Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-01-29 - AGENDA REPORTS - PROJ REVIEW WESTRIDGE VALENCIA (2)DATE: SUBJECT: • January 29, 1991 AGENDA REPORT County Project Review: Westrid Project 87-222) Resolution Number: 91-19 DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND City Manager Approval Item to be presented by: The project referenced above is a proposal to the County of Los Angeles by the Valencia Company to develop an approximately 798 -acre property, west of Interstate 5, north of McBean Parkway, and adjacent to the western boundary of the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed extension of Valencia Boulevard intersects the northerly third of the property, and a proposed segment of The Old Road traverses the eastern segment of the property from north to south. (See attached map) The development includes 1939 residential units (1221 single and 718 multi -family units), 41.5 acres of commercial development, a 191.5 -acre. golf course, and a 12.5 -acre elementary school and park site. Significant Ecological Area No. 64, (Valley Oak Savannah, Newhall) occupies approximately 300 acres of the site, and is predominately contained within the subject property. The applicant proposes to remove 411 of 1296 oak trees, and to grade approximately 9.6 million cubic yards of earth in the course of site development. To implement this project, the applicant is requesting that the County approve a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Oak Tree Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Tract Map. Staff has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report.(EIR) prepared for the project and has prepared the attached draft letter to Mr. James Hartl, Director of Los Angeles County Regional Planning for inclusion and response into the Final EIR. The primary areas of concern are: 1. General Plan and Land Use 2. Biota: Impacts to SEA 64 3. Traffic and Circulation 4. Alternative Analysis In addition, staff has prepared a draft resolution for presentation to the County of Los Angeles, requesting the County to address and fully mitigate these concerns, and specifically to protect the Significant Ecological Area. RECOMMENDATION: Review attachments, adopt Resolution No 9_L-19'and direct staff to transmit the attached letter and Resolution to Los Angeles County. CMK:428 Adopted: Agenda Item: --N. RESOLUTION NO. 91-19 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 THE COUNTY TO IDENTIFY AND MITIGATE TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, OPPOSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION OF SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA NO. 64 AND REQUESTING PROTECTIVE MEASURES/ALTERNATIVES FOR ITS CONTINUED VIABLILITY 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 1,939 residential units on 415.8 acres, 41.5 acres of commercial uses, a 12.6 acre elementary school site, and a 184.7 acre public golf course and related support facilities, and WHEREAS, the.project applicant has requested the fallowing 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 Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for this project identifies areas of substantial environmental impact, including impacts 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 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 proposed development may have a substantial impact upon the City of Santa Clarita, and its circulation network, infrastructure and levels of service, WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita desires to provide 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: Reso No. 91-19 SECTION 1. The City finds that although some of the impacts of.this project may be adequately mitigated by measures identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, project impacts to the Significant Ecological Area, the City circulation network, infrastructure, and levels of service, and the cumulative project impacts have not been adequately addressed nor appropriate mitigation measures proposed, as addressed in the City's comment on the Draft EIR, dated January 29, 1991, incorporated herein by reference as Attachment 1. The City requests that the County accept the responsibility for the identification and mitigation of the impacts of this project, and the cumulative project impacts on the City circulation network, infrastructure, and levels of service. SECTION Z. 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. The City requests that no further plan amendments be granted at this time unless substantial community benefits are realized. SECTION 3. 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 consideration of any approvals for the proposed project. SECTION 4. The City finds that the environmentally superior alternatives which have been identified and rejected in the Draft EIR, or a combination thereof, 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 5. The City further finds that an analysis of alternative sites has not been performed for this project and that such an alternative site for this project may be feasible and appropriate in light of substantial available land in the vicinity which is controlled by the applicant that would avoid encroachment into the significant ecological area and lessen significant environmental effects. SECTION 6. The City requires that further environmental assessment be conducted.on this project, including a good faith effort to evaluate potentially significant individual and cumulative impacts, feasible alternatives and mitigation measures which would lessen the significant environmental effects of the project; and, that this evaluation, -together with a response and full assessment of the environmental impacts 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 7. 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. Reso No. 91-19 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 1991. Carl Boyer, Mayor ATTEST: DONNA GRINDEY, CITY CLERK I HEREBY CERTIFY that the 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.the Council: AYES: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS DONNA GRINDEY, CITY CLERK Reso No. 91-19 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valenolvd. Suite 300 City of Santa Clarita California 91355 January 29, 1990 Phone (805)259-2489 Fax (805) 259-8125 ATTACHMENT 1 Los Angeles County Significant Ecological Area (SEA) No. 64, (Valley Oak Savannah, Newhall) occupies approximately 300 acres of the site, and is predominately contained within the subject property. The City is encouraged by the applicant's provision of an elementary school site, as well as by the proposal to use reclaimed water for landscape and golf course irrigation. Additionally, the City Department of Parks and Recreation has substantiated the interest in the local community for a public golf course of this magnitude. However, we have concerns Mr. James Hartl Director of Regional Planning County of Los Angeles 320 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Carl Boyer, 3rd Attention: Ms. Julie Cook Mayor Jill Klajic RE: Project No. 87-222 (TTM 45433) Vestridge residential Mayor Pro -rem subdivision; Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report Jo Anne Darcy Counciimember Dear Mr. Hartl: Jan Heidt The City of Santa Clarita has reviewed the Draft Environmental councilmember Impact Report (DEIR) for the project referenced above, and Howard "Buck" McKeon would like to submit the following comments to be included, councilmember together with a response, in the Final EIR. As you know, the project encompasses an area of approximately 798 acres -in the unincorporated area of the Santa Clarita Valley, west of Interstate 5, north of McBean Parkway, and traversed by the westerly extension of Valencia Boulevard. The proposed development includes 1939 residential units (1221 single and 718 multi -family units), 41.5 acres of commercial development, a 191.5 -acre public golf course, and a 12.5 -acre elementary school and park site. The applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Oak Tree Permit (for the removal of 411 of 1296 oak trees), Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Tract Map. Los Angeles County Significant Ecological Area (SEA) No. 64, (Valley Oak Savannah, Newhall) occupies approximately 300 acres of the site, and is predominately contained within the subject property. The City is encouraged by the applicant's provision of an elementary school site, as well as by the proposal to use reclaimed water for landscape and golf course irrigation. Additionally, the City Department of Parks and Recreation has substantiated the interest in the local community for a public golf course of this magnitude. However, we have concerns 0 January 29, 1991 Page Two E regarding the implications of this proposal to the recently adopted Areavide General Plan, and regarding impacts to the Significant Ecological Area, impacts to City streets and intersections, and potential impacts to the Santa Clara River. We are also concerned that although the discussion of development.alternatives presented in the DEIR presents two alternatives which greatly reduce environmental impact to the site by avoiding residential development within the SEA, rejection of these alternatives does not appear to be adequately substantiated. Based on the analysis provided, Alternative No. 4 is environmentally superior, and needs to be Identified as such. Furthermore, the DEIR lacks a discussion of alternative sites for the project, as required by Section 15126(d):of the State CEQA Guidelines. Finally, the City requests that the applicant's request for a General Plan Amendment be fully evaluated, particularly in light of.the Board of Supervisors' recent adoption of the Santa Clarita Valley Areavide Plan Update. The City requests that the following areas of impact, and mitigation measures to these impacts, be identified and addressed more completely than have been presented in the DEIR: Our concerns are summarized as follows: 1. General Plan and Land Use The City recognizes that the Board of Supervisors recently adopted the Update to the Santa Clarita Valley Areavide Plan. The City emphatically requests that no further plan amendments be granted at this time, unless substantial benefits to the local and regional community are achieved by them. While the proposed "championship" public golf course is a recognized benefit, it is achieved at the expense of SEA 64. 2. Impacts to SEA 64 (Valley Oak Savannah) The proposed project introduces residential, recreational, and commercial uses into the Significant Ecological Area. Examination of the project design, including the proposed cut.and fill map, indicates that all of the SEA will be impacted by project grading. 0 0 January 29, 1991 Page Three It is the City's understanding that the Los Angeles County Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee (SEATAC) concluded:that this project would create "significant adverse impacts, as well as cumulative impacts by the removal.of significant portions of SEA 64 as a viable natural resource." (SEATAC Minutes, 8/7/89) In addition, the County Department of Parks and Recreation has stated that "grading in excess of 9 million cubic yards will eliminate the Oak woodland habitat and reduce SEA 64 to nothing more than a fragmented assemblage of oak trees surrounded by housing." (Letter dated 7/5/90, to Impact Analysis Section) The DEIR states that the SEA has already been adversely impacted over the years by intensive grazing and recent fires. However, biologists have also found that when grazing pressures are removed from natural areas, oak and other native vegetation reproduction improves dramatically. Also, the project biologist has stated in the DEIR that acorns from on-site oak trees have germinated readily in his lab. (DEIR Technical Appendix, biological resources report by James Henrickson, PhD, 9/16/87, p. 5) The Final EIR ` should address whether the viablity of the SEA would be similarly improved if cattle are removed from the site, and, if so, an appropriate mitigation measure should be incorporated. The City's Oak Tree Consultant has found the proposed "oak habitat management program" to be marginally adequate; if the project is implemented as proposed, minimal natural oak habitat will remain for management. Consultation with experienced restoration specialists has uncovered inadequacies in the plan, particularly concerning specifics of planting and managing native grasses, use of herbicides, and mowing. The plan's list of plants fails to include many of the native annuals and perennials found on the site by the project biologist. Neither is reservation of topsoil mentioned; topsoil is a "seed bank," containing native seeds and microorganisms, and its reservation is normally a part of an adequate revegetation program. In light of the significance of the site of the EIR should identify state-of-the-art restoration techniques for inclusion as mitigation measures. • 0 January 29, 1991 Page Four Finally, the City concurs with the findings of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in that Significant Ecological Areas have intrinsic, regional importance, and merit their General Plan designation. The City also concurs with the findings of SEATAC and the position of County Parks and Recreation, in that the impacts to SEA 64 from this project as proposed would be substantial and irreversible. 2. Traffic and Infrastructure Impacts The traffic analysis section fails to address several items of importance to the City, including: a. The City is concerned that the cumulative traffic impact analysis failed to include at least 10 nearby planned or existing projects, which include, but are not limited to: (1) Valencia Town Center, (2) North Hills residential, (3) Valencia Industrial Center expansion, (4) Valencia Commerce Center, (5) Valencia "Business Park", (6) Valencia Magic Mountain Resort, (7) College of the Canyons, (8) Stevenson Ranch Phase V, and Sanborn Ranch, (9) Golden State Business_Park, and (10) the Valencia Corporate Center (see attached map). The traffic impact analysis should be revised to reflect all related projects, per CEQA Section 15130. b. The report forecasts 40% of the estimated 37,000 daily trips (14,840) to impact City streets, but fails to address the potential impacts on any street or at any intersection in the City east of the freeway interchanges. c. The report predicts an additional 15,000 trips will impact the I-5 freeway, south of McBean Parkway. These trips should be examined, particularly regarding that portion of I-5 south of Calgrove Boulevard. d. The report illustrates a number of newroadway connections and freeway interchange enhancements as mitigation measures for both the Westridge and "related" projects. As in "a" above, mitigation measures should be re-examined in light of all related projects, including the application of mitigation measures within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita as necessary. Clearly, additional mitigation measures should be recommended at McBean and The Old Road in order to mitigate the volume/capacity ratio below the County -designated threshold of 0.85. Once a complete assessment has been conducted, the need for additional mitigation measures is likely. January 29, 1991 Page Five e. The improvements referenced in "d" above are shown in the form of lane geometrics on Figure III -1N in the final EIR. While the lane geometrics appear reasonable, the present length of the eastbound left -turn lane on Magic Mountain Parkway at the northbound I-5 on-ramp is inadequate in length to accommodate the turning volume (Fig. III -IM) predicted. Also, center piers for the freeway overpass may preclude significant alterations of the lane. f. It is difficult to determine which of the proposed mitigation measures will be required as conditions of approval for the project, or when their installation would occur. The Final EIR should identify specific mitigation measures that would accompany this project, and address proposed phasing and deadlines for their construction. g. The report indicates that the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works initially advised that the Valencia Boulevard interchange improvements be operational before issuance of building permits for this project, but apparentlychanged this recommendation to allow the applicant to demonstrate available capacity at the interchanges as development proceeds.(p. 52, DEIR) The City considers the previous recommendation to be reasonable, and requests that it be re-evaluated in the context of "f" above. h. The DEIR implies that right-of-way will be "reserved" for the construction of a direct southbound on-ramp to I-5 for eastbound motorists from Valencia Boulevard.(Fig. I-5) A condition of approval should require the irrevocable dedication of the right-of-way. i. The DEIR states that the project will be responsible for certain Bridge and Thoroughfare fees, and that traffic signals would be financed from these districts. The City requests that the County determine whether B&T fees may be used for traffic signals, as well as whether the fees will be adequate for the necessary mitigation, and that the final EIR address these important issues. 3. Impacts to the Santa Clara River The Santa Clara River is considered by the City to be a valuable natural resource, and provides habitat for two Federally endangered species. The City considers the potential impacts of diversion of tertiary treated water from the river to a reclaimed water line, and impacts related to the installation of the water line to be inadequately addressed in the DEIR, as further 0 January 29, 1991 Page Six described below. We request -that the proposed reclaimed water line installation, and related . impacts, be discussed in greater detail. The applicant is proposing two methods for the installation of the reclaimed water line; one of these may require substantial trenching and removal of vegetation in the riverbed, in the vicinity of The Old Road and Magic Mountain Parkway. This alternative would require the applicant to seek permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Game. The second alternative, installing a water line within existing utility openings in the bridge pylons, may impact the river less severly and should be explored in greater detail. The report implies that the proposed pipe size may be a limiting factor, but does not discuss alternative pipe sizes, or other alternatives to disruption of the riverbed. The City of Santa Clarita appreciates the opportunity to comment on this significant project. As soon as it is available, please send us a copy of the final EIR.incorporating responses to comments, including proposed mitigation measures and the monitoring plan, as well as the staff analysis, site plans, proposed findings and draft conditions of approval. Sincerely, LYNN M. HARRIS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY LMH: CK: ID: 420 cc: George Caravalho, City Manager Dave Vanatta, Planning Deputy ■ RELATED PROJECT LOCATION (See Table III -F for Tract/Parcel Number.) Related Project Area Locations WESTRIDGE EIR Valencia Companyqw N NOT To SCALE soca FIGURE AAM ul-1 K