Oaks, Density Issues In Zone Change
A controversial project in the McBean Hills has been given tacit approval by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
In a unanimous vote yesterday, the Board approved a zone change which would allow Valencia Corporation to build 2,828 homes on 460 acres of formerly agricultural land.
Just three supervisors were present at the downtown Los Angeles hearing when the motion for approval was made by Baxter Ward, because Chairman Kenneth Hahn had left the boardroom on “urgent business” and Peter Schabarum is on vacation in Spain.
The zone change alone does not give Valencia Corporation the goahead to begin development of the McBean Hills community. The company must still go through a conditional use permit (CUP) process during which the actual details of the project will be hammered out.
It is expected that the CUP hearing will be held in Valencia, perhaps at night, to allow for more participation by area residents.
Two issues were debated at the hearing, which was attended by a small but determined group from the Santa Clarita Valley who came to voice their opposition to Valencia Corporation’s plans.
Oak trees were their primary concern; more specifically, the trees’ preservation. The 460 newly rezoned acres contain approximately 1,000 oak trees, mostly of the valley oak variety.
In making the staff presentation for the Department of Regional Planning, which unanimously recommended the change of zone earlier this year, zoning division representative John Lampe indicated the planned development design of the community would allow for the retention of at least 500 of the trees.
Supervisor Ward followed Lampe’s presentation by commenting “it is my understanding that the bulk of the trees are in the proposed park area (of approximately 60 acres), and that there is just one other significant stand of oaks.”
Ward, in attempting to placate the opponents of the project, explained that he had just been told Valencia Corporation would extend the park site to incorporate the other large number of oaks. Also, he said, the company had promised to hire an oak tree expert who would work to mitigate the environmental effects of the proposal
Cynthia Neal-Harris, president of the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society, took the microphone to protest, however, saying the project violated the “spirit of the oak tree ordinance” enacted earlier this year.
Implemented at the request of Supervisor Ward, the ordinance prohibits the felling of more than five oak trees without an oak tree permit.
Dorothy Riley, whose efforts in having the oak tree ordinance enacted were recognized by Ward publicly at the hearing, also decried Valencia Corporation’s plans.
“This will just lead the way to more destruction of oak trees,” she said.
Valencia Corporation was represented by Tom Lee, vice president of operations for its parent company, Newhall Land and Farming Company.
He said the development would be “responsive to the needs and concerns of the people. We understand it is a sensitive site, and we will be approaching it with great care.”
Lee mentioned the additional meetings Valencia Corporation plans to hold before the CUP hearing occurs, at which “we hope to explain to the people exactly what we plan to do. We want to alleviate their fears.”
At Supervisor Ward’s request, two information meetings are scheduled to be held in the Santa Clarita Valley at night “where the developer can present his plans.” “Density transfer,” a heretofore unknown process, is the other issue at stake in this zone change case.
Much of the 460 acres Valencia Corporation wishes to develop is land designated for low urban density in the Santa Clarita Valley plan. Other portions of the acreage are zoned for unlimited residential development.
What Valencia Corporation was asking the Board of Supervisors to approve in the zone change is to allow some of the unused higher densities to be transferred over to the lower-density areas of the parcel.
This, in effect, would create an average density of 7.8 dwelling units per acre throughout the entire area to be residentially developed.
“We aren’t going to put 7.8 units on each acre,” Lee later explained. “What we’re talking about is an average density, which will allow us to cluster some of the homes, helping to save some of the oak trees.
“Some areas will be developed with condominiums at a much higher density than 7.8 units per acre, while other parts will be developed at a much lower rate.’’
How exactly the land will be developed — at what level of density — will not be fully determined until the CUP hearings and decision. Either the Regional Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors could require Valencia Corporation to adjust areas within the development to support higher or lower densities.
At this point, it is very difficult to say what will happen, because this is, admittedly, the first such “density transfer” case to come before the Board.
Supervisor Ward repeated throughout the hearing that the CUP hearing will control the development of the project, but Mrs. Riley did not agree.
“I suggest you haven’t carefully studied the issue of density transfer,” she said to Ward, “When the case gets to the CUP hearing, it will already have zoning for 7.8 dwelling units per acre for over 320 acres.”
Mrs. Riley, who participated in the citizens’ advisory committee for the Santa Clarita Valley community plan, claimed the clause within that plan which allowed for the practice of density transfer was not the intent of the plan.
She said the flexibility provisions within the plan were drawn up in order to allow for the clustering of homes.
Another Santa Clarita Valley resident who testified at the meeting, Mary Ann Miller of Valencia, summed up the apparent feelings of the local contingent:
“What I see going on here is maximum land change, maximum density, maximum number of houses, and a maximum profit (for Valencia Corporation).”