Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-26 - RESOLUTIONS - WES THOMPSON RANCH PROJ FEIR (2)RESOLUTION NO. 01-73 00 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING FEIR SCH NO. 98111013, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS THAT WEIGHS PROJECT BENEFITS AGAINST THE PROJECT'S SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS FOR MASTER CASE NO. 96-072 FOR ANNEXATION NO. 96-001, PREZONE 97-001 TO RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN (RS) AND RESIDENTIAL ESTATE (RE), TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 49621, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-004 AND HILLSIDE REVIEW 96-024 TO ALLOW FOR THE ANNEXATION OF THE 176 -ACRE WES THOMPSON RANCH AREA AND DEVELOPMENT OF 267 RESIDENTIAL UNITS 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, American Beauty Development, formally requested certain project entitlements related to the Wes Thompson Ranch development on March 28, 1996 (Master Case 96-072). Such entitlement requests included Prezone 96-001, Annexation No. 96-001, Tentative Tract Map 49621, Conditional Use Permit 96- 004, and Hillside Review 96-024. The 176 -acre project site is owned by American Beauty Homes. b. The Wes Thompson Ranch project area is located on 176 acres in the Santa Clarita Valley, in unincorporated Los Angeles County. The site is situated north of and adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita. The Community of Canyon Country and developed residential neighborhoods, and the City of Santa Clarita City limit line are south of the site. Unincorporated and uninhabited land is located to the north and west of the project site, and inhabited and uninhabited land within the City of Santa Clarita is located to the east of the project site. The Wes Thompson Ranch annexation is an uninhabited annexation. C. The Wes Thompson Ranch project area is currently vacant, unincorporated land located north of the City of Santa Clarita. The property is privately -owned by American Beauty Development LLC. The project area is generally characterized as undeveloped hillside with native and non-native plant species including coastal sage scrub, and chaparral. 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. Los Angeles County and the City of Santa Clarita have existing and planned development to the east and south of the project site. Resolution, Master Case 96-072 Wes Thompson Ranch Project Page 2 d. On March 28, 1996, the applicant submitted Master Case No. 99-072, requesting approval to construct 350 single-family lots and seven open space lots on 176 acres. Originally, the applicant was proposing to cluster development within three general areas on-site, including extending the existing Gary Drive and Marilyn Drive to the primary access road for the'development proposed to connect to Sand Canyon Road. Both Gary Drive and Marilyn Drive would be extended and have single-family residential dwelling units on both sides of the street. Approximately 97.6 acres was proposed to be left as open space with a series of hiking trails throughout the site. Project implementation would require 2.9 million cubic yards of earthen material balanced on-site. Over the course of the Draft EIR 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 full extension of Marilyn Drive was eliminated, with Marilyn now proposed to be extended as a cul-de-sac with 18 new single family homes proposed to have frontage on Marilyn Drive. The changes to the proposal included incorporating roundabouts, as traffic calming measures, as well as including a portion of the homes constructed on the, site be ranchette style homes, single -story. The applicant worked with the Planning Commission, staff and public comments to make the changes to the approved map. Several alternatives to the project were analyzed as part of the Draft EIR. These include Alternative LA, the 145 detached single-family dwelling unit isolated alternative, Alternative 1B, 265 detached single-family dwelling unit isolated alternative, Alternative 2A, the 145 detached single-family dwelling unit connected alternative and Alternative 2B, the 265 detached single-family dwelling unit connected alternative. At the January 30, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission indicated that the revised project met the findings for an innovative application. With comments from staff, the public and the Commission, the applicant revised the proposed development further. With the final revisions, the project was most consistent with Alternative 2B, as described in the Draft EIR. Alternative 2B, the 265 -connected plan, eliminates several components of the original proposal for 350 single-family lots, including, the extension of Marilyn Drive. Therefore, the development would have two access points, Sand Canyon Road and Gary Drive. Residential development would occur off of both Gary Drive and Marilyn Drive, but the configuration of the extension and number of homes differs from the original proposal. This alternative would include landform contour grading and roundabouts used as traffic calming measures. The center of the roundabouts would be decoratively landscaped as passive open spaces areas. The plan includes 115.85 acres of open space (65.8% of the total project site). A fire station site would be located on a parcel adjacent to the entrance at Sand Canyon Road. r Resolution, Master Case 96-072 Wes Thompson Ranch Project Page 3 e. The applicant's original entitlement requests are as follows. Please note, however, that although the site plan has been revised to be consistent with Alternative 2B, an alternative identified in the Draft EIR prepared for the project, the entitlements and overall application has been modified to properly review the revised project. • An annexation from the County of Los Angeles into the City of Santa Clarita; • A prezone request was filed to designate the West Thompson Ranch site as Residential Suburban (RS) and Residential Estate (RE); • Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 49621 to subdivide the subject site into 350 single- family parcels, a water tank parcel, a park site and numerous open space lots; • A conditional use permit to allow grading over 100,000 cubic yards and for clustering of residential development; • 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, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared. f. The City circulated copies of proposed Tentative Tract Map 49621 January 21, 2001 for City staff and agency review. On January 30, 2001, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare conditions of approval and other related documents for formal Commission action. On March 27, 2001, the tentative map was recirculated to City staff and agencies with a request that the recipients prepare conditions of approval for the proposed project. As a result, of staff comments made on the plans submitted March 27, 2001, the plans was further revised and resubmitted to the City. As a result of the revisions, the site plan was most consistent with Alternative 2B, described in the Draft EIR prepared for the project. At that time, staff recirculated the tentative map with a description of the Alternative 2B and requested that conditions of approval be prepared for the revised project (Alternative 2B). g. 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, pre -zone, conditional use permit, innovative designation, and hillside review was circulated for a 30 -day review period on November 2, 1998 to affected agencies. Resolution, Master Case 96-072 Wes Thompson Ranch Project Page 4 h. The agencies mailed a NOP include, but are not limited to, Los Angeles County, State of California law enforcement agencies, local school districts, appropriate waste haulers, appropriate water agencies and transportation agencies serving the Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with consultation requirements in the CEQrA 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). i. A scoping meeting was held in the Century Conference Room at City Hall on November 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 in addition to the NOP and to surrounding property owners and residents within the Sand Canyon and Canyon Country area. Approffimately 39 community members attended the scoping meeting, in addition to the project applicant, environmental consultant, and engineer. j. The Wes Thompson 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#98111013) was distributed to the Planning Commission, the public and affected governmental agencies for a 45 -day public review period beginning on July 17, 2000 and ending on September 5, 2000. Late written and oral comments received during the Planning Commission public hearing (September 5, 2000) were accepted for inclusion in the Final EIR Response to Comments.. k. Master Case No. 96-072, the Wes Thompson Ranch development project, was scheduled for the first public hearing on July 26, 2000. This meeting was an introduction to the project and the Draft EIR. The meeting was continued to a special Planning Commission meeting of August 15, 2000 to tour the project site. This meeting was duly noticed, with all Planning Commissioners in attendance, including; the project applicant, the applicant's engineer, and three members of the public. The meeting was continued to September 5, 2000, the final day of the public comment period, for a presentation from the Environmental Consultant on the Draft EIR, and a discussion of outstanding project issues. The hearing was continued to October 17, 2000. 1. At the October 17, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the continued public hearing for Master Case 96-072, the Wes Thompson Ranch project, the Commission reviewed the innovative application portion of the proposed development and reviewed the findings required by the City's Unified Development Code made for innovative alternative designs. The hearing was continued to a date uncertain. Resolution, Master Case 96-072 Wes Thompson Ranch Project Page 5 In. The public hearing for the Wes Thompson Ranch (Master Case 96-072) project was renoticed in the Signal newspaper for the December 5, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. n. The Planning Commission received a presentation from staff on the Wes Thompson 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 more information on the City's Hillside Ordinance and innovative development alternatives, review the project issues and review a revised plan. The Commission received public testimony on this item. The staff requested the Commission direct staff to prepare resolutions for a recommendation of approval of Alternative 1A or 2A, as described in the Draft EIR. The Commission requested staff return at a later date with further revisions to the proposal that included innovative design aspects. The public hearing was continued to the January 2, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. o. At the Planning Commission hearing held January 2, 2001, the Commission heard r a focused presentation on the innovative design aspects of the project, and the if innovative design features staff recommended the development incorporate. The hearing was continued to the regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting of January 30, 2001. P. At the regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting on January 30, 2001, the Commission reviewed a revised site plan that included 272 -single-family lots, and a response from the applicant regarding innovative aspects of design. The Commission received public testimony on this item, and closed the public hearing. Staff was directed to prepare a summary of a technical review of the revised plan, resolutions approving the proposed 272 plan, with the innovative design alternative designation and final conditions of approval. The meeting was continued to the regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting date of March 20, 2001. q. At the regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting on March 20, 2001, the Commission's requested technical summary of the revised proposal was not completed because staff received a revised site plan from the applicant with the 265 -single family lot configuration (Alternative 2B). The public hearing was continued to the regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting on April 3, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. r r. At the Planning Commission meeting on April 3, 2001, the project was continued to May 15, 2001 because final conditions of approval had not been prepared for the revised 265 -plan and the Final EIR had not been completed, including, response to comments on the Draft EIR, and text changes. The 265 -plan is consistent with Resolution, Master Case 96-072 Wes Thompson Ranch Project Page 6 Alternative 2B, described in the Draft EIR prepared for the project, and the project is designated as an innovative application, therefore, a discussion of innovative design was necessary to include in the Final EIR. Although the original project was substantially changed and the approved plan is a result of those changes, the Final EIR was not required to be recirculated because the environmental impacts were reduced and the project was examined as an alternative. The Final EIR has been completed and distributed to the commenting agencies, as required by CEQA- The Planning Commission adopted Resolution P01-02, recommending the City Council approve Master Case 96-072, the Wes Thompson Ranch Project and certify the EIR prepared for the project. S. During the Planning Commission public hearings for the Wes Thompson 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 commenting period on the Draft EIR.. 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'also are incorporated as additional chapters in the Final EIR. t. The applicant has executed the school impact fee agreement with the Sulphur Springs Elementary School District and the Hart Union High School District. SECTION 2. STATE CEQA LAW AND GUIDELINE CONSIDERATIONS - The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita hereby makes the following findings of fact: 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 1_. Resolution, Master Case 96-072 Wes Thompson Ranch Project Page 7 written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "[c]hanges 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 "[s]uch 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 "[s]pecific 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, u ra, 83 Ca1.App.3d at 521; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]; and California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 400-403 1253 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 [CEQA]." 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. Resolution, Master Case 96-072 Wes Thompson Ranch Project Page 8 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 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 addressing Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) actions including annexations. Resolution , Master Case 96-072 Wes Thompson Ranch Project Page 9 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. In response to several of the comments received, portions of the Draft EIR have been revised and will be recirculated for additional public review and comment. 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, particularly in the issue areas of geology, land use; and traffir/circulation. 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. 96-072 for Annexation No. 96- 001, Prezone 96-001, TTM 49621, CUP 96-004, HR 996-024 and innovative design designation identifies and discloses project -specific impacts and cumulative project impacts. Environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR, findings, and facts in support of findings are herein incorporated as "Findings 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: air quality; geology (ground lurching); air quality (operational emissions); solid waste; and aesthetics (development intensity). Resolution, Master Case 96-072 Wes Thompson Ranch Project Page 10 b. The Draft EIR identifies issue areas as "Environmental Effects Which Have Been Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant." These include: geology (faulting, ground rupture, slope stability, landscaping, compacted fill); hydrology; noise; aesthetic (visual, light/glare); police; air quality (construction emissions); schools; biology; traffic/circulation; hazards; and cultural resources. C. The Draft EIR identifies issue areas as "Environmental Areas Where No Significant Impacts Would Occur." These include aesthetics (view shed); land use; and population. d. With the original.350 single-family dwelling unit proposal, there were a number of significant adverse impacts expected to result from the original proposed project. With the comments made by the Commissioners, the public and staff, the applicant revised the proposal. These revisions reflected the comments made at each Planning Commission hearing by the Commission, subsequently, the Commission identified Alternative 2B as the preferred project alternative at the May 30, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Alternative 5B is superior to the original proposed project in all issue areas, as it would substantially reduce the scope of development across the 176 -acre project site. e. With the revisions, and because the revised project complies with the Alternative 2B analyzed in the alternatives section of the Draft EIR, it was not necessary to incorporate any additional analysis conducted for additional project issues. The Planning Commission has reviewed and commented on the revised EIR sections prior to making their recommendation to City Council. Therefore, it is not necessary to recirculate the EIR in a formal 45 -day circulation period following Commission action and before the City Council takes action on this project. Any EIR modifications will be addressed and incorporated into the Final EIR, to be reviewed by City Council. f. As part of the Final EIR preparation, a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) will also be required to mitigate impacts of Alternative 2B. SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF EIR ALTERNATIVES- Following circulation. of Draft EIR, and 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 determines 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 less than Resolution, Master Case 96-072 Wes Thompson Ranch Project Page 11 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 Cal.App.3d at 521; este also Kings County Farm Bureau, supra, 221 Ca1.App.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, that incorporates 350 single-family homes, poses the following potentially significant unavoidable impacts: (1) earth impacts to ridgelines; (2) construction and operational air quality impacts; (3) biological impacts to habitat, wildlife corridors, and sensitive species; and (4) aesthetic impacts to view corridors. For purposes of ranking the project alternatives, City staff identified the following major issue areas, some of which duplicate the potentially significant unavoidable project impacts: (i) grading; (ii) ridgeline preservation; (iii) visual impacts along Gary and Marilyn Drive; (iv) visual impacts along Sand Canyon Road; (v) traffic along Gary and Marilyn Drive; and (vi) traffic along Sand Canyon Road. d. The objectives of the revised project, as specified in the Alternatives section of the Draft EIR, are: (1) to develop 276 single-family residences; (2) to develop commercial establishments in the immediate vicinity of proposed residential uses for use by City residents and commuters traveling SR 14; (3) to provide recreational and educational facilities for use by City residents; (4) to protect sensitive resources on the project site through clustering development; and. Other City objectives include: ■ Annex property into the City of Santa Clarita that is a logical extension of City boundaries; ■ Extend an existing residential community, while preserving significant natural resources and open space; ■ Application of clustering development within the site to preserve regionally significant natural resource areas and sensitive habitat; ■ Provide development and transitional land use patterns which integrate and are compatible with surrounding communities and land uses; Resolution, Master Case 96-072 Wes Thompson Ranch Project Page 12 ■ Avoid leapfrog development and accommodate projected regional growth in a location which is adjacent to existing and planned infrastructure, urban services, public transit, transportation corridors, and major employment centers; ■ Provide residential housing types to respond to economic and market conditions over several years; ■ Retain major open areas which act as regional ecological preserves; • Provide the recreational use of open area that is compatible with the protection of significant natural resources; ■ Provide a range of recreational opportunities; and ■ Provide neighborhood parks and improvements which satisfy park dedication requirements and meet the recreational needs of local residents. These objectives are used as the basis for comparing project alternatives and determining the extent that the objectives would be achieved relative to the proposed project. The alternatives that were prepared, as required by CEQA, excluding the required `No Project Alternative", focused on four concepts: 145 - Dwelling Units; 265 -Dwelling Units; Isolated Circulation System; and Connected Circulation System.. These four concepts are described below. 145 Dwelling Units: The site would be developed with large equestrian ranchettes under this density option, would consist of 20,000 to 30,000 square foot lots at one (1) dwelling unit per acres, yielding approximately 60 units along the valley of the western most primary ridgeline at the site. These 60 units in addition to 35 units that would be located along the seven acres off Marilyn Drive, and 10 acres off Gary Drive and would result in the development of a total of 145 units on the project site. 265 -Dwelling Units: The large equestrian ranchettes under this density option would consist of 10,000 square -foot lots at three (3) dwelling units per acre, yielding approximately 180 units along the valley of the western most primary ridgeline at the site. These 180 units in addition to 35 units that would be located along the seven (7) acres of Marilyn Drive, and the 50 units that would be located along the 10 acres off Gary Drive would result in the development of a total of 265 units at the site. Isolated Circulation System: This concept would be based on a design that is the most sensitive to the natural topography and features of the site. Generally, road ridgeline crossings would be avoided with this alternative, with the exception of emergency access roads possibly connecting interior roads. Connected Circulation System: This concept is based on a single connected loop road with connections to Gary Drive, Marilyn Drive and Sand Canyon Road. Resolution, Master Case 96-072 Wes Thompson Ranch Project Page 13 e. Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative. This Alternative is required by the CEQA 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, vacant state within the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. None of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project would occur so long as the site remains undeveloped. However, this alternative would not meet any of the basic objectives of the project, and the City would not receive the revenue generated by the proposed project and no acreage of open space or park space would be permanently dedicated for public use. This alternative does not assume the project site would never be developed. The current Los Angeles County zoning designations (Hillside Management) HM and (Agricultural) A-2-1, would allow the development of up to 176 dwelling units, with one acre minimum lot size on the 176 -acre site. Under the Santa Clarita Valley Areawide Plan of the Los Angeles County General Plan, the project site is designated Hillside Management (HM). The Los Angeles County zoning designation for 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 uses. Up to 176 dwelling units could be constructed under this alternative, as compared to the 276 units that would be constructed under Alternative 2B. However, if developed under the Los Angeles County requirements, it is likely the site would be rezoned to allow for a higher density, one comparable to the existing residential development located adjacent to the site such development would occur throughout the site (as opposed to clustering proposed in the project), and in some cases, homes would be located on slopes exceeding 50 percent. The less restrictive provisions of the County's Hillside Management program would allow for homes to be located on slopes exceeding 25 percent, many of which would be situated on ridgetops. This would result in significantly greater impacts to primary and secondary ridgelines. This alternative does not include any formal parks or open space. This alternative would not avoid any of the project's potentially significant unavoidable impacts. Consequently, it is likely that the site would be developed even if the project is not approved by the City, and such development would affect the City without providing any accompanying benefit due to the fact that the development standards for the County and the City differ. Therefore, although the No Project Alternative shows up as the environmentally superior for each issue area, it would not fulfill the basic objectives of the project and would not preclude the site from eventual development in accordance with the existing Los Angeles County General Plan and zoning designations for the site. Resolution, Master Case 96-072 Wes Thompson Ranch Project Page 14 f. Alternative IA: 145 -Unit Isolated Concept: Alternative 1A considers the impact of restricting building on the site to comply with the City's Hillside Development Ordinance density requirements, without designating the project and "Innovative Development Alternative". Though this alternative is sensitive to the surrounding natural environment and neighborhoods, the homes would not be clustered on the site, and economically, larger, ranchette style homes are not the type of product popular in the home buying market, according to statements made during Planning Commission hearings on this project. Also, homes designed as ranchette style are not similar to the existing adjacent residential development that the proposed development would be an extension of. This alternative would not meet many of the basic objectives of the project. g. Alternative 1B: 265 -Unit Isolated Concept: Alternative 1B considers the impact of constructing homes on the project site that, although are an extension of the existing neighborhoods, does not incorporate the type of clustering the proposed project has. The isolated concept also does not allow for the same type of circulation around the site that the proposed project incorporates. This project isolates the homes, requiring many of the future. This alternative would not include additional park area, as well as roundabouts, as incorporated in the proposed development. Overall, about 107 acres of open space would be included in this scenario, which is not as much open space as the proposed project (115.85 acres of open space). Although this alternative lessens all of the original project's potentially significant unavoidable impacts, it would avoid only one of the original project's potentially significant unavoidable impacts, that being potential impacts to ridgelines on the site. This alternative is also inconsistent with the City's Hillside Development Ordinance. Alternative 1B is not environmentally superior to Alternative 2B because Alternative 1B would allow for development to occur on ridgeline areas, be visible from public view, and not incorporate as much open space. In conclusion, although Alternative 113 would meet most of the objectives of the project, it is not environmentally superior to Alternative 213, which also accomplishes most of the project's objectives. h. Alternative 2A: 145 Units Connected Concept: Alternative 2A considers the impact of constructing larger lots on the project site, without utilizing clustering, therefore, the lots would not be located away from the ridgelines that traverse the site. Although this alternative is consistent with the density requirements of the City's Hillside Development and Ridgeline Preservation Ordinance, it is inconsistent because lots would be located on slopes in excess of 20% of the site, and would encroach upon identified ridgelines on the site. This alternative includes 107 acres of open space, which is less than that proposed in the project revised Alternative 213, as modified. Resolution, Master Case 96-072 Wes Thompson Ranch Project Page 15 This alternative would not avoid two of the project's potentially significant unavoidable impacts, those being potential impacts to ridgelines and traffic on the existing residential neighborhood. However, the three areas of potentially significant and unavoidable biological impacts of this alternative would be more severe than the original project. This alternative would allow low-density development to occur across the site, rather than in clusters, traffic to access the existing surrounding neighborhoods, and would require more grading and disruption of natural open space. Therefore, this alternative is not environmentally superior to the original project or revised Alternative 2B, the preferred project alternative. Alternative 2B, as revised, limits the grading envelope to cluster, preserving 115 acres of open space. Alternative 2B, therefore, avoids substantial and immitigable impacts to biological resources, viewsheds, and, adjacent land uses. The majority of on-site ridgelines would also be retained under Alternative 2B. In addition, the reduced density of Alternative 2A would not meet many of the basic objectives of the project. This alternative would limit the range of housing opportunities and not provide the same housing opportunities as the project and housing designs similar to the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, housing unit reductions are contrary to Citywide goals of making housing affordable. i. Alternative 2B: 265 Units Connected Concept/Modified Project Design. Although this alternative originally included developing the site with 265 units, with the minimum lot size being 10,000 square feet, the original Alternative 2B was considered to be environmentally superior to the originally proposed project (350 units). The original proposal has been modified with comments from the Planning Commission, public and staff to comply with the original Alternative 2B, and the modified proposal entails a reconfiguration of the project to avoid several of the significant impacts of the original proposed project, as well as some impacts associated with the original Alternative 2B. Because the modifications to the alternative are not "substantial and the modifications reduce a number of the impacts associated with the original Alternative 2B, such as impacts to ridgelines, open space and traffic, the EIR was not recirculated for public review. The revised project alternative incorporates preserving the ridgelines on the site with further clustering than is proposed in the original project design and the original alternative 2B. The revised alternative also preserves more open space, by incorporating trails throughout the site, passive green space within the roundabouts, and open space at the end of each of the streets on the site. The original Alternative 2B included 107 acres of open space and the revised alternative includes 115 acres of open space. The revised Alternative 2B also Resolution, Master Case 96-072 Wes Thompson Ranch Project Page 16 alleviates traffic impacts associated with both the original project and the original Alternative 2B. Revised Alternative 2B includes the installation of a traffic signal at the entrance to the proposed project and `A' Street. This revised plan also includes the installation of roundabouts at major intersections within the project site. The revised Alternative 2B is the most environmentally superior to both the original project proposal and the original Alternative 2B. As the revised Alternative 2B project alleviates many of the impacts associated with the originally proposed project and alternative, the revised project also accomplishes the goals of the project proposal. The revised Alternative 2B is the preferred project design. j. Identifying the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Among the range of alternatives, Alternative 1(No Project) avoids all environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Therefore, the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. However, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the basic objectives of the Project. CEQ,A requires that if the No Project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, that an environmentally superior alternative be identified among the remaining alternatives. Among the remaining alternatives, the environmentally superior alternative is Alternative 1A as it produces the fewest impacts among the alternatives analyzed. Alternative 1A avoids and reduces the highest number of significant unavoidable impacts and most completely addresses the major issue areas identified by City staff. k. Identifying the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 1A is environmentally superior to the original proposed project and most favorably meets the basic objectives of the project. Alternative 1A is also one of the most feasible of the project alternatives. In addition, Alternative lA reduces the residential density without sacrificing the ridgelines identified on the project site. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that, upon the City Council's independent review of the Final EIR, and if the City Council finds that these findings regarding project alternatives are not rendered inapplicable by subsequent information and review, the preferred project alternative is Alternative IA. 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, and upon independent review of the revised Draft EIR and the Final EER by the City Council, the City Council approves the project, and the City Council further finds: r Resolution, Master Case 96-072 Wes Thompson Ranch Project Page 17 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 Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the Final EIR in reaching its recommendation to the City Council. C. That the Final Environmental Impact Report was presented to the City Council, the decision -malting 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. 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. f. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the Wes Thompson Ranch 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 City Council'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 supporting 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 air quality, geology, solid waste, and aesthetics. Should the City Council determine, upon its independent review of the Final EIR, that a Statement of Overriding Considerations is warranted, the City lI Council may adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Resolution, Master Case 96-072 Wes Thompson Ranch Project Page 18 Project benefits that may outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant include: ■ Annexation of property into the City of Santa Clarita that is a logical extension of City boundaries; ■ Annexation of development which provides a range of housing types consistent with the adjacent development and benefit to the City of Santa Clarita; ■ Creation of a new community that allows for residential, while preserving significant natural resources and open space; ■ Application of clustering development within the site to preserve regionally significant natural resource areas and sensitive habitat; ■ Provision of development and transitional land use patterns which integrate and are compatible with surrounding communities and land uses; ■ Avoid of leapfrog development and accommodate projected regional growth in a location which is adjacent to existing 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; ■ Retention of major open areas which act as regional ecological preserves and mitigation corridors; • Provision of the recreational use of open area that is compatible with the protection of significant natural resources; and ■ Provision of open space and improvements future and current City residents. SECTION 7. CERTIFICATION OF FEIR AND ADOPTION OF A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS- 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. Therefore, the City Council certifies the Final EIR (Exhibit A) and adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 8. 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 2E ATTEST: CITY CLERK Resolution Master Case 96-072 Wes Thompson Ranch Project I Page 19 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 01-73 was regularly introduced and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 26th day of June, 2001 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Ferry, Smyth, Darcy NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Weste ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Kellar S: \pbe \current\thompeon\feirccdoc s WST107FT.-rm E Resolution, Master Case 96-072 Wes Thompson Ranch Project Page 20 Exhibit A Tentative Tract Map 49621 Final Environmental Impact Report for Wes Thompson Ranch Incorporated by Reference