HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-06-23 - AGENDA REPORTS - STEVENSON RANCH PHASE 4 (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presente Ur .
CONSENT CALENDAR Lynn M. Harris ,
DATE: June 23, 1992
SUBJECT: County Project Review: Stevenson Ranch Phase 4 (Dale. Poe
Development Corporation; VTTM 43896, Project 89-436)
Resolution Number: 92-127
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND: The project referenced above is a proposal to the County of Los
Angeles by the Dale Poe Development Corporation ,to develop an approximately
851 -acre property, west of Interstate 5, south of Pico Canyon Road, and
approximately 1/2 mile west of the City boundary. The proponent is proposing
to extend McBean Parkway through the eastern portion of the property from Pico
Canyon Road to.Calgrove Blvd., south of the project site. (See attached map)
This extension of McBean, which will impact a Significant Ecological Area (SEA
63: Lyon Canyon), and which may provide .access to Towsley Canyon, was deleted
from the Los Angeles County Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan in 1990, and is not
included in the City General Plan.
The development includes 1119 residential units (927 single and 192
multi -family units), 5 acres of commercial development, and a 19.3 -acre
elementary school and park site. A 59 -acre portion of SEA 63 occupies part of
the southeastern area of the site. The applicant proposes to remove 252 of
525 oak trees, including 13 of 20 heritage oaks, and to grade approximately 15
million cubic yards of earth in the course of site development. If McBean
Parkway were extended as'- proposed, additional grading impacts would be
involved.
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 Vesting Tentative Tract Map.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project has been
reviewed and staff has prepared the attached draft letter to Mr. James Hartl,
Director of Los Angeles County Regional Planning for inclusion and response in
the Final EIR. The primary areas of concern are:
1. General Plan and Land Use
2. McBean Parkway extension
3. Ridgeline/Landform grading
4. Traffic and Circulation
5. Biota: Impacts to SEA 63,
(Lyon Canyon), Pico Canyon, oaks
6. Alternative Project Analysis
7. Cumulative.Impacts
In addition, staff has prepared Resolution 92-127,. requesting the County to
address and fully mitigate these concerns, and to protect SEA 63.
RECOMMENDATION: Review attachments, adopt Resolution No 92-127 and direct
staff to transmit the attached letter and Resolution to Los Angeles County.
CMK:783 Adopted
Agenda item:
City of
Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Suite 300
City of Santa Clarita
California 91355
June 16, 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. Frank Meneses, Impact Analysis Section
The applicant has proposed an elementary school site,,
associated with a park site. These are amenities which are
needed and are of recognized public benefit. However, they are
situated on a proposed extension of. McBean Parkway, south of
Pico Canyon. This is a roadway which was specifically deleted
from the Los Angeles County General Plan/Santa Clarita Valley
Area Plan in 1990. Their proposed location appears to argue
for the reinstatement of the road.
A portion of Los Angeles County Significant Ecological Area
Lyon Canyon, (SEA 63), occupies approximately 59 acres of the
site, and the remaining 28 acres of the SEA will be affected by
the proposed extension of McBean Parkway.
From our review of the report, we.consider that the significant
environmental effects described in it have not been accurately
RE: Project No. 89-436 (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change,
Oak Tree Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Vesting
Jilllaajio
Tentative Tract Map 43896) Stevenson Ranch Phase 4;
Mayor
Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report
Jan Heidt
MayorPro-Tem
Dear Mr. Hartl:
Carl Boyer
CounGlmember
The City of Santa Clarita has reviewed the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) for the project referenced above, and
Jo Anne Darcy
offers the following comments in response. We understand that
Councllmember
the project encompasses an area of approximately 851 acres in
George Pederson
the unincorporated area of the Santa Clarita Valley, west of
Counc!lmember
Interstate 5 and The Old Road, and south of Pico Canyon Road.
The proposed development includes 1119 residential units (927
single and 192 multi -family units), 5 acres of commercial
development, an 8 -acre elementary school site,. an 11.3 -acre
park site, a 1 -acre park-and-ride site, and a 1 -acre fire
station site. The applicant has requested permission to remove
252 of 525 oak trees (491 regulated by County ordinance).
The applicant has proposed an elementary school site,,
associated with a park site. These are amenities which are
needed and are of recognized public benefit. However, they are
situated on a proposed extension of. McBean Parkway, south of
Pico Canyon. This is a roadway which was specifically deleted
from the Los Angeles County General Plan/Santa Clarita Valley
Area Plan in 1990. Their proposed location appears to argue
for the reinstatement of the road.
A portion of Los Angeles County Significant Ecological Area
Lyon Canyon, (SEA 63), occupies approximately 59 acres of the
site, and the remaining 28 acres of the SEA will be affected by
the proposed extension of McBean Parkway.
From our review of the report, we.consider that the significant
environmental effects described in it have not been accurately
June 16, 1992
Page Two
evaluated, particularly regarding the implications of this
proposal to the recently adopted Areawide General Plan, and
regarding impacts to the Significant Ecological Area, impacts
to City streets and intersections, . and cumulative and
growth -inducing impacts.
It is our opinion.that recirculation of additional information
and analysis on this project should be seriously considered
because of the following and numerous other deficiencies:
(1) Traffic mitigation and analysis are based on the approval
of the General Plan Amendment for the extension of McBean
Parkway;
(2) The environmental impacts of the off-site extension of
McBean Parkway have. not been evaluated, and have been
specifically excluded as "beyond the scope of this Project
and this DEIR" (p. 93) yet the road is required in the
County Public Works draft conditions of approval in order
to mitigate overall traffic impacts.
(3) The proposed removal of SEA 63 and associated mitigation
for its loss (addition of land to 'SEA 20, Santa Susana
Mountains) relies on the. applicant's ability to acquire
land not now in his ownership, as well as a second
amendment to the L.A. County General Plan (SEATAC minutes,
8/5/91).
(4) The project alternative described in Section . 9.4 --
"Development in Accordance with Existing General Plan
Standards") in our understanding of the County General
Plan, is not in accordance with the Plan because it relies
on construction of McBean Parkway for the provision of a
secondary access to a major highway (and construction of
more than 600 units (p. 551-2, DEIR).
(5) An alternative (other than the "No Project" alternative)
has not been presented which illustrates a project that is
completely in accordance with the existing County Plan,
Zoning and Subdivision Code.
We are also concerned that the remaining discussion of
development alternatives presented in the DEIR presents no
alternative, other than the "no project" alternative, which
greatly reduces environmental impact to the site by avoiding
residential development and road construction within the SEA.
Further, the proposed alternative site is not owned by' the
applicant; it is also our understanding that an application has
June 16, 1992
Page Three
been filed with the County for a major commercial center.
Consequently, this site may not be a feasible alternative to
the project site.
The applicant's request for a General Plan Amendment must also
be fully evaluated, particularly in light of the Board of
Supervisors' recent adoption of the Santa Clarita Valley
Areawide Plan Update, which deleted McBean Parkway from the
Plan, as well as in lightof the Board's recent direction to
reassess the value of and procedures for SEA's. In addition,
the potential growth -inducing impacts of the southerly
extension of McBean Parkway, while discussed, should be
explored in substantially greater detail.
Finally, the City requests that the following specific areas of
impact, and mitigation measures to these impacts, be identified
and addressed more completely than have been presented in the
DEIR:
1. General Plan and Land Use
The City recognizes that the Board of Supervisors recently
adopted the Update to the Santa Clarita Valley Areawide
Plan. The City emphatically requests that no further plan
amendments be granted at this time. The proposed plan
amendment directly counteracts the Board's previous action
to delete McBean Parkway, as well as measures taken in 1991
to examine means to protect and, preserve Significant
Ecological Areas.
2. Impacts to SEA 63 (Lyon Canyon)
The proposed project introduces residential uses and a
secondary highway into the Significant Ecological Area.
It is the City's understanding that the Los Angeles County
Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee
(SEATAC) concluded that "a plan amendment should be
initiated to revise the SEA 20 northern boundary ... to
compensate for the loss of SEA 63" (SEATAC Minutes,
8/5/91). However, requiring a General Plan Amendment
(which would require environmental review) as mitigation
for another General Plan "Amendment is questionable,
particularly when the applicant has not substantiated his
ability to acquire the proposed mitigation site.
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 considers
that impacts to SEA 63 from this project as proposed would
be substantial and irreversible.
June 16, 1992
Page Four
3. Traffic and Infrastructure Impacts
The proposed extension of McBean Parkway- (General Plan
Amendment) is .presented as mitigation for the otherwise
"significant adverse traffic -impacts ... at the Lyons
Canyon (sic)/I-5 (Golden State) northbound ramps" (p. 391,
DEIR) and elsewhere. Prior to this, the DEIR discussed in
substantial detail the history -of consideration of several
alignments for. McBean Parkway (pp. 363-365, DEIR).
According to the DEIR, the Interdepartmental Engineering
Committee (IEC) supported an alignment shown in Alternative
2 for the proposed project, and recommended its adoption to
the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
Apparently, this recommendation was included in that
Department's recommendation to the Board of Supervisors in
their deliberations regarding the Santa Clarita Valley Area
Plan Update in 1990.
This discussion of McBean Parkway should have also included
mention that the proposed McBean extension was specifically
deleted from the Area Plan Update when it was adopted in
December of 1990. Supervisor Antonovich, in his motion to
the Board on December 6, 1990, stated, "I am willing to
recommend its (the Circulation Plan) adoption, with the
exception of the portion of McBean Parkway between Pico
Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard. This road is not
needed to address any anticipated circulation problem.
Moreover, it is opposed in the community and, if
constructed, would require massive. grading. It should,
therefore, not be added to the Plan."
In light of Supervisor Antonovich's clear direction
regarding McBean Parkway, the City considers that any
discussion of mitigation measures for this project must
include clear statements concerning whether traffic impacts
can be mitigated at all without the construction of McBean,
and should present feasible alternatives that do not
require the McBean extension, and that fulfill the project
objectives but reduce impacts to below significant levels.
The year 2010 was selected as the design year .for traffic
analysis purposes; however, the DEIR indicates that the
residential buildout could occur.by 1995. This discrepancy
should.be explained.
The traffic report forecasts that the project would
generate approximately 15,390 vehicle trips per day, of
which 550 outbound trips and 880 inbound trips would occur
during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. It also
June 16, 1992
Page Five
includes the results of analyses both with and without the
extension of McBean Parkway to the Calgrove Boulevard/
Interstate 5 1interchange; of 25 intersections (Tables 4A
and 4B), nine (5 associated with Interstate 5) of which are
within the corporate boundaries of the City. It also
indicates that the project would have a significant impact
at only two of the studied intersections within the City
with the McBean extension; however, it does not discuss in
detail significant impacts on intersections within the City
that might occur without the McBean extension. Further
discussion of these impacts is warranted.
In Section 6.10.4 of the DEIR, mitigation measures are
identified under Section 6.10.4 - Mitigation Measures:.
Paragraphs 6.10.1 through 6.10.14. At a minimum, we
question those described in Paragraphs 6.10.3 and 6.10.9:
Paragraph 6.10.3 includes certain improvements at the
intersection of Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway;
however, these proposed improvements are includedin
the current reconstruction of the intersection.
With this in mind, and in light. of the potential
massive impacts that might be generated by this project
without the extension of McBean, we suggest that the
project's fair share of the costs of these improvements
be redirected to the funding of other highway
improvements (i.e. Wiley Canyon Road between Lyons
Avenue and Calgrove Boulevard, et cetera) within the
City, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
We further request that the City be included in the review
process of any and all 'future traffic studies associated
with this project.
4. Biota
No detailed management program has* been proposed for the
remaining oak resources. Additionally, oaks proposed for
transplanting are apparently considered to be "saved. The
City considers these to be removals, and mitigates the
potential loss of these trees with replacement trees and/or
payment according to their value as evaluated under the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). This should
be considered by the County as minimum mitigation for the
potential loss of these trees. Additionally,. the County's
Oak Tree Ordinance has been cited as requiring two-for-one
replacement as adequate mitigation .for more than two
June 16, 1992
Page Six
hundred mature trees (none rated below "C"); the City
considers this level of mitigation patently inadequate,
particularly for the loss of 13 heritage trees.
Project redesign should be encouraged to preserve as many
oaks as possible. This should include consideration of
road and flood control improvements with regard to both oak
and riparian resources.
The DEIR's• list of landscaping and revegetation 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. The DEIR should identify state-of-the-art
restoration techniques for inclusion as mitigation measures.
It is the City's understanding that the U.S. Department of
Fish and Wildlife intends to provide substantive comment
with regard to biota and the riparian systems affected by
the project (personal communication with John Hanlon, USFW,
6/11/92). The City fully supports this responsible
agency's comments and recommendations.
5. Grading and Visual Impacts
The project proposes extensive, massive grading of more
than 15 million cubic yards of material. No visual
analysis has been presented, and the DEIR refers only to
"short-term" impacts of this volume of earth movements.
(p. 348). The DEIR states that "the existing visual
quality of the site does not contain aesthetic
characteristics which would set the site apart or_ warrant
retention/preservation as a result of the uniqueness of
those elements" yet does not give examples of what those
"elements" might be in . this setting. This paragraph
appears subjective at best.
6. Transit Impacts
The DEIR refers to informing the RTD concerning impacts to
public transit. To our knowledge, the RTD does not serve
the area of the County north of the City of Los Angeles.
However, the Santa Clarita Transit could be anticipated to
provide service to this area if funding is available.
Transit fees to the City of Santa Clarita would be
appropriate mitigation for this project's obligation to
reduce anticipated vehicle trips.
June 16,1992
Page Seven
The City of Santa Clarita appreciates the 'opportunity to
comment on this significant project. We are available at your
convenience to discuss any aspect of these comments with you.
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 as soon as
it is available.
We intend to provide further testimony at the public hearing on
July 1. Again, should you have any questions regarding our
comments, please call me at (805) 255-4330.
Sincerely, 7Z�` '
silt " 5
LYNN M. HARRIS
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
LMH: CMF:
ID: 786
cc: George Caravalho, City Manager
Dave Vannatta,"Planning Deputy, 5th District
Don Culbertson, Zone Change Section
John Hartman, Subdivision Section
Jerry Thompson, Public Works
RESOLUTION NO. 92-127
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF.SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA;
TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY
REGARDING THE PROPOSED STEVENSON RANCH PHASE 4
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION, PROJECT NO. 89436/TRACT 43896
IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY
OPPOSING THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,
OPPOSING THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF MCBEAN PARKWAY, OPPOSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL
DEGRADATION OF SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA NO. 63,
REQUESTING PROTECTIVE MEASURES/ALTERNATIVES FOR ITS CONTINUED VIABILITY
AND REQUESTING THE COUNTY TO IDENTIFY AND MITIGATE
TRAFFIC AND OTHER CUMULATIVE 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
Stevenson Ranch Phase 4 development, which is a 851 acre project, including
1119 residential units on 359 acres, 5 acres of commercial uses, an 8 acre
elementary school site, an 11.3 -acre park site, a 1 -acre fire station site,
and a 1 -acre park and ride site; and
WHEREAS, the project applicant has requested the following
entitlements: approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 43896, Case No. 89-436,
including a General Plan 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 63, cumulative and growth -inducing impacts, 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 south of Pico Canyon Road, west of
the Golden State Freeway, west of the City of Santa Clarita and. approximately
one-half mile west of the western boundary of the City; and
WHEREAS, an approximately 59 -acre' portion of the property has been
designated by the County of Los Angeles as Significant Ecological Area No. 63,
Lyon Canyon, Newhall (SEA 63); and
WHEREAS, the project proponent has proposed to extend McBean Parkway
southerly from Pico Canyon Road to Calgrove Boulevard, a road segment which
was specifically removed from -the Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan prior to the
1990 Plan Update by Los Angeles County and is not included in the Santa
Clarita General Plan; 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; and
Reso No. 92-127
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:
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 June 16, 1992, 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, the City is.
concerned that this project requests further, substantial, amendments to said
plan. The City requests that no further plan .amendments be granted at this
time and that this project adhere to the adopted County General Plan.
SECTION 3. The Cityrequests that the County adopt and enforce
strict provisions to maintain the integrity of Significant Ecological Area 63
(Lyon Canyon, 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 analysis and consideration in order to
determine the appropriate use and development in and around Lyon Canyon, (L.A.
County Significant Ecological Area No. 63). The City opposes the
environmental degradation of SEA No. 63, 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 the analysis of an
alternative site performed for this project may be encumbered by current
development applications for .the property, as well as ownership by another
party, and that another alternative site for this project may be feasible and
appropriate which would .lessen significant environmental effects of this
project.
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.
Reso No. 92-127
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.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 1992.
Jill Klajic, 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 1992, by the following vote of the
Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
DONNA GRINDEY, CITY CLERK
Reso,No. 92-127