HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-03-10 - AGENDA REPORTS - COUNTY MONITORING VALENCIA (2)NEW BUSINESS
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT:
BACKGROUND
March 10, 1992
County Monitoring: Valencia Co. Wes tridge.Project
Community Development
C-7
On February 12, the Regional Planning Commission (RPCJ approved the' proposed
"Westridge• project in.the following configuration:
Project area: 798 acres Project.amenities:
SEA 64 area: 306 acres Elementary school and park 'site
Golf course
1868 total residential units' Commercial areas
211 of 1296 oak trees.are.proposed to be removed.
Approximately' 200 acres of,the 306 '`acres of'Significant Ecological Area 64
(SEA 64:. Valley Oak Savannah)`:vill be affected: by.either residential. or golf
course development. Part- of- SEA. 64: will be affected by construction of the.
Old Road' connection from'Valencia Blvd. to: McBe4ti.Parkvay,`
At the .final .Commission -public. hearing, (January 23),' opposition., to...the.
project:was'expressed by the County:Department -of'Parks,rand Recreation, County
Significant Ecological"Area Technical'Advisory'Committee (SEATAC); and several
community,organizations.`-The, City has:' presented, extensive 'testimony on the:
project, including City'.Council:,Resolutions 91 19,:and� 91-167 (attached), .
expressing. the' City's concern. for this ,:'project!,s impact: on..SE6' 64. These
Resolutions: specifically opposed the degradation'rof SEA'64,_and requested that
the.County.•.adopt_and enforce'strict-,,provisions ao maintain (its)::integritq:
Council's'direction to. staff'has{been .to maintain a',position ofacknowledging:
that although some. aspects -of, thisproject may. ha4eamerit,:the considerable
encroachment_ upon the SEA is nor:acceptable
The Commission's`decision'.:on the. Conditional Use' rPermit,•Tentative.Tract, .and
Oak Tree Permit may..be`appealed i,to the 'Board of -.Supervisors:. The' zone, change,
and. general -plan.,amendment, as legislative_ actions; -still require "approval..by -
the Board. of Supervisors. Should the'.City. wish`to`pursue.further.action on
thisproje.ct;'staff is_ requesting: policy. direction -:,as .,to the 'City's.,stance,•
the ,degree .of, importance;'that`':_Comic il'.places 'on':this :project`<and '._its
associated' issues, and the. likely .extent of the .City's consideration: of
alternatives or legal remedies
Age�aaa item:
In consideration of these.policy questions;'the Councilmay. take .one
broad approaches, or.a combination of approaches:
1. Active Approach
of 'three
Direct staff to file an appeal of the RPC- decision to the Board of
Supervisors, and pursue legal action. (Appeal fees *for .the tract -map are
$260.00' and anticipated to be approximately $2,000.00 for the Conditional
Use Permit. The latter fee is based on the footage of - the tapes ($0.40
per foot) .from each public hearing,` and has not yet be.en determined.for,
this project.)
Z. Moderate Approach .
Adopt a 'softer" stance with the Board, and,testify at the Board hearing
reiterating the City's stated position without .appealing the RPC
decision. (The strength of. future legal action may be reduced if this
option is taken.)
3. Passive Approach
Cease requesting project changes,, and pursue acquisition and/or dedication
to the City of remaining 'SEA property (approximately 100 acres)'. Request
that the County direct the applicant to pay .the costs of revising,
implementing, and managing the •habitat restoration. program" for a minimum
period..of five years:; .'
In determining the policy approach on the Westridge .project, the following
questions, issues and additional policies should be considered. It should be
noted that. Council policy�on this SEA may .bear a direct relationship to the
City's policy on SEA' s'.vithin:th'e..City, (i.e...SEA.23 the. Santa Clara River.)
1. Of what value is, the SEA: to',the ; City?' What'. 'should City policy be
regarding SEA!s toutside ;'i -of 'ahe..incorporated area? (According to
SEATAC,,County Parks and Recreation,, and.the City.Oak Tree Consultant,
SEA 64 has enough intrinsic ';value ,.to•.be,:preserved in' its -entirety,.: .
particularly -if restoration efforts are: made. .,Both SEATAC and County.
Parks have'stated'-that 'if this pr47ecC is>approved,`the basic nature
"of this 'SEA. will `:be :irreparably.: damaged.)..County policies do allow
development within SEA but:give•little.specific direction about the
degree and type ,,of development In.:their decision, the :Regional
mm
Planning .Coission :focusedon ahe County's 'policy-, to allow
development of.private,property, the, benefits` of.-a_,public. golf course,
and the provision of housing.
2..',Is' the.Council,.satisfied. with the- changes .made to the project. to
date? .The applicant`.has:.,reduced the. request for` oak tree removals
from an original`409.to,ahe 211 now requested. `.Encroachment on .SEA 64 .
has been:'somewhat."reduced;' although not .to the satisfaction of, at
least two County agencies..
3. Does the Council wish to attempt to_change the•;Westridge-project, or
to simply request 'denial?_
4. With SEA 23 in mind, does a decision regarding SEA .64/Westridge
precipitate general policy direction for SEA's and distinguish between
private vs. public projects -- i.e. should the City adopt a "public
benefit standard* for SEA's.when a public project, such as a necessary
roadway, pipeline or other infrastructure is proposed to be
constructed in an SEA, and adopt more strict standards. for private
projects?
It should be noted that City staff is still awaiting receipt of the RPC's
conditions of approval. During theperiodwhile-they are being drafted, staff
has also considered that although Council may choose to appeal the decision,
it would be appropriate to suggest a condition requiring dedication of the
remaining. undeveloped SEA (lots 1090 and 1091) to either the County or- other
public or private non-profit agency for the purpose of guaranteeing its
continuation as open space, available to the public. Staff has prepared a
letter for delivery to Regional Planning to this effect, (attached) including
an offer by the City to the County to accept dedication of the non-developed
portions, including. monitoring and management responsibilities of the SEA.
Staff requests Council approval of this request and -confirmation- of the City's
offer to accept dedication and management responsibilities. .
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive report, and
1. Establish the City's stance on the Westridge project, SEA 64, and the
desired policy approach to be taken (i.e. Active, Moderate, or Passive
approaches). If -active approach is selected; authorize staff to:
a. pursue appeal of the decision by the .Regional Planning Commission
to approve the Westridge-project, including payment of necessary
fees; and
b. take appropriate steps to prepare a foundation for further legal
action, if -necessary.
2. Provide policy direction on Significant Ecological Areas;
3. Approve the letter to Regional Planning- regarding the addition of an
-open space condition and.offer.to accept dedication and management of
a portion of SEA 64.,.and direct staff to deliver the letter to the
Department of Regional Planning.
CMK:724
Attachments: Letter to Mr. 'James Nartl, Director of Regional Planning.
City Council Resolutions 91-19 and 91-167
City of
Santa Clarita
Jill Klajic
Mayor
Howard "Suck" McKeon
Mayor Pro•Tem
Carl Boyer. 3rd
Councilmember
Jo Anne Darcy
Councilmember
Jan Heidt
Councilmember
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Suite 300
City of Santa Clarita
California 91355
February 26, 1992
Phone
(805) 259-2489
Fax
(805) 259.8125
Mr. James Hartl
Director.of Regional Planning
County of Los Angeles
320 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
ATTENTION: MR. DON CULBERTSON, ZONE CHANGE SECTION
Re: Project No. 87-222: Valencia Company 'Westridge'
Dear Mr. Hartl:
It is the City's understanding that Project No. 87-222 "Westridge°
was approved by the Regional Planning Commission on Wednesday,
February 12, and that Regional Planning staff is.presently preparing
the Final EIR with responses to comments, findings and conditions of
approval for the Commission's consideration. We further understand
that the applicant has offered to dedicate the remaining portion of
Significant Ecological Area 64 to the County or other public agency.
If this is so, and if the County is unable to accept the dedication
of SEA 64 for any reason, the City would consider offering to accept
such a dedication, and would be willing to accept the management
responsibilities of the area: We offer. the following as a condition
of approval:
The applicant shall dedicate Lots 1090 and 1091 .of that portion
of the subject property designated as "SEA 64" to the County of
Los Angeles or other public or private non-profit agency for 'the
continued preservation of the property in perpetuity as open
space for low intensity, passive recreational and/or educational
uses, open to the public. The right to restrict construction
for this portion of the property shall be dedicated in
perpetuity to the County of Los Angeles or such other public or
private non-profit agency.
We also request that the•FEIR, conditions of approval, and findings
be sent to the .City as soon as they are available, and prior to
their adoption. If necessary, we will send a messenger down to pick
them up in order to review them..
If you have any questions about our request, please call Christine
Kudija of my staff at (805) 255-4330.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Lynn M. Harris
Deputy City Manager
Community Development
LMH:CMK:718
cc: Dave Vannatta, Planning Deputy
Frank Meneses, Impact Analysis Section
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
VHEREAS, 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 following
entitlements: approval of Tentative Tract 45433, Case No. 87-222, including a
Subplaa.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'ad scent to veatern bounder ...
j ry 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, Nevhall (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;
NOV. 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 2. In light of the County's recent approval of a
comprehensive amendment to the Santa Clarita Valley Areavide 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 S. 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 andappropriatein 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
ptentially 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 29t Aday of January , 1991.
Carl Hoyer, Mayor
ATTEST:
011:A2
GRI E CITY CLE
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 29th day of Janes, 1991, by the following vote of the
Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS Darcy, Beidt, Rlajic,.McRecn, Boyer
NOES:, COUNCILMEMBERS None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS None
1
Reso No. 91-19
r
ONNA GRINDEY, CITY CLE
RESOLUTION NO. 91-167 4
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 OONTINUED 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 an 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 Goldea.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, thei 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 I 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.
areae 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
11
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 271 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
HERESY 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 cumulativeproject effects on the City, circulation' network.
infrastructure, and levels of service.
SECTION - 2, In light of . the County's recent. approval of a
domprehensive amendment to the Santa Clarita Valley Areavide 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 SUR 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 a. 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 an 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 EIS 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.
A
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2214 day of October , 1991.
ATTEST:
nna M. Grindey, City Clerk
STATE -OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
Carl Boyer, Mayor
I, Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing
Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the Cit of Santa Clarita
at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 22nd day of City
1991
by the following vote of Council:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Barry, HeWt,
Klajic, MKeon, Boyer
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Noce
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
onna M. Grindey, City Clerk