 3 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 5' landscaped parkways, 5' sidewalks, an 14' landscaped median, a 12' bike lane on the north side of the road, and up to 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 DED2 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 EIR was given to the Commission on July 12, 2000 for their review. Staff received ten 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 5, September 19, 2000, and October 3, 2000. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on September 19, 2000 and made a motion to direct staff to return to the October 3, 2000 meeting with resolutions recommending certification to the City Council for the FEIR, Resolution Page No. 4 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. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Newhall Partners Golden Valley Road project entitlements, including Zone Change 99-001 on October 24, 2000 which resulted in the meeting being continued to November 28, 2000. The City Council directed staff to return on November 28, 2000 with an improved project design. All the public hearings on the project were held at 6:30 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The City Council public hearing was advertised in the Signal on October 3, 2000, through on-site posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first- class mail to property owners within 600 feet of the project area. SECTION 2. GENERAL FINDINGS. Based upon the above findings of fact, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held for the project, and upon studies and investigations made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council find as follows: a. Following approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 48892, Conditional Use Permit 97-0137, Variance 99-001, Oak Tree Permit 99-009, Zone Change 99-001, and adoption of the EIR, the project will be consistent with the General Plan Residential Suburban (RS) land use designation for the project site. b. Following approval of the Zone Change from RS to RS(PD), Vesting Tentative Tract Map 48892, Conditional Use Permit 97-013, Variance 99-001, Oak Tree Permit 99-009 and adoption of the EIR will be consistent with the RS(PD) zoning on the project site. Resolution Page No. 5 SECTION 3. FINDINGS FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 48892. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows: a. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems. b. The project site is physically suitable for the type of development. C. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. d. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. e. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems because the mitigation measures identified in the environmental impact report, including potential problems, have been made part of the conditions of approval for the project. f. 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. SECTION 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows: a. This project will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the project site; nor jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare, upon adoption of the EIR, Zone Change from RS to RS(PD), conditional use permit, variance, and oak tree permit. The project conforms with the zoning ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land uses. The Zone Change from RS to RS(PD) and the adoption of the Environmental Impact Report will be considered by separate ordinancetresolution. b. Upon adoption of the Zone Change and Environmental Impact Report, conditional use permit, variance, and oak tree permit, the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed project will be compatible with and not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, residents, buildings, structures, or natural resources, with consideration given to: harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density; the availability of public facilities, services and utilities; the harmful effect, if any upon desirable neighborhood character, the generation of traffic and the capacity and physical character of surrounding Resolution Page No. 6 streets; the suitability of the site for the type and intensity of use or development which is proposed; and, the harmful effect, if any, upon environmental quality and natural resources because the project ,provides standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures identified in the EIR. Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures addressing all the impacts have been applied to the tentative tract map, conditional use permit, variance, and oak tree permit. The Zone Change from RS to RS(PD) and the adoption of the Environmental Impact Report will be considered by separate ordinancelresolution. C. The proposed use, with an approved Zone Change from RS to RS(PD), conditional use permit, variance, oak tree permit and adoption of the EIR is consistent with the objectives of the Unified Development Code, the General Plan, and development policies of the City. The Zone Change from RS to RS(PD) and the adoption of the Environmental Impact Report will be considered by separate ordinancetresolution. d. The project, with an approved Zone Change, conditional use permit, variance, oak tree permit, and adoption of the EIR is compatible with misting development in the area, consistent with the City s General Plan and Zoning, and consistent with the State Planning and Zoning Laws. The Zone Change from RS to RS(PD) and the adoption of the Environmental Impact Report will be considered by separate ordinancetresolution. SECTION 6. VARIANCE FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby find as follows: a. The variance which consist of front yard setbacks of up to S feet from back of sidewalk and one 10' reverse corner lot are necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone b. The project variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. C. The project variance do not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated and does not allow a use or activity which is prohibited by the zoning regulation governing the parcel of property. d. The project variance will not be inconsistent with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. SECTION 6. OAK TREE PERMIT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows: r Resolution Ef Page No. 7 a. The applicant has provided an oak tree report for the project (included in the Environmental Impact Report). The general purpose and intent of the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance is to preserve oak trees, yet allow for their removal in certain instances where it is necessary to enable reasonable use of the subject property which would otherwise be prevented by the presence of the trees and no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints on the property. The applicant is requesting permission to remove 7 oak trees for remedial grading and building pads. 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. The proposed mitigation for oak tree impacts is consistent with the provisions of the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. SECTION 7. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby determines as follows: a. The applicant has substantiated the findings for approving the vesting tentative tract map because the subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Santa Clarity General Plan and the Unified Development Code, as modified through the Zone Change. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development, is physically suitable for the type of development, and the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage. The subdivision is not likely to cause serious health problems, nor will it conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through (or use of) property within the proposed subdivision. b. The applicant has substantiated the findings for approving an oak tree permit, as the approval of the request is not contrary to, or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, and as it is necessary to remove certain oak trees as specified in the project's EM to enable reasonable use of the subject property which would otherwise be prevented by the presence of the trees: no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints on the property. C. The applicant has substantiated the findings for approval of a variance permit, as the proposed development maffimizes the positive impacts of site design and will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located, or does not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated and does not allow a use or activity which is prohibited by the zoning regulation governing the parcel of property, or will not be inconsistent with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. Resolution - Page No. 8 d. The applicant has substantiated the findings for approval of a conditional use permit, as the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed uses are in accordance with the purpose of the Unified Development Code, the purpose of the RS zone as approved, the Santa Clarita General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City. The projeaVa location, size, design, and operating characteristics of proposed uses will be compatible with and will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, residents, buildings, structures, or natural resources, with consideration given to: harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density; the availability of public utilities, services and facilities; the harmful effect, if any, upon desirable neighborhood character; the generation of traffic and the capacity and physical character of surrounding streets; the suitability of the site for the type and intensity of use or development which is proposed; and possible harmful effects upon environmental quality and natural resources. The project's location, size, design and operating characteristics as well as its proposed uses, and the conditions under which they would be operated or maintained, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed uses will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Unified Development Code. Resolution Page No. 9 SECTION 8. The City Council hereby approves the MOU for Golden Valley Road incorporated by reference as Exhibit "C" and the following entitlements requested under Master Case No. 97-143; Vesting Tentative Tract Map 48892 (150 unite) incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A", Conditional Use Permit 97-013, Variance 99-001, and Oak Tree Permit 99-009 subject to: 1) the conditions which are incorporated by reference as Exhibit "B". 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. PASSED AND APPROVED this 28* day of November, 2000. ayor ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) as CITY OF SANTA CLARITA) I Sharon L. Dawson. City Clerk, of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 00-151 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, Weste, Smyth, Darcy NOES: COUNCILMEM 3ERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY CLERK JWH S:\pbs/current/97143/ccresproject Resolution Page No. 10 Exhibit A Vesting Tentative Tract Map 48892 Incorporated by Reference Resolution Page No. 11 . Exhibit B Conditions of Approval Incorporated by Reference Resolution Page No. U Exhibit C Memo Of Understanding for Golden Valley Road Incorporated by Reference