Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-12-14 - RESOLUTIONS - OPPOSING CMTY COMMERCIAL PROJ (2)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% 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, ndWHEREAS, 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 (95%) 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. Reso. 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 Reoo. 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 supports the 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, and the City 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 14th day of December, 1993. Raco. No. 93-163 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) as 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 14th day of Decanbe'; 1993 by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMFMRERS: city council\i��9316].mjc Reco. No. 93-163 Boyer, Darcy, Klajic, Pederson, Heidt [`'- M R