Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Scope Fscr Vck Feb 2012 Comment

Scope Fscr Vck Feb 2012 Comment

Ratings: (0)|Views: 14|Likes:
Published by jeff_wilson

More info:

Published by: jeff_wilson on Feb 22, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment
POST OFFICE BOX 1182, SANTA CLARITA, CA 913862-18-12Executive OfficeLos Angeles County Board of Supervisors500 W. Temple St.Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re: Agenda Item 19, 20 and 21- Findings and ConditionsPROJECT NUMBER 00-196-(5),VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NUMBER 53108-(5),
OAK TREE PERMIT NUMBER 00-196-(5) and all otherassociated permits including Flood Map changes and the General Plan Amendment
Honorable Supervisors:The proposed Landmark Village project consists of the following discretionary project approvals:(a) General Plan Amendment PA 00-196, Sub- Plan Amendment LP 00-197, and Specific PlanAmendment SP 00- 198; (b) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 53108; (c) Significant EcologicalArea (SEA) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) RCUP 200500112 for project-level developmentwithin the Specific Plan’s River Corridor Special Management Area (SMA)/ SEA 23 boundaries;(d) Oak Tree Permit OTP 00196; (e) Off- Site Soil Transport Approval (part of CUP 00196entitlement request); (f) CUP 00-196 for off-site grading in excess of 100,000 cubic yards andconstruction of the off-site water tanks; and (g) Modification to adopted County Floodway limits.We note that
Notice of Determination has been filed for any approval on this project.Since these entitlements are “discretionary” your Board has the ability and in this case, webelieve you have the duty, to vote against this project. We urge you to caste your vote against theproject because many of the findings are incorrect or false as described below in detail.We surmise that the developer proponent has probably cautioned your Board that failure toapprove these discretionary permits would be a taking. We note that just as the federalConstitution does not support the conclusion that denial of the project constitutes a taking,
F r i e n d s o f t h e S a n t a C l a r a R i v e r
660 Randy Drive Newbury Park, California 91320 (805) 498 –4323
3875-A Telegraph Road #423, Ventura, California 93003 Phone(805) 658-1120
Fax (805) 258-5135
SCOPE /FSCR/VCK Joint Comments on Landmark Entitlements 2-21-12 2neither does the California Constitution. California courts repeatedly have held a public entity isnot liable for injury caused by denial of a project when it has discretionary authority to do so.Selby Realty Co. V. City of San Buenaventura, (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110. Even where a CityCouncil took several actions apparently with the specific intent of blocking the property owner’sproposed project, no liability inured. Stubblefield Construction Co. V. City of San Bernardino,(1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 687. In Stubblefield, despite a series of zoning actions which targeted,and ultimately significantly impaired the value of the plaintiff developer’s land, the appellatecourt found no violation by the City of the Constitution’s guarantees of substantive due processand equal protection. The court found that the developer did not have a vested right to build hisproject in compliance with the laws applicable at the time of his application to build. Id. at 708.Further, the court held that the City Council’s zoning actions which were in response to theconcerns of constituents in the affected area, had a rational basis and therefore were not aviolation of substantive due process. Id. at 710.We therefore urge you to oppose this project.
Public Process
We object that the Findings , Conditions, Order, etc for this project were not provided to the public untilFriday last (immediately before a holiday weekend), thus making it impossible to provide writtencomments to Board members in a timely manner. (See attached pages from the County website). It iswell established that your Board requires information to be provided on Friday before the meeting inorder to distribute it to Board members or letter must be provided at the Board meeting. Your lateposting made this impossible.While Supervisor Mark Ridley Thomas (Jan. 10
Board Meeting Agenda Item 12, transcript included byreference) claimed that members of the public could provide Supervisors with their concerns throughother means than appearing at Board meetings, such as written comments or contact with their office, thelate manner in which this controversial, long-contested item is presented precludes the public frommeaningful comment. We can only conclude that this action was intentional.As you are well aware, the Brown Act allows public comment on each listed item on an agenda. We willtherefore be requesting our Brown Act right to speak on each agenda item addressing this matter. Weobject in advance to such important matters being “combined” for public comment purposes, thusprecluding meaningful comment that can only be brought to the Supervisors at this meeting.
We specifically object to the following findings:
75. The Board finds substantial benefits resulting from implementation of the project 
outweigh its unavoidable significant effects on visual quality, air quality, solid waste services, and agricultural resources.
We object to this finding since no specific benefits were identified other than job creation. No economicsubstantiation of job creation or financial analysis was presented. No jobs other than building the projectitself were stated as job creation. Since the developer is already unable to sell fully entitled units that itowns (West Creek and River Park), we assert that there will be no economic benefit from job creation.Instead the public will be required to fund numerous infrastructure requirements such as the CommerceCenter Interchange and the desalination of Newhall’s wastewater. They will be required to fund throughpublic expenditures, the cost of freeway expansion. They will be subjected to additional health problemsresulting from poor air quality, including but not limited to increased asthma. Current residents will be
SCOPE /FSCR/VCK Joint Comments on Landmark Entitlements 2-21-12 3
subjected to continued deterioration of their water quality as outlined in comments submitted to yourBoard and below.
82.Board finds that there is no evidence that the proposed project will be 
materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the project site.
We object to this finding because residents of Santa Clarita will be subjected to increased air qualityimpacts that diminish their ability to recreate and enjoy their property and continued water qualityproblems that will devalue their property, among other reasons cited below. Downstream owners andfarmers will be subjected to additional flooding. No hearings have been held notifying owners of floodway changes. Increased salts from sewage effluent will harm downstream farming
84. The Board finds that the proposed subdivision does not contain or front upon any 
public waterway, river, stream, coastline, shoreline, lake, or reservoir, consistent with Chapter 4, Article 3.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, section 66478.1 of the California Government Code, et seq.
The project fronts on the Santa Clara River.
85. The Board finds that in determining that the project will be consistent with the 
General Plan, the housing and employment needs of the region were considered and balanced against the public service needs of local residents and the 
available fiscal and environmental resources.
86. The Board finds that a Revised Final Project EIR for the project was prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Document Reporting Procedures and Guidelines of the County of Los Angeles.The Board reviewed and considered the Revised Final Project EIR, along with its associated Findings and SOC, and found that it reflects the independent 
 judgment of the Board. The Findings and SOC are incorporated herein by this 
reference, as if set forth in full.
102. The Board finds that CUP Ii authorizes the import of necessary fill material to raise elevation of the Vesting Map site, which requires an adjustment of the County Floodway boundary to account for changes to the floodplain boundary as a result of flood protection improvements for the project. By elevating the project site out of the floodplain boundary, none of the improvements proposed on the Vesting Map site will be subject to flood hazard or inundation from the river or other nearby drainages. In addition, by elevating the Vesting Map site out of the 
floodplain boundary and providing bank stabilization where necessary, no housing or other structures will be exposed to flood hazards. The Board further finds that Public Works' conditions of approval for drainage and grading will ensure implementation of CUP II and that the Revised Final Project EIR analyzed the potential impacts of this contemplated action.103. The Board finds that substantial benefits resulting from implementation of the project outweigh its unavoidable significant 
on visual quality, air quality,
solid waste services, and agricultural resources.
107. The Board finds that in determining that the project will be consistent with the General Plan, the housing and employment needs of the region were considered and balanced against the public service needs of local residents and the available fiscal and environmental resources.108. The Board finds that a Revised Final Project EIR for the project was prepared in 

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->