HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-01-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - NEWHALL RANCH (2)City Manager Approval
Item to be presented by:
Jeffrey Lambert
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DATE: January 14, 1996
SUBJECT: A REVIEW OF THE CITY S CONCERNS REGARDING THE
NEWHALL RANCH PROJECT; WHICH PROPOSES TO DEVELOP
APPROXIMATELY 25,000 RESIDENTIAL UNITS OVER 11,963
ACRES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY. THE PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES 5.7 MILLION SQUARE
FEET OF COMMERCIAL, BUSINESS PARK, AND MIXED USE
ZONING, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 7.7 MILLION GALLON PER
DAY WATER RECLAMATION PLANT, AND 6,000 ACRES OF OPEN
SPACE ENCOMPASSING THE SANTA CLARA RIVER CORRIDOR
AND THE SANTA SUSANA MOUNTAINS. A DIRECTED COURSE
OF ACTION TOWARDS THE NEWHALL RANCH PROJECT WILL
ALSO BE CONSIDERED.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
The Newhall Ranch project, located within the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County,
is a large scale project proposing the development of approximately 25,000 residential units
over 11,963 acres. In addition to the residential units, the project also proposes to include
5.7 million square feet of Commercial, Business Park, and Mixed Use area, the construction
of a 7.7 million gallon per day Water Reclamation Plant, and 6,000 acres of open space
encompassing the Santa Clara River corridor and the Santa Susana Mountains. The
project's requested entitlements include a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change,
Conditional Use Permit, Water Reclamation Plant, Development Agreement, and Parcel
Map.
On November 26, 1996, the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission continued
the public hearing schedule for opposition on the Newhall Ranch project to the date of
January 16, 1997. A second public hearing was also tentatively scheduled for the date of
February 18, 1997, which would be held for the applicant's rebuttal statements. If the
Regional Planning Commission is unable to accommodate the remaining speakers who are
in opposition to the project on January 16, 1997, the Commission will schedule additional
time for testimony.
Ado -pied: L-- Agenda Item: //
Attached are the comments and.the revised list of City concerns to be presented verbally to
the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission at the January 16; 1997 Newhall
Ranch public hearing. Per the City Council's direction at the January 7, 1997 Study Session,
staff reviewed the original list, and revised the list to reflect the City's remaining concerns
pertaining to the project. At the request of the Council, staff has also incorporated a higher
level of detail into the list than was previously presented at the January Study Session.
Mf MIN RN P01-17MI►
1) Accept the attached list of City concerns regarding the Newhall Ranch project;
2) direct Councilmember Klajic to present the list of concerns to the Los Angeles
County Regional Planning Commission at the January 16, 1997 public hearing; and,
3) request that the Regional Planning Commission deny the Newhall Ranch project
as currently designed until all City issues are resolved.
Councilmember Majic's presentation and revised list of City concerns
Councilmember Klajic's original memo to Council
City's response letter to the Newhall Ranch DEIR
GAC:JDR:lep
ma cilia rllst;jdr
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
M1 1 Wi sIMIQ�il►1!
TO: Los Angeles County Planning Commission
FROM: Jill HIajic, Santa Clarita City Council Member
DATE: January 16, 1997
SUBJECT: NEWHALL RANCH
Good Commissioners:
My name is Jill HIajic. I am a Councilmember in the City of Santa Clarita, my address
is 21217 Jimpson Way, Santa Clarita. I am here today to make it very clear not only the
City's position in regard to this proposal - but to let you know my personal position as
well as thousands of resident of Santa Clarita.
You must understand that we are not just merely concerned, nor are we simply
bystanders. We are going to be directly affected by this massive intrusion into our daily
lives. Unbridled, urban sprawl is completely unacceptable. We are willing to do
whatever is necessary to work with you to make this project livable, all in the spirit of
cooperation, intergovernmental relations and better planning practices.
First, we must agree that there will be no further land use changes, that this
development and all others to follow, will fall well within the County's and our City's
General Plan. This project, as it stands today, must be denied, and you must tell the
developer to come back with a project that stays within the County's and City's present
General Plan. After this decision has been made clear to the developer, then we can
proceed with further discussions on what will be necessary and acceptable for further
growth and development the Santa Clarita Valley.
I know you are completely aware of the severe lack of adequate infrastructure in Santa
Clarita. So, any further discussion of development must first be accompanied with a
complete financial analysis of not only infrastructure such as sewers, roads, mass
transit, schools, fire and Sheriff facilities, libraries, parks and recreational programs,
and youth and adult services with long term financing and planning.
Since the previous County Commissioners and developers are at fault for our present
deficit in facilities and services, I know you will exert your obligation to, not only provide
total adequate services and facilities; but consider helping our City make up for the
years of neglect.
So, now, let's recap: You have decided the project will not be any larger than your own
present General Plan will allow. You will fully implement your development monitoring
system, as well as integrate all permitted and pending projects, and you will require
County Planning staff and the developer to detail a financial plan for not only immediate
planning for adequate infrastructure, but identifying each need, appropriate services and
how and when each item will be provided and payed for now and in the future. Once you
have established the acceptable size (how many units could be adequately serviced on
this site), and you have determined that the project will not only be financially viable for
itself but also for the City and County ( you must determinethatthis project, in the long
term, will not cost the City or County tax payers additional money).
Then we can move on to discuss specific issues such as:
Building Newhall Ranch according to the City's Development standards,
including the integration of our standard street widths throughout the project,
grading activities consistent with our Hillside Ordinance and Subdivision
Ordinance, protection of the native oak trees in accordance with our Oak Tree
Ordinance, and the incorporation of residential, commercial, and industrial
developments which would meet our Unified Development Code standards.
Developing the project according to goals listed in the Joint City -County Planning
Program Background report, which was prepared jointly by the County Planning
Department and the City's Community Development Department. This was
accepted as a policy document in December of 1992. The policy states that, "...as
the City has grown, so has its awareness of the need to work together with the
County. Ultimately, the quality of life in the Santa Clarita Valley will depend
heavily on how this happens." The promotion of compatible and sound planning
and the enhancement of the quality of life in both the incorporated and
unincorporated areas of the Santa Clarita Valley, along with the promotion of
compatible land use policies and development standards in the Santa Clarita
Valley, are just two of the goals listed that should be attained.
• Relocating the proposed library to the mixed use village of Potrero Valley for
greater accessibility to the general public.
• The removal of all residential housing units .in the High Country Special
Management area, in order to better protect the Santa Susana Mountains
Significant Ecological Area.
• The removal of the designated right-of-way areas near the Salt Creek Corridor.
This is a major wildlife corridor which should be left in its natural state.
• Discussion of the different alternatives for bank stabilization of the Santa Clara
River, and justification as to why the use of ungrouted rip -rap is the preferable
option. If alternatives to this type of bank stabilization have not been discussed
with the State Department of Fish and Game, then such discussions should be
initiated. The City feels that the best alternative to using ungrouted rip -rap for
channelization of the river is to not build anything in the floodplain at all.
Dedication of the Santa Clara River corridor and Santa Susana Mountains to the
City of Santa Clarita.
Incorporating landform grading techniques in all hillside areas, as opposed to
designing the project with typical grading practices. In addition to using this
grading technique, the hillsides should be planted with native slope materials.
Addressing and incorporating the standards of the revised municipal stormwater
NPDES permit into the evaluation of potential water quality impacts for the
project. This Permit was adopted on July 15, 1996, a date which coincides with
the release of the Newhall Ranch DEIR for public review. We acknowledge that
the requirements of the revised Permit were not available to be addressed during
the preparation of the DEIR, but feel that the revised Permit should be addressed
prior to certification of the final EIR.
• Specification of criteria for the "Santa Clara River Corridor Concept" that good
surface runoff water quality be maintained through prevention or minimization
of non -point source pollutants. The proposed land uses will establish a new
source of potential surface runoff pollutants which may adversely impact the
biological resources of the Santa Clara River.
• The description of the functions of water quality basins throughout the Specific
Plan area. The DEIR stated that sixteen water quality basins are located
throughout the project site. The DEIR should also describe how they will
maintain good surface water quality, and if they will be used to provide data for
program monitoring.
• The update and expansion of Best Management Practices in the DEIR. Pollution
prevention/reduction activities should also be incorporated in the Specific Plan
as an ongoing community program.
• The preparation and approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program for
the project.
• Furthering the description of the project's use of reclaimed water, expanding
upon the possibility of integrating the Newhall Ranch reclaimed water system
with other existing and future Santa Clarita Valley reclaimed water systems.
• Justification for the elimination of area from the Santa Clara River Significant
Ecological Area. If it is the case that the area being removed from this SEA is
being eliminated because it does not contain the sensitive habitat that a true
Significant Ecological Area contains, them that should be clearly stated in the
Biota Section of the DEIR.
Expansion of the project's traffic report to include -
An expansion of the Specific Plan Trip Components to show the percent
of Specific Plan trip -ends into the existing boundary of the City of Santa
Clarita, including fluctuations of these trip -ends over the years;
The analysis of traffic impacts at different phases of project construction;
Further analysis of the traffic impacts caused by the potential deletion of
Pico Canyon Road from the Master Plan of Highways. The DEIR shows
no impact on Lyons Avenue, McBean Parkway, Valencia Boulevard, Magic
Mountain Parkway, or Newhall Ranch Road eat of the I-5 within the City
area. This needs to be revisited for accuracy, and also should include
a.m./p.m. peaks. The City always recommends that projects contain
various access points, and discourages the deletion of such;
The inclusion on all proposed roadways on-site, along with the connection
links, of an adequate right-of-way width to accommodate on -street bike
lanes; and
Alternative analyses to the Conceptual Alternative Highway Plan. This
Plan could vary as the City is in the process of amending the General
Plan/Circulation Element. There are significant deletions/changes which
we do not anticipate will take place. Some alternatives might be
controversial, such as the deletion of the extension of Avenue Tibbits to
Tourney Road at Magic Mountain Parkway. This is a major link to the
industrial area, and its deletion has a significant impact on McBean
Parkway .... it causes McBean to carry over 70,000 cars per day!
The City is not prepared at this time to request specific mitigation regarding the
project's traffic impacts. Once the above mentioned issues have been addressed,
the City will be suggesting mitigation measures to lessen the impacts of Newhall
Ranch on City Circulation.
Further discussions should include:
The adequate expansion of roadways which connect our two communities to carry
the passenger cars, service vehicles, and public transit buses generated by the
project, especially due to the interim period of time in which residents will need
City services. Commercial/industrial construction always occurs after the
commencement of residential construction, thus the City will be providing for the
Newhall Ranch residents services during the beginning phases of.the project's
construction.
Addressing project phasing in the DEIR in order to more accurately anticipate
the geographic distribution of transit trips. The City, the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, and Metrolink will benefit from this analysis.
The lack of a future estimate of transit need in the DEIR. The projects major
infrastructure needs to be able to accommodate transit service, and should not
be designed at subdivision stages. This is too late.
Provisions for Mass Transit. The applicant should contribute to the restoration
of the Metrolink line, as opposed to solely reserving the right-of-way for such
Financing of the future transit need for the project at full build -out. As of now,
the Santa Clarita Transit fleet would need to be expanded by 48 buses in order
to serve the project site. Additionally, the hourly cost to provide such service
would be approximately $42 per hour in 1996 dollars. These costs don't even
include the cost of roadway improvements needed to ensure that Santa Clarita
Transit's currently operating routes are not impacted by the Newhall Ranch
Project.
Ensuring that future developers will provide for non -motorized modes of
transportation at future subdivision stages. This should, at present, include the
incorporation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations.
Resolving and specifically describing the financing and/or reimbursement plan for
the Water Reclamation Plant.
The establishment of specific measures that the project will take to
reduceldispose of solid waste, assuming that no new construction or expansion
of existing landfill will occur.
The assurance that the developer will require future subdividers to incorporate
residential design standards to accommodate solid waste/recycling efforts. It is
not enough to just reiterate the fact that Newhall Ranch will meet the minimum
County requirements with regard to handling solid waste.
Incorporating standards for composting and material recovery facilities
throughout the project site.
The addition of active parkland to the project site. Using City standards, the
developer would receive 30 percent credit towards Quimby requirements for
private facilities. At a total requirement of 230 acres of parkland, 30 percent
credit would be about 70 acres for a remaining balance of 160 acres.
Neighborhood and community parks with active uses total about 113 acres,
leaving approximately 47 acres yet to be credited towards Quimby requirements.
The addition of a major sports center which would accommodate community
tournaments or league play. Currently, there are no plans for such a facility.
The financing and staffing of public parks. Who will maintain the parks? Who
will pay forthe maintenance? What recreation programs/staff will be provided
by the applicant? As of right now, The City provides extensive parks and
recreation programs which are open to all residents of the Santa Clarita Valley.
Additionally, the City is bound by agreements with the County which preclude
the City from charging non-resident fees. Many of the residents we serve live in
Stevenson Ranch, Val Verde, North Valencia, Saugus, and Agua Dulce. The
County does not currently fund any recreation programs in the Santa Clarita
Valley, and the City's Parks & Recreation services cannot adequately address the
needs of an additional population such as that of Newhall Ranch. Publicly funded
programs must be identified an funded for this project.
Funding and staffing of additional programs. Programs such as teen Anti-Gang
programs, should be incorporated into the Newhall Ranch project.
The inclusion of equestrian trails along the Santa Clara River corridor. The
Regional Santa Clara River Trail spans from the San Gabriel Mountains to the
east, west to the pacific Ocean in Oxnard. The City has developed a portion of
this trail which would also traverse through the Newhall Ranch project. The
DEIR addresses the Santa Clara River Trail as it relates to bicycles and
pedestrians, but does not address the equestrian element.
Tieing the project's trail system into the Santa Susana Mountains to Pico Canyon
Trail. The applicant has stated that topography dictates this as an impossible
task, but the City is not convinced that this is so. The massive size of this project
should be able to somehow provide a route across the site to Pico Canyon Trail.
Provisions to directly connect the project's trail system and the City's trails
system. Currently, gaps exist between the project's proposed trail system and
the City's trail system. It does not make sense to provide such an extensive trail
system only for their residents of Newhall Ranch to use, but not be able to
provide a regional link for the enjoyment of the residents of the Santa Clarita
Valley. If Newhall Ranch has negative affects on the Valley, then the applicants
should go the extra mile to provide amenities for the Valley.
Reaching agreement between the William S. Hart High School District and the
Castaic Union School District for school services. This should be accomplished
prior to any project approval. The youth are our future, the school districts know
what they need to provide a good education, and the applicant should be more
than willing to provide it. Full mitigation for the project's impacts on schools
should be based on the School District's Methodology.
Phasing for the development of schools. The DEIR does not address timing for
school development, thus it is anticipated that the City will be negatively
impacted by the buildout of the project in the short-term, or until the facilities
are developed and operational, however long that may be. Specific mitigation for
school impacts should be addressed in relation to the phasing of the project, as
well as the mechanism being proposed for the implementation of school facility
development.
Provisions for a fully-staffed Sheriff station at the project site. This would ensure
an adequate response time for all emergencies within and around the Specific
Plan site, without a decrease in service to the City. The outstanding service that
our officers provide is one of the major draws for both residents and businesses
to the Santa Clarita Valley. The addition of a Sheriff station on the Newhall
Ranch site will serve to provide excellent community service to the future
residents of Newhall Ranch, as well as to the City, and will help us maintain our
distinctive reputation as a safe, clean community.
Provisions for an operationalfire station prior to the approval of any
development projects related to the Specific Plan. This is due to the lack of
information regarding project phasing in the DEIR. The construction of such Fire
Station should be financed by the developer, with the funding of applicable staff
being guaranteed by the County of Los Angeles.
Discussion regarding the potential impacts to Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial
Hospital. The DEIR should address potential impacts to this and other hospital
and emergency care facilities existing in the Santa Clarita Valley, with respect
to the anticipated buildout of. the 1990 Santa Clarita Valley Areawide Plan as
amended. Various transportation routes and travel time to the hospital should
also be identified.
I'm sure you understand that this is. not a complete list of concerns and problems we
have with this project. rm also very much aware that you will have many others of your
own. But, I believe this will give us a good starting point. Please deny this project, and
send the developer and your County staff to begin meetings with the City in regard to
the design and planning for the future Newhall Ranch site.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Me s of the City Council
FROM: Jill Klajic, Council Member
DATE: January 7,1997
SUBJECT: Los Angeles County Planning Commission Hearing -January 16,1997
The Los Angeles County Planning Commission will meet January 16, 1997, to
discuss the Newhall Ranch Project.
Attached are comments that I would like to present to the Commission at this
hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Councilmember HIajic's representation at the Los Angeles County
Planning Commission Hearing on January 16, 1997.
COUNCIL/ MTC/bullpnt.jdr
Attachment
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Los Angeles County Planning Commission
FROM: Jill HIajic, Santa Clarita City Council Member
DATE: January 16, 1997
SUBJECT: NEWHALL RANCH
Good Commissioners:
My name is Jill HIajic. I am a Councilmember in the City of Santa Clarita, my address is 21217
Jimpson Way, Santa Clarita. I am here today to make it very clear not only the City's position
in regard to this proposal - but to let you know my personal position as well as thousands of
residents of Santa Clarita.
You must understand that we are not just merely concerned, nor are we simply bystanders. We
are going to be directly affected by this massive intrusion into our daily lives. Unbridled, urban
sprawl is completely unacceptable. We are willing to do whatever is necessary to work with you
to make this project livable, all in the spirit of cooperation, intergovernmental relations and
better planning practices.
First, we must agree that there will be no further land use changes, that this development and
all others to follow, will fall well within the County's and our City's General Plan. This project,
as it stands today, must be denied, and you must tell the developer to come back with a project
that stays within the County's and City's present General Plan. After this decision has been
made clear to the developer, then we can proceed with further discussions on what will be
necessary and acceptable for further growth and development the Santa Clarita Valley.
I know you are completely aware of the severe lack of adequate infrastructure in Santa Clarita.
So, any further discussion of development must first be accompanied with a complete financial
analysis of not only infrastructure such as sewers, roads, mass transit, schools, fire and Sheriff
facilities, libraries, parks and recreational programs, and youth and adult services with long
term financing and planning.
Since the previous County Commissioners and developers are at fault for our present deficit in
facilities and services, I know you will exert your obligation to, not only provide total adequate
services and facilities, but consider helping our City make up for the years of neglect.
So, now, lets recap: You have decided the project will not be any larger than your own present
General Plan will allow. You will fully implement your development monitoring system, as well
as integrate all permitted and pending projects, and you will require County Planning staff and
the developer to detail a financial plan for not only immediate planning for adequate
infrastructure, but identifying each need, appropriate services and how and when each item
will be provided and payed for now and in the future. Once you have established the acceptable
size (how many units could be adequately serviced on this site), and you have determined that
the project will not only be financially viable for itself but also for the City and County ( you
must determine that this project, in the long term, will not cost the City or County tax payers
additional money).
Then we can move on to discuss specific issues such as:
• Build Newhall Ranch according to the City's development standards.
• Do not remove SEA designations from the Santa Clara River/Santa Susana Mountains.
• Use different alternatives for bank stabilization of the Santa Clara River.
• Do not eliminate area from the Santa Clara River SEA.
• Expand/modify the project's traffic report prior to the City suggesting traffic mitigation
measures.
• Resolve financing/reimbursement plan for Water Reclamation Plant.
• Resolve issue of reclaimed water on a Valley -wide basis.
• Establish what measures the project will take to reduce/dispose of solid waste, assuming
that no new construction or expansion of existing landfills will occur.
• Resolve the operations and maintenance of public parks throughout the project.
• Dedicate the Santa Clara River corridor and Santa Susana Mountains to the City of
Santa Clarita.
• Identify proposed recreation programming/staffing at public parks and additional anti-
gang programs and identify funding.
• Resolve funding and building of necessary elementary and secondary school facilities.
• Ensure payment of the project's pro -rata share for transit services.
• Provide for Electric Vehicle charging stations at future commercial, industrial, and
residential sites.
• Incorporate residential design standards to accommodate solid wastelrecycling efforts.
Fa
• Incorporate standards for composting and material recovery facilities throughout the
project site.
• Include equestrian trails along the Santa Clara River Corridor.
• Tie the project's trail system into the Santa Susana Mountains to Pico Canyon Trail.
• Provide direct connections between the project's trails system and the City's trails
system.
• Provide for a fully -staffed sheriff station within the boundary of the project site.
• Construct a fire station, which must be fully operational, prior to the approval of any
development projects related to the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan.
I'm sure you understand that this is not a complete list of concerns and problems we have with
this project. I'm also very much aware that you will have many others of your own. But, I
believe this will give us a good starting point. Please deny this project, and send the developer
and your County staff to begin meetings with the City in regard to the design and planning for
the future Newhall Ranch site.
council \ bulltpnt.jdr—mtc
City of
Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Suite 300
Santa Clanta -
Califomia 91355.2198
October 28, 1996
Phone
(805)259-2489
Fax
(805) 259-8125
Mr. James Hard
Director of Regional Planning
County of Los Angeles
320 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
RE: CITY RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
("DEUr) AND SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE NEWHALL RANCH PROJECT
Attention: Kerwin Chili, Impact Analysis Section
Dear Mr. Hartl:
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the County of Los Angeles's
environmental review of this project. The City of Santa Clarita has reviewed the
DEER and Specific Plan for Project No. 94-087 (Newhall Ranch), and offers the
following responses and -suggested mitigation regarding areas and issues
germane to the City's interests.
The comments which follow are technical comments only, and do not reflect any
policy determinations or direction by the City Council of the City of Santa
Clarita. The following comments are intended solely to comply with the. City's
responsibility to respond to the DEIR as required by CEQA.
The City of Santa Clarita has reviewed the Specific Plan for the Newhall Ranch
project on two different levels: one level incorporated a review in very broad
context terms, and one level involved the review of.the Plan in specific detail.
In a broad context, the City has reviewed the Specific Plan with consideration to
future annexation proceedings. While the developer has stated that the
incorporation of Newhall Ranch into the City is unlikely, one can never predict
what the future may hold. One of the City's most immediate goals is to annex
property located on the west side of Interstate -5. Fifty years from now, we may
have incorporated the Valencia Commerce Center, the Marketplace, and/or the
Magic Mountain Theme Park We also feel that the possibility exists that future
residents of Newhall Ranch may"wish to be a part of our City. As such, we have
looked at the project as if future annexation of the community of Newhall Ranch
is a possibility.
PRINTED ON RECYCUO PAPER
Newhall Ranch DEIR and Specirc plan
October 28, (996
Page 2
The City of Santa Clarita suggests that the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan be built
according to the development standards currently establishedby the City.
Examples of such standards include integration of our standard street widths
throughout the project, grading activities consistent with our Hillside Ordinance
and Subdivision Ordinance, protection of the native oak trees according to our
Oak Tree Ordinance, and residential, commercial, and industrial developments
which would meet our Unified Development Code standards. While these
examples are not all-inclusive, and while designating specific standards at this
time may seem premature in light of the generalized nature of the current project
under review, the City would encourage the use of such standards for all projects
at future subdivision stages. The City is proud of the development that has
occurred since our incorporation, and a simple drive through the Santa Clarita
Valley demonstrates the progress and improvements that we, as a city, have
made since December of 1987.
If the project is developed, the City suggests that the County of Los Angeles and
the project proponent continue to include the City of Santa Clarita in the
Planning process. The Joint City -County Planning Program Background Report
(prepared jointly by the County of Los Angeles Regional Planning Department
and the City of Santa Clarity Community Development Department): was
accepted as a policy document,in December of 1992. The Planning Program
states that, "While the City of Santa Clarita was formed so that planning from
a local perspective could take place, the City shares the SCV with land governed
by Los Angeles County. As the City has grown, so has its awareness of the need
to work together with the County. Ultimately, the quality of life in the Santa
Clarita Valley will depend heavily on how this happens." The Planning Program
specifies goals which lead to this higher quality of life, including-
The
ncluding
The promotion of compatible and sound planning and the
enhancement of the quality of life in both the incorporated and
unincorporated areas of the Santa Clarita Valley;
The promotion of compatible land. use policy and development
standards in the Santa Clarita Valley;
The enhancement of infrastructure planning, design, and installation
in incorporated and unincorporated areas;
The coordination of development fees for infrastructure and other
public facilities;,
The utilization of locally -generated fees locally, both in the City and
in the unincorporated areas;
The maximization of opportunities for review and input on
discretionary projects; and,
The opportunity to provide fair and equitable means for public
representation and participation.
,Newhall RancA DEIR and Speciftc Plan
October 28, 1996
Page 3
The implementation of these goals, with respect to the Newhall Ranch Specific
Plan, is imperative if the Santa Clarita Valley is to be developed in.a consistent,
comprehensive and compatible manner.
On a specific level, the City suggests that the following changes be incorporated
into the Specific Plan.
Section 2: Development Plan
• The designation of Special Management Area ("SMA") should be an overlay
covering the Significant Ecological Area ("SEA*) portions of the property.
However, the SEA designations should not be removed from the Santa Clara
River or the Santa Susana Mountains. The designation of Significant
Ecological Area more closely resembles the sensitivity of these environments,
as compared to a "Special Management Area" designation. While an SMA
designation could still govern management of these areas, the SEA designation.
should be kept consistent throughout the Santa Clarita Valley, and should
remain.
Aland use overlay for public service facilities is considered appropriate, in lieu
of establishing specific building locations for these facilities at this time.
Consideration should be given to possibly relocating the proposed. library to
the mixed use village at the intersection of State Route -126 and proposed Long
Canyon Road. This would provide for greater accessibility to the general
public and the citizens of the community of Val Verde.
No development of residential housing units should be permitted within the
High Country Special Management Area ("SIA'). This area is still considered
to be a significant ecological area, and the proposed 15 estate lots should be
eliminated from the Specific Plan. This would provide for a better
topographical buffer between the High Country and the project's residential
units.
• Proposed roadway(s) and / or designated right -of --way areas near the Salt
Creek Corridor should be eliminated. This is a major wildlife corridor which
should not be disturbed by any future construction or any occupation within
the corridor's immediate vicinity.
While the Specific Plan states that the Regional River Trail will serve as a
transition area (between the proposed developments and the River Corridor),
the applicant should also incorporate language into the Specific Plan ensuring
a second transition area between the edge of the River Corridor and the
Regional River Trail. While this transition would be more limited in nature,
it would aid in the preservation of an area containing sensitive habitat.
It is imperative that residential and commercial development within the
project area provide good pedestrian access to future transit stops that will be
established as a result of the proposed project. Particularly with land uses
which are prime transit trip generators, such as the four mixed-use villages,
Newhall Ranch DEIR and Specific Plan
October 28, 1996
Page 4
and the business park areas, pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit -friendly design
should be incorporated. For example, within the mixed-use villages, design
should deviate from the typical parking -in -front, building -in -back model, which
does not promote pedestrian activity. In the business park areas, sidewalks
should be provided throughout, so that commuters can travel easily between
bus stops and their offices. Furthermore, if the business park is comprised of
oversized "superblocks", pedestrian paths that cut through the blocks should
be provided. Further comments regarding these and other design issues will
be provided at the subdivision map stage of the project.
Section 3. Development Regulations
• As stated above, the City of Santa Clarita recommends that the community of
Newhall Ranch be developed in compliance with the City's .development
standards. This would be the most desirable situation for the City, as a
possible future annexation would result in less complication if the community
were built to City standards. However, if this is not accomplished, the Specific
Plan should be the governing document, and should be compared to existing
Los Angeles County zoning and development regulations. The Specific Plan
states that in areas of discrepancy, the Specific Plan would be the governing
document, Language should be incorporated into the Specific Plan that states
that the community is subject to regulations of the Specific Plan and the Los
Angeles County Subdivision Ordinance, and that in areas o%discrepancy, the
most restrictive document shall prevail.
• Below is a list of recommended changes to the permitted use matrix in the
Specific Plan. The recommendations provided by the City result from the
experiences of the City s Planning Division staff, and would be beneficial to the
community of Newhall Ranch, and the Santa Clarita Valley in general, upon
implementation.
-All mechanical repair, boat, car or otherwise, should be required to be
performed within a structure.
-Maintenance yards and storage yards should be required to be screened
from public view with a block masonry wall.
-Rifle ranges should be subject to residential compatibility, unless the range
is specified as an indoor shooting range.
-Concrete batch plants should be subject to the approval of a conditional use
permit.
-Bars and microbreweries should be subject_to compatibility of surrounding
uses, including residences, schools, churches, hospitals, public playgrounds,
and youth facilities.
-The developer should add provisions regarding recycling facilities to the
permitted use matrix. Such provisions should include standards for
Newhall Ranch DEIR and Specific Plan
October 28, 1996
Page 5
Portable recycling containers in commercial and industrial zones, manned
recycling bins in commercial and industrial zones, recycling yards;
composting yards, and wormiculture operations.
-Explosives should be governed by the number of pounds of materials being
stored (e.g. gunpowder stored in excess of 750 lbs., other explosives stored
in excess of 100 lbs.).
Section 5: Specific Plan Implementation
• Adjustment / Transfer/ Conversion provisions are sensible and acceptable for
a project of this size and scope. However, public participation procedures
should be incorporated into certain "conversions" related to the Specific Plan.
In particular, public participation should be included within procedures for the
conversion(s) of land use(s) throughout the project site. As proposed, the
Specific Plan is basically administering the right to process zone changes
without public participation At a minimum, property owners who abut land(s)
being converted from residential to commercial, should be notified in writing
of the intent to change boundarylines separating land uses. Furthermore, the
property owners should be given a certain number of days to respond with
comments/concerns regarding such conversions. If property owners voice
concern about proposed land use conversions within the specified time frame,
then the decision to convert acreage should be subject to Regional Planning
Commission approval. A provision could be added that, in the case of land use
conversions, the Planning Commission is the final acting authority, and that
appeal of the Commission's determination to the Board of Supervisors is not
possible. Obviously future residents buy property/houses in particular
locations based upon many factors, one of which is often adjacent property
designations and permitted uses on neighboring lands. The City is in
agreement that the `non-specific" Specific Plan should allow for flexibility, but
not at the expense of future residents.
Director -approved changes to alladministrative actions should be subject to
the same public notification process as stated above. The Director should be
responsible for implementing a system in which all property owners originally
notified of a public hearing for an administrative action are informed that
specific changes (to an action that has been approved by the Commission) are
occurring regarding the previous action. Director -approved changes should be
subject to a 15 day appeal period, with appellants being subject to an appeal
fee. Stated conflicts could then be addressed by the Regional Planning
Commission, with the Commission,. once again, being the final acting
authority.
As a point.of clarification, the Specific Plan should incorporate examples of
what constitutes a "minor" change in roadways which are subject to Director
review. Do minor changes address roadway widths, alignment, or designation
changes from secondary to collector? Stating examples in the Specific Plan
could provide clarification for developers who wish to make what they consider
minor changes, but which the Director may consider to be major changes.
.VemhaU Ranch DEIR and Specific plan
October 28, 1996
Page 6
The aforementioned items should be considered prior to the Regional Planning
Commission forwarding a recommendation to the Los Angeles County Hoard of
Supervisors. If such recommendations are implemented, then the EIR should
address the changes made to the Specific Plan.
The following information contains a review of the Draft Environmental rmpact
Report ("DEIR") for the Newhall Ranch project. Such information consists of
areas to be studied further and/or addressed in the DEIR, and suggested
mitigation measures which will lessen the impact of the project on the City of
Santa Clarita,
Section 4.1 • Geotechnical and Soil Resources
• The DEIR should address the use of alternative design concepts that might
better mitigate the common problems created by typical grading practices.
The major concerns regarding such are aesthetics and. long term slope .
maintenance.
Aesthetic concerns should be addressed by incorporating landform grading
techniques in all hillside areas. Along with this proposed grading technique,
areas that are to be revegetated should be planted with native slope materials
to minimize the contrast between developed and natural areas. Landform
grading will result in a much more natural looking area than standard grading
practices, which create stark, contrasting angular hillside formations that
appear as abrupt changes to the adjacent natural areas. After standard
grading practices are completed, the angular slopes are often planted with
non-native materials that create glaring coloration changes from the adjacent
natural areas. These non-native materials often have difficulty surviving,
their maintenance can create a financial burden on residents, and large
quantities of water and other resources are needed to help them survive.
In nature, native plants help prevent the erosion of slopes. Wind, rain; and
gravity constantly work to erode natural hillside slope areas. This is a never.
ending process that had been continuing for millions of years: the steeper the
slope, the more susceptible it is to erosion and instability. Therefore, a look
at past standard grading practices tells us that changes in these practices
should be made if the long-term maintenance of the slopes is considered.
Although the Soils Engineer. or Geologist may state that the slopes will be
stable at certain maximum gradients, in the long run, constant maintenance
of the slopes may prove too costly, and deferred of discontinued maintenance
may result: in conditions that will allow failures to occur.
• The DEIR should address whether the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan will
incorporate such landform grading techniques, and if not, -should state the
manner in which the aforementioned problems with standard grading
practices will be handled by future developers.
Newhall Ranch DEIR and Specific Plan
October 28. 1996
Page 7
Section 4.2 • Flood
In -the Summary portion of the DEIR (Section 4.2 - Flood) Section b.(3),
Potential Impacts, is misleading because the DEIR compares the new proposed
impervious areas to the entire watershed, but not to the proposed project
developed area alone. In this case, the impervious area would be 58% of the
developed area. This section is also misleading because the statement,
"...construction of Newhall Ranch would not increase site runoff during a
Capital storm..." is based on theoretical calculations, not what occurs in
reality. Actually, since the design requirements make the engineer calculate
runoff.for undeveloped areas by including huge unrealistic burn and bulk
factors, and these same factors are not included in calculations for developed
areas, the numbers may be lower. However, as stated later in Section 3.a.(2),
Method of Drainage Analysis, "Buildings, driveways, patios, and roads all
create new impervious covers to the natural ground which prevents the ground
from absorbing rain water. This overcovering of the natural ground not only
results in small storms creating a higher amount, or volume, of runoff, but also
a higher flow rate of runoff (identified as the "Q") in developed areas than in
undeveloped areas." The increased volume and flow rates created by the
increase in impervious areas. result in shorter concentration times for runoff
flows. As a result, runoff leaves the site faster and has less opportunity to get
into the ground. As a cumulative effect, the peak flow rates in the river
increase and the flow durations decrease. The river remains dry more of the
year and the water flows for less of the year.
Because the revised municipal stormwater NPDES permit is now available
(NPDES Permit No. CAS614001), it should be addressed and incorporated into
the evaluation of potential water quality impacts forthis project.. The revised
permit has established prohibitions and limitations, and requirements for the
following: connection and discharge; development planning and construction;
public agency program requirements; public information and participation;
monitoring; and program reporting and evaluation The revised NPDES
permit was adopted on July 15, 1996, a date which coincides with the release
of the Newhall Ranch DEIR for public review. We acknowledge that the
requirements of the revised Permit were not available to be addressed during
the preparation of the DEER, but feel that the revised Permit should he
addressed prior to certification of the final EIR. The evaluation of the project's
compliance with the NPDES permit should include: how the project does or
does not comply with the Permit; to what extent the proposal meets the
requirements for surface runoff water quality and control of non -point source
pollutants in an urban area; compliance of erosion and sedimentation control
measures with the Permit (for grading and other construction activities); and
an ,expansion upon the water quality requirements to address Permit
requirements, including prohibitions and limitations, .County Stormwater
Management Program requirements, and standard provisions. The DEIR
analysis of NPDES Permit compliance must distinguish between the municipal
stormwater NPDES Permit and other types of discharge permits (such as
construction and industrial permits) required under the NPDES program.
Newhall Ranch DElR and Specific Plan
October 28, 1996
Page 8
The DEIR discusses proposed bank stabilization for the Santa Clara River on
30% of the southern side and 80% of the northern side of the River Corridor
to protect adjacent development from erosion. The DEIR states that the bank
stabilization is proposed to consist of ungrouted rock. The DEIR should
discuss whether or not other alternatives to this type of bank stabilization
have been discussed with the State Department of Fish and Game. If so, then
the DEIR should discuss the alternatives, and should address the reasoning
behind selecting ungrouted rock for bank stabilization efforts. If no
alternatives have been discussed, then the project developer should initiate
such discussions with the State Department of Fish and Game, and the EIR
should incorporate alternatives prior to final certification.
• Criteria for the "Santa Clara River Corridor Concept" should specify that good
surface runoff water quality be maintained through prevention or
minimization of non -point source pollutants. This should be applied to all
proposed ongoing land uses (including residential, commercial and business
park uses) as required by the County's current municipal stormwater permit
(NPDES No. CAS614001). The proposed land uses will establish a new source
of potential surface runoff pollutants which may adversely impact the
biological resources of the Santa Clara River. Because the Santa Clara River
has been identified as a Significant Ecological Area (SEA), the County's
existing SEA requirements should also be incorporated as part of this criteria.
• Figure 4.2-5 (map) shows sixteen water quality basins located throughout the
specific plan area. The DEER should describe their function(s) and how they
will maintain good surface water quality, and if they will be used to provide
data for program monitoring.
• Reference is made to the implementation of Best Management Practices
(BMP's) for the specific plan. This information should be updated and
expanded in the DEIR. Pollution prevention / reduction activities should be
incorporated in the specific plan as an ongoing community program. These
programs and physical BMP's can be refined to a greater level of detail and
incorporated into the design of each future subdivision map.
• Miti0tion Maaanm; :The project developer should ensure the preparation and
approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the project.
Section 4.6 - Biota
The Biota Section of the DEIR is very thorough in its technical analysis of the
project site. However, it tends to lose sight of the fact that CEQrA requires an
EIR to present information in a format that is understandable to the lay
person. While the vast majority of information presented in the Biota Section
cannot be presented in non-technical terms, the DEIR should attempt to
address the issue of eliminating area from the River Corridor SEA in a manner
that would be understandable totheaverage reader. As it stands right now,
one could assume that the elimination of area from SEA 23 is being pursued
Newhall Ranch DEIR and Specific Plan
October28, 1996
Page 9
in order to accommodate the developer's vision for the project. This may or
may not be the case. Documents that the City and County currently possess
depict the SEA areas inconsistently. If it is the case that the area being
removed from SEA 23 is being eliminated because it does not contain the
sensitive habitat that the true .SEA contains, then that should be clearly
stated in the DEIR.
Section 4.7 - Visual Qualities
• As stated above, the City of Santa Clarita requests that the Specific Plan be
built in compliance with development standards adopted by the City. As such,
we are requesting that the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan take the City's
Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance into consideration
during development stages. The Visual Qualities section of the DEIR provides
numerous viewshed analyses of the project at buildout, which show a disregard
for the importance of protecting significant ridgelines in development.
• The City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance was
developed in order to:
Provide hillside development standards to maximize the positive impacts
of site design, grading, landscape architecture and architecture, and provide
development consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Santa
Clarita's General Plan;
Provide ridgeline preservation and development standards to protect
certain ridges and minimize the adverse impacts of development;
Maintain the essential natural characteristics of the area such as major
landforms, vegetation and wildlife communities, hydrologic features, scenic
qualities and open space that contribute to a sense of place; and,
Retain the integrity of predominant off-site and on-site views in hillside
areas in order to maintain the identity, image and environmental quality
of the area
Miti¢ation Measure: The Newhall Ranch Specific Plan -should be built. in
accordance with the development standards listed in the City of Santa
Clarita's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance,
especially with respect to grading design, landscape design, and perimeter
ridgeline shielding design.
Section 4.8 - Traffic
• The traffic report in the DEIR indicates that the Specific Plan will generate an
approximate average daily trip (ADT) of 387,000 trips. An internal / external
summary of average daily trip -ends for the Specific Plan is as follows:
Newhall Ranch DEIR and Specific Pion
October 28, 1996
Page 10
Specific Plan Trip Components
SPECIFIC
PLAN
Internal to Specific Plan 201,240 (5217c)
Within Santa Clarita Valley 147,060 (38%)
Outside Santa Clarita Valley 3830 700 (10%)
TOTAL 387,000 (100%)
The report includes the following information which we feel needs to be
expanded or modified to ensure that the project would not adversely impact
the City of Santa Clarita:
1. The above "Specific Plan Trip Components" table needs to be expanded to
show the percent of the Specific Plan trip -ends into the existing boundary
of the City of Santa Clarita and also should depict fluctuations over the
years.
2. The project analysis includes the future ADTs of links within the site and
the surrounding areas at buildout of the City and the Newhall Ranch
project. This methodology has been used in numerous studies and is well -
accepted. Due to the proximity of the proposed site and the City, and due
to the fact that the travel patterns in the Valley will change by the time this
project is completed and self -served, it is recommended that the report
include other types of analysis inthestudy, such as link directional traffic
in peak hours and even in every (x) number of years.- It is suggested that
the report be prepared to analyze the different phases of the project. It
should be noted that the analysis of project phasing can also be done in
later dates when more specific portions of the project development are
proposed, but that this later analysis may cause the City to state that the
individual projects create significant impacts on other roads and links.
3. The Specific Plan is proposing the deletion of the extension of Pico Canyon
Road to S11-126. Reviewing the discussion of this deletion in Appendix 4.8,
it shows no traffic volume change on Lyons Avenue, McBean Parkway,
Valencia Boulevard, Magic Mountain Parkway, or Newhall Ranch Road east
of the I-5 within the City area. This needs to be revisited for accuracy and
should also include am. / p.m. peaks. The City always recommends that
sites / projects contain various access points, and discourages the deletion
of such.
4. The Conceptual Alternative Highway Plan, as indicated in the study, could
vary since the City is in the process of amending the General Plan /
Circulation Element. There are significant deletions / changes in the
Proposed alternatives which we do not anticipate will take place. Some of
the alternatives might be controversial, such as the deletion of the
Mewhall Ranch DEIR and Specific Plan
October 28, 1996
Page 11
extension of Avenue Tibbits to Tourney Road at Magic Mountain Parkway.
This road is a major link to the industrial area, and its deletion has a
significant impact on McBean Parkway- it causes McBean Parkway to carry
over 70,000 cars per day. Another correction regards the connection of
Magic Mountain Parkway to Via Princessa, which is a correction already in
the design stages, and is part of the City's Capital Improvement Projects.
5. In the discussion of land use on Page 4.8-19, it should be noted that other
recent City and County GPA's need to be included, such as Tesoro Del Valle,
a new "conceptually approved" subdivision within the County.
6. All proposed roadways on-site, along with the connection links, should have
adequate width to accommodate on -street bike lanes.
7. The DEIR should include the corrections and/or suggestions on the attached
marked -up copies of Section 4.8 - Traffic.
The City is not prepared at this time to request specific mitigation regarding
the project's traffic impacts to our jurisdiction. Once the aforementioned
issues have been addressed, the City could request the implementation of
certain mitigation measures to lessen the impacts of the Newhall Ranch
project on City circulation. However, the possibility also exists that the
additional information provided in the revised traffic report could satisfy the
City that the project's impacts to the City may be less than significant.
Transit Impacts
Although the proposed project area is not currently included in Santa Clarita
Transit's service area, it is likely that any future transit service provided to
and through the project site would be provided by Santa Clarita Transit under
contract with Los Angeles County. There is likely to be a certain amount of
interdependence, and therefore travel, between Santa Clarity and Newhall
Ranch, particularly prior to full build -out. As stated in the DEIR; even at full,
buildout, only 35% of the 387,000 average daily trips (ADT's) generated in the
Specific Plan area will also terminate in the Specific Plan area (page 4.8-31).
Althoff spec project ping was not presented in the DEIR, it is common
for residential development to occur prior to the construction of supporting
community land uses. In the interim, Newhall Ranch residentb will be
dependent on schools, retailers, banks, churches, and other facilities located
outside the new community, Accordingly, Newhall Ranch residents will need
adequate means of transporting themselves between the two communities.
Thus, roadways which connect the two communities, such as Magic Mountain
Parkway, Pico Canyon Road, Valencia Boulevard, and SR -126 / Newhall Ranch
Road will need to be adequately expanded to carry the passenger cars, service
vehicles, and public transit buses generated•by the proposed project.
It is understood that the initial transit demand, and therefore the transit
resources required to provide service, prior to full build -out will differ from the
transit demand at full project build -out. For example, during the first few
Newhall Ranch DEIR and Specific Plan
October28, 1996
Page 12
years of construction, the number of transit trips generated by Newhall Ranch
residents may be relatively low, but a large percentage of trips will be to and
from destinations within the City of Santa Clarita. In later years, as
community -supporting services such as shopping centers, schools, and parks
are constructed in Newhall Ranch, there may be less of a need for services
which formerly connected Newhall Ranch residents to such facilities in the
City of Santa Clarita, and more need for trips between destinations within the
Newhall Ranch project. However, at full -buildout of the project, the City of
Santa Clarita will still provide for regional consumer needs, thus transit
service between the City and Newhall Ranch will remain necessary. In order
to more accurately anticipate the geographic distribution of transit trips, the
DEIR should address project phasing. This will enable agencies, such as MTA
and Los Angeles County, and in turn the local providers (Santa Clarita Transit
and Metrolink) to plan for potential public transit service expansion to the
project area.
In the absence of phasing information, the full -build -.out scenario was
evaluated in order to estimate the future transit needs of the proposed project.
The Traffic / Access section of the DEER states that "...actual transit impacts
to transit services will be evaluated at the subdivision map level as
development occurs within.,the Specific Plan site. At this detailed
level... transit operators .can *assess the capacity and demand of transit
services" (page 4.8-81). While some of the decisions regarding exact routing,
frequency of service (headway), and bus stop locations can be made closer to
project construction, there are other longer-term decisions which greatly affect
the ability to provide transit' service to and through the Specific Plan area
(such as the layout of the road network) which must be made prior to the
subdivision map stage. For this reason, it is necessary at this Ievel bf project
review to provide an estimate of future transit needs.
As proposed, Newhall Ranch is planned to contain 24,680 dwelling units and
5,720,000 square feet of retail, office and industrial development. Commercial
centers, which cover 90.7 gross acres of the project area, are to be located near
major highways (page 4.8-25). It is anticipated that residential areas will be
accessed off the major roadways by many smaller residential -scale streets. It
is likely that any public transit service in the Newhall Ranch project would be
provided along the main thoroughfares, such: as Potrero Canyon Road, Magic
Mountain Parkway, Commerce Center Drive, and Long Canyon Road.
However, it is important that good'pedestrian access between the residences
and these major roadways be provided' in order for residents .to have
satisfactory access to transit stops located on the major roadways.
The proposed project is estimated to generate 387,000 ADrs. Multiplying this
number by an occupancy factor of 1.4 converts the figure to 541,000 ADT
person trips, of which 3.5% (or 18,963 ADT person trips) will become trips
assigned to transit, per Metropolitan Transit Authority guidelines. Using a
representative peak hour factor of 10 percent, the DEIR estimated that this
would yield approximately 1900 peak hour transit trips for each peak hour to
be potentially generated by the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan (page 4.8-81).
Newhall Ranch DEIR and Specific plan
October 28, 1996
Page 13
Although these figures from the DEIR do not identify transit trip origins and
destinations, or describe how the transit demand will be distributed
throughout the day, they do help us to make estimates regarding resource
requirements. Just to accommodate the 1900 transit trips per peak -time hour
generated by the Newhall Ranch project, Santa Clarita Transit's fleet would
need to be expanded by approximately 48 buses (1900 peak -hour transit trips
divided by 40, which is the average number of passengers per transit vehicle,
equals 48 buses required).
The hourly cost to provide such service, which does not include equipment cost,
would be approximately $42 per hour in 1996 dollars. The costs identified
above also do not take into account the cost of roadway improvements needed
to ensure that Santa Clarita Transit's currently -operating routes are not
impacted by the Newhall Ranch project. For example, without roadway
capacity expansion, the routes currently operated along Valencia Boulevard,.
Magic Mountain Parkway, The Old Road, Newhall Ranch Road, and SR -126,
would be negatively impacted by the additional automobile traffic added to the
roadways. as a result of the Newhall Ranch project. Such routes would. be
slowed down, and public transit riders throughout the rest of Santa Clarita
Transit's service area would experience a decrease in the level of service.
While the issue of roadway capacity has been discussed above, it is raised
again here to note that the level of service concept applies not only to roadway
networks, but also to the transit route network.
Section 4.10 - Air Quality
• The DEIR states that the project is air quality friendly; even though the
impacts to air quality will be unavoidably significant. While the DEIR
addresses the project design standards leading to "less of a significant air
quality impact" throughout many sections of the document, the DEIR should
provide specific examples of such within the Air Quality Section of the report.
For example, the DEIR could expand upon page 4.10-21, when discussing the
concentration of development within core area, about how trails systems will
link the commercial and residential areas. This area could also include the
number of jobs that will be created by the project, and what types of jobs will
be created. As was stated above, these may be addressed in other sections of
the DEIR, but should be provided in the Air Quality Section in order to create
a more comprehensive document that the average reader can understand.
Page 4.10-25 discusses the Specific Plan's Mobility System which will aid in
the reduction of emissions, and references emission reduction efficiencies in
the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Q ,i nlity H ndboak_ The DEIR should explain holy
the project's mobility system accomplishes a reduction in noxious air
emissions, instead of just claiming that the mobility system does such. The lay
person may not be familiar with land use / design / rail impacts, or the use of
park-and-ride lots. The DEIR should explain these aspects of the project and
expand upon their beneficial impacts.
Newhall Ranch DEIR and Speciftc Plan
October 28, 1996
Page 14
Page 4.10-31 states that the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the
AQMP and that is does not jeopardize attainment of the air quality standards
predicted in the AQMP "...because the Specific Plan is consistent with the
goals; objectives, and assumptions outlined in the AQMP." The DEIR should
provide the goals, objectives and assumptions of the AQMP, and should
address exactly how the project is consistent with these goals, objectives, and
assumptions.
• Mi igetion Measure: The project proponent should ensure that future
subdividers (or the project proponent) provide electric vehicle charging stations
at future park-and-ride lot(s), at commercial centers, and at industrial
buildings. Future residences should also be equipped to handle, where
appropriate, electric vehicle.charging outlets within interior garages.
• Mitigation Meg sure: The project proponent should pay, or ensure the payment
of, the project's pro -rata share for transit service to and from the project site.
Section 4.12 • Wastewater Disposal
• After reviewing the Wastewater Disposal section, it appears that the
construction of the proposed wastewater treatment plan, identified in the
DEIR as the water reclamation plant (WRP), is a necessary infrastructure
component to provide adequate service for the specific plan buildout. The
analysis of the capacity demands appears to be reasonable, and it would make
sense for the project proponent to bear the costs of providing this needed
infrastructure to exclusively serve the project. The DEER also indicated that
new County initiated connection fees would be utilized to finance the proposed
WRP. Details should be provided concerning the way the project will be
financed and how any related reimbursement mechanisms will work. Will the
County be paying for initial construction and start-up costs, or will that be
financed up front by the Newhall Land and Farming Company? Will these
-fees be collected only from the new residents of Newhall Ranch for
reimbursement to the initial financing entity? Will any other Santa Clarita
Valley resident outside of the Newhall Ranch project be impacted by the
financing of the WRP?
It is encouraging to see that the development of a reclaimed water system is
included as a part of the WRP function; the City would support this for on-site
irrigation where the level of water quality is acceptable and meets established
State standards. However, we are sensitive to the issue of reclaimed water
development on a valley -wide basis. The DEIR should address this issue, and the
issue that the Castaic Lake Water Agency and the Newhall County Water
District are currently researching and preparing their own reclaimed water plans.
These issues should be addressed in the DEER relative to these agencies (and any
other agencies considering the development of a reclaimed water system for the
Santa Clarita Valley) in terms of the comprehensive development, distribution,
and use of reclaimed water for the Santa Clarita Valley.
Newhall Ranch DEIR and Specifo plan
October 28, 1996
Page 15
As a publicly owned or privately owned service provider, the WRP has the
Potential to provide service downstream to properties in the County of Ventura.
This issue should be addressed in the DEIR. This is a relevant question to us
because the DEIR has identified a "tributary area" of the proposed WRP, and
anticipates requests for annexation to the proposed new Sanitation District for
service (DMS Buildout Scenario, page 4.12-9). Additionally, the DMS Buildout
Scenario should address valley -wide impacts due to the comprehensive nature of
the County's DMS methodology.
• Two scenarios are analyzed in the DEIR: One for buildout under the County
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County under their proposed SCVJSS
facilities expansion; and, one for cumulative buildout under the land use
designations for both the County's Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan and the City
of Santa Clarity General Plan. The SCVJSS facilities' proposed expansion is
based upon SCAG population projections for the year 2015. This scenario
addresses future needs exclusive of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Because
the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan has defined parameters for development
intensity, we feel that this scenario can be adjusted to include the additional
service demand created by this project. Cumulative buildout scenarios that
address both County and City General Plans seem to be the most conservative
approach in identifying the most intense service demand. The City prefers this
scenario to assess cumulative impacts because it tends to consider planning and
development activities in both the City and the County, thereby .being a
comprehensive method assessing the Santa Clarita Valley as a whole (instead of
segmenting community growth).
Section 4.15 - Solid Waste
• The project, as proposed, would produce a maximum of 53,524 tons of solid waste
annually upon buildout. Currently, the City spent five years educating the public
on alternatives to land filling, and initiated a progressive curbside recycling
program. These efforts, though, have resulted in the diversion of only 30 tons of
solid waste per year. The project, with its mitigation factors listed in the DEIR,
could cause diversion efforts on a Santa Clarita Valley -wide basis to go
backwards, It is recommended that the DEIR discuss and.take a leadership role
in determining how the project's solid waste will be handled. The DEIR should
address innovative solid waste planning, as opposed to reiterating the fact that
the project will comply .with Los Angeles County standards for waste
management.
• The City greatly encourages developers .to incorporate innovative concepts for
solid waste diversion efforts in their proposals, as opposed to relying on
existing landfill capacities and/or future landfill expansions to handle a
project's solid waste. Furthermore, community outcry on the issue of
landfilling is strong. Thus, the DEIR should address a worst-case scenario in
which no expansions and/or new construction of facilities are approved. The
DEIR should specifically discuss how the project would dispose of or reduce the
solid waste generated by the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan if no expansions
and/or construction of landfill facilities occurs aver the next 25 years.
Newhall Ranch DEIR and Specific Plan
October 28, 1996
Page 16
• M;.igation MeaIM: All future subdividers should incorporate residential
design Standards which accommodate solid waste and recycling efforts. Such
designs should be incorporated into interior living space as well as residential
street design.
• 14 i igation MPac„re: The project proponent should incorporate standards for
composting and material recovery facilities within specified zoning
designations. throughout the project site.
Section 4.20 - Parks, Recreation, and Trails
• The parkland dedication requirement as identified in the DEIR totals 202.235
acres of parkland. This number was derived by using 3.17 persons per single
family dwelling unit. The City of Santa Clarita Unified Development Code
(UDC) uses 3.588 persons per single family dwelling unit, which would change
the parkland range to approximately 230-250 acres of required parkland.
• The Newhall Ranch project proposes to fulfill parkland. requirements by
providing 12 neighborhood parks, three community parks, trails, open space,
and high country and river corridor special management areas. The total
Quimby credit requested by the developer applying the Los Angeles County
Quimby approach for this project is 2,472 acres, far above the actual amount
of required parkland. Preservation of open space, significant ecological areas,
and the Santa Clara River corridor is consistent with the City of Santa
Clarita's General Plan and would generally be supported. However, applying
the City's UDC requirements for parkland dedication, the developer would
receive 30 percent credit towards Quimby requirements for the private
facilities provided. At a total requirement of 230 acres, $0 percent credit
would be about 70 acres for a remaining balance of 160 acres. Neighborhood
and community parks with active uses total about 113 acres, leaving
approximately 47 acres yet to be credited towards Quimby requirements.
Approximately 125 acres of community parks and a lake, which the DEIR
suggests should receive credit, are considered passive and are located in
restricted areas such as utility easements.
• There does not appear do be any major, sports center which would
accommodate community tournaments or league play. With the addition of
approximately 70,000 people, there would be demand for organized youth and
adult baseball, softball, football, soccer, and/or other league sports. There is
minimal discussion in the DEIR related to the operations and maintenance of
the public parks or the commitment of the County to provide these services.
Currently, the County is downsizing its park and recreation program, and is
turning many park facilities over to local governments to maintain and
operate. These issues should be addressed in the DEIR.
• A point of clarification would be appreciated on page 4.20-1. The DEER states
that the current deficit in planning area #35, which includes Newhall Ranch,
is 246.6 acres of parkland. Page 4.20.26 states that the project provides 2,472
Newhall Ranch DEIR and Specific Plan
October 28, 1996
Page 17
acres of creditable parkland for a surplus of 2,266 acres over identified
requirements. Page 4.20-33 states under Cumulative Impact that "The
existing parkland deficit of 246.6 acres would remain."
Regarding the Newhall Ranch Master Trails Plan, the Plan includes the
regional river trail, community trails, pathways, local trails, and unimproved
trails. The Regional Santa Clara River Trail spans from the San Gabriel
Mountains to the east, west to the Pacific Ocean in Oxnard. The City of Santa
Clarity has developed a portion of this trail which would also traverse through
the Newhall Ranch project. The DEIR addresses the Santa Clara River Trail
as it related to bicycles and pedestrians, however, it does not address the
equestrian element. Equestrian use is part of the multi -use system that is the
Santa Clara River Regional Trail, and needs to be included in the planning of
this project.
The Newhall Ranch project proposes to include approximately 6,000 acres of
open space area accessible to the public. These include.the High Country
Special Management Area, Santa Clara River Corridor, open area, golf course,
and a lake. The operations and maintenance of these areas can be addressed
through homeowners associations, maintenance districts, and private and/or
public agencies. Restrictions -on the use of open space within the Newhall
Ranch project should be finther described in the DEIR. As it stands right now,
the City is not convinced that dedicating the High Country SMA and the River
Corridor SMA to the Center for Natural Lands Management provides for the
best public use of these areas. To provide. the greatest public use of the areas,
access should be encouraged to the greatest extent possible.
• The City of Santa Clarita currently provides extensive parks and recreation
programs which are open to all residents of the Santa Clarita Valley. The
existing fee scale does not discriminate between City residents and residents
of the unincorporated area. Additionally, the City is currently bound by
agreements with the County of Los Angeles which preclude the City from
charging' non-resident' fees for services provided by the City in City parks,
and in County parks under long-term lease to the City. Many residents of the
unincorporated areas of Stevenson Ranch, Castaic, Val Verde, North Valencia,
Saugus and Ague Dulce participate in these programs.. Due to ongoing budget
and funding deficits experienced by the County, of Los -Angeles, several
community parks in the unincorporated areas have been closed because funds
for their operation and maintenance are unavailable. Additionally, this does
not address the fact that the County does not currently fund any recreation
programs in the Santa Clarita Valley. The project proponent has indicated
that private funding of parks and recreation services may be fimded privately
by future residents of the project. While the City encourages such innovations,
this does not preclude the need for publicly funded facilities and programs.
Based on current experience and project trends, the City must anticipate
serving the future residents of the Newhall Ranch project as well.
Newhall Ranch DEIR and Speeific plan
October 28, 1996
Page 18
The City, and the Santa Clarita Valley by extension, currently experiences a
severe deficit of park facilities. Existing facilities and programs are strained
to over -capacity; many recreation programs often have long waiting lists of
people who wish to participate. The addition of approximately 70,000 people
generated by this project will seriously affect the City's ability to provide
recreation programs to all who request them, let alone enhance such services.
The DEIR should identify any proposed recreation and cultural arts
Programming and staffing to fulfill community needs at the public park sites
within the project. As stated above, the City of Santa Clarita currently serves
numerous residents of the adjacent unincorporated areas at no additional cost
to the County, but at increased, and unfunded cost to City residents.
Effectively, this means that City residents are subsidizing, through property
tax payments, the recreational activities of non -City residents.
• Mi ieation Measure: The project proponent should include equestrian trails
along the Santa Clara River Corridor outside the river bottom wherever
possible, and should tie into the High Country Special Management Area to
Pico Canyon Trail.
• Mi .iestion Measure: Rest stops, scenic overlooks, staging areas, etc., are
amenities that the project proponent should locate along the regional trail
corridor.
• Mitigation M as m: The project proponent should provide for, or ensure
provisions for, a direct connection from the project's trails system to the City's
trails system, to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita.
• Mitigation M as ,re: The project proponent should fund, or ensure provisions
for funding, for City programs to be provided or facilitated by the applicant in
anticipation of the project's residents' future use of City Recreation services.
Section 4.16 - Education
• Educating the youth in our community is of vital importance in ensuring a
prosperous future for the Santa Clarita Valley. The DEIR for the Newhall
Ranch Specific Plan has adequately mitigated school impacts within the
Newhall School District, however, has not adequately addressed the project's
school impacts within the William S. Hart High School District or the Castaic
Union School District.
• Regarding developer fees imposed to provide for adequate school funding,
Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996 apply specifically to development
projects which are not legislative in nature. Since the approval of the Newhall
Ranch Specific Plan requires Iegislative actions, the Courts have held that
local governments do have the authority to deny a land use application (which
require a legislative action) on the basis of the adequacy of available school
facilities, or to phase the development of projects.- A "Valley -Wide Joint Fee
Resolution" was adopted by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the
Neruhall Ranch DEIR and Specific Plan
October 28, 1996
Page 19
City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, and the William S. Hart Union High,
Sulphur Springs Union, Castaic Union, Newhall, and Saugus Union School
Districts in 1991 establishing a fixed fee in excess of the State statutory fee in
order to mitigate the effects of growth on school capacity throughout the Santa
CIarita Valley. However, in late 1995 the Newhall School District, William S.
Hart Union High School District, Castaic Union School District, and Saugus
Union School District all withdrew from the Valley -Wide Joint Fee Resolution,
thus rendering it ineffectual. The DEIR states that the Valley -Wide Joint Fee
Resolution applies to legislative actions, and yet the Resolution has been
dissolved, and the Courts. have upheld decisions (Mira Development Corp, u.
City of San Diego, 205, CaL App. 3d 1201, 1217 (1988)] that the prohibition of
a City to levee fees in excess of the State statutory school fee is not binding
where a general plan amendment or rezoning is requested. The City suggests
that the developer willingly provide for full mitigation of school impact on the
Newhall School District, the William S. Hart Union High School District, and
the Castaic Union School District, possibly with a provision for reimbursement
of funds at the time that State school funding is made available.
Regarding the specific impacts of the Newhall Ranch project on local schools,
the DEIR analyzes two different methodologies for determining possible
effects. One includes the School Districts' Methodology, and the other includes
Los Angeles County DMS Methodology. The DEIR tends to favor the Los
Angeles County DMS Methodology, which states a lesser impact to the local
schools than the School Districts' Methodology. Due to the importance of
educating our youth, and the years of direct experience that the school
districts have over Los Angeles County, it issuggestedthat the DEIR base the
project's impacts on the School Districts' Methodology. As of this moment, the
impact of the project on the local school districts is considered to be
unavoidably significant by the William S. Hart Union School District and the
Castaic Union School District. Full mitigation for the project's impacts on
schools should be based on the School Districts' methodology.
The DEIR should, in some manner, address the phasing for development of
school facilities. The DEIR does not discuss the timing for development of the
five elementary schools, junior high, and high school, thus it is anticipated that
the City will be negatively affected by the buildout of the project in the short-
term, or until the facilities are developed and operational, however long that
may be. Specific mitigation for school impacts should be addressed in relation
to the phasing of the project, as well as the mechanism being proposed for the
implementation ofschool.facility development
Section 4.17 - Police Services
The City of Santa Clarita presently, and for the foreseeable future, contracts
with the County of Los Angeles for Sheriff services. It is anticipated that the
development of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan, with a residential population
of up to 70,000 people, will affect both response times and performance
standards in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the Santa Clarita
Valley. At this time, the. City is inclined to recommend that the Newhall
Newhall Ranch DEIR and Specific Plan
October28, 1996
Page 20
Ranch Specific Plan include a fully staffed Sheriff station within the Specific
Plan boundary. This would ensure an adequate response time for all
emergencies within and around the Specific Plan site, without a decrease in
service to the City and the existing developments within the unincorporated
area. The addition of 70,000 residents along with commercial / industrial
developments will have a major effect on the level of police services currently
provided in the Santa Clarita Valley. In the population range of 100,000 to
200,000 persons, the City of Santa Clarita currently stands as the fifth safest
city Nation-wide. The outstanding service that our officers provide is one of
the major draws for both residents and businesses to the Santa Clarita Valley.
The addition of a fully -staffed Sheriff station on the Newhall Ranch site will
serve to provide excellent community service to the future residents of
Newhall Ranch, as well as to the City, and will help us maintain our
distinctive reputation as a safe, clean community.
In addition to the request for a fully -staffed Sheriff station, the City
recommends that a traffic or similar analysis demonstrating emergency routes
for public safety and emergency evacuation routes for the public should be
addressed in the DEIR.
• Because the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan is not currently proposing the
development of a Sheriff station, the DEIR should analyze the potential for
increased cost to City -provided Sheriff services, at currently contracted levels,
for traffic control and crime prevention in the City and its immediate environs.
Once again, due to the fact that the DEIR does not address phasing for the
project, and does not discuss the mechanism proposed that would trigger the
employment of additional Sheriff personnel, the City is anticipating that the
project will negatively affect the services currently provided within the Santa
Clarita Valley.
• MitigationMengure: The Newhall Ranch Specific Plan should provide for a
fully -staffed Sheriff Station within the boundary of the Specific Plan site.
Section 418 - Fire Services and Hazards
• A correction needs to be made to the DEIR in the summary section of Section
4.18 - Fire Services and Hazards. The first paragraph states that, "One
additional station (Fire Station 126) is in the design stage of development, and
will be located at the intersection of Mc Bean Boulevard and Magic Mountain
Parkway." It is the City's understanding that the Los Angeles County Fire
Department has rejected this location as a possibility for the development of
a fire station, and that the Fire Department is investigating and/or has located
a different location for the future station.
• Due to the lack of information regarding project phasing in the DEIR, the City
is requesting that a minimum of one Fire Station be constructed and
operational prior to the approval of any development projects related to the
Specific Plan. The construction of such Fire Station should be financed by the
developer, with the fimding of applicable staff being guaranteed by the County
of Los Angeles.
Newhall Ranch DEIR and Specific Plant
October 28, 1996
Page 21
The City and the County, in the unincorporated areas in the Santa Clarita
Valley, currently collect a developer fee of $0.1884 per square foot. on new
development for the fire district protection program. This fee is based on Fire
Department budget, in which monies are accumulated for future acquisition,
construction, improvement, and equipment needs of fire station facilities, but
not for ongoing operations and maintenance., We request that the DEIR
address the manner in which allocations from the project's funding will be
dispersed during the buildout of the project. Furthermore, the DEIR should
address whether the project will affect the rate the City pays for Fire Services
when capital equipment needs and personnel costs for the project area are
calculated to serve the new urbanized area.
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital and ancillary facilities presently
provide hospital services to the residents of the Santa Clarity Valley and
environs. The DEIR should address potential impacts to this and other
hospital and emergency care facilities existing in the Santa Clarita Valley,
with respect to the anticipated buildout of the 1990 Santa Clarita Valley
Areawide plan as amended, to include the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan.
Various transportation routes and travel time to the hospital should also be
identified in the DEIR.
Newhall Ranch DEIR and specific Plan
October28, 1996
Page 22
Thank you again for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact
Report and Specific Plan for the Newhall Ranch Project, and for your
consideration of our requests. As we understand, the official comment period has
been extended to December 5, 1996, and we wish to thank you again for doing so;
we hope that the additional time will prove useful. to all interested parties. The
City will likely provide additional comments and mitigation measures in response
to any additional or new information that is provided to us, and we submit this
early request that any future comments by the City based on this additional
information also be included in and.addressed by the DEIR.
If you have any questions, or require clarification of anything requested in this
letter, please contact either Jeffrey Lambert, Planning Manager, or Jennifer
Reid; Assistant Planner II of the Community Development Department, at
(805)255-4330.
Sincerely,
Ken skamp
Assistant City Manager
KP:JL:JDR:Iep
cc: Lee Stark, Community Studies
Kerwin Chili, Impact Analysis
Frank Meneses, Impact Analysis
Michael Antonovich, Board of Supervisors.
Dave Vannatta, Planning Deputy
George Caravalho, City Manager, City of Santa Clarita
City of Santa Clarita Councilmembers
City of Santa Clarita Planning Commissioners
James Harter, Newhall Ranch Company
Impact Sciences
Van Stephens, Forma
advaace\specplanjdr
RESOLUTION NO. 97-8
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARPPA, REQUESTING THE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMSSION
WITHHOLD APPROVAL OF THE NEWHALL RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ISSUES RAISED BY THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA HAVE BEEN RESOLVED
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact:
a. The Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission is currently considering
action to approve the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan (Project).
b. This Project is a large planned community with approximately 25,000
residential units located within the Santa Clarita Valley, outside the current
City of Santa Clarita boundary.
C. This Project is located within the geographic area included in the City of Santa
Clarita General Plan and is designated RE (Residential Estate), RVL (Residential
Very Low), and BP (Business Park).
d. The City has reviewed this Project and the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) and has submitted written comments to the Los Angeles County
Department of Regional Planning in a letter dated October 28, 1996.
e. Councilmember Jan Heidt testified on behalf of the City of Santa Clarita City
Council at the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission November 6,
1996 public hearing
f. The City Council has discussed the City's position regarding this project at the
City Council Study Sessions on November 5, 1996 and January 7, 1997.
g. The Santa Clarita Valley has a shortage of infrastructure such as sewers, roads,
mass transit, schools, fire, Sheriff facilities, libraries, parks, recreational
programs, and youth and adult services. This Project, without appropriate
mitigations, would worsen the current infrastructure shortages.
h. It is generally understood that urban sprawl has had, and will continue to have,
a detrimental effect on urban and rural communities in California. This Project,
not adequately mitigated, may have a detrimental effect on the Santa Clarita
Valley and the City of Santa Clarita.
The City has discussed its areas of concern with the Project applicant on several
occasions and has made little progress toward resolving the issues raised by•
the City.
j. The Project applicant has not yet resolved many of the issues and concerns raised
by the City Council.
SECTION 2. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby requests the
Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission continue deliberations on this Project until
such time as the following issues have been addressed with the City of Santa Clarita by the
Project applicant:
Building Newhall Ranch according to the City's Development standards, including the
integration of our standard street widths throughout the project, grading activities
consistent with our Hillside Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, protection of the
native oak trees in accordance with our Oak Tree Ordinance, and the incorporation of
residential, commercial, and industrial developments which would meet the City's
Unified Development Code standards.
Developing the project according to goals listed in the Joint City -County Planning
Program Background report; which was prepared jointly by the County Planning
Department and the City's Community Development Department. This was accepted
as a policy document in December of 1992. The policy states that, "...as the City has
grown, so has its awareness of the need to work together with the County. Ultimately,
the quality of life in the Santa Clarita Valley will depend heavily on how this happens."
The promotion of compatible and sound planning and the enhancement of the quality of
life in both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the Santa Clarita Valley, along
with the promotion of compatible land use policies and development standards in the
Santa Clarita Valley, are just two of the goals listed that should be attained.
• The Environmental Impact Report should address the impacts of Proposition 218 on the
Project's financing mechanisms.
• Provide justification for the dramatic increase in residential density in this Project over
the current Los Angeles County General Plan and Santa Clarita General Plan.
Additional justifications should be included before any increase in the current General
Plan densities are approved.
• Relocate the proposed library from the mixed use village of Potrero Valley to Riverwood
for greater accessibility to the general public.
• Remove all residential housing units in the High Country Special Management area, in
order to better protect the Santa Susana Mountains Significant Ecological Area.
• Ensure that any development of the designated right-of-way areas near the Salt Creek
Corridor be subject to. detailed environmental review and public comment to ensure
impacts to this major wildlife corridor are eliminated.
• Discussion of the different alternatives for bank stabilization of the Santa Clara River,
and justification as to why the use of ungrouted rip -rap is the preferable option. If
alternatives to this type of bank stabilization have not been discussed with the State
Department of Fish and Game, then such discussions should be initiated. The City feels
that the best alternative to using ungrouted rip -rap for channelization of the river is to
not build anything in the floodplain at all.
Dedicate, immediately upon approval of the Specific Plan, the Santa Clara River corridor
and Santa Susana Mountains to the the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy or other
similar public agency based in the Southern California region.
Incorporate landform grading techniques in all hillside areas, as opposed to designing
the project with typical grading practices. In addition to using this grading technique,
the hillsides should be planted with native slope materials.
Address and incorporate the standards of the revised municipal stormwater NPDES
permit into the evaluation of potential water quality impacts for the project. This Permit
was adopted on July 15, 1996, a date which coincides with the release of the Newhall
Ranch DEIR for public review. We acknowledge that the requirements of the revised
Permit were not available to be addressed during the preparation of the DEER, but feel
that the revised Permit should be addressed prior to certification of the final EIR.
• Specification of criteria for the "Santa Clara River Corridor Concept" that good surface
runoff water quality be maintained through prevention or minimization of non -point
source pollutants. The proposed land uses will establish a new source of potential
surface runoff pollutants which may adversely impact the biological resources of the
Santa Clara River.
• The description of the functions of water quality basins throughout the Specific Plan
area. The DEIR stated that sixteen water quality basins are located throughout the
project site. The DEIR should also describe how they will maintain good surface water
quality, and if they will be used to provide data for program monitoring.
• The update and expansion of Best Management Practices in the DEIR. Pollution
prevention/reduction activities should also be incorporated in the Specific Plan as an
ongoing community program.
• The preparation and approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program for the
project.
• Furthering the description of the project's use of reclaimed water, expanding upon the
possibility of integrating the Newhall Ranch reclaimed water system with other existing
and future Santa Clarita Valley reclaimed water systems.
• Describe the proposed changes to the Santa Clara River Significant Ecological Area. If
it is the case that the area being removed from this SEA is being eliminated because it
does not contain the sensitive habitat that a true Significant Ecological Area contains,
then that should be clearly stated in the Biota Section of the DEIR.
• Expand the project's traffic report to include:
An expansion of the Specific Plan Trip Components to show the percent of
Specific Plan trip -ends into the existing boundary of the City of .Santa Clarita,
including fluctuations of these trip -ends over the years;
The analysis of traffic impacts at different phases of project construction;
Further analysis of the traffic impacts caused by the potential deletion of Pico
Canyon Road from the Master Plan of Highways. The DEIR shows no impact on
Lyons Avenue, McBean Parkway, Valencia Boulevard, Magic Mountain Parkway,
or Newhall Ranch Road eat of the I-5 within the City area. This needs to be
revisited for accuracy, and also should include a.mJp.m. peaks. The City always
recommends that projects contain various access points, and discourages the
deletion of such;
Include all proposed roadways on-site, along with the connection links, of an
adequate right-of-way width to accommodate on -street bike lanes;'and
Alternative analyses to the Conceptual Alternative Highway Plan. This Plan
could vary as the City is in the process of amending the General Plan/Circulation
Element. There are significant deletions/changes which we do not anticipate will
take place. Some alternatives might be controversial, such as the deletion of the
extension of Avenue Tibbits to Tourney Road at Magic Mountain Parkway. This
is a major link to the industrial area, and its deletion has a significant impact on
McBean Parkway .... it causes McBean to carry over 70,000 cars per day.
The traffic analysis should included a study of the impacts of this Project on the
circulation in the Santa Clarita Valley without the construction of State Highway
126 between the I-5 and I-14 freeways.
The City is not prepared at this time to request specific mitigation regarding the
project's traffic impacts. Once the above mentioned issues have been addressed, the City
will be suggesting mitigation measures to lessen the impacts of Newhall Ranch on City
Circulation.
The adequate expansion of roadways which connect our two communities to carry the
passenger cars, service vehicles, and public transit buses generated by the project,
especially due to the interim period of time in which residents will need City services.
Commercial/industrial construction always occurs after the commencement of residential
construction, thus the City will be providing for the Newhall Ranch residents services
during the beginning phases of the project's construction.
• Describe the project phasing in the DEIR in order to more accurately anticipate the
geographic distribution of transit trips. The City, the MetropolitanTransportation
Authority, and Metrolink will benefit from this analysis.
• Address the lack of a future estimate of transit need in the DEIR. The projects major
infrastructure needs to be able to accommodate transit service, and should not be
designed at subdivision stages. This is too late.
• Provide for Mass Transit. The applicant should be responsible for the restoration of the
Metrolink line, as opposed to solely reserving the right-of-way for such. Grant funds
have been identified by the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) and the
Regional Planning Commission should require the applicant of Newhall Ranch to work
with VCTC to secure the necessary funding for the restoration of the rail line.
• Address the financing of the future transit need for the project at full build -out. As of
now, the Santa Clarita Transit fleet would need to be expanded by 48 buses in order to
serve the project site. Additionally, the hourly cost to provide such service would be
approximately $42 per hour in 1996 dollars. These costs don't even include the cost of
roadway improvements needed to ensure that Santa Clarita Transit's currently
operating routes are not impacted by the Newhall Ranch Project.
• Ensure that future developers will provide for non -motorized modes of transportation
at future subdivision stages. This should, at present, include the incorporation of
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations.
• Resolve and specifically describe the financing and/or reimbursement plan for the Water
Reclamation Plant.
• Establish specific measures that the project will take to reduce/dispose of solid waste,
assuming that no new construction or expansion of existing landfills will occur.
• Provide assurance that the developer will require future subdividers to incorporate
residential design standards to accommodate solid waste/recycling efforts. It is not
enough to just reiterate the fact that Newhall Ranch will meet the minimum County
requirements with regard to handling solid waste.
• Incorporate standards for composting and material recovery facilities throughout the
project site.
• Provide for the addition of active parkland to the project site. Using City standards, the
developer would receive 30 percent credit towards Quimby requirements for private
facilities. At a total requirement of 230 acres of parkland, 30 percent credit would be
about 70 acres for a remaining balance of 160 acres. Neighborhood and community
parks with active uses total about 113 acres, leaving approximately 47 acres yet to be
credited towards Quimby requirements.
A major sports center should be added to the project which would accommodate
community tournaments or league play. Currently, there are no plans for such a facility.
Describe the financing and staffing of public parks. Who will maintain the parks? Who
will pay for the maintenance? What recreation programs/staff will be provided by the
applicant? As of right now, The City provides extensive parks and recreation programs
which are open to all residents of the Santa Clarita Valley. Additionally, the City is
bound by agreements with the County which preclude the City from charging non-
resident fees. Many of the residents we serve live in Stevenson Ranch, Val Verde, North
Valencia, Saugus, and Agua Dulce. The County does not currently fund any recreation
programs in the Santa Clarita Valley, and the City's Parks & Recreation services cannot
adequately address the needs of an additional population such as that of Newhall Ranch.
Publicly funded programs must be identified an funded for this project.
Describe the funding and staffing of additional programs. Programs such as teen Anti -
Gang programs, should be incorporated into the Newhall Ranch project.
Include equestrian trails along the Santa Clara River corridor. The Regional Santa
Clara River Trail spans from the San Gabriel Mountains to the east, west to the pacific
Ocean in Oxnard. The City has developed a portion of this trail which would also
traverse through the Newhall Ranch project. The DEIR addresses the Santa Clara River
Trail as it relates to bicycles and pedestrians, but does not address the equestrian
element.
Tie the project's trail system into the Santa Susana Mountains to Pico Canyon Trail.
The applicant has stated that topography dictates this as an impossible task, but the
City is not convinced that this is so. The massive size of this project should be able to
somehow provide a route across the site to Pico Canyon Trail.
Directly connect the project's trail system and the City's trails system. Currently, gaps
exist between the project's proposed trail system and the City's trail system. It does not
make sense to provide such an extensive trail system only for their residents of Newhall
Ranch to use, but not be able to provide a regional link for the enjoyment of the residents
of the Santa Clarita Valley. If Newhall Ranch has negative affects on the Valley, then
the applicants should go the extra mile to provide amenities for the Valley.
Reach agreement between the William S. Hart High School District and the Castaic
Union School District for school services. This should be accomplished prior to any
project approval. The youth are our future, the school districts know what they need to
provide a good education, and the applicant should be more than willing to provide it.
Full mitigation for the project's impacts on schools should be based on the School
District's Methodology.
Describe the phasing for the development of schools. The DEIR does not address timing
for school development, thus it is anticipated that the City will be negatively impacted
by the buildout of the project in the short-term, or until the facilities are developed and
operational, however long that may be. Specific mitigation for school impacts should be
addressed in relation to the phasing of the project, as well as the mechanism being
proposed for the implementation of school facility. development.
• Provide for appropriate mitigation (per the. Sheriff Department) which may include a
fully -staffed Sheriff station at the project site. This would ensure an adequate response
time for all emergencies within and around the Specific Plan site, without a decrease in
service to the City. The outstanding service that our officers provide is one of the major
draws for both residents and businesses to the Santa Clarita Valley.
• Provide for the appropriate mitigation (per the Los Angeles County Fire Department)
which may include an operational fire station prior to the approval of any development
projects related to the Specific Plan.
• Provide discussion of the potential impacts to Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital.
The DEIR should address potential impacts to this and other hospital and emergency
care facilities existing in the Santa Clarita Valley, with respect to the anticipated
buildout of the 1990 Santa Clarita Valley Areawide Plan as amended. Various
transportation routes and travel time to the hospital should also be identified.
• The Environmental Impact Report does not adequately address the availability of water
for this Project. The EIR should identify the water source for each development phase
and for the build out of the Specific Plan.
• The EIR identifies several alternative to the proposed Specific Plan and compares the
environmental impacts of each of these to the Specific Plan. However, it does not
adequately describe the fiscal impacts of each of these alternatives on the County of Los
Angeles, Santa Clarita Valley, and the City of Santa Clarita. This fiscal would allow the
City and others to to compare the financial impacts of the alternatives.
• The EIR. does not include adequate mitigations for the air quality impacts associated
with this Project. Specifically, the Project applicant should ensure that future
subdividers provide electric vehicle charging stations and pay the project's pro -rata share
for transit service to and from the Project site.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I, , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita
at a regular meeting thereof, held on the _ day of 19_ by the
following vote of the Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
coundAres97-8.1ep