HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-07-09 - AGENDA REPORTS - PLANNING CMSN RESO P90 27 (2)v
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
o/i—z,
Item to be presented
PUBLIC HEARING Lynn M. Harris
DATE: July 9, 1991
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission decision (Resolution No.
P90-27) on Master Case No. 90-153; Conditional Use* Permit
No. 90-021. The project site is located at 18830 Soledad
Canyon Road.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
The City Clerk's office has received an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision of June 4,: 1991 to deny Master Case No. 90-153;
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-021. The.appellant is Tandam Builders, the
applicant.
This case was originally before the Planning Commission on May 7, 1991.
This case was continued (as an open public hearing) to the May 21, 1991
meeting. The Planning Commission directed staff to return with a formal
resolution for denial of the proposal at the June 4, 1991 .Planning
Commission meeting.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to construct a 113,000 square foot retail
commercial shopping center at this 9.13 acre site. This construction will
require the removal of the existing school facilities .located at the project
site. These facilities include the Sulphur Springs School District offices,
Soledad Canyon Elementary School, and the Pauline B. Chase Special Education
School.
The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission's denial of this proposal.
Staff recommended traffic and circulation improvements, including the
realignment of Luther Drive with Homyr Place. This realignment would improve
the'traffic circulation pattern along Soledad Canyon.Road (as well as Luther
Drive and Homyr Place) by eliminating existing conflict points without
encumbering access to any business or residence. This mitigation measure is
preferred by- staff as the most effective means to alleviate the traffic
impacts 'of the proposed project, as well as an opportunity to improve the
Continued To; 7 -/o —9i
Agenda Item.
H
Page 2
MCI 90-153
existing cumbersome traffic configuration of two signalized intersections
off -set by 80 feet, or 140 feet from centerline to centerline. The applicant
chose not to redesign the project in conformance with this recommendation.
The Planning Commission indicated that they would have approved this project
with the redesign, subject to landscaping on Mandan Street - and parking which
meets all City codes.
The applicant opposes this improvement because the road realignment would
traverse the north-west portion of the applicant's property, thereby requiring
modification of the proposed project. The applicant has suggested alternative
traffic mitigation measures which would not result in the placement of any
roadway across the existing project site area. These alternatives have been
reviewed by City.Traffic Engineering staff, and found to be less desirable
than the recommended realignment of Luther Drive with Homyr Place. The
applicant has indicated that all other staff recommended mitigation measures
and conditions are acceptable.
Staff has received several letters in favor and in opposition to this proposed
project. The. primary concerns of the adjacent property owners and occupants
include: Traffic impacts; access; the loss of school facilities; the loss of
open space and recreational opportunities; the availability of goods and
services.
1. Receive the staff presentation;
2. Open the public hearing and receive testimony;
3. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision for denial of Master Case No.
90-153 (Conditional Use Permit No. 90-021); or
4. ,Adopt the'Negative.Declaration of Environmental Effect prepared for this
project and approve the application contingent upon the applicant
.redesigning the project to accommodate staff's recommended on-site and
off-site improvements, including. -the realignment of Luther Drive with
Homyr Place.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Appeal request from Sage Institute on behalf'of the applicant.
2. Staff report dated May 7, 1991.
3. Negative Declaration and Initial Environmental Assessment.
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. P91-27.
5. Project site plan.
LMH:JC/315
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE
Mayor Opens Hearing
a. States Purpose of Hearing
City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice
Staff Report
(City Manager)
or
(City Attorney)
or
(RP Staff)
Proponent Argument (30 minutes)
Opponent Argument (30 minutes)
Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent)
a. Proponent
Mayor Closes Public Testimony
Discussion by Council
Council Decision
Mayor Announces Decision
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEALING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-021,
A PROPOSAL FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF A
PROJECT SITE FROM AN EXISTING SCHOOL TO A
COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER ON A 9.13 ACRE PARCEL, WHICH
INCLUDES FOUR BUILDINGS WITH A
TOTAL AREA OF 113,000 SQUARE FEET,
ALONG WITH 454 PARKING SPACES AND APPURTENANT LANDSCAPING
LOCATED AT 18830 SOLEDAD CYN. RD.;
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOLEDAD CANYON RD./
LUTHER DRIVE INTERSECTION, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council .of the City
of Santa Clarita to consider an appeal from applicant, Tandem
Builders, Inc. regarding the Planning Commission's denial of
Conditional Use Permit 90-021. This is a proposal for the
redevelopment of the project site from an existing school to a
commercial shopping center on a 9.13 acre parcel which includes
four buildings with a total area of 113,000 square feet, along with
454 parking spaces and appurtenant landscaping. The proposed
project area is at 18830 Soledad Canyon Road; southeast corner of
the Soledad Canyon Road/Luther Drive intersection, in the City of
Santa Clarita.
The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita,
the 9th day of July, 1991, at or after 6:30 p.m.
Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be
heard on this matter at that time. Further information may be
obtained by contacting the City Clerk's Office, Santa Clarita City
Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita.
If you wish to challenge this order in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City Council, at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Date: June 12, 1991
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk
Publish Date: June 14, 1991
, Ilk
RESOLUTION NO. P91-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, DENYING
MASTER CASE NO. 90-153
(PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-021 TO ALLOY THE DEVELOPMENT OF
113,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER
LOCATED AT 18830 SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby make the
following findings of fact:
a. An application for a conditional use permit was filed with the
City .of Santa Clarita by Tandam Builders, Inc. (the "applicant")
on July 17, 1990.The property for which this application has
been filed is located at 18830 Soledad Canyon Road, at the
intersections of Soledad Canyon Road and Luther Drive, and
Luther Drive and Mandan Street. (Assessor Parcel Number
2803-029-301, a legal description of which is on file in the
Department'of Community Development.)
b. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing school
facilities at this flat 9.13 acre site and construct a 113,000
square foot commercial shopping center. The main building would
have a floor area of 96,500 square feet with an anchor tenant
occupying 50,000 square feet of the structure; the remaining
area to be occupied by several small -shop tenants. Three
additional detached commercial buildings. (of 3,000 square feet,
6,500 square feet, and 7,000 square feet) along the frontage of
Soledad Canyon Road are also included in the proposal.
C. The subject parcel is zoned C -1 -DP (Restricted
Business -Development Program Zone) and is designated as CC
(Community Commercial) by the City of Santa Clarita draft
General Plan.
d. The site is currently occupied by the Soledad Canyon Elementary
School, the offices of the Sulphur Springs School District, and
the Pauline B. Chase Special. Education School. The total number
of students enrolled at both schools is approximately 600.
e. The surrounding uses are: Retail commercial, single family
residential, and a church (to the north), church and
multi -family residential (to the south), single family
residential (to the east), and retail commercial (to the west).
f. The application was circulated for City Department and agency
review upon receipt. The City. of Santa Clarita Development
Review Committee (DRC) met on August 23, 1990, to review this
project.
RESO:P91-27
(Page 1)
g. Requests to the applicant for additional information included
the.following: Intersection realignment plan; road improvement
plan;. a traffic impact study; a sign plan; verification of
setback distances; a description of all uses proposed for the
site and the size of their respective areas; a parking lot
layout; waste storage area plan; and a landscaping and lighting
plan. This requested information was needed to review: the
applicant's project for compliance with the applicable City
Codes.
h. Public services .and utilities are existing to the subject
property.
i. This project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff prepared an
Initial Environmental Assessment for this project. Staff has
determined that, with specific design changes and mitigation
measures, a' Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect could
be adopted for this project.
J. A duly noticed. public hearing was held by the Planning
Commission on May 7, 1991 it ' '10 P.M. The meeting was held at
the City Council Chambe. _._6 Valencia Boulevard, Santa
Clarita.
SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, oral and
written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing held
for the project, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning
Commission and on its behalf, the Planning -Commission further finds
follows:
a. At the hearing of May 7, 1991, the Planning Commission
considered the staff report prepared for this. project and
received testimony on this proposal.
b. The City's draft General Plan designation for the project site
is Community Commercial (CC). The proposed use of the property
as a retail commercial shopping center is consistent with this
land use designation.
C. The 9.13 acre parcel is suitable for commercial retail
development.
d. Currently, Luther Drive intersects Soledad Canyon Road to the
south; Homyr Place intersects Soledad Canyon Road to.the north.
Luther Drive and Homyr Place are offset from each other by 140
feet from centerline to centerline. Both of these intersections
along Soledad Canyon Road are controlled by traffic
signalization. The project as proposed would impact these
intersections= by increasing traffic flow volumes, increasing.
traffic obstruction at and between these intersections, and
creating additional conflict points at project driveways. The
realignment of Luther Drive with Homyr Place would reduce the
project's anticipated traffic impacts to an insignificant level
by eliminating one,of the traffic signals but allowing all
RESO:P91-27
(Page 2)
existing maneuvers and access to remain available to motorists
under traffic signal control. This road improvement is. the
preferred mitigation measure recommended by City traffic
engineering staff.
However, the applicant's development plans for the proposed
project do not include provisions for a realignment of the
intersections of. Luther Drive and Homyr Place along Soledad
Canyon Road. As an alternative, the applicant has proposed the
construction of a raised median and the removal of the existing
traffic signal control at Homyr Place along Soledad Canyon
Road. The City's traffic engineering staff has reviewed this
alternative and finds it acceptable, but less desirable due .to
the "median locking" of Homyr Place. The construction of this
proposed median would result in restricting the access of Homyr
Place to right -turns only, to and from Soledad Canyon Road.
This restriction would adversely impact the occupants and users
of properties accessed via Homyr Place by creating increased
travel distances and requiring an increased number of ."U-turn"
maneuvers to and from the site.
The City's traffic engineering staff also examined the
possibility of shortening Luther Drive to a cul-de-sac which
would terminate approximately 450 feet south of Soledad Canyon
Road. This option is undesirable because access via Luther
Drive to properties south of Mandan Street would be eliminated.
This would result in increased traffic volumes on Vilna Avenue
to access these properties.
e. The project site as proposed is not adequately served by
highways or streets of sufficient width, and improved as
necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use
would generate. The project site does not have -adequate access
from Soledad Canyon Road, Luther Drive, or Mandan Street.
Traffic generated by the proposed project would not be
adequately served by the existing roadways and circulation
pattern.
The City's traffic engineering staff has recommended the
widening of Luther Drive to accommodate the increased traffic to
and from the proposed project site, however the applicant has
not, revised the project plans to include this improvement. The
proposed site is adequately served by other public or private
service facilities as are required. ' All other utilities and
public services are existing and available to serve the project
site.
f. The proposed site is not adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading
facilities, landscaping, and other development features
prescribed in this title, or as otherwise required in order to
integrate said use with uses in the surrounding area. On-site
automobile and pedestrian circulation is inadequate because .not
all parking facilities are accessible from any location
on-site. The project does not comply with applicable City codes
regarding parking, landscaping, height, and yard requirements.
RESO:P91-27
(Page 3)
g. This project as designed would adversely affect the health.
peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the
surrounding area; be materially detrimental to the use,
enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in
the vicinity of the subject property; jeopardize, endanger or
otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or
general welfare since this project does not conform to the
development standards of the subdivision and zoning ordinance
and is incompatible with surrounding land uses. Public serv_-
needs of the region were considered and balanced against t.:=
housing needs of local residents.
SECTION 3. Based.upon the foregoing facts and findings, the
Planning Commission hereby determines as follows:
a. Based on the Initial Study, the proposal would have a
significant effect upon the environment because the recommended
mitigation measures have not integrated.into the project design
to reduce all identified impacts to a level of insignificance.
b. As submitted, this project would have an adverse environmental
impact due to the loss. of recreational opportunities, and
increased traffic flow volumes and conflict points.
C. The. proposed project would be incompatible with the existing
uses in the vicinity because it is in conflict with draft
General Plan policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.9, and 1.10 of thq
Circulation Element, and policies 1.5, 1.17, and 1.18 of
Public Services, Facilities', and ;utilities Element.
As designed, the proposed project would not provide improved
levels of service and safety standards over current traffic
operations. Nor would appropriate levels of service be
maintained at adjacent intersections during peak hours.. Adverse
impacts on the adjacent residential ,neighborhood would result
from the increased flow of car and truck traffic due to service
loading/delivery, areas and employee parking located along Mandan
Street. The City's recommended design changes and improvements
would limit the number of intersections and driveways. on Soledad
Canyon Road, a major roadway within the City.
These recommended design changes and improvements would promote
a safe, efficient, and steady flow of traffic by maximizing and
improving the operating efficiency of the City's roadway
system.. This development should be prohibited unless the
applicant is willing to provide these improvements. The
applicant has not shown that, by removing the existing school
facilities and constructing this commercial shopping center, a
high standard of education would be promoted and growth would be
accommodated to meet future school district needs.
RESO:P91-27
(Page 4)
d. The Planning Commission hereby denies Master Case No. 90-153
(CUP .90-021) for a conditional use permit to allow a retail
commercial shopping center at 18830 Soledad Canyon Road.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 4th day of June, 1991.
(6uis Brathwaite,'Chairman
Planning Commission
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution
adopted by the Planning Commissi--:- :ity of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on taa 4th day of June, 1991, by the
following vote of .the Commission:
AYES: Commissioners: Voodrow, Cherrington, Modugno, Brathwaite.
NOES: Garasi
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
f i �
nn M. Ba ris, Director
Community Development
RESO:P91-27
(Page 5)
SII
City of Santa Clarita
City Council
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, California 91355
Subject: Appeal Revision
Honorable Mayor Carlboyer;
On behalf of Tandam Builders, Incorporated ("Applicant"), we hereby appeal the Resolution
for Denial of Proposed MC# 90-153; C.U.P. 90-021, per the action taken by the Ciyt of
Santa Clarita Planning Commission ("Commission") on June 4, 1991.
Specifically, the Applicant is appealing the Denial of CUP 90-021, which is an application
for a shopping center on existing school district property located at 18830 Soledad Canyon
Road.
The Applicant further appeals the decision of the Commission on the grounds that the
Commission did not have the authority to redesign a City street through the school district
property, nor impose such a radical redesign on the application as submitted; nor did the
Commission review the application on its merits.
Therefore, the Applicant desires that the City of Santa Clarita City Council ("Council")
approve the proposed shopping center on the existing site without the proposed
"realignment" of the intersection, as requested by three members of the Commission. The
Applicant wishes the Council to approve the project with the reconfigured intersection per
Exhibit A, attached, or similar reconfiguration.
We are prepared to go forward with our appeal on or before July 9, 1991.
Dr. Joel Kirsche te' , President
On Behalf of T m Builders Incorporated
cc: Sulphur Springs School District, Board Trustees
Sulphur Springs School District, Office of the Superintendent
Richard Darling, Tandam Builders
Sage Institute Incorporated
283S TOWNSGATE ROAD, SU?E 208 • WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA VZ36Z • (818) 99!46!6 (SOS) 407.8557 • Far (805) 496-4919
CITY PROPOSED
STRIPING
I VMITI" 11
Soledad Canyou Goad
1 1 0
j o
20, 20,
i
a
i
Y
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AMENDED STAFF REPORT
Master Case Number 90-153
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-021
DATE:_ May 7, 1991
TO: Chairman Brathwaite and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development
APPLICANT: Tandem Builders, Inc.
CASE PLANNER: Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner II
LOCATION: 18830 Soledad Canyon Road
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit
to allow a commercial shopping center development at this site.
The proposal includes four buildings with a total area of
113,000 square feet, along with 454 off-street parking spaces.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is proposing to remove the existing school facilities at this
flat 9.13 -acre site and construct a 113,000 square foot commercial shopping
center. The main building will have a floor area of 96,500 square feet with
an anchor tenant occupying 50,000 square feet of the structure; the remaining
area to be occupied by several small -shop tenants. Three additional detached
commercial buildings (of 3,000, 6,500, and 7,000 square feet) along the
frontage of Soledad Canyon Road are also included in the proposal.
BACKGROUND:
The project site is located at the southeast corner of the Soledad Canyon/
Luther Drive intersection. The site is currently occupied by the Soledad
Canyon Elementary School, the offices of the Sulphur Springs School District,
and the Pauline B.. Chase Special Education School. The total number of
students enrolled at both schools is approximately 600.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION; ZONING; LAND USE:
The Santa Clarita Areawide General Plan, draft City General Plan, Zoning, and
existing land use of the project site and adjacent properties:
LA CO SCV Draft City Zone Existing
General Plan General Plan Land Use
Project
P
CC
C1 -DP
North
C,U2
RS
C2, R-1-7000
NA
Elementary school and
school district offices.
Retail -commercial;
Single -Family Residential
LA: CO SCV Draft City Zone Existing
General Plan General Plan Land Use
South W/S, U3 RM C -1 -DP, Multi -family and single-
A -1-10,000 family residential;
R -3-12U. church.
East U2 RM A-1-7500 Single -Family
Residential.
West C CC CPD, C2 Retail -commercial.
KEY:
A-1-7500
Light Agricultural, 7,500 square foot minimum lot size.
A-1-10,0002
Light'Agricultural, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size.
C
Commercial
CC
Community Commercial
C -1 -DP
Restricted Business -Development Program Zone
C-2
Neighborhood Business Zone.
CPD
Commercial Planned Development Zone.
P
Public -Service Facilities
RM
Residential Moderate (6.7 to 15.0 units per acre).
RS
Residential Suburban (3.4 to 6.6 Units per acre).
U2
Urban 2 (3.4 to 6.6 Units per acre).
U3
Urban 3 (6.7 to 15.0 Units per acre).
W/S
Floodway/floodplain, Significant Ecological Area.
STATUS:
The environmental review of this project includes an Initial Study to evaluate
the impacts of this proposal. The environmental 'concerns includes: traffic
circulation, and aesthetics. It has been determined that this proposed
project will not have an adverse environmental impact with the implementation
of the recommended conditions of ,approval. A Negative Declaration of
Environmental Effect was prepared for this project.
INTERDEPARTMENT/INTERAGENCY REVIEW:
Comments and recommendations were requested from departments and agencies
which would be affected by this project. Comments received were considered by
the Community Development Department as part of the project review, and
recommendations will be included in the conditions of approval.
ANALYSIS:
The project site is located at 18830 Soledad Canyon Road, fronting on
Soledad Canyon Road, Luther Drive, and Mandan Street. The applicant is
proposing to remove the existing school facilities at this 9.13 -acre site and
construct a .113,000 square foot commercial shopping center. The immediate
vicinity is comprised of high and moderate density residential uses, a church,
and commercial uses. The project would provide an additional shopping center.
3
The proposed shopping center would be for retail use only, and any future
proposed restaurant would require a Conditional Use Permit.
The proposal is consistent with the draft General Plan designation, which is
Community Commercial. As proposed, the project would increase traffic
congestion and noise. The project would also eliminate an existing elementary
school, and an existing Special Education school for physically, mentally, and
emotionally challenged children. The total enrollment for both of 'these
schools is approximately 600 students. The school district is transferring
these students to Honby School with'no.loss of classroom time.
The proposed project -will eliminate the existing school yard playground and
landscaping. This would result in the loss -of recreational opportunities and
visual quality for the neighborhood. However, the shopping center would
incorporate landscaping which would shade parking area and increase the visual
quality of the center.
The General Plan addresses the need for adequate traffic circulation, school
facilities, and recreational opportunities. Circulation Element Policy.
Nos. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.9, and 1.10 directly apply to this project, as well as
Policy Nos., 1.5, 1.17, and 1.18, of the City's draft General Plan Public
Services, Facilities, and Utilities Element.
A key issue with respect to traffic and circulation on this project is the
signal at Soledad Canyon Road and Luther Drive/Homyr Place. This location was
signalized several years ago as one intersection. Under the current
arrangements, traffic using both Luther Drive and Homyr Place, enjoy full
access in either direction and the relative protection of traffic signal
control. City staff, however, has identified the need to provide additional
signal phases for left turning traffic from Soledad Canyon Road, specifically
in the westbound direction.
The applicant's traffic engineer has developed a concept in which westbound
left turns at Soledad Canyon Road would have a separate protected phase. This
concept includes elimination of the signal equipment at Soledad Canyon Road
and Homyr Place and installation of a raised median with landscaping on
Soledad Canyon Road through Homyr Place to eliminate potentially conflicting
left turns into and out of Homyr Place.
The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the applicant's proposal- and has
found it acceptable from the traffic engineering paint -of -view. Staff has
concerns over the acceptability of this plan by the commercial property owners
and other present users. of Homyr Place including a church and a day care
center. The immediately affected property owners/users on Homyr Place have
been contacted by City staff and are informed of the public hearing for this
proposal.
If a consensus can be reached with the present users of Homyr. Place on the
elimination of the signal and left turn ingress and egress, staff supports the
applicant's solution to this key issue.
If for any reason the Commission finds that no consensus has been reached with
respect to Homyr Place or wishes to leave the Homyr Place intersection
signalized for any reason, staff has developed an alternative proposal. This
alternative proposal would realign Luther Drive through the applicant's site
to create a four-way intersection at Homyr Place. This new intersection could
be controlled by signals with conventional left -turn phases in both
directions. This alternative proposal would require the applicant to dedicate
land for street realignment and intersection purposes.
The applicant has indicated that this alternate proposal for Luther Drive is
totally unacceptable. From a traffic engineering point -of -view, both
solutions work to.accommodate the proposed floor area.
The Negative Declaration addresses the need for traffic improvements for the
proposed project. Correspondingly, the City Traffic Engineering 'staff has
prescribed certain improvements for the project:
1. Ingress/egress from/to Soledad Canyon Road.shall be restricted to right
turns at the project's most easterly driveway.
2. The proponent shall provide a right -turn lane on Soledad Canyon Road for
traffic turning right into the project's main driveway, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3. Left -turns -from the project's main driveway onto Soledad Canyon Road shall
be prohibited.
4. The proponent shall construct raised landscaped median on Soledad Canyon
Road along the project's frontage, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. The median shall be configured to allow only westbound
left -turns into the main entrance.
5. The proponent shall reconstruct the south approach of Luther Drive to
Soledad Canyon Road to achieve a five -lane configuration as follows:
a. Three northbound approach lanes.
b. Two southbound departure lanes.
This shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the. City Engineer.
6. The proponent shall provide for pedestrian access between the main parking
facilities and the •employee's" parking facilities.
7. The proponent shall participate on a pro -rata basis in the funding of the
widening of the Soledad Canyon Road bridge over:the Santa Clara River.
RECOMMENDATION
Implementation of. the Traffic Engineering Division recommendations and
improvements would address potential traffic circulation, pedestrian, and
bicycle impacts. The Conditions of Approval will. include the necessary
Traffic Engineering recommendations providing for -the improvements to .mitigate
potential auto, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation impacts to ..an
insignificant level.
5
1) Adopt the attached Negative Declarationwith the finding that the proposed
project will not have a significant effect on the environment; 2) approve
the project in concept; and 3) direct staff to prepare conditions of
approval and resolution for final action in June, 1991.
Attachments: Negative Declaration
Environmental Assessment
Initial Study
Radius Map
Vicinity Map
BCA:dls:72
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N
CERTIFICATION DATE: 7 May 1991
APPLICANT: Tandem Builders 141
TYPE OF PERMIT: Conditional Use Permit
FILE NO.; MCI 90-153; CUP 90-0,21
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: The vw��
ed at 18830 Soledad
Canyon Road; southeast corner, Soledad Canyon Road
and Luther Drive.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The applicant is proposing the redevelopment
of the project site from an existing school to a commercial shopping
center on a 9.13 acre parcel. The proposal includes four buildings with
a total area of 113,000 square feet for commercial use, along with 454
parking spaces and appurtenant landscaping.
It is the determination of the: [ ] City Council
[X], Planning Commission
[ ] Director of Community Development
upon review that the project will not have a significant
effect upon the environment.
Mitigation measures
Form completed by:
[X] are attached
[ ] are not attached
(Si�atjiLk) VU
Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner II
(Name and Title)
Date of Public Notice:
[X] Legal advertisement.
[X] Posting of properties.
[X] Written notice.
7
Qi. PO .CABRAL $T
W OR
_ E
\RVIEc AL I
a ns Z
CANYON
q4 OP IGH SCN y
oDNPED°° RADIUS MAP - r
�.. 0. P ST NORTH OAKS \f(Oyl CPp'
QR ,,, CHADWAY J)
< ^ CITY PARK
DR Rj SABINCTON ST - RANIER -
FOUR OAKS
ST
Y°
o -
a c �O-��_
p CEDARCREEK
ST
S WC q E
O
y FAIRWEATHER ST h Jh rH E9 f BL $T^ I 5) a FAIRWEATHER ST S7 q ��2
UDELIGHT Oa ST O ;� 00 K BO T KIMBROUGH a ST Canyon °°�-�
I ao:eC. OF C.
DELIGHT 5T S sv+ i 'O Ilea >
"/fWHOUSE Y Wo ST a NEWH"E ST p p Z Q Z
> > O a ' I '„ESI
O a ¢ 'a ZO> C County ■ SA BANOE +2
LIONE p� _ �., ST Z '— 3 ONEROCK ST p-< SHANGRI IA W Oq + INRA 1/
a ORV CLIFF Z p ST y O ORVCLIFF : \ o BFq fq�CA ? ;1I o�pa�a
c N UA
v a 6 a S m ' q Q. Y \ vKTA
YL O o PLEASANTOALEa i ' $7 'Ppm 2 9y HILL f R COO y`� `tc OR `� SA4ATOC' ,F. B
e�aI C _ CALLA ►� WY �u '4 i h 1 FIC
CALLALL 2 WY" SIERRA VISTA u ■ O C T Z VCCI a P • I IUB qrZ HAI ; 2
O /R HIGH $GH VICI VICCI �i 57 q ^I n'IDGE
0 3 Y '
O Z •� STILLMORE SA n ST T 2 y, -O fYv - �iy SVN 5•i`MORE Oa
90 a.F, w > W �Lw� V`^W ///(%%J .
WELIHA VEN Si 4i YLF m < 4 [ `� FIRE ADKµU4Aw�0 h'ELLHAVEN ST
1 Q 'L WEPT GARDENS "u� ��77
's0 J v W NEARBROOK ST a ST ap RKI a ri I rk q NEARBROOK ST
RK J
CANYON xn RD
PAI f
,y ' _
9° i i S �:oJ: o < z` I VB PO tie PKt tr tr
ONNFRN a' g O w z •E"' -< Ga[N.t.a SOIFOAO' 1/ o 6
F x �GI$T_ T4Al(EA �.. tr F
2 � S MANO 4t0BxF tDOLf
� °R
DEU2ABEi WY •� _ S
S COLLINS l O
y 5.\
PRINCESS4
E�
ILi -DPOO VI
\,OAK - �'i •f•, i
BRANCH
< CIR\
�F�' ` ' .FRIENDLY VALLEY i tO
COUNTRY CLUB
q
LI` 'trMRrPi POWti C\pFriendly 0.' .. �C-�
OE 0'V. -
eV.
AArF V
_DF
(F LS _Naw�NOPf
-let ([ FRhN0AY
S
OEL
..
..�•`NC \ `�` `
a
YO R . OR \AV. 1_Oi . SNV' r • 1N
04
`� N q°4 Z 4A rF •p^ O UP15\ SSIE0.0.A ESIA7ES Ok —t
004 HI\V n 1-F MOUNTAN ♦�(r $ >
C Y<Fy2F C9:r \`T.E. 4'ti a°c �CEDARIF
\
J„�Jf>U'�W �S \ v\`'`^/43Y �'•:�0� CS �'. �FNfs 04 �o VP �
RER TI VP\i •\PSE$ y., .. CH 2�o w� _, -• E
RN(W� Qom'\ ,Of
a V1ViC/. OY ( POSE
�2
• CT44
MAP MAS
L4FEN MOINA •yt -
(4,1141
VICINITY MAP
MC 90-153
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Rich Henderson, Principal Planner
FROM: Ed Cline, Traffic EngineEr
DATE: May 31, 1991
SUBJECT: PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT, SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD AND LUTHER DRIVE
I have just reviewed the recent correspondence provided by the applicant
(Tandan Builders) regarding the traffic mitigation measures associated with
their project. There are several points which I believe are substantially
misrepresented in the document. They are:
Comment: The :applicant indicates that the traffic issue regarding Luther
Drive has been "recently" introduced by: the traffic -engineer.
Response: Our August 17, 1990, December 6, 1990 and May 7, 1991 memos clearly
point to the need to address the intersection issue. A copy of
these memos are attached.
Comment: The applicant indicates that their traffic solutions are the "most
effective method of mitigating the concerns of City staff."
Response: Actually, I have gone on record indicating that their solution,
Exhibit "A", is acceptable from the traffic engineering point of
view. I have also indicated -that the realignment of Luther Drive
to meet Homyr is the most effective solution.
Furthermore, the applicant has now endorsed the City's original "side-by-side"
left -turn pocket arrangements as the solution to the traffic issue. The
applicant alludes to the idea that Exhibit "B" is acceptable.by the City.
I have clearly represented that our traffic engineering order of preference
is, in a descending order:
• Best - Realign Luther Drive.
• Acceptable - Eliminate Homyr Signal (Exhibit "A").
• Workable but not recommended in light of opportunity to -create a more
favorable solution to the present undesirable off -set signalized
intersection (Exhibit "B").
EC:hds:991
Attachments
cc: John Medina
Lynn Harris
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner
Michael S. Murphy, Traffic Engineer
August 17, 1990 _
CUP 90-021
As requested, we have reviewed the submitted plan for this project from a
traffic engineering and transportation planning perspective. and submit the
following:
1. Realign Luther Drive so that a four-way intersection is formed with Homyr
Place, Luther Drive and Soledad Canyon Road.
2. Install raised median on Soledad Canyon Road from Luther Drive to Vilna
Avenue.
3. Provide a Traffic Study which will identify traffic impacts generated by
this project on nearby streets and intersections. The study should
incorporate existing traffic volumes with site -generated volumes,
projected future volumes with site -generated volumes, and identify
mitigative measures. Any mitigation proposed should be fully discussed.
Those discussions should include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. implementation responsibilities
b. financing
c. scheduling considerations
d. monitoring
MSM:hds
cc: John Medina
Jim Van Hinkle
Richard Kopecky
Wayne Weber
1.2
l `-
P 7e4
I t7 T E R 0 F F IcC E • M E M 0"R A N D U M RE C E t V c i)
OEC 0 6 1990
TO: Lynn Harris, Director of Community Development Fo0La..11..:•,•..1W
FROM: Michael S_ Murphy, Traffic Engineer 1Mt / ` t, � / 1/fit
111 /
DATE:December 6, 1990 ! �1 may' ` L I(
l
SUBJECT: CUP 90-021 - CANYON SPRINGS SHOPPING CENTER �r
J
As requested by Jeff Chaffin, we have reviewed the. submitted plan
November 21, 1990 for this project from a traffic engineering and
transportation planning perspective and submit the following:
1. The plan indicates a left -turn lane and corresponding opening in the
(proposed) median on Soledad Canyon Road for site access to the main
driveway.
It is recommended that all site access/egress from/to Soledad Canyon Road
be restricted to right turns and that the (proposed) median on Soledad
Canyon Road be. constructed as a continuous median from Vilna Avenue to
Homyr Place.
2. The plan appears to indicate that Homyr Place (not shown on the plan)
would be "median -locked" in that Homyr Place traffic at Soledad Canyon
Road would be restricted to "right-in"/"right-out" if the median were to
be constructed as shown.
We believe that there could be considerable opposition from the current
users of Homyr Place to any reduction in potential access/egress options
(i.e., full access/egress versus right -turn in/out) and corresponding
removal of the traffic signal system from the intersection.
3. On-site circulation should be provided whereby all parking facilities can
be accessed from any location on-site.
4. It is recommended that the proposed driveway on Luther Drive immediately
north of Mandan Street be relocated to a more northerly location.
S. The issue of the realignment of Luther Drive, addressed as Item 111 in our
August 17, 1990 memo (copy attached), has not been resolved.
We believe that until this issue is resolved, any additional review of
project driveway locations, site access/egress.and circulation patterns
would be premature.
MSM:hds
Attachment
cc: John Medina
Jim Van Winkle
Richard Kopecky
Wayne Weber
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Lynn Harris, pirector.of Community Development
FROM: John Medirya ector of Public Works
DATE: May 7, 1991
SUBJECT: MASTER CA 90-153, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-021
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REVIEW
Our review of the Canyon Springs Shopping Center Traffic Study (revised
March 13, 1991) has indicated that there are several unresolved .issues as
follows:
• The realignment of Luther Drive to achieve a four-way intersection with
Soledad Canyon Road at Homyr Place
• Roadway width of Luther Drive between Soledad Canyon Road and Mandan
Street
• Proposed "median -locking" of Homyr Place to limit ingress/egress from/to
Soledad Canyon Road to right turns only
• Vehicular/pedestrian access between the employee parking facilities and
the main parking facilities
• Left turn access from the project onto Soledad Canyon Road is still
considered undesirable, however, left turns from Soledad Canyon Road into
the project main driveway is no longer considered undesirable.
MSM:gmm-1243
cc: Jim Van Winkle
Dick Kopecky
Ed Cline
Michael Murphy
05:29,91 15:18 &805 396 7939 SAGE [NST. INC_ — CTY SSTA CLARITA 10001
URGENT
URGENT
PlfEA � L V E{Z 11 YV1 � J
SAGE INSTIT(PTE, INCORPORATED 4415
2835 Townsgate Road, Suite #208E—r�
Westlake Village, California 91361
(805)497-SSS7 / (818)99L-%"
URGENT URGENT
URGENT URGENT
Telecopier # (808) 496.4939
Date: 'URGENT
URGENT URGENT
TELECOPIER �S
URGENTraL
sssrssssssssssrsszszzssz::ssssxsssssssssesssssssssxssszsssxs:ssxxsszzzzssssszs
PLEASE DELMM THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO:
ATrENTTION: Rich �--&Wit'), R�Lmz mJ Plan
COMPANY '' // ..
FROM: CLI Vs Ff. �Lr)
SENT BY:
TELECOPIER NO:
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE:
sesssssssssssssssss:sssssscscssssssssscsssseeessssssssssesssssssssssscstssssss
COAUdF NTS=STRUCTIONS:
6C,hOol C)i5tPlC4- ' EOPCef cal atP-i� q0-021
05/29/91 15:18
^&805 496 4939 SAGE INST. INC. -..a CTY SVTA CLARITA
V,
TANDAM BUILDERS, INC.
(Developer)
SULPHUR SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT
(School District)
PROPOSED. TRAFFIC MITIGATION
FOR
PROPOSED USE OF
SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY
May 29, 1991
Prepared By:
Sage Institute, Inc.
Robert Crommelin and Associates
rt„
0529/91 15:19 ^tl805 AQ6 4939 SAGE INST. INC. -» CTI' SSfd CLARITA 2003
BACKGROUND
For approximately twelve months Tandam Builders, Luc. ("Developer") has been processing
CUP #90-021 for a proposed commercial development for the reuse of the Sulphur. Springs
School District ("District") property located at Luther Drive and Soledad Canyon Road.
The Developer has submitted a number of alternative plans to City of Santa Clarita ("City')
staff.
Recently the staff has requested a more detailed traffic and mitigation plan in order to
resolve issues identified by the City Traffic Engineer.
After a number of alternatives, the Developer submitted a plan which incorporated a
number of traffic and intersection mitigation measures as set forth in Exhibit A. Upon
detailed review and analysis, the Developer's traffic engineer, Robert Crommelin and
Associates, considered this proposed plan to be the most effective method of mitigating the
concerns expressed by City staff.
In response to the Developer's proposal, reported in Exhibit A, the City Traffic Engineer
presented an alternative plan at a public hearing on May 21, 1991, represented in
Exhibit B.
Under the City's alternative design the left turning movements into and out of both Luther
Drive and Homyr Place at Soledad Canyon Road will be permitted as they are under
existing striping. Plan B will provide for side-by-side left turn lanes for east and west bound
traffic, along with reconfiguration of the Ianes and re -timing of traffic lights.
A third alternative had been suggested, which calls for Luther Drive to be realigned with
Homyr Place to form a four -leg intersection. This realignment would result in a significant
loss of developable area and significantly reduce the value of the property due to the loss
of a strategic corner and the creation of a configuring split parcel marketing concept. The
redesign of the intersection is therefore concluded as a nonviable solution due to the
projected economic loss to both the District and Developer.
1
05/29/91 15:20 $805 4q6 4939 SAGE INST. INC. -- CTY SNTA CLARITA ZOG4
After careful consideration, the District and Developer are prepared to accept the City's
alternative plan as set forth in Exhibit B. The rationale for acceptance of the City's plan is
the following:
1. Left hand turns along of Soledad Canyon Road are left intact.
2. A proposed widening of Luther Drive allows for additional turning lanes and
greater stacking of cars.
3. Enhanced turn out areas into the main entrance of the center.
4. Completely reconfigured lanes throughout the intersection area.
Considering the fact that both Luther Drive and Mandam are limited in traffic volume, the
City's proposal per Exhibit B is an exceptable viable solution to all concerns raised to date.
2
:i
rn
rn ti
ti
.n
0
w
Ca
N
m
N
In
0
20'
DRYRbOPR$ PROP
. MIPIXG IB
JUTIMUMU
VVAI r
5oledad Canyon Boad
2
N
A
CITY PROPOSED
STRIPlxc
1TaTMrlvs A.
1 (I
1
• 1
20, 20'
+r
I
05/27/91 18:10 '5805 A" 4939 SAGE INST. INC. =+. CTY SNTA CLARITA _ Z002
RECEIVED
MAY 2 8 1991
T LYNN M. HARRIS
11 Ofroetor of Comm"rimwuy OeV,
Ms. Lynn Harris May 24, 1991
Community Planning Director
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd. #300
Santa Clarita, California, 91355
Dear Ms. Harris;
In respect for the Planning Commission request to re-evaluate the traffic and intersection
question pertaining to the Canyon Springs Village application on the eusting Sulphur Springs
School District Property (CUP #90-021), please be advised of the following:
I. The applicant's team and School District staff have reviewed the intersection
and proposed intersection solutions.
2. The applicant is prepared to accept the Intersection reconfiguration as
presented by Mr. Ed Kline, the Cities traffic engineer.
If at all possible, please schedule this item for the June 4th public hearing.
Our team is available to meet with your staff during the week of the 28th in order to review
the details of Mr. Kline's proposed intersection and any other items deemed appropriate by
the staff.
On Behar of )he Applicant,
Joel "enstein, President
Sage Institute, Incorporated
CC. Sulphur Springs School District, Board of Education
Sulphur Springs School District, Office of the Superintendent
Richard Darling, Tandam Builders, Inc.
Don Murphy, Architect
Jim Emmerson, Engineer
Antonio Coco, Traffic. Engineer
Sage Institute Incorporated Mann Wcb
2MS TOWNSGATE ROAD, SA1TE 208 • WESTLWE WUAG& CA 91361 • (818) 991.06!6 (80S) 491.8557 • Fat (80S) 064939
Mr. Louis Brathwaite
Chairman of the Planning Commission
City of Santa Clarita
2390 Valencia Boulevard, Suite #300
Santa Clarita, California 91355
May 3, 1991
Subject: Tandam Builders Incorporated; CUP 90-021 Commercial Shopping Center
18830 Soledad Canyon Road
Dear Planning Commission Chairman Brathwaite; and
Commission Members;
On behalf of Tandam Builders, Inc. ("Applicant"), our office respectfully
submits this correspondence and attached consultants' correspondences
pertaining to the proposed redevelopment of the Sulphur Springs School
District ("District") property, located at 18830 Soledad Canyon Road.
By way 'of background, our office has been representing Tandam Builders
commencing with the development of Tandam's proposal to the District,
including the memorialization of the lease terms and conditions with the
District and. throughout the application and entitlement process.
During the application process, our office and three other project consultants
have worked diligently with the staff for almost one year in order to present
a first class project to the commission for the District's property.
Upon review of the staff report and related recommendation we are most
disappointed in the staff recommendation to continue the public hearing for
the purpose of "redesigning" the project.
Apparently the primary reason for the recommended "redesign" is to realign
existing streets both adjacent to the project and across the street from the
project in order to create a perfectly aligned intersection.
From the outset, the Applicant and representatives from the District have
made it clear that this particular requirement would be unacceptable due to
the fact that the site would lose approximately 20% of the land surface and
would create a site configuration that would result with an unacceptable shape
and inadequate frontage along Soledad Canyon Road to affectively market the
site for existing and prospective retail operations.
Sage Institute, Incorporated
2835 TOWNSCATE ROAD, SUITE 208 • WESTL KE VI1L4CE, CA 91361 • (818) 991.0646 (805) 497.8557 • Fax (805) 4964939
SitI
Although the Applicant has already submitted numerous reconfigurations to
designs as originally submitted for the staff's review, the Applicant is unable
to respond to the request, as set forth in the staff report, due to the economic
impact of the reconfiguration that would have on the lease terms and
conditions negotiated with the District and the significant lessening of value
that would occur to the District's property and proposed use as submitted.
The Applicant is respectful of the desire to realign the intersection, however;
without economic compensation from the City for the loss of property and
income resulting from the significant loss of land as requested this
recommendation is not feasible.
We also wish the Commission to consider the frustration of both the Applicant
and District who owns just one corner of a staff proposed four corner
intersection, thereby being requested to mitigate this new proposed
intersection without any mitigation measures being imposed or any other
"intersection" property owners.
In essence we would ask why not ask the. other property owners to voluntarily
pay for and suffer the economic consequences of relocating the street adjacent
to the property as part of doing business in the city.
As a final and most important thought for the Commission's consideration, the
entire consulting team (per attached correspondences) is of the opinion that
allowing the street configuration to remain as is, including the median as
proposed will more than adequately mitigate staff concerns.
We look forward to discussing these items in greater detail during the
upcoming public hearing.
Sincerely,
JoedKirschenstein, President
Sage Institute, Incorporated
enclosures
CC. Richard Darling, Tandam Builders
Edward Zemla, Sulpher Springs School District
tndmsm/cDrres.50l1cb
M
,
APCHITECTURE • INC
55 West Sierra Madre Blvd., Slerro Madre, California 91024 (W) 35&4133
May 2, 1991
Mr. Louis Brathwaite
Chairman of the Planning Commission
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
2390 Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Mr. Brathwaite;
Pertaining to the City of Santa Clarita's Staff Report dated May 7,
1991, please note the following:
1. (Item 3) The proposed drive on luther ya.s moved to a more
northernly location. Its south edge is approximatly 15
feet from face of curb on Mandan (see recent site plan
dated•4/17/91)
On site circulation: to the best of my knowledge, this was
not a manditory issue until this report. The area in question
is the south west parking area which is solely for employee
Parking and loading use. Connecting this to the main parking
area would create either a'vehicular penetration thru the shops
which is unsightly as well as a pedestrian hazard, or, a.reduc-
tion of the street frontage landscaping along.Luther and the
injection of perpendicular traffic flow at the main entry off
Luther which would create congestion at the entry and be
hazardous.
3., i take exception to staff's characterization that the internal
circulation is "inadequate" other than the issue addressed
above. Primary internal circulation has been provided VIA a
perimeter corridor which provides good access to the entire
parking area.
DISTRIBUTION:
Dick Darling
31
B&E ENGINES.g
CIVIL ENGINEERING —'SURVEYING — LAND PLANNING
(213) 254.5134 $25 Colorado Blvd.
(318) 500.0217 Suite No. 222
FAX (213) 255.4351 Lot Aneelet. CA. $0041
May 2, 1991
299 W. Hillcrest Drive f806) 4960027
SWto Nu. 116 (818)707.2523
Thousand Oaks, CA. 91360
Mr. Louis Brathwaite
CITY OF SANTA CLARI'TA
PLANNING COMMISSION
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
RE: Canyon Springs Shopping Center--a.N. 91801 (G)
Dear Mr. Brathwaite)
I have reviewed the traffic issues of the City's SteEf Report dated
May 7, 1991. Although it was?my understanding that most of these
issues had been resolved-' some time ago, it appears that the
conditions are unchanged. from- .those listed. in the City's letter
dated August 22, 1990.
From'a civil engineering viewpoint, ,Condition No. 5 would have the
most significant impact on this project. The realignment of.Luther
Drive to connect with'Homyr Place would impact a large portion of
the northwest corner of the property as the present center lines
of these two streets are''approximately 145 feet apart.'
I appreciatethe opportunif� to comment on this matter. If you
have any questions, please.feel free to contact me.
Sinceely,
AXES T. EMERSON
President
t7TE:rf
ROBERT CROMMELIN AND ASSOCIATESs INC.
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERS
17071 VENTURA BOULEVARD, SUITE 206 ENCINO. CA 91316
1 May 1991
Mr. Louis Brathwaite,
Chairman of the Planning Commission
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
TEL. 19161 7013-H.,/O / FAX 16161769.11545
SUBJECT: SHOPPING DAM BUILDERS,
SOLEDAD CAN21 YON ROAD COMMERCIAL
Dear Mr. Brathwaite:
We are in receipt of the Staff Report on the above-mentioned project sent to
the Commission by the Director of Community Development, Ms. Lynn Harris.
We performed the Traffic Impact Study for this project and are particularly
concerned with the portion of the Staff Report which relates to traffic. During
the process of doing the traffic study, we have had a meeting and several
telephone conversations with the City's Assistant Traffic Engineer, Mr.
Michael Murphy, in order to identify and address all the concerns that the City
might have with the project's traffic impact. As part of that meeting, Mr. Mur-
phy agreed to several portions of the access system which are not recognized
in the Staff -Report.
The Staff Report indicates five areas where the project needs improvement and
redesign. With reference to those five points, please note the following:
1) During our meeting with Mr. Murphy it was agreed that a westbound
left turn into the project off Soledad Canyon Road would be not only ac-
ceptable but desirable in order to reduce the number of left -turn move-
ments at the Luther/Soledad Canyon intersection (see Traffic Study, page
11-c). 'Those left turns would be made from a break in the median on
Soledad Canyon Road during the gaps created by the Luther/Soledad
Canyon signal. Left turns out of the project would not be allowed by the
design,
2) The developer agreed to build a raised median on Soledad Canyon
Road, As reported in Item 1, the median would have a break at•the shop-
ping center's main access onto Soledad.Canyon Road. Also, based upon
the results of our analysis, we. recommended that the raised median be ex-
tended as far west as Luther Drive, thus providing.a longer left -turn pock-
et lane for westbound left -turn. movements at that location. This would
33
I May 1991
Mr. Louis Brathwaite page 2
improve traffic conditions on Soledad Canyon since westbound left -turn-
ing vehicles currently overflow into the through lane due to the short left -
turn pocket.
3) The proposed driveway on Luther Drive _referred to in Item 3 of the
Staff Report has been relocated 75 feet north of Mandan Street. This
change is reflected. in the latest site plans and was based upon Mr.
Murphy's request.
4) The on-site circulation issue mentioned in the Staff Report was ad-
dressed in our Traffic Study, page 12-h. Mr. Murphy recommended a con-
nection between the project's employee parking and the customer parking
lot in order to avoid the use of public right-of-way for traffic movements
between the two lots. With the low volume of movements Involved, the
connection between the two parking lots is unwarranted. Such a connec-
tion would be detrimental to site parking controls and would be disruptive
to reasonable site planning.
5) The issue of realigning Luther Drive to form a four-way intersection
with Homyr Place and Soledad Canyon Road has been addressed in the
Traffic Study, page 13-1. The amount of traffic generated by uses within
Homyr Place, namely a church with a day care center, is very limited, espe-
cially. when compared to existing and future traffic volumes on Luther
Drive. It is inappropriate to interrupt the flow of traffic on a major high-
way such as Soledad Canyon Road (a 6 -lane, 50 mph highway), with a traf-
fic light for the limited number of left -turning movements out of Homyr
Place. The Improvements proposed in our Traffic Study will limit Homyr
Place to right -turn movements. Traffic wanting to turn left onto Soledad
Canyon will be able to do so by negotiating a U-turn at Luther Drive. We
feel that this solution will improve traffic operations at that location.
Both myself and Mr. Coco, my Project Engineer, will be present at the Plan-
ning Commission's meeting of May 7, 1991 to answer any questions.
Sincerely,
ROBERT CROMMELIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Robert W. Crommelin, P. E,
President
RWGcr
3�
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REGARDING CUP 90-021
May 21, 1991
CONTINQED:PUBLIc HEARms
' ITEM 1' -'CONDITIONAL' -USE PERMIT -90-021
Director. Harris opened. the. item and introduced Assistant Planner Jeff Chaffin
who gave the staff report and slide presentation.
Director Harris reported on written communication received on the prujeci.
which included approximately 50 to 60 letters in support, and 7 letters in
opposition to the project.
Mr. Henderson highlighted the key issues of traffic and signalization.
Mr. Henderson pointed out that the only two solutions according to cit,
traffic 'engineers' would be to: 1) Re -align Luther Drive; or 2) remove the
.signal at Homyr Place.
A brief discussion by the Commission followed.
COMMISSIONER DEPARTURE
Commissioner Modugno was excused to attend a personal engagement and left cite
meeting at 7:20 p.m.
ITEM 1 (Continued)
Chairman Brathwaite opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. and the following
persons addressed the Commission:
Mr. Joel Kirschenstein, 2835 Townsgate Avenue, Westlake Village.
Mr. Kirschenstein spoke in favor of the project and on behalf of the applicant.
Mr. Don Murphy, 55 W. Sierra Madre Blvd., Sierra Madre. Mr. Murphy, tl,a
architect for the project, gave a quick overview of the project site plan.
Mr. Robert W. Crommelin, 17071 Ventura Blvd., Suite 206, Encino.
Mr. Crommelin, the engineer. for the project, gave information relating to
parking and traffic.
Ms. Joan MacGregor, 16936 Shinedale, Canyon Country. Ms. MacGregor, President
of the Board of Sulphur Springs School District, spoke in favor of the project
as a means of mitigating the school's overcrowding and financial burden.
The Commissioners asked various questions of Ms. MacGregor.
Dr. Robert Nolet, 24454 W. Valencia, Santa Clarita. Dr. Nolet, Superintencenc.
of Sulphur Springs School District, spoke with relation to the student housing
needs, and other issues.
Pastor William L. Maley, 28367 Sand Canyon, Canyon Country. Pastor Haley with
First Christian Church located on Momyr Place is concerned with the traffic
impacts this project will have on the intersection at Momyr Place.
The following persons spoke in opposition to the.project:
Mrs. Lisa McKeown, owner/operator of Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream, 18827 Soledad
Canyon Road,Santa Clarita. Mrs. McKeown rgpresenting herself and other
businesses -in the area spoke in opposition to _the project with relation to the
traffic situation.
Mr. Terrence A. Lucero, 27517 Vilna Avenue, Canyon Country. Mr. Lucero spoke
in opposition to the project and brought along an 'additional 41 letters in
opposition, signed by residents of the American Beauty Apartments, which tie
presented to the Commission.
Mr. Rick Schrager, 18724 Mandan, Canyon County. Mr. Schrager, representing
some of the tenants of the American Beauty Apartments, spoke in opposition and
concerning the traffic safety issue.
Mr. Mark` Poorman, 18210 Sandy Drive, Canyon County. Mr. Poorman spoke in
opposition regarding the possible removal of the light'at Momyr Place.
VJ
Mr. Ed Dunn, 15414 Rhododendron Drive, Canyon Country. Mr. Dunn spoke in
opposition to the project as a commercial strip center.
Mr. Charles Hall, 19122 Lone Rock, Canyon Country. Mr. Hall addressed the
issue of excessive commercial land use already existing as well as the traffic
issue.
Mr. Jack Ancona, 29552 Abelia, Canyon Country. Mr. Ancona raised the question
of the possibility of having a park on the site, and the traffic issue.
Mr. Steve Burgess, 5360 Via 2apapo, Yorba Linda. Mr. Burgess, Senior :Vice
President of Sales and Operations, Krauses Sofa Factory, is opposed to the
project.
Ms. Mary Moore, 18758 Mandan 11615, Canyon Country.• Ms. Moore spoke in
Opposition to the project due to the traffic safety issue, and the viability
of another shopping center.
Mr. John Morrisette, 16830 Ventura Blvd., Encino. Mr. Morrissette,
representing the owners of the American Beauty Apartments, is concerned with
the aesthetics of the rear of the project which faces the apartments.
Mr. John Boke, 27065 Crossglade, Canyon Country, Mr. Boke, representing the
Canyon Village Homeowners Association, spoke in opposition to the project as
he feels there is too much commercial use already existing in the area.
COMMISSIONER RETURNED
Commissioner Modugno returned at 8:20 p.m.
ITEM 1 (Continued)
Ed Cline, City Traffic Engineer, gave clarification to traffic trips and
u -turns .
Chairman Brathwaite closed the public hearing at 9:01 p.m.
A discussion by the Commission followed.
Vice -Chairman Cherrington 'sees the re -alignment of Luther Drive as the only
viable ,solution to .the traffic issue. Commissioner Voodrow feels this project
represents a hardship to the existing.resiJents. Commissioner Garasi believes
that the traffic issues have not been 'fully met and would like to see that
staff further look into these.
Vice -Chairman Cherrington motioned that the item be returned to staff to work
with the applicant on a new site plan, re -alignment of the road, and with a
recommendation for the use of -the corner section which will be .separated by
the re -alignment. Commissioner Voodrow seconded, and a discussion was
requested by Commissioner Garasi. The item was carried 4-0-1 with
Commissioner Modugno abstaining per counsel's direction.
3
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REGARDING REGARDING CUP 90-021
June 4, 1991
ITEM E-3: DIRECTOR'S REPORT - RESOLUTION FOR DENIAL FOR TANDAM BUILDERS
Commissioner Garasi motioned to move Director's Report Item Number 3 to the
beginning of the. agenda. Commissioner Modugno seconded: the motion. It was
approved 5-0.
Director Harrisintroduced Item E-3, stating that staff has a Resolution for
Denial..of the project for the Commission's action. .She stated that additional
written testimony has been received, and has been transmitted to the
Commission for information.
Commissioner Modugno stated that when this item was last discussed, he left
the hearing for approximately one hour. He has now reviewed the case rd had
discussions with staff and feels comfortable in participating in chi;
discussion.
There -was discussion among the Commission.
Mr. Joel Kirschenstein, 2835 Townsgate Road, Westlake Village spoke on behalf
of the applicant. He stated that alternatives were included after the Public
Hearing was closed, and that his question regards procedure. There was an
alternative offered and the applicant is not sure if the Commission had a
chance to review this alternative, which the applicant was in agreement with.
There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding issues brought up by
the project that are beyond the scope of the Planning Commission, and should
be forwarded to the City Council.
Commissioner Cherrington discussed the problem with this project due to the
needs of the school district overshadowing the flaws in land use and
circulation issues. Stating that he fully understood the applicant's
question, and the fact that there were alternatives offered that were
acceptable to the applicant, Commissioner Cherrington made a motion to adopt
the Resolution for Denial. Commissioner Modugno seconded the motion. It was
approved 4-1, with Commissioner Garasi casting the no vote.
There were requests from the audience to: hear Item 8 next. Chairman
Brathwaite polled the applicants on the agenda and it was determined that Item
8 would remain on the agenda as Item 8.