HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-10-22 - RESOLUTIONS - PROJ 87222 TRACT 45433 (2)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 of commercial 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
rte. 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 22nd day of October , 1991.
Carl Boyer, Mayor
ATTEST:
nna 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 22nd day of October 1991
by the following vote of Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Darcy, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Boyer
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None