HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-04-26 - AGENDA REPORTS - RITTER RANCH PROJECT (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Appro 1
Item to be presented by:
Anthony J. Nisich fOl
CONSENT CALENDAR
DATE: April 26, 1994
SUBJECT: RITTER RANCH PROJECT - LEONA VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CONCERNS
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
At the March 22, 1994 regular City Council meeting, staff recommended that Council receive a
report on this issue and direct staff to draft a letter reiterating its previous position to the Loena
Valley Town Council.
At the above meeting, Council requested staff to review Mike Antonovich's letter and reevaluate the
City's previous position on the Ritter Ranch project, and place it on the April 19, 1994 regular City
Council meeting.
Staff received copies of the correspondence from Leona Valley representatives too late in order to
prepare the report for the April 19, 1994 meeting (See Exhibit "A" for all correspondence). Staff
Informed the City Council and the Leona Valley Town Council (Mr. Paul Sloan and
Mr. Mark Johnstone) that due to the above fact, this matter will be presented to the City Council one
week later (April 26, 1994).
After reviewing and reevaluating the replies from the County of Los Angeles Public Works
Department and "Palmdale Southwest Planning Area Traffic Study," City staff makes the following
comments and recommendations:
Staff supports the County's findings that the roadway improvements (such as Elizabeth Lake
Road) proposed as part of the "Palmdale southwest planning area" which was prepared in
July 1990 study may not fully mitigate the cumulative traffic impacts of all projects included in
the report (including Ritter Ranch Project). On April 12, 1994, staff was notified that the city of
Palmdale has been negotiating with the Ritter Ranch development to widen the entire
Elizabeth Lake Road with a minimum of four lanes from Godde Hill Road to the east.
2. As the City stated in Its January 12, 1992 letter to the city of Palmdale (See Exhibit "B"), we are
concerned with the proposed improvements designated for all the east -west roadways from the
Ritter Ranch project to the east (State Route 14). This concern was due to the anticipated low
Level Of Service (LOS) on these roadways that would cause traffic to use Bouquet Canyon
Road to travel south. The City of Santa Clarita's General Plan/Circulation Element shows that
the northern portion of Bouquet Canyon Road is to remain as two lanes through Angeles
National Forest.
ARIn[�oWED
Agemb Item:
AGENDA - RITTER RANCH PROJECT
April 26, 1994 - Page 2
3. In the 1990 traffic study, it was also shown that Bouquet Canyon Road is to be a four lane
divided road from Elizabeth Lake Road to the south for approximately 112 mile and then drop
to two lanes further south. The traffic study fails to justify the need for a four -lane improvement
for this project. Developments in the area should be reevaluated to make sure it is not
Impacting Bouquet Canyon Road through Angeles National Forest to an unacceptable level of
service.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this report and direct staff to draft a letter
reiterating its previous position to the Leona Valley Town Council to include the following:
1. The improvements proposed as part of the "Palmdale Southwest Planning Area" traffic study
may not fully mitigate the cumulative traffic impacts of all projects included in the report
(Including the Ritter Ranch Project). The widening of the entire Elizabeth Lake Road with a
minimum of four lanes from Godde Hill to State Route 14 should be considered.
2. To improve all east -west and north -south roadways between the Ritter Ranch Development and
State Route 14 to achieve acceptable Levels of Service and discourage traffic from using
Elizabeth Lake Road toward the City of Santa Clarita.
3. To reevaluate the proposed four -lane widening of Bouquet Canyon Road immediately south of
Elizabeth Lake Road. The development in the area may also need to be reevaluated to make
sure it is not impacting Bouquet Canyon Road through Angeles National Forest to an
unacceptable Level of Service.
Staff will forward a copy of this letter to the city of Palmdale and the County of Los Angeles for
their information.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit "A" - All Correspondence
Exhibit "B" - 1992 City of Santa Clarita letter to the city of Palmdale
rjr:dls
coonouNitrer.rJr
Leona Valley Town Council
P.O. Box 795
Leona Valley, California 93551
April 1, 1994
Honorable Mayor George Pederson
and City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Mayor Pederson and Council Members:
Once again, I want to thank you and your staff for giving us time on the agenda during your
last City Council meeting. The subject of the Elizabeth Lake Road widening in Leona Valley is
a vital issue for both of our communities.
Since our telephone conversation earlier this week, we have received correspondence from
Supervisor Michael Antonovich (dated March 23, 1994) regarding the on-going evaluations on
this road widening project. The letter dated March 10, 1994 from the acting director of the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works, directed to the City of Palmdale clearly indicates
that the cumulative traffic impacts of the projects may not be fully mitigated, and that the traffic
study needs to be modified before the county can consider the request for jurisdiction.
In addition to the letters described above, on March 28, 1994 some six different litigants filed
four separate lawsuits against the City of Palmdale regarding this project. Another clear
indication that this proposed project is ill conceived and should not be supported.
The new litigants are: White Fence Farms Mutual Water Company, West Side Park Mutual
Water Company, Eldorado Mutual Water Company, Rosemond Community Service District,
AVEK (Antelope Valley East Kern) Water District, and the Leona Valley Town Council.
Again, we ask that your City Council opposes the granting of the extra -territorial jurisdiction to
the City. of Palmdale, and we are looking forward to testifying before you at your April 19th City
Council meeting.
Regards,
Paul G. Sloane
Leona Valley Town Council
Letter Mike Antonovich to LVTC, March 23, 1994
Letter LACPW to Palmdale requesting modifications, March 10, 1994
Letter LVTC to Mike Antonovich summarizing meetingg%� March 3, 1994
Letter LVTC to Mike Antonovich re: unresolved traffic,
February 14, 1994
axr� of �5up.eriiisors
>i,
� f of dos �Nn etes
MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH
SUPERVISOR FIFTH DISTRICT
March 23, 1994
Mr. Robert Mallicoat, President
Leona Valley Town Council
Post Office Box 795
Leona 1 y, lifornia 93551
Dear i oa .
As you r 1 , on November 1, 1993 I informed you that I asked
the Department of Public Works to hold the City's request for
consent for jurisdiction for the Amargosa Creek Improvement
Project until they could review the traffic impacts caused by the
City's developments.
I am in receipt of the Department's response to the City of
Palmdale and have enclosed a copy of this response for your
.review. Please contact my office if you have any questions.
ly,
D.
, Fifth District
cdv
Enclosure
cc:.lMr. Mark Johnstone
ROOM 669. HALL OF ADMINISTRATION. 500 WEST TEMPLE STREET. LOS ANGELES. CA 90012
TELEPHONE (213) 974.5555 • FAX (213) 974- 1010
THOMAS A. TIDEM AN SON. 11 .
March 10, 1994
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
909 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE
ALMA MBR& CALIFORNIA 91803-031
TU.peon.:(NIS) 458.5100
Mr. Steve Williams
Director of Public Works
City of Palmdale
38306 9th Street East
Palmdale, CA 93550-3265
Dear Mr. Williams:
AMARGOSA CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
..r.l� vrr-
ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO.
P.O. BOX 1460
ALHAMBRA_ CALIFORNIA 91807.140
IN REPLY PLEASE P-3
PE,Eq TO FILE
we have completed our review of the traffic study (dated
July 1990), prepared by DKS Associates, and the additional
information provided by your agency in regard to your request for
Consent to Acquire right of way.
We generally agree with the study on the traffic impacts of the
Amargosa Creek Improvement project and other city development
projects in the study area. However, we do believe the
improvements proposed as part of the subject District may not fully
mitigate the cumulative traffic impacts of all projects included in
the report.
The traffic projections in the study are based on Godde Hill Road
north of Elizabeth Lake Road as a 4 -lane highway. However, there
is no proposal to widen this roadway to provide four traffic lanes.
The study recommends that Elizabeth Lake Road from Bridge Road to
the east of Leona Valley be improved to a 4 -lane highway to
adequately handle the traffic projected for the year 2010.
However, we understand some of the development projects used in the
report have either been abandoned or downscaled.
II • 1 P. .-
11
Mr. Steve Williams
March 10, 1994
Page 2
Therefore, we request the following modifications to the traffic
study before we can consider granting the consent for jurisdiction.
• Include the widening of Godde Hill Road to four lanes in the
Improvement District or demonstrate that it is not feasible to
widen this roadway. If the Godde Hill Road is not to be
widened, the impact of diverted trips from this roadway onto
other roadways in the area should be analyzed and appropriate
mitigation measures be proposed and included in the District.
• Proposed improvements in the District should be based on
updated list of projects in the area.
• Determine the level of development in the area that will
trigger the requirement to improve Godde Hill Road and
Elizabeth Lake Road to 4 -lane roadways.
Also, the City should obtain approval of the County's
Interdepartmental Engineering Committee for the realignment of
Elizabeth Lake Road.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Barry Witler of our
Planning Division at (818) 458-4351.
very truly
your s
HARRY W. STONE
Acting Director of Public works
FA:nr
wp/26
bc: Carl L. alum
Programs Development (City Services)
Traffic and Lighting
Planning (2) (Nagao and Witler)
Leona Valley Town Council
P.O, Box 795
Leona Valley Ca., 93551
March 3, 1994
Honorable Michael D, Antonovich
Hall of Administration, Room 869
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles. Ca., 90012
Re: Follow-up to 2-28-94 meeting with D. Vanetta and M. Nagau regarding
2-14-94 letter from LVTC to M. Antonovich, Amargosa Creek Imp, Project
On 2-28-94, Mr Vanetta, Mr.Nagau and myself met in your Antelope Valley field
office to discuss the issues raised in our letter sent 2-14-94.
As a result of that meeting and at Dave Vanetta's request, the following
summarizes open actions:
Leona Valley Town Council action;
1.) Obtain and forward letters to your office from affected property owners
regarding impacts from the proposed Palmdale Amargosa CreekImprovement
Project.
Public Works actions;
1.) Keep the LVTC apprised of activity and progress on this issue including
copies of past and present correspondence, studies, reports, etc, as they pertain to
this issue.
2:) Evaluate feasibilitycost trade-off to relocate approximately five miles of
infrastructure proposed within the San Andreas Fault to points south outside the
fault zone, verses the cost and time to replace said infrastructure after an
earthquake and the disruption impact to 20,000+ residents with lost sewer, water
and electricity.
3.) Determine LA County responsibilities for maintenance and operation of the
sewer and water system once construction is completed.
4,) Determine housing level (and corresponding ADT traffic levels) that will
trigger requirement for four lane road improvements to Godde Hill Road and
Elizabeth Lake Road west of Godde Hill.
5.) Confirm necessity for four lane road improvements to Elizabeth Lake Road
between Godde Hill Road and 25th Street West since the 1990 DKS Traffic Study
original premise has changed, ie:
A) Several Developments used as a basis for the traffic study have been
abandoned.
B) Palmdale has approved only 1200 residential units for Leona Valley ( Ritter
Ranch ) and has no other near term pending projects.
C) DKS used urban housing densities for Leona Valley in 1990, in 1992 the
Board of Supervisors approved the Community Standards District which
requires densities of one unit per 2.5 acres.
Palmdale currently has a no -annexation policy do to economics and the fact
80% of their city is undeveloped. If an annexation is considered, the
Palmdale General Plan requires adoption consideration of the communities
D)
CSD.
6.) Continue dialogue and provide final response/position to the issues from
Public Works and your office, once evaluation is complete.
The Leona Valley Town Council thanks you for you continued support
Mark Johnstone V.P.
Leona Valley Town Council
805-270-1402
cc D. Vanetta
M Nagau
Leona Valley Town Council
P.O. Box 795
Leona Valley, California 93551
February 22, 1994
Honorable Mayor George Pederson
and City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Mayor Pederson and Council Members:
Two years ago Jill Klajic, your Mayor at that time and a contingent from your city testified at the
City of Palmdale's public hearings regarding the Ritter Ranch Project. At the time of the
hearings your city was very concerned about the traffic impacts that would be felt by the City of
Santa Clarita, if in fact the Ritter Ranch Project was built. Subsequent to your city's testimony
presented at the Palmdale hearings, your City and the City of Palmdale had further meetings
and resolved your differences and removed your opposition to the project.
That was two years ago, and now in the light of the recent earthquakes we have all had a
serious lesson from mother nature on our vulnerabilities. A lesson that requires us to take
another look at what we believed to be correct, and ask ourselves objectively, is our thinking
on target or do we need to seriously "re-evaluate".. Sometimes, timing can be a blessing in
disguise and possibly we are all looking at a blessing in the shadows of disaster.
The City of Palmdale has sent a request to our Supervisor Michael Antonovich asking for
Extra -territorial Jurisdiction fora five mile section of Elizabeth Lake Road in Leona Valley.. The
purpose of this Jurisdiction is to widen Elizabeth Lake Road to four lanes and placement of
infrastructure to support the Ritter Ranch Project, and most importantly, the future westerly
growth of the City of Palmdale. Growth that will be a disaster for both the community of Leona
Valley and the City of Santa Clarita.
Over the years Supervisor Mike Antonovich has consistently opposed the Ritter Ranch project
and the annexation of Leona Valley by the City of Palmdale, and he has previously denied
requests for Extra -territorial Jurisdiction to Palmdale.
We are asking the City of Santa Clarita to support Supervisor Antonovich's opposition to the
Extra -territorial Jurisdiction. The attached documentation spells out clearly the justification of
supporting the Supervisor in his opposition to granting the jurisdiction.
Myself, and fellow Town Council member Mark Johnstone met with Donald Williams and
Bahman Janka on February 9th to go over in detail the information we are submitting to you. I
encourage you to discuss this issue with them as well.
It is hard for me to imagine what the impact to your infrastructure would have been during this
earthquake 0 there were an additional 20,000 people living at the mouth of Bouquet Canyon to
the north, and trying to filter through your city via Bouquet Canyon Road to get to the valley.
On top of all the rest of the problems your city suffered, you could have added virtual internal
gridlock to the list.
County wide traffic planning should not be distorted by the self serving interests of any city.
Good regional planning for intelligent traffic flow is needed here, not a four lane road that
dumps an overwhelming number of cars a day into your city, through the canyons.
Time is of the essence, however if it is desirable we would welcome the opportunity to meet
with you and clarify our positions and the data presented.
Regards,
Paul G. SI ne
Leona Valley Town Council
Leona Valley Town Council
PO Box 795
Leona Valley, Calif, 93551
February 14, 1994
Honorable Michael D Antonovich
Hall of Administration, Room 869
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, Calif, 90012
Subject: Amargosa Creek Improvement Project, CFD 90-1
As you know the City of Palmdale has requested Extra -territorial Jurisdiction for a five
mile section of Elizabeth Lake Road (widening to four lanes and placement of
infrastructure) to support proposed development west of Palmdale, the largest being the
Ritter Ranch. Although numerous public and private meetings have been held with the
City of Palmdale, regional traffic issues that represent significant cost to the County and
impact Leona Valley have not been resolved.
1) Traffic impacts to Godde Hill road and Elizabeth Lake road. west of Godde Hill if
left unimproved as planned by Palmdale, will result in Los F+ traffic.
These traffic impacts were identified in the DKS traffic study commissioned by Palmdale
and partially identified in the City of Palmdale General Plan, and to date have been
ignored. These impacts to County roads are the direct result of Palmdale's growth plans
and should be mitigated by Palmdale prior to moving ahead with CFD 90-1.
( See attachment 1 Existing Traffic Volumes, attachment 2 Future Traffic Volumes, also
memo Tidemanson to Antonovich 10-26-92 )
2) The Leona Valley Town Council and Ritter Ranch "agree" it is not necessary to
widen Elizabeth Lake road to four lanes.
During public testimony both parties stated that four lane road improvements are not
necessary, and that overbuilding the circulation system at the expense of the scenic
qualities of the area should not be done_ Ritter Ranch conducted their own traffic
analysis/study which supports this conclusion. We believe that traffic impacts can be
mitigated by improvements within the Ritter Ranch, (ie; Ritter Ranch road) and not
upgrading Elizabeth Lake road or Godde hill road to four lanes.
( See attached letter from Peter Wenner Dec 19, 91 page 6, item b )
3) Increasing traffic flow on Elizabeth Lake road by four times and placement of
critical lifeline infrastructure on top of a five mile section of the San Andreas fault,
conflicts with the L.A. County General Plan Safety Element.
In light of the recent Northridge Earthquake and its impacts to infrastructure, placement
of major sewer, water and electricity plus increasing traffic volumes from 4600 to
18,000+ Average Daily Trips (ADT) for a five mile stretch on top of the San Andreas
fault, seems like poor planning and unnecessary exposure of the public to hazard. The
proposed infrastructure is intended to serve future communities of 20,000+ people and
will be their only lifeline for survival. Infrastructure relocation outside the fault zone will
better serve these future communities when this seismic event occurs.
The San Andreas fault (within the Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone) is an active fault
with movement on this section every 150 years on average, the last movement occurred
138 years ago, expected displacement from the next event range from 15 to 30 feet.
( See attached LA County Gen. Plan Safety Element page 18 item 4.2 and technical
appendix, Hazard Reduction in IA County pages 4-5,9 and 5-22,23)
4) LA County residents adjacent to this project are subject to property seizure
through eminent domain, and were not notified of impacts to their property
until after the EIR process was completed.
County property owners adjacent to the Elizabeth Lake road widening project were not
contacted by the City of Palmdale to participate in the public review process before it was
certified by the Palmdale City Council
After EIR certification, new (proposed) road alignments have been planned which will
impact property owners previously not identified in the EIK and will deny these property
owners public access to comment.
5) The environmental review process (EIR 90-1) has not been completed. The
project was certified by the City Council, but Notice of Determination filing was
withheld pending a project design.
The City of Palmdale on August 23, 1993 certified the EIR 90-1 for this project, yet has
not filed a Notice of Determination because "an actual project as defined under CEQA
does not exist." The City of Palmdale is designing or redesigning the project after their
EIR Certification, ie; changing road alignment etc. contrary to information publicly
noticed and reviewed in the EIR 90-1.
The LVTC questions the legal paradox, which comes first, the EIR or a project?
It would seem premature to move forward with Extra -territorial Jurisdiction at this time
without a project design, without benefit of public comment and absent an environmental
review of the yet to be "defined project" under CEQA.
(See attached letter Palmdale to AVEK September 7, 1993)
The Leona Valley Town Council feels it is premature at this time to move forward with
this City of Palmdale project with so many unresolved open issues. We would welcome
the opportunity to meet with yourself, and or Public Works at your earliest convenience
to discuss this matter in more detail
Thank you for your continued support
Mark Johnstone V.P.
Leona Valley Town Council
805-270-1402
Attachments,•
Attachment 1, map Existing Traffic Volumes
Attachment 2, map Future Traffic Volumes
Exhibit 3-26, Level of service, page 3-129, Palmdale General Plan
City of Palmdale Gen. Plan Table 4-13, future traffic levels of service, pages 4-124
through 4-130
Memo, Tidemanson to Antonovich 10-26-92
Letter, Wenner to Palmdale 12-19-91
Excerpt from, LA County Gen. Plan Safety Element page 18
Excerpt from, LA County Gen. Plan technical appendix to Safety Element, pages 4-5,9
and 5-22,23
Letter, Palmdale to AVEK 9-7-93
Letter, Antonovich to Jackson 9-28-92
Letter, Antonovich to LVTC 8-3-93
Letter, Tidemanson to Antonovich 10-20-93
Letter, Tidemanson to Antonovich 1-10-94
Letter, LVTC to Antonovich 10-19-92
Letter, LVTC to Antonovich 6-7-93
Letter, LVTC to Antonovich 8-24-93
DKS Traffic study
3
EXISTIING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS (ADT)
J660
46T,tao LdT4 de00D, kLordA ! lano,
1
Iep0
1,DTrr
r
I
I
I
I
I
PROPOSED RMER RANCH
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
Ave N, ! Iand
I
Zl-
A,, P, 4 land
b
i
I
r--
I
I
I
Note. I. ADT data from the City of Palmdale General Plan.
2. ADT data for listed roads from 1990 DKS traffic study,
data not Included in City of Palmdale General Plan.
A) Elizabeth Lake rd west of Bouquet Canyon rd
B) Elizabeth Lake rd between Bouquet Canyon and Godde hill rd
.— C) Bouquet Canyon rd
Ave N, 6 lam., 40,000 ADT, Lot C
E
's
100 tamketk take rd, 4 lam, 3
'bT, to f I r,+00 ADT. Lee A ~ ..
N0t6,��
3 _
6 lam.
Santa
%
_ l Aar tq IS ouo' M'. +
MLee T A i tM ' r - - 64Ma Ej ,tOt !O S
some
µmµ
��
c..00015c..00015rdt �
ralro"s and.
r* OpAor�aE
I L
Ave a, 6 lam.
:s,00e ADT,
"D 0-4
PROPOSED Rn MR RANCH g
Ave s, 6 lanes
1 i
� 1
Note: 1. ADT data from the Gty of Palmdale General Plan.
2. ADT data for listed roads from 1990 DKS traffic study for year 201 O,
1 data not Included In Gty of Palmdale General Plan.
A) Elizabeth Lake rd west of Bouquet Canyon rd
B) Elizabeth Lake rd between Bouquet Canyon and Godde hill rd
C) Bouquet Canyon rd
I wrel el Service A a AN Arras faary of"Vw • pardadar rlaa of hurray
ran pro iia it As a eondism of pea /lo" on w0wh dwr u bine or no
nariedon Of 1pCId err mmwnva8day catrsrd by Ne PrCPM a OJ WAer trhidri
opvawr qwd is in Ne kip%" riegt And rheury if low.
Leal of Service a is a sone of sable flow. HowrAr: °P -=A9 +prrd it bgwnarg to
6e rmined by odw "ff c. Unm I wogwoY cm&aidrs rhe &angry a low, remncvun on
Irroneweabduy V nqU We, rod Nae u a little probobd ry of major reducurn m speed
or flow ram Thio u+el of ser Wee approemdra opical dM$M .olunss for hiO M- —1
hww4DO NKAw gJm"0%a
level of Service C it mill a ww of Mable flow busv whir mlwm and &miry
knel, now &,,= we baornnj rami d in Awftccdan m sdacs tpad rNmsge
lona, or pas Opoetuq ipovL we ma n ire Mr of la so 314
Diouuy 4 ftm 30 to 35 rrtida per iow milt an p n � P�
it gaaa0y scisard or being a apo nary
pmricukeiy for Ioban PIT-939wrier rhe eaa of providint rhe hoo, Arca
hvru doing peak pwwdr may be p okNUM
Level of Service D app oocher wuwbk flow Ta (fable eocrar OParmng rpeedr nor
nvuuaned but an subject w considerable suddera vanawn Fireedait. a manalet and
Ahmg canfort are law because bane dmdry hat naeaxd to bawear 43end 50 vP"%
Nu
and rhe probabda7 of accidrno herr wcovased Mort dinar would probablycomader
wvia le.el wrtmtlaelory,
77u upprr kmir of jrevef Servi
l oce E u ire e°paciy of dw facility- Opeodon
in dor none u unrmblo; good lbw n= pco,om and doe it hak
i ndepe Bowe of speed wkcdml err abiliy w monIM v- Since headwoys are
shon old opnoaas speeds snrbiw ro rep& fbiearanart dnnng edrnjon is blow
acrd x,odor. pormeial high Akhmik Crewnsau:es way -aka opwadon of
jacalacr wda Ncac conditions Amory, u it dearly wsdcwvWe and s/mdd be.
awndrd whenever jea"
Source: DKS Associates
Level of Service
Palmdale General Plan
Leal or Service F Iaaiber /erred flow opeaias aJls dO1°y Aar esrerd� opiarurn
wAWA u normoal n At rwW of 70 so 75 rpm on jtre /lowing faciluia Spad and rare
of f ov at bdow door kwk war" a none E and my; foe ahem vne porodn drop m
Moe.
a-129
Exhibit 3-26
LEONA VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
P.O. BOX 795
LEONA VALLEY, 93551
August 24, 1993
Michael D. Antonovieh
Supervinor, 5th District
Hall of Administration
Lns Angeles, California 90012
Ret P,CA Qsod �LtlF�4Qa Oreek �s.��.�au�egt D3ntriQt
Dear Mike:
For sometime now there has been a project on Palmdale's
drawing boards commonly referred to as the Amargosa Croek
Assocement District or 90-1. You know of our strong opposition to
this gargantuan intrusion into our valley. As 1 recall, yogi haves
voiced serious concerns about what was being proposod and had
indicated that properly noticed and conducted public hearings would
be required before you could validly assess what the Coarity's
position on the matter should be.
A draft EIR was made public recently by the city of
Palmdale. our people spent many, many hours carefully reviewing
tha document and in preparing an appropriate response. That.
response was compilod and submitted within the limited time
allowed. it called attention to no leso than one hundred
deficiencies, the majority of which are significant. The Palmdale
staff referred our response to their orange County consultant.
That firm through its responass demonstrated a noticeable lack of
knowledge relating to the area on which thoy have been asked to
report. The consultant's responses made on behalf of the City
completely avoided many of the deficiencies cited and glossed over
others with glib generalities about plans to make plans in the
future. Our response not only pointed out the deficiencies but
prudently presented alternative solutions to many of the major
deficiencies. The city0s written response was that they would not
take the time nor the interest to review the suggested alternative
solutions since we had not provided "constructive plans or
specific design solutions".
Michael D. Antonovich
August 24, 1993
Page 2
The nswent davalopmont in what auspiciouuly appears to be
a jaunt along a devious route to satisfying the dedicated decirr, of
some members of the Palmdale Council is that thin prodigous
assessment district projoct has now bcon relabeled a public work=
project. Through thin strategy the Palmdale City Council cleverly
avoided the usual public hearing and planning commission proccnn,
The City has shrewdly choson to treat thin major construction
ptuject as something akin to the repair of a pothole in the, road
for which there is obviously no need for the usual planning review.
* On Monday, the Council held a hoaring on the draft. EIR at
which we appeared and submitted an appropriate response to the
city's response. We were informod that a '12 hour notice tucked
away in the legal notice section of the paper was all that was
required. we are also told by the people at Palmdale City Hall
that there is no need to have a public Rearing since this is now a
public works or improvement project.
We anticipate that the next episode of these dubious
taotirs to untold will be an approach to the County and a request
that through a joint program they have the County's cooperation in
condemning property and building this monstrous super highway into
the heart of Leona Valley. At this juncture it. nt-cros clear that
they are unwilling to submit the matter to public scrutiny and have
no wish to ac +pt public input which could change their plan no
matter how meritorious such changas might be. The project is
greatly oversized and admittedly would accommodate the future
development of some 22,000 homes in the Leona Valloy area where
there are today less than 600.
Palmdale's planning consultants on this project have
openly envisioned carving this major highway through Leona Valley
all the way to Johnson Road. Needless to say, thiiidea of planning
for Leona Valley's future while it is not a part of Palmdale and
the poop]* affected are in no way involved in the process is a
display of the most distasteful arrogance.
Mike, we strongly urge that you oppose this scheme to
obtain County participation in this highly unpopular plan to ravage
Leona valley and that you make your opposition clearly known at an
early point in time.
These are not easy matters for any of us and I know that
you havu given this issue much of your very genuine consideration.
The good people of Leona Valley need your help.
Should any of these documents I've mentioned in this
letter or any other information he desired to help you in fairly
and fully assessing what is being thrust upon xis without our
consent, I trust you will not hesitate to contact me.
Michael D. Antonovich
Auguat. 24, 1993
Page 3
With warmest personal regards, 1 am
S lntgrvSy
X ER�7
I.LTCOAT
President
RRM:ymd
eft A
Dru.ier�xtttr
�;IILiYT#l? Iii$ .�Itl�k'j
1�Y
MICI IAEL D ANTONOVICH
,:,FFFII�:JF RIFTh
Septemboe 28, 1992
I
Mr, Thomr,a E. Jackson
Chairman, r.ocal Agency
Formation Commission
Room 363, Hall of Adminletration
X00 West Tcmp7n 5t- e
Los Angele9,)C� > a
Deer.C►+ math Jac,J(son"
Todd yAFCO is to deal once again with
the proposed annexat000f
Ritter Ranch to 1114 City of Palmdale. As you know, many peiple
from the nearby cuimuunities of Leona Valley, Acton, Agua DulCe
and even the City of Santo Clarita are very concazncd shout the
impacts this annexation and the eubsequenL deveiopmenL Cif Ritter
Ranch will have on these communities. Indeed there is even a
adivigion nnexationiispiniOn theobesteCity interestsnoflabout Palmdalehether this
As you know, I have consistently opposed the annexation of that
portion of Ritter Ranch' lying west of a common ridgeline that
ri'egs Leona valley because the future development of that
property would not conform to either the County General Plan or.
Lhc newly adopted Leona valley Community Standards District.
artCountDe�
he
works thatOf Publ
There isltheaentireLRitter®Ranchtdevelopment wouldent overburdenlc
nearby roadways (see attached).
Given all of the above, 1 urge' LAFCO to give chis issun careful
consideration. At a minimum, I would ask that you not include
any,p rtif;n of Leona valley within this annexation.
11
shear ly
ICHAEL AN'TONOVICH
Snpet*isor, Fifth.ilissr3ct
MDAscdv
!' rttreh/doe
^'. AttachmonL
cc: Leona V.Alley Town Council
o�xr of j6nyerktt!aors
°,. Gnn#p of ` Eoei "ItIlgelea
MICHAEL D. ANTONCIVICH
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
Ju 1 y J, 1991 fur ERVIC,0R FIFTH DISTRICT
Mr. Robert W. Toone, Jr.
City Administrator
City of Palmdale
709 Eas almdale Boulevard
palmda a, alif nia 93550
Dear Mr. o
I am in r- ipt of your recent letter soaking my consent to allnw
the City of Palmdale to assume jurisdiction over various
unincorporated areas for the purpose of permitting your Amargosa
Assessment District to proceed.
However, as Mr. Vannatta of my staff explained to Leon Swain, our
agreement is that no dcciaion was to have been made by my office
until after the City had hosted formal public hearing on these
issues that would be open to the affoctcd rc=iacnrd an3'---
landowners in the unincorporated arena. I am award of the fact
that there is substantial opposition from my constituents in the
County areas as well as some from within the City.
Until such time as these issues can be addressed at open public
hearings, I do not feel it would be fair to these constituents
to surrender jurisdiction to the City. I would appreciate being
advised of your hearing schedule.
tr t that thi answers your questions.
sniterel
M 6HADL D. ANTONOVICII
C irman of the Board
S pervisor, Fifth District
MDA:cdv
amargo/doc
CC, William "Pete" Knight, Mayor.
Leon Swain, City of Palmdale
�Zhomas Tidemanson, Department of Public Works
�, Robcrt Mallinont., Leona Valley Town Council
RC)OM GC.n. I,A( I C)r Af3Mq-.16TriATICiN. 4.00 WCnT TCMI•LL 7111LLl LUC' ANC-LLLCl. CA 00n1? • TF1 FM1I-ICINF (:'% 1l 174:+1.
1213) 07A 1010 WAR)
2i92o'vaienca 51%a
• SU'le 300
Cay of Santa Clanta
Cahtcm a 9 i 355
r
of
Santa Clarita
January 21, 1992
Phone
(ou51259-2489
Fax
(805) 259-8125
Honorable Nm- J. Knight, Mayor
City of Palmdale
38300 Horth Sierra Highway
Palmdale, California 93550
nW
Re: Ritter Ranch - City of Santa Clarita Traffic and Related
Concerns for the Project
Dear Mayor Knight,
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at the January 13,
1992 City Council meeting on our traffic and related concerns
over the proposed Ritter Ranch. We believe a good deal of
important information was made available at the meeting.
Our mutual staffs have met since that meeting to discuss some
• of the technical issues: primarily traffic flow to and from the
project. we appreciate this opportunity to learn more about
the specifics of the project. Mr. Tom Horne, the City's
Traffic and Transportation engineer was extremely helpful.
Our staff has reviewed the information made available by
Mr. Horne. This information included a copy of the Traffic
Modeling Study conducted, by DRS Associates which formed the
basis for the traffic and circulation section of the draft
EIR. Mr. Horne was also able to amend the estimated volume of
traffic from Ritter Ranch that would be expected to use Bouquet
Canyon Road from 100 trips per day to 600 daily trips.
our staff reports that the DRS study was conducted on a
subregional basis using 23 separate projects, including Ritter
Ranch as the assumed land use scenario. The study also assumed
the completion of the circulation network throughout the area.
Little or no specific information was made available regarding
the impacts of Ritter Ranch on a short or long-term basis. we
have concerns over the ability to recognize these specific
impacts in order to mitigate them as they materialize. We
atrongly.�believe that adoption of the Ritter Ranehr.Specific,
P1"an and associated doeuments" as'well•as certification of the
ziR•- would `be "inappropriate based on the limited specific,
information made available in this study.
•
39`
•
Hr. Nm J. Knight
January 21, 1992
Page 2
We still have .concerns over the projected increase in traffic
on Bouquet Canyon Road, be it 100 trips, 600 trips, or
6,000 trips. Obviously 100 or 600 trips per day increase would
have minimal impact on Santa Clarita. An increase to 7,500 to
8,800 trips per day, as depicted in the DKS model as the
forecasted daily traffic at buildout (Table 4-2) is, however,
extremely worrysome to us.
This value has caused us to shift our concerns somewhat away
from the Ritter Ranch project and toward the buildout of the
Antelope Valley as currently proposed.
It becomes clearer to us, both the technical staff and the
policy makers in Santa Clarita, that the real issue here,is the
Yu'E�fe t�ujggt�g'i pa�E^geno rna us
The DKS study identified numerous locations in the city of
Palmdale that are forecasted to operate well over your stated
goal of Level of Service "C" at buildout. Examples from
Table 4-2 of the report are:
• Elizabeth Lake Road from 25th Street through to
• 10th Street Nest. (LOS -E L P)
• Ritter Ranch Road from 20th Street Nest to Tierra Subida.
(LOS -E)
• Bridge Road from Elizabeth Lake Road to City Ranch Road.
(LOS -T)
• 25th Street Nest frock Avenue P-8 to Elisabeth Lake Road.
(LOS -9)
You may be wondering why we are concerned about the level of
traffic service on those streets in Palmdale. We see the level
of service on the streets designed to be the major arterials
serving Ritter Ranch and the balance of the southwest area of
Antelope Valley as eztremely important to Santa Clarita. We
vier the use of Bouquet Canyon Road today as primarily the
result of frustration over more acceptable routes. Continuing
to frustrate those trips by promatinq greater levels of delay
on alternative routes would simply serve to further impact
Santa Clarita.
•
396
Mr. Wm J. Knight
January 21, 1992
Page -3
The proximity of Ritter Ranch and the southwest area of the
City of Santa Clarita has also become a topic of discussion.
It has been reported that the distance along Bouquet Canyon
Road from the nearest point of Ritter Ranch to the closest
intersection in Santa Clarita is nearly 25 miles. Typically,
this distance is sufficient for all _potentially impacting
traffic to be absorbed into the community or surrounding area.
We believe Bouquet Canyon Road to be substantially different
than the typical situation. once a traveler leaves the
southwest area of the Antelope Valley on Bouquet Canyon Road
there is virtually no place to be absorbed into the community
until you reach Santa Clarita. We envision Santa Clarita
Valley as being a prime jobs provider for residents of the
Antelope Valley. The County of Los Angeles, for instance,
recently approved a 12,000,000 square foot industrial project
at Interstate 5 and State Route 126. We see Bouquet Canyon
road to Copperhill Road (Rye Canyon) being a fairly attractive
route between Palmdale and this major .employment center
regardless of the interveninq distance.
'^ •"`�"'�`�' _�' + • 1 -,r est that the
Withy thas� c�tars
tralff aepp, 1_le - the
•
!tout z rest:, ase p before
lg e�spprpvat. ` i given,,tc,,ilittac 1t eh. We believe you will
find, as we have, that some of those impacts may be difficult,
if not financially impossible, to mitigate as projects coma to
realisation. We recommend that specific studies be conducted
to measure the short and long-term impacts of Ritter Ranch
before the specific plan is adopted and the EIR certified.
on the subject of mitigation, we want to take this opportunity
to support your staff's position on widening several roadways
serving the southwest area and Ritter Ranch specifically.
Those roadways ares
• City Ranch Road between Bridge Road and Tierra Subida.
Ritter Ranch Road, widen to four lanes from Elisabeth Lake
Road to Avenue S.
Mr. Borne indicates that the applicant does not believe these
improvements necessary or within the responsibility of the
project. Mr. Borne's analysis of throviddy e$ that
these improvements are essential to p 4 needed
• capacity between Ritter Ranch and State Route 14.
i
397
Mr. Wm J. Knight
January 21, 1992
Page
•
We strongly agree with this analysis. He believe that every
effort should be made to improve the level of service
throughout the travel corridor between Ritter, Ranch and
downtown Palmdale in order to minimize the impacts to Bouquet
Canyon Road and the City of Santa Clarita. He are also
reminded of concerns for capacity on the freeway expressed by
Caltrans at the January 13, 1992 meeting.
He appreciate this opportunity to clarify our 'concerns for
Ritter Ranch and the ultimate buildout of the Antelope valley..
If there is anything we can do to assist the city of Palmdale
in examining these issues, we would be pleased to offer
whatever aid at our disposal.
Sincerely,
"Jill Rlajic
Mayor
ED:LMB:dl3:399
•
31
Q
swrl y Ys•w ~s 410,
h
li
i
Y
.Y
u
Y
..
ii
d
W
r �
I
e_
Q
Z
x
QODU
4
0
i
<
S
Y
M C
"=
1Wf� 9 'I"m 3N131 4101
A
e
`
p
moo`
o
D V
ti•
�
O Y
p1K� 9 03 4341
..
C6
.a` a •
y V ,
�
o b
�S ti
p
Z
7
Y
e
7
N
�• Y
�
ww
J Y
y�
y �
M
49
O
f
�
I
t
i
I
1
t
Y
9
s
l
M
N
e
Y
i
V
�1
QODU
4