Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-10-18 - AGENDA REPORTS - WESTRIDGE PROJ POST JUDGEMENT (2)NEW BUSINESS DATE: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: BACKGROUND AGENDA REPORLy4 nager pp al Item to be presented by: Rich Henderson October 18, 1995 Westridge Project Post -Judgment Rehearing by the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors Community Development In 1994, the Los Angeles Superior Court rescinded the 1992 Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors' approval of the Westridge residential and golf course project as submitted by the Valencia Company. The Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE) had sued to overturn the project's approval, based on inadequate environmental analysis and mitigation of various impact categories, including biota, Significant Ecological Area 64 (SEA 64), libraries, schools, and air quality. The Court found that the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project was inadequate with respect to libraries, schools, and air quality. Responding to the Court's direction, the Valencia Company prepared an Environmental Impact Report which considered these issues, and was directed by the County to provide adequate mitigation for libraries, schools, and air quality. Particularly for libraries, the County directed the Valencia Co. to provide a minimum of $100,000 to fund a fee study (conducted by the L.A. Co. Public Library) to determine appropriate developer fees for library impacts. The project would then be assessed library fees according to the results of this study. The project will be heard by the Regional Planning Commission on October 25, 1995. The 798 -acre project is essentially the same as was approved in 1992. It is located along the west side- of Interstate 5, and extends south. from the Southern California Edison transmission lines to McBean Parkway. Significant Ecological Area 64, Valley Oak Savannah,is 310 acres in area, and is encompassed by the project boundaries. As outlined on the attached fact sheet, the project includes the following components: Residential (1890 single & multiple family units) Commercial Sites Golf Course - 18 holes Elementary School and Park Site Oak Tree Removals: 188 In 1992, the City appealed the original Planning Commission's approval of the project to the Board, citing the City's unresolved concerns with the project. These concerns included project impacts to traffic, air quality, removal of oak trees, impacts to SEA 64, in addition to the issues listed above. Through staff negotiations with Valencia Company officials, many of these concerns were alleviated by specific changes to the project, and Council did not choose to pursue legal action on the project. SCOPE has requested that Council revisit the Westridge project in light of another opportunity to provide testimony to the Regional Planning Commission. It is staffs understanding that the Court determined that the only areas of inadequacy in the EIR were those mentioned above, and that the Court did not uphold the area of the lawsuit challenging development in the SEA. Community Development staff, and individual City Council members have previously provided extensive written and verbal testimony which is on the public record for the project. Staff has not responded to the Court -directed EIR. Except for some monetary agreements with Los Angeles County, the project has not changed with this new application. Some changes in the design which avoided some oak trees were made in response to a motion by Supervisor Antonovich at the September 3, 1992 Board hearing, and followed the staff -level negotiation mentioned above. Traffic mitigation measures requested by the City were also incorporated into the project. Remaining concerns included the project's density over the "midpoint" density allowed by the County General Plan, oak tree removal, the encroachment into SEA 64, development policy within SEA's, uncertainty of the future ownership of the SEA, and the uncertainty of the duration of public play at the golf course after an initial public play period of 10 years. City concerns which remain are primarily policy questions about density and development in Significant Ecological Areas. They may more effectively be addressed through other avenues than the public hearing for this project (such as mechanisms introduced by the Joint City -County Planning process adopted by the Council and Board of Supervisors in 1992, City acquisition of remaining lands designated as SEA's in the Santa Clarita Valley, or pursuit of an expanded Sphere of Influence). With respect to oak trees, Council also permits their removal, upon adequate justification by a project applicant. For example, the recently approved Porta Bella project, permits removal of up to 73 protected oak trees upon completion. Also, since the Court did not uphold the portion of the suit which challenged the Board deeision on biota/SEA impacts, comments in this area would probably be considered improper. ANALYSIS At the hearing on October 25, the Regional Planning Commission will receive comments regarding the project and the new EIR. It is staffs understanding that comments on the new EIR may be directed only to those areas ordered to be re-examined by the Court: air quality, schools, and library services. These areas are not in the City's jurisdiction. However, the City has supported responsible agencies' comments in the past to support adequate mitigation of impacts. Particularly with respect to library services, it would be most appropriate to request that any library fees generated by this project be spent locally, and that the fees be allowed to be used for any purpose deemed appropriate by the Los Angeles County Public Library in order to provide adequate service to the new local population. S9 CO I CURRENTI WSTRI0I7.CMK Appearing at the public hearing and providing testimony on the project will demonstrate to the Regional Planning Commission that the City is maintaining interest in projects in the unincorporated area. Even with the limited opportunity to comment on the project, it is probably prudent to testify, if only from a neutral position. The most recent Resolution adopted by Council (Resolution 91-167, attached) concentrated on the SEA and on the project alternatives discussed in the EIR. Council opposed the project's encroachment on SEA 64, and requested that the County consider the alternatives to the proposed project. The project is essentially unchanged from the Board's 1992 approval. Staff believes that the proposed development irreversibly impacts SEA 64, and only the selection of an alternative which avoids it will maintain its integrity. However, since testimony cannot be provided in this area, it may be best for the City to remain neutral, and to request support of the affected agencies with respect to library services and air quality. Support of the project would be inconsistent with the City's previous position, and opposition at this time would probably be ineffective. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Receive report, and allow public to comment. 2. Formally take a neutral position on the project, and 3. Direct staff to speak to the Regional Planning Commission, and request that (a) library fees generated by the project be directed to SCV libraries; (b) that the project, which includes zone changes, be required to provide full mitigation of its impacts to the affected school districts, and (c) that mitigation measures be added to the project to reduce its air quality impacts to the satisfaction of the AQMD. S.I COI CURRSNTI WSTR101 ].CMX 4ESTRIDGE FACT SHEET SEPTEMBER 1992 (ACCORDING TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVAL OF PROJECT 9/3/92) The project now consists of 1890 units (increased from 1868 as approved by the Regional Planning Commission in February). In the revised project, 14 single-family units were removed from the SEA; and 36 multi -family units were added to the condominium complex within the project, with 175 units remaining within the SEA. This rearrangement has resulted in the preservation of 23 additional oak trees, reducing the number of trees to be removed to 188 (decreased from 211). Forty-nine of these are required to be transplanted elsewhere on the site. (The Valencia Co. is still required to mitigate the possible transplantation failure by planting additional trees on a 3:1 basis.) SUMMARY OF PERTINENT FACTS (REVISED 9/92) • Total areas 798 acres SEA areas 310 acres (209.9 acres of •treed area,• 100.1 •non -treed area') • Total :snits in projects 1,890 (increased from 1868 snits per RPC 2/12/92) • L.A. County General Plan Midpoint Densitys 1,658 (nTR p. II -185) • Project exceeds midpoint density by 232 units (increased from 210 units) • Total units in SEA: 175 (non• in •treed area• of SEA) (reduced from 189) • Total number of oak trees to be removeds 188 Total number of oak trees to be removed from SEAS 114 (49 of these will be removed for construction of the Old Road and will be transplanted.) • Golf Courses The golf course occupies 88.5 acres of the SEA; 54.4 acres are to be graded, 33.1 are to remain natural (FEIR, p. II -186)._ The City's concerns with the project have included: avoidance of development in SEA 641 dedication of SEA to public agency; reduction of traffic impacts; and reserving the golf course for public us•. The'Valencia Co. has responded to these ,concerns as follows: • Habitat Management Plan; annuity for-$38.000/yr for SEA maintenance. • SEA will be open to public (not necessarily dedicated to public agency) • Traffic impacts reduced to City's satisfaction. (See footnote, p. 2) e Golf course will remain open for public play for a minimum of 10 years or until another equivalent course is available for public use.(Co. condition) REMAINING SIGNIFICANT POLICY ISSUES THAT ARE UNRESOLVED: • Midpoint density (210 units over midpoint of 1658 units.) • Further encroachment into SEA 64, considering recent history of reduction in SEA size (1984 SCV Areavide Plan.) • Overall development policy within SEA's. • Dedication of SEA to public or non-profit agency for continued public open space purposes. • Golf course still in SEA and no guarantee of permanent public play VESTRIDBE TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASOR S Reconstruction and widening of Valencia Blvd./I-5 interchange. Extension of The Old Road to McBean Parkway. Realignment and widening of The Old Road north of Valencia Blvd. to Edison easement. Extension of Valencia Blvd. to vest. Contribution to McBean/I-5 interchange B&T fund. Provision of additional northbound through lane at McBean/Valencia Blvd. Provision of additional eastbound through lane at Orchard Village/McBean.