HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-06 - AGENDA REPORTS - APPEAL MASTER'S COLLEGE DORM (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager
Item to be presentg(d by: Lisa Hardv
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: September 6, 2001
SUBJECT: AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
APPROVAL OF MASTER CASE NO. 01-042, THE
MASTER'S COLLEGE DORMITORY PROJECT
(DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 01-007, HILLSIDE REVIEW
01-004, VARIANCE 01-001)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Building Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council conduct the Public Hearing and adopt a resolution denying the
appeal and affirming the decision of the Planning Commission approving Master
Case No. 01-042, which consists of Development Review 01-007, Hillside Review
01-004 and Variance 01-001, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project.
BACKGROUND
On May 15, 2001, the Planning Commission approved Master Case 01-042, The
Master's College Dormitory Project. As part of the application, the applicant, The
Master's College, requested four entitlements: a Development Review to evaluate
the project's conformance with the development plan review standards and
criteria set forth in the Unified Development Code (UDC); a Hillside Review for
grading activity proposed on hillsides with slopes at an average grade over 10
percent; a Variance from the City's parking standards; and a Minor Use Permit
for the off-site transportation of 11,155 cubic yards of earth. Given the size of the
dormitory, it is required to have 288 parking spaces. With the Planning
Commission approval, the project proposes 86 net new spaces.
In response to concerns from the Commission and the public regarding the off-site
exportation of 11,155.6 cubic yards of cut earthen material to a Placeritos
Boulevard property, The Master's College withdrew their application for a minor
use permit on April 5, 2001, prior to the Commission's approval of the project.
The cut earthen material will be balanced on-site.
The Master's College campus is designated Private Education (PE) on the City's
General Plan and zoning maps. As stated in UDC Section 17.16.070, on-site
Agenda Item
Master Case 01-042 / The Master's College Dormitory Project
Council Appeal / September 2001
Page 2
student housing is a permitted -by -right use in the PE zone. The Master's College
is not requesting a General Plan amendment or a zone change as part of their
student dormitory project.
The project involves the construction of a 28,742 square -foot three-story
dormitory building on The Master's College campus in the PE (Private Education)
zone and a 24,488 square -foot parking lot on MWD right-of-way in the OS (Open
Space) zone. The proposed dormitory building, measuring 34'6" in height, would
house 162 students in 81 rooms, with two resident director apartments. The
project site is 52,500 square feet or 1.2 acres (building pad 0.64 acre, parking lot
0.56 acre) and is located on a secondary ridgeline. As part of site preparation,
11,155.6 cubic yards of earthen material would be cut from the building pad site
and balanced on-site on the adjacent practice field.
At the May 15, 2001 hearing (the second and last Planning Commission meeting
for this project), the Planning Commission approved the project with the condition
that the applicant increase the number of on -campus parking spaces for the
dormitory from 31 net spaces to 86 net spaces.
On May 23, 2001, the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association (PCPOA)
appealed the decision of the Planning Commission, stating that the Commission's
approval of Master Case 01-042 is in violation of the California Environmental
Quality Act as the project was approved prior to the completion of The Master's
College Master Plan. As a result, a hearing before the City Council was noticed
on this item for July 10, 2001. At the July 10' City Council meeting, the Council
directed staff to reschedule the public hearing for Master Case 01-042 to
Thursday, September 6, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. given the large meeting agenda.
Environmental Status
As part of the project review, a CEQA-required initial study was prepared to
evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project. It was determined
that, with mitigation measures, the dormitory project would not create a
significant environmental effect and, as a result, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was prepared. It was also determined that any possible future
project associated with the future campus Master Plan would not change the
scope of the proposed dormitory and would not warrant environmental analysis at
this time. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was published and posted for
public review and comment on February 27, 2001.
Planning Commission Issues
During the Planning Commission hearing process, the Commission considered a
number of issues related to the construction and operation of a student dormitory
on The Master's College campus. These issues are discussed in detail in the April
3, 2001 and May 15, 2001 Planning Commission staff reports (see Council
Reading File).
Master Case 01-042 / The Master's College Dormitory Project
Council Appeal / September 2001
Page 3
Two issues of particular concern to the Commission were related to the adequacy
of on -campus parking and the future alignment of the Dockweiler Drive
extension. The staff analysis and Commission discussion regarding these two
issues are provided in the following sections.
On -Campus Parking Facilities
The City's Unified Development Code requires that one parking space per every
100 square feet of dormitory floor area be provided. The Master's College
proposed 31 net on -campus parking spaces to serve the dormitory, which fell
significantly below the 288 parking spaces required for this project per UDC
requirements. The Commission found that the requirement for 288 parking
spaces to serve a building with a maximum of 162 residents was excessive and
agreed to grant the variance from the parking standards if the number of net on -
campus parking spaces were increased to 86 spaces. This condition was added at
the May 15, 2001, Planning Commission meeting and incorporated into the
resolution of approval.
The Master's College campus currently has a total of 903 parking spaces. The
majority of these spaces are located on the main campus south of Placerita
Canyon Road within the restricted dormitory parking area. However, 239
parking spaces are located north of the main campus on Quigley Canyon Road,
behind the Biblical Studies Center and Music Center. Implementation of the
proposed dormitory project would add 86 net parking spaces in the resident
parking area for a total of 989 on -campus parking spaces.
The Master's College currently provides on -campus housing to approximately 530
students in five dormitories. The maximum resident capacity for all the existing
dormitories combined is 563 persons. The new dormitory would add 166 on -
campus residents and provide 86 new parking spaces (net). With the new
dormitory, a total of 428 resident -only parking spaces would be provided for a
maximum of 729 on -campus residents (563 existing + 166 proposed residents).
Commission Findings to Support Parking Variance
The Planning Commission, in approving the variance request, found that the area
is physically constrained as the dormitory and surface parking lot sites are
located on a hillside on a limited development area. Increasing the development
boundaries beyond the proposed 1.2 -acre area is not desirable, as it would require
substantial alteration of the natural hillside, creating additional impacts. In
addition, the proposed dormitory would be located in an area with existing
parking facilities that would also serve the new dormitory. The various parking
areas serving the cluster of dormitories functions as a whole and provide the
number of spaces that meet actual student demand. Therefore, the addition of 86
net on -campus parking spaces to serve the new dormitory would adequately meet
student demand.
Master Case 01-042 / The Master's College Dormitory Project
Council Appeal / September 2001
Page 4
The UDC parking standards require a substantially greater number of parking
spaces (288 spaces) than proposed dormitory residents (166 residents). The
Commission determined that the parking demand calculations and averages
provided by the applicant, which are based on a four-year period, provide an
accurate computation of on -campus parking demand and, if this average demand
remains constant, shows that the addition of the new three-story dormitory with
86 net parking spaces would not create an adverse parking impact to either the
college campus or the surrounding areas.
Future Dockweiler Drive Extension
Dockweiler Drive is listed as a major arterial in the City's General Plan
Circulation Element, with a projected average daily traffic volume of 24,000 trips
in year 2020. In March 1992, the City Council adopted a Lyons Avenue extension
alignment that connected Lyons Avenue to Dockweiler Drive pending a precise
centerline.
The future alignment of Dockweiler Drive could extend through undeveloped
property owned by The Master's College to connect with Lyons Avenue or Market
Street. Given that two property owners have submitted development proposals to
the City, both of which are in proximity to the future alignment of Dockweiler
Drive, additional alignment alternatives are being considered. One of these
alignment alternatives provides a connection to Market Street and could affect
the dormitory building pad. These alignment alternatives are conceptual in
nature and were drawn without consideration for property owner impacts.
Future engineering and environmental analyses would be required to address the
disruption of existing land uses and mitigation for property impacts.
Response to Grounds for Appeal
In their May 23, 2001 letter, the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association
(PCPOA) listed the grounds for the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval
of Master Case 01-042. City Planning staff and the City Attorney have reviewed
the letter and have prepared a response to the appellant's major points. Selected
comments from the appellant's letter of appeal are paraphrased below and are
bolded. Staffs response to the appeal issue is in paragraph form following each
statement.
Master Case 01-042 /The Master's College Dormitory Project
Council Appeal / September 2001
Page 5
Approval of the dormitory project violates CEQA because this project
was "split" from other projects planned at The Master's College and was
processed prior to completion of a campus -wide master plan.
State and local law do not require that The Master's College have a master plan
in place prior to the approval of the proposed dormitory. Section 17.16.070 of the
Unified Development Code (UDC) states that entitlement requests for on-site
student housing do not need to be accompanied by a master plan of the campus.
The construction and operation of the proposed student dormitory would be an
expansion of an existing use on the college campus. College facilities located
adjacent to the proposed dormitory site include: the Waldock Dormitory and
Slight Dormitory to the east; the Dixon Dormitory, Sweazy Dormitory, and an
access road with parking to the north; a surface parking area to the southeast;
and a grass practice field to the south.
The Master's College campus is designated Private Education (PE) in the City's
General Plan and zoning map. As stated in UDC Section 17.16.070, on-site
student housing is a permitted -by -right use in the PE zone. The Master's College
is not requesting a General Plan amendment or a zone change as part of their
student dormitory project. Therefore, this type of use and its associated impacts
were already anticipated as part of the City's adopted General Plan. The
approval of the dormitory is a ministerial duty. The discretionary components of
this application are limited to the variance from the City's parking standards and
the hillside review.
Staff evaluated the proposed dormitory as one complete project. Staff found that
this project is not part of a larger scheme because it is to house students who
already attend the college and commute from other areas of the community.
Regardless what future development may occur, the dormitory is not dependent
upon or related to other possible projects. Staff, with concurrence from the City
Attorney, concluded the necessary findings with regard to this project that any
future development is not likely to change the scope or nature of this proposed
dormitory and the environmental effects it has. The number of dormitory
occupants and the effects of the occupants and building were taken into
consideration in the CEQA-required Initial Study. The number of occupants and
the use of the facility are not likely to change or be changed by any future
development.
An EIR is required for this project.
All potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and
operation of the dormitory building and surface parking area were fully analyzed
and addressed in the CEQA-required Initial Study. Staff prepared a mitigated
negative declaration after determining that it is not reasonably foreseeable that
(1) significant environmental effects will occur if mitigation measures are
implemented, and (2) that any future project is not likely to change the scope of
the proposed dormitory. The dormitory project does not warrant analysis through
Master Case 01-042 / The Master's College Dormitory Project
Council Appeal / September 2001
Page 6
an environmental impact report, as all anticipated project impacts were found to
be less than significant or could be mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
As established in the Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco,
Inc. v. The Regents of the University of California (1988) case, an EIR must
include an analysis of a future development's impacts on the environment if "it is
a reasonably forseeable consequence of the initial project; and the future
expansion of action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or
nature of the initial project or its environmental effects. Absent these two
circumstances, the future expansion need not be considered in the EIR for the
proposed project." (47 Cal.3d 376, 396)
The Planning Commission approved the project without obtaining
comments and clearances from all required governmental agencies.
As part of the development review process, staff notified all applicable local,
regional and state governmental agencies of Master Case 01-042, and requested
that each agency return comments after reviewing the project description and site
plan. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region
and the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services were among the
agencies that responded with written comments.
The Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the project without
proper public notice and public participation.
In conformance with state law and the City's Unified Development Code, staff
circulated the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for a 21 -day
public review period beginning February 27, 2001 and ending March 20, 2001.
The public hearing for Master Case 01-042 was noticed in the Signal newspaper
and individual notices were mailed to property owners 21 days prior to the
hearing date scheduled on April 3, 2001. In addition, the applicant, The Master's
College, posted a sign on their property along Placerita Canyon Road listing the
project title, a brief project description and the date, time and location of the
public hearing. At the April 3, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the
Commission continued the item to May 15, 2001. The project was approved by
the Commission at the May 151" meeting.
Modification to Conditions of Approval
A rewording of Condition EN2 is requested by the City Attorney to clarify that the
dormitory project does not include the construction of a sewer through Placerita
Canyon. The new wording for EN2 is as follows:
EN2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide all
necessary funding for the future possible construction of the mainline
backbone sewer and construct a sewer lateral from the dormitory, which
would be capable of connecting to a main sewer trunk line, if constructed.
Sewer construction is contingent upon completion of the appropriate
Master Case 01-042 / The Master's College Dormitory Project
Council Appeal / September 2001
Page 7
CEQA analysis and City Council approval following a public hearing
process.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
The Council consider any of the following alternatives:
1. Recommend that the applicant make changes to the proposed project and
return at a subsequent Council date.
2. Direct staff to return with a resolution with the necessary findings for project
denial.
3. Any other action as determined by Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact is anticipated.
1. Resolution
2. Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
3. Site Plan— The Master's College Dormitory Project
4. Notice of Appeal, Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association, May 22,
2001
CITY COUNCIL READING FILE
1. Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments, April 3, 2001
2. Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments, May 15, 2001
3. Resolution P01-06 —as adopted by the Planning Commission on May 15, 2001
4. Correspondence
LMH
S:\pbs\current\2001\01-042\ccar01042b.doc
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, let Floor, Santa Clarita, California on the 10th
day of July, 2001, at or after 6:00 p.m. to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's
approval of Master Case 01-042, The Master's College Dormitory Project. Master Case 01-042,
approved by the Commission on May 15, 2001, consists of a request to develop a 28,742 square -
foot three-story dormitory building on The Master's College campus in the Private Education
(PE) zone with a 52 -space surface parking area located immediately adjacent in the Open Space
(OS) zone. As part of this application, The Master's College requested a Development Review
(DR 01-007), a Hillside Review (HR 01-004) to allow for development on a slope in excess of 10
percent, and a Variance (Variance 01-001) from the provisions of the City's parking standards.
The Master's College is the project applicant.
Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter
at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting the Department of Planning
and Building Services, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita, CA 91355, (661) 255-
4330 — Lisa Hardy or Jason Smisko, Project Planners.
If you wish to challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you
or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council, at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Dated: June 6, 2001
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC
City Clerk
Publish Date: June 19, 2001
NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita,
at its regular meeting held July 10, 2001, continued a public hearing on
30. AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF MASTER
CASE NO. 01-042, THE MASTER'S COLLEGE DORMITORY PROJECT
(DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 01-007, HILLSIDE REVIEW 01-004, VARIANCE 01-
001) — On May 15, 2001, the Planning Commission approved Master Case 01-042, The
Master's College Dormitory Project. On May 23, 2001, the Placerita Canyon Property
Owners Association (PCPOA) submitted a Notice of Appeal for City Council consideration
of the project. The project involves the construction of a 28,742 square -foot three-story
dormitory building on The Master's College campus in the PE (Private Education) zone
and a 24,488 square -foot parking lot to be located immediately adjacent to the dormitory
in the OS (Open Space) zone.
to September 6, 2001. The continued public hearing will be held at or after 6:00
p.m. in the Council Chamber at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California.
Dated this 11th day of July, 2001.
SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
SHARON L. DAWSON, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that
she is the duly appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita and
that on July 11, 2001, she caused the above notice to be posted at the door of the
Council Chamber located at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California.
SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK
Santa Clarita, California
Forma/contph.doc
City of
Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Suite 300
Santa Clarita
California 91355.2196
Website: www.santa-clarita.com
May 30, 2001
Mr. Arnold K. Graham
Graham Vaage & Cisneros
500 North Brand Blvd.
Glendale CA 91203
Dear Mr. Graham:
"Phone
(661) 259-2489
Fax
(661)259-8125
On May 29, 2001, this office received the appeal on behalf of the Placenta Canyon
Property Owners Association (PCPOA) of the action taken by the Planning
Commission on Master Case No. 01-142, the Masters College Dormitory Project.
The appeal has been tentatively been scheduled for the City Council meeting of July
10, 2001, which will begin at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Blvd., Santa Clarita.
Enclosed is your receipt for the $1,150 appeal fee.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Lisa Hardy, 661-255-4949, or
Jason Smisko, 661-255-4354, of the Planning Division or myself at 661-255-4391.
Sincerely,
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC
City Clerk
Enclosure
cc: Lisa Hardy, Senior Planner
Jason Smisko, Associate Planner
is
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF StJHTA CLARITA
LAW OFFICES
GRAHAM VAAGE &YOSPI]IEW01
PLEASE REPLY TO:
ARNOLD K. GRAHAM
FILE NO:
PCPOA
VIA HAND DELIVERY
City Clerk
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Ste. 304
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Attention: Sharon Dawson
Suite 1030
500 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD
GLENDALE CALIFORNIA 91W.CEIVU
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
May 22, 2001
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval
Of the Master's College Dormitory Project
Master Case No. 01-142 on May 15, 2001
Dear Ms. Dawson:
TELEPHONE
(8 18 547-4800
Facsimile
(8 18) 547-3100
This office represents the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association
("PCPOA"). This letter will constitute a Notice of Appeal by PCPOA and its
members from the Santa Clarita Planning Commission's ("Commission")
Decision of May 15, 2001 to approve the Master's College Dormitory Project
("Project"), Master Case No. 01-142.
The grounds for the appeal include but are not limited to the following
1. Approval of the project violates CEQA, in that the project is but
one part of Master College's incomplete 10 -year conceptual master
plan for growth ("master plan"), which must be evaluated as a
whole, and not divided into segmented projects for approval. See,
Citizens Assn. For Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of
Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151,165-168. See also, the May 15, 2001
Planning Commission Staff Report, p. 5, which notes with respect
to the purported master plan: "The preparation of the master plan
and the associated environmental analysis will be a multi-year
rp ocess "
The City has completely failed to require a full and complete
master plan of all development in advance of commencing any
individual Projects, which may be a part thereof.
n
—c
IV
O
rt„
�
uT
r
a
O{t
ON
A
�o
rn
;
o
=+
s
This office represents the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association
("PCPOA"). This letter will constitute a Notice of Appeal by PCPOA and its
members from the Santa Clarita Planning Commission's ("Commission")
Decision of May 15, 2001 to approve the Master's College Dormitory Project
("Project"), Master Case No. 01-142.
The grounds for the appeal include but are not limited to the following
1. Approval of the project violates CEQA, in that the project is but
one part of Master College's incomplete 10 -year conceptual master
plan for growth ("master plan"), which must be evaluated as a
whole, and not divided into segmented projects for approval. See,
Citizens Assn. For Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of
Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151,165-168. See also, the May 15, 2001
Planning Commission Staff Report, p. 5, which notes with respect
to the purported master plan: "The preparation of the master plan
and the associated environmental analysis will be a multi-year
rp ocess "
The City has completely failed to require a full and complete
master plan of all development in advance of commencing any
individual Projects, which may be a part thereof.
LAW OFFICES
GRAHAM VAAGE & CISNEROS
City Clerk
May 22, 2001
Page 2
2. Approval of the project violates CEQA in that in the absence of the
required completed full master plan, the Commission did not, and
could not, consider the cumulative effects of the entire
development, including all phases both present and future, and
reasonably foreseeable future activities that will likely change the
scope or nature of this Project or its environmental effects. See,
Pub Res C §21083(b); 14 Cal Code of Regs §§15130(a), (b)(1)(A),
15126(e), 15355, 15142, 15143, 15355; Laurel Heights Improvement
Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Ca.3d 376,394-
396.
3. The Commission improperly approved this project without
requiring an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") as to the
cumulative effects of the master plan and the subject Project on the
environment. Master's College has in the past and continues to
develop various Projects, without the community having the full
benefit of a Master Plan of development, and without the City and
the Planning Commission being able to properly weigh and
evaluate the environmental impacts of each and every proposed
Project, including the subject Project, prior to its approval. This ad
hoc processing of Projects by the City is contrary to the purpose
and intent of CEQA, and fails to provide the City of Santa Clarita
and its overall community with the protections afforded by CEQA.
In addition, the actions of the City deliberately seek to strip away
public participation in the environmental review process. See, Pub
Res C §§21065, 21080, 21151; Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. Los Angeles
(1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259, 271.
4. The Commission improperly approved the Project subject to an
invalid mitigated negative declaration, without full and complete
study and analysis of the effects of the Project, whereas a full EIR
was required to have first been performed by the applicant to
address the cumulative effects of the master plan and the subject
Project on the environment.
5. The Commission improperly approved the Project by granting
preferential treatment to Master's College, including a variance
from Unified Development Code parking requirements, despite
the lack of a full EIR addressing the cumulative effects of the master
plan on the environment.
6. The Commission improperly approved the Project without
obtaining comments and clearances from all required
governmental agencies including, but not limited to the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board. Expressly ignored by the
LAW OFFICES
GRAHAM VAAGE & CISNEROS
City Clerk
May 22, 2001
Page 3
City was the impact on groundwater conditions, which will be
caused by the infusion of millions of gallons of effluent into the
substrata by this proposed dormitory Project, which is only on a
septic system and not on a public sewer system.
7. The Commission improperly conducted a hearing approving a
Project, which requires completion of a full environmental
clearance in advance of both the hearing and the action taken by
the Commission.
8. The Commission conducted a hearing on a Project without proper
public notice and public participation.
9. In approving this Project, the Commission and City staff breached
their sworn duties owed to the public and to the entire community
of Santa Clarita, for which independent liability shall attach.
10. The Commission and certain members of City staff have engaged
in a continuous pattern and practice, and course of conduct, which
includes this Project, to consistently avoid and ignore the legal
duties imposed upon them of fully and completely protecting the
public and the environment of Santa Clarita, in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, which
each of them is sworn to do and has a legal duty to do.
PCPOA appeals the Commissions approval of the Project on May 15,
2001 on the foregoing grounds, and requests that the Santa Clarita City Council
set the appeal for hearing and determination, and that this office be promptly
notified of the date and time the appeal is set for hearing.
The appellant's check for $1,150 payable to the City of Santa Clarita is
enclosed for the required filing fee.
Very
AKG/PMH/jlm
GRAHAM
ti
Placerita Canyon Property
Owners Association
P.O. Box 222204
P Santa Clarita, CA 91322
C
June 29, 2001 (Via Fax and Hand Delivery)
Mayor Laurette Weste and City Council Members
George A. Caravalho, City Manager
Sharon Dawson, City Clerk
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 W. Valencia Blvd., P Floor
Valencia, CA 91355
Fax: 661.259-8125
Re: Placerita Canyon Community issues – City Council Agenda 7-10-01
Dear Sirs:
We have recently learned from City representatives that the City Council's agenda for
July 10`h, 2001 is too full to have the Council properly hear our Master's College Dorm
project appeal and the Placerita Canyon Backbone Sewer Project issues on that day. It is
clear from the recent Council agenda experience occurring on the evening of June 26`h
through the morning of June 27th , that were the City Council to attempt to hear these
matters on July 10 that they could not be heard in a proper, timely, and fair manner
conducive to ensuring due process to all of the potential participants.
We have also been informed that due to the City Council's previously scheduled summer
recess and unavailability of all the City Council members (due to other prior
commitments), that these matters cannot be heard until the next regularly scheduled
agenda set in September, 2001. Thus, we are now operating under the belief that due to
the City Council's unavailability on July 1 Ohh that these matters have been continued to its
agenda in September, 2001, when the Council returns from its previously scheduled
summer recess. We request the City Clerk immediately advise us of the scheduled date
for hearing these agenda items in September.
Should this be inaccurate in any way, we request that you immediately contact the
undersigned at 661.253-2171 and 661.253-4410 (fax).
Very truly yours„.,
o
/
A
<
/ L
Linda A. Townsley —
-'
m
Vice President
a ';
CD
a
cc: Board of Directors
v -'
►'
>
01
C,
in
o
o
'
Latham & Watkins
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WWW.LW.COM
533 WEST FIFTH STREET, SURE 4000
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-2007
TELEPHONE: (213) 485-1234
FAX: (213) 891-8753
TO: City Clerk DATE: July 3, 2001
FILE NO.:
FROM: Patrick Michell COPIES TO:
SUBJECT: The Master's College Dormitory Project, Master Case No. 01-042
Per my discussion on Monday, July 2, 2001 with your staff concerning the above
referenced matter which is presently scheduled for Council consideration on July 10, 2001,
please find an original letter and copies of same for members of the City Council and your files.
Should you have any questions or require further information, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
BOSON • CHICAGO • FRANKFURT • HAMBURG • HONG KONG • LONDON • Loa ANGELES • MOSCOW • NEW JERSEY • NEW YORK • NORTHERN VIRGINIA
ORANGE COUNTY • SAN DECO • SAN FRANCISCO • SILICON VALLEY • SINOAPOftf • TOKYO • WASHINGTON, D.C.
BOSTON
CHICAGO
FRANKFURT
HAMBURG
HONG KONG
LONDON
LOS ANGELES
MOSCOW
NEW JERSEY
City Clerk
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Ste. 304
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Attn: Sharon Dawson
Latham a Watkins
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WWW.LW.COM
NEW YORK
NORTHERN VIRGINIA
ORANGE COUNTY
SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
SILICON VALLEY
SINGAPORE
TOKYO
WASHINGTON. D.C.
TU, No. 01
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of the Master's College
Dormitory Project, Master Case No. 01-042 on May 15, 2001
Dear Ms. Dawson:
We are writing this letter on behalf of our client, The Master's College, for the
purpose of responding to the contentions raised by the Placerita Canyon Property Owners
Association's ("Appellants") Notice of Appeal, dated May 22, 2001, regarding the Santa Clarita
Planning Commission's ("Commission") Decision of May 15, 2001, to approve The Master's
College Dormitory Project (the "Project"). Essentially, Appellants maintain that the
Commission's decision to approve the Project violates the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA"), because the Commission:
A. Failed to evaluate the Project as simply one component of The Master's College
conceptual master plan for growth;'
B. Failed to prepare an EIR regarding the cumulative effects of the Project and the
conceptual master plan;2
C. Failed to obtain comments from governmental agencies, particularly the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board ("RWQCB");3 and
'Notice of Appeal
2 Id.
3 Id.
650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 2000 0 CO3TA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92828-1925
TELEPHONE: (714) 540-1235 • FAX (714) 755-8290
DC_DOCS\442868.3 [W97]
City Clerk
July 3, 2001
Page 2
D. Failed to conduct the public hearing at which the Project was approved according
to applicable public notice and participation requirements.°
As you will see from the discussion below, the project was properly approved under CEQA and
in accordance with City procedures.
BackEround
The proposed Project involves the construction of a three-story dormitory
building and associated parking lot that will be located on The Master's College campus in zones
designated as PE (Private Education) and OS (Open Space) by the City of Santa Clarita's
General Plan and Unified Development Code. The dormitory would house 162 students in 81
rooms, and would occupy approximately 1.2 acres. The Commission issued a public notice
regarding the Project on February 27, 2001, through legal advertisement, posting of the relevant
property, and written notice. The public review period ran from February 27, 2001, until March
20, 2001. On April 3, 2001, the Commission held a public hearing. The hearing was closed and
the item continued to May 15, 2001. On May 15, 2001, the Commission found that, so long as
certain mitigation measures were adopted, the Project would have no significant effect on the
environment, and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration under Section 15074 of CEQA and
adopted the resolution approving the project by a vote of 4 to 1.
A. The Commission Properly Considered The Proiect As A Whole
Appellants first argue that the project is only one part of The Master's College
incomplete 10 -year conceptual master plan for growth that should be evaluated as a whole, and
not divided into segmented projects for approval. They also argue that, in the absence of a full
and complete master plan, the Commission did not and could not consider the cumulative effects
of the entire development.
As noted previously, the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan and zoning
designation for the proposed dormitory building site is Private Education, which is categorized as
a Special Zone. The purpose of the PE zone as stated in Section 17.16.070 in the City of Santa
Clarita Unified Development Code, is (1) to encourage the existing private colleges to maintain
and expand their facilities; (2) to provide a specialized zone which promotes and encourages the
continuation and development of private higher institutions of learning; and (3) to permit the
development of private college related uses in conjunction with and necessary for the operation
of private colleges, including but not limited to administrative offices, dormitories, conference
facilities, libraries, and research facilities. Pursuant to Section 17.16. 070 B 6 k, "Onsite Student
Housing" is permitted by right and specifically does not require a master plan of the campus.
4 Id.
OC_DOCs\442868.3 JW971
City Clerk
July 3, 2001
Page 3
The Commission properly considered the Project before it — the new campus
dormitory. Although the Commission was required to evaluate the entire Project rather than
conducting a discrete environmental review for each agency approval, it was not required to
consider the effects of uncertain "future" projects, such as those described in the master plan
which, as mentioned above, is not required under the zoning.
For purposes of CEQA, a "project" is defined as including "the whole of an
action" that has the potential to result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change to the environment.5 Hence, the lead agency must consider the whole of an action, rather
than its constituent parts, when determining whether it will have a significant effect on the
environment.6 This prevents agencies from "chopping a large project into many little ones —
each with a minimal potential impact on the environment," in order to avoid full environmental
disclosure.
Thus, there is a large body of case law (including that cited by Appellants)
considering segmented or "piecemeal" environmental review, admonishing lead agencies to
consider development proposals that will be subject to several governmental approvals as a
single "project," rather than reviewing each approval independently.s In other words, if a
proposed development requires amendment of the general plan, zone reclassification, and
tentative tract map approval, the development is properly described as one "project," rather than
as two or three projects subject to separate environmental review.9 As explained by one court of
appeal, "[t]he danger of filing separate environmental documents for the same project is that
consideration of the cumulative impact on the environment of the two halves of the project may
not occur."10
In this case, all approvals necessary for the development proposal to go forward —
the hillside development review, minor use permit, and variance — were properly considered as
part of a single "project" — construction of the new campus dormitory. Appellants fail to
differentiate between "piecemeal" environmental review of a single project, and review of a
project currently proposed for development in conjunction with potential future projects.
5 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15378(a).
'Id. § 15003(h).
See Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Comm'n of Ventura County, 13 Cal. 3d 263, 283-84 (1975).
'See Christward Ministry v. Superior Court of San Diego, 184 Cal. App. 3d 180,194 (1986); City of
Carmel -by -the -Sea v. Bd. of Supervisors of Monterey County, 183 Cal. App. 3d 229, 243 (1986);
Citizens Assn for Sensible Dev. of Bishop Area v. County oflnyo, 172 Cal. App. 3d 151, 165
(1985).
9 See Citizens Assn, 172 Cal. App. 3d at 165-66.
'old. at 166.
OC_DOCS\442868.3 [W971
City Clerk
July 3, 2001
Page 4
In Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of
California, the California Supreme Court set forth the standard governing review of such future
projects:
We hold that an EIR must include an analysis of the environmental
effects of future expansion or other action if: (1) it is a reasonably
foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future
expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change
the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental
effects. Absent these two circumstances, the future expansion
need not be considered in the EIR for the proposed project."
Hence, a lead agency is simply not required to include in its environmental review potential later
phases or later expansions of a plan that are not reasonably foreseeable consequences of the
approval. As noted by several courts applying the Laurel Heights standard, "where future
development is unspecified and uncertain, no purpose can be served by requiring an EIR to
engage in sheer speculation as to future environmental consequences."12 Even where project
proponents anticipate growth and/or hope to subsequently expand their projects, courts have
recognized that "dreams ... for expansion ... are not substantial evidence that future expansion
of the project ... is reasonably foreseeable."13
In a closely analogous case, Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Committee v. Board of
Trustees of the California State University and Colleges, one court of appeal considered an EIR
for a proposed campus stadium that was challenged as being inadequate, because it failed to
discuss environmental consequences of other elements of the campus master plan, such as a field
house and a parking lot. The other elements of the master plan were not proposed for
construction at that time. Hence, the court rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the EIR was
defective, noting that CEQA was not intended to deal with abstract or theoretical plans, but with
agencies actually intending to carry out a project. 14 Similarly, here, the Commission fully
"Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 47 Cal. 3d 376,396 (1988).
Z Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 738 (1990); Lake County Energy
Council v. County of Lake, 70 Cal. App. 3d 851, 854-55 (1977); see also Nat'l Parks and
Conservation Assn v. County of Riverside, 42 Cal. App. 4`s 1505, 1 51 5 (1996).
17 Lucas Valley Homeowners Assn v. County of Marin, 233 Cal. App. 3d 130, 162 (1991); see also
Laurel Heights, 47 Cal. 3d at 398 ("We do not require prophecy .... Nor do we require
discussion in the EIR of specific future action that is merely contemplated or a gleam in a
planner's eye.")
14 Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Comm. v. Bd. of Trustees of the Cal. State Univ. and Colleges, 89 Cal. App.
3d 274, 290-91 (1979).
OC_DOCS\442868.3 [W971
IATAAM i WATKINS
City Clerk
July 3, 2001
Page 5
considered all aspects of the Project, and is not required to speculate regarding uncertain plans
for future development, such as those contained in a "conceptual" master plan.
B. The Commission Properly Found That The Project's Impacts Will Be Less Than
Cumulatively Considerable
Appellants next three arguments stress that a full EIR should have been prepared,
in order to address the "cumulative effects" of the Project in conjunction with those of the master
plan. Here, too, Appellants confuse the obligations that a lead agency has with respect to the
project at issue, with the requirement to — in limited circumstances — consider the effects of
future or related projects as well.
A discussion of cumulative impacts under the CEQA Guidelines and the relevant
case law is required only where the project's "incremental effect is cumulatively considerable." 15
These are two distinct concepts. The term "cumulatively considerable" is used to describe the
incremental effect of one project, while "cumulative impacts" refers to the combined effects of
several projects. As explained in San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of
Stanislaus:
There appears to be a difference between the 'cumulative impacts'
analysis required in an EIR and the question of whether a project's
impacts are 'cumulatively considerable' for purposes of
determining whether an EIR must be prepared at all.... To
[decide whether incremental effects of a project are considerable],
the agency considers the effects of other projects, but only as a
context for considering whether the incremental effects of the
project at issue are considerable.... The question is not whether
there is a'significant cumulative impact' but whether the effects of
the'individual project are considerable.' 16
Specifically, an EIR must be prepared only where (1) the cumulative impact may be significant;
and (2) the project's incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively
considerable.l In its Initial Study, the Commission specifically found that the Project would not
have impacts that would be considered "individually limited but cumulatively considerable." 18
's Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 §§ 15130 & 15064(i)(1).
16 San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus, 42 Cal. App. 41" 608, 623-24
(1996) (emphasis added).
"Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15064(i)(1).
8 Initial Study, p. 9.
OC_DOCS\442868.3 JW971
IATNAM s WATNINS
City Clerk
July 3, 2001
Page 6
Appellants do not point to any impact from the Project that should be considered "cumulatively
considerable," and thus warrant preparation of an EIR.
C. The Commission Properly Consulted Other Responsible Agencies
Appellants next assert that the Commission improperly approved the Project
without obtaining comments and clearances from governmental agencies such as the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board ("RWQCB"). Appellants appear to be referring
to the lead agency's obligation to consult with "responsible agencies" before deciding whether to
prepare a negative declaration or an EIR.19 "Responsible agencies" include all public agencies,
other than the lead agency, that have discretionary approval power over the prof ect.20 The City
has met its responsibility to consult with the RWQCB. The RWQCB was consulted and
provided a comment letter dated April 30, 2001 identifying information that would be needed at
the time it reviews the construction and operational phases of the project. The Conditions of
Approval require that RWQCB and Los Angeles County Health Department approval be
obtained for any septic system or sewer on the property prior to building plan check.
D. The Commission Properly Conducted The Approval Hearing For The Project
Finally, Appellants maintain that the Commission improperly conducted the
hearing at which the Project was approved, without completing its environmental review, and
without proper public notice and participation. To the contrary, it appears that the Commission
complied fully with CEQA's mandate to involve the public during the environmental review
process.
Lead agencies must provide a period of at least 20 days for public review of a
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. 21 The lead agency must then consider the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, along with any comments received, before approving the project.22 The
Commission issued a public notice regarding the project on February 27, 2001. The public
review period ran from February 27, 2001 until March 20, 2001. A public hearing before the
Commission was held on April 3, 2001 and several hours of testimony were heard. The public
hearing was closed and the item continued until May 15, 2001 when the Commission heard staff
comments and adopted the resolution approving the Project.
19 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21080.3.
21 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15381.
21 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15073.
22 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21091(d)(1) & (f); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15074.
OC_DOCS\442868.3 [W971
IATHAM a WATMNS
City Clerk
July 3, 2001
Page 7
Conclusion
From the foregoing, it is clear that the City complied with CEQA and meet the
legal standards applicable to the Commission's approval of the Project.
Respectfully submitted,
&,,
Donald P. Baker 10-C-1
of Latham & Watkins
cc Jeff Lambert, Director of Planning & Building Services
City Attorney, City of Santa Clarita
OC_DOCS\4428683 JW971
.. 07/23/2001 05:58 805-2534410 LINDA TOWNSLEY PAGE 01
Placerita Canyon Property
Owners Association
P.O. Box 222204
Santa Clarita, CA 91322
a
July 23, 2001 (Via Fax and Mail)
Mayor Laurene Weste and City Council Members
George A. Caravalho, City Manager
Shawn Dawson, City Clerk
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 W. Valencia Blvd., Std Floor
Valencia, CA 91355
Fax: 661.259-9125
Re: Placerita Canyon Community issues — City Council Agenda 9-6.01
As you know the City Council gave City staff direction and staff acknowledged they
would work with both the Placerita Canyon Community and Master's College on the
issues facing us. Specifically, the City Council suggested that the involved parties get
together, including the Placenta Canyon Community, to try to resolve issues and better
identify issues that were not resolvable in this framework. While it is unfortunate that
mediation efforts have been rejected, both in word and deed, by the Master's College
chief spokesman, Richard L. Mayhue, Executive Vice President, we the Placerita Canyon
Community, remain willing and able to mediate and resolve all issues facing all
participants involved in these disputes.
Additionally, City staff, at the Placenta Canyon Backbone Sewer Project meeting of June
I g's, 2001, again acknowledged and agreed that they would have a written response to the
written questions and concerns presented in our memorandum to the City Council on May
0, 2001. As of this date we have not seen it, although Mr. Christopher Price had
indicated it was being drafted. At that same meeting Cesar Aranda stated that minutes
would be prepared and provided, but those have not been received either as of this date.
THE 040
MASTERS CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
C O L L E G E
August 23, 2001
Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite #300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Sharon:
2001 AUG 2l A cI: 15
RECEP' _D
CITY CLERK , OFFICE
We have received the City of Santa Clarita Planning Staff report of August 18th, 2001
recommending that the City Council uphold the May 15th Planning Commission vote (4-
1) to allow TMC to build a new dormitory. I wanted to affirm the report as both accurate
and fair. We fully concur with their recommendation. As an additional piece of
background information I've enclosed a copy of the legal opinion written by Latham &
Watkins, on our behalf, which affirms the opinions and recommendations set forth by the
City attorney and the City planning staff.
We have included copies of this material for distribution to the individual
councilmembers. Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Richard .Mayhu , D.
Executive Vice President
The Master's College and Seminary
RLM:ss
cc: Mayor Laurene Weste
Mayor Pro Tem Frank Ferry
Councilmember Jo Anne Darcy
Councilmember Robert Kellar
Councilmember Cameron Smyth
21726 PLACERITA CANYON ROAD • SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA 91321-1200
800/568-6248 • 805/259-3540 • 805/288-1037 FAX • http://..masters.edu
LAW OFFICES
GRAHAM VAAGE & CISNEROS
PLEASE REPLY TO:
ARNOLD K. GRAHAM
PCPoa RECEIVED AND MADE A
PART OF THE RECORD AT
9 L 121 MEETING
ITEM NO. I
FROM: CF�1.5 i ow t i Sc Ery
City Clerk
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Ste. 304
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Attention: Sharon Dawson
Suite 1030
500 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD
GLENDALE CALIFORNIA 91203
TELEPHONE
(8 18) 547-4800
Focelmlle
(818) 547-3100
VIA MESSENGER, FACSIMILE AND
FIRST CLASS MAIL
September 4, 2001
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval
Of the Master's College Dormitory Project
Master Case No. 01-142 on May 15, 2001
Dear Ms. Dawson:
This office represents the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association
("PCPOA"). On May 29, 2001, PCPOA and its members filed a Notice of Appeal
from the Santa Clarita Planning Commissions ("Commission") Decision of May
15, 2001 to approve the Master's College Dormitory Project ("Project"), Master
Case No. 01-142. The appeal has been scheduled for special hearing at the City
Council meeting at 6:00 p.m. on September 6, 2001.
This letter will supplement the factual and legal bases for the appeal, and
respond to recent responses of the City Planning staff and City Attorney to the
points raised by the appeal which our office only received on September 4, 2001.
We request that copies of this letter be included as a part of the official
record, and also be provided to the City Council members for their review and
consideration prior to the scheduled hearing on the appeal.
1. A FULL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY IS REQUIRED UNDER
CEQA OF THE COMPLETE MASTER PLAN PRIOR TO
PROJECT APPROVAL
The legacy of preferential treatment accorded to Master's College by the
City of Santa Clarita is long and broad, including having granted Master's a
�
o
�
—+
�m
o
rno
r
L
-M
rn
t
This office represents the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association
("PCPOA"). On May 29, 2001, PCPOA and its members filed a Notice of Appeal
from the Santa Clarita Planning Commissions ("Commission") Decision of May
15, 2001 to approve the Master's College Dormitory Project ("Project"), Master
Case No. 01-142. The appeal has been scheduled for special hearing at the City
Council meeting at 6:00 p.m. on September 6, 2001.
This letter will supplement the factual and legal bases for the appeal, and
respond to recent responses of the City Planning staff and City Attorney to the
points raised by the appeal which our office only received on September 4, 2001.
We request that copies of this letter be included as a part of the official
record, and also be provided to the City Council members for their review and
consideration prior to the scheduled hearing on the appeal.
1. A FULL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY IS REQUIRED UNDER
CEQA OF THE COMPLETE MASTER PLAN PRIOR TO
PROJECT APPROVAL
The legacy of preferential treatment accorded to Master's College by the
City of Santa Clarita is long and broad, including having granted Master's a
LAW OFFICES
GRAHAM VAAGE & CISNEROS
City Clerk
September 4, 2001
Page 2
special zoning designation which seeks to relieve the City from its required
governmental duties to govern, and Master's from the normal constraints on
authorized and permitted uses imposed on the rest of the community, both
residential and business.
So preferentially treated has been Master's College by the City over the
years that the City has institutionalized its treatment, like a subservient to a well -
ingrained catechism, deferentially and consistently looking the other way, time
and time again, year in and year out, allowing Master's to ignore the building
codes, related zoning standards, the water codes, the parking requirements,
sewer standards, development density requirements, the environment in
general, and the other accepted land use standards applicable to a civilized
society.
We are here because, once again, the community is confronted with what
has been another abdication by local government of its responsibility to act in
accordance with its sworn duties to enforce well-established law which laws have
been designed to protect both the local residents and the larger community, not
just for today but for the future.
The legislative intent and purpose of the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA") is to provide a framework for considering and fully evaluating the
environmental impacts from all projects submitted to government for approval.
Local government, being the pivot point [i.e. the "lead agency"] through which
all projects are to be subjected to the scrutiny of applicable law, and against the
prism of the intent and purpose of the applicable law, has its own duty to enforce
--not ignore -- the law.
Here, the City staff clearly has not followed the law, or the intent of the
law, in its presentment to the City Planning Commission of its approval of the
pending project submitted by Master's College.
In that vein, the City's slapdash approval of the subject project violates
CEQA in that Master's proposed project is but only one part of Master's
incomplete 10 -year conceptual master plan for growth ("master plan"), which
legally and factually must first be evaluated as a whole, and not be divided into
segmented projects for approval. See, Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of
Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 CalApp 3d 151, 165-168.
That plan is not yet ripe for consideration of its overall environmental
impact. See, the May 15, 2001 Planning Commission Staff Report, page 5, which
notes with respect to the purported master plan: "The preparation of the master
plan and the associated environmental analysis will be a multi-year process."
LAW OFFICES
GRAHAM VAAGE & CISNEROS
City Clerk
September 4, 2001
Page 3
While the issuance of a building permit usually is a non -discretionary,
ministerial act by a local agency for which an environmental impact report (EIR)
may not be required in order to issue the permit (Pub Res C §§15357,15369;
Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1987) 191 CalApp 3d 259, 271), in
circumstances, such as where there is evidence that the construction of successive
buildings has occurred or is imminent, or there are unique and substantial effects
on the environment resulting from the project, or the project is unusual in size,
dimension and location, where the local agency by the terms of its ordinance can
exercise discretion to modify the project when issuing the building permit, an
EIR is required. 14 Cal Code of Regs §15100; Friends of Westwood, supra, at pp.
272,273.
The EIR (1) must be prepared by the lead agency be ore the project is
approved, and the project (2) must be evaluated in the context of the
environmental impact report. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of
University of California (1988) 47 C. 3d 376, 391.
There clearly was no ministerial duty in this case to approve the proposed
dormitory project. Here, an EIR is plainly required to have been prepared prior
to project approval since the proposed 28,742 square foot three-story dormitory,
with adjacent 24,488 square foot parking lot, is a building and construction
project of unusual size in a rural and unique canyon setting.
Moreover, the project is but one of many planned projects under Master's
conceptual master plan. The City improperly approved this project without
requiring an EIR as to the cumulative effects on the environment of either the
master plan or the subject project. Master's College has in the past and continues
to develop various projects, having continuously deprived the Santa Clarita
community from participating in the issues affecting or the rights and remedies
flowing from having the full benefit of a Master Plan of development, and
without the City and the Planning Commission being provided both with the
opportunity and the governmental obligation to properly weigh and evaluate
the environmental impacts of each and every proposed project proposed by
Master's College, including the subject project, prior to its approval.
This ad hoc processing of projects [more accurately characterized as de
facto acquiescence] by the City to construction proposals by Master's College is
contrary to the defined purpose and intent of CEQA, and fails to provide the
City of Santa Clarita and its overall community with any of the protections
afforded by CEQA.
In addition, the actions of the City deliberately strip away and deprive the
public of its guaranteed right of full participation in the environmental review
process. See, Pub Res C §§21065, 21080, 21151; Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. Los
Angeles (1987) 191 CalApp 3d 259, 271.
LAW OFFICES
GRAHAM VAAGE & CISNEROS
City Clerk
September 4, 2001
Page 4
Contrary to the sworn duties of the elected City officers, such conduct is
and continues to be an abdication of and turning over the powers of elected
government to a private religious organization for its own use and purposes.
2. THE CITY'S MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS
INVALID
The City, in an effort to further pave the way for Master's College's
continued ignoring of applicable environmental laws and societal duties,
improperly approved the proposed project subject to an invalid mitigated
negative declaration, without first performing a full and complete study of the
effects of the project, whereas a full EIR was required to have first been
performed by Master's College to address the cumulative effects of its purported
master plan and the subject project, on the environment.
The law is very clear: the City cannot, without liability of its own to those
negatively affected, approve permits for a project which has significant impacts
on the environment without requiring a full environmental study to be
conducted in advance.
The City cannot complicity avoid the issue, as is recommended to be done
here by City staff, by selectively concluding that certain mitigative actions will
obviate the need for a full EIS/EIR.
3. THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ISSUE
The Planning Commission improperly approved the proposed project by
granting preferential parking treatment to Master's College, including a variance
from the Unified Development Code parking requirements, despite the lack of a
full EIR addressing the cumulative effects of the master plan on the environment.
Under the Unified Development Code's requirements, one parking space
is required for every 100 square feet of floor area in the proposed dormitory.
Using this ratio, 288 parking spaces are required to accommodate the proposed
28,742 square foot dormitory.
Notwithstanding this requirement, Master's has proposed a mere 52 -stall
parking area adjacent to the dormitory, which actually equates to 31 net parking
spaces as some current parking area must be demolished in the process of
construction. Master's proposal was a mere eleven percent (11%) of the actual
amount of parking spaces required under the Code!
LAW OFFICES
GRAHAM VAAGE & CISNEROS
City Clerk
September 4, 2001
Page 5
In spite of this paltry provision for parking, the City staff has
recommended that Master's be granted a variance from the Unified
Development Code's requirements, provided that Master's increase the number
of proposed parking spaces for the project to 86 [instead of the minimum
required 288 spaces]. This severe dilution of the Unified Development Code
requires only thirty percent (30%) of the parking spaces legally required under
the Code.
Why is the City relaxing the parking requirements? Obviously, to allow
Master's to further densify the development of its site with other construction
projects. The land area that the City allows not to be used for parking is the
same land area the Master's intends to devote to further construction activities.
It is equally obvious from Master's proposal, and the City's response, that
the proposed dormitory project would be seriously underparked, resulting in
increased traffic and a spillover of parking onto public streets and thoroughfares,
and into off -campus neighborhoods, thus further endangering the health and
safety of the citizens of Santa Clarita, whom the Code requirements are designed
to protect.
4. THE PAVED PARKING LOT ISSUE
In its application, Master's proposes a 24,488 square foot paved parking
lot adjacent to the dormitory building and located in the open space ("OS") zone.
In approving Master's Application for the dormitory project, the City has also
approved the adjacent parking lot without first conducting the requisite
environmental study of all aspects of Master's proposed conceptual master plan,
and its cumulative effect on the environment. In light of said failure, the City
could not have properly evaluated the paved parking lot in relation to its
compliance with either the OS zone or the Placerita Canyon Special Standards
District ("Special Standards District") requirements.
The "Uses" section of §17.16.060 of the OS zone does not specify or allow
parking as a permitted use of said zone. Moreover, the Special Standards District
overlays both the dormitory and surface parking lot sites, and the purpose of
theSSpecial Standards District is to maintain, preserve and enhance the rural
and equestrian character of Placerita Canyon.
The paved parking lot clearly conflicts with these standards, and with the
OS zoning of the area, in that it would seal the ground surface from water
percolation, thereby contributing to increased runoff and flooding incident
thereto. The City cannot properly evaluate these issues without Master's having
first submitted in advance a full and complete environmental study as to all
aspects of its planned development.
LAW OFFICES
GRAHAM VAAGE & CISNEROS
City Clerk
September 4, 2001
Page 6
5. FUTURE DOCKWEILER DRIVE EXTENSION ISSUE
Both the City staff and the City Attorney admit that the City's planned
future alignment of Dockweiler Drive is still conceptual in nature, and has not yet
undergone the required engineering and environmental analysis which would
be required to address any disruption said proposed alignment would cause to
existing land uses and property interests, including but not limited to its impact
on Master's proposed dormitory building pad.
Notwithstanding these incomplete studies on the road alignment project,
and its likely impact on the environment and surrounding community, the City
is still determined to bow to Master's parochial interests and prematurely
approve the dormatory project with neither a master plan from Master's in
place, nor a full study of the Dockweiler Extension Project and its likely impact
on the project at issue.
This further reinforces the need for a full environmental study under
CEQA prior to project approval. The City has not required an analysis which
properly factors in the Dockweiler Project.
6. SEWAGE ISSUE
The City improperly approved the Master's project without obtaining
necessary evaluations, comments and clearances from all required governmental
agencies, including but not limited to the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, which had requested further information and documentation on
the project's effect on the Santa Clara Watershed.
Expressly ignored by the City and Master's is the impact on groundwater
conditions which will be caused by the infusion of millions of gallons of effluent
into the substrata by this proposed dormitory project, which is situated on only a
septic system and not on a public sewer system.
Neither the City nor Master's has bothered to even calculate and publish
to the public, and have NOT proffered to the Planning Commission or to the
community, the actual amount of effluent capable of being produced both from
the college as a whole, and from the proposed dormitory project in this case.
It is absolutely required that both subsets of information be fully
evaluated for their environmental effects, both individually and cumulatively.
LAW OFFICES
GRAHAM VAAGE & CISNEROS
City Clerk
September 4, 2001
Page 7
Because of its concern about sewage in the City and available sewage
capacity, the City retained a Sewer Study by Boyle Engineering in 1999. In the
City's own Sewer Study, Boyle calculated that Master's would produce 80 gallons
of effluent per residential student per day.
Master's is the single largest generator of wastewater in Placerita Canyon.
As noted in the Boyle Report, Master's has " ... uses which have concentrated
wastewater generation in relatively small areas which typically require a public
sewer system ..."
By its own admission, Master's dormitory project is scheduled to
accommodate 162 students and at least two (2) resident directors.
With 162 students plus 2 resident directors, each producing 80 GPD of
effluent, 13,120 gallons of effluent per day will be produced, equating to
393,600 gallons per month, or 4.788.800 gallons of effluent per year.
And how has adding this sewage contribution from the dormitory project
to the total Master's College effluent production affected the environment? The
City does not know.
And yet the City has incredulously assumed that the environmental
effects of that sewage contribution do not have to be fully evaluated!
Nowhere in its application has Master's informed the City or the Planning
Commission of the extent of the effluent that will be infused into the
groundwater as a result of the dormitory project, nor has the City addressed this
issue.
If the full extent of this total sewage production and infusion into the
groundwater acquifer were known to the Planning Commission, it should never
even have considered Master's Application until Master's had first prepared and
submitted a full environmental impact study as a part of its Application, and had
subjected the proposed project to a full scientific analysis and public hearing
process.
If the County Regional Water Quality Control Board had been properly
informed and knew the actual effect on local groundwater conditions from the
additional infusion of nearly 4.8 million gallons of sewage per year in an area
with known frequent high water table problems and subject to frequent
flooding, it would intercede in conjunction with its own local, state and regional
duties.
It is totally irresponsible for the City and its Planning Commission not to
properly protect the health and safety of the entire Santa Clarita community,
LAW OFFICES
GRAHAM VAAGE & CISNEROS
City Clerk
September 4, 2001
Page 8
instead of again bowing subserviently to the demands of local parochial
interests.
THE CITY'S APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT RENDERED THE
PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS UNDER CEQA MEANINGLESS
The City improperly conducted a hearing approving the project, which
requires completion of a full environmental clearance in advance of both a
hearing and the action taken by the Planning Commission. Without such a full
and complete environmental study in advance of the Planning Commission
action on Master's proposed project, the public could not be properly notified
and informed as to the scope and impact of the proposed project, nor could it
properly and meaningfully participate in the hearings that were held concerning
the project, all of which is legally required as part of the project evaluation
process under CEQA.
In short, the City's action in approving the project without a proper and
full environmental study being conducted has rendered a mockery of the
public's right of input into the planning and approval of the project, which is
required under CEQA.
8. THE CITY BREACHED ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
AND ITS SWORN LEGAL DUTY TO RESIDENTS OF
PLACERITA CANYON
In approving Master's proposed project, the Planning Commission and
City staff breached their sworn duties owed to the public and to the entire
community of Santa Clarita, for which independent liability consequences shall
attach.
Members of City staff have engaged in a continuous pattern and practice,
and course of conduct, which includes this project, to consistently avoid and
ignore the legal duties imposed upon them of fully and completely protecting
the public and the environment of Santa Clarita, in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, which each of them is
sworn to do and has a legal duty to do.
The misconduct of City staff in the proper performance of its sworn duties
becomes institutionalized when approved, as has occurred here, by the Planning
Commission, which has its own separate and independent duty to protect the
public and the larger community by requiring the evaluation of the entirety of
the Master's projects, not just this isolated segment identified as a dormitory
project.
LAW OFFICES
GRAHAM VAAGE & CISNEROS
City Clerk
September 4, 2001
Page 9
When the City and its residents went through the extensive and detailed
land use process which resulted in the enactment of the Placerita Canyon Special
Standards District, it created a contract between the City and its residents to
protect those standards and the identified criteria, which serve as the foundation
of that District.
Now, Master's would have the City break its own contract with the
community just so that it can have its own preferential land use without proper
regard to that use in the context of the larger residential area and community
which it is only one component of.
The City cannot legally break its own contract. It is guaranteed, both by
the contract itself and by the General Plan. Even the City cannot violate its
own General Plan. That is fundamental land use law.
For the foregoing reasons, PCPOA respectfully urges the City Council to
reverse the Planning Commission's decision which approved the above -
referenced project.
We further request that the City Council act responsibly and direct that a
full master plan of all existing uses and proposed developments by Master's
College be required by the City, together with a full and complete
environmental impact report, and the concomitant public participation at public
hearings, so that neither the City nor the community, nor Master's, has to keep
confronting each other in these episodic skirmishes.
If only Master's College and the City were to follow the law, it would be a
simple process thereafter, and there would be overall community betterment as
an end product.
Master's College must should be held to the same standard as any other
large land holder and developer, and should not be granted institutional
immunity from the laws and regulations that others have to and should be
expected to abide by. If not, judicial review, monitoring and implementation of
proper municipal practices shall be required.
AKG:jta