The
Mountaingate Development Dispute
Canyon Back Alliance’s dispute with developer
Castle & Cooke ended recently with a settlement agreement providing
unrestricted trail access outside the two residential developments enclaves
planned by the developer. The following
is a description of the battle as of March 20, 2006 – before the settlement.
March 20, 2006: Canyon Back Alliance opposes Mountaingate Development Project’s significant, adverse
impact on recreational trail use – adverse environmental impacts that can
easily be mitigated if the City imposes the conditions necessary for preserving
the public’s right of access to two historic Santa Monica Mountains trails – Canyonback Trail and Mt. St. Mary’s Trail (“
The Mountaingate project is situated along Canyonback
Trail, at the Bulls-eye of the Westridge-Canyon Back
Wilderness Park, which is depicted to the left. The Westridge-Canyon
Back Wilderness Park features some of the regions most popular, scenic and
accessible parkland trails. It is easily
accessible to residents throughout Los Angeles and visitors from Mountaingate Drive off the 405 Freeway or Sepulveda
Boulevard – as well as by many other access points in the Valley and on the
Westside.
from left to right: Sullivan’s Canyon Trail
(green); Westridge Trail (pink); Lower Canyonback Trail (aka “Lower Kenter
Trail”) (yellow);
Upper Canyonback
Trail (aka “Upper Kenter Trail”) (blue); Top: Mulholland
Scenic Corridor (white).
The Westridge-Canyon Back Wilderness Park trails connect with
the “Big Wild” trail network, which covers more than 21,000 acres of protected
urban wilderness land within the Santa Monica Mountains, stretching from the
historic Mt. St. Mary’s College campus, to the Mulholland
Scenic Corridor, which links the Valley to the Westside, to Sullivan’s Canyon
and onto the Big Wild trails leading to the Pacific Ocean north of Malibu and
the Backbone Trail.
Mountaingate lies at
the intersection of Upper and Lower Canyonback Trails
(blue and yellow lines) and the
The Mountaingate project, as approved by the prior Planning
Commission, adversely impacts recreational enjoyment of protected parkland
trails in the Santa Monica Mountains by (1) degrading the Canyonback Trail and (2) truncating and forever severing the Mt. St. Mary’s Trail from the Big Wild
trail network. Remarkably, the EIR failed to address these significant, adverse
environmental impacts. As a result, the EIR is inadequate and, unless
the Canyon Back Alliance’s proposed conditions are adopted, a Supplemental EIR must be prepared and circulated for public review and
comment.
The Mountaingate project calls for the construction of two residential communities within the Mountaingate area. The
“Canyonback Ridge” section lies at the southern end
of existing Canyonback Road, along the hillside ridge
above Mandeville Canyon, where Lot Nos. 23-29 are depicted. Canyonback Trail
passes through this development area.
The “Stoney Hill” section is located south of
existing Stoney Hill Road on the Mt. St. Mary’s
Trail, where Lot Nos. 1-22 are depicted.
A.
The Mountaingate
Project Will Degrade Recreational Access On The Canyonback
Trail Unless Advisory Agency
Condition 93 Is Modified.
Canyon Back Alliance
asks the City to condition the proposed Canyonback
Ridge development by (1) imposing Condition 93 from the Advisory Agency’s
Report, which requires the developer to dedicate a public recreational easement
along the Canyonback Trail, and(2)supplementing
Condition 93 by specifying that the Canyonback Trail
retain as much as feasible its historic ridgeline alignment – and expressly
requiring that the trail/easement be aligned to the west of Lots 23-28 (but not 29).
Canyon Back Alliance’s
request is supported by The Center for Law in the Public Interest, the Santa
Monica Mountains Conservancy, the City of Los Angeles’ Bicycle Advisory
Committee, the Santa Monica Mountains Task Force (of the Sierra Club), the
Concerned Off-Road Bicyclists Association (“CORBA”), the Brentwood Community
Council, the Pacific Palisades Community Council, the Federation of Hillside
and Canyon Associations, the Upper Mandeville Canyon Property Owners’
Association, the Brentwood Hills Homeowners Association, the Residents of
Beverly Glen, and hundreds of individuals who sent letters protesting the
failure to preserve the integrity of Canyonback Trail
along scenic Canyonback Ridge.
View from hilltop above Canyonback Trail at Canyonback Ridge.
1. The Advisory Agency’s Recommended Condition 93.
Condition 93 of the
Deputy Advisory Agency (Gabel-Luddy) Report requires
the developer to dedicate a 10-foot wide easement along Canyonback
Ridge in order to protect the public’s use of Canyonback
Trail, which is depicted as a trail corridor on the Brentwood Pacific Palisades
Community Plan. While the proposed
10-foot easement is substantially narrower than the existing 20-foot trail, it
is sufficient to provide adequate trail access.
Condition 93 is
designed to protect public recreational use of Canyonback
Trail, which would otherwise be threatened by the development project. The developer is seeking various zoning
changes and other discretionary approvals that, if granted, would impair public
use of Canyonback Trail. To mitigate the adverse environmental impact
that would otherwise result from the requested zoning changes and Tract Map
approval, the Advisory Report proposed Condition 93, which would require the
developer to “dedicate a permanent trail easement for public recreational
purposes, implementing the spirit and intent of the community plan.”
The Advisory Agency’s
recommended Condition 93 provides as follows:
“93. A minimum 10-foot wide easement shall be
dedicated for public recreational purposes adjacent to and parallel with the Canyonback Road extension (private street) from the
terminus of the public portion of Canyonback Road to
the southerly most boundary of the subject tract. The public easement shall be shown on the
final map.
a.
The easement shall be in addition to the private street and any sidewalks.
b.
The subdivider shall consult with the Santa Monica
Mountains Conservancy on materials and surfacing.
c.
The subdivider shall improve the public easement.
d.
Canyonback Trail shall remain ungated
so as to allow 24-hour unimpeded public access.”
2.
Condition 93 Must Also Preserve The Historic
Ridgeline Alignment.
Condition
93 is designed to protect the integrity of Canyonback
Trail from degradations likely to occur upon approval of the zoning change and
Tract Map. It generally accomplishes
that purpose – with one caveat. While
subpart (a) makes clear that the easement must remain separate and apart from
the proposed private steet/sidewalk, there is no
express requirement that the easement maintain its historic ridgeline
alignment. The Community Plan depicts
the trail along the scenic ridgeline, which also comports with the record
evidence of the trail’s historic alignment.
To
make this requirement clear and unambiguous, however, an additional subpart (e)
must be added: “Canyonback
Trail shall retain its historic ridgeline alignment to the fullest extent
possible, which shall require (at a minimum) that it be aligned parallel to the
ridge and west of Lots 23-28.”
3.
The Advisory Agency’s Findings Support Condition
93 (e).
The same factual findings
supporting Condition 93 as recommended by the Advisory Agency are sufficient to
support the recommended subpart (e).
4.
Condition 93 and (e) Are Necessary To Prevent A Significant, Adverse
Environmental Impact That Was Not Analyzed In The EIR.
Under CEQA, the City cannot approve a project that would have a
significant, adverse environmental impact that was not analyzed in the EIR. Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento, 124
Cal. App. 4th 903, 936-937 (2004) (citing Pub. Res. Code § 21001(b)). The Mountaingate EIR did not analyze
the project's adverse impact on the public's recreational use of Canyonback Trail.
The undisputed evidence demonstrates that the ridgeline section of Canyonback Trail passing through the developer’s property
has been continuously enjoyed by the public without restriction for
recreational purposes on a daily basis
since the 1940’s.
The Advisory
Report expressly recognized that degradation of Canyonback
Trail would violate the Community Plan: “The 1977 adopted Brentwood Pacific
Palisades Community Plan map, and all subsequent updates and amendments,
clearly identifies a trail corridor along Canyonback
ridge. Therefore, a separate public
easement will be required on the extension of Canyonback
Road to the southerly boundary of the property ownership to implement the City
policy.”
Condition 93 was
therefore crafted to preserve the public’s long-standing recreational use
of Canyonback Trail, as reflected in the Community
Plan. The further modification of
proposed subpart (e) is necessary to maintain the public’s recreational
use without degradation.
5.
The Planning Commission’s Ruling Violated CEQA By Adversely Impacting The Environment Without EIR Analysis.
The Planning
Commission “modified” Condition 93 in a manner that would significantly and
adversely impact recreational use of Canyonback Trail
– despite the absence of any EIR analysis. The Commission, per former Chair David Burg,
rerouted the trail off the ridgeline and through the street/sidewalk of the
planned Canyonback Ridge development. By doing so, the Commission effectively
eviscerated Condition 93(a) by merging Canyonback
Trail onto the private sidewalk/street
as it passes through the proposed community.
This action would impair the
Trail’s long-enjoyed aesthetic quality.
Also, by pushing
trail-users inside the proposed private/gated community, the proposal degrades
the trail by creating a likelihood of future hostilities between trail-users
and future residents. Residents living
in the private/gated community will inevitably try to force trail- users out,
restrict their access, or inhibit them from using the trail. That is precisely what occurred in 2004 at
the northern end of Canyonback Road, where residents
illegally sought to restrict trail use on that dedicated public street. The Millard Canyon fiasco in Altadena (now in
litigation) is another recent example of residents seeking to privatize public
parkland trails.
The Commission’s
ruling would also degrade the trail by allowing the developer to narrow the
10-foot wide easement to just 5 useable feet along a steep section of the
trail. Bikers, joggers, walkers,
strollers, and families will all be squeezed through a substantially narrowed
path or pushed into the private street – creating safety risks and interfering
with the common enjoyment of the multiple use trail. Paul Edelman of the Santa Monica Mountains
Conservancy, who has obvious expertise in such matters, testified at the
October 20, 2005, that a 5-foot trail would be inadequate for recreational use.
There is no EIR analysis supporting or otherwise explaining the
justification or necessity for this adverse impact on recreational trail
use. The City must therefore [1] adopt Condition No. 93 as supplemented
with subpart (e)or [2] require full EIR
analysis of the project’s adverse impact on trail use through a Supplemental EIR. Otherwise, the
development project will adversely impact recreational use of the Trail without
the necessary EIR analysis. Canyon Back Alliance will file a lawsuit if
that occurs.
B.
The Project Proposal To Terminate Public
Access On The
The Stoney Hill
section of the development project is located at the southern terminus of
existing Stoney Hill Road, directly on the Mt. St. Mary’s Fire Road trail.
The project would terminate public access on the
Mt. St. Mary’s Trail, despite the absence of any EIR disclosure, analysis or
mitigation. The City cannot lawfully approve the project unless and until
a Supplemental EIR addressing this adverse
impact is completed or the City conditions project approval on the dedication
of a recreational easement preserving public access.
The
1. Terminating
Access Would Violate The Community Plan.
A project’s significant adverse impact on
recreational or aesthetic enjoyment cannot be approved without adequate EIR analysis. Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento,
124 Cal. App. 4th 903, 936-937 (2004) (citing Pub. Res. Code § 21001(b)).
The Stoney Hill section
of the Mountaingate project would terminate public
access on the
The Community Plan
provides as follows:
“GOAL 4 A
COMMUNITY WITH SUFFICIENT OPEN SPACE IN BALANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT TO SERVE
THE RECREATIONAL, ENVIRONMENTAL,
HEALTH
Objective
4-1: To protect the resources of the
Plan area for the benefit of the residents and of the region by preserving existing open space and, where
possible, acquiring new open space.
Policy
4-1.1: Natural resources should be
conserved on privately-owned land of open space quality and preserved on state
parkland. City parks should be further
developed as appropriate.
Program:
The Plan map designates area for Open Space and desirable Open Space.
Policy
4-1.2: Accommodate active and
passive parklands, and other open space uses in areas designated and zoned Open
Space.
Program:
The Plan Map designates lands for open space uses.
Policy
4-1.4: Open Space land in the plan
area should be utilized to provide camping and picnicking, hiking, bicycling
and equestrian trails; golf courses, sport fields and other active recreational
uses for residents of the Los Angeles region.
Program:
Establish a coordinating body among Federal, State, County and City of
Los Angeles to put their resources together and maximize the recreational
potentials in the Plan Area for regional benefit.
Policy
4-1.5: Provide access to and facilities for
equestrian, hiking and cycling trails.
Program: Conform to the standards
set forth in the Major Equestrian and Hiking Trails element and the Bicycle
Plan Element of the General Plan. All major parks and open
space areas should ultimately be connected with the Mulholland Scenic Parkway system, with
trails provided wherever possible.”
