Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-01-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - COUNTY MONITORING RESO 92 7 (2)NEW BUSINESS DATE: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: BACKGROUND AGENDA REPORT City Manager Ap Item to be pres January 14, 1992 County Monitoring: Vesting Tentative Map 31803.(Loh Project) Resolution Number: 92-7 Community Development This project is a proposal to the County of Los Angeles by Dr. W. H. T. Loh to subdivide and develop an approximately 206 acre site which spans the ridgeline between Soledad and Plum Canyons, west of Sky Blue Mesa. The site borders the City on its southern, western, and on a portion of its northern property line. (See attached map) Ridgelines on the portion of the property proposed to be developed have been mapped by the City as Primary and Secondary Ridgelinds, with elevations exceeding 18001. A segment of the proposed Santa Catarina Road traverses the property from Plum Canyon on the north to the southern property line. The development includes 879 residential units (183 single family and. 696 multiple family units) and a 5.2 -acre public park site. The applicant , proposes to remove the single oak tree on the site, and to grade approximately two million cubic yards of earth in the course of site development. The proposed grading will reduce the high point of the significant ridgeline (18171) by more than 100' in elevation. To implement this project, the applicant is requesting that the County 'approve a Zone Change, Oak Tree _Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Tract Map. General Plan designations for the site were revised with the 1990 County Santa Clarita Valley Areawide Plan Update, and include single and multi -family designations. The DEIR indicates that the current Plan designations would permit a unit density range of 390.7 to 943.8 units, implying a midpoint density of 667 units. This project exceeds that midpoint by:212 units. Staff has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), and has transmitted the attached letter to Mr. James Hartl, Director of Los Angeles County Regional Planning. The DEIR :discusses numerous environmental impacts of this project; however, staff has found that many deficiencies still exist in the document, and consider it to be incomplete and inadequate with respect to the following impacts, which are discussed in detail in the letter: • General Plan consistency and land use density • Visual impacts, Significant Ridgeline and hillside grading • Traffic and circulation •• Cumulative impacts • Impacts to oak trees and other biota • Project alternatives lot AdopYea: Agenda Item: The Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on this project on January 22, 1992. Staff has prepared a draft resolution for presentation to the Commission, requesting that County revise and recirculate the DEIR, so that these concerns might be fully addressed and,mitigated. RECOMMENDATION: Review attachments, adopt Resolution No 92-7 and direct staff to transmit the attached Resolution, and any additional testimony which results from Council discussion, to Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission on January 22, 1992. W114F.f I�] City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 City of Santa Clarita California 91355 January 3, 1991 Phone (805) 259.2489 Fax (805) 259-8125 Mr. James Marti Director of Regional Planning County of Los Angeles 320 Vest Temple Street Las Angeles, CA 90012 ATTENTION: MR. FRANK MENESES, IMPACT ANALYSIS SECTION Re: Project No. 86-237: Vesting Tentative Map No. 31803; residential subdivision proposed by Dr. W. H. T. Loh Dear Mr. Hartl: The City of Santa Clarita has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the project referenced above. we understand this project to be the subdivision of approximately 206 acres spanning the ridgeline between Soledad and Plum Canyons, west of Sky Blue Mesa, for 879 single and multiple family units and a 5.2 -acre public park site. The DEIR discusses numerous environmental impacts of this project. However, we have found numerous deficiencies. in. the document, and consider it to be incomplete and inadequate with respect to the following impacts: • General Plan consistency and land use density • Visual impacts, significant ridgeline and hillside grading • Traffic and circulation • Cumulative impacts • Impacts to oak trees and other biota • Project alternatives A. General Plan consistency and land use density 1. The DEIR states that the Santa Clarita Valley Areavide Plan designations for this property were revised in the 1990 Plan Update, and now include U1 (69.7 acres), U2 (24.1 acres), U3 (34.5 acres), HM (61.1), and N1 (16.4 acres). A density range is shown on page 3-10, indicating that these designations would accommodate between 390.7 to 943.8 units, implying a mid-range density of 667 units. According to our calculations. 879 units would exceed the mid-range density by 212 units. The DEIR should verify and address this excess, including cumulative impacts. We understand that infrastructure plans in the County have been based on development at midrange densities. Therefore, it is the City's position that unless a project will provide substantial public benefit, no consideration over midpoint should be granted. We are concerned about all projects that exceed the midpoint density because the infrastructure and planned circulation network has not been designed to carry volumes above those generated by the midpoint density. Substantial public benefit would .include major off-site infrastructure improvements, contribution to schools and library systems, and other mitigation measures as suggested in Part C-6 (Traffic Impacts) below. 2. Lot 184 is shown on the tentative map and in the DEIR without access or use designation. With the exception of a brief reference in the biota report, which implies that future residential development is intended, no use is discussed in the DEIR. (p. 15, Biological Assessment) Is it intended to be a remainder parcel? Designated open space? Since its area was used for determining the number of units for the site, it would appear to be appropriate to include a mitigation measure that requires this lot to be dedicated as open space, and that the right to restrict construction be dedicated to the County of Los Angeles. B. Visual impacts, significant ridgeline and hillside grading 1. The property is located on a ridgeline considered to be a "Primary Ridgeline" according to the City's Draft Significant Ridgeline Map and Draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. It is a visually dominant ridgeline which separates Soledad Canyon from Plum Canyon. The visual impact of this project on neighboring communities and traffic corridors has neither been discussed nor illustrated, and is of such significance that it should merit a separate section in the DEIR, including a full visual, state of the art assessment. 2. The DEIR does not state if graded material is proposed to be balanced on site or whether it will be transported off site. The project should be designed to balance all grading on site. However, if any material is planned to be transported, then the impact of transport and disposal routes and locations should be identified. If material is planned to be transported through the City of Santa Clarita, a conditional use permit must be obtained from the City. 3. Cut slopes of 1.5:1 are proposed at heights up to 200 feet; fill slopes of up to 220 feet are also proposed. The DEIR does not contain cross sections or diagrams illustrating these major landform alterations, nor does it discuss the impact and visibility of these specific slopes from existing development, traffic corridors, etc. The DEIR should assess the project in terms of the County's Hillside Design Guidelines, including grading guidelines for landform grading, encouragement of slopes at less that 2:1 ratios, and the discouragement of cuts and fills in excess of 50 feet. In addition, due to the significant relationship of this property to the City of Santa Clarita, it is strongly requested that the project be assessed in terms of conformance with the City's Draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance and Guidelines (copy attached). C. Impacts to Traffic and Circulation We have numerous concerns regarding the adequacy of the scope and content of the traffic and circulation analysis in the DEIR (Section 4.4) and the associated traffic report (Appendix C). our concerns include the discussion of access, analysis and projection of traffic volumes, street configuration, and funding of roads assumed to be completed and operational when this project is constructed. 1. Access and Circulation a. The DEIR assumes completion of several planned roadway improvements by the time the project is completed, including Santa Catarina Road (Golden Valley Road) between Plum Canyon Road and State Route 14, Plum Canyon Road between Bouquet Canyon Road and Whites Canyon Road, and Whites Canyon Road to Sierra Highway, and others (p. 4.4-9, DEIR). According to the DEIR, project completion is anticipated to be in 1994. It is unlikely that Santa Catarina will connect to Soledad Canyon Road, or that Golden Valley or Whites Canyon Roads will connect to the Antelope Valley Freeway by then. Also, specific alignments for Santa Catarina/Golden Valley Road have not been adopted within the City; has the County adopted an alignment for this important arterial? b. The DEIR indicates that primary local access to the project will be provided by the (proposed) Santa Catarina Road/Golden Valley Road. This road is not in construction now, nor is it to be expected to be completed prior to 1994. Although it is identified as Capital Improvement Project No. 91-1207, City of Santa Clarita Five -Year Capital Improvement Program, no funding has been designated by the City. c. The DEIR does not include an analysis of the intersection of Santa Catarina/Golden Valley Road with Sierra Highway although it appears that the intersection will be impacted by future project traffic, and is assumed as in "a" above to be operational by project completion. d. The .DEIR does not address potential impact of project traffic on Dorothy Street (currently a residential cul-de-sac), although the tentative map shows Dorothy Street as an access route and connection to Whites Canyon Road. 2. Traffic Volume a. The DEIR indicates that the proposed project would generate 5,081 vehicle trips per :day, of which 391 and 511 would occur during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. However, trip generation rates used in the DEIR for multi -family dwelling units are substantially lower than those rates currently used in the City, and traffic volumes indicated for existing conditions are significantly lower than those currently experienced on the arterial highways examined. We are thus concerned that actual trip generation may be larger than is estimated. b. Although .the DEIR is dated November 1991,. and is in circulation now, the traffic report is. dated February 1990, reflecting data that is nearly two years old. c. The traffic volumes (turning movements) indicated for the AM and PM peak -hours under existing conditions are significantly different from those measured by the City as recently as February 1991. d. The DEIR assigns SIX (AM peak .hour) and 82Z (PM peak hour) of the entire project peak hour trip generation through the (future) intersection of Santa Catarina -Road with Soledad Canyon Road. The DEIR also assigns 65Z of the project -generated traffic (AM outbound, PM inbound) to (future) Santa Catarina Road south of Soledad Canyon Road. However, the mitigation program in the DEIR.does not address whether or not the applicant intends to construct these significant off-site improvements so that these impacts may be accommodated. 3. Street Configuration a. Intersection traffic -lane configurations shown as "existing" are incorrect for the intersections of Bouquet Canyon Road with Valencia Boulevard and with Newhall Ranch Road. b. The DEIR proposes additional intersection improvements as mitigation; however, due. to existing development, some of the proposed mitigation (such as road widening on Whites Canyon Road, Soledad Canyon Road, Sierra Highway, and Newhall Ranch Road, Bouquet Canyon Road, and grade separation at Bouquet Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road, and others; (pp. 5-9, 5-10, DEIR) may not be viable. 4. Infrastructure Financing a. The DEIR states that Santa Catarina Road is "one of several planned roadways scheduled for construction in the Bouquet Canyon Hi hwav improvement Benefit District . As far as we know, there is no Bouquet Canyon Highway Improvement Benefit District. However, we believe that the DEIR may mean the Bouquet Canyon Bridge and Thoroughfare District. However, it is the City's understanding that neither the latter District nor any other District include Santa Catarina Road between (future) Newhall Ranch Road (future SR 126?) and Plum Canyon Road. The DEIR should identify means of constructing and financing this necessary roadway. 5. Additional Traffic Analysis In addition to the above comments, and in order to provide a minimally adequate assessment of this project's potential traffic impacts, we request that the traffic analysis be updated and/or expanded as follows: a. Use current (within 6 months) traffic counts for all "existing conditions" calculations. b. Use up-to-date trip -generation rates for multi -family dwelling units (we note that the DEIR contains a letter from the County Traffic and Lighting Division requesting that 8 vehicle trips per day.be used for multi_family units, and concur with this recommendation.) c. Analyze Catarina directly the intersection of Sierra Road (Golden Valley to this project and to Road) fo cumulative Highway/Santa r impacts due impacts. d. Analyze the impact of project traffic on .Dorothy Street with respect to its potential use as a route to Whites Canyon Road and the Antelope Valley Freeway/SR 14. e. Identify the alignments, funding mechanisms, implementation responsibilities and anticipated construction schedules for all currently non-existent arterials/intersections identified as assumed to be completed prior to construction of the proposed project. We concur with the recommendations of the Traffic and Lighting Division (1/24/91) that no building permits should be issued for this project unless the following improvements are .complete and operational: a. Plum Canyon Road connection to Whites Canyon Road b. Whites Canyon Road extension south of Soledad Canyon Road to Via Princessa and further to Sierra Highway c. Santa Catarina Road/Golden Valley Road. between Plum Canyon and State Route 14 D. Cumulative impacts Pages 4.4-28 through 4.4-35 contain discussion of cumulative traffic impacts to the Santa Clarita Valley, and specific City streets and intersections, particularly with respect to proposed future development. On Page 4.4-28, the DEIR states that "using these values, (values for analysis recommended by Los Angeles County) it was seen that impacts at intersections cannot be mitigated to acceptable levels of service even with a portion of the planned roadways built." The DEIR continues with a discussion of assumed reductions in related future projects, that, if implemented, could result. in reduced future traffic impacts, and consequently could reduce this project's contribution to cumulative impacts. We question whether it is reasonable for one applicant to propose reduction in projects not under this applicant's control, especially when the proposed project exceeds midpoint density by more than 200 units, and no reduction is proposed for it. E. Impacts to biota The project proposes removal of the single oak tree on the property, as well as the removal ofsubstantial riparian or wetland vegetation in tributaries of the Santa Clara River. Mitigation measures proposed in the biota report, such as the creation of new wetland areas on the site, (p. 21, Biological Assessment) have not been included in the mitigation program for the project. Avoidance of these impacts have apparently not been considered, nor has avoidance been discussed in the DEIR. F. Project alternative analysis A single.. development alternative (205 single-family units) is proposed in the DEIR. Where this alternative does substantially reduce traffic impacts by reducing the overall number of units, it does not address the reduction of other impacts, such as those to the significant ridgeline. A reasonable array of alternatives should use the Los Angeles County Hillside Guidelines for project design, and demonstrate sensitivity to the site topography and vegetation, as well as to the established community surrounding it, including mitigation of impacts identified in the. assessment of the proposed project. We request that one of these alternatives be designed using the City's adopted General Plan, which has a General Plan designation of RVL for this entire property (0.5 - 1 d.u./acre) arid the City's Draft Implementing Ordinance and Guidelines, with the ridgeline map, entitled "Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance and Guidelines. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this significant project. As soon as they are available, please forward the draft conditions of approval and any revised staff reports to the attention .of Christine &udija, Assistant Planner, of my staff. We will be sending a representative to the scheduled public hearing on January 22, 1992; please inform us if there are any changes to this schedule. We would also appreciate an opportunity to discuss our concerns regarding this application with your staff. prior to the hearing, and will call to arrange an appointment with you and your staff. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 255-4330. Sincere y, C Ji Lynn M. Harris Deputy -City Manager/Community Development LMH:CMK:674 cc: Dave Vannatta, Planning Deputy Nancy Manzanares, Zone Change Section Frank Meneses, Impact Analysis Section Dean Efstathiou, Land Development Division, Public Works Brooks Harper, US Fish and Wildlife David Castenon, US Army Corps of Engineers RESOLUTION NO. 92-7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGARDING THE PROPOSED "LOH" RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, PROJECT NO. 86-237 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 31803 IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY REQUESTING THE COUNTY TO IDENTIFY AND MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will be considering the approval of the proposed Loh development, which is a 206 acre project, including 879 single and multi -family residential units and a 5 -acre park site; and WHEREAS, the project applicant has requested the following entitlements: approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 31803, Case No. 86-237, including a Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit, and Oak Tree Permit; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for this project identifies areas of substantial environmental impact, including traffic and circulation, geotechnical, biota, flood hazard, noise, air quality, water service, sewage disposal, fire and police protection, educational facilities, library services, and solid waste disposal; and WHEREAS, the DEIR did not identify or did not adequately address other areas of substantial environmental impact to the City of Santa Clarita, including land use, specific traffic and circulation impacts, ridgeline impacts, visual impacts, cumulative impacts, biota impacts, and did not include a reasonable range of project alternatives; and WHEREAS, the project is located on the ridgeline between Soledad and Plum Canyons, west of Sky Blue Mesa, north of the City of Santa Clarita and adjacent to the northern boundary of the City; and WHEREAS, the ridgeline and its subsidiary ridges have been designated by the City as Significant Primary and Secondary Ridgelines according to the Santa Clarita Draft Significant Ridgeline Map and Draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the proposed grading for this project will reduce the Primary Ridgeline by more than one hundred feet in elevation, and will affect the remainder of the ridgelines on the site; and WHEREAS, the proposed development may have a substantial impact upon the City of Santa Clarita, its visual environment, and its circulation network,. infrastructure and levels of service; and 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 DEIR,_ all to be a part of the official record; Reso 92-7 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 impacts of this project may be adequately mitigated by measures .identified in the DEIR, project impacts to the City circulation network, infrastructure, and levels of service, and its visual environment, 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 December 31, 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 2. In light of the County's recent approval of a comprehensive amendment to the Santa Clarita Valley Areawide Plan, including amendments to Plan designations of this property, the City recognizes that the Plan designates this property for mixed residential uses, with a density range indicated in the DEIR of 390.7 to 943.8 units. The City requests that no units that would cause the project density to exceed the midpoint density be permitted unless substantial community benefits are realized. SECTION 3. The City finds that the single development alternative identified and rejected in the DEIR, appears to have been designed to maximize the number of single-family. units on the site, rather than to lessen or .avoid significant environmental effects as required by Section 21002 of the California Environmental Quality Act. The City requests that further consideration of alternatives be performed in order to determine the appropriate use and development of the property, which contains significant primary and secondary ridgelines, an oak tree, and riparian/wetland areas. SECTION 4. The City strongly opposes any grading or encroachment of Significant- Primary or Secondary Ridgelines. The City requests that the County utilize the City's Draft Significant Ridgeline Map and Draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance in consideration of project alternatives. SECTION 5. The- City requests that the DEIR be revised and recirculated, in order that appropriate .environmental 'assessment be conducted on this project. The City requests that the revised DEIR demonstrate a good faith effort to evaluate potentially significant individual and cumulative impacts to the City, as identified in Attachment 1. The City further requests that feasible alternatives and mitigation measures be identified for this site which would lessen the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. SECTION 6. 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 , 1992. Jill Rlajic, Mayor Reso 92-7 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 1992, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS DONNA GRINDEY, CITY CLERK f �•WIYAW Isco FI(jURE 2.1-2 -� H !YON NTRY VICINITY MAP N ABase Map: Thomas Guide VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 31803