Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - NEWHALL RANCH PROJ (2)City Manager ApproN Item to be presented Jeffrey Lambert NEW BUSINESS DATE: MAY 27,1997 SUBJECT: NEWHALL RANCH PROJECT UPDATE DEPARTMENT: Community Development On April 23, 1997, the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission continued the meeting schedule for the Newhall Ranch project to the date of June 11, 1997. Although the public testimony portion of the hearing was technically closed on April 4, 1997, the Regional Planning Commission left open the option to call upon individuals whom they would like to question regarding the proposal. The June 11, 1997 meeting will be held to further discuss the Newhall Ranch project. Los Angeles County planning staff has recommended minor changes to the project which would result in the removal of approximately 300-400 housing units. During the April 23, 1997 Regional Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Vargo suggested that the applicants modify the project by removing all residential, commercial, and industrial development between State Route 126 and the Santa Clara River, in order to protect the viewshed from SR -126. This action would result in the removal of approximately 1900 units, and one million square feet of commerciaUndustrial development. The Commission then took a brief recess, reconvened, and continued. the meeting schedule to the June date mentioned above. Attached is a letter to Regional Planning Commissioner Sadie Clark which was forwarded by City staff on April 1, 1997. This letter outlined and detailed the City's remaining issues and requests regarding the Newhall Ranch project. Also attached is a letter addressed to Commissioner Toy, forwarded by City Councilmember Klajic. This letter was forwarded at Commissioner Toy's request: it includes the City's wish list for his consideration prior to his forwarding a recommendation to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Receive the information presented and provide staff direction with regard to the future tracking of and/or position on the Newhall Ranch project. ATTACHMENTS Agenda Staff letter to Regional Planning Commissioner Sadie Clark Ike ' �— Councilmember Klajic's letter to Regional lPP ol'Ir! sroner Toy G �j'� GAC:JDR:lep council \amrprgsj dr City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita Califomla 91355-2196 April 1, 1997 Phone (805) 259-2489 Fax (805) 259-8125 Mrs. Sadie Clark, Chairperson Regional Planning Commission Los Angeles County 320 W: Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: Newhall Ranch Specific Plan Dear Mrs. Clark: On February 18, 1997, the City of Santa Clarita presented Resolution No. 97-8 to the Regional Planning Commission. This Resolution addressed the outstanding concerns the City has regarding the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Since that time, City staff has met with regional planning staff, and with the representatives of the Newhall Ranch plan, in order to more thoroughly discuss the City's concerns. Below is a list of concerns that still remain: Build Newhall Ranch according to the Cit3�c development standards. The Newhall Ranch Company has attempted to design the project with oak tree standards, hillside and ridgeline standards; and highway standards that more closely resemble the standards of the City of Santa Clarita. Nevertheless, the City will still be reviewing all future subdivisions and developments for compliance with City standards. Provide justification for the amendments to the Los Angels County General Plan and the Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan. The Newhall Ranch Company has stated that the projected population increase, the accessibility to the site, the dedication of nine square miles of open space at no cost to.the public, and the development_ of needed infrastructure are justifications for a County General Plan Amendment. However, the City feels that the SCAG population projections are very high, and that the infrastructure being constructed in conjunction with this project specifically serves the residents of Newhall Ranch; they do not constitute an overall public benefit. Furthermore, the dedication of open space that is not accessible -for many years, and parks that are not staffed, funded, and/or programmed are not a benefit to the Santa Clarita Valley. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER nn ! .. l.! • ! ! ! . ! .. . Y! ... r.ming FWMI ren• Newhall Ranch has responded by granting an easement to Los Angeles County over the Santa Susana Mountains High Country when the 4,000th building permit is obtained within Potrero Valley Village. However, this response does not address the dedication of the Santa Clara River Corridor, nor does it specifically address the timing for dedication of the High Country. Due to the lack of project phasing information, the City cannot determine or even estimate the length of time that could lapse between a pending project approval and issuance of the 4,000th building permit in Potrero Valley Village. Describe the proposed c ano c to the Santa Clara River Significant Ecological Area. If it is the case that the area being removed from this SEA is b .ing eliminated because it does not contain the sensitive habitat that a true Significant Ecological Area contains then that should be clearly stated in the Biota Section of the DEIR. The response from Newhall Ranch has been that the Significant Ecological Area is being refined, and yet the language used to describe the changes has not been presented in layman's terms. It could still appear that riparian habitat is being removed from the River Corridor SEA. The City has asked that a comprehensive graphic be included in the Response to Comments that will address this issue. Discuss !t t' for bank stabilization of the Santa Clara River and why he use of ungrouted rip -rap is th . Pref .rabl . option. Discuss with Fishan Game. The Newhall Ranch Company has stated that ungrouted rip -rap is more acceptable in biotic and aesthetic terms than concrete bank stabilization, and has been approved by Los Angeles County for safety. The City, however, is requesting that the developer incorporate flexibility in the Specific Plan for other means of bank stabilization. Technology is changingrapidly: some Southern California communities are incorporating soil cement for bank stabilization efforts. Additionally, the portion of Santa Clara River that traverses the Newhall Ranch property is large: some sections of the River may work best with ungrouted rip -rap, others with soil cement or concrete stabilization. Another recent trend also includes burying bank stabilization efforts with soil, and then planting this area with native habitat. These options should be investigated. Ensure that future developers rovide for non motorized modes of transportation at future subdivision stages This should, at present, include the incorporation of Electric Vehicle Charging stations. Newhall Ranch has not responded to this request. The City is very aware that technology changes rapidly, and is not asking that the developer be specifically tied down to requiring Electric Vehicle charging stations at each future subdivision stage. What we are asking is that, for an innovative project of this size, alternative fuel vehicles, EV charging stations, and other future technologies be encouraged by the Newhall Ranch Company in order to help reduce the project's air quality impacts. The applicant should be responsiblefor the restoration of the MetroLink line, as opposed to sole c ry n,g, right-of-way. Grant finds have been identified by the Ventura Colinty Transportation Commission, and the applicant should work with V .T . to secure the necessary funding for restoration of the rail line. Newhall Ranch has stated that they are making a financial commitment by agreeing to reserve right-of-way, as the right-of-way creates a `fix" on the property which affects the design of future land uses, highways, trails, utilities and the like. However, the City feels that a project which will generate approximately 72,000 new residents should contribute more than just right-of- way for a rail line: a commitment to restoring the MetroLink line, in cooperation with the County of Los Angeles, will benefit the project's trip reduction efforts, will reduce the project's air quality impacts, will provide the County with CMP credits, and will serve as an overall public benefit for the project. Address the fin ncing_of future transit need for the prgiect at full build -out. The Newhall Ranch Company has stated that Proposition A and C Sales Tax, and gasoline taxes, supplemented by farebox revenues will pay for transit services. Also, the Company stated that the surplus revenue generated to the County by the Newhall Ranch project, will help pay for services. However, the County General Fund revenues do not necessarily return to the Santa Clarita Valley. The City is seeking assurance that future transit service to the Newhall Ranch site will not have to be subsidized by the City of Santa Clarity taxpayers. solid waste/recycling efforts. This issue has not been addressed to the City's satisfaction. The Newhall Ranch Company is still reiterating their commitment to meeting the minimum County requirements with regard to handling solid waste. 12escribe th�ncing maintenance and staffing of public narks. Currently, the Newhall Ranch Company has stated that park maintenance, staffing and programs are expected to be funded by the County, and that the project's surplus money to the County could be used for staffing and programs. However, there is no guarantee that the project's revenues provided to the County's General Fund will return to the Santa Clarita Valley. As the developer has stated before, they are not a governmental agency, and thus do not have control over the distribution of funds. The City provides extensive parks and recreation programs, is bound by agreement with the County which preclude the City from charging non-resident fees, and cannot adequately address the needs of additional population. Furthermore, the.County does not currently fund any 'recreation programs in the Santa Clarita Valley. The City is doubtful that revenue s.generated by the Newhall Ranch project will return to the Santa Clarita Valley for parks and recreation services. Tie the project's trail a3�tem into the Santa Susana Mountains from the Santa Clara River. The developer has stated that an equestrian connection between the High Country and the River trail is problematic, as the horses would need to traverse the Santa Clara River bottom. Newhall Ranch has not included .public recreation within the River bottom due to the presence of endangered species and sensitive habitats, and has stated that the Project Biologist is opposed to encouraging access within the River. However, the presence of an equestrian trail along the Santa Clara River, and the presence of equestrian trails in the Santa Susana Mountains High Country (which the developer agrees to tie in to the Pico Canyon Trail) should be connected in order to provide a usable, logical regional trail system. • Directly connect the project's trail s em and the Cas trail system. The City is requesting that the gaps existing between the Newhall Ranch project and the City of Santa Clarita be "filled -in" in order to provide for direct access and a, once again, logical trail system. The Newhall Land and Farming Company owns .the properties that comprise these gaps. However, the applicant has stated that filling in the missing trail linkages will hinder all future development of the properties containing such areas. Two additional issues remain, including the effects of Proposition 218 on the project, and the effects of Newhall Ranch on Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital; these issues need to be covered in further detail. The Newhall Ranch Company has assured the City that these concerns will be covered more thoroughly in the Response to Comments. The above issues do not constitute a complete list of concerns. Resolution 97-8, the original City letter dated October 28, 1996, and the verbal testimony provided by City Councilmembers Heidt and ICgjic represent our views and issues with the Newhall Ranch project. Along with the aforementioned items, the City continues to request that specific questions and concerns be addressed at future subdivision stages, including, but not limited to, the following: • Project compliance with all applicable NPDES Permit requirements; • Traffic performance evaluations at each subdivision stage; • Proper phasing and financing for transit service to the site; • Environmental review and public notification for any construction near the Salt Creek corridor; • Proper landform grading techniques; • Project compliance with, and incorporation of, Best Management Practices; • Minimization of non -point source pollutants throughout the Newhall Ranch site; • Individual Stormwater Pollution Prevention Programs for subdivisions, where appropriate; • Designs accommodating transit service to all future development sites; • The development of a major sports center for community tournaments/league play; • Teen programs and Anti -Gang programs for the residents of Newhall Ranch; And the inclusion of air quality mitigation measures at all stages of development. 4 The developers of Newhall Ranch, along with the Los Angeles County regional planning staff, have been very accommodating and open to suggestion thus far. However, the City still feels that the above issues are important for the well- being of the Santa Clarita Valley. A project as large and innovative as the Newhall Ranch project should be responsible for more than just minimum standards: uncontrolled growth and urban sprawl have extremely detrimental effects on communities in Southern California. The Santa Clarita Valley currently has a shortage of infrastructure, such as adequate sewers, roads, mass transit, schools, fire, Sheriff facilities, libraries,' parks, recreational programs, and youth and adult services. This project, without appropriate mitigation, will worsen our current infrastructure shortages. Please take the City's concerns into consideration prior to forwarding a recommendation to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. We should all be working together for a better Santa Clarita Valley. Thank you very much for in this matter. cc: Michael Antonovich, Board of Supervisors City of Santa Clarita Councilmembers City of Santa Clarita Planning Commissioners George Caravalho, City Manager, City of Santa Clarita James Harter, Newhall Ranch Company Lee Stark, Community Studies Kerwin Chili, Impact Analysis Frank Meneses, Impact Analysis Dave Vanatta, Planning Deputy Kenneth Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager, City of Santa Clarita Impact Sciences Van Stephens, FORMA current\nrreso.jdr City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Phone Suite 300 (805) 259-2489 Santa Clarita Fax California 91355.2196 - (805) 259.8125 May 15, 1997 County of Los Angeles Regional Planning Commissioner Toy 320 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Commissioner Toy: As you may know, the City of Santa Clarita has been heavily involved with tracking the proposed Newhall Ranch project presently before you and your fellow Commissioners. While the Newhall Ranch Company has made a few concessions regarding the project, the City still has a number of issues that are of concern. Below, I have presented you a detailed list of our outstanding issues. Please be aware that all other comments and requests that the City previously addressed to the Commission remain as part of the public record. First and foremost, the City feels that the Newhall Ranch Company needs to provide further justification for the amendments to the Los Angeles County General Plan and Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan. The Newhall Ranch Company has stated that SCAG's projected population increase, the accessibility to the site, the dedication of nine square miles of open space, and the development of needed infrastructure justify the General Plan Amendment. However, the City believes that SCAG's population projections are very high, and that the infrastructure being constructed in conjunction with this project specifically serve the residents of Newhall Ranch. The infrastructure being provided in conjunction with the Newhall Ranch development does not constitute an "overall" public benefit. Furthermore, the dedication of open space that is not accessible for many. years, and parks that are not staffed, funded, and/or programmed, are not a benefit to the "public" living in the Santa Clarita Valley. A County General Plan Amendment that takes an area from a permitted 2,070 dwelling units to 24,680 units, and 47,372 square feet of commercial and industrial uses to 90 acres of commercial and 256 acres of business park uses needs more justification than a projected increase in population. More specifically, the City would like to see the following: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Examples of such standards include integration of our standard street widths throughout the project, grading 9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER activities consistent with our Hillside Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, protection of the native oak trees according to the City's Oak Tree Ordinance, and residential, commercial, and industrial developments which would meet our Unified Development Code standards. While this request may seem premature in light of the nature of the Newhall Ranch Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the City will be reviewing all future subdivision activity related to the Newhall Ranch project in accordance with our higher standards. DEDICATE. IMMEDIATELY UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN, THE SANTA CLARA RIVER CORRIDOR AND THE SANTA SUSANA MOUNTAINS TO A PUBLIC AGENCY Specifically, the City feels that the High Country Special Management Area (SMA) should become a part of the Santa Clarita Woodlands. The High Country SMA is contiguous to the existing, and ever-expanding, Santa Clarita Woodlands and this project could provide a wonderful opportunity to expand the park and its accompanying public benefits. Furthermore, access to the present Santa Clarita Woodlands already exists, and patrons of the park could access the High Country SMA from the south and west over lands already controlled by the joint powers of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and the City of Santa Clarita. REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN . THE NEWHALL RANCH PROJECT. As proposed, the project is not consistent with the Santa Clarita Area Plan. This Plan was drafted, adopted and accepted with a tremendous amount of public input. However, the Newhall Ranch Company is requesting that the Commission accept their project without any discussion regarding the original goals, policies and objectives of the individuals who drafted the Santa.Clarita Area Plan. Not only does the City feel that the project is too big, but we also believe that the plan is not doing all it can to protect the most important feature of the project, this feature being the Santa Clara River. The project not only needs to be consistent with the Santa Clarita Area Plan, but also needs to be consistent with the Santa Clara River Plan. The most important biological and visual feature of the project is the River, and we strongly feel that all development, including that between the Santa Clara River and State Route 126, should be eliminated entirely. In addition, public access to the Santa Clara River should be maintained and improved while restricting impacts on the natural habitat. IMPROVE THE PROJECT'S PROPOSED TRAIL SYSTEM. We strongly feel that a comprehensive trails system, tied. to the Santa Clarita Woodlands, could serve as an overall community benefit. However, as the project is designed now, the trails system only benefits the future residents of Newhall Ranch. The Newhall Ranch Company should tie the project's River Trail to the High Country Special Management Area, specifically to Pico Canyon Trail. While the applicants have stated that topography dictates this as an impossible task, the City strongly urges you to consider requiring the Newhall Ranch Company to create, at minimum, an unimproved wilderness trail tieing the two trail systems together. Furthermore, the applicants should tie the project's Regional River Trail to the City's regional trail. Currently,. there are gaps existing in the trail system, but the areas not connected are lands held by the Newhall Land and Farming Company. With a project the size and scope of Newhall Ranch, this is a minor request which could constitute a great public benefit. BURY THE PROJECT'S BANK STABILIZATION. Currently, the project is proposing the use of ungrouted rip rap along the Santa Clara River Corridor. The City strongly recommends that the Newhall Ranch Company use buried bank stabilization as an alternative to the ungrouted rip rap presently proposed. Buried stabilization is one of the accepted means of protection through the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, and is much more aesthetically pleasing than rip rap. DEVELOP AN ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SCHEME FOR THE PROJECT. The Newhall Ranch Company should not only reserve, but should dedicate the future right-of-way for the Metrolink line. The Company should also consider paving this right-of-way to provide for a temporary busway along this area. The City believes that there will soon be a high demand for a Metrolink Line to Ventura County, and a method as described above could serve to prove that the demand exists, could cut down on single car ridership, and could reduce air quality impacts. The applicants should also incorporate a policy into their Specific Plan that would require future' developers to incorporate alternative fuel systems into their projects, mandate carpooling, and encourage alternate work weeks in order to reduce the project's air quality impacts. While we know that these are techniques applicable today, we also know that technology changes rapidly: the Newhall Ranch Company should adopt an overall policy encouraging air quality - friendly transportation schemes. Lastly, the applicants should specifically state that the City of Santa Clarita will be the transit providers for the Newhall Ranch community. MAINTAINED. The City of Santa Clarita currently provides extensive parks and recreation programs which are open to all residents of the Santa Clarita Valley. We are bound by agreements with the County of Los Angeles which preclude the City from charging "non-resident" fees for services provided by the City, and in County parks under long-term lease to the City. Due to ongoing budget and funding deficits . experienced by the County of Los Angeles, several community parks in the unincorporated areas have been closed because funds for their operation and maintenance are unavailable. Additionally, this does not address the fact that the County does not currently fund any recreation programs in the Santa Clarita Valley. The project proponent has indicated that private funding of parks and recreation services may be provided by future residents of the project. While the City encourages such innovations, this does not preclude the need for publicly funded facilities and programs. Based on current experience and project trends, the City must anticipate serving the future residents of the Newhall Ranch project. We are currently overloaded in our parks programs, and cannot possibly support the population created by a project of this size. In addition to the aforementioned concerns, the City requests that the project applicants come to a resolution with.the school districts prior to the Regional Planning Commission, forwarding any recommendation to the County Board of Supervisors. Furthermore; the project must. be built and designed to the satisfaction of the County Sheriffs Department, the County Fire Department, and the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital. Lastly, the City suggests that the County of Los Angeles and the project proponent continue to include the City of Santa Clarita in the planning process. The Joint City -County Planning Program Background Report (prepared jointly by the County of Los -Angeles Regional Planning Department and the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department) was accepted as a policy document in December of 1992. The Planning Program states that, "While the City of Santa Clarita was formed so that planning from a local perspective could take place, the City shares the SCV with land governed by Los Angeles County. As the City has grown so has its awareness of the need to work together with the County. Ultimately, the quality of life in the Santa Clarita Valley will depend heavily on how this happens." The City is seeking governance over this project, as future annexation of the Newhall Ranch community is desirable. For example, services such as transit and parks programs, the control of Landscape Maintenance Districts, and tax rates and fees should all correspond with those according to City standards. The Newhall Ranch project is contiguous to the City and should be, annexed into our jurisdiction if approved. Please take into consideration our concerns prior to forwarding your recommendation to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. The future of the Santa Clarita Valley lies in the hands of the Commissioners and the Board; Los Angeles County has a huge responsibility towards the vitality and health of our community, and we would like to thank you in advance for taking this role seriously. If you have any. questions, you. may call me at (805) 255- 4309. Once again, thank you for your time, cooperation, and consideration. Sincerely, Jill Klajic Councilmember JL:JDR:lep cc: Councilmembers George Caravalho, City Manager advance\nrwshlstjk