Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-04-26 - RESOLUTIONS - LACO PROJ 92-075 (2)RESOLUTION NO. 94-51 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES APPEALING THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED VALENCIA MARKETPLACE REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PROJECT (LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROJECT NO. 92-075) WHEREAS, the proposed Valencia Marketplace project includes 859,740 square feet of retail commercial uses and restaurants, located on 83.7 acres immediately west of the Golden State (I-5) Freeway, south of McBean Parkway, and north of Pico Canyon Road, to 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 Parcel 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 for the entire 83.7 acre project site; and WHEREAS, the DEIR 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, 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; and WHEREAS, the proposed project would generate 26,333 average daily vehicle trips to and from the site, and the DEIR 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 primary noise source affecting the project site is the I-5 Freeway, and the DEIR does not include discussion of potential long-term noise impacts to the project site, patrons, or employees; and WHEREAS, the aesthetics analysis of the DEIR 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 DEIR 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 DEIR 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, there exist infrastructure deficits and service deficiencies in the Santa Clarita Valley due to past development practices, 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 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 DEIR does not adequately address or discuss potential conflicts with adjacent land uses, nor does it contain R.... No. 94-51 adequate mitigation measures to reduce such impacts; 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, a number of residents will likely stand in opposition to this project as presently designed; and WHEREAS, the DEIR contains many assessments of potential environmental impacts which do not adhere to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) criteria for determining significant environmental effects per CEQA Section 15064; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita submitted a technical comment letter on the DEIR dated December 14, 1993, and oral testimony on December 15, 1993, and January 2, 1994, to the County Regional Planning Commission regarding the Valencia Marketplace proposal; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita provided formal comment to the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commis9ion in correspondence dated December 14, 1993, on the proposed project and DEIR, all to be part of the official record; and WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Department staff's March 17, 1994 responses do not adequately address several of the specific questions raised in the City's December 14, 1993 comment letter, and did not address the testimony presented by the City on the project and DEIR to the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission on December 15, 1994 and January 2, 1994, nor did the responses reference the City of Santa Clarita and impacts to City services and facilities; and WHEREAS, the County's response to the City's comments indicate that the sales -related travel statistics from the DEIR air quality assumptions are reasonable for use in projecting the geographic source of project sales dollars; and WHEREAS, the County's response to the City's comments indicate that the project is only obligated to mitigate project impacts, not to overcome existing infrastructure deficits; and WHEREAS, the County indicates that, based upon project DEIR air quality and traffic statistics, 65% of project sales will come from within five miles of the project; another 22% of project sales will come from up to 17.5 miles away along the I-5 and SR 14 freeway corridors; and that 13% of sales will come from the San Fernando Valley; and WHEREAS, on March 30, 1994, the Los Angeles County Rea.. N.. 91-51 Regional Planning Commission considered and approved the tentative parcel map (TPM 8676), conditional use permit (CUP 92-075), and oak tree permit (OTP 92-075), for the proposed Valencia Marketplace project; and WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission forwarded the Valencia Marketplace project to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors with a recommendation to approve the requested zone change and sub -plan amendment to allow the project; and WHEREAS, the City Manager's office authorized Community Development Department Staff to prepare the appropriate application materials to appeal the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission's action; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department Staff prepared an appeal of this project to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to allow the Board an opportunity to review the project as a whole, and to address the fiscal policy issues associated with the Valencia Marketplace proposal; and WHEREAS, on April 6, 1994, the City filed an appeal to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors of the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission's conditional approval of the requested tentative parcel map, conditional use permit, oak tree permit, and recommended granting of a zone change and general plan amendment to allow the proposed Valencia Marketplace project. THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND FIND AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City finds that the DEIR is deficient and should be expanded to further analyze the impacts to biological resources, traffic and circulation (including Congestion Management Plan (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 DEIR 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 by the County 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 Rego. No. 94-51 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 DEIR should examine an alternative to the project which preserves the area designated as Hillside Management. SECTION 4. The traffic analysis in the DEIR 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 additional impacts which are identified. SECTION 5. In addition to roadway and intersection improvements recommended in the DEIR, 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 6. The noise analysis in the DEIR should be expanded to address potential long-term impacts upon employees and patrons at the project site. SECTION 7. The aesthetic analysis in the DEIR should be expanded to include architectural details as viewed from the Interstate 5 Freeway, a 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 8. 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 9. 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, Re,o. No. 91-51 institutional and educational land uses. SECTION 10. 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 (FEIR) prior to certification and be carefully considered prior to any approvals being granted for this project. SECTION 11. 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 12. The County's response to the City's comments do not clarify the relation between infrastructure, sales revenues, and the residential location of patrons, and does not provide an analysis to determine compliance with the County's Development Monitoring System to overcome the existing infrastructure deficit created by past development practices. SECTION 13. The City strongly disagrees with the County's assumption that "...the project is only obligated to mitigate project impacts, not to overcome existing infrastructure deficits." This project would clearly exacerbate the problems associated with the existing infrastructure deficit. Adequate mitigation requires facility improvements which also address the effects of secondary consequences related to the effects of primary consequences, not just directly from the project itself, even if those effects are several steps removed from the project in the chain of cause and effect. SECTION 14. Should the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approve this project, the City's position is that allocation of tax funds for capital improvements should be appropriated into a capital improvement program based upon a ratio commensurate with the initial and on-going impact which this Project would have on those portions of the City and County experiencing those impacts. SECTION 15. Based upon the County's use of project air quality and traffic statistics to determine potential infrastructure impacts, the City takes the position that it is reasonable and consistent to use these statistics to determine the appropriate allocation of project generated tax revenues which should be committed to the City of Santa Clarita and the -- unincorporated area of the Santa Clarita Valley for the services, R.... No. 94-51 utilities, and facilities needed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with this project, and to help overcome the existing infrastructure deficit. SECTION 16. The City of Santa Clarita has requested that, should this project be implemented, the County of Los Angeles make a commitment to allocate at least 80% of this project's future tax revenues to help eliminate the existing deficits and inadequacies to infrastructure, facilities, ongoing law enforcment and other services in the Santa Clarita Valley. SECTION 17. The City of Santa Clarita requests that in the event of an annexation to the City of Santa Clarita, said annexation would be based upon an agreement between the City and the County providing for sharing of sales tax and other revenue sources generated in the area, consistent with a formula providing to the City a share of such revenue at a minimum to be commensurate with the cost of providing municipal services, including the necessary supporting infrastructure attributable to the area. The determination of the cost of municipal services attributable to the area shall be fixed by mutual agreement between the City and County, using the County's Development Monitoring System and any other documentation supporting the cost of providing services to the area. SECTION 18. Based upon the Air Quality statistics used in the DEIR to assess the infrastructure impacts, it would be reasonable to use these statistics to determine the appropriate allocation of future project generated tax revenues which should be committed to the City of Santa Clarita and the Santa Clarita Valley. SECTION 19. The proportional allocation of project generated taxes, consistent with project DEIR air quality and traffic statistics, would justify a commitment of all project generated tax revenues to infrastructure improvements and services in the following proportions: 65% within five miles of the project; 22% to those areas along the Golden State Freeway and Antelope Valley Freeway corridors up to 17.5 miles away (exclusively north of the San Fernando Valley); and 13% to the unincorporated areas of the San Fernando Valley. Based upon the these statistics, it appears appropriate that both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the Santa Clarita Valley should receive 87% (65% plus 22%) of all taxes generated by this project. The City has requested 80% of these revenues. SECTION 20. The City supports the efforts of the residents and Town Council of Stevenson Ranch to ensure that the Proposed Valencia Marketplace 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 Rap.. N.. 91-51 Council of Stevenson Ranch to resolve outstanding major issues of importance to that community. SECTION 21. 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 26th day of April 1994. ayor ATT 4ty T: CClerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) sa 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 26th day of April, 1994 by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: city cw=i1\rem94-51.m1c "So. No. 94-51 Heidt, Smyth, Boyer, Darcy, Pederson None None e� C ty Clerk