HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-09-10 - AGENDA REPORTS - RESO P90-27 SOLEDADCYN (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented , i 4
PUBLIC BEARING
DATE: September 10, 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 appeal was previously scheduled on the City Council's
July 9, 1991 agenda. A postponement was requested by the applicant to
allow them adequate time to prepare for the appeal hearing.
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 traffic study prepared for this project by Robert Crommelin and Associates
(February 11, 1991), states that: "...the proposed project will increase
existing traffic flow by about 4,600 vehicle trips per day." "The AM peak has
been estimated at 107 vehicle trips...", "The PM peak was estimated at 376
vehicle trips...". The assessment of traffic impacts has-been made by the
City's traffic engineering staff. Traffic engineering recommendations include
the following:
,� Agenda Item
Page 2
MCO 90-153
1) Ingress and egress to and from Soledad Canyon Road shall be
restricted to right -turns.
2) The proposed median of Soledad Canyon Road. be constructed as a
continuous median from Vilna Avenue to Homyr Place.
3) The proposed driveway on Luther Drive immediately north of Mandan
Street be relocated to a more northerly location.
4) On-site circulation should be provided so that all parking facilities
can be accessed from any location of the site.
5) Realign Luther Drive so that a four-way intersection is formed with
Homyr Place, Luther Drive, and Soledad Canyon Road.
The applicant is opposed to the realignment of Luther Drive with Homyr Place.
However, staff has determined that 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 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.
It is possible that the applicant's suggested traffic improvements could be
found to be more acceptable if the intensity of the project was decreased.
This could be achieved by eliminating floor space through removal of the
free-standing buildings, reducing the number and area of the smaller lease
spaces, and allowing only low traffic intensity uses to occur at the project
site.
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.
Page 3
MC8 90-153
RECOMMENDATION
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. Planning Commission Resolution No. P91-27.
2. Memos from City Traffic Engineering
3. Project site plan.
4. Staff report dated May 7, 1991.
5. Appeal request from Sage Institute on behalf of the applicant.
6. Negative Declaration and Initial Environmental Assessment.
LMH:JC/383
PUBLIC HEARING ?ROC=DURS
1. Mayor Opens Hearing
a. States Purpose of Hearing
Z. City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice
3. Staff Report
(City Manager)
or
(City Attorney)
or
(RP Staff)
4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes)
S. Opponent Argument (30 minutes)
6. Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent)
a. Proponent
7. Mayor Closes Public Testimony
8. Discussion by Council
9. Council Decision
10. Mayor Announces Decision
0
0
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 VITH.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., let 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 N. Grindey
City Clerk
Publish Date: June'14, 1991
0
i
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
review upon receipt. The City of
Review Committee (DRC) met on August
project.
RESO:P91-27
(Page 1)
City Department and agency
Santa Clarita Development
23, 1990, to review this
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 ",:113 P.M. The meeting was held at
the City Council Chambe_ ,_0 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 its 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 ICanyon
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.
I
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.
RESOiP91-27
(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 Ito the
development standards of the subdivision and zoning ordinance
and is incompatible with surrounding land uses. Publiclservi
needs of the region were considered and balanced against c..:
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 th-
Circulation Element, and policies 1.5, 1.17, and 1.18 lof
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 existingl 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, 19911
i�
uis Brathwaite, Chairman
Planning Commission
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a Reslolution
adopted by the Planning Commissi .ity of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on t::d 4th day of June, 1991, iby the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES: Commissioners: Voodrow, Cherrington, Modugno, Brathwaite.
NOES: Garasi
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
i
nn M. Ma rig, Director
Community Development
RESO:P91-27
(Page 5)
7
CITY OF SAMA 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, Director of Community Development
FROM: Ed line, Traf c ngineer `7
DATE: July 1, 1991
SUBJECT: CANYON SPRINGS SHOPPING CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACTS
The June 26, 1991 meeting in the Manager's Office with the school district
and the developer produced some technical traffic issues which should be
clarified. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide additional
information relative to those issues. !
It became apparent that no one at the meeting disputed the fact; that the
realignment of Luther Drive to meet and form a conventional; four-way
signalized intersection with Homyr Place would be clearly the best traffic
solution. The question remained as to the economics of the realignment
due to the cost of the improvements and long term loss of revenue from the
project.
It was equally apparent that the applicant's original proposal to
eliminate the Homyr Place signal was not considered politically viable.
The applicant has now adopted a previously designed third alternative that
calls for retention of the off -set between Luther Drive and Homyr Place
and creation of side-by-side left turn lanes. This design was developed
by the City prior to the subject project application.
To describe this alternative as "acceptable" to City staff is 'a little
overstated. A better term would be "workable". As I stated at the
Planning Commission hearing on this project, my preferences for the three
alternatives in a descending order are:
1. Realign Luther
2. Eliminate Homyr
3. Side -by -aide left turns
When discussing efficiency of the intersection, operation, both #1 and. #2
are approximately the same. The applicant's traffic.engineer hasireported
that a level of service "D" will .be realized for both #1 and #2 based on
volume/capacity (V/C) ratio of 0.827 and 0.825 respectively. Their report
shows the aide -by -side (#3) to operate at a V/C ratio of 0.847.
While' the V/C still translates to a level of service "D", the 2 percentage
point difference in V/C ratios is considered significant by previous
definitions of "significant". Furthermore, the 0.847 rounds off to 0.85
which has been our informal threshold of acceptability for traffic impacts.
While discussing intersection efficiency, it's important to realize that
the realignment of Luther Drive is more than aligning two short streets
which on their own have no regional significance. The realignment
provides a superior intersection performance with respect) to the
efficiency of traffic flow on Soledad Canyon Road.
The school district points out that a significant amount of traffic on
Soledad Canyon Road at Luther Drive will be displaced to Whites Canyon
Road/Via Princessa when that road becomes available in about 1S months.
That's certainly true. Other recent studies, including the City's Traffic
Model indicate however, that the current volume of traffic on Soledad
Canyon Road will be restored within a few years and ultimately surpassed
as development and traffic growth occurs in the area. Therefore', maximum
efficiency at the intersection is extremely important to the long term
effectiveness of Soledad Canyon Road as &.regional highway.
The issue of cost to the school 'district is an important aspect of the
discussion. The school district has placed a value on the loss of
potential revenue from the site.
It is difficult to quantify the societal cost of the less efficient
intersection. The 2 percent' drop in performance will translate to an
increase in delay which translates to an increased cost of using the
highway. Moreover, the societal cost of having an intersection that is
more complicated and consequently more confusing is significant. While,
again, difficult to predict or quantify, an intersection which is
non -conventional can be expected to experience a higher accident frequency
due to the confusion element. The side-by-side operation, with -internal
clearances and programed visibility heads will be less efficient and offer
more confusion than a conventional four-way intersection with conventional
signal phases and standard clearance intervals.
Therefore, while the aide -by -aide operation can be termed "workable", it
is not the traffic engineering staff's preferred alternative.
EC:rd:1519
RECEIVED
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA MAY 3 1 1by1
LYNN M: HARRIS
I N T E R 0 F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M Mreewr of CommuNy 0•Y.
I
TO: Rich Henderson Principal Planner
C�/�
FROM: Ed Cline, Traffic Enginedr
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
CITY 0£ 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 Mediga.&Vxector of Public Works
DATE: May 7, 199
SUBJECT: MASTER CAS's 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 As no longer considered undesirable.
MSM:gmm-1243
cc: Jim Van Winkle
Dick Kopecky
Ed Cline
Michael Murphy
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
INTEPV OFFICE M E M O RAND , .q
TO: Lynn Harris, Director of Community Development
FROM: Michael S. Murphy, Traffic Engineer
DATE: December 6, 1990
SUBJECT: CUP 90-021 - CANYON SPRINGS SHOPPING CENTER
RECEIVED
DEC 0 6 1990
PUBLIC v/J"n "I''."MENT
On OF SANTA CLARIFA
Ole
As requested by Jeff Chaffin, we have reviewed the submitted plan dated
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.
5, ,The issue of the realignment of Luther Drive, addressed as Item #1 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 circulationp atterns
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: Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner
FROM: Michael S. Murphy, Traffic Engineer
DATE: August 17, 1990
SUBJECT 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 Winkle
Richard Kopecky
Wayne Weber
/ / /
7e4 �d
I
I I
LUTHER DRIVE
VILNA AVENUE
I
HN
PLACE
—ted
s
y
e
Iwo
z
0
N
0�
LUTHER DRIVE
VILNA AVENUE
I
HN
PLACE
—ted
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I N T E R 0 F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
T0: Chairman Brathwaite and Members of the Planning Commission
-7 -2
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development%�
DATE: June 4, 1991
SUBJECT: Director's Report; item 13. Tandam Builders proposal (MCI
90-153; CUP 90-021). The applicant is proposing the
redevelopment of the project site from an existing l 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.
LOCATION: The project .site is located at 18830 Soledad Canyon Road;
southeast corner of the intersection of Soledad Canyon Road
and Luther Drive.
The project proponent has proposed alternative traffic mitigation
measures for the project in response to staff's recommendations. The
applicant . has submitted correspondence discussing these mitigation
measures, which have been based upon a misunderstanding of the Traffic
Engineering staff's recommendations. Enclosed please find the most
recent memo from the City's Traffic Engineering- staff to the City's
Planning staff. This memo clarifies the traffic improvements recommended
for the Tandam Builder's proposal.
Thank you
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: Chairman Brathwaite and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development
DATE: May 21, 1991
SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing of the -Tandem Builders proposal (MCI
90-153; CUP 90-021). 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.
LOCATION: The project site is located at 18830 Soledad ,Canyon Road;
southeast corner of the intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and
Luther Drive.
BACKGROUND:
This case was .previously before the Planning Commission on May 7, 1991. This
item was continued due to the expiration of time allowed to hold a public
hearing, in accordance with Planning Commission policy. Director Harris
requested that the Commissioners retain all materials on this .item for the
continued hearing. The status of this application and ,the staff
recommendation remains unchanged.
JC:297
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
T0: Chairman Brathwaite and Members of the Planning Commission ��
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development/ 7/ -
DATE: May 15, 1991
SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing of the Tandem Builders proposal ',(Master
Case Number 90-153; Conditional Use Permit No. 90-021). 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.
LOCATION: The project site is located at 18830 Soledad Canyon Road;
southeast corner of the intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and
Luther Drive.
BACKGROUND:
This case was previously before the Planning Commission on May 7, 1991.
This item was continued due to the expiration of time allowed to hold a
public hearing in accordance with Planning Commission policy.
Subsequently, City staff met with the applicant to resolve the traffic
issues associated with the project. Staff has; amended the original
Planning Commission report to reflect the resolutions to the (traffic
issues. The amended staff report is attached for your review.
BCA:dls:71
Attachment: Amended Staff Report of May 71 1991
Agenda Item: L
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 thePlanningCommission
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
Theapplicant 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
; 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 Elementary school and
school district offices.
North C,U2 RS C2, R-1-7000 Retail -commercial;
Single -Family Residential
9
LA CO SCV Draft City Zone
General Plan General Plan
South W/S, U3 - RM C -1 -DP,
A-1-10,000
R -3-12U
East U2 RM A-1-7500
West C CC CPD, C2
KEY:
A-1-7500
A-1-10,0002
C
CC
C -1 -DP
C-2
CPD
P
RM
RS
U2
U3
W/S
Existing
Land Use
Multi -family and single-
family residential;
church.
Single -Family
Residential.
Retail -commercial.
Light Agricultural, 7,500 square foot minimum lot size.
Light Agricultural, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size.
Commercial
Community Commercial
Restricted Business -Development Program Zone
Neighborhood Business Zone.
Commercial Planned Development Zone.
Public Service Facilities
Residential Moderate (6.7 to 15.0 units per acre).
Residential Suburban (3.4 to 6.6 Units per acre).
Urban 2 (3.4 to 6.6 Units per acre).
Urban 3 (6.7 to 15.0 Units per acre).
Floodway/floodplain, Significant Ecological Area.
ENVIRONMENTAL 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 point -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.
V
1) Adopt the attached Negative Declaration with 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
g
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
2835 TOWNSCATE ROAD, SUITE 208 • WESTL4KE VIII tCE, CA 91361 • (8/8) PH -W6 (80S) 4974557 • Far (80S) 4964939
Luther Drive
W4�
9
I
13' li' 11, 10 10' It, 11' 1 13• ISO EXHIBIT A
1 r�
V1Ititit
tltlf I �
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
__ i�__�- �• 23920 VALEVCIA BLVD.. Sum E: 300 ' SANTA CLARITA 91355
' .., (805) 259-2489
CASH RECEIPT j A
FUND ACCT.
DE:
AT
, ;�� /
TOTAL AMOUNT
O/
77
RECEIVED OF: -7
ADDRESS:
rl
I
CITY & ZIP:
PHONE NO: ( )
DRIVERS LICENSE NO.: J
FUND ACCT.
N0.
FOR
TOTAL AMOUNT
O/
77
7�S loo
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j'(OJ Ivv
❑ CASH CkHECK-N0. ��� ooLLARs I cENrs
CASH RECEIPT N0. 25252 RECEIVED BY
CUSTOMER COPY
05!29/91 13:18 $805"496 4939 SAGE [NST. INC. --- CTY SNTA CLR(TA x.0001
PLSL kv-E, - rolrvl
URGENT zti
SAGE INSTITUTE, INCORPORATED }� S
URGENT 2531 Townsgate Road, Suite #208 rnEE�l i Ne
Westlake Pillage, California 91361
(so57av�.sss� / (sts��vt-oras
URGENT URGENT
URGENT URGENT
Telccopier # (805) 496.4939
Date: U R.G E N T
URGENT URGENT
URGENT TELECOPIER TRANsrr�x,
ti*i�itiiiitiitiLiizssiYsiiiiiiiYLYYitiiitiitiLitYYtifttiLYLLYYLLttiii22YYLtiY'
PLEASE DELIYER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO:
ATTENTION: Q&) �"� , aUIXjpaJ Plan rxn-g
• �AWA
FROM:
SENT BY:
TELECOPDM NO:
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING TINS PAGE:
stsscssessssssssssssssssssssesssssscsscsssssisscessesssssesssssscsssstssssssss
i
COMM EN YINSTRUCITONS:
aVCol C)i5}P-C+ PECPfeftlPP-02a-521
05/29/91 15:18 tl805 496 4939 SAGE INST. INC. -». CTY SNTA CL4RITA Z002
03/29/91 15:19 ^!]805 106 .4939 SAGE INST. INC. -- CTY SNTA CLARITA 0003
BACKGROUND
For approximately twelve months Tandam Builders, Inc. ("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 ("Cit})
staff.
Recently the staff has requested a more detailed traffic andmitigation 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 PIace 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 lanes 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 Ioss
of a strategic comer 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 V805 d46 4939 SAGE INST. INC. -»» CTY SNTA CLARITA Z004
After careful consideration, the District and Developer are prepared to accept the Cites
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
05729/91 15:20 $805 dab 4939
- 1 15' 1- 112.
Luther Drive
1
91
SAGE INST. UC. --. CTI' SNTA CLARITA 0005
6' 12' 12' 13 15'
EXHIBIT A
d
b
sss�!
d
b
05/29/91 15:21 (x$`805 A06 4939
o
Luther Drive
! I! I llt,
SAGE INST. INC. CTY SNTA CLARIT.4 2006
10' 1 li' 111' 1 13' 15' EXHIBIT B
VAItItIf
05/27/91 18:10 ^&805 -"q 4939 SAGE 1\ST. 1SC. .- CTY SSTA CLARITA . ZOOL,
Ms.
Lynn Harris
Community Planning Director
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd. #300
Santa Clarita, California, 91355
Dear Ms. Harris;
RECEIVED
MAY 2 8 1991
LYNN M. HARRIS
Olromr Of community DCV.
May 24, 1991
In respect for the Planning Commission request to re-evaluate the traffic and intersection
question pertaining to the Canyon Springs Village application on the eidsting Sulphur Springs
School District Property (CUP #90-021), please be advised of the following:
1. 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, pleaseschedule 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 Kirsienstein, 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 .,nwLarr. ildrb
2895 TOwN5GA7E ROAD, surrz 208 • wESTL4KE wuAGE, cA 9IJ6I • wo 99i-oul6 (80s) !97.8557 • Far (805) 496-4939
TANDAM BUILDERS, INC.
s SULPHUR SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT
PREPARED FOR
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING
PROPOSED USE OF
SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY
August 29, 1991 JO
ti
2q Prepared By:
�J Consultants
Sage Institute, Inc.
Robert Crommelin and Associates
Don Mumhy Architect
IN
Sif
For approximately fifteen months Tandam Builders, Inc. ('Developer") has been
processing CUP #90-021 for a proposed commercial development for the reuse of
the Sulphur Springs School District ('District") surplus property located at Luther
Drive and Soledad Canyon Road.
The Developer selected by the District had submitted a number of alternative plans
for a proposed neighborhood shopping center to the City of Santa Clarita ('City")
staff for review and consideration as related to project design, land use and
conformance with existing City standards and City codes.
The following represents an overview and analysis of those items which may be
pending before the Council.
II. TRAFFIC
Prior to a public hearing before the City Planning Commission ("Commission"), the
staff had 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 site plan and a related
traffic mitigation 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 of the Commission on
May 21, 1991, represented in Exhibit B.
1
Sage Institute Incorporated
2835 TOWNSGATE ROAD, SUITE 208 • WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91361 • (8I8) 991-0646 (805) 497.8557 • Fax (805) 4964939
s
1
Under the City's alternative design the left turning movement of vehicles into and out
of both Luther Drive and Homyr Place at Soledad Canyon Road will continue to be
permitted to remain similar to existing intersection traffic control striping design. The
configuration as set forth in Exhibit B will specifically provide for side-by-side left
turn lanes for east and west bound traffic, along with reconfiguration of the lanes 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 reconfigured split
parcel marketing concept. This parcel split in order to redesign the intersection is
therefore concluded as a nonviable solution due to the projected economic loss to
both the District and Developer as well reduced site specific marketing and other
amenities for the community.
III. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
As reported to the Commission and 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:
A. Left hand turns along of Soledad Canyon Road are left intact.
B. A proposed widening of Luther Drive allows for additional turning lanes and
greater stacking of cars.
C. Enhanced turn out areas into the main entrance of the shopping center.
D. Completely reconfigured lanes throughout the existing intersection area.
E. Traffic flow along Soledad would be similar to all other proposed alternatives.
2
Considering the fact that both Luther Drive and Mandan are limited in traffic
volume, the City's proposal per Exhibit B is an acceptable viable solution to all
concerns raised to date.
V. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND BENEFITS
In order to present the adverse impact from the proposed parcel split the developer
has prepared a report describing the following: Net Operating Income, Value at
Completion, Return on Investment, Total Project Square Footage, Loss of Value Due
to Realignment and Rent Reduction Required to Recover Value (Yearly), as set
forth in Exhibit C which is projected at an estimated loss of $131,093 annually.
IV. PROJECT SUMMARY
Unfortunately per a 3,1,1 vote of the Commission, the project was denied due to the
fact that the School District and Developer are not in a position to incur the
foregoing economic losses associated with the Commission's proposed dividing of the
District Property. Therefore, The following additional project information and
related market analysis is presented for the Council's review and consideration,
specifically in response to Resolution No. P91-27 of Master Case No. 90-153. The
property owner and applicant submit for review by the council the following response
to a previously distributed staff correspondence dated June 12, 1991.
A. The Project Site as proposed is adequately served by highways and streets of
sufficient width, therefore the Site has adequate access from Soledad Canyon
Road, Luther Drive and Mandan Street, and traffic generated from the
proposed project will be adequately served by the existing roadways and
circulation pattern.
B. The proposed site is more than adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping, and other
development features prescribed in the design. The project is in compliance
with zoning along Soledad Canyon and with the surrounding area. Also, the
Site's parking, landscaping, height, and yard projections adequately serve the
projected on-site automobile and pcdestrian circulation as submitted.
3
C. This project, as designed would not adversely affect the health, peace,
comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the surrounding area. The project
will not jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public
health, safety or development standards of the subdivision and zoning.
ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land uses and is in compliance
with land uses along Soledad Canyon. The project will however provide for
the following community benefits.
V. COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT
The overall community benefits for the City are significant. The following represents
the most obvious benefits and are hereby set forth for review and consideration by
the Council.
A. Ouality Project
The project once constructed will be a standard for future commercial
developments, especially when one focuses on overall project design,
landscaping.and entrance features.
B. School District Benefits
The income stream from the project will earmark lease payments for the
District as on line income for much needed capital outlay construction
projects.
C. Neighborhood Benefits
A first class neighborhood shopping center will be strategically located for
surrounding residents in particular and for the community in general.
4
f
J
D. Emnlovment Opportunities
The center will provide a minimum of approximately two hundred (200)
employment opportunities ranging from management to individual
entrepreneur ownership opportunities, skilled, semi skilled, and part time job
opportunities.
E. Local Revenues
The center will provide approximately $ of sales tax revenue
for the City as well as general income revenues for employees to spend
elsewhere in the City.
F. Land Use
The center as proposed is consistent with recently adopted land use and
zoning policies for development along Soledad Canyon.
V. SUMMARY
Therefore, based upon the foregoing information and analysis proposed center will
be integrated into the existing conditions along Soledad Canyon, and will be
compatible with the existing uses in the vicinity.
Appropriate levels of service for traffic operations at adjacent intersections to the Site
would be maintained or enhanced per the proposed reconfiguration. of the
intersection. per Exhibit B. The design as proposed would promote a safe, efficient,
and steady flow of traffic by enhancing the operating efficiency of the City's roadway
system.
In summary, there is no compelling reason to deny the center or impose such a loss
on the project and related income impairment to the District resulting from a
proposed reconfigured intersection through the site itself. The Traffic Mitigation as
proposed per Exhibit B more than adequately mitigates traffic flow along Soledad
with the adverse impact of a realigned intersection. �-
5
Therefore the applicant respectfully wishes that the Council to reconsider the split
vote of the Commission and approve the project as submitted or with appropriate
fair and reasonable conditions.
The request for reconsideration is greatly appreciated by the Property Owner (School
District) and the applicant, Tandam Builders.
tanu/apMl.pro
2
c r
i .^. f
/
� E t ..
y Jwoo
L
i
. owuQ, aag3�7Z
i .^. f
/
� E t ..
y Jwoo
L
� •i
JA5
.3
�
d
I
i .^. f
/
� E t ..
y Jwoo
L
� •i
CZ
M
z fn
Z
Z
E_ w
cc w
(n o
e cc
w a
N n
O _
IL w
O 1-
¢N
a
U
1 t I
t I t I �
� y
LU L
CL. «c
o e
¢ o
aU
F cm
UE
o.
a
_ L
D �
J 9
Oy
=a
U o
U,a`
V2
In 1990 the City of Santa Clarita evaluated several alternatives to resolve the traffic
problems associated with the' jogged" intersection of Soledad Canyon Road with Luther and
Homyr Drive.. As part of that process the City resolved to restripe that intersection with two
separate left turn lanes, respectively for East and Westbound Soledad Canyon Road traffic.
Construction plans along with striping and signal phasing plans were prepared for this
solution, which was included in the approved 1990-91 City Budget. At the time when the
Canyon Springs Shopping Center was presented, it was felt that additional solutions for the
above mentioned intersection became available. Consequently, the traffic alternatives'
currently under scrutiny for the intersection of Soledad, Luther and Homyr Roads relate to:
a.) the City originally accepted "side-by-side left turn" striping, and b.) the City's current
request for realignment of Luther Drive with Homyr Drive.
Following is an evaluation of the impact of both alternatives as they relate to issues of
Traffic and circulation. The side-by-side Solution will improve future traffic conditions at
the intersection form an estimated Intersection Capacity. Utilization (ICU) of about 85
percent to about 89 percent with level of service (LOS) D. The improved value includes an
allowance for the increase in "lost time" associated with this solution. Due to the complexity
of the signal phasing, this solution might have a "confusion factor created by the multiple
signal intersections which cannot be quantified. However, given the commuter type of traffic
on Soledad Canyon, it is expected that the impact of the "confusion factor" will disappear
once motorists get used to the signal operations.
The realigned intersection will improve the ICU by about two percent to a total ICU of
about 83 percent, still at LOS D. These ICU's do not take into account the substantial
reduction in volumes that Soledad Canyon Road will experience as a result of the Whites
Canyon Extension Project and, at a later date, the construction of SR126 South of Soledad
Canyon. From the point of view of the flow of traffic on Soledad Canyon Road, the two
solutions will not have any impact 'other than these outlined above.
The realignment of Luther with Homyr will, however, require the construction of about 700
feet of new road. The reconstruction will occur over the School District right of way. The
vacation of the existing Luther Dr. also will be required. This will create an access problem
for all the uses which abut Luther Dr. specifically a Mc Donald restaurant, or day care
center, and the Lutheran Church. These uses will have to have access easements over the
school district property. Also, the Soledad Canyon Road frontage of the school district
property will be reduced by about 170 feet.
The foregoing analysis sets forth the technical analysis to support the reconfiguration of the
intersection area as opposed to the realignment through school district property.
lanss/ezhibil.d
ft;-q f4 x175 '+ As
.......
I
Y4Y
TV,,
<
SHOPPING CENTER
FINANCIAL INFORMATION- REALIGNMENT/NO REALIGNMENT.::. : -':
NO
REALIGNMENT_
REALIGNMENT
Net Operating
Income
$909.611
$1,040,705 ($131.094)
Value at Completion
$9.574,853
$10,954,789 ($1,379,936)
Return on
Investment
8.41%
14.50% -6.09%
Total Project
Square Footage
105.000
112,250 (7,250)
Loss of Value Due
to Reallgmnent
($1.379;936),.
Rent Reduction
Required to Recover
Value (Yearly)
$131,693. -2.
0
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: Tandam Builders
TYPE OF PERMIT: Conditional Use Permitcrr?
FILE NO.: MCI 90-153; CUP 90-021
r"
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: The 7�}"t �located at 18830 Soledad
Canyon Road; southeast corner the "', s tion of 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
(Si1VatJftk) vu
Jeff Chaffin. Assistant Planner II
(Name and Title)
Date of Public Notice:
[X] Legal advertisement.
[X] Posting of properties.
[X] Written notice.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
MASTER CASE NO: MC1 90-153 (CUP 90-021) Case Planner: Jeff Chaffin
Project Location: The project site is located at 18830 Soledad Canyon Road;
southeast corner of the intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and Luther Drive.
Project Description and Setting: 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.
General Plan Designation: CC (Community Commercial)
Zoning: C -1 -DP (Restricted Business Zone; Development Program) yy a
Applicant: Tandam Builders J
Environmental Constraint Areas: Traffic and circulation.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Vill the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? .................. [ ] [ ] [x]
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? ............... [x] [ ] [ ]
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ........................... [x] [ 1 [ 1
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features7.................................. [ ] [ 1 1x1
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? .......... [ ] [ ] [x]
f. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or -similar
hazards7................................... [ ] [ 1 [x1
FI
-2 -
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? .............. [ ] [ ] [x]
d. Other? [ I ( I [x]
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................ [x] [ ] [ ]
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? .............................. I 1 I ) Ix)
C., Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ......................... [ ]
d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? [ J
e. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? ..................... ( ]
A
YES MAYBE
NO
g.
Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? ................................. I ) [ ]
Ix]
h.
Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ........................... I ] I ]
Ix)
i.
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? ....................... [ ] [ ]
[x]
j.
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25Z natural grade? ............ [ ] [ ]
[x]
k.
Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ...................... ( ] ( ]
[x]
1.
Other? ( ] ( ]
[x]
2. Air.
Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions.or deterioration'
of ambient air quality? .................... [ ] [x]
[ J
b.
The creation of objectionable odors? ... [ ) ( I
[x]
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? .............. [ ] [ ] [x]
d. Other? [ I ( I [x]
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................ [x] [ ] [ ]
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? .............................. I 1 I ) Ix)
C., Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ......................... [ ]
d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? [ J
e. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? ..................... ( ]
A
- 3 -
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ] [ ] [x]
C. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ...... [ ] [ ] [x]
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? ........... [ ] [ ] [x]
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [ ] [x] [ 1
to
YES MAYBE NO
f.
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? ............
[ ] ( ] [x]
g.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ............................
[ 1 [ 1 [x]
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? ..........
[ ] [ ] [x]
i.
Other?
[ ] ( ] [x]
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
t"
a.
Change in the diversity of species or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ...
[ ] [ 1 [x]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ......
[ ] [ ] [x]
C.
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal re-
plenishment of existing species? ...........
( ] [ ] [x]
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? ......................................
[ 1 [ ] [x]
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
insects or microfauna)? ....................
( ] [ 1 [x]
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ] [ ] [x]
C. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ...... [ ] [ ] [x]
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? ........... [ ] [ ] [x]
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [ ] [x] [ 1
to
- 4 -
YESMAYBE NO
b. Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? ................. [ ] [ ] [x]
C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [ l [ ] [x]
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? ................. (x] [ ] [ ]
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial alteration of the present
land use of an area? ....................... [x]� [ ] [ ]
b. A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? ............... [ ] [ ] [xj
C. A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? ................................ ( l I 1 [xl
d. A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? [ ] [ ] [x]
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? ................................. ( 1 [ 1 [x]
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? [ ] [ ] [x]
10. Risk
of Upset/Man-Made Hazards. Will the proposal:
a.
Involve a risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? .......................... [ ]
[ ] [x]
b.
Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ................................ ( 1
[ 1 [xl
C.
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ...................................... [ ]
[ 1 [xl
d.
Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? ................................... [ 1
[ l Ixl
- 5 -
11. Population. Will the proposal:
YES MAYBE NO
a.
Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? .....................
[ ] ( ] [x]
b.
Other?
[ ] [ ] (x]
12. Housing. Will the proposal:
a.
Remove or otherwise affect existingk
'>
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................
[ ] [ ] [x]
b.
other?
[ ] [ ] (x]
13. Transportation/Circulation.
Will the proposal
result
in:
a.
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................
[x] [ ] [ ]
b.
Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? .................
[x] [ ] [ ]
C.
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ............................
[x]
d.
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? ..............................
(x] ( ] ( ]
e.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? .......
[x] [ ] [ ]
f.
A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? ..............................
[ ] ( ] (x]
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon,
or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
a.
Fire protection? ...........................
( ] ( ] (x]
b.
Police protection? .........................
[ ] ( ] (x]
C.
Schools? ...................................
(x] ( ] ( ]
RV
IW -IE
YES MAYBE NO
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .... [ ] [ ] [x]
e.
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? . ....... :................... [ ] [ ]
[X]
f.
Other governmental services? ............... [ ] [ ],,,.,,,:.[x]
r:.
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy . .................................... I ] [ )
[xl
b.
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? [ ] [ ]
[x]
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for
new systems, or substantial alterations to
the
following utilities:
a.
Power or natural gas? ...................... [ ] [ ]
[x]
b.
Communications systems? .................... [ ] [ ]
[x]
C. Water systems? ............................. I l [ l [x]
d. Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ ] ( ] [x]
e. Storm drainage systems? .................... [ ] I ] [x]
f. Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [ ] [ I [x]
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? ......... [ ] [ ] [x]
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ... [ ] [ ] [x]
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ................................... [ ] I I Ix]
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ................... [ ] [ ] [x]
b. Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? ....................... ( ] ( ] [x]
13
- 7 -
YES MAYBE NO
C. Will the visual impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area? [ ] [x] [ ]
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? ..................... (x] [ ] I ]
F
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration k'
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? .............. [ ] ( ] (x]
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? ...
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? .............
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? .....................
14
Discussion of Impacts.
Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact ` +'•
Section Evaluation of Impact (source)
la -k The site is flat and is occupied by the Soledad Canyon Elementary
School, Sulphur Springs School District offices, and the Pauline
B. Chase Special Education School. This existing development
includes a playground, classrooms, and administrative offices.
These school facilities will be removed and replaced with a
113,000 square foot shopping center with a 454 space parking lot.
The project will result in soil overcovering.
The project site is not within the San Gabriel Fault
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. (Seismic Zone 1 per the Los
Angeles County Santa Clarita Areiwide General Plan). All of the
Santa Clarita Valley is within a region of occasional seismic
activity. However,,the project site is not on or near any known
active fault. The site is not subject to ground shaking,
liquefaction, or landslides. The soils report prepared for this
project identified no other imminent geological hazard pertinent
to this site.
This project will not cause any modifications of a wash, channel,
creek, or river due to its location. This project will not cause
changes in deposition, erosion, or siltation because there shall
be no alteration to existing off-site drainage patterns. Project
drainage will be conveyed.to existing drainage facilities. No
significant drainage impacts are anticipated.
Minimal grading, to be balanced on-site: will occur to allow
preparation of the site for the proposed buildings and parking
lot. The applicant will be required to comply with all City Codes
regulating soil erosion during construction; no significant impact
is anticipated. A grading concept will be reviewed by, and be to
the satisfaction of the City's Public Works Department. No
significant geological impact is anticipated for this projeFt.
2.a -d. Short term impacts to air quality due to construction activities
are.anticipated.to occur. Fugitive dust can be expected during
the demolition -construction phase of the project. The applicant
will be required to implement mitigation measures to minimize
potential dust impacts resulting from grading activities..
Increased vehicle trips will result due to a change in use from a
school to a shopping center. The traffic study prepared for this
project, by Robert Crommelin and Associates (February 11, 1991),
states that: "...the proposed project will increase existing
traffic flow by about 4,600 vehicle trips per day." 'The AM peak
has been estimated at 107 vehicle trips...", "The PM peak was
estimated at 376 vehicle trips...". This increase in traffic may
result in an increase in air emissions which could deteriorate
ambient air quality.
is
An air impact analysis, along with recommendations from the South
Coast Air Quality Management District, is needed to accurately M1"
assess the.air quality impacts.of this project.
3.a -i The project includes the coverage of this 9.13 acre pircef with an
impermeable surface to accommodate the proposed buildings and
parking lot. Prior to construction the applicant will be required
to submit a conceptual drainage plan. The plan must be to the
satisfaction of the City's Public Works Department. The drainage,
will be conveyed to existing drainage facilities, which have the
capacity to serve this project. No significant impact is.
anticipated.
The project site is located within Flood Zone C, which is not a
flood hazard area (per Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood
Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel #060729 0365C and 0480C). No
exposure or.alteration to flood waters will occur. No significant
impacts are anticipated.
4.a -d No oak trees exist on the site or will be affected by this
project. Through previous development, the site has been
permanently disturbed. The project site has not been identified
as a sensitive area for any rare or endangered plant species.
Significant impacts to botanical resources are not expected to
occur.
5.a -d The site and the immediate vicinity are within an urbanized area
and are not identified as a significant wildlife use area.
Through previous development, the site has been permanently
disturbed. The project site has not been identified as a
sensitive area or migratory route for any rare or endangered
animal species. Significant impacts to zoological resources are
not expected to occur.
6.a -c Short-term impacts of noise and exposure of people to severe
vibrations ,.due to the use of heavy equipment, may occur during
the construction phase of the project. City codes regulate the
hours permitted for construction and the intensity of the noise
produced by such activities. If developed as a shopping center,
on-site noise -generation may increase significantly above existing
levels. A noise study is needed to assess the impacts to the
adjacent residential properties, churches, and other businesses.
7. This project shall create a new source of light and glare. The
applicant will be required to submit a lighting plan to reduce
glare to an insignificant level, in conjunction with a landscape
plan for review by City staff. .
14
-10 -
The applicant shall also be required to provide staff with a
materials board illustrating the types of exterior materials to be
used. Adjacent businesses and residences may experience reflected
glare during certain hours of the day. The materials to be used
by the applicant shall be of the type to minimize reflection and
off-site glare. By illuminating only the project area and using
non -reflective exterior building materials, off-site glare will be
reduced to an acceptable level. As such, no significant impactmli
anticipated.
8.a -d. The project site is presently surrounded by residcsntfal�'pr'operties
r..,
to the immediate east and south. Properties to the ':i
north and west are occupied by commercial users. The change from
a school site to a shopping center is a substantial alteration of
the existing land use of the site. However, the draft General
Plan Land Use designation for this site is "CC" (Community
Commercial), and the existing zoning is "C -1 -DP" (Restricted
Business -Development Program Zone). The proposal is consistent
with both the land use designation and the zoning. Because this
proposal; is consistent with the draft General Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance, no significant impact tolanduse is anticipated.
9,a,b. This project is not of the size or type to cause an increase in
the usage rate of any natural or nonrenewable resources.
Therefore, the impacts of this project to these resources are
expected to be insignificant.
10.a -d. Short-term risks and hazards during construction would be
alleviated by compliance with all City Codes with respect to
construction procedures and the use of hazardous materials and
equipment (to be enforced by the Building and Safety Department).
ll.a,b The project will result in the creation of commercial retail
related jobs. This :will be .beneficial to the City in that the
City is currently "housing rich" with a surplus of homes. This
will provide a balancing of the jobs -housing ratio within the
City. These additional jobs will not have a significant impact on
City's population from an environmental perspective.
12.a. No significant impact to housing is anticipated as this project is
not of the size or scope to affect existing housing, or create a
demand for additional new housing.
13.a -d. As proposed, this project would require a minimum of 452 parking
spaces. An on-site parking lot with 454 parking spaces is being
provided. The proposed project is in conformance with the City's
parking ordinance. The traffic study prepared for this project,
by Robert Crommelin and Associates (February 11, 1991), states
that: "...the proposed project will increase existing traffic
flow by about 4,600 vehicle trips per day." "The AM peak has been
estimated at 107 vehicle trips...", "The PM peak was estimated at
376 vehicle -trips...". The assessment of traffic impacts has been
made by the City's traffic engineering staff. Traffic engineering
recommendations include the following:
17
-11-
1) Ingress and egress to and from Soledad Canyon. ad` t sha"_�1«be
restricted to right -turns. V.5, k..,.,
2) The proposed median of Soledad Canyon Road' a constructed as
a continuous median from Vilna Avenue to Homyr Place.
3) The proposed driveway on Luther Drive immediately north of
Mandan Street be relocated to a more northerly location.
4) On-site circulation should be provided so that all parking
facilitiescan be accessed from any location of the site.
5) Realign Luther Drive so that a four-way intersection is
formed with Homyr Place, Luther Drive, and Soledad Canyon
Road.
An increased demand on public transportation systems may result
from this proposal. The City's traffic engineering staff has
determined that additional vehicle traffic generated by this
project can be accommodated by existing roadways and.recommended
improvements, However, bridge and thoroughfare fees would be
required as a condition of approval. Transit development fees
will be required to improve public transportation systems.
Bicycle and pedestrian hazards may also be increased due to the
alteration of traffic patterns.
The project as proposed is inconsistent with several of the draft
General Plan Circulation Element policies (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.9, and
1.10). Circulation facilities should be improved to provide
better levels of service and standards of safety over current
traffic operations with a priority to improve local traffic
patterns. Appropriate levels of service should be maintained at
all intersections in the City during peak hours to ensure that
traffic delays are kept to a minimum. The quality of residential
neighborhoods should be preserved by discouraging the flow of
truck and through traffic in these areas consistent with
circulation and emergency needs. The operating efficiency and
safety of the existing roadway system should be maximized and
improved where possible. The number of intersections and
driveways on major arterials and expressways should be limited to
promote a safe, efficient, and steady flow of traffic.
Implementation of the Traffic Engineering Division recommendations
and improvements would address potential traffic, circulation,
pedestrian, and bicycle impacts and reduced them to an
insignificant level. The proposed project would have an adverse
impact on transportation and circulation due to the anticipated
impacts from the creation of new conflict points on the existing
roadway system, the inadequacy of the on-site circulation and
parking pattern, and the decreased level of service created by
increased traffic volumes.
12
-12-
Vr,-. ,
°, '-
."
Val
14.a -f Because the applicant is leasing the project site from. the Sulphur
Springs School District, the School District is considered to be
a project proponent. The implementation of this project will
result in the elimination of two schools which currently occupy
the site. The Soledad Canyon Elementary School with an enrollment
of approximately 430 students, and the Pauline B. Chase Special
Education School with an enrollment of approximately 170
students. The Pauline B. Chase School is unique in that it
provides educational services exclusively for the emotionally,
mentally, and physically challenged.
Policies 1.5, 1.17, and 1.15, of the City's draft General Plan
Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities element, directly apply
to this proposed project. These policies require that new
developments be prohibited or delayed unless necessary public
services and utilities will be available at the time of occupancy
or will be provided within a reasonable period of time as part of
an adopted improvement plan. Support should be provided to the
school districts in promoting a high standard of excellence in the
local school system. Ensure appropriate means to facilitate the
development of school facilities to accommodate growth and ensure
that the school districts can meet future needs by working and
cooperating with school districts and developers.
The School District has requested that "buffering" be provided
between the project site and the adjacent residential properties.
However, the School Districts comments did not address the impacts
on the area schools that the loss of these facilities would
create, nor were any mitigation measures required. It is not
known if a new school will be built for the children currently
attending Soledad Canyon Elementary School and Pauline B. Chase
Special Education School. Should these children be transferred to
other schools in the area, this impact must be assessed. The
applicant has not been required by the School District to provide
for the mitigation of this impact through any conditions of
approval. The School District has not specifically indicated that
new facilities would be needed. City staff needs additional
information addressing these issues to assess this significant
impact.
15.a -b The project will not result in the consumption of substantial
amounts of fuel or energy. The development of.new energy sources
will not result from the implementation of this project. No
significant impact on energy is anticipated.
IR
-13-
�;i
16.a -g All required utilities are existing and available to serve the
project site. The applicant will be required to obtain the
necessary permits and pay all applicable connection fees to the
appropriate utility purveyor. This will not result in substantial
alteration of any utility service, nor will it require the
creation of any new utility system. No significant impact to
utility systems is anticipated.
17.a,b. Short-term risks and hazards during construction would be
alleviated by compliance with all City Codes with respect to
construction procedures and the use of hazardous materials and
equipment (to be enforced by the Building and Safety Department).
18.a -c To -scale exhibits will be required for review, including exterior
elevations, colored renderings, and materials samples. The height
and bulk of the building shall also be assessed upon the receipt
of these materials. No aesthetic impacts are anticipated.
19. The existing recreational facilities at the school site include
playground equipment and open athletic fields. These facilities
are used during school operation, and on weekends and during after
school hours by residents living in the area. The school site
also provides visual relief with it's large open turf areas along
Soledad Canyon Road.
The City's draft General Plan Parks and Recreation Element goals
and policies of applicable to this project. Quality parks and
recreational facilities should be provided, developed, and
maintained, and dispersed throughout the area. The improvement,
rehabilitation, and maintenance of existing parks and recreational
facilities is encourage. Measures to acquire future parkland is
also encourage. A combination of local park acreage, park
facilities, and recreation programs to serve neighborhood needs
should be provided. Additional neighborhood and community parks
should be provided in all communities.
If constructed, this project will eliminate the existing school
yard playground. This will result in the loss of recreational
opportunities for adjacent residents. The applicant has not
provided for replacement or other mitigation for the loss of this
facility. Improvements to the existing City parks system, funds
to provide improvements, or the acquisition of new park land are
possible mitigation measures which could alleviate these impacts.
As proposed, this project will have an adverse impact on existing
recreational opportunities.
20.a -d The project site has not been identified as an archaeologically or
historically sensitive area. Damage to historical resources or
impacts to unique ethnic cultural values is not expected. No
significant impacts to cultural resources.is anticipated.
ME
-14-
C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act states, in
part, that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the
project may have a significant effect on the environment and an
Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared.
YES MAYBE NO
1. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a,,4,": -
fish or wildlife population to drop below self sus- 3'R
taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant orw
animal community, reduce the number or -restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory? ................. [ ] [ ] [x]
2. Does.the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long' -term
impacts will endure well into the future.) ............ [ ] [ ] [x]
3. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the total
of those impacts on the environment is significant.) [ ] ( ] (x]
4. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? ......... [ ] [ ] [x]
R1
-15-
D. DETERMINATION
ss"
On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED . .................................................
Although the proposed project COULD have a significant
effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described in this Initial Study
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED . ................................................. (x]
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect.on
the environment, and an'ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required.......................................................
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared By:
Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner II 8
( i ture) (Name/Title) ( at
App ved B
Ni Donald M. Williams. Associate Planner
(Sign ure) (Name/Title) ( ate
JC/256
� as
,P 4p CABRAL ST
\RVIEW
OR IOa
5 Zj y (• y CANYON
g qy GP n HIGH SCH y
��°0. RADIUS MAPr F
'"I CHADWAY ST NORTH OAKS \frp"(, ,C'RL.
e C'rY PARK
B
�ABINCTON Rj�' RASiR 4P�E ,F-,MC ' �O_ �� 9OO 2tP`.
FOUR OLK$ <
O a CEDARCREEK < ST 'Oo. ..�
m W wSr
y N FAIRWEATHE4 a Si M' J~9�NERf pA ST=S S m FAIRWEATHER �5T ST
V DEIICHT O ST V t� �� KIpO KIMBROUGH a ST Canyon °°�y
DELIGHT ST ,Q �, v'� 'deco a C. OF C
'l' HOUSE r oW 5T a NEWHOIISE 5T ♦° o Z P 2
1� Country ?
LONE ,ROCK p i W ST Z _ ; ONEROCK ST p�•a<• SHANGRI-lAPIP
`NRA BAHOF ^ \/
zOWY CLIFF W z W $T Z o ORYCLIFF 1 -4 n BgMEq ? �1 pmo
a w �>., a ' ' " \m tl E ?P FgLrrCgN I O \l+
O V a d Q Z 9 i+ Q' \ VKTK cc✓
9L ZL O ¢ PLEASANTOALE Si ..ro P� j " n HILL 44fOvfr y� = O4
P�p _ CALLA Wy _
Q ~ (: D_
•
CALLA 2 WV SIE RRA VI$EL. �+ n Y Q TO. < y' P ` Ue NY Q NAT
OF IR MGH SCH VICCI i ST q 2 V CCI
vi rc 'r i ;IOGF i P s
O 2 P Si n $i m 2 .1 Sy O f SUN'JO LN
O�•t a; r� $TILLMORE n ;rGC Z WV �STILLMORE o z
WELLHAVEN 9. w < w +P/ •t `O URAVALA=
5T TV
ij `(r m 4 IV fleF /pYA( MWO wEILHAVEN ST
NEARBROOK q rx" l OE Sfaf U/DENS J�1I SEA WKS
$T _ S oe Prl b i I IItE p ¢ NFARBRCIOK $1
Z/ 3 3 i a g lv LLL ■
\- CANYON W '� x�a RO J
!~J• 4p _ < i o90e_ ��W I LIS RO ITR PKE
,ZST
NfRN O .� I eOLDLAA:A Sr(e1FtDI1
MANO � ����e.f :•XX.E � /_
O ELIZABET WY
1
S COLLINS � / ` OO � r3 SBnkES `` •till ! IF _
F
r PRINCE55A
P
rp
SOAK /' �•i �(•. /%
BRANCH {
to CIP
COUNEEkOrLCI VBLIEY
l Z' ly��
Y
�+ D
Fnendl Of THEo a
E
M � T. \
0
5 � �I
� WWD
Valley: aQ Os w s L�(I�Y_ Of
f` Opt >ll OE v (OS ANGEL E9 '�\
t j r•r pG06 ON, / / ? v O C(RP 4 R\ENp
)Opts $O I e DEL z�,
N CH\NtPV\N
i OR `AVE n_ \\`
O O S\ 51ERgA ESTATES UR—t/�
Z'L` t a° LArf ••"1 s \f 0 o r<<i`C-� r/
H.. 9 (` 'L ,w O MOUNTAIN
PPICy G :' B9 fC, PO... v o SP1
OALF CT
T. .•f}a O /� Y 2 9�a„ 'P ' a C• •L 1.
i{' \e- r A ^� p(:�L\2fQ •`f• iC /. fFQ/G CEDAR W yPV
•}.PYoVIFIW n \�'/\ SY 'STVO� L•S �'• 'YES OR �o /
VfK H ? p
Rei a,11K�P ti' Ot "(;u0�o- qYE .r' �;
VICINITY MAP
MC 90-153
AN EASEMENT OVER THE WEST 30 FEET AND THE SOUTH.30 FEET OF SAID LAND
FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES AND PUBLIC UTILITY AND SEWER. PURPOSES, AS
RESERVED IN A FINAL DECREE OF CONDEMNATION,'RENDERED IN SUPERIOR COURT,
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CASE NO. 828871, PARCEL NO. 1 THEREOF, A CERTIFIED
COPY OF. WHICH WAS RECORDED -DECEMBER 23, 1964, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 3397,
IN BOOK D-2742 PAGE 3511OF.OFFICIAL RECORDS.
AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO
AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT : -If\
GRANTED TO: THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
PURPOSE:' THE CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION11 CO
INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF THE
REAL PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND IHIGHWAY '
PURPOSES
RECORDED: MAY 25, 1967 AS INSTRUMENT. NO. 31093;, --
OFFICIAL RECORDS
CO0
Aoo
�<W
/
9\%
3,500 S,F.
. I0
•�'�.0
CO
v 0
0
10
>
I
�01
6 FT. oEconATIVE MASONRY 'WALL
0
IU FT 1,AN06( kPF 611imfP!4 -4:91 uze�
R ta.00l
W lbl* 2,o'aj11 24.4'
>
LU
CY)
CO
CO
41 77 SITE STATISTICS 00
0
I I IT -1 I I I FF I I I I i I - I , I
co�Q L DING0 < Q 0
0 16
EMPLOYE&,-..
yE
SITE 411a175 SO. FT (9.4 AC)
ENTRANC L <
<
8L4LDING 112,250 SO. FT. U
PARKIN485 CARS
G
<
PP i
\h <
;AND
58,396 SO. FT.
LU
0 A
CO ND OPEN SPACE j..7
u
Lo L
1.0 U)
335 EMPLOYEELLj
000 DBL. 25' POLELIGHT ;METAL HALIDE
100 WATT METAL HALIDE WALL PACKIMTD.P,12'1
60 WATT METAL HALIDE WALL PACK ;MTD..(p,10'2
LIGHTING BUILDING CANOPIES TO BE A
MIX OF INCANDESCENT & WARM FLUORESCENT
X0
$IN 4 COMPACT. PARKING:
q- Irc, I Compactkparking to be 20% of total parking. Distribution
C of compact spaces as approved by govqrning jurisdiction.
kk \!I S
0 _11
` -� �
v,
PERMISSIBLE...
*/�
I' —
f-----OLESSEE
RESTAURANT
PARKING AREA'
AREA.
AS DEFINED IN LEASE.
I MOKLWTEKT 02 FYLOR
L
.. . .......
N
IMAIIN CENTER DRfVE
LEGAL—aESCRIPTIOR
That. portion of the southwest quarter of Section 21, Township 4
North, Range 15 West, S.B.M. in the City of,Santa Claritae'CounIty
t of Los Angeles, State of California, within the following described
I
bPundaries:
Beginning at the intersection of the '
westerly line of No.
--T�Kj21987, as shown on map filed in Book -642, pager. 82 to' 84,
ihclusive, of Maps, in said co
the of the Recorder of unty,l
ob with a line parallel with and 60 feet southerly, measured at right
angles, from the center line of Soledad Canyon Road, 100 feet wide.
LLJ as said center line is shown on said map; thence South 06061471t.
E�tst along said westerly line 401.56 feet to the northerly line of, 0 1 z
Mandan Street, 60 feet wide, as shown on map of Tract No.; 40583,
> cc cc
♦ filed in Book 1040, pages 84 to $7, inclusive; of said maps; thence
along LU -
said Mandan, Street the following described courses: - South --
a 13 CC 8703013101. West 1.23 'feet,. southwesterly along a curve concave to
the southeast having a radius of 351-70 feet a distance of 276.31
feet, southwesterly along a reverse curve concave to the northwest z LU
having a radiusof 291.70 feeta distance .229.17 fe4tp South Lu.
'0is
87'3013111 West 285.00 feet and westerly, northwesterly, and. z (a
northerly along a curve coheave to the northeast.having a radius
Cc of 15 feet a distance of 24.14 feet to the easterly 'line of Luther
LU Drive, 60 feet wide, as shown on map filed in Book 95 page 52, of
♦ *0 Parcel'Maps, in the office of said recorder; thence North 0*1613011 z cc 0
West along said easterly line 556.34
feet to the beginning of a T. A#)
curve concave to the southeast tangent to said easterly line.and .
tangent to said parallel
line and having a radius of 19 feet;
thence northerly, northeasterly. and easterly along said last
Z
4N
mentioned curve a distance. of 29.11 feet to said parallel line;
thence north 87'30129" East along said parallel line .732-21 feet
3:
to the point of beginning. Q) I,
ACTLJAL./ EjsAL.. fIl DATE
REV.
BY
CUT I
DATE
RECEIVED. I By REV.
DATE
REV.
�LANDSc,a14AY 2 4 1991 PIWG TYP
DATE_• f; ,{
COMMUNITY DEMOPME4 REV.
Wry OF, 8A"A. BY
DATE
REV.
BY
0 DATE
i BY
6�" S FIT E PLAN DA
f TE
REV.
C3 By
CO
71 3�0'"07 DATE
REV.
BY
Co DATE
0 f0- REV,
BY
I
I(FOR'nj$ZAjgr DATE
;42-'C)O 4 -
LANE;
co co Not I TANDAM BUILDERS, INC By Ev-
DATE
.
1630 17th STREET BY REV.
SANT4 MONICA CA DATE
BY
g:MP-N. TE- T�:j �2'1 3) 452-0196
Ai=1DATE SUBMITTED
;";N EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE* SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL: THERETO DRAWN BY
i ,L4M)bCN6 6ET
Li 6oIt—K 5 waxu VA44EG S SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT
-zd-04NjN.GRANTED TO: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHECKED BY
F 73 .21 THE
PURPOSE:
THE CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTIONI'' PRINTEVAY 22
N.570 30 2 -Ft
DATE
INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE AND' REPAIR OFTHE .,.
IDRRTY rnR_ZUBLxC__UOAD OR HIGHWAY PROJECT NO. .21)(DrDf
�72
PURPOSES
L E D A DG�YD
4 —0-4 SLY LItIIE Mlt4T rY14. RiD.--1 RECORDED: MAY 28, 1970 AS. INSTRUMENT NO.'3444, 1 IN BOOK
D4726 PAGE 443 OFFICIAL RECORDS
LEFT TURN POCKET
FOWSITE ACCESS
1
;ARCHITECTURE LAND 131-ANNING INTERIOR DESIG,N SPACE PLANNING COPYRIGHT NOTICE
500 (NO A.Cr_F55)
THIS DESIGN AND DRAWING IS FOR USE ON THESPECIFIC SITE INDICATED AND IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF MURPHY ARCHITECTURE INC. AND SHALL 'NOT BE USED, DUPLICATED OR ALTERED IN PART OR IN WHOLE WITHOUT WRITTEN iAPPROYAk.QF MURPHY ARCHITECT_ E, INC,