HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-05-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - VALENCIA COMMERCE CENTER (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Appro ,a 7l
Item to be presented
NEW BUSINESS Lynn M. Harris2 /Vance
f�VJ
DATE: May 14, 1991
SUBJECT: County Monitoring: Valencia Commerce Center (Valencia Co.,
Project 86-106, Tentative Parcel Map 19784)
Resolution Number: 91=79
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
On Thursday, May 23, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors will conduct
a public hearing regarding the Valencia Company's proposed Commerce Center.
The project was approved by the Regional Planning Commission on October 24,
1990; a citizen's group will be appealing the Commission's decision on the.
23rd.
Public hearings were conducted by the Regional Planning Commission on this
project on June 13, August 8, 1990, and October 25, 1990; the City
participated in the public hearing process by submitting two letters
(attached) requesting that the County mitigate impacts to the City. circulation
and infrastructure systems. We have been generally supportive of the project
because of the new job creation for the Valley.
The Valencia Company plans to develop an approximately 1,436 acre property as
a major industrial/commercial park, northwest of the intersection of I-5 and '
California State Highway 126. Primary access to the site is proposed to be ,
from Highway 126, along a southerly extension of Backer Road, from its present
terminus approximately one mile west of Interstate 5. Backer Road is(' also
proposed to be used as a secondary access from I-5.
The project includes approximately 12,624,000 square feet of building space
for mixed industrial/commercial uses. The applicant proposes approximately
19.1 million cubic yards of grading. Fifty-one oak trees, including four
heritage trees, may be impacted by grading; the number of oak trees to be
removed has not been identified.
The applicant is requesting the following entitlements: General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Parcel Map, Conditional Use Permit, and an
Oak Tree Permit.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for this project
identifies areas of substantialenvironmental impact, including traffic and..
circulation, air quality, cultural resources, biota, scenic. qualities, sewage
disposal, water service, fire and police protection, environmental safety, and
noise, as well as .impacts related to flood hazard and geology. The impacts of
primary concern to the City, as expressed in the attached letters, are those
to traffic and circulation. —.0007
Adopted: i Agenda Item:,,, 6
The Final EIR, prepared for the Board hearing, contains responses to the
City's. comments regarding traffic and infrastructure impact analysis and
mitigation (as well as other comments). City traffic engineering staff
reviewed the responses and remained dissatisfied with the level of analysis
and impact mitigation. For example, the City's June 12 letter requested that
the County identify and address impacted City streets and intersections; the
traffic analysis and subsequent project conditions of approval/mitigation
program apply to only County streets and intersections adjacent to the
project. The response to this comment (also attached) refers to these
mitigation measures, and fails to acknowledge that any City streets or
intersections might be affected by this project.
Additionally, levels of service for streets adjacent to the property were
estimated assuming completion of the local Los Angeles Master Plan of Highways
by the year 2010, including construction of Newhall Ranch Road (State Highway
126) to eight lanes. The lack of an adopted alignment for this State highway
was not discussed, nor`were funding mechanisms for its completion explored.
Because of this and other deficiencies, staff considers the traffic impact
analysis portion of the EIR to be inadequate.
RECOMMENDATION
Review attachments, adopt Resolution No. 91-79, and direct staff to transmit
the attached letter and Resolution,to Los Angeles County.
LMH:CMK:
ID:CMK:492 ,
. RESOLUTION NO. 91-79
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA,
TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY
IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED VALENCIA COMMERCE CENTER,
PROJECT NO. 86-106, INCLUDING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-435,
ZONE CHANGE 86-106, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 19784,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-360, AND OAK TREE PERMIT 88-221
IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY
AND REQUESTING THE COUNTY TO IDENTIFY AND MITIGATE TRAFFIC IMPACTS
TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, AND TO ENSURE THAT ADEQUATE PUBLIC SERVICES
ARE PROVIDED TO SERVE THIS PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors will be considering the- approval of the proposed Valencia
Commerce Center, which is located on a 1,436 acre parcel northwest of the
intersection of Interstate 5 and California State Highway 126, and northwest
of the City's northwestern boundary; and
WHEREAS, the prott ct includes approximately 12,624,000 .square feet of
office, industrial and commercial building space; and
WHEREAS, the project applicant has requested the following entitlements:
approval of Tentative Parcel Map 19784, Zone Change 86-106, General Plan
Amendment 88-435, Conditional Use Permit 87-360, and Oak Tree Permit 88-221;
and .
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for this
project identifies areas of substantial environmental impact, including
traffic and circulation, air` quality, cultural resources, biota, scenic
qualities, sewage disposal, water service, fire and police protection,
environmental safety, and noise, as well as impacts related to flood hazard
and geology; and
WHEREAS,, the traffic analysis and project conditions of approval and
mitigation measures apply only to County streets and adjacent intersections,
despite the City's request that project -generated and cumulative traffic
impacts on the City be addressed and mitigated; and
WHEREAS, the traffic study prepared for this project assumed completion of
the local Los Angeles County Master Plan of Highways by the year 2010,
including construction of arterials within the City such as Newhall Ranch Road
to eight lanes, but did not provide mechanisms for its installation, or for
other City street improvements -east of the project in the City as mitigation
measures; and
WHEREAS, although the proposed development may create substantial new job
opportunities for residents of the Santa Clarita Valley and environs, it also
may have a substantial impact upon the City of Santa Clarita, and its
circulation network, infrastructure and levels of service; and
. WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has provided technical comments to the
County of Los Angeles on June 12, 1990, and October 24, 1990; and
Reso No. 91-79
. WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita desires to provide formal comment and
testimony to the County of Los Angeles on the proposed project and the related
Environmental Impact Report, all to be a part of the official record;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND FIND AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City finds that although some of the impacts of this
project may be adequately mitigated by measures in the mitigation monitoring
program included in the Final EIR, project impacts on the City circulation
network, infrastructure and levels of service have not been adequately
addressed nor appropriate mitigation measures proposed, as addressed in the
City's comments on the Draft EIR and project, dated June 12, 1990, and October
24, 1990, incorporated herein by reference as Attachment 1. The City requests
that the County accept the responsibility for the identification and
mitigation of the impacts of this project, and the cumulative project impacts
on the City circulation network, infrastructure, and levels of service.
SECTION 2. The City is concerned that the responses to City
comments in the Final EIR did not recognize the City's concerns regarding
traffic impacts to City. streets and intersections. The City requests that
further assessment be conducted on this project, including a good faith effort
to evaluate potentially significant individual and cumulative impacts to
traffic and circulation within the City, feasible mitigation measures which
would lessen the significant environmental effects of the project; and that
this evaluation, together with a response and full assessment of the
environmental impacts identified in the City's comments be included in the
Final EIR prior to certification and carefully considered prior to any
approvals being granted for this project.
SECTION 3. In 1igRt of the County's recent approval of a
comprehensive amendment to the Santa Clarita Valley Areawide Plan, the City is
concerned that this project requests further amendments to said plan. The
City requests that no further plan amendments be granted at this time unless
substantial community benefits are realized.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall, certify to the adoption of this
Resolution and certify this record to be a full true correct copy of the
action taken.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this_ day of , 1991.
Carl Boyer, Mayor
ATTEST:
• DONNA GRINDEY, CITY CLERK
Reso No. 91-79
i
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, at a regular meeting thereof,
held on the day of 1991, by the following vote of the
Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
ID:CMK:491
Reso No. 91.79
DONNA GRINDEY, CITY CLERK
It
•
I0
TO LAKE HUGHES
1po 7 t
x
n
0
PROJECT a r
LOCATION
TO
Vicinity Map
NOT TO SCALE
,..(�
M1GIi.0u. fAIX
'0o
Y�� 1
_ _ l
�r" r •1^� w- w
TO LOS ANGELES.
LEGEND
Q CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Source: DRAFT EIR# Valencia Commerce Centere Los Angeles County Project 86-1061
April 1990
Y 23920 Valencia Blvd. Phone
Suite 300 (805) 259.2489
City of Santa Clarita Fax
California 91355 (805) 259-8125
City of
Santa Clarita
October 24,1990 Courtesy Copy of
FAX Transmittal
To: Members of the Regional Planning Commission
Department of Regional Planning
Hall of Records
Room 1382
320 West Temple Street
Jo Anne Darcy Los Angeles, CA 90012
Mayor
Carl Boyer, 3rd RE: City Comments.and Recommended Mitigation Measures/Conditions of
Mayor Pro -Tem Approval
Project 88-435:'LPA 88-435, ZC 86-106 (5), CP 87-360 (5), TPM
Jan Heidt 19784
Councilmember
(Valencia Commerce Center)
Jill Klalc
Councilmember Dear Members of the Regional Planning Commission;
Howard "Buck" McKeon
Counctlmember In our letter to the Department of Regional Planning of June 12, 1990,
the City of Santa Clarita raised several issues regarding the proposed
Valencia Commerce Center, as referenced above. At this time, the City
would liketosubmit additional comments regarding these issues of
concern. While we are supportive of the creation of new jobs in the
Santa Clarita Valley, we have concerns regarding impacts identified in
the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) that are anticipated to
be caused by traffic and noise generation, impacts to biotic
resources, and impacts to public services, including fire, sheriff,
and sanitation services. Furthermore, if the Commission proposes to
recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the project be approved,
the City recommends that the incorporated conditions be applied to the
project.
1. Traffic, Circulation and Noise.
At the General Plan level, the City's Draft Land Use Plan,
(90Z complete) has been testing proposed land uses in order
to determine circulation impacts and needs. The Draft Plan
designates the proposed Valencia Commerce Center area for
Business Park use, generally consistent with the proposed
project. Current circulation modeling and testing in this
area for the draft General Plan, however, indicates volume
to capacity in excess of 1002 on Backer Road between
Interstate 5 and State Route (SR) 126; along future SR 126
from Interstate 5 and Bouquet Canyon Road; on The Old Road
between Backer Road and McBean Parkway; and elsewhere in the
vicinity of the proposed project. While all such traffic
cannot be
attributed to this one project, the proposed development
must be considered a major generator, and its impacts
properly mitigated to acceptable levels of service
(including noise impacts associated with vehicular and truck
traffic).
The City Traffic Engineer has advised us that the DEIR did
not address intersections and travel routes within the City
which may be impacted by this project, and has recommended
that a complete analysis of impacts be conducted, prior to
project approvals. Any proposed mitigation measures
(including traffic signals and road widening, both within
the City and the unincorporated area) resulting from this
subsequent study should be installed and operational prior
to issuing Certificates of Occupancy for Phase 1.
2. Public Services
The DEIR and Technical Appendix include comments from the
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department; Fire Department,
and Sanitation Department. Each of these departments has
indicated that personnel, vehicles, and facility capacity do
not exist to serve this project at this time. In addition,
funds are not anticipated to be available to increase
capacity prior to completion of Phase 1. The proposed
mitigation measures in the DEIR and the Mitigation
Monitoring Program do not address the provision of new
facilities. Good planning practice would suggest that
provision for public safety (sheriff and fire) and waste
treatment be made, requiring facilities to be operational
prior to occupancy of Phase 1. The City strongly advises
that conditions of approval:of the project address this
deficiency, so that the entire Santa Clarita Valley may
continue to be adequately served by these essential public
services.
3. Biota
We noted that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the Army Corps of
Engineers, and the California Department of Fish and Game
did not provide comments to the DEIR, and are concerned that
they may not have been given adequate time for review. The
DEIR and Technical Appendix indicate that the site contains
significant riparian habitat, the potential for the presence
of two Federally Endangered species, (the Unarmored
Three-spined Stickleback and the Least Bell's Vireo) and 79
native oak trees. Impacts to these resources include
clearing of the riparian vegetation, partial channelization
of Castaic Creek (albeit with a material that can be
revegetated, subject to the approval of the L.A. Co. Dept.
of Public Works) and removal of up to 40 of 79 oak trees.
The DEIR also indicates that other native vegetation, will be
impacted by proposed grading activities. As was stated by
the County Forester and Fire Warden in his letter of
December 12, 1988, (included in the responses to the DEIR)
the proposed mitigation measures do not adequately
compensate for these impacted resources. In particular, the
"replacement" riparian habitat will be significantly
different in character and function from the vegetation
proposed to be removed, and is not likely to be suitable for
population by the Least Bell's Vireo, should any birds
travel upstream from areas where they have been identified
to occur in the Santa Clara River (as addressed in the
Technical Appendix). Adequate setback and floodway width
should be provided through conditions of approval for the
project, so that existing riparian habitat can be preserved,
maintaining the mature canopy of cottonwood and willow
present on the site now.
Mature oak trees are a disappearing resource in southern
California. In the City of Santa Clarita, applicants are
encouraged to retain native oaks on site, and are.strongly
discouraged from removing them. The oaks on the project
site have, for the most part, been identified as healthy,
and their preservation is warranted. Every effort should be
made to design phases of the project to incorporatethem in
the project design. As a condition of approval, the
applicant should be required to preserve all oaks on the
project site, or as a last resort, to implement a
transplanting program conducted by a qualified specialist.
Confirmation of the presence or absence of the Unarmored
Three-spined Stickleback should be conducted prior to stream
alteration activities. Conditions of approval of the
project should,address this.by setting the timing of the
investigation so that it is required to occur prior to
grading in the vicinity of the creek. In addition, issuance
of grading permits should be contingent upon fulfilling
requirements of the US Army Corps of Engineers and the
Department of Fish and Wildlife, so that impacts to the
riparian habitat may be minimized.
4. Landscaping/Revegetation
Project grading will create substantial visual impacts;
however, if a revegetation program is implemented, along
with a requirement for 'contour grading, and other
techniques consistent with the County's Hillside Guidelines,
these impacts may be minimized. The City recommends that
plant material used for all slope planting be plants native
to this region, and that non-native materials be avoided.
Revegetation of graded slopes should be conducted by a
qualified landscape architect or other specialist in
restoration of disturbed areas. As a condition of approval,
the applicant should.be required to enter into a contract
with a restoration specialist, and to provide the Department
of Regional Planning with a revegetation program, including,
but not to be limited to, the reservation of topsoil,
seeding and installing container plant material at the
density proposed by the specialist.
We also encourage that a monitoring program be designed by
the specialist of not less than five years following
implementation of the restoration program. This program
should be required to be submitted prior to the issuing of
grading permits.
5. Visual Impacts
The proposed project will change the appearance of the site
from a semi -natural condition to a fully -developed
industrial park. The City advises that project and
individual building elevations,.footprints, and landscape
plans be required to be'submitted for review by the
Department of Regional Planning. The applicant should be
required to demonstrate that all roof equipment will be
screened so that it is not visible from both local arterial
streets and adjacent freeways.
Finally, the City of Santa Clarita recognizes that the Regional
Planning Commission may find that the benefits of this project may
outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts generated by the project.
The.City advises that CEQA Section 15093 requires that a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, with required findings, should be filed
with the Notice of Determination for the project, if the project is
approved.
The City of Santa Clarita appreciates the opportunity to comment on
this significant project, and encourages the Regional Planning
Commission to consider thoroughly its potential impacts before making
a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Please notify us of the
RPC findings as soon as they are available. Your cooperation in
making draft conditions of approval and proposed mitigation measures
available to us at least three days before a hearing such as this
would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
/-
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
LMH. CK
CK:371
11. City of Santa Clarita -
Lynn M. Harris, Director of
Community Development
Letter dated June 12, 1990
IV -125
11. City of Santa Clarita - Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development
Comment Natural Hazard
#1:
The Environmental Impact Report indicated the site is bisected by
Castaic Creek, a major tributary of the Santa Clara River. Please be
advised that the downstream essential habitat of the Unarmored
Threespine Stickleback fish, an endangered species, may be impacted
negatively by this proposal. We suggest further consultation with the
appropriate agencies and trustee agencies be pursued prior to approvals
of this proposal.
Response: One of the two known extant populations of the Unarmored Threespine
Stickleback (UTS) occurs in the Upper Santa Clara River system in Los
Angeles and Ventura Counties. The project site borders on the Del
Valle Zone, one of three essential habitats for the UTS as defined by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As shown on Figure III -413 of the
DEIR, this Zone encompasses a segment of the Santa Clara River
downstream of the project site.
The applicant has been involved in on-going consultations with the
Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
Environmental Protection Agency as part of the process of obtaining a
404 Permit. On December 11th, 1990, a 404 Permit was issued by the
Corps for the Commerce Center (see Response to Comments Appendix
D). The permit includes: numerous measures for the protection of
wildlife habitat. Among the features are the use of Armorflex along
Castaic Creek; a widened channel and preservation of existing riparian
habitat; annual Vireo surveys; cultural and paleontological surveys of,
all drainages; and a weed eradication program.
Comment EiM
N2:
The Environmental Impact Report's Initial Study concluded no
significant impacts associated with fire services were associated with
this project. The list of typically storedlused hazardous materials
includes flammables which may impact existing fire service.
IV -128
Response: As discussed in Section 12.2.2 (p 194), construction of buildings and
facilities will follow all applicable environmental rules and regulations,
applicable building standards, and other fire and life safety regulations.
Once constructed, tenants of the Valencia Commerce Center will be
required to comply with all appropriate regulations for storage,
handling, and use of hazardous materials as identified in the latest
Uniform Fire Code. (See Section 4.2, pg. 77 for a more detailed
discussion of the Fire Code requirements.)
Should an accident occur which involves flammable hazardous material,
the engine company of Fire Station /76 would respond. The L.A.
County Fire Department facility (Fire Station x76), located at Castaic
Junction on Henry Mayo Drive, is one of three Hazardous Material
squads in L.A. County. If the Haz Mat squad at Station 76 is
responding to an event elsewhere, the responding engine company
would contain and begin evaluation of the accident until the Haz Mat
squad arrives. This Fire Station is well located to respond within five
minutes to any type of emergency at the Valencia Commerce Center.
As previously stated in the response to Comment letter g5, the applicant
will participate in an appropriate financing mechanism to provide funds
for fire protection facilities which are required by new commercial,
industrial or residential development in an amount proportionate to the
demand created by this project.
Comment Traffic
#3:
The document indicates a capacity deficiency in the year 2010
circulation system .proposed by the Master Plan of Highways and
identified improvements required to resolve these deficiencies.
However, it does not state how these improvements would come to
fruition. The City recommends specific road improvements be identified
by the County's Department of Public Works and made a condition of
approval.
The document forecasts project generated peak -hour volumes of
significant magnitude entering and leaving the City via (future) SR 126
IV -129
(Newhall Ranch Road). It does not address the potential impacts or
proposed mitigation on affected City streets and/or intersections. The
City recommends traffic studies be prepared at each phase for this
development in order to assess impacts and that mitigation measures in
the form of conditions to any approvals be imposed requiring the
applicant to pay a fair share cost of roadway and/or signalization
improvements that may be identified.
Response: Specific road improvements to mitigate project impacts have been
identified by the County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works
and made required conditions of approval. These improvements are
identified in the mitigation monitoring plan (see II. Mitigation
Monitoring Program in Response to Comments Volume I). Listed next
to the specific roadway improvement is the monitoring action and
agency responsible for monitoring the installation of the Improvements.
Additional traffic studies will be prepared as individual tracts within the
Center are filed. The applicant will comply with conditions of approval
as they apply to each final map. For further details, see response to
Comment #2 of the City of Santa Clarita letter dated October 24, 1990,
below.
Comment Environmental Safety
#4:
We feel that the EIR does not fully address environmental safety issues;
the sensitive use associated with the elementary school, documented
within the EIR to be both 750 and 1700 feet away from the project site;
compatibility and clean-up closure requirements; response time from
appropriate agencies; and identification for possible evacuation routes.
The document alluded to a future time when mechanisms will be in
place and responsibility will be allocated to numerous businesses
located within the center. The City recommends a coordinating agency,
and to identify an agency responsible for emergency equipment,
maintenance and testing.
Response: The concerns and recommendations of the City of Santa Clarita are
noted. As a point of clarification, please note that the 750 foot
IV -130
distance from the elementary school refers to the Valencia Commerce
Center project site (see Section 12.1, Table III -12A on page 185 of the
Draft EIR), while the 1700 foot distance refers specifically to the
smaller TPM 18229 site as shown on Table III -12C, page 195.
All industrial businesses located at either location which handle
hazardous materials, and therefore pose a risk to nearby sensitive
receptors, are required by law to comply with any relevant rules and
regulations including the Risk Management and Prevention Program
(RMPP) (see Section 12.2.1 of the DEIR for a discussion of pertinent
legislation). As discussed in Sections 12.2.2 and 12.3 (pp 193-194) of
the DEIR, impacts on environmental safety from the use, storage, and
transport of hazardous materials by individual users will be mitigated
by:
1. following all applicable environmental rules and
regulations, building standards, fire and life safety
regulations, and applicable Fire Codes;
2. obtaining all required permits;
3. preparing emergency plans, area evacuation plans, and
designated transport routes.
Further, Fire Station #76 on Henry Mayo Drive (discussed in Section
10.1 p. 176) of the DEIR contains one of the three hazardous material
(Haz-Mat) squads in Los Angeles County. This Fire Station is well
located to respond within five minutes to any type of emergency at the
Valencia Commerce Center. The Fire Department has stated -that a
majority of the Haz-Mat calls received are due to substances which are
intentionally dumped on vacant property. Once occupied, the Valencia
Commerce Center site will be less subject to such activity.
Evacuation of local residents in the case of an emergency is the
responsibility of the Fire Department in cooperation with the local
Sherriffs Department.
IV -131
12. City of Santa Clarita -
Lynn M. Harris, Director of
Community Development
Letter dated October 24, 1990
IV -132
12. City of Santa Clarita - Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development
Comment In our letter to the Department of Regional Planning of June 12, 1990,
#1: the City of Santa Clarita raised several issues regarding the proposed
Valencia Commerce Center, as referenced above. At this time, the City
would like to submit additional comments regarding these issues of
concern. While we are supportive of the creation of new jobs in the
Santa Clarita Valley, we have concerns regarding impacts identified in
the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) that are anticipated to
be caused by traffic and noise generation, impacts to biotic resources,
and impacts to public services, including fire, sheriff and sanitation
services. Furthermore, if the Commission proposes to recommend to
the Board of Supervisors that the Project be approved, the City
recommends that the incorporated conditions be applied to the project.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 1. Traffic, Circulation and Noise.
1'2:
At the General Plan level, the City's Draft Land Use Plan, (90%
complete) has been testing proposed land uses in order to
determine circulation impacts and needs. The Draft Plan
designates the proposed Valencia Commerce Center area for
Business Park use, generally consistent with the proposed project.
Current circulation modeling and testing in this area for the draft
General Plan, however, indicates volume to capacity in excess of
100% on Backer Road between Interstate S and State Route (SR)
126; along future SR 126 from Interstate S and Bouquet Canyon
Road; on The Old Road between Backer Road and McBean
Parkway; and elsewhere in the vicinity of the proposed project.
While all such traffic cannot be attributed to this one project, the
proposed development must be considered a major generator, and
its impacts properly mitigated to acceptable levels of service
(including noise impacts associated with vehicular and. truck
traffic).
The City Traffic Engineer has advised us that the DEIR did not
address intersections and travel routes within the City which may
IV -137
be impacted by this project, and has recommended that a complete
analysis of impacts be conducted, prior to project approvals. Any
proposed mitigation measures (including traffic signals and road
widening, both within the City and the unincorporated area)
resulting from this subsequent study should be installed and
operational prior to issuing Certificates of Occupancy for Phase
1.
Response: The traffic report was prepared for the project using the Valencia Area
Traffic Model, a refined version of the Santa Clarita Valley Traffic
Model developed by Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
The report is based upon the year 2010 build -out land use in the entire
Santa Clarita Valley, assuming a population of over 270,000 people.
The model distributes trips to and from the Commerce Center
throughout the Santa Clarita Valley and distributes those trips on a road
network which is the County Master Plan of Highways. This network
includes intersections and travel routes within both the County and the
City.
The network is comprised of major highways which are capable of
handling 50,000-60,000 vehicles per day, and secondary highways
which have the capacity to accommodate 24,000-30,000 vehicles per
day. Newhall Ranch Road is a limited access expressway with 8 -lanes
and capacity for 80,000 vehicles per day.
The 2010 model did not show any roadways with volume to capacity in
excess of 100%. Backer Road and The Old Road are designed to major
highway standards and show build -out volumes ranging from 13,000 to
49,000 vehicles per day, well below their capacity. The future SR -126
(Newhall Ranch Road) in the City east of I-5, shows build -out volumes
ranging.from 55,000 to 67,000 vehicles per day, again below capacity.
i
The intersections along these routes were also operating at level of
service D or better.
The traffic reports for the Valencia Commerce Center have been
reviewed and approved by the County of Los Angeles Department of
Public Works. Specific mitigation measures and their timing are
outlined in the mitigation monitoring plan, Section III -F of the DE1R.
for Phase I, Backer Road must be extended from Hasley Creek south
IV -138
to SR -126 prior to further occupancies. This also applies to the
widening of 126 from Backer Road to I-5. As additional tracts are
filed in the Commerce Center, supplemental traffic studies will be
prepared to determine if additional roadway, signalization, or other
intersection improvements are necessary. (See Section 13 of the DEIR
for noise impacts associated with vehicular traffic.)
Comment 2. Public Services
#3:
The DEIR and Technical Appendix include comments from the
Los Angeles County Sheriffs Departments, Fire Department, and
Sanitation Department. Each of these departments has indicated
that personnel, vehicles, and facility capacity do not -exist to serve
this project at this time. In addition, funds are not anticipated to
be available to increase capacity prior to completion of Phase 1.
The proposed mitigation measures in the DEIR and the Mitigation
Monitoring Program do not address the provision of new
facilities. Good planning practice would suggest that provision of
public safety (sheriff and fire) and waste treatment be made,
requiring facilities to be operational prior to occupancy of Phase
1. The City strongly advises that conditions of approval of the
project address this deficiency, so that the entire Santa Clarita
Valley may continue to be adequately served by these essential
public services.
Response: Fire:
The County of Los Angeles Fire Department stated in a letter dated
June 28, 1990, that additional manpower and equipment may be
required as the need arises. Furthermore, the Board of Supervisors
adopted a Report of a Developer Fee Plan and a Fire Station Plan on
July 12, 1990 for the Santa Clarita Valley. The Report and Plan
specify the number and location of fire stations, equipment and the
costs to deliver needed fire protection services. This assessment was
based on growth from this project and other cumulative developments
in the urban expansion areas of the Valley. This project is conditioned
to participate in the fire fee program to provide monies for personnel,
vehicles and facility capacity when implemented.
IV -139
Sheriff:
No financing program currently exists for the expansion of Sheriff
Services in the Santa Clarita Valley. As stated in Section 11.3 of the
DEIR, mitigation measures include project related tax base expansion,
the possible use of private security systems by some tenants of the
Center, increased lighting and the use of landscaping to prevent or
reduce concealment, and roadway improvements to alleviate congestion
and reduce response times.
It is the responsibility of the Sheriff's Department to identify additional
measures which may be required to insure adequate service. Tenants
of the Center will be required to comply with any measures identified
by the Sheriffs Department and adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
Sewer:
Section 7.21 and 7.22 of the DEIR identify that the existing plus
project Phase I sewage demand can be treated by the existing waste
water treatment facilities. However, cumulative demand for Phase I
and related projects require expansion of existing treatment facilities.
The Sanitation District connection fee program provides the mechanism
for constructing logical increments of expansion. As new users connect
to the system, connection fees, equivalent to the cost of expanding the
system, are assessed. These fees are accumulated and used to fund the
next increment of expansion. (For a more detailed description of this
process, see page 125 of the DEIR)
In addition, occupancy permits shall not be granted until adequate
sewage treatment plant and trunk line capacity is demonstrated.
Comment 3. Biota
xa:
We noted that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the Army Corps of
Engineers, and the California Department of Fish and Game did
not provide comments to the DEIR and are concerned that they
may not have been given adequate time for review. The DEIR
and Technical Appendix indicate that the site contains significant
riparian habitat, the potential for the presence of two Federally
Iv -140
Endangered species, (the Unarmored Three-spined Stickleback and
the Least Bell's Vireo) and 79 native oak trees. Impacts to these
resources include clearing of the riparian vegetation, partial
channelization of Castaic Creek (albeit with a material that can be
revegetated, subject to the approval of the Los Angeles County
Dept. of Public Works) and removal of up to 40 of 79 oak trees.
The DEIR also indicates that other native vegetation will be
impacted by proposed grading activities. As was stated by the
County Forester and Fire Warden in his letter of December 12,
1988, (included in the responses to the DEIR) the proposed
mitigation measures do not adequately compensate for these
impacted resources. In particular, the "replacement" riparian
habitat will be significantly different in character and function
from the vegetation proposed to be removed, and is not likely to
be suitable for population by the Least Bell's Vireo, should any
birds travel upstream from areas where they have been identified
to occur in the Santa Clara River ( as addressed in the Technical
Appendix). Adequate setback and floodway width should be
provided through conditions of approval for the -project, so that
existing riparian habitat can be preserved, maintaining the mature
canopy of cottonwood and willow present on the site now.
Mature oak trees are a disappearing resource in Southern
California. In the City of Santa Clarita, applicants are
encouraged to retain native oaks on site, and are strongly
discouraged from removing them. The oaks on the project site
have, for the most part, been identified as healthy, and their
preservation is warranted. Every effort should be made to design
phases of the project to incorporate them in the project design.
As a condition of approval, the applicant should be required to
preserve all oaks on the project site, or as a last resort, to
implement a transplanting program conducted by a qualified
specialist.
Confirmation of the presence or absence of the Unarmored Three-
spined Stickleback should be conducted prior to stream alteration
activities. Conditions of approval of the project should address
this by setting the timing of the investigations so that it is
required to occur prior to grading in the vicinity of the creek. In
IV -141
addition, issuance of grading permits should be contingent upon
fulfilling requirements of the US Army Corps of Engineers and
the Department of Fish and Wildlife, so that impacts to the
riparian habitat may be minimized.
Response: The California Department of Fish and Game commented on the DEIR
in their letter dated on June 5, 1990.
The -Army Corps of Engineers, in consultation with the US Fish and.
Wildlife Service has been. reviewing. the project since August, 1989.
On December 11, 1990 the Corps issued an individual permit for the
project which provides habitat mitigation measures for Castaic and
Hasley Creeks (see Response to Comments Appendix D). The design
and mitigation measures assure that there is no net loss in wetland
acreage or habitat values. Among the features are the use of Armorflex
along Castaic Creek; a widened channel and preservation of existing
riparian habitat; annual Vireo surveys; cultural and paleontological
surveys of all drainages; a weed eradication program and other
mitigation measures. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of
the Army Corps of Engineers Permit issued December 11, 1990.
Impacts to oak trees will be mitigated through compliance with the
County of Los Angeles Oak Tree Ordinance. Modifications in the
project site design and grading plans have resulted in a change in the
anticipated number of oak trees to be removed. More recent analyses
indicate that a total 0 1 oaks including 4 heri�ta_¢e tire` are within
areas of proposed grading. The proposed grading plans, however, are
general. Oak tree permits will be filed with individual tentative maps
when grading plans are more precise.
As discussed in Section 4.3 (p. 78) and Section 5.3 (p. 101), removal
of oak trees will comply with the Oak Tree Permit process. All
removed oaks will be replaced, according to ordinance requirements,
on a 2:1 basis with 15 gallon size trees (1 inch in diameter) under the
supervision of a qualified arborist. Replacement trees will be
maintained for a minimum of two. years. Compliance with the Oak
Tree Ordinance is considered appropriate mitigation and will reduce the
project impacts on oak trees to a level of insignificance.
IV -142
Comment 4. Landscaping/Revegetation
N5:
Project grading will create substantial visual impacts; however, if
a revegetation program is implemented along with a requirement
for "contour grading' and other techniques consistent with the
County's Hillside Guidelines, these impacts may be minimized.
The City recommends that plant material used for all slope
planting. be plants native to this region, and that non-native
materials be avoided. Revegetation of graded slopes should be
conducted by a qualified landscape architect or other specialist in
restoration of disturbed areas. As a condition of approval, the
applicant should be required to enter into a contract with a
restoration specialist, and to provide the Department of Regional
Planning with a revegetationprogram, including, but not to be
limited to, the reservation of topsoil, seeding and installing
container plant material at the density proposed by the specialist.
We also encourage that a monitoring program be designed by the
specialist of not less than five years following implementation of
the restoration program. This program should be required to be
submitted prior to the issuing of grading permits.
Response: The mitigation monitoring program contains measures to assure that
graded areas will be revegetated with native and non-native species.
Contoured grading techniques will be employed and reviewed through
the subdivision process as additional tentative maps are approved in the
Commerce Center. Grading plans will be reviewed by the Department
of Public Works and landscape plans will be reviewed by the
Department of Regional Planning prior to issuance of permits.
Landscaped slopes will be maintained by a landscape maintenance
district funded by property owners within the project boundaries.
Comment S. Visual Impacts
X6:
The proposed project will change the appearance of the site from
a semi -natural condition to a fully -developed industrial park. The
City advises that project and individual building elevations,
footprints,. and landscape plans be required to be submitted for
review by the Department of Regional Planning. The applicant
IV -143
should be required to demonstrate that all roof equipment will be
screened so that it is not visible from both local arterial streets
and adjacent freeways.
Response: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Department of Regional
Planning performs plot plan review of building within the project area.
Building elevations, footprints, and landscape plans are reviewed to
assure compliance with the approved conditions for the project.
Screening of roof equipment has been made a condition of. approval in
the Conditional Use Permit.
Comment Finally, the City of Santa Clarita recognizes that the Regional
k7: Planning Commission may find that the benefits of this
project may outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts generated by the
project. The City advises that CEQA Section 15093 requires that a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, with required findings, should
be filed with the Notice of Determination for the project, if the project
is approved.
The City of Santa Clarita appreciates the opportunity to comment on
this significant project, and encourages the Regional Planning
Commission to consider thoroughly its potential impacts before making
a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Please notify us of the
RPC findings as soon as they are available. Your cooperation in
making draft conditions of approval and proposed mitigation measures
available to us at least three days before a hearing such as this would
be appreciated.
Response: Comments noted. No response necessary.
IV -744