Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-12-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - VALENCIA MARKETPLACE PROJ (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented by: Lynn M. Harris T NEW BUSINESS DATE: December 14, 1993 SUBJECT: County Project Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Valencia Marketplace Project, Resolution No. 93-163, and Comment Letters DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND: The Valencia Marketplace project is a regional commercial facility of 859,740 square feet proposed by the Riley Pearlman Company on property owned by the Newhall Land and Farm Company. The project site is located on 83.7 acres, adjacent to the City, Immediately west of Interstate 5, north of Pico Canyon Road, south of McBean Parkway, and east of The Old Road In the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County. A total of 1.7 million cubic yards of grading, balanced on-site, is Included in the project design, and 105 of the 141 oak trees on the property (75%) would be removed, including one of three heritage oaks. The project is divided Into two components, a "value shopping center" (serving the regional market with "big -box" retail uses), and a "community shopping center" (serving local needs with a supermarket, shops, restaurants, a gas station, a bank, and a child care facility). Staff has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for this project, and has prepared a technical comment letter to County staff in response for inclusion in the Final EIR. Additionally, due to the significant public policy and revenue Implications represented by the proposed project, staff has prepared a letter for the Mayor's signature to Supervisor Antonovich, articulating the Council's concerns regarding these policy issues. A resolution of the City Council addressing both technical and policy concerns has also been prepared for adoption and would be forwarded to the County Regional Planning Commission. ANALYSIS: Technical Issues The primary areas of technical concern far the City are land use, biology, traffic, noise, aesthetics and County DMS compliance. The proposed project Is Inconsistent with the current County Generai Plan land use designations applicable to this property. The City has generally opposed amendments to the Santa Clarita Valley Areawide Plan adopted in 1990. The northernmost 25.1 acres of the project site are designated as a Hillside Management (HM) area on the County's Santa Clarita Valley Areawide Plan. The City's General Plan discourages removal of the HM designation In the unincorporated area of the Santa Clarita Valley. None of the project alternatives in the DEIR examine a redesigned project preserving this area. It is likely that this proposal will result in Valley - wide effects relating to regional and local mobility, air quality, economics, jobs/housing balance, and Infrastructure service levels. The DEIR should be expanded to include a land use analysis Adopted: Agenda Item: addressing these potential impacts. We recommend that appropriate mitigation of these impacts include a commitment of project tax revenues, by the County and applicant, to eliminate the Infrastructure deficit in the Santa Clarita Valley. This proposal will result in significant Impacts to biotic resources including grading of 95% of the property and removal of 105 of the site's 141 native oak trees (75% of the on-site trees). Staff disagrees with the DEIR's assessment that this loss can be reduced to a level of insignificance, and Is opposed,to any attempt by the applicant or property owner to Ignore the toss of these resources by adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In light of the ordinances adopted by both the City and County to preserve native oak trees in the Santa Clarita Valley, staff has determined that this loss of oak trees Is unacceptable, and recommends that the project be redesigned to Incorporate more of the oak trees into landscaping for the project. The DEIR indicates that between 100 and 122 oak trees occupy the area designated HM. Were this one area preserved, the project would only require removal of 19 to 41 of the site's oak trees. (This represents 25.1 acres of the 83.7 -acre site.) Twelve City intersections reviewed In the DEIR traffic study will be significantly impacted from this project. Staff anticipates that the County will require that the recommended mitigation measures in the DEIR be made conditions of project approval to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels in the City. Additionally, impacts to McBean Parkway and Lyons Avenue are not adequately addressed in the DEIR; such review is requested and should Include any necessary mitigation. Staff has also recommended that McBean Parkway be restriped to six lanes from the project site to Valencia Boulevard, and that public transit facilities with funding be provided. Finally, staff has also requested that the DEIR address Congestion Management Plan consistency, in that project access, circulation, and parking appear to have been designed specifically to encourage the use of traditional single -passenger vehicles, and may not be in agreement with regionally adopted goals and objectives of the CMP. The DEIR Is deficient in its review, analysis, and presentation of the project's cumulative impact on systems monitored bythe County's Development Monitoring System (DMS), and staff has requested added work in this area. This would include a comprehensive presentation of all existing system/service deficiencies In the SCV, the project's impact on them, and ways to mitigate Identified deficiencies in these systems/services, both in the County and City. There are several other technical concerns, Including noise and aesthetics. Staff believes that these issues can be readily addressed by the project proponent by incorporating existing information Into the DEIR. Policy Issues The policy comment letter prepared for the City Council's consideration and action touches on the above issues, but relates more directly to public policy implications represented by the project. The letter acknowledges the City Council's understanding of the need for economic development In the area, but outlines its concerns that this project -- a commercial center slightly larger than the Towne Center Mall — is being built Immediately outside and adjacent to the City. The project will divert existing sales tax revenue from the City, directly and indirectly impact City systems and services, and likely be detrimental to the Santa Clarita Valley as a whole, as revenue generated in the SCV will not necessarily be spent in the SCV. With the exception of traffic, these concerns are nowhere addressed. The letter requests that eighty percent (80%) of all future project revenues be permanently allocated to the SCV to fund infrastructure provision and maintenance, and other system and service level expansions necessitated by this project. (Police service levels are one particular example identified as impacted, but not mitigated, In the DEIR) The letter proposes several possible methods of allocating these funds to the SCV, Including a new B&T district, a community services district, or some similar funding mechanism. The letter also requests County support for the residents of Stevenson Ranch, and briefly remarks on the technical concerns listed by City staff. The applicant has met with City management and staff on several occasions to discuss the proposal and to seek understanding of potential issues and problems. During those meetings, the applicant and property owner have been apprised of the City's Interest in annexing this property. Staff has been Informed that there Is no intent or desire to annex the project to the City.by either the property owner (Newhall Land and Farm) or the developer (Riley Pearlman). This may be another potential issue for Council discussion, or It may arise In the future should Stevenson Ranch residents opt to annex to the City: this project could present a significant barderto that annexation effort. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 93-163, opposing the Valencia Marketplace project as it is currently proposed, and requesting additional Information and mitigation as set forth In the City's response (dated 12/14/93) to the project DEIR, and the City Council's response letter (dated 12/15/93); 2) Direct staff to transmit the attached technical comment letter dated December 14, 1993, to the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission; and 3) Authorize the Mayor to sign, and direct staff to transmit, the attached policy comment letter dated December 15, 1993, to Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich. Attachments: Resolution No. 93-163 DEIR Technical Comment Letter of 12/14/93 Mayor's Comment Letter of 12/15/93 a*wce\Fnrk4)1=mJe RESOLUTION NO. 93-163 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES OPPOSING THE PROPOSED VALENCIA MARKETPLACE REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PROJECT PENDING RECEIPT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, INCORPORATION OF ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES AND/OR PROJECT REDESIGN, AND RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING POLICY ISSUES, INCLUDING A COMMITMENT TO ALLOCATE EIGHTY PERCENT OF THE SALES TAX REVENUE GENERATED BY THIS PROJECT TO REMEDY INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICE DEFICIENCIES IN THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY WHEREAS, the County of LOS Angeles Regional Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will be considering the approval of the proposed Valencia Marketplace project, located on 83.7 acres immediately west of the Interstate 5 Freeway, south of McBean Parkway, and north of Pico Canyon Road; and WHEREAS, the proposal includes 859,740 square feet of retail commercial and restaurants, and.will provide community and regional commercial retail outlets, and will require a total of 1.7 million cubic yards of grading, to be balanced on-site; and WHEREAS, the project applicant has requested the following entitlements: a General Plan Amendment; a Zone Change; a Vesting Tentative Tract Map; a Conditional Use Permit; and an Oak Tree Permit; and WHEREAS, the Draft. Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for this project identifies areas of substantial environmental impact, including impacts to the following areas: geotechnical, flood hazards, Sheriff and Fire protection, noise, biology, aesthetics, traffic, sewage disposal, water availability and quality, and air quality; and WHEREAS,. the proposed project would result in the loss of 105 of 141 native oaks (75`0 of all on-site oaks)and the loss of 2.8 acres of riparian habitat (Pico Canyon Creek) and therefore, as now designed, would have a substantial negative impact on the site's biological resources; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is not consistent with the existing land use designations of the project site, a General Plan Amendment is being requested by the project applicant to change the land use designations of the project site from Hillside Management, Open Space, Floodplain/Floodway, Commercial, and Non- urban to Commercial only; and WHEREAS, this proposed project would likely have community -wide land use impacts relating to regional mobility, air quality, economics, and the jobs to housing balance in the Santa Clarita Valley, the Draft Environmental Impact Report does not adequately address or discuss potential conflicts with adjacent land uses, nor does it contain adequate mitigation measures to reduce such impacts; and WHEREAS, there exist infrastructure deficits and service deficiencies in the Santa Clarita Valley due..to past development practices, and because the proposed project will create additional demands upon the existing infrastructure and services in the Santa Clarita valley and within the incorporated area of the City of Santa Clarita; and WHEREAS, the proposed project would generate 26,333 average daily vehicle trips to and from the site, and the Draft Environmental Impact Report indicates that seven intersections within the City of Santa Clarita would be significantly impacted by this project, and includes mitigation measures to reduce these impacts; and WHEREAS, the proposed project would have a substantial impact upon the City of Santa Clarita, its circulation network, infrastructure, and levels of service, and would not mitigate or otherwise compensate the City for said impacts; and WHEREAS, the primary noise source affecting the project site is the Interstate 5 Freeway, and the Draft Environmental Impact Report does not include discussion of potential long-term noise impacts to the project site, patrons, or employees; and WHEREAS, the aesthetics analysis of the Draft Environmental Impact Report does not provide adequate detail to illustrate the exterior elevations of proposed structures and signs, and the potential impact as viewed from residential areas to the west or from the Interstate 5 Freeway to the east; and WHEREAS, the proposed 1.7 million cubic yards of grading will significantly alter the topography over ninety-five percent (951.) of the project site, and the Draft Environmental Impact Report does not provide cross-sections of the proposed grading to illustrate the potential aesthetic impacts to views as observed from the residential areas to the west or from the Interstate 5 Freeway to the east; and WHEREAS, the project may be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) as its present design (location, access, circulation, and parking layout) promote traditional use of the single -passenger vehicle and does not adequately promote the use of public transit; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report does not adequately evaluate or address impacts to those facilities, systems, and services monitored by the County Development Monitoring System (DMS), nor does it include a comprehensive presentation of existing deficiencies or adequacies in those facilities, systems, or services monitored by the DMS which will be impacted by the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the residents and Town Council of the Stevenson Ranch development, located to the west of the project site, have met with the City and have previously resolved some issues with the project applicant but have several issues which remain outstanding, including project redesign, and because a,number of residents will likely stand in opposition to this project as presently,.designed; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita desires to provide formal comment to the County of Los Angeles on the proposed project and Draft Environmental impact Report, all to be part of the official record; 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 proposed project have been addressed, the Draft Environmental Impact Report should be expanded to further analyze the impacts to biological resources, traffic and circulation (including CMP issues), land use, aesthetics, noise, and the adequate provision of long-term infrastructure and service needs in the Santa Clarita Valley. , SECTION 2. The Draft Environmental Impact Report should indicate the location of off-site restoration recommended as mitigation for the loss. of wetlands and oak trees, and the time- frame and monitoring for these mitigation efforts. To preserve the majority of the site's oak trees, development should not occur within the 25.1 acre area designated as Hillside Management. SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarita generally does not support additional amendments to the County's Santa Clarita Valley Area -wide Plan, which was updated and adopted in 1990. The City's General Plan Land Use Element Policy 5.4 specifically discourages the removal of the Hillside Management designation in unincorporated areas when urbanization proposals are made for such'" areas. The Draft Environmental Impact Report should examine an alternative to. the project which preserves the area designated as Hillside Management. Regio. No. 93-163 SECTION 4. Under Goal 1 of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Land Use Element, we seek to preserve the character of the communities and the integrity of the Santa Clarita Valley by permitting orderly growth through the synchronization of development with the availability of public facilities such as roads, sewers, water service and schools needed to support it. SECTION 5. Under Goal 2 of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Land Use Element, we seek to achieve.the development of a well-balanced, financially sound, and. functional mix of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, recreational, institutional and educational land uses. SECTION 6. Should this project be implemented, the County of Los Angeles should make a commitment in perpetuity to allocate at least 80% of this project's future.sales tax revenues to help eliminate existing infrastructure, facilities, systems, and - service deficits and inadequacies in the Santa Clarita Valley. SECTION 7. The traffic. analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Report should be expanded to address potential impacts upon McBean Parkway from the project site to Valencia Boulevard, and on Lyons Avenue from the Interstate 5 Freeway to San Fernando Road. This analysis should also be expanded to address the impacts of a no parking zone, and restriping to six lanes, on Lyons Avenue. Further expansion of this analysis should also include recommended mitigation measures for any impacts which are identified. SECTION 8. In addition to roadway and intersection improvements recommended in the:Draft Environmental Impact Report, the following recommendations should also be implemented with the project: Restripe McBean Parkway to six lanes; provide necessary traffic signal modifications to McBean Parkway and all impacted side streets; direct the County Traffic Engineer to work with the City Traffic Engineer to formulate appropriate traffic mitigation measures as needed. SECTION 9. A public transit facility should be provided at the project site. The County and/or developer should enter into an agreement with Santa Clarita Transit to fund transit services to the project site and adjacent areas. SECTION 10. The noise analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Report should be expanded to address potential long-term impacts.upon employees and patrons at the project site. SECTION 11. The aesthetic analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Report should be expanded to include architectural details as viewed from the interstate 5 Freeway, a Reso. No. 93-163 scenic corridor. Cross-sections of the proposed grading should be included to illustrate the change in the site's topography from all inhabited areas and public roadways. Contour grading should be required per the County's Hillside Design Guidelines. Earth - colored dye should be used in all visible concrete drainage facilities to reduce the contrast between such structures and adjacent slopes. A project sign plan should be provided to the City for review prior to final approval and issuance of construction permits. SECTION 12. The City requests that further environmental assessment be conducted on this proposed project, including a good faith effort to evaluate potentially significant individual and cumulative impacts, feasible alternatives, and mitigation measures which would reduce the significant environmental impacts of the project. This evaluation, together with a response and full assessment of the environmental impacts identified in the City's comments should be included in the Final Environmental Impact Report prior to certification and be carefully considered prior to any approvals being granted for this project. SECTION 13. The City respectfully requests that the public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project be continued to a date uncertain until such time as the aforementioned issues and concerns are adequately addressed or otherwise resolved, specifically including such public policy issues as may not reasonably be addressed in the environmental document. Additionally, the City supportsthe efforts of the residents and Town Council of Stevenson Ranch to ensure that the proposed development does not result in impacts detrimental to their community, andtheCity therefore requests that the County work closely with the residents and Town Council of Stevenson Ranch. to resolve outstanding major issues of importance to that community. SECTION 14. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full and correct copy of the action taken. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS day of , 1993. Mayor Reco. No. 93-163 ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, DONNA M. GRINDEY. CITY CLERK, DO HEREBY CERTIFY the above and 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 , 1993 by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk. aicy oounoil \z�s93163.m3a Reso. No. 93-163 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 City of Santa Clarita California 91355 December 14, 1993 Phone (805) 259-2489 Fax (805) 259-8125 James E. Hartl, AICP Director of Planning Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning 320 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 ATTN: Paul McCarthy, Assistant Section Head—Impact Analysis SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR THE VALENCIA MARKETPLACE, PROJECT NO. 92-075; SG'H NO, 92061074 Dear. Mr. Hartl: Thank you for the Notice of Completion and copy of -the DEIR prepared for the above -referenced project. We appreciate the continued cooperation of the County, the EIR consultant, and the applicant during our review of this project. The proposed Valencia Marketplace project site is located immediately adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita, south of Mc Bean Parkway, north of Pico Canyon Road; and east of the Old Road. As proposed by the Riley Pearlman Company, the applicant, the project would provide approximately 859,740 square feet of regional and community oriented retail commercial development on approximately 84 acres owned by the Newhall Land and Farre Company. Project development would require 1.7 million cubic. yards of grading; removal of 105 oak trees, and numerous Improvements to local infrastructure, both in the County and the City. Required entitlements forthis proposal Include a genera) plan amendment, a vesting tentative tract map, a zone change, a conditional use permit, and an oak tree permit. The City of Santa Clarita has reviewed the DEIR as a responsible agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and has comments on the following environmental Impacts of this project: Land Use, Biology, Traffic, Noise, Aesthetics, and compliance with the Los Angeles County Development Monitoring System (DMS). - LAND USE We acknowledge that an amendment to the County General Plan, along with rezoning of the property, is required to allow this development. The proposed project land use Is Inconsistent with the County's five existing land use designations, and applicable general plan policies, for the project site. We are very concerned with the effects of another General Plan amendment for the Santa Ciarlta Valley area. As the City has Indicated on previous projects (such as the Poe Company's proposals west of this project), we generally do not support General Plan amendments to the Santa Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan adopted in 1990, and we continue to emphasize the necessity for Valencia Marketplace DEIR Page 2 Integrated comprehensive planning in the Santa Clarita Valley. As set forth by the City's General Plan, we discourage the removal of the Hillside Management (HM) land use designation in the Santa Clarita Valley, which would Include the northern 25. acres of the project site. The Valencia Marketplace project site Is Immediately adjacent to, and within the planning area of, the City of Santa Clarita. It is extremely likely that a project of this size and type will have valley -wide effects relating to regional and local mobility, air quality, economics, and the jobs/housing balance. Section II (Environmental Setting) of the DEIR briefly discusses existing and proposed land uses, along with plan consistency. A land use analysis should also be Included In Section III (Environmental Impacts) of the DEIR to specifically address the potential land use conflicts affecting the project site and adjacent property. The analysis should also Include recommended mitigation measures for all potential Impacts identifled, particularly on the already well-recognized service and infrastructure deficits In the Santa Clarita Valley (SCV). It is reasonable to anticipate, and is in fact expected by the applicant, that a large proportion of Valencia Marketplace customers will be attracted from outside the SCV, thereby intensifying the demand on Infrastructure (particularly roadways) and services. To reduce this Impact, and overcome the existing Infrastructure deficit, an on-going capital Improvement program should be funded and Implemented. This would justify a commitment, in perpetuity, to allocate a minimum of 80% of project generatedsalestax revenues Yo the SCV. This allocation would be used to eliminate the Infrastructure deficit which has existed in the SCV due to past development practices. To accomplish this, these revenues could be placed in a specially created Capital Improvements Project fund, a newly created B&T District for the area, or Into some other funding mechanism which assures long-term benefit to the residents of the SCV. Additionally, some form of Community Service District (CSD) should also be established and funded to provide for Increased service levels required by this project, both In the County and in the City. The CSD should cover both Incorporated and unincorporated areas, as the. long-term service impacts created by this project will likely occur without regard for political boundaries. These recommendations should be addressed In the Final EIR, and should be Implemented as conditions of project approval. Under any circumstance, conditions of project. approval should assure timely implementation of mitigation measures relating to City services and facilities. BIOLOGY Implementation of the proposed project will require approximately 1.7 million cubic yards of grading, and the removal of vegetation over 95% of the site. According to the DEIR, there are four vegetative habitats occurring on-site: Southern Oak Woodland, Non-native Grassland, Coastal Sage Scrub -Chaparral, and Riparian -Southern Willow Scrub. Impacts to all four of these communities, Valencia Marketplace DEIR Page 3 summarized on page 94 of the DEIR, will be extensive and severe. Significant, potentially significant, and protected plant species on the site Include oak trees (Valley oaks, Coastal live oaks, and Valley/Blue oak hybrids) and native bunchgrasses. Additionally, Pearson's Morning Glory (a United States Fish and Wildlife "Candidate 2" species, and on the "watch list" of the California Native Plant Society), is found on the site. Pico Creek traverses the project site west to east, and is identified as a "blue - line" stream on USGS quadrangle maps for the area. The DEIR Indicates that the portion of this drainage on the project site will be altered from the existing condition and conveyed through a box culvert to a subterranean drainage system. These Improvements will result in the loss of the existing Riparian - Southern Willow Scrub habitat. Proposed mitigation for the loss of riparian vegetation on-site Is contained within the streambed alteration permit Issued by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) In December of 1992. Under this permit, the applicant Is required to restore/plant approximately 2.6 acres of riparian area In the Santa Clara River. The specific location of the proposed mitigation area(s) should be Identified in the DEIR. In addition to the off-site mitigation required by the CDFG, the open areas adjacent to the box culvert at either end should be rehabilitated for use as accessible open space. Proposed mitigation for the loss of native grasses on the site is to plant grasses of the same genus/species "off-site:' Communication with the applicant indicates that "off-site" is SEA 64.. This should be, Identified In the DEIR, and a general location and time-frame/monitoring program specified as a condition of approval. The City of Santa Clarita has Identified oak trees as a rare and valuable resource in the Santa Clarita Valley. According to the DEIR, there are 141 oak trees on the site that are of sufficient size to be regulated by the LA County Oak Tree Ordinance. Of these, 105 are proposed to be removed, 36 for construction of The Old Road extension from Pico Canyon Road to Mc Bean Parkway, and 69 for the construction of the shopping center Itself. There are also three heritage oaks on the site, of which one is proposed to be removed for the Old Road extension. As designed, this project will result In the removal of 105 of the 141 of the oaks at the project site. In light of the ordinances adopted by both the City and County to preserve native oak trees in the Santa Clarita Valley, staff has determined that this loss of oak trees Is unacceptable, even with the recommended mitigation measures. Because much of the adjacent Southern Oak Woodland has been denuded, loss of these oak trees will create a significant cumulative biological Impact. Staff disagrees with the DEIR's assessment that this loss can be reduced to a level of Insignificance, and Is opposed to any attempt by the applicant or property owner to Ignore the loss of these resources by adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The project should be redesigned, and/or scaled down, to Incorporate more of the existing oak trees into the project landscaping, and provide a larger open Valencia Marketplace DEIR Page 4 space area to preserve more oaks In a natural state. The DEIR indicates that between 100 and 122 oak trees occupy the 25.1 acre area designated as Hillside Management. Preserving this area would reduce the number of oak tree removals to 41 (or less). To reduce oak tree impacts to an acceptable level, we recommend that the project be redesigned to preserve the Hillside Management area as undisturbed open space. TRAFFIC This project will generate approximately 26,333 average dairy trips (ADTs) with 594 and 2,385 vehicles per a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. It should be noted that, In the traffic study and supplements prepared for this project, the extension of McBean Parkway to The Old Road and The Old Road between McBean Parkway and Valencia Boulevard were not considered to be in place prior to project development. As part of the traffic study, 22 Intersections were analyzed; twelve of these intersections are within the City. The report Indicates that seven of the twelve intersections within the City of Santa Clarita will be significantly Impacted, and the recommended mitigation Is the sole responsibility of the developer.- We request that these mitigation measures be required as project conditions of approval. The following is a list of the Impacted Intersections and Indicated mitigation measures: Wiley Canyon Road and Lyons Avenue: W. Northbound - Construct/restripe for a separate right -turn, two through, and one left -turn lane. Eastbound - Construct/restripe a second left -turn and three through lanes. Westbound - Construct/restripe a separate right -turn, three through and one left -tum lane. The traffic signal is to be modified. 1-5 Northbound Ramps and McBean Parkway: Northbound - Construct a second- left -tum lane, and signalize the Intersection when warranted. Orchard Village Road and McBean Parkway: Eastbound - Construct/restripe the 3rd through lane. McBean Parkway and Valencia Boulevard: Even though this Intersection is significantly Impacted by this development, the Traffic Study and DEIR do not recommend any physical mitigation to this Intersection. This needs to be Investigated and discussed in more detail In the Final EIR. Orchard Village Road and Lyons Avenue: Valencia Marketplace DEIR Page 5 Northbound - Construct/restripe for separate right -turn, two through and one left lane. Southbound - Construct/stripe fortwo left -turn, two through and one right - turn lane. Eastbound - Construct/stripe for three through and two left -turn lanes. Westbound - Construct/stripe for one left, three through and one right -turn lane. The traffic signal is to be modified to Include left -turn phasing for all directions. Rockwell Canyon Road and McBean Parkway: Southbound.- Construct/restrlpe for two leff-turn, two through and one right -turn lane. Eastbound - Restripe for the third through lane. Westbound - Restripe for the third through lane. The traffic signal is to be modified to include lett-turn phasing for all directions. Orchard Village Road and Wiley Canyon Road: The traffic signal is to be modified to Include left -turn phasing for the north -south direction on Orchard Village Road when warranted. The developer is to pay a fair share cost of this Improvement.,: In addition to the above Improvements and mitigation measures, our staff finds that this project would have a significant Impact on McBean Parkway from the project site to Valencia Boulevard, and on Lyons Avenue, from the 1-5 to San Fernando Road, which the traffic study and DEIR do not address. It would be staff's recommendation to have McBean Parkway striped for six lanes in this area as a condition on the project. This would Include . traffic signal modifications at all signalized intersections along that segment, as well as on the Impacted side streets. On -street parking along Lyons Avenue has always been a critical Issue with area businesses and the City Council, and therefore we do not concur that the six -lane striping Is appropriate. Alternative mitigation should be Identified. The City requests that the developer expand the traffic study to address the Impact of a no parking zone upon City businesses. This should also include recommended mitigation measures for Identified Impacts. Because this project Includes a community -oriented commercial component, the DEIR should be expanded to address the potential Impacts that this proposed project may have on public transit. Public transit facilities should be provided to reduce total vehicle trips and parking demand, and to help achieve conformance with the Regional Mobility Plan, Congestion Management Plan, and the Air Quality Management Plan. The County should Impose a condition of approval requiring the applicant to enter Into an agreement with Santa Clarita Transit to fund transit services to the project site and adjacent areas. It should also be noted that the project appears designed specifically for, and Valencia Marketplace DEIR Page 6 relies on, the single -passenger vehicle for accessibility. With regional efforts such as the CMP underway to reduce this reliance, this project may not be In compliance with regionally stated goals and objectives to reduce vehicular congestion on the CMP network. The Final EIR should incorporate additional analysis of this component of the transportation and circulation impacts generated directly and indirectly by this project. NOISE The project site Is located within the 70 decibel Community Noise Equivalent Level Identified In the City of Santa Clarita General Plan.. The primary noise source effecting the project site is the Golden State Freeway (1-5). The DEIR addresses the potential noise Impacts of the project to the adjacent residential uses to the west of the project site, however, there Is no discussion of potential long-term Impacts to the project site employees.and patrons. Existing noise levels along the 1-5 corridor may Impact the commercial uses proposed for the project site. These potential Impacts should be discussed and appropriate mitigation recommended as part of this analysis. AESTHETICS This project Is located along the City's southwest boundary along the heavily travelled 1-5 corridor and constitutes a primary-and'essential "gateway" to the City and the Santa Clarita Valley. The Illustrations of the building frontages show little detail to clearly Illustrate the "Mediterranean" architectural design proposed for this project by the applicant. In particular, the building facades along 1.5 should be shown In greater detail to communicate to the decision - makers, area residents, the City of Santa Clarita, and the public, what the project will look like from 1-5 (a scenic corridor). An 80 -foot cut slope Is referenced in the DEIR, but is not shown In elevation view. This should be illustrated. Again, we oppose the removal of the Hillside Management (HM) land use designation. If this cut slope encroaches into the 25.1 acre HM area, then the project should be redesigned to preserve this area as open space to adequately reduce aesthetic Impacts. If this 80 -foot cutslope Is not within the HM area, then the project should be redesigned to conform with the County's Hillside Management Policies and Design Guidelines. The County should require, as a mitigation and condition of approval, that contour grading and landscaping be implemented to minimize disruption tothe hillsides not located within the HM designation. Concrete used for drainage swales should Incorporate an earth -colored, dye to reduce contrast of the concrete color with that of the adjacent slope face. The EIR did not include a conceptual sign plan for the project. Because the project site Is adjacent to a scenic corridor and an established residential area, the aesthetics analysis should address the potential Impacts which may result from signage. Specifically, pole signs should not be permitted for this development. (The applicant has Indicated in meetings with City staff that pole Valencia Marketplace DEIR Page 7 signs are not proposed as part of the site design, but the issue is not addressed within the DEIR.) We request that exterior elevations for buildings and signs be provided to the City for review prior to final approval and building permit Issuance. DEVELOPMENT MONITORING SYSTEM (DMS) COMPLIANCE The project DEIR makes several references to the Los Angeles County DMS, but fails to Incorporate a cumulative analysis or evaluation of the project's Impact on the services or facilities monitored under the DMS. The DEIR Indicates that the DMS data base, factors, criteria, and so on were used in analyzing project Impacts (except where project -specific factors are known), yet no cumulative Information Is available In the DEIR. The City requests that an evaluation of this project's Impactson the DMS,specifically and comprehensively identifying areas of deficiency or adequacy, be undertaken and Incorporated Into the DEIR. As one example, the DEIR Indicates that police services In the area are currently operating at a less than desirable level and will be further Impacted by this project. This will be off -set, according to the DEIR, by revenues generated by the project if such revenues are used to fund added services. The proposed mitigation, however, Is Inadequate as It states only that such revenues could be used in this manner, but makes no actual provision for this to occur. Consequently, this mitigation measure can not be Incorporated as a condition of project approval as It is currently drafted. We find this to be a serious deficlency, and one example of why the: requested DMS analysis should be incorporated for all systems and services so monitored. Due to the nature and complexity of some of the additional information and analysis requested, the City respectfully requests that this project be continued to a future date to allow adequate time for the provision and review of new information. Thank you again for the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIR for this proposed project. We would appreciate being kept apprised of the project's status as it moves through the planning approval process, and look forward to reviewing the Final EIR In its entirety once it becomes available. Should you have any questions regarding our comments, or If you would like.clarification or additional Information, please call me at (805) 255 4330. Sincerely, LYNN M. HARRIS DEPUTY CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Donald M. Williams Senior Planner DMW:MJC City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300 City of Santa Clarita California 91355 December 15, 1993 Phone (805) 259-2489 Fax . (805)259-8125 Michael D. Antonovich, Fifth District Supervisor County of Los Angeles Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street, Room 869 Los Angeles, CA 90012 SUBJECT: VALENCIA MARKETPLACE PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 92-075) Dear Supervisor Antonovich: I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the Valencia Marketplace project. We appreciate the continued cooperation of the County staff, the applicant, and the EIR consultant during our review of this project. We have provided technical comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for this project In our letter of December 14, 1993. Additionally, the City Council reviewed this project on a policy level at a public meeting on December 14, 1993, and while we share the technical concerns of our staff (In the areas of land use, oaks and blota, traffic, noise, aesthetics, and DMS compliance), we wish to also register our concern in the area of public policy as It relates to this development. Over the past several years, the City and the County have sought to work with each other in many ways to lessen the opportunities for divisiveness and promote partnerships for the betterment of all residents of the Santa Clarfta Valley. For several reasons, however, we feel this project may represent a setback to these efforts. We recognize that In the existing business climate, this project presents a significant economic development opportunity for the County. We support economic development and have put forth significant resources in this area with some success. We further understand the need for government to work with applicants who provide such development. This appears to be a project deserving of serious consideration. At the same time, we find that we can not support the project as It currently stands. While we appreciate the County's need for the additional revenues to be generated by this project, we nevertheless feel this location Is Inappropriate for a project of this type and size. It Is of urban scale and nature, with concurrent urban service level needs. The project site Is located Immediately adjacent to, but outside of, the City. The applicant has Indicated that this development will Include retail uses known as "category killers" which will deter similar types of development elsewhere In the City or Santa Clarita Valley. Impacts to City systems, services, and revenues will occur as a result of this project, yet nowhere (with the exception of traffic mitigation) has this been addressed. Frankly, this project will divert revenue from the City, have direct and indirect Impacts on City service levels and facilities, and Valencia Marketplace Project December 15, 1993 Page 2 result in an overall detrimental effect on the community. The project will benefit the County general fund but, as a matter of public policy, we do not believe the actions of one jurisdiction should be deleterious to another jurisdiction, especially where the two have pledged cooperation We understand that the opportunity exists to provide infrastructure and service level improvements to the area through the approval and development of this project. We feel this justifies a commitment, in perpetuity, to allocate at least 800/6 of the project's future sales tax revenues to the Santa Clarita Valley to eliminate existing infrastructure and service level deficits. The forth of this allocation should be a matter of policy discussion, but could include establishment of a new or expanded B&T District in the SCV, some form of CIP fund, or some other mechanism to ensure that the revenues generated in the SCV remain in the SCV. Additionally, a Community Services District (CSD) should also be discussed, so as to fund the added services in the SCV -- both City and County — that this project will necessitate. The identification of the services and facilities in need of such funding could be determined through analysis of the SCV's already deficient areas (and this project's added impact on them), as identified by the County's DMS. As just one example, we wish to discuss police service levels. The DEIR states that existing service levels In the area are less than desirable, and that the project will "incrementally" Increase response times and so on, meaning that already undesirable service levels will further deteriorate.. The response letter from the Sheriffs Department (dated May 15, 1992), however,, is.slightijitronger in its concern, stating that the project will significantlyImpact service levels.. The mitigation measure for this Impact states only that revenues from the project may be used to increase services, but no requirement to do so is set forth. A CSD or similar mechanism appears appropriate to implement and guarantee that this mitigation actually occurs. In a related note, we also support the concerns set forth by the residents and Town Council of Stevenson Ranch. As you may remember from a recent meeting, Stevenson Ranch residents are now discussing the possibility of annexing to the City. The potential impacts of this project on those residents Is fairly well documented in the DEIR, though the residents have raised several issues not addressed in the DEIR. We understand that while the Stevenson Ranch Town Council has reached accord with the applicant in many areas, several outstanding Issues still remain, and a number of residents are still opposed. We hope you will work with these residents, the Stevenson Ranch Town Council, and the City to address their Issues. This project will result in the removal of 105 of the 141 .oak trees on-site, approximately 75% of the total on the property. This loss is unacceptable in light of ordinances adopted by both the City and the County to preserve native oak trees In the Santa Clarita Valley. The transplantation of existing trees is not desirable due to the high mortality rate of this mitigation method. Consequently, all alternatives need to be explored, including a reduction of project density in order to reduce this Impact to an acceptable level. Valencia Marketplace Project December 15, 1993 Page 3 We are concerned with another amendment to the Santa Clarlta Valley Areawide General Plan, as this undermines the effectiveness of comprehensive planning. Careful consideration should be given to the potential conflicts this proposed project may have with adjacent land uses, and Its cumulative long-term Impacts. Traffic generated by this project will Impact several Intersections and roadway segments In the City. We understand and appreciate that the applicant has worked with City staff In developing the traffic study, and hope this will continue so as to resolve all outstanding traffic Issues. We fully expect mitigation of all Impacted Intersections and roadway segments within the City. In addition, and as Importantly, It should be noted that the project appears designed specifically for, and relies heavily on, the continued use of traditional single - passenger vehicles for accessibility. (Site location, access, circulation, and parking all clearly point to this.) With regional efforts such as the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) underway to reduce this reliance, the project as designed may not be in compliance with regionally adopted goals and objectives to reduce vehicular congestion on the CMP network. Perhaps further refinement of the project to reflect this Is in order. In the spirit of the Clty-County Joint Planning program, we wish to ensure that this project minimizes environmental Impacts while providing the Santa Clarlta Valley with maximum economic benefits. We seek to achieve balance and compatibility between land uses, Infrastructure, and quality. of life for Santa'Clarha Valley residents. Because of the nature and complexity of our concerns, we will be asking that the Regional Planning Commission continue the public hearing for this project pending receipt of additional Information, and resolution of outstanding Issues; we look for your support of this request. Your consideration of our concerns Is greatly appreciated, and we await your response to our comments. Sincerely, Janice H. Heldt Mayor JHH:MJC cc: Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Members of the Santa Clarlta City Council James E. Hartl, Director of Planning George A. Caravalho, City Manager 0*1Md 14zm(e