Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-24 - RESOLUTIONS - GV RANCH GP AMENDMENT (2)RESOLUTION NO. 02-13 A.RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING FEIR SCH NO. 97121037, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS THAT WEIGHS PROJECT BENEFITS AGAINST THE PROJECT'S SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS FOR MASTER CASE NO. 97-212 FOR 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 (PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 6.1 ACRES TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE APPLICANT FROM CALTRANS) AND DEVELOPMENT OF 498 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 610,930 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES 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. Placerita 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 Resolution, No. 02-13 _ Page No. 2 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 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 -63J Under the Los Angeles County General Plan, the site is currently designated "Non -Urban VHillside Management" (N -LSM). 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 �y a5:)npry, §r;, ean+pxM^r.'pg�r:4P'T Y(V*Px„wn^?: Wµ„.r Resolution No. 02-13 Page No. 3 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 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 Placenta 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 State Route 14 to Placerita 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. g. The original entitlement requests are as follows. Please note, however, that the applicant identified Alternative 7 as their preferred project alternative, which recommends modification to the below original 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 "A") to designate approximately 90 acres of the Golden Valley Ranch 7 area to a Community Commercial land use designation and the remaining 1,169.2 acres to a Residential Suburban land use designation. An additional Resolution No. 02-13 Page No. 4 6.1 acres along the east side of State Route 14 which the applicant is acquiring from Caltrans would also be designated Community Commercial as part of this General Plan amendment; ■ 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). An additional 6.1 acres along the east side of State Route 14 which the applicant is acquiring from Caltrans would also be designated Community Commercial as part of this prezone request.; ■ Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 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 Impact Report would be required for this project. Preparation, review and certification of Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 97121037) are requested. Alternative 7, 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 Placerita 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 Placerita Canyon Road within the Golden Valley Ranch area. h. 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 r i Resolution No. 02-13 Page No. 5 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.) i. 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. j. 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. k. 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 State Route 14. 1. 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. In. 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. n. 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 Resoiution No. 02-13 Page No. 6 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 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. o. 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. P. 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. q. 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. The Commission requested that it 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. r. 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. .:1.'+«r�go•tsU�Fr ••w"ry�Y}c,Mrw aim•`3^••r ;;.. _ Resolution No. 102-13 Page No. 7 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 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. S. 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. t. At the special Planning Commission meeting on February 10, 2000, staff j addressed the outstanding issues raised by the Planning Commission during the R focused Draft EIR discussions. Specifically, the Commission received a presentation on the site's entitlement history, project pros and cons, oak trees, trafficicirculation, topography/grading/visibility, 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 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. u. 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 Resolution Na. -02-13 _ .....-; Page No. $ HighSchool' 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. V. Following circulation of the Draft EIR, 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. 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, Alternative 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 Placerita 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 Placerita 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 Alternative 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 Alternative 5 were analyzed and incorporated into the revised Draft EIR Alternatives section. W. 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. X. 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 Resolution No. 02-13 Page No. 9 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. Y. 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. Z. At the special Planning Commission meeting on May 30, 2000, staff focused their presentation ori 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. At the May 30 meeting, the Commission indicated that Alternative 5B, Modified Project Design, was preliminarily the Commission's preferred. alternative. Alternative 5B 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. 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 State Route 14, and 974 acres of permanent open space. The Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution, conditions of approval and other necessary documents for Alternative 5B. 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. aa. Prior to the July 5, 2000 hearing, the environmental consultant prepared the Resolution No -02-13 Page No. 10 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. bb. 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. CC. 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 ins no action (2-2-1 split). The Commission made three recommendations to the City Council. These are as follows: 1. The Commission voted 3-1-1 to recommend certification of the Final EIR SCH No. 97121037 and 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 Resolution No. 02-13 Page No. 11 on property with a Residential Estate (RE) General Plan land use designation. dd. 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. ee. Prior to the City Council's consideration of the project, the applicant executed the school impact fee agreement with the Sulphur Springs Elementary School District and the William S. Hart Union High School District. ff. Prior to the City Council's consideration of the project, staff prepared and 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, 2001 to January 10, 2001. 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. jj. 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 seeldng direction from Council regarding the requested 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. &solution No, 02-13 Page No. 12 kk. Following public testimony and Council discussion at the March 27, 2001 meeting, the City Council took action on a 4-0-1 vote to approve Alternative 1 (the No Project Alternative) and directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial without prejudice for City Council adoption. 11. On May 8, 2001, at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting, the City Council took formal action to adopt Resolution 01-48, which denied 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 by a vote of 4-1. mm. Following the May 8, 2001 City Council action to deny the Golden Valley Ranch project by passage of Resolution 01-48, the Council requested that the resolution of denial for the Golden Valley Ranch project (Master Case 97-212) be modified to reflect additional findings to support the Council's decision to deny the project. nn. On June 12, 2001, at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting, the City Council considered a modified resolution of denial for the Golden Valley Ranch project, which would rescind Resolution 01-48 and expand upon the findings to support the City Council's previous decision to deny the Golden Valley Ranch project. The City Council received public testimony from PacSun, LLC representatives and from the public. At this time, PacSun, LLC put forth to the City Council a further revised project (Alternative 7) that involved a reduction in the number of single- family units, inclusion of senior housing, the addition of a turnkey elementary school, and a financial contribution.to the Committee on Aging, among other modifications. oo. Following public testimony and Council discussion at the June 12, 2001 meeting, the City Council rescinded Resolution 01-48, which was adopted by the Council on May 8, 2001 to deny without prejudice the Golden Valley Ranch project. The City Council indicated that it would consider the new project alternative (Alternative 7) at a later date after the applicant and City staff had completed several tasks. These tasks include the following: 1. PacSun, LLC to prepare a new geotechnical report to address the issue of ancient landslides and geology -related site hazards. 2. City to retain a geologist to conduct an independent peer review of the applicant's geotechnical reports. 3. PacSun, LLC to conduct community outreach process with the Canyon Country community. 4. PacSun, LLC to modify the proposed Tentative Tract Map 52414 to reflect the proposed project changes (school site, senior housing, residential unit reduction). ✓ T X TMs.Y 5'X.q 6` Resolution No. 02-13 Page No. 13 Contained in the City Council's motion was the setting of a public hearing on August 30, 2001 at 6:00 PM for the Council to review the proposed changes to the project and for a resolution of denial and a resolution for other options to be prepared for that meeting. pp. On August 3, 2001, PacSun, LLC requested an indefinite postponement of the August 30, 2001 special City Council meeting in order to allow for additional time to complete further geotechnical investigative work. As a result, the August 30, 2001 special City Council meeting was continued to a date uncertain. qq. On October 31, 2001, PacSun, LLC submitted a revised tentative tract map and a revised project description that reflects the modified project introduced to the City Council at the June 12, 2001 City Council meeting. rr. Per the Council's direction in June 2001, PacSun, LLC retained Allan E. Seward Engineering Geology, Inc. (AES) to prepare a new geologic and geotechnical report for the Golden Valley Ranch property. On October 31, 2001, staff received the Geologic and Geotechnical Report, Investigation of Maximum Landslide Depths Relative to the Feasibility of Development, prepared by AES. The study focused primarily on evaluating the presence or absence of deep-seated mega -landslides (greater than 100 feet deep) on the site which may underlie previously recognized landslides. AES's conclusions are listed on page 28 of the report as follows: 1. It is the opinion of this firm that a deep-seated mega -landslide as postulated by others does not exist beneath the Golden Valley Ranch (TTM 52414) and hence does not impede the feasibility of the proposed development. 2. The landslides in the area of the proposed development (TTM 52414) can be mitigated by complete removal and recompaction without adversely affecting the proposed development or off-site properties. ss. Per the City Council's direction in June 2001, City staff retained Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. to conduct a peer review of the AES geologic and geotechnical report. Their scope of work included a review of all prior geologic studies prepared for the property, geotechnical site reconnaissance, review of AES's methodology and conclusions, and preparation of the peer review report to the City of Santa Clarita. tt. In their December 7, 2001 letter to the City, William R. Cotton of Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. concurs with AES's conclusions regarding the mega -landslide issue. Specifically, the letter states, "Using geomorphic and geologic data, we conclude that a large landslide does not underlie the subject property. We find r" that the geologic model presented by AES is consistent with the available geologic database, and is the most likely explanation for features and data observed in the t region." Resolution No. 02-13 Page No., 14 In addition, Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. prepared a supplemental review letter dated January 7, 2002, for the City to evaluate the potential geotechnical constraints with respect to . the geotechnical feasibility of the proposed development. This letter concluded that, "the proposed developmenthas been demonstrated to be feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. If designed and constructed with the recommendations and geotechnical design criteria provided by AES, the proposed development should not result in unanticipated off-site impacts" (page 5). uu. The City circulated copies of revised Tentative Tract Map 52414 for City staff and agency review on November 2, 2001. On December 13, 2001, a Development Review Committee meeting was held to discuss the project modifications, design - related issues, and modifications to the draft project conditions of approval. Project conditions of approval were prepared with input from City departments and external agencies. W. Alternative 7 eliminates several components of the original project including Cluster 2, the Golden Valley Road extension between Via Princessa and Placenta 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 498 residential units, to include 108 age - restricted dwelling units and 390 single-family detached homes. 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, development of an 11 acre (gross) turnkey elementary school, a 6.4 acre (gross) passive trailhead staging area, and a fire station site would be provided within the Cluster 1 area. Alternative 7 is the applicant's preferred project alternative and the alternative that was considered by the City Council at their January 24, 2002 meeting. ww. On January 24, 2002, at a duly -noticed special City Council meeting, the Council conducted a public hearing on the revised Golden Valley Ranch project. The Council received a staff presentation, a presentation from representatives of PacSun, LLC, and public testimony. Staffs presentation focused on the components of the revised project description (Alternative 7), CEQA compliance, the project's consistency with the General Plan and Unified Development Code, and the geotechnical analysis and the City's peer reviewer's determination of this analysis. Resolution No 02-13 Page No. 15 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 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 Resolution No. 02-13 Page No. 16 the project as mitigated. (Pub. Resources Code § 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association; sunra, 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 Ca1.Rptr. 6501; and Laurel Heights Imnmvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376,400-403 [253 Cai.Rptr. 4261.) e. CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. Further, in devising mitigation measures, "a public agency may exercise only those express or implied powers provided by law other than [CEQAI." In fashioning mitigation measures, the lead agency must ensure that the mitigation actually relates to impacts caused by the project in question; an applicant cannot be required to provide a generalized public benefit unrelated to project impacts or that would do more than fully mitigate the impacts. f. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires decision -makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental impacts. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable" by adopting a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." Should the City Council, upon independent review of the Final EIR, choose to approve the project, a Statement of Overriding Considerations should set forth the project benefits or reasons why the Lead Agency is in favor of approving and weighs these benefits against the Project's adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. g. CEQA requires that a DEER 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 Resolution No. 0243 Page No. 17 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. j. CEQA requires that the responses to comments in the Final EIR must demonstrate good faith and a well -reasoned analysis, and may not be overly conclusory. In response to several of the comments received, portions of the Draft EIR have been revised and were 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. I 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 trafiicicirculation. The Final EIR includes 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 r" commentors who arrived at divergent conclusions. CEQA provides that s, disagreement among experts regarding conclusions in the EIR, is acceptable, and Resolution No. 02=13 Page No. 18 perfection isnot required. Also, exhaustive treatment of issues is not required in an EIR. SECTION 3. DRAFT EIR RECIRCULATION- The Planning Commission and staff found that (1) substantial changes in the Draft EIR 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; and (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. Staff, per the Planning Commission's direction, prepared and circulated the Revised Draft EIR, which includes 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. The following sections of the Draft EIR, as revised by the environmental consultant, were recirculated for public review and comment prior to consideration by the City Council: a.. Section 2.0: Project Description; b. Section 4.1: Earth; C. Section 4.8: Traffic and Circulation; . d. Section 4.11. Risk of Upset/Human Health and Safety; and. e. _ Section 6.0: Alternatives. f. Effect of Recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR. Prior to the City Council's consideration of the project at its -March 27, 2001 regularly scheduled meeting, staff prepared and circulated the Response to Comments on the Draft EIR document for the Golden Valley Ranch project. Individual agency and public comment letters were mailed to the commenting party with a written response. SECTION 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CEQA- The City Council does hereby find that the Draft EIR for Master Case No. 97-212 for GPA 97-003 "A" and "B", Annexation No. 97-001, Prezone 97-001, TTM 52414, CUP 97-017, OTP 97-024, and HR 97- 022 identifies and discloses project -specific impacts and cumulative project impacts. Environmental impacts, mitigation measures and conclusions regarding environmental impacts after mitigation identified in the Draft EIR are herein incorporated as "Findings Required by CEQA" identified as follows: a. Unavoidable Significant Impacts. The Revised Draft EIR identifies issue areas as "Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant." These include: air quality; biology; and aesthetics/light & glare. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which lessen but will not avoid or reduce these significant environmental effects below a level of significance. These impacts are Resolution No. 02-13 Page No. 19 overridden by the project benefits stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and set forth in Section 6 below. b. Mitigated Significant Impacts. The Draft EIR identifies issue areas as "Environmental Effects Which Have Been Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant." These include: earth (grading); hydrology; noise; land use; traffic/circulation; hazardshisk to upset; and cultural resources. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen these potentially significant environmental effects. C. No Impacts. The Draft EIR identifies issue areas as "Environmental Areas Where No Significant Impacts Would Occur." These include public services. d. Recirculation. Several sections of the Draft EIR have been revised to incorporate the additional analysis conducted for additional project issues and the new project alternatives, including Alternative 5B. The Planning Commission has reviewed and commented on the revised EIR sections prior to making their various recommendations to City Council. These Draft EIR sections were recirculated in a formal 45 -day circulation period from November 27, 2000 to January 10, 2001 before the City Council initially considered action on this project C" at its regularly scheduled meeting on March 27, 2001. Public comments were dreceived and Responses to Comments were prepared and incorporated into the Final EIR. CEQA Guideline 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review, but before certification of the Final EIR. New information is not significant unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect or a feasible means to mitigate such an effect (including feasible project alternatives). 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 included: Section 2.0: Project Description; Section 4.1: Earth, Section 4.8: Traffic and Circulation; Section 4.11: Risk to UpsetlHuman Health and Safety, and Section 6:0: Alternatives. Some commentators on the Revised Draft EIR made suggestions that were incorporated into the project in the Final EIR. Mitigation measures and additional alternatives were added to the Project in the Final EIR. Some commentators on the Draft EIR and Revised Draft EIR. suggested mitigation measures and alternatives which were not incorporated into the Final EIR. Resolution No. 02-13 Page No. 20 Subsequent to the preparation of the Final EIR, the applicant proposed Alternative 7, which further reduces the density of the project. Substantial evidence in the record shows that the analysis of environmental impacts associated with the proposed project as well as the alternatives in the Final EIR and the mitigation measures recommended therein fully address the environmental impacts associated with Alternative 7. Pursuant to CEQ,A Guideline 15088.5, and Public Resources Code Section 21092.1, on the basis of its review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City Council finds that: 1. The project changes (Alternative 7) subsequent to the public review of the Draft EIR and Revised Draft EIR are not substantial changes to 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 impact, or a feasible project alternative. 2. The project changes (Alternative 7) subsequent to the public review of the Draft EIR and Revised Draft EIR will not result in new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified significant effects disclosed in the Draft EIR and Revised Draft EIR. 3. The project changes (Alternative 7) subsequent to the public review of the Draft EIR and Revised Draft EIR will not involve 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. The project changes (Alternative 7) subsequent to the public review of the Draft EIR and Revised Draft EIR do not render the Draft EIR so fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment would be precluded. f. Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program. As part of the Final EIR preparation, a Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (bfly P) will also be required to mitigate project impacts. SECTION 5. CONSIDERATION OF EIR ALTERNATIVES - Following recirculation of Draft EIR, Section 6.0 Alternatives 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 lessen any of the significant effect of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of each alternative Resolution No. 02-13 Page No. 21 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 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 Ca1.App.3d at 521; see also Kings County Farm Bureau, suRra, 221 Ca1.App.3d at 730-731; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association, supra, 47 Cal.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 Revised Draft EIR, the original project 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) open space preservation; (iv) visual impacts along Placerita Canyon Road; (v) wildlife corridor preservation; (vi) traffic along Placerita Canyon Road; (vii) protection of the Placenta Canyon Nature Center; (viii) maintenance of the rural character of the area; (ix) oak tree preservation; and (x) viewshed impacts along State Route 14. d. The objectives of the project, as specified in the Revised Draft EIR, are: (1) to develop 847 single-family residences; (2) to develop commercial establishments in the immediate vicinity of proposed residential uses for use by City residents and commuters traveling State Route 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 (5) to provide a substantial source of revenue to the City's General Fund for use in providing services to City residents. Other City objectives include: • Annex property into the City of Santa Clarita that is a logical extension of City boundaries; Resolution No. 02-13 Page:Nn. 22 • Annex development which provides a strong economic base and benefit to the City of Santa Clarita; Create a new community that allows for residential and commercial development, 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; • 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 a variety of residential housing types to respond to economic and market conditions over several years; ■ Retain major open areas which act as regional ecological preserves and mitigation corridors; • Coordinate with school districts to ensure appropriate means to facilitate the development of school facilities to accommodate growth and ensure that the school districts can meet future needs. ■ 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. 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, Resolution No. 02-13 Page No. 23 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 would allow the development of up to 712 dwelling units on the 1,259 acre site, and such development would proceed under the County's less -restrictive Hillside Management provisions. 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 (See Alternative 2, below). Therefore, although the No Project Alternative emerges as the environmentally superior alternative 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. £ Alternative 2: Buildout under Los Angeles County General Plan and Zoning. Alternative 2 considers the impact of buildout of the project site in accordance with the land uses allowed under current County of Los Angeles General Plan and zoning designations. Under the Santa Clarita Valley Areawide Plan of the Los Angeles County General Plan, the project site is designated Non - Urban ]/Hillside Management (N-1/HM). This designation would 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 uses. Approximately 50 acres in the southeastern portion of the site are designated Residential (R-1-7,000) under the County Zoning Ordinance, which allows 7,000 square -foot single-family residential lots, as well as a wide range of agricultural and recreational uses. Up to 712 dwelling units could be constructed under this alternative, as compared to the 498 units that would be constructed under Alternative 7. However, 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 approximately 258 units, or 36 percent, of the 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 a school site or any formal parks or open space. There would also beno commercial development under this scenario. This alternative would not avoid any of the project's potentially significant unavoidable impacts. No commercial, school, park, or open space would be included in this alternative. The City would receive no revenue from this alternative, but would be affected by all of the significant adverse impacts of development. This alternative would not meet many of the basic objectives of the project. Resolution Na..02-13 Page No..24 g. Alternative 3: Reduced Project. Alternative 3 entails a reconfiguration of the project to avoid or lessen several of the significant impacts of the original proposed project (three clusters and 847 units). Specifically, several provisions of the original project would be eliminated or relocated. 'Cluster 2 (149 homes) would be eliminated and replaced with approximately 50 acres of open space. Golden Valley Road would be eliminated between Via Princessa and Placerita Canyon Road. The proposed school site adjacent to Cluster 3 would be eliminated and replaced with approximately 10 acres of open space. In all, this alternative would include 698 dwelling units, as opposed to 498 units allowed in Alternative 7 (the applicant's preferred alternative). The commercial buildout potential of this project would be the same as for Alternative 7, with about 610,930 square feet accommodated on 90 gross acres in Cluster 1. This alternative would not include a school site, but would include additional park area in Cluster 3 (about 20 acres). Overall, about 946 acres of open space would be included in this scenario. 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 wildlife corridors. Alternative 3 is not environmentally superior to Alternative 7 because Alternative 3 would allow for development to occur in the Cluster 3 area. In conclusion, although Alternative 3 would meet most of the objectives of the project, it is not environmentally superior to Alternative 7, which also accomplishes most of the project's objectives. h. Alternative 4: Buildout Under City's Residential Estate (RE) Designation (Alternatives 4A and 4B). Alternative 4 considers the impact of buildout of the project site in accordance with the Residential Estate (RE) designation prescribed for the site in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan, as well as with the density restrictions of the City's Hillside Grading Ordinance. Two options are considered. Option 4A would involve zoning the entire site RE and applying two acre minimum lots across the entire site, with further restrictions based on slope and application of the Sand Canyon Special Standards. Option 4B would involve applying the density allowed under the RE designation, but clustering all of the allowed units in the Cluster 1 area. Considering the 0.5 units per acre restriction of the RE designation and the further restrictions in hillside areas, about 230 dwelling units could be constructed under'tbis alternative. This would represent an overall site density of about 0.18 units per acre (or one unit per 5.7 acres). Under Option 4A, development could occur on about 875 acres of the site, while about 435 acres in steeply sloped areas (over 50 percent slopes) would be generally undevelopable. These undevelopable areas could either be held in private ownership or deeded to the City. Under Option 4B, development could occur on about 324 acres, leaving about 986 acres in open space. It is assumed that the undeveloped area would be deeded to the City for use as public open space. This alternative does not include a school site N Resolution No. 02-13 Page No. 25 or any formal parks or open space. There would also be no commercial development under this scenario. . Under Alternative 4A, the City would receive no commercial revenue, as there would be no commercial component to the project. This alternative would avoid or partially address two of the project's potentially significant unavoidable impacts, those being potential impacts to ridgelines and operational air quality. However, the three areas of potentially significant and unavoidable biological impacts of this alternative would be more severe than the original project. Alternative 4A, because it would allow a low-density development to occur across the site, rather than in clusters, would require more grading and disruption of natural open space. Therefore, this alternative is not environmentally superior to the original project or Alternative 7, the applicant's preferred project alternative. Alternative 7 limits the grading envelope to the Cluster 1 area, preserving 974 acres of open space. Alternative 7, therefore, avoids impacts to biological resources, viewsheds, adjacent land uses, and Placerita Canyon Road. The majority of on-site ridgelines (with the exception of those along State Route 14) would also be retained under Alternative 7. In addition, the reduced density of Alternative 4A 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. Furthermore, housing unit reductions are contrary to Citywide goals of making housing affordable. Alternative 4B would substantially reduce the overall area to be graded as compared to the original proposed project, though potentially significant landsliding and grading issues would remain within Cluster 1. The lower density development that would occur under Alternative 4B may allow more natural looking contours than would occur under the proposed project or Alternative 7, though the overall graded area and associated alteration of site topography would be similar to Alternative 7. The City would receive no commercial revenue from this alternative. This alternative would avoid four of the potentially significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project, those being potential impacts to ridgelines, operational air quality, wildlife corridors, and aesthetic impacts to Placerita Canyon Road and the Placerita Canyon Nature Center. In addition, this alternative would lessen though not avoid the three remaining potentially significant unavoidable impacts to air quality, habitats, and sensitive species. With regard to the major issue areas identified by City staff, this alternative would address all 10 major issue areas by reducing or eliminating the adverse impacts of each major issue area. Consequently, this alternative is environmentally superior to the original project and Alternative 7. However, this alternative would not meet most of the basic objectives of the project. Resolution No. 02-13 Page No. 26 Although Alternative 4B would be environmentally superior to the original project and Alternative 7, this alternative has been rejected in favor of Alternative 7 because Alternative 4B would limit the range of housing opportunities and not provide the same housing opportunities as the project. Furthermore, housing unit reductions are contrary to Citywide goals of making housing affordable. i. Alternative 5: Modified Project Design. Alternative 5 entails a reconfiguration of the project to avoid several of the significant impacts of the original proposed project. Three options are considered, each of which considers a different development scenario for the Cluster 3 residential area. Each of the three options includes the following changes from the proposed project: • Cluster 2 (149 homes) would be eliminated, replaced by about 50 acres of open space; • Golden Valley Road would be eliminated between Via Princessa and Cluster 3; and • An approffimately five acre park would be provided within Cluster 1 For the Cluster 3 area, Option 5A would allow 75 residences on lots ranging from 7,000 square feet to 8,500 square feet. Option 5B would allow no development in Cluster 3, preserving the area as open space. Option 5C would allow two acre minimum lots in Cluster 3, with further density restrictions due to topography. Options A and C would apply the requirements of the Sand Canyon Special Standards District to all development in Cluster 3. All three development options would allow the commercial development proposed as part of the project, but would eliminate the proposed school site. Alternative 5A would allow a total of 709 dwelling units by adding 75 dwelling units in Cluster 3 on lots ranging from 7,000 to 8,500 square feet. The Cluster 3 development would be required to comply with the Sand Canyon Special Standards District requirements. Alternative 5A would preserve 915 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 project's potentially significant unavoidable impacts, that being potential impacts to wildlife corridors. This alternative would meet most of the basic objectives of the project, however, it is not environmentally superior to Alternative 7, the applicant's preferred project alternative, as Alternative 7 completely eliminates residential development within the Cluster 3 area. Alternative 5B would allow a total of 634 units in Cluster 1 and eliminate all development in clusters 2 and 3. Alternative 5B would preserve 974 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 project's potentially significant unavoidable impacts, that being potential impacts to wildlife corridors. With regard to the major issue areas identified by the Commission, this i r Resolution No. 02-13 Page No. 27 - alternative would address seven of 10 major issue areas by reducing or eliminating adverse impacts and would partially address ridgeline impacts. This alternative would not address the major issues of maintaining the rural character of the area and reducing viewshed impacts along State Route 14. Consequently, this alternative is environmentally superior to the original project. Alternative 5B, however, is not superior to Alternative 7. Alternative 7, although similar to Alternative 5B, further reduces the residential density by 136 units for a total of 498 residential units (108 of which would be age -restricted). Alternative 5B would also meet most of the basic objectives of the project. Alternative 5C would allow a total of 652 units by adding 18 two acre minimum lots in Cluster 3 with further density restrictions due to topography. Cluster 3 development would be required to comply with the Sand Canyon Special Standards District requirements. Alternative 5C would preserve 915 acres of open space. Although this alternative lessens most of the original project's potentially significant unavoidable impacts, it would avoid only one of the project's potentially significant unavoidable impacts, that being potential impacts to wildlife corridors. This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project and would meet most of the basic objectives of the Project. However, it is not environmentally superior to Alternative 7, the applicant's preferred project alternative, as it would allow for development in the Cluster 3 area. j. Alternative 6: 711 Dwelling Units in Cluster 1. Alternative 6 was proposed in response to public and Planning Commission concerns regarding the potentially significant and unavoidable impacts and the major issue areas identified by City staff. This alternative would cluster all development in -Cluster 1. This alternative involves 711 dwelling units on 192 acres, 610,390 square feet of commercial development on 90 acres, a five acre developed park within Cluster 1, and 972 acres of permanent open space. This alternative lessens all of the original project's potentially significant unavoidable impacts and would avoid one of the project's potentially significant unavoidable impacts, that being potential impacts to wildlife corridors. With regard to the major issue areas identified by the Commission, this alternative would address seven of 10 major issue areas by reducing or eliminating adverse impacts and partially address ridgeline impacts. This alternative would not address the major issues of maintaining the rural character of the area and reducing viewshed impacts along State Route 14. Consequently, this alternative is environmentally superior to the original project, and similar to Alternative 5B. When compared with Alternative 5B, Alternative 6 adds 75 additional units to the Cluster 1 area, increasing the residential population and density of residential development. However, the grading envelope and infrastructure serving the area would be the same for both alternatives. Alternative 6 would also meet most of the basic objectives of the project. When compared with Alternative 7 (498 units total), Alternative 6 has a higher density with 213 additional units and does not provide a school site. Resolution. No- 02;-M Page No. 28 k. Alternative 7., Applicant"a-Preferred Alternative (498 Dwelling Units in Cluster 1). Alternative 7 was proposed by the applicant to the City Council in response to public concerns regarding overall project density in the Cluster 1 area and concern for elementary school overcrowding. This alternative would cluster all development in Cluster 1. This alternative involves 498 single-family units on 195 acres, of which 108 units would be designated for age -restricted buyer 55 years or older residents. The remaining 390 market -rate units would be comprised of 76 5,000 square foot lots, 165 5,500 square foot lots, 96 6,000 square foot lots, and 53 10,000 square foot lots. The commercial acreage would not change from the original project — 610,930 square feet of commercial development would occur on 89.8 gross acres (50 net acres). The project involves the provision of an improved three acre trailhead staging area, the dedication of 974 acres of natural open space, and provision of a graded 1.6 acre pad for a Los Angeles County Fire Department station. Alternative 7 also provides for the applicant to construct a 10 acre turnkey elementary school in the Cluster 1 area and monetary contributions to the City of Santa Clarita to offset the cost for open space maintenance and to the Committee on Aging for senior -related activities and services. With regard to the major issue areas identified by the Commission, this alternative would address seven of the 10 major issue areas by reducing or eliminating adverse impacts and partially address ridgeline impacts. This alternative would not address the major issue of maintaining the rural character of the area or reducing viewshed impacts along State Route 14. Consequently, this alternative is environmentally superior to the original project. In comparison to Alternative 5B, Alternative 7 is superior because it reduces the residential density by 104 units and provides for an elementary school and senior housing in Cluster 1. This alternative would meet most of the basic objectives of the project. 1. 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. CEQA 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 4B (Residential Estate in Cluster 1) as it produces the fewest impacts among the alternatives analyzed. Alternative 4B avoids and reduces the highest number of significant unavoidable impacts and most completely addresses the major issue areas identified by City staff. However, Alternative 4B would not meet many of the basic objectives of the project. Alternative 4B would develop less than a third of the original project dwelling units (847 units) and would not provide commercial uses forresidents and visitors of the City. Alternative 4B would not result in any revenue to the City, and would not provide educational or recreations facilities to the' City. In addition, in order to meet the anticipated demand for housing and Resolution No. 02-13 Page No. 29 jobs expected for the area, there may have to be greater, denser, development in other areas. M. Range of Alternatives. The selection and identification of alternatives in the Final EIR is reasonable, appropriate and in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines. n. Identifying the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 7 is environmentally superior to the original proposed project and most favorably meets the basic objectives of the project when compared with the other alternatives. Alternative 7 is also one of the most feasible of the project alternatives. In addition, Alternative 7 reduces the residential density without sacrificing economic viability. Therefore, based upon the City Council's review and on its behalf, the City Council finds that the preferred project alternative is Alternative 7. SECTION 6. 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 if upon independent review of the Draft EIR (including the Revised Draft EIR) and the Final EIR by the City Council, the City Council decides to approve the project, the City Council further finds: a. That the Final Environmental Impact Report for this project is adequate, complete, and has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). b. That the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Final EIR in reaching its conclusion. C. That the Final Environmental Impact Report was presented to the City Council, the decision-making body, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project. d. That, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, the Final EIR includes a description of each potentially significant impact and rationale for finding that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the. project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect. The analysis set forth in the Final EIR to support each conclusion and recommendation therein is hereby incorporated into these findings as set forth herein. 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. Resolution No. 02-13 Page No. 30 £' zThat, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the Golden Valley Ranch project entitlements which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect because feasible mitigation measures included in the mitigation monitoring program 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, and concludes based on substantial evidence in the record that the project benefits outweigh the project's unavoidable significant impacts. h. That the Final EIR reflects the decisionmaker's independent judgment and analysis. SECTION 7. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council finds that there is substantial evidence that supports that the Project Alternative 7 will have community benefits, including specific ecological, economic, social, legal, 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, biology, and aesthetics/light & glare. The City Council hereby determines, upon its independent review of the Final EIR, that adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations is warranted. 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 a net -positive development which provides a strong economic base and benefit to the City of Santa Clarita; ■ Creation of a new community that allows for residential and commercial development, 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 a built-in, permanent open space buffer between. the Cluster 1 development area and the rural, low-density Sand Canyon community to the east and the Angeles National Forest and Placerita Canyon State Park to the south; Resolution No. 02-13 Page No. 31 - ■ The project avoids leapfrog development and accommodates 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 affordable, age -restricted housing and market rate housing at various lot sizes to provide a variety of housing types and prices which will respond to economic and market conditions in the Santa Clarita Valley; ■ Provision of a turnkey elementary school to address the need for additional school facilities beyond what could be required of the applicant by the payment of school impact fees; ■ Retention of a major open area totaling 974 acres which acts as a regional ecological preserve and wildlife migration corridor; ■ Provision of $200,000 to the City for open space maintenance, as well as ongoing annual contributions for open space maintenance, which are above and beyond City requirements. • Contribution of $100,000 to the Committee on Aging and $20 per year per home annual assessment for senior -related services. ■ Provision of the recreational use of open area that is compatible with the protection of significant natural resources; and ■ Provision of in -lieu fees and trailhead improvements which satisfy park dedication requirements and serve a regional need for open space and passive recreational opportunities. SECTION 8. 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 EER and determines that it is adequate and in compliance with CEQA. The City Council certifies the Final EIR and adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. Resolution. No. 02-13' _ Page No. 32 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of January, 2002. ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss, CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa — Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 24' day of January, 2002, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Darcy, Kellar, Smyth, Ferry NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Weste ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY CLERK LMH S:\pbs/currenUgvdresfeiroc.doc.