HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-01-07 - AGENDA REPORTS - NEWHALL RANCH PROJECT (2)CITY OF SANTA, CLARITA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: r Sm ioi
Councilor hers
FROM: r' ara a_l'
anage
DATE: January 7, 1997
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE NEWHALL RANCH PROJECT
On November 26, 1996, the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission
continued the public hearing schedule for opposition on the Newhall Ranch project to the
date of January 16, 1997. A second public hearing meeting was also tentatively
scheduled for the date of February 18,. 1997,,which;would be held for the applicant's
rebuttal statements. ' ' `. ;, . t O ,
Councilmember Heidt testified on behalf of the City at the November 6, 1996 public
hearing. In addition, the City sent a letter outlining its concerns with the project on
October 30, 1996. While staff is prepared to testify at the January 16th Regional
Planning Commission public hearing, the Commission has agreed to schedule additional
opposition testimony after January 16th -if they'are unable to accommodate the
remaining speakers on this date. Furthermore, regional planning staff determined that
the comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) would be
extended, with the comment period closing at the conclusion of the Commission's public
hearings.
As a result of the City Council's direction at the November Study Session, staff has met
with the applicants of the Newhall Ranch project on three separate occasions to discuss
the City's concerns with the project. The project nor its mitigation measures have
changed since the City Council's November 5th study session. Current outstanding
issues include:
Governance: The Newhall Ranch applicants are not agreeable to building the
project according to City standards.
Solid Waste: The project applicants; are, not open to conditioning future
developers to incorporate innovative actions resulting in the reduction/disposal
of solid waste, and are still assuming that all solid waste generated by the project
will be disposed of in landfills.
Public Park Programming: The project` applicants are not providing for
staffing and/or programming of their 'public 'parks, but are willing to request
funding to do so from the CountyBoard of Supervisors at a later date.
is
' Agenda Item:?
....:......
• Regional River Trail: The project applicaiits'are not providing for direct trail
linkages off-site, thus "gaps" of unimproved area would still exist in the regional
trail system. With regard to tieing the trail system into the Santa Susana
Mountains to Pico Canyon Trail, the applicants have stated that the project's
topography eliminates this as an option.
• Visual Qualities: As is the case with governance, the applicants are not willing
to develop the Newhall Ranch project according to standards addressed in the
City's Hillside and Ridgeline preservation Ordinance, but will be developing the
project in accordance with the County's hillside standards.
• Metrolink: The project applicants continue to propose the reservation of the
Metrolink right-of-way only, as opposed to the full restoration of the Metrolink
line.
The aforementioned issues may still be addressed verbally to the Los Angeles County
Regional Planning Commission, as the public, hearings for opposition are still being
conducted. Staff also discussed with the applicants the remaining issues addressed in
the City's letter to the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission. Clarification
on many of the issues will be provided by the'applicants in the response to comments.
If the City is not satisfied with such future correspondence, then the opportunity to
express such dissatisfaction will arise during the public hearings with the County Board
of Supervisors. Additionally, many of the City's issues will not be addressed as part of
the Specific Plan, but could be covered duiing the, review of the project's Development
Agreement, or at future subdivision stages." t `'`'
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1)'review.the information provided; and,
2) provide staff direction for addressing the. Los Angeles County Regional Planning
Commission regarding the remaining issues.
GAC:JDR:Iep ;:•,;;, ,.
advance\nrssjn97.jdrC,•i,t;i',!�:;}