HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-09-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - GPACITY OF SANTA ChARITA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor George Pederson and Councilme
FROM: George A. Caravalho, City Manager
DATE: September 14, 1994
SUBJECT: Study Session- General Plan Circulation Element Amendment (GPA)
The process to reassess the central city circulation network began following Council direction
in 1992 to delete State Route 126 as an eight lane expressway from the Circulation Network
of the General Plan. At the direction of the City Council, the City Manager appointed a
Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) in 1992 to identify an east -west corridor
to replace the deletion of SR126 and to propose other changes to the Circulation Network.
After numerous CTAC meetings, including public participation meetings in Canyon Country
and at City Hall, a majority of CTAC identified a network of roads, including a primary east -
west corridor for consideration. Prior to beginning any expensive modelling or environmental
study as part of the General Plan Amendment process, the City Manager directed staff to
take the CTAC recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. After
reviewing the CTAC recommendation, the Planning Commission recommended to the City
Council in December 1993 that two primary networks be studied as part of the GPA process.
The first was the revised network incorporated into the Porta Bella project, including the
Magic/Princessa connector modification to the CTAC proposal. The second was the actual
CTAC recommendation.
On January 25, 1994, in the first Council Meeting following the earthquake held in the
Emergency Operation tent, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission
recommendation and directed staff to initiate environmental and modelling efforts for the
Magic/Princessa and CTAC alternatives to the Circulation Network. Staff advised the
Council that this in no way modified the network, it just initiated the study, and that the
item would be back before the Planning Commission and City Council for public hearings
once the draft environmental studies were completed. The purpose of having the Council look
at this issue last January was to make sure that staff had clear direction on the primary
circulation network Council wanted to have studied. Staff is now in the process of studying
this network.
As part of the technical review for the project, the City has hired Ed Cline to manage the
work of the traffic consultants and the modelling work. Under staffs review, Mr. Cline
prepared an RFP, and four consultant teams were interviewed. Staff determined that the
Meyer, Mohaddes team was the best qualified. Their contract is now under review by the
City Council.
The process of amending the General Plan Circulation Element includes preparation of an
EIR. Since the General Plan is not at a project specific level, a program level EIR will be
prepared by staff similar to the EIR prepared for the original General Plan. Technical
studies of traffic, noise and air quality are presently being prepared by consultants and will
provide background appendices for this EIR. The traffic study will be the primary
information source for assessing impacts of proposed changes upon the existing and planned
circulation network. A traffic study is not anticipated to be completed until October.
Following completion of the traffic study, noise and air quality studies will be conducted by
consultants based on the traffic data. Depending on the study results, modifications to other
sections of the General Plan may be required if the Council adopts a modified network.
Primarily, modifications to the General Plan Land Use Element may be required to maintain
the level of service on the network. Primarily, this would be necessitated by the deletion of
State Route 126 as an eight lane expressway. The deletion of this facility, which could have
carried up to 100,000 vehicles per day, would require the addition of two 6 lane major
highways carrying 50,000 vehicles per day.
Other items to be addressed in the Circulation Element Amendment include updates to
various text sections of the Circulation Element. These include updates to the description
of existing major and secondary highways and characteristics of key intersections. Discussion
of the City's transit system, linkages to the Metrolink regional rail system, relationship
between City roadways and the regional Congestion Management Plan, and new bike trails
will be added as well. By updating the element and addressing these relatively new
circulation issues, the scope of the Circulation Element will become more comprehensive and
useful as a planning and information tool. Community Development staff are presently
drafting the text of the amendment and will write the program EIR text following completion
of the technical studies. A draft EIR for,this project is anticipated to be ready by December.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive staff presentation and file.
ATTACHMENT
City Council, Minutes of January 25, 1994
Staff Report to Council on Circulation Network- January 25, 1994
advance \gp rdes2I kjm
`�PP
Minutes, January 25, 1994
Page two
On roll call vote:
Ayes: Boyer, Darcy, Heidt, Klajic, Pederson
Noes: None
Absent: None
Motion carried and Resolution 94-4 adopted.
CONSENT CALENDAR - Item 2 -- Transit Voucher Agreement Between City
and Southern California Association of Governments
Item 3 -- The Mobility Chapter of the. No. Los Angeles County
Subregional Plan - Resolution No. 94-8
Item 4 -- Chuck Pontius Commuter Rail Trail - Project 99-029 Design
services.
Item 5 -- Resolution No. 94-11 Demand Register #52, 1, and 2
It was moved by Darcy and seconded by Heidt
calendar. On roll call vote:
Ayes: Darcy,-Heidt, Boyer, Klajic,
Noes: None
Absent: None
Consent Calendar -approved.
to approve the consent
Pederson
NEW BUSINESS - Item 6 -- Proposed Application for Amendment to the
City's Circulation Element of the General Plan -- Kevin Michel
introduced.this.,item to.Council stating that this item is on the
agenda under Council's direction in 1992 to find an alternative
east -west corridor to the proposed alignment of State Route 126 as
an eight lane expressway through the City. -
Those addressing the Council on this issue were: Vera Johnson;
Allan Cameron; Glo Donnelly.
It was moved by Heidt and seconded by Darcy to recommend primary
circulation network and alternatives to be studied in preparation
of an amendment to the circulation network on the Master Plan of
Arterial Highways.in the Circulation Element and direct staff to
return with a proposal for study and necessary budget adjustment to
proceed with environmental review.
On roll call vote:
Ayes: Boyer, Darcy, Heidt, Klajic, Pederson
Noes: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Wbem 7 -- Purchase of Additional Buses -- Jeff Kolin stated this
item is an urgency measure to supplement the bus system in the
City. The buses, 1981 Grummans, would be delivered in one week
from execution of a contract. The buses are $9,000 each and staff
has recommended a price change of $4,000 per coach for repair and
preparation and an extra $3,000 per coach to paint the buses the
same as the City buses.
AGENDA REPORT
NEW BUSINESS
DATE: January 25, 1994
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented by:
,f g,�Je-t > M H
Lynn Harris
SUBJECT: Proposed Application for Amendment to the City's Circulation Element of the
General Plan
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
The process to reassess the central city circulation network began following Council direction in
1992 to find an alternative east -west corridor to the proposed alignment of State Route 126 as an
eight lane expressway through the City. The Council also directed that the proposed State Route
126 as an eight lane expressway be deleted from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways In the
Circulation Element of the General Plan. The Council further directed that the City Manager appoint
the Citizens' Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) to Identity an east -west corridor.
After a series of CTAC meetings and public meetings, CTAC Identified a proposed network of roads,
including a local east/west corridor and a north county bypass for regional traffic, for consideration
as a potential general plan amendment (GPA). Staff then presented the CTAC recommendation to
the Planning Commission, and on. December 21, 1993, the Commission recommended that the
Council should primarily considerthe Magic MountalnNla Princessa corridor presented by the Porta
Bella applicant as well as the CTAC recommendation as a starting point for Initiating an amendment
to the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. The Planning Commission's recommendation
followed several public hearings and a field trip. Maps and summary material are attached.
In the mid -year budget adjustment just completed, Council authorized $45,000 In additional funds
for the GPA process. Staff Is'seeking Council Input regarding the primary and any secondary
alternatives to be studied prior to commencing the model runs. At this point, staff is seeking
direction regarding the starting point for the study. The CTAC recommendation and the Magic
MountainNia Princessa offered by the Porta Bella developer appear to be good concepts for
initiating the study.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend primary circulation network and alternatives to be studied in
preparation of an amendment to the circulation network on the Master Plan
of Arterial Highways in the Circulation Element; and
2. Direct staff to return with a proposal for study and necessary budget
adjustment to proceed with environmental review.
\advance\gprdarlkim
CENTRAL CITY CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES: BACKGROUND MATERIAL
City Council Meeting, January 25, 1994
Prepared by the Community Development Department
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION NETWORK
The Santa Clarita General Plan presently shows an extension of State Route 126 joining Newhall
Ranch Road and traversing the northern portion of the City connecting to State Route 14. State
Route 126 is classified as an eight lane limited access expressway. -Via Princessa, a major highway,
is shown as an extension of Wiley Canyon Road and extends across the southern edge of the Porta
Bella site. Rio Vista Road Is shown as a major highway running parallel to San Fernando Road
from Bouquet Canyon Road south to Sierra Highway along the alignment of Dockweiler Drive.
Although not discussed In the General Plan text, Magic Mountain Parkway Is shown on the
Proposed Master Plan of Arterials (Exhibit C-3 of the Circulation Element) to extend onto the Porta
Bella site as a secondary highway. The Bennite Connector, although unnamed on the map, is a
north -south roadway shown on the Porta Bella site connecting Soledad Canyon Road and the
proposed Via Princessa. An exhibit showing the center city circulation of the General Plan is
attached.
CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
CTAC was formed by the City Manager in June 1992 to review traffic and transportation issues in
the City and advise the City Manager on policy recommendations to the Planning Commission and
the City Council. In October 1992, the City Council passed a motion to reject the north and south
alignments of State Route 126 as they were proposed in Caltrans' Draft Tier-1 EIR document.
Subsequently, the City Council made a referral to CTAC to receive further community Input
regarding an alternative east -west roadway network In the City.
CTAC met numerous times and held several public meetings In the community to gain Input on
circulation alternatives. The primary suggestions received from the public were to 1) place the
alignment of Highway 126 north of the City limits and delete it from the current General Plan, 2)
adopt a network of roads for the central circulation system, 3) restrict heavy trucks on City streets,
4) limit arterials to six lanes, 5) minimize the Impact on the Santa Clara River, and 6) consider
elimination of the proposed Rio Vista Road. Acting on these suggestions from the public as well
as direction from Council CTAC arrived at their recommendations.
CTAC has recommended that the designation of State Route 126 through the City as depicted on
the City's General Plan Map be eliminated. Instead, State Route 126 should be relocated to the
north and bypass the City. CTAC also desires to see Newhall Ranch Road extended across the City
to join Golden Valley Road. CTAC favors a grid of east -west and north -south roadways. CTAC
favored limiting roadways to local and delivery trucks only. They also favored limiting arterial
roadways to a maximum of six lanes with medians, turn pockets, and bicycle lanes where possible.
CTAC recommended the deletion of a portion of Rio Vista Road from north of the Santa Clara River
to the extension of Magic Mountain Parkway. A minority group Ili CTAC favors extending Magic
Mountain Parkway Into Via Princessa through the center of the Porta Bella site.
PORTA BELLA PROPOSAL
The proposed Porta Bella circulation differs from the General Plan and CTAC circulation proposals.
Under the Porta Bella proposal Magic Mountain Parkway connects to Main Street and does not
Intersect Soledad Canyon Road as shown on the General Plan, though the connection is completed
via "D" Street and Santa Clarita Parkway. Rio Vista Road, proceeding north from Circle J, also ends
at Main Streetand does not extend through to Soledad Canyon Road. While the elimination of a
northern section of Rio Vista Road differs from the General Plan, It is consistent with the CTAC
recommendation and with the Civic Center Master Plan. The Porta Bella proposal provides access
to Soledad Canyon Road through Santa Clarha Parkway. Santa Clarita Parkway does not exist on
the General Plan but is Included In the circulation network recommended by CTAC. The General
Plan shows a road Identified as the Bennite Connector which connectsSoledad Canyon Road to
Via Princessa. This roadway does not exist on the Porta Bella proposal but this function is
preserved in an indirect way through a route from Main Street to Via Porta Bella and "D" Street to
Santa Clarita Parkway.
PORTA BELLA CONCEPTUAL CORRIDOR FOR MAGIC MOUNTAIN PARKWAY
The Porta Bella applicant has provided staff with a conceptual project revision as a 'response to
comment' to the Porta Belle EIR. The revised Porta Bella proposes an extension of Magic Mountain
Parkway to Via Princessa that is similar in nature to the CTAC proposal. Under this possible
revision, Rio Vista Road would be eliminated between the Magic Mountain Parkway extension and
Via Princessa.
The revised Porta Bella proposal assumes that the Magic Mountain Parkway extension would have
a grade separation over San Fernando Road and the railroad tracks. Grade separations may also
be required at Via Princessa and San Fernando Road and the railroad tracks.
Maps are attached showing the original Porta Bella project and the possible revision to the Porta
Bella project. The roadways in red denote those which are within the project site. For both of
these Porta Bella maps the CTAC recommended circulation network is shown as the background
network.
CIVIC CENTER PROPOSAL
The Civic Center site plan shows primary access to the site from an extension of Magic Mountain
Parkway. Rio Vista Road would exist between. the Magic Mountain Parkway extension and Main
Street. Both the design team for the Civic Center and for Porta Bella believe that the concepts are
unified and will complement each other. These projects are in the conceptual 'stage and minor
differences between these proposals will be reconciled and finalized during implementation of these
plans.
COMPARISON EXHIBIT
A large exhibit is attached which shows the four center city circulation alternatives which have been
considered by the Commission. A comparison chart is shown next to these alternatives and
highlights the differences between the proposals.
aO
90 JO JCS CpNVON pO
m
a
m
O
a
U
m
s
0
a
z
c
0
O
1 —
a
,nP
0,9
oy
99
O
LYONS
4
kc4l,
S4�
ZA
N4N
00
904
O
CALGROVE
STATE ROUTE 126
SOLEDAD CANYON
0
ICZ
D,q
V
H0�•N P
J�
Q,O
t�
m ytP
CITY GENERAL PLAN
DECEMBER 1993
CpNVON PO pO
NEWHALL ROAD EXT
Cep
SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD
44%
0
Mp�NT4,N M4G' S O
2
i0�0GNT4jN v2 � ff
O
9
G q
D
0
O
D
0
VIA PRINCESSA
c
464
S4
09
040
CALGROVE
Li4
p9�N
pV
p N�ONw.
5`EpF �a
OV��
Se
c�SP'
CTAC RECOMMENDATION
DECEMBER 1993
-- ON ROpO
00JOOEt GPNV
s
C9
?
NEWHALL ROAD EXT %2
SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD
�qC�C
M0111V" y S9 006
F
.O
!
T9C�9/T9 G!F<
a ,oy_
N
ti ti S
n ' s�9�raG�-14
F p \
VIA PRINCESSA OJS
PayO� y�P�O
G
LYONS
ORIGINAL
PORTA BELLA PROPOSAL
DECEMBER 1993
CALGROVE
00UQ J�j GpNVON pOpO
I
M
OUNT4iN
RIO
VIST
LYONS
CALGROVE
NEWHALL ROAD EXT
SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD
0
�o
s my
9
L
�T9
4
PRINCESSA
KWEILER
S
`44
00
OJT
� 9tp
F, REVISED
PORTA BELLA PROPOSAL
DECEMBER 1993
Aor 1
nn'ir n Fxliibit C-3 '
.xcrus x.rmw.r raersr -J
- riles .ra,
wa r.nerr � �-
x.r,.ru rau>r
.xanu x. noen rausr
Q' i
J'
s.. 11111.1 .ouerms
.ncrlLi nlllOxLL /O MT
E hibllCJ-
Proposed Master Plan of
Arterial Highways
HIGHWAYS
Eapreuw.y (a Sanwa) Freeway
LANar HpAwaY (e Lane.) 1 b
1, -._
if '-_ - -_ _"-__-L-r'_
-
Secontlery FfpEway (4 Lene.)
..I raurr
.. -...._ L-"HIQE.hw...Y (2 Lane.)
�—I ----' EXCEPTIONS AS NOTED
" SINIta Clarltll General Plall
City of Santa Clarita
� 6 �EXTENSION �+F MAGIC f-fL—.-
REDE �..
+ ICI
■ I', + � V � 1 , � x r (110 J-s i / f.f'b V � ( ��-, f i 1•+ _ _ � ' � ; I'.
3< IUtINEL u F4 E
t, 1
I .
d {
y I -'PF.� tr,N ti i I CIRCLE 1 l� 3 O
j � � � Z 4 � 1'+•� ��r'�trz '
/In F'K0w 1.
n� i2ap' '1 EY
V
6f�� a>"Q� , n. ADDED N/
�._ VESTING .TEN'EATIVJ: "TRACT No. 51599 PORTA
1.A-.........,.v.ry, „ _LLq �� F31_
ro
� �-------_--tea O'
`.
I V
A
I
St
L
03
u4sV .o
`
I
CANYON
.+ J
�"' ``
II O" 6 COUNTRY
o✓
,!-
�,
-
j
I
tAP
i
VALENCIA
5
`�
GARKy^
1
I I
11
1/ 17ti NpnM1 COlnlly Ilyp",
011ie, vwlo Roaawa s.
Ir,
y
ANTA CLARITA
Magic Mounlaln ErIPn9 on
r
I �
13) rrewll,rll AjlICn Ro(la E.Icn lion
"• �Irw(�
14) Via {'nn Q'S Sa
I
Y
�
l5! Propu%ca Sanl;l Cl.11lla Pelkw,ly
f�
(G ' Gulaen v�uey
l
NEWHALL
�
v
v
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
�... PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
�' CENTRAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM
Alene Gilbert, 23683 White Oak Court, Newhall, concurred with opposition state,
Glenda Bonn, 23681 White Oak Court, Newhall, spoke in opposition t e item. She stated a
change in the quality of life currently maintained would occur if jects of this nature were
approved.
Barry Raphael, 23829 Valley Oak Court, Newhall, concur fth opposition stated above.
Chairman Doughman closed the public hearing a)l^0 p.m.
Commissioner Brathwatte asked staff to cIJJK the statement made in public testimony that a law
enforcement agency jurisdictional que n existed at the proposed site of this project. Mr.
Vasquez stated the California Highw atrol has jurisdiction on Interstate 5 and a portion of The
Old Road west of Interstate 5. The eriff's Department has jurisdiction in both the City and County
areas.
CommissionXmIght
tated that in concept the, community appeared to support this kind of
facility, but tte concerns here which suggest this Is an Inappropriate location. He
suggested that in making future site selections and bringing another proposal to
the Commisonsider a banquet facility as a part of this club; that would certainly
make it a mlication at another location.
5ner Cherrington then moved for denial of the application; Commissioner Modugno
the motion, and the Commission voted 5-0 to deny the application.
Doughman called a two minute recess to clear the Council Chambers at 7:45 p.m., and
A the meeting at 7:47 p.m.
ITEM 5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93-01 (MASTER CASE NO. 93-198); Applicant: City of
Santa Clartta - Citywide location
Mr. Michel Introduced the Item, a request by the City of Santa Clartta to amend the City's General
Plan Circulation Element. Assistant Planner Laura Stotler gave the staff report and a slide
presentation. Kevin Michel assisted with the slide presentation. Staff recommended that the
Commissioner evaluate the CTAC and Ports Bella circulation proposals and make a
recommendation regarding a preferred Circulation Network for further study as part of the General
Plan amendment process. Staff would then take the recommendations to the Council and request
direction and finding for a General Plan amendment, with environmental review, Including traffic
model runs.
Following the presentation, Chairman Doughman called for discussion by the Commissioners.
Commissloner Cherrington asked for confirmation of the following points by staff for clarification
to himself and to the audience: (1) the Commission Is considering recommendations for a change
to the General Plan; (2) the Circulation Element does not provide specific roadway alignments; (3)
anything the Commission might recommend will then go back for staff review and Commission
review before final presentation to the City Council for adoption. Staff confirmed these points.
Mr. Michel stated that staff was asking the Commission to help staff find what they would like to
study In pursuit of a General Plan amendment. He stated staff had Input from CTAC as to what that
body thought a good network might be, and staff is bringing the CTAC network to the Commission
and asking for an evaluation of that network or to come up with another network. Based on that
recommendation, staff would go to Council and advise them that the CTAC and Planning
Commission have identified a network they think Is worthy of study for a General Plan Amendment,
the Council would be asked for their Input and direction and for funding for doing environmental
work. It is estimated the environmental work would cost anywhere from $50,000 - $70,000, and staff
needs clear direction before expending funds on traffic model studies.
Chairman Doughman opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m.
Vera Johnson, 26534 Oak Crossing Road, Newhall 91321, made general comments about the item
as a member of the Santa Clarita Citizens Transportation Committee. Ms. Johnson stated she
would like to see Via Princessa joined with Magic Mountain Parkway, and Wiley Canyon Bridge
connected as a "T" Into San Fernando Road.
Vice-chairman Modugno stated he was confused by the last speaker. He asked MS. Johnson if she
were recommending any one of the four networks that were before the Commission. Ms. Johnson
stated she was not. She repeated the location above, and stated she was In the minority position
at CTAC during discussion for a recommendation.
Commissioner Woodrow asked Ms. Johnson if her proposal were similar to the revised Porta Bella
proposal. Ms. Johnson stated it was not. Chairman, Doughman asked Ms. Johnson to mark the
suggested route on a map and pass it to the Commission so they could get a better visual
understanding of her recommendation.
Gary J. Robert, 21803 Parvin Drive, Santa Clarita 91350, made general comments about the item as
the spokesperson for Estates Circle J Homeowners Association. If Via Prircessa does go through,
he asked the Planning Commission to take Into consideration that there be routes out of Via
Princessa Into Santa Clarita Parkway and a way out by a bridge over San Fernando Road or another
access onto San Fernando Road over the railroad tracks; and If Rio Vista goes through, over Rio
Vista as well.
Sam Veltri, 21515 Vanowen Street, Canoga Park, made general comments about the Item. He
Pointed out that It was possible to get two east -west corridors out of this effort. He offered to
provide technical data If the Commission wished to discuss his comments.
Commissioner Brathwalte asked If Mr. Veltri were offering the revised Porta Bella proposal and
withdrawing the original proposal. Mr. Veitri said de facto it becomes something for consideration
and that he stands by the original proposal, however during the comment period of the EIR people
have suggested that there be a better east -west corridor than the CTAC. The revised proposal is
put forth In response to some of those comments as a possible mitigation for the Commission's
consideration. Mr. Veltrl stated that if the Commission chose the revised proposal as being better
than the original proposal or the CTAC recommendation, or in addition to the CTAC
recommendation, he would accommodate the Commission..
Malls Campbell, 27501 Label Avenue, Canyon Country 91351, made general comments about the
Item. Ms, Campbell Is a former member of CTAC. She pointed out the need for a northern
alignment.
Jack Curenton, P. O. Box 801145, Santa Clarita 91380, made comments as the spokesperson of
Citizens for a Better Santa Clarita Valley. Mr. Curenton referenced a newspaper article in the Signal
stating that Representative McKeon would support funding for a road In the Santa Clarita area, and
proposed a beltway road around the City.
Warren Johnson, 26534 Oak Crossing Road, Santa Clarita, 91321,, made general comments about
the Item. He reemslzed concerns regarding the CTAC proposal. He also took Issue with the
CTAC recommendalpri connecting. Magic Mountain Parkway to Santa Clarita Parkway,. as that
seems to be contr2dictory to the public's opinion and he 'recommends that the Planning
Commission review that very carefully and negate that recommendation because it Is a poor one.
Commissioner Brathwaite stated he recognized that the public had other issues, but stated the
Commission was asking for input on the proposals presented to the Commission by staff. He
asked if the Commission wanted to add several new proposals to the ones before them or to look
at the ones before the Commission. Chairman Doughman said there were other alternatives to the
ones before the Commission. Commissioner Brathwaite requested the Commission receive
sketches or markups of the routes proposed by the speakers in order to more clearly understand
the suggested routes.
Michael Kennick, P. O. Box 801014, Santa Clarita, made general comments about the item, as the
Chairman of CTAC. He stated the need to clarify the CTAC proposal as follows: (1) CTAC supports
the concept of a northern alignment; (2) the east -west corridor was the primary objective in the
proposal and the road chosen was Newhall Ranch Road connecting to Santa Clarita Parkway
connecting to Via Princessa connecting to SR 14 as primary; (3) in addition, the other roads
proposed were secondary, but a vital part of our future road network within the City. He also
stated that for Rio Vista, CTAC also recommended that the section of Rio Vista between Magic
Mountain and Via Princessa be studied as a frontage road; and that the section of Rio Vista
between Via Princessa and Lyons be eliminated from.the Master Plan.
David Wong, Beazer Homes California, Inc., 13171 Telfair Avenue, Suite 105, Sylmar 91342, made
general comments about the Item. Mr. Wong wanted to commend CTAC for having foresight in
Seeing the overall circulation in the Valley. He asked the Commission to direct staff to pay some
special attention to future development In the Circle J Ranch area, specifically the proposed bridge
connection between Via Princessa to San Fernando Road to Wiley Canyon, and Rio Vista between
Via Princessa and Lyons. He asked to sit down with staff and tell them what Beazer Homes would
like to propose, and how that would mesh In with the proposed amendment. He also asked staff
to pay some special attention to some of the concerns that existing homeowners at Circle J have
regarding traffic and noise Issues, and be especially sensitive to those homeowners' concerns.
Chairman Doughman asked for a drawing, depicting his ideas. Mr. Wong stated his company was
doing studies and he hoped to have some proposals early in January 1994.
Carl Kanowsky, 22518 Jenlel Court, Santa Clarita, made general comments about the Item. He
suggested the public was confused and recommended the Commission continue this item to the
next meeting and give the public an opportunity to comment on proposals before the Commission
and to present alternative proposals.
Bob Lathrop, 25105 Hlghspring, Newhall 91321, stated what was needed was an analysis of the
problem, which has three aspects: (1) need for east -west transit through the City; (2) commuter
traffic; (3) Inter -City traffic. He asked the Commission to be cautious about a bridge connecting to
Wiley Canyon.
George Ready, 25625 Celcha Road, Valencia 91355, made general comments about the item.
Jack Ancona, 29552 Abelia Road, Canyon Country 91350, made general comments about the item.
Chairman Doughman closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
Kevin Michel stated that the City had cooperated with the County on development of an areawide
traffic model. He stated the City contracts with the County for their staff to run the model for us,
but that the City was involved In the development of the model. He also stated that staff felt the
proposals before the Commission, the CTAC, the modified Porta Bella and the existing Porta Bella
proposal, were good points from which to start. He said staff would appreciate direction from the
Commission as to preference.
R
Chairman Doughman stated one of the Commission's goals was to identify what road system was
preferred out of the four plans before the Commission. He stated the Commission would like a
plan for when and how the roads would be built as well, and that we come up with a timetable and
a definition of funding. The Commission needs to take a look at the width of the roadway, and
does not want to limit itself by not adopting roadways of insufficient width; he leans towards a six
lane road with a center median and guaranteed right-of-ways. He stated the Commission also
wanted direction from staff as to where we would envision Route 126 to go north of the City
boundaries.
Commissioner Brathwaite commented that we need to provide some level of direction in narrowing
down options for the staff to work with. He stated the Commission could not expect staff to
address four or five different proposals. He asked that the public comments be folded into the
proposals if feasible. He recommended that the revised Porta Bella proposal become an actual
proposal so it can be considered along with the CTAC recommendation, and that those two
proposals could be used as the basis for staff review and refinement.
Vice-chairman Modugno asked how much traffic actually flows from SR 14 across to 1-5, to be
served by 126. He stated that if a benefit of using federal funds for an alignment within the City
exists, that alignment should be considered before considering a route outside the City. He also
stated he was concemed that the Chairman of CTAC Indicated that the CTAC recommendation
presented to the Commission was not the recommendation agreed upon by CTAC as it relates to
Rio Vista. The map shows no connection between San Fernando, Dockweiler or Santa Clartta
Parkway to SR 14. He stated the material presented to the Commission lacked complete analysis
and a staff recommendation. He expressed concerns regarding the status of the Porta Bella
proposal, and with trying to make a decision with the material presented. He stated the
Commission was left with many Items, limited time, limited resources, and was asked to come up
with an intelligent decision.
Chairman Doughman stated we need to look to the future with the expansion of the industrial park
and development of the Oxnard area;
Commission Woodrow asked if Santa Clarita Parkway actually connected to SR 14. Bahman Janka,
Traffic Engineer, stated Santa Clarita Parkway would connect to Sierra Highway at the same place
of the original Rio Vista connection. He stated there was access to SR 14 at the Placentia Canyon
connection. Chairman Doughman requested that this connection be clearly Identified on an
upgrade to the map.
Commissioner Woodrow stated that of the four proposals, there was a considerable similarity
between the CTAC and revised Porta Bella proposal. He stated he hoped that If the'CTAC had
additional lines to draw on the map, they would do so and the Commission would have one page
that reflected the best thinking of everyone concerned. He stated the CTAC and revised Porta Bella
proposals seemed to be on the right track, but he had questions.
Chairman Doughman stated he saw basic differences In the CTAC recommendation and revised
Porta Bella proposal, and there was a question of whether we need Rio Vista.
Bahman Janka clarified that Rio Vista or Santa Clarita Parkway would be connected to the
interchange where Placerfta Canyon Road Is, Into SR 14.
Commissioner Cherrington stated that the Commission had previously expressed concerns
regarding the consistency of map exhibits. He explained that at best the Commission could make
a conceptual judgment. He stated that the Commission was talking about a concept of traffic flow,
and not specific alignments. He stated that the Circulation Element of the General Plan was
deemed adequate given the assumptions of land use and bufidout, but that the assumptions are
false. The Planning Commission subsequently delivered to City Council a General Plan
3
Implementation Program which calls for a far more detailed traffic analysis than has yet been
provided. He also pointed out that the General Plan was designed to lay a blueprint for a City of
the 21st Century, and in the presentation to the City Council was described as an "autonomous
suburb". What we are talking about today is not a City of the 21st Century, we are talking about
a City where people need to be able to get out of the Santa Clarita Valley to get to work, since most
people who live here cannot find employment here, and people who work here cannot afford to live
here.
He also stated it was admirable to look for funding and timetables, but that was not part of the
reality test for road construction in the Santa Clarita Valley, and certainly not in the City. The City
does not have the money to make it happen. He stated the best thing the Commission could do
at this meeting was to get a conceptual blueprint that would go into a General Plan that would be
closer to the reality that we see the City becoming than the current Circulation Element. In that
regard, since we do not have the option of a major thoroughfare (i.e., 126) coming through the City,
the best we can hope for is a reasonable thoroughfare that will take traffic east and west and north
south. He stated we need to find a way to get out of the City; and that in his judgment the revised
Porta Bella proposal does the best job of that and has his support.
Chairman Doughman agreed that the revised Porta Bella proposal was basically best, and he
encouraged planning staff to focus heavily on that. He also stated he has concerns as it develops
about interface points, particularly how to interface between Magic Mountain Parkway and Rio Vista
where we go to the City Center; how do we Interface Via Princessa with Magic Mountain Parkway
and do the curves at the 'T'; as we bring traffic down Via Princessa to San Fernando Road, how
will we do the intersection. He is concerned with how we move traffic from Dockweiler and Santa
Clarita Parkway across Sierra Highway to SR 14. He also commented that funding needed to be
identified.
Commissioner Cherrington stated the Commission had reached a consensus to direct staff to focus
their study on the revised Ports Bella proposal. He also stated that because of Its similarity to the
CTAC proposal, alignments might be found that would be useful. He moved to direct staff to focus
on the revised Porta Bella proposal and to examine the CTAC proposal. This motion was seconded
by Commissioner Brathwatte. Chairman Doughman asked Director Harris to comment on this
motion before the vote was taken.
Ms. Harris stated staff was glad the Commission had a motion on the floor and would be taking the
Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council with the CTAC recommendations. She
asked If it was to be Inferred or understood by staff that should this motion pass that the
Commission is including the elimination of the existing 126 roadway on the General Plan Circulation
Element at this time.
Chairman Doughman stated the elimination was through the Ctty.
Commission Brathwatte stated the concept of the eight lane of 126 was no longer a viable choice
and that the six lane maximum was what the City and people wanted.
Ms. Harris asked if we were to understand that the Planning Commission does or does not wish us
to investigate a northerly by-pass outside of our planning area and outside this valley.
Commission Brathwatte stated the extended planning area included a great deal of area north of
the City, He asked if we were to put 126 north, would It not be in the extended planning area?
Ms. Harris asked the Chairman If the Planning Commission supported the CTAC 126
recommendation, which is very significant because we would be looking at the entire General Plan
through this amendment process and whether or not that arterial is Included as a part of a future
7
roadway plan will assist staff in evaluating whether or not land use densities in housing and other
land use areas are appropriate in the entire planning area.
Commissioner Cherrington stated his motion would not reference 126.
Vice-chairman Modugno asked that once the motion is approved, is this a recommendation that
goes to the City Council along with CTAC's recommendation. Ms. Harris confirmed that it would,
along with a,staff assessment of scope of work involved in bringing the matter to full public hearing
and opportunity for full amendment to the General Plan. Staff would then provide the Planning
Commission with technical backup and analysis on the ramifications of that circulation pattern, and
then public hearings would be held. She stated the Planning Commission was responsible for
making recommendations on any amendment to the General Plan.
Chairman Doughman called for a vote on the motion, and the Commissioners voted 5-0 to approve
Commissioner Cherrington's motion to focus on (1) the revised Porta Bella proposal and also (2)
on the CTAC recommendation.
Commissioner Brathwatte commented that the City had adopted an extended planning area which
goes to the Ventura County line, north to the southern slopes of the National Forest north of
Castaic, and any route north of the City proper would fall within the extended planning area.. Based
on future aspirations and assumptions for the extended planning area, he moved to give direction
to staff to seek a 126 corridor north of the City within our proposed extended planning area. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Woodrow.
Discussion by the Commissioners followed regarding the past decisions of LAFCO regarding the
City's sphere of Influence. Commissioner Modugno stated that it was Important for the community
to monitor 126 and take a position In case funding does become available.
The Commission voted 5-0 to approve the motion.
Ms. Harris stated that at the October 5 meeting of the Commission, Traffic Engineer Bahman Janka
had a summary of the components of the CTAC recommendation. She requested Mr. Janka to
recap for the Commission those points. Mr. Janka mentioned the following: No truck routes; six
lane highway; network of arterials; and the bicycle Issue. Ms. Harris asked the Commission to
confirm her understanding that they preferred Pona Bella to submit their revised proposal. as part
of their formal application. She suggested that the Commission take that up at the next public
hearing.
Chairman called a recess at 9:25 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
ITEM 7. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51445, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93.009, OAK TREE PERMIT
93-039 (MASTER CASE NO. 93.145) - located south of Soledad Canyon Road, between Anne Freda
and Deep Creek. The applicant Is requesting a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide a 4.4 acre parcel
Into six lots to develop 17 detached condominium units, a C.U.P. to allow for the clustering of the
proposed units, and an Oak Tree Permit to encroach within the protected zone of two oak trees to
accommodate an onslte hiking tail.
Chairman Doughman, called Item 7 out of order. Steve Hunter, representative for the applicant,
requested the Commission continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting, due to the
lateness of the hour.
The public hearing was opened at 9:50 p.m. Chairman Doughman moved to continue the public
hearing to January 4, 1994. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Modugno and approved
5-0.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
Master Case No. 93-198
General Plan Amendment 93-01
DATE: December 21, 1993
TO: Chairman Doughman and Members of the Planning Commission
1 4rh
FROM: Lynn M. Harris,' y �Ity Mafiager, Community Development
PLANNERS: Kevin Michel, Senior Planner
Laura Stotler, Assistant Planner
ENGINEER: Bahman Janka, City Traffic Engineer
LOCATION: Citywide Circulation
.y
REQUEST: Application Preparation for Amendments to the Circulation Element of
the General Plan
BACKGROUND
This staff report Is comprised of two sections. The first discusses the various circulation
alternatives proposed for the City within the central circulation system. The second answers
circulation related questions posed by the Commission on October 5, 1993. Several maps and a
chart are attached for purposes of Illustrating the differences in the various circulation alternatives
which have been proposed.
The Community Development Department is requesting Commission direction in the preparation
of an application to amend the Circulation Element. Staff Intends to bring the amendment
application to the City Council on January 25, 1993. Staff requests the Commission provide Input
and direction on the amendment application at this time. Once the application for a circulation
amendment is presented to Council, staff will prepare an amendment and environmental review.
The General Plan amendment and environmental documentation would then be heard by the
Commission before proceeding to Council for final adoption.
The action being requested from the Planning Commission Is to receive the information in this
report, hold a public hearing and then discuss potential changes to the circulation plan proposed
by the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC).
CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION NETWORK
The Santa Clarha General Plan presently shows an extension of State Route 126 Joining Newhall
Ranch Road and traversing the northern portion of the City connecting to State Route 14. State
Route 126 Is classified as an eight lane limited access expressway. Via Princessa, a major highway,
kgenda Item: 5
Is shown as an extension of Wiley Canyon Road and extends across the southern edge of the Porta
Bella site. Rio Vista Road is shown as a major highway running parallel to San Fernando Road
from Bouquet Canyon Road south to Sierra Highway along the alignment of Dockweiler Drive.
Although not discussed In the General Plan text, Magic Mountain Parkway Is shown on the
Proposed Master Plan of Arterials (Exhibit C-3 of the Circulation Element) to extend on to the Porte
Bella site as a secondary highway. The Bermite Connector, although unnamed on the map, Is a
north -south roadway shown on the Porta Bella site connecting Soledad Canyon Road and the
proposed Via Princessa. 'An exhibit showing the center city circulation of the General Plan is
attached.
CTAC RECOMMENDATION
CTAC has recommended that the designation of State Route 126 through the City as depicted on
the Clty's General Plan Map be eliminated. Instead, State Route 126 should be relocated to the
north and bypass the City. CTAC also desires to see Newhall Ranch Road extended across the
City to join Golden Valley Road. CTAC favors a grid of east -west and north -south roadways.
Two maps showing the CTAC recommendation are attached. One shows the citywide
recommendations made by CTAC. The second shows the center city circulation with changes
recommended by CTAC highlighted in red.
ORIGINAL PORTA BELLA PROPOSAL
The Porta Bella proposal circulation differs from the General Plan and CTAC circulation proposals.
Under the Porta Bella proposal Magic Mountain Parkway connects to Main Street and does not
Intersect Soledad Canyon Road as shown on the General Plan, though the connection is completed
via "D" Street and Santa Clartta Parkway. Rio Vista Road also ends at Main Street and does not
extend through to Soledad Canyon Road. While the elimination of a northern section of Rio Vista
Road differs from the General Plan, it is consistent with the CTAC recommendation and with the
Civic Center Master Plan. The Porte Bella proposal provides access to Soledad Canyon Road
through Santa Clarta Parkway. Santa Clarita Parkway does not exist on the General Plan but is
Included In the circulation network recommended by CTAC. The General Plan shows a road
Identified as the Bermhe Connector which connects Soledad Canyon Road to Via Princessa. This
roadway does not exist on Porte Bella but this function Is preserved In an Indirect way through a
route from Main Street to Via Ports Bella and "D" Street to Santa Clarita Parkway.
PORTA BELLA CONCEPTUAL CORRIDOR FOR MAGIC MOUNTAIN PARKWAY
The Porte Bella applicant has provided staff with a conceptual project revision which at this time
has not been formally submitted. The revised Porte Bella proposal shows an extension of Magic
Mountain Parkway and Via Princessa that Is close to the CTAC proposal. Under the original Porta
Bella proposal Magic Mountain Parkway ended at Main Street. An extension of Magic Mountain
Parkway as proposed by CTAC would have divided the original Porta Bella proposal In half. While
the new Porta Bella proposal extends Magic Mountain Parkway/Vla Princessa east -west across the
southern edge of the site, It does not split the Porta Bella project In two. Under this proposal, Rio
Vista Road would be eliminated between the Magic Mountain Parkway extension and Via Princessa.
Wiley Canyon Road would be extended to Intersect Magic Mountain ParkwayNia Princessa.
The revised Porta Bella proposal assumes that the Magic Mountain Parkway extension would have
a grade separation from San Fernando Road and the railroad tracts. Grade separations may also
be required at Via Princessa and San Fernando Road and the railroad tracts even though an at -
grade crossing exists there at this time due to anticipated Increases In traffic volumes.
P1
Maps are attached showing the original Porta Bella project and the revised Porta Bella project. The
roadways shown In red denote those which are within the project site. Since Magic Mountain
Parkway is the principal access to the site it is shown in red to San Fernando Road. For both of
these Porta Bella maps the CTAC recommended circulation network is shown as the background
network.
CIVIC CENTER PROPOSAL
The Civic Center site plan shows primary access to the site from an extension of Magic Mountain
Parkway. Rio Vista Road would exist between the Magic Mountain Parkway extension and Main
Street.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CIVIC CENTER AND PORTA BELLA PROPOSALS
Both the Civic Center and Porta Bella proposals take access from Magic Mountain Parkway. There
Is a general agreement between the Civic Center architects and the Porta Bella design team
concerning the Magic Mountain ParkwayNla Princessa corridor as shown In the revised Porta Bella
proposal. The Civic Center architects would like the Intersection of Magic Mountain Parkway and
Rio Vista Road to be located further north In order to ensure City buildings would maintain a
position of prominence from that viewshed. This could be accomplished as a minor variation to
the revised Porta Bella proposal.
Both design teams feel that both the Civic Center and Porta Bella concepts are unified and will
complement each other, The design teams agree that the plans for both of these projects are in
the conceptual stage. The details will be finalized during Implementation of these plans.
COMPARISON EXHIBIT
A large exhibit is attached which shows the four center city circulation alternatives which have been
considered by the Commission. A comparison chart is shown next to these alternatives and
highlights the differences between the proposals.
RESPONSE TO COMMISSION COMMENTS OF OCTOBER 5. 1993
:T114.I471ILai ;161 11: Imo'
The Commission requested Information on the feasibility of providing at -grade railroad crossings
for the Magic Mountain extension. MTA has a policy against cheating new at -grade crossings and
It Is unlikely one would be approved In this Instance. Grade separations are preferred. The City
would need to construct an overcrossing or underpass to avoid the railroad. The Public Utilities
Commission (PUC), the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (operator of Metrolink) and MTA
(owner of the Metrolink rails) are the bodies which must approve railroad crossings of any type.
While there are no limits to grade separations, trains must sound a horn before every at -grade
crossing which may cause complaints in areas planned for residential uses. The City of Lancaster
recently had a grade separation approved and the process took approximately 6 months.
TRUCK RESTRICTIONS
The Commission requested Information on truck restrictions on roadways. The Council may
establish by ordinance highway weight limitations to prohibit certain vehicles, provided that an
alternative route is established concurrently and appropriate signs are posted (Municipal Code Sec
12.48.070). The City presently has restrictions against commercial vehicles exceeding a gross
weight of 14,000 pounds in four locations. These are 1) Placerita Canyon Road from 12th Street
3
to 1,600 feet west of Sierra Highway, 2) Soledad Canyon Road between Sierra Highway and Shadow
Pines Boulevard, 3) Wiley Canyon Road between Orchard Village Road and Calgrove Boulevard, and
4) Sand Canyon Road between the Antelope Valley Freeway and Placerita Canyon Road.
The General Plan Identifies truck and super -truck routes to serve to minimize the effects of truck
traffic within the circulation system. Additionally, truck routes serve to Identify additional structural
requirements Imposed on the arterial roadway system. The difference between truck and super -
truck routes is that super -truck routes can accommodate trucks which exceed normal truck weight,
width, or have heights In excess of 11 feet, 4 Inches. Generally, truck routes are placed away from
residential and light retail commercial uses and function along roadways leading from Industrial and
business park uses. Identified truck routes must have lane widths a minimum of 10 feet and
accommodate weights of up to a maximum of 50,000 Ibs per axle. Caltrans issues special permits
for super -trucks and they must follow designated super -truck routes. Identified truck and super -
truck routes In the City's General Plan are Soledad Canyon Road (except portions restricted above),
Sierra Highway, San Fernando Road, Magic Mountain Parkway, and proposed State Route 126.
The California Vehicle Code does not specify weight limits for roadways. The Vehicle Code only
Identifies maximum weight limits for categories of vehicles. It would be up to the City to limit the
type of vehicles by limiting the allowable weights.
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
On November 10, 1992 the City Council approved General Plan Amendment 92-02 adopting the title
Lyons Avenue Extension to replace the title "Rio Vista" from the eastern terminus of Lyons Avenue
to Sierra Highway on Exhibit C-3 of the Circulation Element. Under this proposal Lyons Avenue
would connect to the road which is presently Dockweiler Drive.
CASTAIC LAKE WATER PIPELINES
The Commission requested Information about the pipeline under construction by the Castaic Lake
Water Agency. Don Barraza, their project engineer, states that they are placing two pipes, one a
9 foot diameter and the other a 7.5 foot diameter pipe. These pipes will be covered with a minimum
6 feet to 25 feet of earth. He said that the earth coverage Is sufficient to protect the pipes from
roadway Impacts.
BICYCLE LANES
The Ctty's General Plan notes that an additional 10 feet of right-of-way Is necessary to
accommodate bicycle lanes which are shown on all designated major highways throughout the City.
This width is inconsistent with the built -out widths of existing major highways, The Issue of bicycle
routes is a separate Issue which will require special study and will be addressed separately.
I
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Evaluate the CTAC recommendation to the City Manager and other material; and
2) Make a recommendation regarding the Central City Circulation Network Included on
the Master Plan of Arterial Highways In the Circulation Element of the General Plan
for the further study as part of a General Plan amendment. Identify other
alternatives, if desired, for study In the General Plan amendment environmental
analysis.
ATTACHMENTS
City General Plan Circulation Map (Center City)
CTAC Circulation Map
CTAC RecommendationomClrculatlon,Map,(Center=City)
Olig 1naiLPorta-Sel IaxClrculatio n-Map
Revised-Porta-Bella¢Clrculatlon: Map
Comparison.of-Center-Cfty-Circulatlon°proposals and Comparison`Chart
Master-Plan-of-Arterlals-Exhibit -G3 Circulation Element
an.V.o""
5
40
EXTEN510M OF: MAGIC M7_
EPDE�MOCT- IC193
6 LANEBS 11 J,
Es C)
Eli
Ili IM� j �• { y.�
s
I
FIGURE I,,
d
—"TA CLAVITA
PA lz I- VA C)c)
...MAIN
5T.
I AAO v I
CIRCLE "j,
A
Z6
:t- oZ
zo
-jr
vip, rKINLLDLA
0
0 ...........
x T'Hs
46• x 1. 11 ADDED y 0
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT N PO
o. 51599 RTA
f
FELLANOH III
CITY GENERAL PLAN
ORIGINAL PORTA BELLA PROPOSAL
CTAC RECOMMENDATION REVISED PORTA BELLA PROPOSAL
COMPARISON CHART OF CENTRAL CITY CIRCULATION
PROPOSALS
Yes
Expressway
8 Lanes
No
Yes, Connects
San Fernando to
Soledad Cyn
Secondary and
Limited
2 to 4 Lanes
Yes, Connects
Bouquet to
Lyons Ext
Major
6 Lanes
Yes
Secondary
4 Lanes
Yes
Major
6 Lanes
Yes, Connects
San Fernando to
Dockweller Dr
Major, 6 Lanes
Yes, Becomes
Via Princessa
Malor. 6 Lanes
Yes
Major, 6 Lanes
No
Designated as
SR-126.8 Lane
Expressway
Movefrom the City
north Into the
County
Yes
Width undetermined
Yes, Connects San
Fernando to Santa
Clarta Pkwy
Secondary and
Major
Width undetermined
Yes, Study for
connection from
Magic Mountain to
Lyons Ext
Width undetermined
No, Function
similar to Santa
Clarita Pkwy
Yes
Major
6 Lanes
No change to
General Plan
No change from
General Plan
No change to
General Plan
Yes, Replaces Rio
Vista to Soledad
Cyn and Bernite
Connector
Major
6 Lanes
Yes, Connect 1-5 to
Golden Valley
Major, 6 Lanes
Ends on project
Secondary
4 Lanes
Yes, Does not
connectto
Soledad
Secondary and
Limited
2 to 4 Lanes
No, Function
similar to Santa
Clarita Pkwv
Yes
Major
6 Lanes
No change to
General Plan
Connects to Via
Princessa
Major
4 to 6 Lanes
Yes, Only
connects Magic
Mountain and
Main Street
Limited
2 Lanes
No, Function
similar to Santa
Clarita Pkwv
Yes, Joins
Magic Mountain
Major, 6 Lanes
No change to
General Plan
No change from No change from
General Plan I General Plan
No change to
General Plan
Yes, Replaces
Rio Vista to
Soledad Gyn
and Bermhe
Connector
Second to Major
4 to 6 Lanes
Assumes same
as CTAC
No change to
General Plan
Yes, Replaces
Rio Vista to
Soledad Cyn
and Bernhe
Connector
Second or
Major
4 to 6 Lanes
Assumes same
as CTAC
• ..� _..r ,. {�.y,-P E 13 �Atyf
♦- .. r kIdnini5r•.-+-5`X$6't
,� Jt�.xh
ANCELES NATIONAL FOREST i __ 4 ♦°'- -p6 4 �" t{.'s s 'r
t
,sn p ExhibitC
l
; � roposed Add t ter Plan c
\ —F Arterial Highway
i W FM R m
LOS PADRES
NATIONAL FOREST-
1
Carte4 i
� l't Lt. ; / ` ``.—PL•SNNINC AgpA DO �_
-
.� , -. r - 'R:!a ` „ '-)rdc'£✓ #F' X '•,ur?' rgL'i�'Yv%Y�.�"l
ANC£LES
I * h
1 �r
�___1
PARN FOREST RO •L ,t ,�� t�'" Iv -
i
mij
a LAW
YreriM
4L� � aTr Lntlr = �� uR ��^ _ � --, `v k, �: .; ,• ,
_ f. a. �.xj �. ANC£!IS AITIOAAL FORffiT'' .
,
Nd1RAT R/lt/R ..
t r'- t LANE R/tRAL
r
g' BLS' 1^f
NCL a� �
I
Y
tenyan stet. veYY' a s `, `� :, .
6L SAN CABRIEL NOUATUX9 .
CITY LIMIT I `
HIGHWAYS - �. ua„ �. soMI= xxx.trsaiRr.
ros
� Expressway (8 lanes) '-t1t,' a !
°Freeway =.y`�'�. `' »t._ urrn� ,x
Major Highway (6 Lanes) 4 �i ANcrlEs XArrONAL FOREST
Secondary Highway (4 Lanes) ` �� % Msaotc
------ LinuTed Highway (2 Lanes)
EXCEPTIONS AS NOTED ��,.�•••.,,
"°°°� "'°" �e• Santa Clarita General Plat
'• City of Santa Claritc
VALENCIA INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 55592 • Valencia, CA 91385
TESTIMONY TO THE CITY COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1994
GENERAL PLAN CIP_CULATION ELEMENT
AMENDMENT
CONNIE WORDEN ROBERTS
PRESIDENT, VALENCIA INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION;
CO-CHAIRMAN, SCV AND CANYON COUNTRY CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.
On behalf of the Chambers of Commerce and the Valencia Industrial Association,I welcome
an opportunity to address the Council on the important matter of adequate circulation for
the Santa Clarita Valley. The Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee has been
active for nearly twenty five years.. Committee members have worked closely with
professional staff at all governmental levels, have developed knowledge of the subject and
are strongly supportive of securing a viable system of roads which can efficiently and safely
move people, goods and services throughout our valley and the region.
The Committee represents individuals, homeowners, businesses large and small, as well
as industries in the Santa Clarita Valley. We care very much about the development of a
system of roads that will serve the diverse needs of this area for now and into the future.
We care about the quality of life for this area, and wish to protect it while promoting the
development of a balanced, well -planned city.
It is within this framework that my comments are made to the Council this evening. I have
profound concerns about the proposal before you.
An East West Corridor is necessary for this Valley whether or not Porta Bella is developed.
Additionally, an adequate network of roads is of paramount importance. While the
insufficiency of the circulation system became obvious following the earthquake, the
growth projected in the General Plan requires additional capacity to handle present and
future needs.
The Transportation Committee accepts the City Council decision that the major corridor
should not be an eight lane freeway and joins with you in recommending a six lane, limited
access highway. It is the opinion of the Chambers of Commerce that the East West
alignment should begin at the terminus of Highway 126 at Interstate 5, become the
Newhall Ranch Road, cross Bouquet Canyon at the .Bouquet Center, extend across the
Santa Clara River, enter the Bermite property at the Eastern end of the property at a road
which is called Santa Clarita Parkway and cross Golden Valley Parkway as it swings
Easterly to Via Princessa and then Highway 14. We believe this road can relieve
congestion and be less intrusive and disruptive to the entire community than others which
have been proposed.
The Committee acknowledges the importance of additional north/south road alignments
in the mid -section (or doughnut hole) in the center of the city. Golden Valley Road can
become an important arterial. Other roads which would comprise the system would be the
extension of Via Princessa to Wiley Canyon Road, the completion of the Lyons Avenue
extension to Dockweiler ( or give consideration to exiting at the under -used Placenta
Canyon intersection). Another needed road will be a grade level two lane road at Magic
Mountain parkway which would wend its way around and to the rear of the existing
commercial areas at Springbrook.
The key word is capacity. It is our conviction that this configuration will accommodate the
present and future needs for this section of the City and help provide the needed capacity
to handle the traffic demands for the entire valley. While growth is occurring in the
center of Santa Clarita even more development is underway throughout the balance of
Santa Clarita Valley. Growth to the north and west of the city boundaries will utilize and
traverse the city roads. Traffic will travel from Canyon Country, Bouquet Canyon, Antelope
Valley and other areas to the Industrial Center, to the Commerce Center, to NorthBridge,
to Castaic and all portions of this valley. A viable network of roads is crucial.
It has been said that quick trips via Magic Mountain Parkway, to the Town Center,
Hospitals and City Hall are important. The Committee does not deny that. We need good,
dependable roads everywhere feasible that safely and quickly get us to those places.
Hopefully, the general citizenry doesn't need to get to City Hall more than two or three
times yearly, to the Town Center more often than every week, and hopefully, not more
than once or twice a year to the hospital. Yet we go to work five times each week! That
is where the majority of the east/west traffic is headed. By adopting the network of roads
which I have verbally outlined, you will add fourteen to eighteen additional lanes of
roadway and accommodating the need to traverse the mid section of the City. These roads
will take time to build but alignments and appropriate General Plan amendments should
be adopted expeditiously to preclude other construction.
Beside the inadvisability of constructing two major bridges to access the development called
Porta Bella, the roads currently proposed do not add sufficient capacity and presuppose the
completion of other roads throughout the Valley in an unreasonable time frame. There is
no project list which identifies what land uses would be in place to construct these other
roads. Missing too, is any analysis of traffic impacts caused by Porta Bella or mitigation
measures. The Specific Plan proposes roads which are not consistent with the General
Plan. The amendments of the General Plan must be adopted before the Specific Plan for
the area is accepted. Many other roadways must be opened before any Porto Bella traffic
is generated. A great deal more work, traffic modeling and analysis must be accomplished
before ANY SERIOUS discussion of any project of the magnitude of Porta Bella is planned.
While you have as of today changed it, the Redevelopment "Wish List" prepared after the
earthquake which the City Council adopted, allocated more than $26 Million (of the first
$65 Million projected to be raised in the first three years), be spent on the Magic/Princessa
Bridge and road.. Porta Bella is conditioned to pay for only two lanes. Will the public
want to bear the balance of this cost for an unwise and potentially dangerous project? I
urge modification of this decision.
On behalf of the Transportation Committee I recommend that the City Council give serious
consideration to the map submitted for your review and analysis this evening. It warrants
further analysis by traffic engineers and professionals. Moreover, it incorporates the
Chambers and Valencia Industrial Association East/West Corridor as well as the original
East/West Corridor agreed upon by the majority of CTAC members.
In conclusion, while I recognize there can be some roadways identified which might suffice
for a project in the center of the Santa Clarita Valley, there are numerous other issues to
be resolved before any permits should be given to Porta Bella. PLEASE GIVE very close
scrutiny to every aspect of this proposal and then prepare an "exacting" list of changes
before sending the entire matter back to the Planning Commission.
0
3 t
I
Y
} �QIYIVYY tint
`I
CANYON
COUNTRY
r t
i i tt9 1
1
t 1 M1p� 6MM w�.
a,�i! U, 1 t
t-
1 Vi°,n vrw
t 1
-A
VALENCIA
Legend p, a
Proposed East-West Corridor:
■o�A.a4rrr.ot
0 126 North County Bypass:. +. ,
Other Future Roadways: ? kkSANTA CLARITA i i
Nowholl Ranch Road Extension Ya Nrxt{t1 t +"-
Proposed Santa Clarha Parkway
Via Princassa
Magic Mountain Extension C
Golden Valley l NEWHALL
i t
- 1 r
�•�•'aT'``i.. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PROPOSED EAST/WEST CORRIDOR
...... & CENTRAL. CIRCULATION SYSTEM
=._ � � �i,.Js/ � � .-.•`� ` fi::i:I,ir. "� :'tYi. �w ..i�;i- � �.._
41
iy a / c \ `u; �'_. , /d�'f.Jr -� �_...I IC���M ,.• c a r ' _' �•.. J �^' ___ -
1
L
-�- � -;-- -' ,..�•� - - c i e � �� gas '
.ui I= 0� 'C ( .. � Tralrf °a••� p s� i �rl ',
g i ,� /,wJ :/ --r .. BM .J
S� 1357'20 !
401
''llt _� _ _ j�:.�� ill ^..; �`('� f q •�' � • 6 � G'';
°
1��
� '-� Cr/� :.. G �: ..�'n ; - .. :. - $b �, . �—`�t_S�� \. ~..�"':�.YlU�^ • � � ._r/�� rv�! �� 7� b ��-��'-� � �_. ` _ - °' _ _ = � -. _ 9 j e }f,.� -z:l..
a-
,r .�+•
di
r dM Newer \\,: ••�.. ..12 _ _ ` 0.' Ir � �•-.�J - - - e Cl/y- �� _ — .�. -`_1�2" � -. �J _^•...
, v•'� _. �.. NJ� D �. :.�'d'...• ..�mon c - f ..� ha'i .. •,�_.. _ - _�' o .. - _ - ^.S� r
.d .. "_' r' ! ,. M.. `. ���' }• •�..: �8'+ 12727 .r,. r`r�-: ��I� _ ' .� _j . �1 � _ - _ - o'
r
well , �r ✓�� p ";:i Pjacg=tos LEGENDHanen
/ `I
^ o`er I�n✓� ' ',..."" •'•. Q"HartSehioolT•.Gl •�.:?; "_ / •.�n rizsx , ram! e c e
MAJOR 4111111111111�
LOCAL-
;77
Ok
t;w, '� •/ K1 "i II �-.." '\1C�' �� T�� _�.. .may ':e ! rta —
�J�� � >. � i + � .� •'� WW •��"" �, see. _ ' a
~•/ ..• CJ _.' S-,
�,IJ c`•� to pp�� / , if �-:U � i � -. //.'ram / 'aliii : . mot" '% - c/
r _ S`6/ f �'� .. Q°� ' I " ) ffl: y,7-��%-a�.'r�+5'"irF•'• .i.... _ � - �• �
J "� _ •N S J /-•.rfr Un`/ , �_ - ----- •�i•tY:. ��,.�r '^'1. '!5 - r
r ,_
r- _��, •� -wa \\.fir ..�' .•.. V ,b� r , � _ ` . • • -y`� ,.
�, • ° >', zo°. � �_ i �w..r'J( f � � p�����p' V' " 11% I 11 .d rC� �•r e r �_� ��;i __- ' ...I
;� ; -C :' A F - - � "i,.� /•o fit :. �,�. _ - __. �/6� - i �: ,�. FYI
. ... _... � Q ...._- /�.�` ~ ' w-_y,7 L---- � '� '�- 6 /es F >_w e � � is �'•,
0Wlltl� (/ __ � . �,"�,`'"' _ � a t` I ': � � ���.` -, •
2 �'�VIIcgnID _ . lYq".+.30°l'.�i - -
,y� - ..� ems' R o•�$ - �� .I'�,
N.
'4G/ AMP NC rQ
1293 - I BIM _•1351
'a
DV
c� cile d'D ,\ \�i'eJ -n _ •• '♦ BM
-\ � I %Oa°3 _ � r, lcp •' ,�, �. to s � ..`� �1t�
—T'
LVn-
Trelw 7-
,,eni ;I
F ?arN,
cp
s � . � � -l/ '`.l y. �` 1_�� m' .� r �), '✓. _ - _ _ `"� ;,�.v'.,'.�+b l �''m - `moo �(f S .. BM 1401 �. \�1f I
( ~-./ 'n.. �J /� ,;. �. ITS Yl. /r. r •o �, �.....0•�i/"•r , lo6b _.. _ r/'\ - ��[ - i'•,J:. ` ;.
I> 7� = �^, n� ],�}/`�' _ ` `6 _ -�� ° / A+ 51,• `r::.. � ✓I o.. " 44� ��r �m n o\I `c-•• •-' 1�!" > - -. - `� - � o.''.�Jn��� ' ,
. �� �C { 'al ,rr/� � > �t � ''r /..,G.: riS'7-" oo � ; x •� .:-y � ; % r: _. ; . , ...
.\,, ., nl'nl yty �~_.'��� ( �111� `�"i F 1 +.C-s �" �/�' �F\�. � �rr•-���'`/' 11� t `/sGD1- - ,per c•sm.... � �_ �.`�`�� - _
�ll `` Uln f �^, �. '?'-�,'`a.� „6•_l �`'''t�.. `.i`=.0 ��n`_`'` ^`-�I r _ - '"s:J �• 1 ``\_~
4F-
UU ? r
l _ rv9D ...._ ... o--e 1-r ; r� ;• b / !�'_ _^ ^: r a � - ••^� '
-• J � �
/ ;,1 ,g0� G.. / �••/ _�- \ �C. r _ ,�, `.. ..• 14�10
_"Sl�c'c _J �-�J �f��.l .i �'1 �' - .. _.0 _ _ �
�)..._ .� ✓.-. r �.�"' " N - _^`ro7-- ,.J �ll.� - a. rs.iy'. _ -
,'r`� IL
�H• �":.e • "`",1• 1 ` Cam^.,_. ✓. _� atnta . - 4: f C _
r/� 1 " � n- �. `a.,.s\,, ' � 1 ���7i �"`�/ -�z� / ^ 'j �"--� />/ >' � ,. a ' e _i_ �j� �,) � t(,�° �{{•)1
/�"� V _ � ^' p.�,�'Q• o - , ��F_ -- i \ry ,' R `` �ti�~ e4� � .>,7'�^'r .,^'�-� � - -a--"/-• �� � � �a� - � ,__ - _ o - RQ�I- _ � -_> '
,. /J .. \. `.. '`- 7 i+� � � ..... ��J �v, \1 < \� _ =-� �Af/%°T � i�`- J '..�1 _= I• - __. ,°v°° -- I8�3 _ - f
•Radio Ran, �` `;,/,._�\ - N • ,r(. „ r �;7 C�� IJ (r f' / °l° - r
; S1.0
v'
- A�/."` •�1. _- X_Jf'� lr/ rI%��1�1 :"�.�'�/t\a• "rJ._. - - _
-,'. r?• ..�_ ' - >Lb..« - Ploc�"�L -�;7,! ;✓/n, �� �n�e _ _ `8 ° ° - j�, _ ie°° _ n y� _ -•-).n
, (_� � N ' -., a� �'s ' r.,e-- T 5 ' '. 6'll l" �v ^,' __�� „r � Y 'Ca'rrJ, `•-'�� p _. y�° '� \ \ =� �p t� ,-
�:-vSl `!.• .1 -�-? _. R•r / .`. J• . rr S \� J - _�-=� j�v _ \'i _ DrY _ �' I _ .l
^
., .. ,__ -. "S'q: - t` •ram-f30 _-� p` �1y�`�=�I6DD -
•, - :� --'. •.` �. _ .... O. :,• ' !, `mom - - l l
} _ .: '.' ... bM Nmalt'. 4 .� .• ._•,E j, _r f,- .-` J i _ '/� G 1 • _ �' �.
„ �2
_ / 1
` . r , • ... .::,a••, rron k / ♦ .. , q • is .�. ! • F•. , •� W —. _ - - —_ � _ _ _ _ `.F - ti
\ l _
o ell -__ � •• -... � \ .•'• 1. _ ,r! ii_ .;:' .C� - t� - _ I��
.
LEGEND
D 7
•Flantn
_�t,� G� =T'. " :..'� �gart School{4 •.::. ., .. � n: r ;A�acerfYa,'
AJOR +�■ I �"
� roll -J� / r / ��•�4 _ .�.. /- � �•' : J - 1 � dln :. a'� ..• .
� �V s'� -.� �, �..�>(pl� � y'��' v .. ';� Ifs ':I('F � , \11��- o ��°. "�'. � . °�,^• — LOCAL-
ca.Ir
r _ r
I
:ir S .7.1--'• T,^i-��,/r :� �: ., �.,`. �6�. i 51.O�-ItiI�� _� c Q ,„i��4 �.,. ��,� - - - fi l � / � _ _ • � _ _ _
�� \/{�� �� l •V sL1,�i _ �y✓R ,A6D b.y, _,` L„�sD 'jJ Y•2 (j.,, ,�-• , i'�• ti L e _ _ `-^�-.i.
,4 ',o . ): r• o--d:r• -- ro erescw�r�ra: !41.0000 ♦[ET PI 'N sp:
MAGIC-PRINCESSA
CROSS-SECTION COMPARISON
J
SALIENT QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO
THE PROPOSED MAGIC MOUNTAIN PARKWAY
• What are the goals of an east/west corridor ?
• Does a Magic/Princessa alignment achieve those goals ? If not, why ?
If so, how efficiently and effectively ?
• Who will pay for the Magic/Princessa alignment ? How much does the
developer's alignment cost ? How much of that cost will be borne by the
developer versus the citizens of Santa Clarita ?
• If major bridges and flyovers are susceptible to seismic failure, what is the
possible impact to the city after the next major earthquake of the proposed
Magic/Princessa and Santa Clarita Parkway alignments ?
• What are the differences in visual impact to Circle J Ranch of the major
slope created by Magic Mountain Parkway ? Can this slope be reduced in
impact ?
• What is the significance of the change in volume of earthwork by raising the
grade of Magic Mountain Road ?
• Can Magic Mountain Parkway be aligned onto Porta Bella and coexist with
Main Street ?
• Do any of the proposed alignments potentially yield additional usable area
for public use ?
• is there a recent example of a major roadway alignment through a new
development ?
RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGES IN EARTHWORK VOLUME
• Changing the grade elevation 1-foot over a 1 --acre area changes the
earthwork volume by 1613 cubic yard.
• The proposed graded area for Porta Bella is 589 acres. A one -foot change
in grade elevation across the project yields a differential in earthwork
volume of (590 acres x 1613 yd3/acre/foot x 1 foot) = 951,670 yd3.
• Every 100,000 yd3 of earthwork differential if spread evenly across the
project would change the grade elevation by 1-1/4 inches.
• The industry standard acceptable level of accuracy of the topographic base
sheet used for the tentative map is 1/2 the contour interval. The minimum
contour interval is 2-feet. Therefore the accuracy can vary +/- 1-foot.
1-foot across the project yields (590 acres x 1613 yd3/acre/foot x 1 foot)
= 951,670 yd3.
• Soils and geology reports predict how much the soils will shrink when
compacted. This shrinkage value is a percentage of the total volume and is
usually given as a range leg. 8 - 12 percent shrinkage). You normally
design using the median of the range (for this example 10 percent
shrinkage). The actual shrinkage could vary 1 or 2 percent and still be
within the acceptable range. The Porta Bella project anticipates 16,800,000
yd3 of earth to be moved. A 1 to 2 percent variance in soil compaction
yields a 168,000 to 336,000 yd3 differential.
VRL.CO.PLAW1ING TEL 305-254-0751
Sep O,914 11:20 No.009 P.02
1� V
Valencia Company
23823 Velerlu�d Boulevard., Vale dc'. Camonvl S1355 • (805) 255" 100D
80Sr255�069....
June 3, 1994
David Doughran, Chairman
Planning Commission
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Valencia, CA 91355
SUBJECT: PORTA BL•LLA SPECIFIC PLAN, DEIR AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
Dear Chairman Doughman:
Valencia Company is concerned about the adequacy of the proposed roadway network in the Santa Clarita
Valley. The Circulation Elements of the City and County General Plans, are intended to meet the future
traffic needs of the community. Tile success of the network hinges upon the capacity of the roads
surrounding Porta Bella and the planned City Center. Unfortunately, the Porta Bella project is Proposing
changes to the master plan roadway network without an evaluation of the overall affect on the City's
General Plan Circulation Element;
During the spring and summer of 1993 we made verbal requests to the City and County to obtain the new
joint traffic model. In September the Porta Bella traffic report was produced. On December 15th, we
provided a letter to the City requesting access to the traffic model which was used to evaluate the Porta
Bella project. In mid April we were finally able to obtain the model and analyze the adequacy of the
proposed changes to the circulation network.
We have the following specific concerns regarding the shortcomings of the Porta Bella project:
1. SPECIFIC PLAN
The specific plan proposes roadways which are not consistent with the City" existing General
Plan Circulation Element. Section 65450 of the Government Code sets forth the provisions for the
preparation, content and adoption of specific plans. Specifically, Section 65454 requires that a specific
plan cannot be adopted or amended unless it is consistent with the general plan. No such finding of
consistency can be adopted without n amending the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan.
2, DRAFT P,IR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
A. Land Use
The EIR traffic reports do not contain any information identifying the specific relattd proiccis which were
IL'1C0 . PLANNING
David Doughman
June 3, 1994
TEL:805-254-0761 Sep 07,94 11:20 No.009 P.03
assumed to be developed with each phase of Porta Bella. There are no tables or charts which identify
the land use type by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) beyond the Porta Bella project (Tables 4-6 DEIR).
B. Network
The traffic report assumes almost 6.5 miles of new roads are constructed on the west side of the Valley
by Phase 1/1998, (A 4-lane extension of Newhall Ranch Road from Tibbetts to I.5, 4-6 lanes of
Copperhill Drive from Seco to Rye Canyon and 4 lanes of Decoro from McBean west to Copperhill). in
addition, Newhall Ranch Road is shown widened from 4 to 6 lanes from Bouquet to McKean and Magic
Mountain Parkway is widened from 2 to 4 lanes from 1-5 to McKean. The effect of this significant
increase in roadway capacity is traffic from upper Bouquet Canyon and Seca Canyons can take Copperhill
over to the Industrial Center or out Newhall Ranch Road to I-5. With these roadways the Bouquet
Junction area Is significantly relieved from congestion, allowing Porta Bella traffic to load this currently
congested intersection. Without those roadways in place Bouquet Junction will be severely impacted by
Porta Bella.
Similarly, the year 2010 traffic model assumes over 9 miles of roadway network. (An extension of Santa
Clarita Parkway from Bouquet Canyon Road to SR-14, Newhall Ranch Road from Bouquet Canyon Road
to Golden Valley Road and the completion of Golden Valley Road from Plum Canyon to SR-14.) Again,
no related project list identifies what land use would likely be in place to build these roads. No analysis
is included on the Impact of Porta Bella traffic on Santa Clarita Parkway or Newhall Ranch Road (north
of Soledad Canyon Road) which would be significant travel paths for residents of Porta Bella working in
the Valencia Industrial Center or the Valencia Commerce Center. The ETR is deficient in its analysis of
these roadway links and the project's impacts and mitigations.
C. Intersection Impact Analysis
The EIR fails to identify specific mitigation measures that are the responsibility of Porta Bella to'reduce
its traffic impacts at the 36 intersections studied. Table 12, Page 58-62 of Appendix J summarizes
mitigation measures at all study intersections at build out of each phase, but does not specify which of
those should he conditioned to Porta Bella. Page 56 of Appendix J states for Phase I the provision of
additional mitigation measures "is not feasible at this stage" and were recommended for future phases
"Where applicable". "Mitigation for Phases 11 and III should he monitored". The analysis is not
consistent with the methodology and format specified in the City's Traffic Impact Report Guidelines, nor
with the rigorous review conducted for other large scale projects.
D. Magic Princessa Roadway Alignment
Magic Princessa should he aligned MAhla the Porta Bella property for the following reasons. An
alignment more closely parallelling Main Street would eliminate the need for the Oakdale Canyon Bridge,
significantly reducing the cost of this roadway. Also, the need for offsite right-of-way greatly increases
the likelihood construction of Magic Princessa will be delayed. Page 10 of the ADE•IR indicated "no
geotechnical evaluation of the proposed alignment and construction methods has been performed".
Approval of this alignment should not be granted without knowing it is geologically feasible.
AL.CO.PLANNING
David Doughman
June 3, 1994
TEL:805-254-0761
E. Wiley Canyon Bridge
Sep 07,94
11:20 No.009 P.04
The DEIR estimated 26,500 trips would use Wiley Canyon Road Bridge in the year 2010. Tables 6, 7,
10, I Oa, 11 and I 1 a all refer to the 2010 network with and without Wiley Canyon Bridge, but the Anr_lR
does not contain any narrative analysis of the revised network with and without Wiley Canyon Bridge,
The Wiley Canyon Bridge would significantly relieve congestion in the early phases of the project since
the Lyons/1-5 interchange has been upgraded, and Porta Bella will provide a connection to Soledad
Canyon Road just east of the Metrolink station, In addition, on Page 64 of the ADEIR, Magic Mountain
Parkway between Bouquet Canyon and Rio Vista has a LOS F which can be mitigated with an Slane
roadway section. However, no mitigation is provided in the ADEIR for this impact. Wiley Canyon
Bridge would provide an alternative route diverting traffic off Magic Princessa, and improving its level
of service. Opening Wiley Canyon Bridge in the first phase achieves a new connection to the 1-5
freeway, bypassing Bouquet Junction while providing greater access to the Metrolink station for the
Newhall area and southern portion of Valencia.
3. Vesting Tentative Map:
Santa Clarita Parkway is described as a major arterial in the ADEIR but the radius shown on the Vesting
Tentative Map south of the Soledad Canyon intersection is substandard at 500'. It should have a 1200'
to 1500' radius which significantly alters its location and impacts to grading and biota/oaks. This is
another reason why the amendment to the Circulation Element must precede the Porta Bella Specific Plan.
The Santa Clarita Parkway/Soledad and Magic Mountain/San Fernando intersections are shown on the
tentative map as having a skewed angle which does not meet City of Santa Clarita roadway Standards
which require 90° intersections wherever possible. D Street does not meet the minimum roadway radius
requirements and is a substandard second means of access for Phase 1. The proposed alignment of Santa
Clarita Parkway beyond Porta Bella as it exits the south side of the project is unknown. There is no
assurance the location of Santa Clarita Parkway within the project will result in the least damaging
environmental impacts as it proceeds offsite towards Piacerita Canyon, The same can be said -for the
extension of Via Princessa easterly offshe from the project.
4. Conclusion:
Both the City and County have embarked upon a joint planning effort to develop a traffic model designed
to analyze the traffic impacts of projects ill the Santa Clarita Valley. The DEIR identifies significant
adverse traffic impacts which have not been mitigated and necessitate a need for a statement of overriding
considerations. This project should not be approved unless traffic impacts can be mitigated to less than
significant levels so a statement of overriding consideration is not required for the project.
The E1R should contain a clear program for the roadway and intersection improvements that are to he in
place with each phase and the proportionate share contribution of the Porta Bella projoct to mitigate its
impacts. The timing of the grade separation and ramping for the Magic Mountain crossing over San
Fernando and the intersection configuration of Santa Clarita Parkway at Soledad should also he detailed,
New roadways must be opened before Porta Bella traffic can impact the network. Prior to occupancy of
Phase 1 Porta Bella should be exmditioned to a) construct a full width connection (Magic Princessa)
IIRL.CO.PLRNNING
David Doughman
June 3, 1994
TEL:805-254-0761
Sep 07,94
11:22 No.009 P.05
between Magic Mountain Parkway and Via Princessa near Rainbow Glen to insure there is an early
connection to Highway 14, b) construct Santa Clarita Parkway, from Soledad Canyon Road to Magic
Princessa, and c) Wiley Canyon Bridge needs to be built so a bypass to Bouquet ]unction and a new 1-5
freeway connection can be accomplished.
Thank you for allowing us to comment on the proposed Porta Bella project and EIR. We apologize for
the lateness of our comments but we did not want to respond without benefit of the traffic model, access
to which was beyond our control. We continue to look forward to working with the City on developing
a roadway system which serves the needs of the entire Valley.
Sincerely,
"*0
4
Mark Subbotin
Vice President
Planning
MS:dh
cc: Planning Commissioners, City of Santa Clarita
Lynn Harris, City of Santa Clarita
Kevin Michel, City of Santa CLarita
Sam Voltri, Northholme Partners
Brian Sasaki, County Department of Public Works
Tom Dierckman, Valencia Company
boce Entitlements, Bob DiPrimio
4
JUNE 1991 GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION
I0
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
MAJOR HIGHWAY: SIX TRAVEL LANES
RAISED MEDIAN
TURN POCKETS
LIMITED ACCESS (Driveways,
o- Cross Streets, Crosswalks)
(VALENCIA, SOLEDAD, BOUQUET, MCBEAN,
ORCHARD, NEWHALL RANCH, LYONS,
SIERRA, SAN FERNANDO, WHITES, WILEY)
SECONDARY
HIGHWAY: FOUR TRAVEL LANES
RAISED/PAINTED MEDIANS
LEFT TURN POCKETS
LIMITED ACCESS
(DECORO, HASKELL, SECO, CALGROVE,
SHADOW PINES)
COLLECTOR: TWO TRAVEL LANES
UNDIVIDED
MAY HAVE TURN POCKETS
LOCAL: RESIDENTIAL STREETS
PRIVATE STREETS
SERVICE ROADS
PUBLIC ALLEYS
�A
Exhibit C-3
Santa Cl arita General Plan . Proposed Master Plan of
• Arterial Highways
City o f Santa Clarita
_..- --__ _ ----- ----- -- 1----•------ --_-------- -
w►&" No"W R•nd+•
PPy�
G
a O
9n
by
90
LYONS � Q0
CALGROYE
�pOP�1`
BOUOU(`� cPNv sC,
0
y
0
y
90
STATE ROUTE I"9
SOLEDAD CANYON
m
p 111
0 m CO
N m f
D ^ O=
0 3333 O
O 1
�P�
ytP
C�.
7�
S4N
CITY GENERAL PLAN
�F9
DECEMBER 1993
' �90g0
rt I
JUNE 1992 CTAC FORMATION
OCT 1992 CALTRANS DEIR FOR ROUTE 126,
REFERRAL OF EAST/WEST
CORRIDOR ISSUE TO CTAC
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 13, 1992
MOTION OF ITEM 5A
ROUTE 126
Motion made by Boyer, seconded by Pederson:
City Council will not accept the north and south alignment_ including the
entire portion to t e vest or Bouquet Canyon Road and Interstate 5 and
urge Cal Trans to find the ft Tier 3 EZR as an incom lete and
inadequate document an that t not be certifie that Cal Trans continue
to investigate, study, and vork vith the City of Santa Clarita, the City's
TransportatZon committee, and the community to find an alternate -route
which is compatible vith the needs of the entire community; and request
that Cal Trans generate and circulate additional environmental information
in connection with such an alternate route.
All Councilmembers voted aye on this motion.
Donna Grindey, City Clerk
t-
r
S
4
OCT 1992 CTAC'S REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT
TOPICS,
EAST/WEST CORRIDOR ISSUE
NUMBER ONE PRIORITY
JAN 1993& PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETINGS
FEB 1993 IN CANYON COUNTRY AND AT CITY
HALL
ARIL 1993 CTAC'S FIELD TOUR
MAY 1993 CTAC'S FINAL CONCEPT
JUNE 1993 3RD PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
MEETING AT CITY HALL
AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
MANAGER
CITY
6
c-r,Ac s 3 R p
Public Participation Meetino
June 11,1993
Page 2
11ams ulltmaly nnuduieu a iarge numaer of proposed houses This corridor does not
The proposal calls for a six-lan gca� with
and at -grade sianalized titers v nns similar to
A more detailed description of the comments received rom the commun ty, a's well
as the highlights of the Committee's proposal, are shown on the back of the
enclosed map.
I anticipate that we will be forwarding the Committee's final recommendation for the
east/west corridor to the Planning Commission by July 1st for further review and
comment. Upon completion of this review, the matter will be submitted to the City
Council for final disposition.
SI
City Manager
Enclosure
GAC:BJ:hds
trmc�.q
cc: City Council
Planning Commission
Community Development Department
Public Information Officer
7
CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
PUBLIC PART7CIPA7ION UEE77NG
JUNE 23, 1993
EAST -WEST CORRIDOR PROPOSAL
Highlights of the
Comments from the Community
Highlights of the
Comet 's Proposal
CTA G
1. Need morethan routs, a Id system, 1. Consensus su
other north/south routes, boiTr 1�}d}I�and PPon for a network of
local roads ar ri rS shown on t map ncluding the
as"" Golden Valley, Via
Princessa. Sarno Ctarits Parkway, Magi
Mountain extension, etc.
2. Need Support from Cattrans for aIggbnal
route north of the City as Route i2
3. Should not be a super -truck route
4. Magic Mountain Parkway should be
extended to Vita Princeasa
5. Should not be a Cahrons Project
8. Limn the roadway to six lanes
7. Need to Preserve right-of-way for future
roads
8. Newhall Ranch Road Ullonslon rffPects
Northbridge devsiopmmg
9. Connection to W and SM-14 is not
Important
10. Mlnimiza Impede an tits Sarno Plan River
11. Consider elimination of the proposed Rio
Vista Road
BJ:dls
zd
2• Consensus stat0ort fw a regional route In
the no t t County ana east of Castalc
between 1-5 and SR-14
3. United to nd 1 aI • trucm only,
prphDhod w throug true twaen 1-5
and SR-14
4• The WOPoe+t InCkldee All network of arterials
Including the axtenalon of Magi Mountain
Partway to Via Ptlncesea
& The �Y is Posed as a local City
fL The PfnPossd sesthraet route will have six
WV of tray
e4 tilts, Iandscapid`
rttodlerts, and at10
t1alMed
intersections similar to McBean Parkw v
and Vakxicia Biv Mal`
7• The Committae rocommends adoption of
the corridor ao the ROW can be &Mulrod
and Pfwwved
& The Pressed roadway Is to inckide oNy six
lanes with no through fiddle. NWhSll
Ranch Rood t. already WA between
Aft seat Parkway and <fotigtwt Canyon, and
wilt freed to be txrit west of Mr -flan to
fafPp R the Mites iYtd deveiopnent
9• The W"M the pfvposnorth a S I4.ranI order to connections
dbcoUMM through traffic t" m the north
10. There siwtiid be only two b a over
Strata Gars River, - Clartta
P A�ttmay, one for Golden VWay o"�—'
11. The Mfg ,ion of Rio Vista from north of the
rtvw W 6xW?lA56n--01WQIC Mountain
Parkway should be�ed�
12. The need for Rio Vista between Magi
Mountain Parkway and Via Princessa should
be studied
i9 ..nk......n
hopoaad East-Wea Cm1Ym:
aw"N�mwvw�
(1) lU Nail) Coualy Eypy: e
OlhW Fula* ftwft"
m N*WIY Ilanah rAw Ealems"
vie Pftcs
Uylo k%waala 11"wNbw
O ro
ly
O moo' _% 1`
%uwt 9�
C l A c.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PROPOSED EAST/WEST CORRIDOR
& CENTRAL C1°7CULATION SYSTEM
PRIMARY SUGGESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC WERE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Place the alignment of Highway-126 north of the City limits and
delete it from the current General Plan.
2. Adopt a network of roads for the central circulation system.
3. Restrict heavy trucks on the City streets.
4. Limit the roads to six lanes.
5. Minimize the impact on the Santa Clara River.
6. Consider elimination of the proposed Rio Vista Road.
Ctgc
1. Identify the e_ xtension
north of Co ° er Hi11=Ro
( Pp
depicted as #1 on the
designation as an eight
General Plan
Highway `126 in the north County area
eastof Castalc between 1-5 and SR-14 as
Cached =map:` Delete the .Highway 126
h �-
te expressway as shown on the existing
2.. Consider the adoption Qf a network of roads as shown on the
attached map which includes:
#1- Extension of Highway 126 in the
described above). J
#2 - Magic Mountain Parkway Extension
#3 - Newhall Ranch Road Extension
#4 - Via Princessa
#5 - Proposed Santa Clarita Parkway
#6 - Golden Valley Road
north County area (as
3. Limit all the roadways to local and delivery trucks only.
4. Limit all the roadways to a maximum of six lanes with medians, turn
pockets, and bicycle lanes.
5/6. Delete the portion of Rio Vista Road from north of the Santa Clara
River to the extension of Magic Mountain Parkway.
G
�I
rw
M
f„r
eeM
Q 129 North County Bypass: 0
Other F
® abok mWiff"WEstettelon
Newlrll pokh Nw Eatenslon
Via Prktpsaa
Proposal Santa Clarke Parkway
Golden Valley
O
VALENCIA
1 r `. 1`%lJ CANYON
COUNTRY
NEWHALL
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
CENTRAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM
To
ly
To.k"
C'f A L
Poti�;c.
tetra-�iN�
Scaly 13
plarw;w�
PioWaM S.nl. M. PM.N
GYIMII V�.PI
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PROPOSED EAST/WEST CORRIDOR
& CENTRAL VICULATION SYSTEM
To
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
CENTRAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM
,y
JULY 1993 CITY MANAGER'S REFERRAL OF
CTAC RECOMMENDATIONS
TO PLANNING COMMISSION
ca
W