There was a Cornerstone presentation tonight at the High School about the modified Frazier Park Estates plan. It had some new information, but basically Arciero wants to tough it out. The main changes in the new plan are

– 550 lots;
– stay away from the slopes, no hillside ordinance violations;
– no blasting, less grading;
– 500 acres of the 850 are “open space”, whatever that means;
– new water studies will be done, a new well will be drilled.

Now let’s look at what is not in the plan. There is no outside water source — just a new well, and the Planning Department required an outside water source. Also, if you want to pack 550 lots (plus a water reclamation plant, plus roads, plus a commercial center) on only 350 acres, then you’ll have more tract housing and more Castaic-ness than before. There is a big difference between 188 lots, in the County proposal, and 550 lots. Maybe it is time to rename the project Frazier Park Cottages.

The timing is also interesting. The Cornerstone engineer expected the housing market to be back to normal by 2010, but he did not expect to break ground until 2012. The buildout would take at least 7 years, depending on the market. And, most interestingly, the plan is to build 200 houses first, then after two years another 150, and after another two years another 200. The presentation indicated that the phasing was planned in this way because of the water studies. Cornerstone now admits there is not enough data to prove that there is sufficient water available. This logically leads to the question if they actually have been lying about the water supply until now. For a firm with such a strong moral background that’s hard to believe. Anyway, they plan to do water studies (both groundwater, well tests, stream flow, and precipitation) and it will depend on the outcome of these studies if the project will go to its next phase.

Now it seems to me that this is a clear example of piecemealing, which is against CEQA case law. CEQA prohibits piecemeal environmental review by “chopping a large project into many little ones–each with a minimal potential impact on the environment–which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.” (Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal. App. 3d 151, 165 [217 Cal. Rptr. 893].) Of course you can call it “phasing”, but it still means that the second phase will be harder to stop than the first one, and that the overall plan with 550 units is approved early on (as far as zoning and maps are concerned). And second, it also seems to me that this plan violates SB 221/610, which requires a project with over 500 houses to prove a 20 year water supply even in multiple drought years.

The phasing, by the way, have as a consequence that the commercial center will not yet be developed, because having only 200 homes is not sufficient for large stores to come in. So the commercial center will have to wait until at least 2014, and if there is not enough water for the second phase it will never be built.