HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-05-08 - RESOLUTIONS - GV RANCH PLAN (2)RESOLUTION NO. 01-48
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE MASTER CASE NO. 97-212 INCLUDING
ANNEXATION NO. 97-001, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-003 "A' TO THE LAND
USE ELEMENT LAND USE MAP AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT "B" TO THE
CIRCULATION ELEMENT TEXT AND MASTER PLAN OF HIGHWAY & ROADWAY
SYSTEM MAP, PREZONE 97-001 TO RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN (RS) AND COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL (CC), TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 52414, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-
017, OAK TREE PERMIT 97-024 AND HILLSIDE REVIEW 97-022 TO ALLOW FOR THE
ANNEXATION OF THE 1,259 -ACRE GOLDEN VALLEY RANCH AREA AND
DEVELOPMENT OF 634 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 610,390 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL USES AND CERTIFICATION OF FEIR SCH NO. 97121037
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
fact:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council makes the following findings of
a. The applicant, PacSun LLC, formally requested certain project entitlements
related to the Golden Valley Ranch development on November 6, 1997 (Master
Case 97-212). Such entitlement requests included General Plan Amendment 97-
003, Prezone 97-001, Annexation No. 97-001, Tentative Tract Map 52414,
Conditional Use Permit 97-017, Oak Tree Permit 97-024, and Hillside Review 97-
022. The 1,259 -acre project site is owned by PacSun LLC.
b. The Golden Valley Ranch project area is located on 1,259 acres in the Santa
Clarita Valley, in unincorporated Los Angeles County. The site is situated east
of and adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita. Placenta Canyon State Park, located
within the Angeles National Forest, is south of the site. The Angeles National
Forest is primarily east and south of the site, though about 150 acres in the
southeastern portion of the site are within the National Forest boundary. This
includes the portion of the site south of Placenta Canyon Road. State Route 14
(the Antelope Valley Freeway) borders the northwestern edge of the site. Placenta
Canyon Road primarily runs along the site's southern edge, though it transects
the southeastern portion of the site. The Disney Company's Golden Oak Ranch
is also located immediately south of the site along the north side of Placenta
Canyon Road. The 1,800 -unit Fair Oaks Ranch development, currently under
construction, is located immediately north of the project site. The Santa Clara
River is about two miles to the north. The community of Newhall is located to the
west of the site, Canyon Country is located to the north, and the Sand Canyon
community is located to the east. The Golden Valley Ranch annexation is an
uninhabited annexation.
C. The Golden Valley Ranch project area is currently vacant, unincorporated land
located east of the City of Santa Clarita. The property is privately -owned by
Resolution 01-48
Page No. 2
PacSun LLC. Portions of the site were grazed for many years. The project area is
generally characterized as undeveloped woodland, grassland, and riparian
wetland. The dominant natural feature on the project site is the significant
topography. Site elevations range from 1,600 feet to 2,200 feet above mean sea
level. Several prominent ridgelines are located on the site, five of which the City
has designated as Primary or Secondary ridgelines. Four blue line streams also
cross through the site. Los Angeles County and the City of Santa Clarita have
existing and planned development to the north, east and south of the project site.
d. On June 25, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-98, adopting the
General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita and certifying the Environmental Impact
Report. The City's General Plan presently designates the annexation area as
Residential Estate (RE). The General Plan specifically mentions the Golden Valley
Ranch area, formerly known as the Santa Fe Ranch. The Land Use Element of
the General Plan contains a section titled "Future Consideration for Master
Planning". Within this section, a description of the Santa Fe Ranch project area
is provided, with a brief discussion of the anticipated development mix to occur in
this area. Specifically, the direction provided in this section is as follows:
"Santa Fe Ranch. This is an area of approximately 1,300 acres located
south of the Antelope Valley Freeway at the Golden Valley Road
interchange. It is characterized by mountains and hills with oak studded
canyons containing blue -line streams. The primary focus of development
will be the area near the Golden Valley Road interchange. A roadway
connection to the proposed residential areas near the terminus of Via
Princessa is also anticipated. This area may be appropriate for a
regionally oriented commercial center with related residential uses. The
development should be done in an environmentally sensitive manner that
maintains the significant environmental resources that are found in the
area." (General Plan Land Use Element, page L-63).
Under the Los Angeles County General Plan, the site is currently designated
"Non -Urban I/Hillside Management" (N -1/11M). Both the City and County
designations allow for a maximum density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre. The Los
Angeles County zoning designation for a majority of the site is "Agriculture" (A-2-
1), which allows for single-family residential uses at a maximum permitted
density of one dwelling unit per acre, as well as a wide range of agricultural and
recreational land uses. About 50 acres in the southeastern portion of the site are
designated "Residential" (R-1-7,000) under the County Ordinance, which allows
7,000 square -foot single-family residential lots, as well as a wide range of
agricultural and recreational uses.
e. Two development projects were previously proposed for the 1,259 -acre project site:
one submittal to the County of Los Angeles and one to the City of Santa Clarita.
The "Santa Fe" development proposed by the property's previous owners included
Resolution 01-48
Page No. 3
1,979 dwelling units, a 100 -acre regional shopping complex, a golf course, schools,
a fire station, and a park and open space and was originally submitted to the
County of Los Angeles in 1986. In 1989, the County suspended processing of
General Plan amendments in the Santa Clarita Valley and, as such, no action was
taken on this proposal. In December 1989, the Santa Fe Development Corporation
made an application to the City of Santa Clarita. As part of this application, the
number of dwelling units proposed was reduced to 1,888.. This second proposal
included up to 2.4 million square feet of regional commercial uses, an 18 -hole golf
course, and approximately 522 acres of open space. While the City's Planning
Commission ultimately certified the EIR for this application, the application was
denied by the Planning Commission and the property was ultimately foreclosed
on.
f. On November 6, 1997, the applicant submitted Master Case No. 97-212,
requesting approval to construct 866 single-family detached units and
approximately 50 net acres of commercial on 1,259 acres. Originally, the applicant
was proposing to cluster development within three natural "bowls" on-site, while
locating the commercial development along the Antelope Valley Freeway corridor.
Cluster 1, located in the western portion of the site, would contain 529 units with
19 ranchette lots at the eastern edge of the cluster area. Cluster 2, located in the
northeastern portion of the site, would accommodate 149 units. Cluster 3, located
immediately north of Placerita Canyon Road, would include 169 units. The
commercial area was divided into two large pads totaling 89.8 gross acres (56.1 net
acres). These pads would accommodate 610,930 square feet of commercial uses.
Golden Valley Road would be extended through the project site as a secondary
highway from SR -14 to Placenta Canyon Road. A 10.6 -acre elementary school site
and a 9.9 -acre park site were proposed in the Cluster 3 area, northeast of the
Placerita Canyon Road/Golden Valley Road intersection. Approximately 66
percent of the site (831 acres) was proposed to be left as open space with a series
of hiking, biking, and equestrian trails. Project implementation would require 545
acres to be graded totaling 13,482,000 cubic yards of earthen material.
Over the course of the Draft EIA review and Planning Commission public hearing
process, alternatives to the proposed development were analyzed to reduce the
scale of the project, and the associated environmental impacts. First, the 19 -lot
ranchette area was eliminated due to the large number of oak trees clustered
within this location. Also, several alternatives to the project were developed and
analyzed as part of the Draft EIR. These include Alternative 1, the No Project
Alternative, Alternative 2, Buildout Under Current Los Angeles County General
Plan Alternative, and Alternative 3, the Reduced Project Alternative. Following
circulation of the Draft EIA, additional project alternatives were developed by City
staff and the project applicant in an attempt to address the issues and concerns
from the public and the Planning Commission. These include Alternative 4,
Buildout under the City's Residential Estate Designation, Alternative 5, the
Modified Project Design Alternative, and Alternative 6, the Applicant's Preferred
Resolution 01-48
Page No. 4
Project Alternative. Alternatives 4 and 5 contain development sub -options which
have resulted in the development of Alternative 4A and 4B, and Alternative 5A,
5B and 5C. Environmental analysis for the three additional alternatives
(Alternatives 4-6) were incorporated into Section 6.0, Alternatives of the Draft EIR
and will be recirculated with other revised sections of the EIR as part of a 45 -day
public review period. At the May 30, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the
Commission indicated that Alternative 5B was, preliminarily, the Commission's
preferred alternative. In response, the applicant also identified Alternative 5B as
their preferred project alternative.
Alternative 5B, Modified Project Design, eliminates several components of the
original project including Cluster 2, the Golden Valley Road extension between
Via Princessa and Placerita Canyon Road, and Cluster 3, including the school and
park sites. Therefore, residential development would occur only within the
Cluster 1 area. This alternative would include development of 242 townhomes
and 392 single-family detached units in Cluster 1. The total number of units
would not exceed 634 units. The commercial portion of the project would remain,
as originally proposed, totaling 610,930 square feet. Due to the elimination of
Cluster 2, Cluster 3, and the roadway extension, acreage of open space would
increase to 974 acres. In addition, a fully -improved five -acre neighborhood park
would be provided within Cluster 1 and a fire station site would be provided
within the commercial area.
g. The original entitlement requests are as follows. Please note, however, that the
applicant, per the Commission's direction, identified Alternative 5B as their
preferred project alternative, which recommends modification to the below
entitlement requests.
■ An annexation from the County of Los Angeles into the City of Santa Clarita;
■ An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Map (GPA
97-003 W) to designate approximately 90 acres of the Golden Valley Ranch
area to a Community Commercial land use designation and the remaining
1,169.2 acres to a Residential Suburban land use designation;
■ A prezone request was filed to designate 1,169.2 acres of the Golden Valley
Ranch area as Residential Suburban (RS) and 89.8 acres as Community
Commercial (CC);
■ Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 52414 to subdivide the subject site into
847 single-family parcels, two commercial parcels, one park parcel, one school
parcel, two water tank parcels, and numerous open space lots;
■ A Conditional Use Permit to allow grading over 100,000 cubic yards and for
clustering of residential development;
• An Oak Tree Permit to allow removals and encroachments upon oak trees;
■ A Hillside Review to allow grading on slopes in excess of 10%; and
■ Following a preliminary review of the project and preparation of an Initial
Study, the applicant was informed that preparation of an environmental
Resolution 01-48
Page No. 5
impact report would be required for this project. Preparation, review and
certification of Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 97121037) are
requested.
Alternative 5B, the applicant's preferred project alternative, requires an
additional entitlement — amendment to the City of Santa Clarita General Plan
Circulation Element for the removal of the Golden Valley Road connection
between Via Princess and Placenta Canyon Road. Specifically, an amendment to
the Circulation Element (GPA 97-003 "B") text and Master Plan of Highway &
Roadway System Map is required to eliminate the Golden Valley Road connection
between Via Princessa and Placenta Canyon Road within the Golden Valley
Ranch area.
h. The City circulated copies of proposed Tentative Tract Map 52414 for City staff
and agency review on January 8, 1998. On August 9, 1999, the tentative map was
recirculated to City staff and agencies with a request that the recipients prepare
conditions of approval for the proposed project. On May 30, 2000, the Planning
Commission directed staff to prepare conditions of approval and other related
documents for formal Commission action for Alternative 5B, Modified Project
Design, an alternative to the original proposed project. As a result, staff
recirculated the tentative map with a description of the Alternative 5B. and
requested that conditions of approval be prepared for this reduced project
alternative.
i. In accordance with CEQA, the City of Santa Clarita is the identified lead agency
for this project and the City Council is the decision-making body for this project.
The City's Planning Commission is a recommending body for this project. 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 an
environmental impact report must be prepared. The Initial Study determined
that the following issue areas should be addressed in this EIR: land use and
population, earth, hydrology, air quality, traffic and circulation, biological
resources, risk of upset/human health and safety, noise, public services, public
utilities, aesthetics/light and glare, and cultural resources. A Notice of
Preparation (NOP) for the annexation, tentative tract map, General Plan
amendment, pre -zone, conditional use permit, oak tree permit, and hillside review
was circulated for a 30 -day review period on December 10, 1997 to affected
agencies. The agencies mailed a NOP include, but are not limited to, Los Angeles
County, law enforcement agencies, school districts; waste haulers, water agencies
and transportation agencies serving the Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with
consultation requirements in the CEQA statutes and guidelines. (Sections 21083
and 21087, Public Resources Code; Section 21082.1, Public Resources Code;
Section 21151.9 Public Resources Code; Section 15083.5 and Section 15086,
California Code of Regulations).
Resolution 01-48
Page No. 6
j. A scoping meeting was held in the Century Conference Room at City Hall on
March 9, 1998 at 6:30 p.m. to obtain information from the public as to issues
which should be addressed in the environmental document. Notice of the scoping
meeting was sent to agencies as part of the NOP and to surrounding property
owners and residents within the Sand Canyon and Canyon Country area.
Approximately 10 community members attended the scoping meeting, in addition
to the project applicant and engineer.
k. The Golden Valley Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was
circulated for review and comment by the affected governmental agencies and all
comments received have been considered. The Draft EIR (SCH#97121037) was
distributed to the Planning Commission, the public and affected governmental
agencies for a 45 -day public review period beginning on August 9, 1999 and
ending on September 22, 1999. Late written and oral comments received during
the Planning Commission public hearings (through May 30, 2000) were accepted
for inclusion in the Final EIR Response to Comments.
1. Master Case No. 97-212, the Golden Valley Ranch development project, was
scheduled for the first public hearing on August 17, 1999. However, that
afternoon, staff received a request from the PacSun LLC, the project applicant, to
continue the item from the August 17 Planning Commission meeting to the
September 21, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant requested time
to meet with concerned residents within the Sand Canyon community and
neighborhoods east of SR 14.
In. At the September 21, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, the continued public
hearing for Master Case 97-212, the Golden Valley Ranch project, was continued
again to a date uncertain. PacSun LLC requested this extension to continue
communication with the surrounding property owners. Although the public
hearing was continued, public testimony was allowed on this item.
n. The public hearing for the Golden Valley Ranch (Master Case 97-212) project was
renoticed in the Signal newspaper for the December 7, 1999 Planning Commission
meeting.
o. The Planning Commission received an informational presentation from staff on
the Golden Valley Ranch development proposal at their. regularly scheduled
meeting on December 7, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The purpose of this meeting was to provide
a general overview of the requested entitlements, project components and the.
scheduled focused issue meetings. The environmental consultant delivered an
overview presentation on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR).
John Jameson, representing PasSun LLC, gave a presentation and spoke on
behalf of the applicant. The Commission discussed topics for future meetings and
scheduled a site tour for January 4, 2000 at 2:30 p.m., before the regularly
Resolution 01-48
Page No. 7
scheduled Planning Commission meeting. The Commission received public
testimony on this item. The public hearing was continued to the January 4, 2000
Planning Commission meeting.
P. A duly noticed special meeting of the Planning Commission was held on January
4, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a field visit to the Golden Valley Ranch project site.
Four of the five Planning Commissioners were in attendance.
q. At the regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting on January 4, 2000, the
Commission received a focused presentation on grading, hillside review and water
issues on the proposed Golden Valley Ranch site. The Commission discussed the
cut and fill numbers, remedial grading, liquefaction, borings, slide potential,
hillside review and water supply. The Commission requested that a
representative from CLWA be invited to a future meeting to discuss water issues
and asked if there were any Manzanita plants on the property and whether or not
those plants are protected by the State. The Commission also requested that staff
prepare a history of the property including previous owners and proposed projects.
The Commission received public testimony on this item. The public hearing was
continued to the January 18, 2000 Planning Commission meeting.
r. At the regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting on January 18, 2000,
the Commission received a focused presentation on biological resources: The
presentation, delivered by the environmental consultant, covered biotic setting,
vegetation, riparian resources, wetlands, vernal pools, seep resources, impacts to
biological resources and mitigation measures. The Commission discussed the
location of the majority of the impacts, the bridge drainages, the use of pesticides,
the vernal pond fencing, the wildlife corridor, what constitutes a sensitive plant
or animal, the biological diversity of the project site, and the analysis of
alternatives not included in the Draft EIR. Commissioner Hoback asked that the
Commission be given quantitative information regarding grading and a summary
of the previous projects that have been proposed for the site. The Commission
received public testimony on this item. The public hearing was continued to the
special Planning Commission meeting on January 20, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
S. At the special Planning Commission meeting on January 20, 2000, the
environmental consultant's presentation included the City versus County zoning,
the requested modifications, land use compatibility, land use mitigation, the
primary aesthetic impacts, aesthetics mitigation, oak trees, alternatives, County
buildout alternative, reduced project impacts, and the City General Plan buildout.
The City's oak tree consultant, assistant City attorney, and PacSun LLC's
biologist also addressed the Commission. The Commission requested that a photo
simulation be prepared and a map showing where the wildlife corridor will be
located after the project is complete. The Commission discussed the possibility of
designating the site as a special standards district, how and when they will judge
Resolution 01-48
Page No. 8
the General Plan amendments, and when the Commission will discuss
alternatives. The Commission received public testimony on this item. The public
hearing was continued to the February 1, 2000 Planning Commission meeting at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
t. At the regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting on February 1, 2000,
the Commission received a focused presentation on traffic and circulation from the
environmental consultant. The presentation covered major road extensions,
traffic levels of service, significant traffic impacts, significantly affected
intersections, recommended mitigation, traffic levels along Placenta Canyon Road
and Cedar Valley Way, and the traffic volumes and trip distribution for the
Alternative 3, the Reduced Project Alternative. The Commission received public
testimony on this item. The public hearing was continued to a special Planning
Commission meeting at 7;00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
U. At the special Planning Commission meeting on February 10, 2000, staff
addressed the outstanding issues raised by the Planning Commission during the
focused Draft EIR discussions. Specifically, the Commission received a
presentation on the site's entitlement history, project pros and cons, oak trees,
traffic/circulation, topography/gradingNisibility, trails, Fire Department issues,
special standards district, General Plan amendment/density increase, and school
issues. Staff also informed the Commission that an abandoned oil well had been
found on the site and that the City would conduct an investigation to determine
whether oil drilling infrastructure re remains on-site. The possible existence of
oil drilling wells or platforms on the project site was not addressed in the Draft
EIR. Representatives from the Castaic Lake Water Agency and Santa Clarita
Water Company addressed the Commission. The City's oak tree consultant also
presented her oak tree report to the Commission. The Commission discussed the
Development Monitoring System buildout, recycled water, and the lack of
affordable housing within the development proposal. The Commission discussed
advantages and disadvantages of a special standards district, geotechnical issues
including deep seeded slides and the clay layer, the drainage impacts to the oak
trees, previous proposals on the site and reasons for denial, and the impacts on the
fire roads with regard to the wildlife corridor. The Commission received public
testimony on this item. The public hearing was continued to the March 7, 2000
Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
V. At the regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting on March 7, 2000, City
staff continued to address the remaining outstanding issues associated with the
Golden Valley Ranch project. Representatives from the William S. Hart Union
High School District and Sulphur Springs Elementary School District spoke to
school -related issues associated with project implementation. The Commission
received public testimony on this item. The public hearing was continued to the
April 18, 2000 Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
Resolution 01-48
Page No. 9
W. Prior to the April 18, 2000 public hearing, the applicant proposed a reduced project
in response to public comments and concerns. City staff incorporated this
alternative into the project alternatives analysis and labeled it Alternative 5:
Modified Project Design. As originally proposed by the applicant, Altemative 5
reduced the number of units proposed on the project site from 866 units to 711
units. As part of this alternative, Cluster 2, the Golden Valley extension between
Via Princessa and Placenta Canyon Road, and the park and school sites in Cluster
3 would be eliminated. Instead, 75 single-family units would be built in a reduced
grading envelope in Cluster 3, using Placenta Canyon Road as the only access.
Cluster 1 would consist of 547 single-family units and 180 townhomes, with the
commercial acreage to remain unchanged from the original project.
City staff built upon this alternative to create two additional sub -options for the
Cluster 3 area — one which allows only 18 two -acre lots in the reduced grading
envelope, and one which eliminates all development from the Cluster 3 area,
preserving it as open space in perpetuity. The three Altemative 5 options were
labeled Alternative 5A (75 units in Cluster 3), Alternative 5B (no development in
Cluster 3), and Alternative 5C (18 two -acre lots in Cluster 3). All three options for
Altemative 5 were analyzed and incorporated into the revised Draft EIR
Alternatives section.
X. Prior to the April 18, 2000 public hearing, City staff, the City Attorney and the
environmental consultant recommended that portions of the Draft EIR be
recirculated to address the new information regarding past oil drilling activities
on the project site, incorporate the new project alternatives analysis, and remedy
inaccuracies and methodology defects in the Draft EIR. The five Draft EIR.
sections requiring recirculation include: Section 2.0: Project Description; Section
4.1: Earth; Section 4.8: Traffic and Circulation; Section 4.11: Risk to
Upset /Human Health and Safety; and Section 6.0: Alternatives.
Y. At the regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting on April 18, 2000, City
staff continued to address the remaining outstanding issues associated with the
Golden Valley Ranch project. Staffs presentation covered the recirculation of the
Draft EIR sections, the timing of the Draft EIR recirculation, the City's traffic
methodolgy, the revised traffic study results, the visual impacts of grading,
geotechnical concerns, the three alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR, and two
new project alternatives. The Commission discussed Alternatives 4 and 5 and
some of the possible variations. The Commission concurred that they would like
further analysis of Alternatives 4 and 5. Commissioner Ostrom asked that the
Earth section of the Draft EIR be revised to reflect the information found in his
report. Commissioner Killmeyer requested more information regarding water
supply. The Commission received public testimony on this item. The public
hearing was continued to a special Planning Commission meeting on May 30,
2000, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Resolution 01-48
Page No. 10
Z. Prior to the May 30 special Planning Commission meeting, the applicant proposed
a further reduction in the size of the project. The applicant proposed the
elimination of all development in Clusters 2 and 3. Instead, the applicant
requested a mixed residential project totaling 711 units within Cluster 1 only to
include single-family homes and townhomes. The commercial component (610,390
square feet, or 90 acres) would remain unchanged from the original project. A
five -acre developed park would also be incorporated into Cluster 1 to serve the 711
units. This new alternative would allow for 974 acres of permanent open
undeveloped open space. PacSun LIC, the project applicant, informed staff that
this alternative was their preferred project alternative. City staff incorporated
this alternative into the alternatives analysis and labeled it Alternative 6:
Applicant's Preferred Alternative.
aa. At the special Planning Commission meeting on May 30, 2000, staff focused their
presentation on three new project alternatives developed for the Golden Valley
Ranch project (Alternatives 4-6). The assistant City attorney also addressed the
Commission regarding landslide liability issues. The Commission discussed the
pros and cons of the various alternatives. The Commission directed staff to
prepare a resolution, conditions of approval and other necessary documents for
Alternative 5B. Alternative 5B involves 634 single-family units (212 acres) in
Cluster 1, a five -acre developed park in Cluster 1, approximately 610,390 square
feet (90 acres) of commercial development along SR 14, and 974 acres of
permanent open space. The Commission received public testimony on this item
and closed the public hearing. The item was continued to the July 5, 2000
Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
bb. Prior to the July 5, 2000 hearing, environmental consultant prepared the portions
of the Draft EIR intended for recirculation. The applicant provided staff
additional economic analysis addressing the market feasibility of the commercial
development proposed. The applicant also provided a revised oak tree impact
analysis based upon the reductions in the scope and size of the project.
CC. At the May 30 and July 5, 2000 hearings, the Planning Commission reviewed and
considered the portions of the Draft EIR to be recirculated, as well as the project
alternatives.
dd. On July 5, 2000, with direction from the Commission, staff presented five
resolutions to the Planning Commission in support of Alternative 5B. Although
the Commission expressed preliminary preference for Alternative 5B, the
Commission was divided as to which alternative should be recommended for
further consideration by the Council. For this reason, one resolution was denied
and two resolutions resulted in a no action (2-2-1 split). The Commission made
three recommendations to the City Council, These are as follows:
Resolution 01-48
Page No. 11
1. The Commission voted 3-1-1 to recommend certification of the Final EIR SCH
No. 97121037and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations,
prepared for the Golden Valley Ranch project and related entitlements.
2. The Commission voted 4-0-1 to recommend that the City Council approve
General Plan Amendment No. 97-003 "B", an amendment to the Circulation
Element text and Master Plan of Highway & Roadway System Map to allow
for the elimination of the Golden Valley Road link between Via Princessa and
Placerita Canyon Road.
3. The Commission voted 3-1-1 to recommend that the City Council deny Prezone
97-001 for the Golden Valley Ranch annexation area (Annexation 1997-001).
The Commission was split with a 2-2-1 vote on the following two staff
recommendations, resulting in a "no action" on the part of the Commission. The
recommendations are as follows:
1. Adopt Resolution P00-24, recommending that the City Council approve
General Plan Amendment No. 97-003 "A", an amendment to the Land Use
Element Land Use Map.
2. Adopt Resolution P00-27, recommending that the City Council approve
Tentative Tract Map 52414, Oak Tree Permit 97-024, Conditional Use Permit
97-017, and Hillside Review 97-022.
The commissioners who recommended denial of the above staff recommendations
expressed concerns related to the appropriateness of the use of the site for
commercial development and the density of the clustered residential development
on property with a Residential Estate (RE) General Plan land use designation.
ee. During the Planning Commission public hearings for the Golden Valley Ranch
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.
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.
r ff. Prior to the City Council's consideration of the project, staff prepared and
i! circulated the Revised Draft EIR, which includes revisions to five sections of the
original Draft EIR. The Revised Draft EIR was recirculated for a 45 -day review
and comment period from November 27, 2000 to January 10, 2001.
Resolution 01-48
Page No. 12
gg. Prior to the City Council's consideration of the project, staff prepared and
circulated the Response to Comments on the Draft EIR. document for the Golden
Valley Ranch project in March 2001. Individual agency and public comment
letters were mailed to the commenting party with a written response.
hh. Prior to the City Council's consideration of the project, the applicant executed
school impact mitigation agreements with the Sulphur Springs Elementary School
District and the Hart Union High School District.
ii. A duly -noticed special meeting of the City Council was held on February 22, 2001,
at 2:00 p.m. to conduct a field visit to the Golden Valley Ranch project site. All
five councilmembers were in attendance.
J. On March 27, 2001, ,at a regularly -scheduled City Council meeting, the City
Council considered the Golden Valley Ranch development project, receiving a staff
presentation, a presentation from the project applicant, PacSun LLC, and public
testimony. At this meeting, staff was seeking direction from Council regarding the
I
equested entitlements and the selection of a project alternative so that staff could
prepare the appropriate resolutions and ordinance for formal Council action. ^
PacSun LLC requested that the Council direct staff to prepare the appropriate
resolutions of approval for Alternative 5B, the "Modified Project Design"
Alternative that reduced the scope of the project, limiting residential and
commercial development to the Cluster 1 area.
kk. Following public testimony and Council discussion at the March 27 meeting, the
City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial for City Council
adoption.
11. On May 8, 2001, at a regularly -scheduled City Council meeting, the City Council
took formal action, adopting this resolution which denies without prejudice the
applicant's request for a General Plan Amendment, Prezone, Annexation,
Tentative Tract Map 52414, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Review, and an Oak
Tree Permit.
SECTION 2. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF THE PREZONE. In making the
determination contained in this resolution, the City Council has considered certain principals
and standards related to the requested prezone to Residential Suburban and Community
Commercial, and finds and determines as follows:
a. That a need for the prezone to RS and CC zoning does not exist within the area
of the subject property and is not consistent with the land use designations for the
property specified on the City's General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Map.
Resolution 01-48
Page No. 13
b. The proposed changes are not consistent with the objectives of the Unified
Development Code, the General Plan, or the development policies of the City.
C. That public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice
justifies the denial of the prezone classification request to RS and CC based upon
existing land uses in the area and geographical features of the site.
d. The requested increase in residential density which would result in a change from
two -acre lots to 5,000 square foot lots is not appropriate given the historic
geological instability of the project site.
e. A prezone to Community Commercial to allow for 610,000 square feet of
commercial retail use is not justified as it would increase the amount of
commercial space in the Canyon Country area, potentially having an adverse
economic impact on existing commercial establishments.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT "A",
AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT LAND USE MAP. In making the
determination contained in this resolution, the City Council has considered certain principals
and standards related to the requested General Plan Amendment from Residential Estate land
use designation to Residential Suburban and Community Commercial, and finds and determines
as follows:
a. On June 25, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-98, adopting the
General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita and certifying the Environmental Impact
Report. The City's General Plan presently designates the Golden Valley Ranch
annexation area as Residential Estate (RE). This designation allows for a
maximum density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre. As stated in the General Plan, the
Residential Estate category was "created to ensure the continuation of existing
agricultural farming and ranching activities and to ensure that the rural and
country character of certain portions of the planning area are maintained... The
density of proposed residential development is expected to be in large custom single-
family homes on uniquely configured lots which have been designed to be sensitive
to topographic and environmental considerations ... The keeping of horses and
related animals are expected within the residential area." (General Plan Land Use
Element, L-43)
b. Amending the General Plan land use designation for the project site from RE to RS
and CC would change the intended rural, low density character of the area by
increasing the residential density from 0.5 dwelling units per acre to five dwelling
units per acre. In addition, the General Plan amendment to CC would allow for a
regionally -serving commercial complex, which would urbanize the proposed 90 -acre
commercial site and eliminate all existing natural elements.
Resolution 01-48 —
Page No. 14
SECTION 4. Based on the foregoing, the City Council denies, without prejudice, all
requested entitlements for Master Case 97-212, the Golden Valley Ranch project, and does not
certify the Environmental Impact Report.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
Resolution 01-48
Page No. 15
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8' day of May, 2001.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) as
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sharon L. Dawson, Ci Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly a opted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held o the 8`" day of May, 2001 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES: COUNCILME ERS: Smyth, Darcy, Kellar, Waste
NOES: COUNC MBERS: Ferry
ABSENT: COUNC MBERS: None
LMH
S:\ub
CITY CLERK
,/f e"5oo 4 C's G 1'1'0 c-9
& 9cso (0(--&6