A major project on Golden Valley Road — a 60-room hotel, a four-story assisted living facility and 73 senior condos — drew a host of upset residents and questions from the Planning Commission, which asked for more study at Tuesday’s hearing.
After all the questions, and conditions being added to the project, commissioners voted unanimously for the developer to bring it back “to a date uncertain,” with ”some work to be done,” according to city officials.
The commission called for an updated traffic study and several text changes to the project report that addresses concerns for endangered species, and an emergency-only egress for a second access point for emergencies.
One of the main concerns, based on comments from residents and the commission, was a 2021 traffic study used to justify the plan’s single access point, which ultimately prompted the Planning Commission to ask the developer to update the data.
Steve Hunter, a representative for the family who owns the property, said a more-dense plan might require two access points for the public, but this plan was acceptable under the state’s fire code with one access point.
Planning Commissioner Lisa Eichman mentioned a letter from the Sheriff’s Department, the agency responsible for evacuating homes and escorting residents in the event of an emergency, which called for a second access point.
And another commissioner referenced “the fire code” as “the minimum.”
“It just doesn’t make sense to me,” Eichman said, of the conflicting calls from first responders. “I just think these things could be done better, because, you know, that’s a safety concern and there already is tons of traffic up there.”
Hunter, who said he was involved in the entitlement of Valle Del Oro and several other projects surrounding the area, said he had heard all of the same concerns from residents during those discussions.
“And if we took all of those concerns into consideration, none of those communities would be here today,” he said.
“And yes, there is traffic on Golden Valley Road and Sierra Highway,” he said, adding this project would not have a significant impact on that because it’s largely a senior community.
Frustrated residents said the outdated data being used to justify the lack of impact needed to be re-evaluated, an oft-cited concern during Planning Commission discussions.
“This intersection of Sierra Highway and Golden Valley Road already experiences substantial congestion, unsafe merging conditions and recurring traffic backups during peak commute periods,” said Kylee Felix, a CSUN environmental health graduate student who lives near the project. Felix also mentioned the traffic challenges commuting around Golden Valley High can create.
“This is not simply a matter of inconvenience,” she said Tuesday during public comment. “Increased congestion at an already impacted intersection raises legitimate public safety concerns for students, pedestrians and residents, as well as for emergency-response access.”
A resident directly east of the project called for further environmental review, in light of the area’s biological significance and its connectivity to the area. A representative of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility, or SAFER, called for a full environmental impact report for the project, as opposed to the mitigated negative declaration for the project that was done instead.
Several residents of neighboring communities, including Valle Del Oro, also raised concerns about the soil. One became emotional as she mentioned the lawsuit she had to bring against their home builder, which was settled out of court after she spent great expense on soil reports regarding her home’s issues, she said.
Senior Planner Erika Iverson said the mitigated negative declaration was the route chosen by the city based on city planners’ evaluation of the plan under the California Environmental Quality Act. City planners look at whether anything in the project could have a significant impact that cannot be mitigated. None was found, she said.
The city then hires a consultant to “peer review” the reports paid for by the applicant, she said.
But the traffic lamentations persisted. There were also 37 letters received with concerns regarding the project, the city clerk’s office announced during the meeting.
A Valle Del Oro resident, who also identified himself as a sheriff’s deputy, said it took him 20 minutes to drive from Centre Pointe Parkway to Sierra Highway, the next main traffic signal, at around 3:30 p.m. Tuesday, and that’s prior to the project. A handful of residents also challenged the Planning Commission to spend a few hours at the project site around school pickup and drop-off, regarding the assertion there was no significant impact to vehicle miles traveled from the project.
Hunter said he understood that residents don’t like the hotel, but one is needed in that area, and he had done extensive research on that topic with the filming industry, including the nearby Disney facility. The Veluzat family, which own the 28-acre project site, also is famously a part of that industry locally through family members’ ownership of various facilities, including Diamond V Movie Ranch, Melody Ranch Motion Picture Studio and Santa Clarita Movie Ranch, among other properties.
“We’re going to make this project as nice as we can. We want to work into the community,” Hunter said, speaking to the final product. “We want to be a good neighbor with the community.”
When Commissioner Dan Faina asked specifically about the 2021 date on the traffic report planners provided, Hunter mentioned a 2023 traffic-signal study and vehicle miles traveled analysis that said further study wasn’t necessary at that point. Both Faina and planning chair Nathan Keith mentioned a difference between the types of reports, in calling for a new traffic study.
Keith also questioned some of the city’s assertions, which were the basis for the declaration, such as the determination on the VMT impacts. The report notes that hotel guests and workers are expected to be local to the Santa Clarita Valley, but Keith said there’s no way to guarantee any amount of local visitation or employment, and the opposite could occur.
