Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-10-22 - AGENDA REPORTS - PH WESTRIDGE RESIDENTIAL PROJ (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval ; Item to be presen ed, CONSENT CALENDAR LYNN HARRIS a'cliJ DATE: October 22, 1991 SUBJECT: Westridge Residential/Commercial Project: Resolution for Regional Planning Commission at November 13, 1991 Public Hearing Resolution Number: 91-167 -DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND On November 13, 1991, the Regional Planning Commission will conduct the . continued public hearing on the Valencia Company's -proposedWestridge residential/commercial subdivision project. Previous� hearings' have occurred on April 17, June 27, and September 26. The City.has'provided testimony an the project in letters dated January 29, April 11, July 9, August'2, September 5, and September 20, 1991; in public testimony on April 17, June'27, and September 26, 1991; and in Resolution 91-19 (presented at public rhearing .on April 17, 1991). At the public hearing on June 27, the Regional Planning Commission directed County staff toprepare a. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). on the project, partly in response to City testimony, and directed the applicant to revise the project to minimize impacts to the Significant Ecological Area. The SEIR and revised project were released for public review on •September 19,- 1991, and testimony on the revised project was taken at the public hearing on September 26. The revised 798.5 acre Westridge project includes 1,890 residential units on 419.8 acres, 41.5 acres of commercial uses, a 17 -acre elementary school and park site, and a 201.8 acre public golf course and related support facilities. The project has been revised from a previous proposal presented at public hearings on April 17 and June 27 which included 1,872 residential units on 432.4 acres, 51.4 acres of commercial uses, a 17 -acre elementary school and park site, and a 213 -acre public golf course. The Draft Environmental Impact Report evaluated a 1,939 -unit project; prior to the first public. hearing, the number of units was decreased to 1,872,: and has been increased in the present project to 1890 units. Among the various entitlements requested by the applicant is the request for a General Plan Amendment, which would revise the land use designations mapped in the County's recent Update to the Santa Clarita Valley Areawide'General Plan. According to the SEIR, the maximum density assigned to the property with current designations allows 2,828.units; no minimum or midpoint density are given. The density range for the amended designations is 938 to 2380 units; the proposed project density would exceed the midpoint density by approximately 231 units.1. f Adopted: 16-- �,,€;a Item: The project anticipates encroachment of approximately 206 acres of the 300 -acre SEA. Approximately 94 acres of the SEA will remain in a contiguous state. Compared to the previous proposal, more trees are proposed to remain in the project, incorporated into the residential and golf course area; however, the ecological value and integrity of the SEA may be reduced substantially if the project is approved in its current design. Both Regional Planning staff and the County Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee (SEATAC) have recommended that the project either be denied, 'or substantially redesigned to avoid all encroachment of the SEA. Several alternative projects and three alternative sites are described in the DEIR and SEIR. All alternatives to the proposed project, including those which avoided development in the .SEA, were rejected in.favor of the proposed project. Staff has reviewed the DEIR, SEIR, and associated technical appendices. The City Oak Tree Consultant has provided advice on the quality of the "Resource Management Plan" for the SEA and is preparing a technical. report for submittal to the Regional Planning Commission. The Consultant has found the Plan to be inadequate and unenforceable. The City Traffic Engineer has advised staff on the adequacy of the traffic analysis and of cumulative traffic impacts, and is partially satisfied with the level of mitigation of specific impacts, but remains concerned with the analysis of cumulative impacts, most importantly that the SEIR failed to include the recently -approved Valencia Commerce Center (12,624,000 square foot industrial center) in the cumulative project list. Staff has prepared Resolution 91-167 (attached), which itemizes. the issues of concern to the City, and is preparing additional written testimony in response to the Supplemental EIR. These issues are as follows: 1. Impacts to Significant Ecological Area No. 64. 2. Impacts to City circulation network. 3. Cumulative analysis. 4. Adequacy of mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring program. 5. Justification of General Plan Amendments. 6. Project alternatives and alternative sites for the proposed project. This letter and attachments will be delivered to the Regional Planning Commission on or before the close of the circulation period of the SEIR, November 4, 1991. RECOMMENDATION Accept report, adopt Resolution 91-167, and instruct the Mayor, the Planning Commission Chair and staff to deliver letter, Resolution of. November 13, 1991 and technical comments to the Regional Planning Commission meeting.. LMH:CMK:623 RESOLUTION NO. 91-167 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGARDING THE PROPOSED WESTRIDGE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION„ PROJECT NO. 87222/TRACT 45433 IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, REQUESTING THAT THE COUNTY CONSIDER THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES"TO AND/OR ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR THE PROJECT, AND OPPOSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION " OF SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA NO. 64, AND REQUESTING PROTECTIVE MEASURES/ALTERNATIVES FOR ITS CONTINUED VIABILITY WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will be considering the approval of the proposed Westridge development, which is a 798.5 acre project, including . 1,890 residential units on 419.8 acres, 41.5 acres of commercial uses, a 17 -acre . elementary school and park site, and a 201.8 acre public golf course, and related support facilities, and WHEREAS, the project has been revised from a previous proposal presented at public hearings on April 17 and .June 27 which included 1;872 residential units on 432.4 acres, 51.4 .acres ofcommercial uses, a '17 -acre elementary school and park site, and a 213 -acre public golf course; and WHEREAS, the project applicant has requested the following entitlements: approval of Tentative Tract 45433, Case No. 87-222, including a Subplan Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit, and Oak Tree Permit; and WHEREAS, the project is located northwest of the intersection of McBean Parkway and the Golden State Freeway, west of the City of Santa Clarita and adjacent to the western boundary of the City; and . WHEREAS, an approximately 300 -acre portion of the property has been designated by the County of Los Angeles as Significant Ecological Area No. 64, Valley Oaks Savannah;.Newhall (SEA 64); and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for this project identifies areas of substantial. effect on the environment, including effects to SEA 64, traffic and circulation, noise, air quality, water service, sewage disposal, fire and police protection, educational facilities, biota, scenic qualities, and solid waste disposal; and WHEREAS, the Supplemental Environmental Impact. Report (SEIR) prepared for this project evaluates the revised proposal, and identifies additional areas of environmental effect, notably traffic and other cumulative effects to the City, and also identifies three alternative sites for the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the alternatives and the alternative sites to the proposed project which would avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects have been rejected in the DEIR and SEIR; and WHEREAS, the SEIR states that SEA 64 has been "more precisely identified, resulting in a decrease in the number of trees. located inside, of the SEA and an increase in ,the number of trees located outside the SEA" (p.-86, SEIR); and WHEREAS, the proposed development still proposes to affect over two-thirds of the net area of the SEA; and WHEREAS, the proposed development may have a substantial effect upon the City of Santa Clarita, and its circulation network, infrastructure and levels of service; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has previously commented on the proposed project, as addressed in letters dated January 29, April 11, July 9, August 2, September 5, and September'20, 1991; in public testimony on April 17, June 27, and September 26, 1991; and in Resolution 91-19 (presented at public hearing on April 17,, 1991), incorporated herein by. reference as Attachment 1; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita desires to provide additional formal comment and testimony to the County of Los Angeles on the proposed project and the related Environmental Impact Report, all to be a part of the official record; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY -RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND FIND AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City finds that although some of the effects of this. project may be adequately mitigated by measures identified in the Draft and Supplemental Environmental Impact Reports, project effects to the Significant Ecological Area, the City circulation network, infrastructure, and levels of service, and the cumulative project effects have not been adequately assessed nor appropriate mitigation measures proposed, as addressed in the City's comment on the Draft EIR, dated January 29, 1991,' incorporated herein by reference in Attachment 1. The City requests that the County accept the responsibility for the identification and mitigation.of the effects of this project, and the cumulative' project effects on the City circulation_ network, infrastructure, and levels of service. SECTION 2. In light of the County's recent approval of a comprehensive amendment to the Santa Clarita Valley Areawide Plan; the City is concerned that this project requests further amendments. to said plan. Furthermore, the project appears to exceed the midpoint density of the proposed designations, thereby exceeding future planned infrastructure capacity. The City requests that no further plan amendments be granted at this time, and that no exceedances beyond the midpoint density range be granted unless substantial and overriding community benefits are realized, including mitigation and expansion of the systems necessary to serve such greater densities. SECTION 3. The City finds that the discussion of proposed alternative projects and proposed alternative sites, lacks sufficient analysis and objective: selection and conclusions as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Sections 21001g, 21002, 21003c and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126d. The City further finds that discussion in the DEIR and SEIR of said alternatives and alternative sites appears to exhibit a predetermination toward the proposed project, and falls short of a good faith effort to identify feasible alternatives that would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of'the proposed project. SECTION 4.- The City finds .that Alternative Site "Expanded Site/SEA Open Space Alternative" appears to have merit, to achieve project objectives, and to reduce effects .to SEA 64 to below a significant level, has been rejected for predominantly non -environmental, economic reasons. The City believes that the alternatives should receive serious consideration. SECTION 5. The City further finds that Alternative Site "North River Creek Alternative," although selected in the SEIR as the environmentally superior alternative, may substantially affect another Significant Ecological Area: SEA 19, San Francisquito Canyon. SECTION 6. The City finds that the environmentally superior alternatives, and alternative sites, which ..have been identified and rejected in the Draft-EIR, or a combination thereof as identified by the City, warrant further consideration in order . to determine the appropriate . use and development in and around the Valley Oak Savannah, (L.A. County Significant Ecological Area No. 64). The City opposes the environmental degradation of SEA No. 64, and requests that responsible protective measures and consideration of project alternatives be undertaken by the County, for its continued viability and identity. SECTION 7. The City requests that the County adopt and enforce strict provisions to maintain the integrity of Significant Ecological Area 64 (Valley Oak Savanna, Newhall) in its entirety, .in consideration of any approvals for the proposed project. The. City further requests that the boundaries of SEA 64 be surveyed and defined by an independent biologist team, and that adequate buffer area be provided. SECTION 8. The City further finds that the DEIR and SEIR fail to adequately identify, and therefore to mitigate appropriately, individual and cumulative effects on the Valley Oak Savannah and on the overall habitat both within the Significant Ecological Area and proximate to it. SECTION 9. The City requires that a.response and full assessment of the environmental effects identified in the City's comments be included in the Final EIR prior to certification and carefully considered prior to any approvals being granted for this project. SECTION 10. The City supports any effort to acquire the property within SEA 64 for parkland purposes by any- environmental agency or public agency pursuant .to the provisions of S.B. 659. SECTION 11. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full true correct copy of the action taken. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1991. Carl Boyer, Mayor ATTEST: Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA) I, Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of 1991 by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk