HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-09-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - SOLEDADCYN RD LANGSIDE (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approva
Item to be presented by:
Lynn M. Harris
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: September 24, 1991
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Zone Change
90-014 and Conditional Use Permit 90-032. The project site
fronts on Soledad Canyon Road, approximately 100' west of
the northwest corner of Soledad Canyon Road and Langside
Drive.
APPLICANT: Sheldon L. Pollack Corporation
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
At the June 18, 1991 meeting, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
P91-37, formally denying Zone Change 90-014 and Conditional Use Permit
90-032. The applicant proposes a zone change from R -3-20U (Limited
Multiple Residence - 20 dwelling units maximum per acre) and C-2
(Neighborhood Commercial) to C-2 for the entire site. In addition, the
applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to develop a 22 foot
high, one-story, 30,740 square foot auto servicecenter consisting of
three buildings, one of which is proposed to be an automatic car wash and
two of which would contain automotive related uses. The square footage
of the proposed buildings are broken down as follows: Building A -
14,440, Building B - 9,500; Building C - 6,800. The proposed development
would consist of 135- parking spaces with 15 percent of the gross site
area being landscaped.
Potential uses within the project include the following: auto oil/lube
service, auto brake service, auto tinting, auto tire service, auto
tune-up service, auto transmission service, auto wash (fully automatic),
general auto repair, and similar uses.
Access to the site is proposed to be from three driveways on Soledad
Canyon Road. One.of the proposed driveways is to be a shared driveway,
and is proposed to be located at the western edge of the project site.
This driveway is existing (in a different design) and services the mobile
home park. This driveway would be enlarged to accommodate both the.
mobile home park and the subject development.
Agenda Item:
I
The applicant submitted a noise and traffic study to staff. The noise
study analyzed three phases of the project and the specific noise
producing uses proposed with the project. The noise study indicated
that, through the application of mitigation measures, the project noise
level could be reduced below 65 dBA, which is the allowable noise limit
in a residential zone. The traffic study indicated that, several
improvements were necessary to mitigate circulation impacts. The most
prominent being the inclusion of a de-celeration lane to accommodate the
proposed project traffic trips. The applicant included this
de-celeration lane as a part of the project.
As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to
evaluate the impacts of the project. It was determined, by staff, that ,
this proposal would have no adverse environmental impacts which could not
be avoided through project design or mitigation measures. Subsequently,
a draft negative declaration was prepared.for the project.
During the review of this project, the Planning Commission received three
letters of opposition to this project. In addition, two individuals
spoke in opposition of the project at the Commission hearing., The
opponents had concerns with the project's impacts in the areas of
circulation, noise, and air quality and the project's incompatibility
with the adjacent residential uses.
ANALYSIS
The project site fronts on Soledad Canyon Road, approximately 100' vest
of the intersection of .Soledad Canyon Road and Langside Drive. The
surrounding land uses are as follows: mobile home park (north), Soledad
Canyon Road, railroad tracks, and multiple family (south), single family
residential, retail commercial (east), and mobile home park (west).
The project site is located within an area designated Commercial
Neighborhood (CN) by the City's General Plan which is defined in part as
follows:
The Commercial Neighborhood (CN) category designates areas: for
small neighborhood shopping centers located in close proximity to
residential areas. More intensive commercial uses such as
automotive repair uses are generally not permitted or permitted
only upon approval of a conditional use permit.
In order for the Planning- Commission to approve a conditional use permit,
the applicant must substantiate four findings. The Planning Commission
determined that the project, as proposed, did not meet two of the
required four findings. These findings are as.follows:
1) That the proposed use will not be in substantial conflict with the
adopted general plan for the area.
The Commission determined that the project was not
consistent with the type of development that is described
by thelanduse designation of Commercial Neighborhood (CN)
due to the incompatibility of the specific project in
relation to the adjacent residential uses.
2) The requested use at the location will not adversely affect the
health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in
the surrounding area; be materially detrimental to the use,
enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the
vicinity of the site; jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute
a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare.
The Commission determined that the proposed shared access
drive with the mobilehome park jeopardizes public health
and safety due to the increased traffic generated by the
subject proposal.
The Commission determined that the project uses will
incrementally increase existing noise impacts to the
adjacent residential uses, which are as close as 45 feet.
The Commission determined that. the possible mitigation
measures identified by staff in the draft Negative
Declaration would be insufficient in relation to properly
integrating the project uses with the surrounding
residential neighborhood.
In addition, the Planning Commission determined that the property, in
conjunction with the project, could not fully meet two of the required
five findings for the granting of a zone change. These findings and the
Commission's determinations generally correspond with the findings
associated with the conditional use permit, previously discussed.
After review of the.Land Use Element of the General Plan, staff would
like to bring forth specific policies that support the Commission's
denial of the project. They are as follows:
1) Goal 1, Policy 1.2 - Promote the development of service and
neighborhood commercial activities to meet the existing and future
needs. These centers must be non -intrusive, sensitive to
surrounding residential land uses, and should be located adjacent
to arterial roadways. (The Commission indicated that the project
was not compatible with, and would be intrusive to the adjacent
uses, due to the specific auto service related uses within the
project).
2) Goal 3, Policy 3.3 - Encourage setbacks, landscaping, or other
measures to provide physical and visual buffers between land uses
to minimize potential land use conflicts between dissimilar uses.
(The Commission indicated the project site is suitable for
commercial development when it can be demonstrated that suitable
buffering with adjacent residential uses are an integrated part of
the project).
Uphold the Planning Commission's decision for denial of Zone Change
90-014 and Conditional Use Permit 90-032 and direct staff to return to
the City Council with a resolution of denial.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Planning Commission Resolution P91-37
2) Minutes from Planning Commission Meetings (June 4, 1991 and June
18, 1991)
3) Staff Report (May 21, 1991 and memorandum dated June 4, 1991)
4) Appeal Letter dated June.26, 1991
5) Vicinity Map
6) Project Proximity Map
7) Correspondence
LMH:CA:315
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE
I.
Mayor Opens Hearing
a. States Purpose of Hearing
2.
City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice
3.
Staff Report
(City Manager)
or
(City Attorney)
or
(RP Staff)
4.
Proponent Argument (30 minutes)
5.
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
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEALING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL
OF RESOLUTION NO. P91-37 AND
ZONE CHANGE 90-014
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-032
LOCATION:
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION
OF LANGSIDE DRIVE AND SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD, FRONTING ON
THE NORTHERN SIDE OF SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD
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 of the Planning Commission's denial of
Resolution No. P91-37 and Zone Change 90-014, Conditional Use Permit 90-032 to
allow for the change of zone of the project site from C-2 (Neighborhood
Commercial) and R -3-20U (Limited Multiple Residence - 20 units maximum per
acre) to C-2 and develop the 3.2 acre site with a 30,740 square foot auto
service center consisting of three buildings, one of which will be an
automatic car wash and two of which will contain automotive service related
uses. The location is approximately 100 feet .west of the intersection of
Langside Drive and Soledad Canyon Road, fronting on the northern side of
Soledad Canyon Road, in the City of Santa Clarita.
The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the. 24th day of
September, 1991, at of 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: August 30, 1991
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk
Publish Date: September 3, 1991
�i
RESOLUTION NO. P91-37
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, DENYING
- MASTER CASE NO. 90-186
ZONE CHANGE 90=014
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-032
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET VEST OF THE INTERSECTION
OF LANGSIDE DRIVE AND SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD, FRONTING ON
THE NORTHERN SIDE OF 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 zone change and conditional
the City of Santa Clarita by the Sheldon L.
"applicant") on August 13, 1990. The property
has been filed fronts on Soledad Canyon Road,
the intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and
Parcel Numbers 2805-021-003, 004, 010, a legal
file in the Department of Community Development.
use permit was filed with
Pollack Corporation (the
for which this application
approximately 100' west of,
Langside Drive. (Assessor
description of which is on
t
b. The applicant is proposing to develop a presently vacant 3.2 acre site
with a 30,740 square foot auto service center consisting of three
buildings, one of which is an automatic car wash and two of which will
contain automotive service related nature. The proposed development would
consist of 135 parking spaces with 15 percent of the gross site area
consisting of landscaping.
C. The uses as indicated by the applicant are as follows:
1) Auto oil change and lubrication service
2) Auto brake service
3) Auto window tinting
4) Car wash
5) Auto tire service
6) Auto tune-up service
7) Auto transmission service
8) General auto repair
d. The subject parcel is zoned C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) and R -3-20U
(Limited Multiple Residence - 20 units maximum per acre) and is.designated
as CN (Commercial Neighborhood) by the City's draft General Plan. The
applicant is requesting to change the zoning of the entire project site to
C-2.
e. The site is relatively flat and unimproved. The vegetation on the site
consists of native shrubs and trees. No oak trees exist on-site or will
be affected by the proposed development.
qp'k
E. The surrounding land uses are: mobilehome park (to the north), multiple
family residential, ..railroad tracks (to the south), single family
residential, retail commercial (to the east), and mobilehome park (to the
west).
g. The application was circulated for City Department and agency review upon
receipt. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee (DRC)
met on March 14, 1991, to review. this project and supplied the applicant
with staff recommended conditions of approval.
h.. The applicant prepared a traffic study and a noise study which quantified
project impacts and possible mitigation measures.
i. Public.. services and utilities are existing to the subject property.
Access to the site would be from Soledad Canyon Road and a shared access
driveway with the adjacent mobilehome park.
j. The submitted traffic study indicates the proposed project would generate
approximately 1,320 vehicle trips per day. The total daily volume of
vehicle trips on Soledad Canyon Road in the immediate area presently is
40,110.
k. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May
21, 1991 at 7:00 P.M. The meeting was held at the City Council Chambers,
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this meeting the applicant
requested a continuance to the next regularly scheduled Commission
meeting, to allow the applicant, staff, and mobilehome park residents to
meet. .
1. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June
4, 1991 at 7:00 P.M. The meeting was held at the City Council Chambers,
23920 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 as follows:
a. At the hearing of June 4, 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 Neighborhood (CN). The Commercial Neighborhood category
designates areas for small neighborhood shopping centers, located in
close proximity to residential areas. Intensive commercial uses such as
bars, :dinner houses, and automotive repair uses are generally not
permitted or permitted only upon approval of a conditional use permit.
The intent of the ,designation is to provide for a cohesive and
independent commercial center serving the immediately surrounding area.
c
d
e
(� r
The 3.28 acre parcel is suitable for a commercial development when it can
be demonstrated that suitable buffering with adjacent residential uses are
an integrated part of a proposed development.
The proposal cannot fully meet the required findings for the granting of a
conditional use permit as listed in Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section
22.56.090. as follows:
The requested use at the location will adversely affect the health,
peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in the
surrounding area; be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment
or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity
of the site; jeopardize, endanger or otherwiseconstitute a menace
to the public health, safety or general welfare because:
The shared access driveway with the mobilehome park and the
adjustment of the bike lane jeopardizes public health and
safety.
The automotive related service uses will affect existing air
quality and the. peace, comfort and welfare of persons
residing in the surrounding area in addition to being
materially detrimental to the adjacent residential uses.
The project uses will incrementally increase existing noise
impacts to the surrounding residential uses. N
The proposed project's impacts in the areas of circulation,
air quality, land use, noise, and public safety substantiates
the above information.
The identified mitigation measures are not satisfactory to
properly integrate the project uses with the surrounding
residential neighborhoods.
The proposal cannot fully meet the required findings for the granting of a
zone change as listed in Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 22.16.150,
as follows:
The placement of the proposed zone at the subject site, in
conjunction with the project, will not be in the interest of public
health, safety and general welfare, and in conformance with good
zoning practice because:
The noise impacts associated with project are not compatible
with the adjacent residential uses.
Circulation impacts associated with the shared access drive
and adjustment of the bike lane will not be in the interest
of public safety.
f. The proposed uses incorporated in this project can be located in more
suitable areas of the City, areas that allow for better compatibility with
adjacent uses.
M
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the
Planning Commission hereby determines as follows:
a. As proposed, the project does not substantiate all of the
findings associated with approving a conditional use permit.
b. As proposed, the project fails to substantiate all of the
findings associated with the recommendation of approval for a
zone change.
C. As proposed, the project is not consistent with the City's draft
General Plan. Pursuant to the conditions established with the
granting of the time extension for the City's General Plan, the
City may not approve a project that is inconsistent with the
draft General Plan after adoption by the Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Santa Clarita, California, as follows:
The Planning Commission hereby denies Conditional Use Permit
90-032 and Zone Change 90-014. -
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 18th day of June, 1991.
_�kouis Brathwaite, Chairman
Planning Commission
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of June, 1991, by the
following vote of the Commission:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioner:
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
GEA:jcg:298
SS
Brathwaite, Garasi, Modugno and Woodrow
Cherrington
Lynn M. Harris, Director
6 Community Development
MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 1991
ZONE CHANGE 90-014
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-032
ITEM 4 - RESOLUTION FOR THE DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE 90-014 AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 90-032 - Fronting on the northern side of Soledad Canyon Road,
approximately 100 feet west of the northwest corner of Soledad Canyon Road
and Langside Drive
Mr. Henderson gave a brief overview of the item.
Discussion ensued among Commission. Commissioner Garasi stated she would
like to separate the Conditional Use Permit and the Zone Change approvals.
Commissioner Garasi moved for the denial of Conditional Use Permit 90-032,
seconded by Commissioner Modugno, and was carried by a vote of 4-1, with
Vice -Chairman Cherrington voting no.
Commissioner Garasi then moved for the reconsideration of Resolution
No. 'P91-37, and that Zone Change 90-014 be properly scheduled and noticed
as a public hearing before the commission for reconsideration. seconded by
Commissioner Modugno.
Before a vote was taken, the applicant, John Pollack, 429 Santa Monica
Boulevard, Santa Monica, _spoke on the item. Mr. Pollack stated he would
like the motion reconsidered in its entirety to allow the developer and
the residents to meet to resolve the concerns that the residents have.
Vice -Chairman Cherrington reminded Mr. Pollack that the entire item could
not be reconsidered because a motioned had already been made and approved
to deny the Conditional Use Permit.
Discussion then ensued among Mr. Pollack and the Commission.
Commissioner Garasi withdrew her motion.
Commissioner Modugno moved to adopt Resolution No. P91-37, seconded by
Commissioner Garasi, and it was carried . by' a vote of 4-1, with
Vice -Chairman Cherrington voting no.
MINUTES OF JUNE 4, 1991
ZONE CHANGE 90-014
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-032
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ITEM 6 - ZONE CHANGE 90-014 AND CONDITIONAL USE. PERMIT
90-032
Director Harris introduced Item 6. Assistant Planner Glenn Adamick made.,the
slide presentation.
At 11:01 p.m., Chairman Brathwaite opened the Public Hearing.
Speaking in favor were Sohn Pollack, 429 Santa Monica. Blvd., Santa:,;;M.oxfica
representing Sheldon Pollack Corporation, commented'on the "proposed:.project,.
the uses'of the project. -the oil recycling center being proposed, and noise.'-,-'-
At
oise:%'At this time, the Commission took'a vote on whether or not ,they will be .taking';.
items 7 and 8 tonight. With a vote of 4-1, with Commissioner Cherriogton`as
the no vote, the Commission agreed to take items 7 and 8 even though it. w'as
after 11:00 p.m. However, the remaining audience for item 8 indicated that
many of the interested parties had already left: Therefore, Commissioner.
Garasi motioned to continue Item 8 to the regularly scheduled meeting of June
18 as Item 1 on the agenda. Commissioner Modugno seconded the motion. With a
vote to 5-0, it was approved to continue the item to June 18, 1991.
Tony Inferra, Project Architect for Sheldon Pollack then spoke on the
architectural" design of the project, and the vents for the auto -related
services.
Speaking in opposition to the project were Betsy Patterson, representing
G.S.M.O.L., 20401-699 Soledad Canyon Road, Canyon Country, commented on the
number of car washes and repair shops, traffic, bikes, lights, noise' and
fumes; Bruce Geiger, 20401-688 Soledad Canyon Road, Canyon Country, speaking
on traffic and the deceleration lane.
Mr. Pollack then rebutted the concerns raised by the previous two speakers.
At 11:32 p.m., the Public Hearing was closed and discussion ensued:
Commissioner Garasi moved for denial of the project. Commissioner Woodrow
seconded the motion. With a vote of 3-2, the project was denied. The votes
were as follows: Ayes - Chairman Brathwaite, Commissioners Garasi and
Woodrow; Noes - Commissioners'Modugno and Cherrington.
,
Commissioner Garasi stated that the Resolution for Denial should include the
incompatibility of the project with the area.
r
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�j/-i�
✓M _
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development ///
DATE: June 4, 1991
SUBJECT: Zone Change 90-014
Conditional Use Permit 90-032
Sheldon L. Pollack Corporation, Applicant
221, one story, 30,740 square foot auto retail -service center
Fronting on the northern side of Soledad Canyon Road,
approximately 100' west of the northwest corner of Soledad
Canyon Road and Langside Drive, (Assessor Parcel Numbers
2805-021-003, 004, 010)
On May 21, 1991, the above referenced item was continued by the Planning
Commission, at the applicant's request, to the June 4, 1991 meeting. The
applicant requested the continuance to allow for a meeting involving
staff, the applicant, and adjacent mobile home park residents. Please
refer to the May 21, 1991 Commission packet for the staff report and
attachments. Present at the meeting were two members of staff, two
representatives of the applicant, and four residents of the' Parklane
Mobile Home Park. Below is a summary of the meeting, held May 28, 1991,
to discuss concerns the park residents had with the proposed project:
1) NEEDS ASSESSMENT (LEASING)
The residents questioned the necessity of this use. The applicant
indicated, on the basis of market research and investor interest in
the project, that there is a market for auto related uses within the
City. The. applicant also indicated that the majority of the auto
service tenants will be major chain tenants.
2) EXHAUST FUMES
The residents were seriously concerned that exhaust fumes from the
project would affect their neighborhood. The applicant indicated
that the specific tenants will be. required to install ventilation
devices to mitigate this problem within the building.
Staff indicated that a proposed condition of approval of the
conditional use permit is that the rear bay doors adjacent to the
residential uses be used for vehicle..access only and remain closed at
all other times.
Staff recommends that the Commission add the following condition:
The applicant shall. install an appropriate number of "Turn off
engine" signs within and outside of the service tenants units. The.
number and location shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development.
Agenda Item:
r
3) Hours of Operation
The residents requested that hours of operation be established for
the center. The residents also were concerned with the construction
hours for the project. The applicant indicated that business hours
would be from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Construction hours are governed
by the City and are allowed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. Monday through Saturday. The applicant indicated that the
construction hours•on Saturday could be from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The residents generally believed the construction hours to be
satisfactory and requested the hours listed for Saturday be added as
a condition to the project.
Staff indicated that a condition stipulating business hours of
operation is not included within the draft conditions, as the center
consists of tenants that will conduct business within normal daytime
hours. Also, the applicant has expressed a concern with a condition
stipulating business hours of operation.
In addition, staff also indicated that construction hours are
enforced by the City's Code Enforcement Officers and Building and
Safety Inspectors.
Staff recommends that the Commission add the following condition:
The hours of construction on Saturday shall be between 11:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m.
4) WALL .HEIGHT
The residents requested that the existing four (4) foot high wall
separating the park and this project be increased to eight (8) feet
throughout the project. The residents believed the increase in
height is needed to act as a buffer to further mitigate project noise
and to provide security.
The applicant agreed to the residents' request.
Staff now recommends that the Commission amend condition number 41 to
read as follows: The existing four foot high wall shall be increased
to eight feet throughout the project site.
5) GASOLINE SERVICE
The residents requested that gasoline service not be a part of the
project. The submitted site plan indicates the presence of gas
pumps, though the applicant has indicated that gas service is not
part of the project at this time.
Staff recommends the Commission add the following condition: No gas
service is granted by this permit. A future application for gas
service is subject to review by the Director of Community Development.
6) SECURITY
The residents expressed concerns that the project will cause security
problems. They asked questions concerning employee hiring
procedures, Sheriff's Department comments, and the possibility of
hiring an on-site.security guard.
The Sheriff's Department reviewed. the application and listed the
following concerns: extending the height of the existing four foot
high wall, noise, hours of operation for the car wash, and additional
traffic exiting into the mobile home park.
The applicant indicated that a security guard would be hired if
necessary, though it was not planned with the project.
Staff has recommended that the Commission increase the height of the
wall to eight 'feet throughout the project site. In addition to this,
the implementation of mature landscaping adjacent to the wall will
further impede criminal accessibility. The car wash hours of
operation were not a concern to staff due to the type of car wash
(fully automatic) and normal operation hours (daytime) utilized by
these car washes. Staff through condition number 43, has required
the applicant to `-submit a parking lot signage plan to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and, the
Sheriff's Department. Through this plan, staff can require that the
applicant install a "no right turn" sign for vehicles exiting from
the project to the shared access and install a "no u -turn" sign on
the shared access to eliminate drivers from using the access for
u -turns. Staff believes the existing conditions mitigate the impacts
associated with security.
7) OFF HOURS PARKING
The residents asked the applicant if the project parking could be
utilized by the residents during off hours if needed.
The applicant indicated this would be a liability problem, in
addition to being in conflict with a draft condition prohibiting
overnight parking of vehicles outside.
8) UTILITIES
The residents indicated to staff and the applicant that existing
utilities within the park were insufficient. These utilities include
phone service and electricity. The residents were concerned that the
addition of the project would further impact these utilities.
The applicant indicated to the residents that they would provide any
technical assistance to the park owners to help in eliminating the
problem.
Staff did receive comments from the utility companies indicating they
had no conditions to add to the project and that service was
available.
9) TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
The residents requested that the City require the applicant to
provide a signal on Soledad Canyon Road at the shared access drive
and provide another left turn lane through the median further east,,
to provide access to one of the proposed entrances. The residents
also requested the shared access driveway be clearly striped to
delineate the lanes and traffic flow.
Staff indicated that the City's Public Works Department/Traffic
Division has reviewed the application and has added appropriate
mitigation measures to the project. The Traffic. Division indicated
that a signal system is not yet warranted for the above referenced
intersection and the addition of another left hand turn lane would
have a negative impact upon the circulation system.
Staff recommends
The. applicant
satisfaction of
Engineer.
10) PERMITTED USES
that the Commission add
shall stripe the shared
the Director of Community
the following condition:
access driveway to the
Development and the City
Staff recommends that the Commission add a condition, listing the
permitted auto service uses (pursuant to the granting of the
conditional use permit) within the center:
A) Auto oil/lube service
B) Auto brake service
C) Auto tinting
D) Auto tire service
E) Auto tune-up service
F) Auto transmission service
G) Auto car wash (fully automatic)
H) General auto repair
I) Similar uses to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development
At the conclusion of the meeting the residents expressed they still had
concerns with exclusion of the signal system, loss of the bike lane on
Soledad Canyon Road, and the project's effect on property values within
the park.
Staff previously explained the exclusion of the signal within this
report. The bike lane will not be eliminated by this project. The
de-celeration lane will be adjacent to the project with the bike lane
remaining between the de-celeration lane and the existing traffic lanes.
Staff has recently become aware that Soledad Canyon Road will be expanded
to three lanes in both directions. This expansion will result in the
elimination of the bike lane from Soledad Canyon Road and placing it
adjacent to the Santa Clara River as outlined in the City's trail system.
Staff did not comment on the effect to property.values within the park.
LMH:GEA:293
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
Zone Change 90-014
Conditional Use Permit 90-032
DATE: May 21, 1991
TO: Chairman Brathwaite and Members of the Planning Commissi�o7n�/i ,
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Developmenty`� ,�//h�'�'�J
PROJECT PLANNERS: Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II ��/
Fred Follstad, Assistant Planner II
APPLICANT: Sheldon L. Pollack Corporation
LOCATION: Approximately 100' west of the northwest corner of Soledad
Canyon Road and Langside Drive, (Assessor Parcel Numbers
2805-021-003, 004, 010).
REQUEST: A zone change from R -3-20U (Limited Multiple Residence - 20
dwelling units maximum per acre) and C-2 (Neighborhood
Commercial) to C-2 and Conditional Use Permit to allow for
the construction of a 30,740 square foot retail auto center
on 3.28 acres. The center will be comprised of three
buildings, two of which will contain automotive related
uses, and the third a fully automatic car wash.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting to change the zone of three lots consisting of
3.28 acres from R -3(20U) and C-2 to C-2. The conditional use permit request
is to allow for the construction of a 30,740 square foot retail auto service
center comprised of three buildings, two of which will contain auto service
related uses, and the third being a fully automatic car wash. Proposed and
potential uses within the other two buildings as indicated by the applicant
are as follows: lube service, brake service, auto tinting, tire shop,
transmission shop, auto rental, and assorted retail shops.
The project site is relatively flat, with access being taken from Soledad
Canyon Road. The site is presently vacant and the plant environment consists
of native shrubs and trees. A mobilehome park is adjacent to the project on
the north and west, and single family residential and a commercial center are
to the east. Grading for the proposed project will consist of 30 cubic yards
of fill on approximately 37,000 square feet of the site.
The center is proposed to contain three buildings. containing the following
square footage: Building A - 14,440, Building B - 9,500, Building C - 6,800.
The center will be comprised of a total of 30,740 square feet. The proposed
' project contains 135 parking stalls, six of which are compact. The project
site will include 22,633 square feet of landscaping or approximately 15
percent of the total gross area of the site. I �j
. .Agenda Item: J
Chairman Brathwaite and Members of the Commission
May 7, 1991
ZC 90-014
CUP 90-032
Page 2
The proposed maximum building height is 22 feet. Architectural elevations
have been submitted to staff. Bay doors are proposed to be implemented on
each unit of Buildings A and B, both in the front and rear.
SURROUNDING LAND USE/ZONING:
The existing zoning for the project site is R3 -(20U) and C-2. The applicant
is requesting a change of zone of the site from the above existing zoning to
C-2. The surrounding land uses are detailed in the matrix shown on this
page. The project, as proposed conforms to all the requirements of the C-2
zone and the City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code. The addition of the
Conditional Use Permit request allows for the above referenced automotive
related uses in the C-2 zone.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:
The preliminary City Draft General Plan designation is Commercial Neighborhood
(CN). As proposed, this project is consistent with the City's Draft .General
Plan designation with the application of the conditional use permit, and will
comply with the proposed zoning of the site. The City's Draft General Plan
designation, existing zoning, and existing land use of the project site and
adjacent properties are as follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
As part of the project- review, an environmental assessment was made to
evaluate the impacts of the project. The environmental areas of concern for
the project include: circulation, noise, and aesthetics. It was determined
this proposal would have no adverse environmental impacts which could not be
avoided through project design and mitigation measures. Subsequently, a draft
negative declaration was prepared for the project.
a
City's Draft
General Plan
Zone
Land Use
Project Site
CN (Commercial
R-3 (20U) C-2
Vacant
Neighborhood)
North
RM (Residential
A-2-1
Mobilehome Park
Moderate)
East
CN (Commercial
C-2
Commercial Center
Neighborhood)
South
RMH (Residential
RPD -1-15U
Multiple Family
Medium High)
Railroad tracks
West
RM (Residential
A-2-1
Mobilehome Park
Moderate)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
As part of the project- review, an environmental assessment was made to
evaluate the impacts of the project. The environmental areas of concern for
the project include: circulation, noise, and aesthetics. It was determined
this proposal would have no adverse environmental impacts which could not be
avoided through project design and mitigation measures. Subsequently, a draft
negative declaration was prepared for the project.
a
Chairman Brathwaite and Members of the Commission
May 7,'1991
ZC 90-014
CUP 90-032
Page 3
INTERDEPARTMENT/INTERAGENCY REVIEV:
The 'project has been distributed to the affected City departments and
agencies, and the Community Development Department has received additional
comments from the following:
The Public Works Department/Traffic Division recommends the applicant be
required to provide a deceleration lane adjacent to the project frontage, and
to dedicate four feet of the site frontage to accommodate the lane. The
department is also requiring the applicant to participate in the funding and
establishment of appropriate mechanisms whereby the City is assured of the
implementation of widening of the Soledad Canyon Road bridge over the Santa
Clara River, and the applicant shall also utilize and modify the existing
mobilehome park entrance sharing one access to the project. .
The Parks and Recreation Department recommends the applicant be required to
provide median landscaping improvements adjacent to the project frontage. The
improvements shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and
Recreation.
Community Development Department staff is recommending the applicant be
required to utilize a recycled water system in the car wash.
ANALYSIS:
The project. site fronts on Soledad Canyon Road, designated a major highway by
the City's Draft General Plan. The site lies adjacent on the north and west
to a mobilehome park, and on the east with a commercial center. The site lies
approximately 200 feet from a railroad tracks.
The proposed project is consistent with the City's Draft General Plan
designation of the CN (Commercial Neighborhood). The application of the
conditional use permit will allow for the proposed types of automotive
service, in addition to allowing staff to 'implement design review conditions
upon the applicant. The 30,740 square foot center has a .22:1 floor area
ratio, which is below the proposed .25 to .5:1 floor area ratio governing the
CN designation.
The applicant has submitted a noise study to staff analyzing three phases of
the project and the specific noise producing uses to be included within the
project. Staff initially had concerns regarding the noise producers, such as
a tire shop, car wash, and an auto service shop. The noise study focused upon
three different existing centers, taking noise measurements on three types of
uses: general auto repair, car wash, and a tire shop. As indicated by the
study, the average tire center noise level was approximately 65 dBA at 30 feet
from the most active bay. The average auto service center was 46 dBA at 20
feet from the most active bay. The automatic car wash was 48 dBA at 60 feet
from the entrance. Staff and the applicant have worked on desirable locations
for these uses due to the proximity of the mobilehome park. The distance from
Chairman Brathwaite and Members of the Commission
May 7, 1991
ZC 90-014
CUP 90-032
Page 4
the nearest residential unit to the car wash is approximately 70 feet. The
unit locations of the auto service and tire shops have been conditioned to be
to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Residential
units do lie as close as 45 feet from the nearest project structure. The
City's Draft General Plan is indicating as a goal, the need to prevent and
mitigate noise levels in residential neighborhoods below 60-65 dBA. The City
of Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 11.44.040 lists allowable noise.limits
from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. for a residential zone as 65 dBA. For the same
time period in a commercial zone, it is 80 dBA. If residential and commercial
uses lie adjacent to each other, the noise level of the quieter zone shall be
used. Staff believes the conditioning of the project and the project design
will mitigate noise levels below the 65 dBA threshold at the nearest
residential unit. To further ensure this, staff is recommending the
Commission to condition the applicant to extend the height of an existing four
foot wall to eight feet in areas adjacent to residential units. Staff also
recommends the Commission require the applicant to landscape the area adjacent
to the wall, and.also recommends that the rear bay doors of the center be used
only for vehicle access and remain closed during working hours.
The applicant is proposing 135 parking spaces within the center. The number
of spaces required by the City for the proposed center is 123. The applicant
is also providing two loading spaces.
Staff is recommending the applicant be required to implement an auxiliary
(de-celeration) lane adjacent to the project's frontage. The applicant is
dedicating four (4) feet of the project's frontage to accomplish this, and has
agreed to this recommendation. This recommendation was an identified
mitigation measure in the applicant's submitted traffic report. The lane will
also require the relocation of the existing power poles located adjacent to
Soledad Canyon Road. The recommended conditions of approval guarantee the
required improvements will be implemented.
It is the opinion of staff that the applicant has or can satisfy the findings
and requirements associated with the Zone Change and Conditional Use Permit
for this project; and, therefore, the recommendation of staff that the
Planning Commission:
Approve the attached Negative Declaration with the finding that the
proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment;
and,
Approve Conditional Use Permit 90-032 based, on the required findings
subject to the proposed site plan (Exhibit A), and to the attached
conditions of approval (Exhibit B); and,
Recommend approval to the :City Council of Zone Change 90-014; and,
Adopt the attached Resolution P91-22.
�' GEA:jcg:252
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
.NEGATIVE D E C L A RAT ION F:
[X] Proposed [ ] Final `
PERMIT/PROJECT: Zone Change 90-014 and Conditional Use Permit 90-032
APPLICANT: Sheldon L. Pollack Corporation MASTER CASE NO: 90-186
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Fronting on the northern side of Soledad Canyon Road,
approximately 100' west of the intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and
Langside Road.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: A zone change of a 3.28 acre parcel from C-2
(Neighborhood Commercial) and R -3-20U (Limited Multiple Residence Zone - 20
units per acre) to C-2 and a conditional use permit to .allow for both the
construction of a 30,740 square foot (three buildings) commercial center, and
various automotive service uses, including an automatic car wash, within the
center.
Based on the information contained in tha Initial Study prepared for this
project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City,of Santa Clarita
[ ] City Council
[X] Planning Commission
[ ) Director of Community.Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect
upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted
pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[ ] are not required. [X] are attached. [ ] are not attached.
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Prepared by: `M2_ Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II
(Si nature(Name/Title) .
Approved by: .IL /'/ Kevin Michel, Associate Planner
(Signature) (Name/Title)
Public Review Period From 5 1 [-4( To S
Public Notice Given On 5-2-1-9) By:
[X] Legal advertisement. [X] Posting of properties. [X] Written notice.
CERTIFICATION DATE: 1 /_
June 26, 1991
SHELDON L. POLL -ACK
CORPORATION
429 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD • SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401 213.394-9800
AE
Ms. Donna Grindey
City Clerk
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
RE: Soledad Auto Plaza -Case No. 90-186, CUP 90-032 -
Job No. 1716.D - Santa Clarita, California.,
Dear Ms. Grindey,
On June 4, 1991 the Planning Commission passed a Resolution of
Denial for a Conditional Use Permit for the above mentioned
application.
I hereby present a formal appeal for the City Council to overturn
the decision of the Planning Commission. (Conditional use permit
90-032).
Prior to July of 1990, a two-story commercial structure consisting
of 46,000 square feet of retail and office facility was approved by
the County of Santa Clarita for the subject property.
During the month of August of 1990 a meeting was held between the
representatives of the Sheldon L. Pollack Corporation and Ms. Lynn
Harris, Director of Community Redevelopment, regarding the
development of an auto service center on the subject property. The
proposed project consisted of 28,000 square feet of auto related
uses. At the meeting Ms. Lynn Harris expressed her support for the
revised project, as the density was drastically reduced, and she
directed us to file an application for a conditional use permit and
a zone change application (from R-3 to C-2).
On August 10, 1990 a conditional use permit and zonechange
application was filed with the Planning Department. Since that
time, we were instructed to conduct a noise study, a traffic impact
study, and to provide the development department with a
comprehensive preliminary plans including a color rendering of the
project. We have expended to date approximately $500,000 in order
to comply with the City's requirement.
The studies (traffic, noise, and environmental) demonstrated that
SHELOON L. POLLACK. CORPORATION
Ms. Donna Grindey
Page Two of Two
June 28, 1991
the impacts of this project could be mitigated or avoided.through
the design and the conditioning of the project, therefore the
Planning staff recommended the approval of the project.
In spite of the recommendation of the Staff, the Planning
Commission rejected the proposed development. It must be noted
that the proposed project was consistent with the City's approved
general plan (subject to the CUP).
The night of the hearing Chairman Brathwaite opened the public
hearing on this item shortly after 11:OOpm and a few minutes later
the application was denied. We have not been provided with a fair
and adequate due process by the Planning Commission and we hereby
request to be given an opportunity to present our case to the City
Council.
Your understanding
appreciated.
Sincerely,
and cooperation on this matter`is greatly
L. POLLACK CORPORATION
%t--
Pa 1 Owhadi
Vice President
PO/ar
Enclosure
cc: Lynn Harris
John Pollack
VICINITY MAP
ZC 90-014
CUP 90-032
Z
O
N
W
e.
SUBJECT H
SITE O
a
0,4
O CYN. RD j
� O
O
Z
O
m N
6
dOR -.-NEW
iii -m
r o- -
- 2:1
p:, == C= 1 Inn1
_.1 r -_r
_E!
-rMR Hall
-
�:1IlIlnirrBl
■le��= : _ Irlrrerll
:nillir C�__ r riirrwlr
�• rr---_isi-- -IIIIIII
� r r it __ esl __ i ® ...
� r r IYi Y�_ ra rr IN,
NEW
� i:.rinrrlr
HIME iriri
I. r. ��/�r� d �■■ ■■li n� � � Vii', ��� /
i
1 �
���nernrauir�
_ t iiiimic7�
WE
WE
��► Isar rr s
� y�r it ri r •
r v_ rr d
IN r
�� C. A V
IIS///Bi v
IN,
WE
n_ rr r
^-IN
rn M
82
June 11, 1991
CORPORATION
LYNN M. HARRIS
Oimtor of Community VIS14
429 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD • SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90401 • 213-394.9800
Chairman Brathwaite
& Members of the Planning Commission
c/o Ms. Lynn Harris-
Director of Community Development
City of,Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Re: Soledad Auto .Plaza - Case No. 90-186 - Santa Clarita, CA
Job No. 1716.D
Dear Ms. Harris, Chairman Brathwaite & Commissioners:
I was amazed and extremely disappointed at the manner in which the
decision of the commission appeared to have been made regarding the
denial of the CUP permit for the above project. We have worked
with the planning staff for over a year on this project. According
to the' City this project has no. significant' impact on the
environment, and .has been demonstrated by the planning staff to
cause no negative impact to the community and will probably improve
the service base, employment base, and tax base will improve more
than almost any other use for this relatively small property.
Over the past year, this project has been revised almost two dozen
times in order to meet various demands of the Planning Department.
Voluminous reportsand studies regarding traffic,noise and other
potential environmental impacts have been commissioned, paid for
and provided .to the City Planning, Engineering and Development
Staff, at the request of the City, daring the past twelve months.
Approximately five hundred households, within the prescribed 500
ft. radius were notified regarding the proposed development. This
list included every resident of the Parklane Mobile Home Park. As
the commission had been advised, we met, at our request and in
conjunction with the City staff with the Parklane residents. who
expressed concerns. As the staff memorandum, dated May 31, 1991,
indicated we mitigated this concern by revising conditions of our
development.__...- -
The proposed project will have a lower density and a higher parking
ratiothanthe city codes require, and the exterior appearance has
been modified and tailored exactly as requested by the city. The
proposed use is exactly in accordance with the City's specific
Agenda Item:
June 11, 1991
Page two of three
plan currently being studied for adoption. We have agreed to
dedicate a portion of the property to the city for street and
traffic mitigation measures.
We have been, and will continue to be ready to comply with any
reasonable request made by the City in the proposed development.
No mention was made during . the hearing that the Commission had
.reviewed studies and reports prior to the hearing, and therefore
one would, assume the Commission relies on the objective assessment
of the City Staff. The City Staff recommended both applications
for approval. The Commission has voted to adopt a resolution to
reject our request, apparently based on the subjective finding that
the use was "inappropriate" for the site. This was based
apparently on the testimony of two of the approximately five
hundred residents of the trailer park. One of those two
residents, Ms. Betsy Peterson, was titled President of Chapter 320
of the "Golden State Mobile Home Owners League", admitted that the
Parklane Mobile Home Park Homeowners Association had "Folded". Ms.
Peterson said she spoke to "many" and by that stated that she
"represented" all the residents, and the "majority" shared her
views. No evidence was presented that the two opposing speakers
represented any more than themselves. Out of the several hundred
residents that were notified Ms. Paterson and her friend were the
only ones opposing the project.
I'must point out that in terms of need, this property had
previously been approved for a 2 -story, retail/office project,
consisting of 48,000 sq.ft. The switch to an auto service use has
generated an overwhelming leasing, response and the proposed project
is Tire -leased -_by Cif. the
Also, the the majority of the proposed tenants uses are permissible
under the current C-2 zoning, and parking for the project is
permissible on the R-3 zoned property.
To reject our requests at this junction will cause irreparable harm
to. the. partnership. The loss of the hundreds of thousands of
dollars already expended to bring the project to the point where
the City staff has recommended approval by the Commission will be
wasted based on the testimony of 2 individuals. Their claim that
property values will be reduced.by our project should not be the
cause of denial. In fact, the owner of the mobile home park is in
favor of our project.
June 11, 1991
Page three of three
The real problems expressed by the residents of the park during our
meeting with the City staff and 4 residents were; inadequate phone
service, utility service, traffic circulation and landscaping.
within the park. The two individuals from the park had indicated
a willingness to recommend the approval of the project if we could
alleviate their internal problems, totally unrelated to our
project.
We respectfully request that the.pronosed resolution to reject our
application not be adopted by the Commission and that a further
hearing be scheduled to address specific issues regarding this
project, and to determine the true representative capacities and
concerns of the two opponents. I realize that at 11.30 p.m. after
4k hours or attending vigorous debate on 5 other projects, it would
be difficult for the Commission to conduct a fair hearing regarding
our application. This is particularly evident as our hearing was
interrupted for 30 minutes to debate a vote on thecontinuance of
that highly contested item #8, making it difficult for our truly
non -controversial project to be fairly heard. If the Commission
wished to impose, any reasonable restrictions on this project, such
as emissions control, lighting, business hours, etc., we can then
be prepared to address these matters at the hearing.
I look forward to your considerate attention to these issues, and
again, ask that the resolution not be adopted and the hearing be
re -opened. ,
Respectfully,
SRELDON.L.PO� ORPORATION
n P.\ Pollack
Pre It
cc Paul Owhadi
®� May 8, 1991
5 ioo9ty (lP It May Concern, i�ers�ss.re- 2$05-02�—OS,O`IlID_ .
cocS4c�so,c A I wish to notify you of a negative response to this project. I believe that an auto service
center and car wash would not be well suited for this residential neighborhood where there are
many senior citizens and families with children. This :location is not proper in relation to
adjacent uses. Auto uses have a certain "image" about them which tends to keep more disireable
uses away. The noise from motors, power equipment, and machinery would be disturbing to the
residents. The odors and dangerous gases and fumes could be harmful to all residents living in
and around the project site. There are no buffers between many of "the -r homes and the site.
The added ,.raffic would hinder own fro- _ ^i^^ ^d t , d a° se
^nte. .., a exiting our rive way s -well as cause
additional traffic back ups and accidents. Customers parking on Soledad waiting for service or
pick up would also cause conjestion and accidents. Bike path users would be.left out into the
busy street which at 50 mph,and most people are going above the speed limit, would be at great
danger.
I belive that there are enough auto centers, auto service, and car washes just east of
Honby St. and many at or around Sierra Hwy and Soledad Cyn Rd. My personal analysis of the
area showed # auto service locations and / car washes. I also believe this would become
an eye sore and would reduce the value of our homes and hinder sales.
If this should be granted we would not want undesireable commercial uses like mini -market
with alcoholic beverages, or adult videos etc. Perhaps a professional office building. We would
want proper landscaping to beautify the site and be maintained by the owner. Something would
need to be done about enforcing the speed limits and parking would need to be restricted on
Soledad Cyn Rd.
In closing, this use would not be helpful in improving this part of the community. The
use will be materially detrimental to the character of the developments in the immediate neigh-,
borhood.
Thank you for your consideration
Mr, and Mrs. Jeff Falasca
33
0
a�ppo5 -oar —CT03� 06�J 0/0
�1u-41 G.l�cL�r�y�2/ .�•,-v _.GcQaeJ. �u.a� _.tea. � ���
e �.�
ell, .
,o�'
dzu
I
,<_Yfivo k
91 -044 --lo
s i
y.
,<_Yfivo k
91 -044 --lo
s i
'ECE1 V®
MAT; 1 6 1991
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5377 Spindrift Court
CITY OF SANTA CIARITA Camarillo, Ca. 93012
May 11, 1991
i
City of Santa Clarita
Department of Community Development
23920 Valencia Blvd., Third Floor
Santa Clarita, Ca. 91355
Attention; Mr. Glenn Adamick"and Mr. Fred Follstad
Gentlemen:
I am writing to you regarding zone change 90-014, permit 90-032,
parcel 2805-021-003 004 010. I strongly oppose this change in
use. This is a large amount of area to develop near residential
and retail areas and not compatible with the area as it exists.
Having worked in automotive services I have first hand knowledge
of local, state, and federal concerns regarding this type of work
and the impact and effect to nearby residents. Even if all E.P.A.
requirements are followed and an attempt is made to keep the
traffic and parking orderly there is still significant engine ex-
haust of poorly running autos, engine diagnosis and test drives.
A similar type of development was recently proposed near my home
and was soundly defeated as not appropriate. This type and size
of development requires special consideration and should only be
allowed in or near commercial or industrial areas.in the strictest
of sense. .Retail development is one thing but do you want your
family living next to a garage? I am sure my tenants dont. When
the shop/garage closes for the night or weekend the sight and odor
of -parts solvent, gas, oil, and grease are still there. The best
and easiest test is to drive by a few and ask your self iif you
would want to live there next to them.
A great attempt has be made to make my,property on 20214 Fanchon
Lane to be a pleasant place to live and I feel so far it has been
very successful. I fear very much this development will negatively
effect the residents quality of life and near by residential prop-
erty values.and wish to reiterate my opposition.
Sincerely,
Lam, �r
Mark DeMinico
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
-CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
j g
a
MASTER CASE NO: 90-186 Case Planner: Glenn Adamick ' Pad >`':
Project Location: West of the northwest corner of Soledad Canvon Road
Langside, City of Santa Clarita (Assessor Parcel Numbers 2805-021-003,
004, 010)
Project Description and Setting: A conditional use permit and zone
chance to allow for the construction of a 30,740 square foot retail
automotive center on 3.28 acres. The center will be comprised of three
buildings, two of which will be retail -automotive related, and the third
a fully automatic car wash. The square footage of each building is as
follows: Building A - 14,440 Building B - 9.500, Building C - 6,800. The
project site is relatively flat and lies adjacent to an existing mobile -
home park. The center will consist of 135 parking spaces with 15 percent of
the gross site consisting of landscaping_
City's -Draft General Plan Designation CN (Commercial Neighborhood)
Zoning: C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) and R -3-20U (Limited Multiple
Residence Zone). The applicant is requesting the area comprised of the
R -3-20U zone be changed to C-2, to enable z C-2 zone to encompass the
entire site, and the conditional use permit to allow for various automotive
uses (lube service, car wash, tire service, etc.) in the Center.
Applicant: Sheldon L. Pollack Corporation
Environmental Constraint Areas:
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? .................. ( ] [ l (X]
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? .. [X] [ ] [ ]
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ........................... [ ] [ ] [X]
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features? .................................. [ ] [ l [Xl
e. Any increase in wind ,or water erosion of
soils, either .on or off the site? [ ] ( ] [X]
1 � -
3.
f.
Exposure of people or property to geolog
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards7...................................
Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? ................................. I ]
Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ........................... [ ]
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? ....................... [ J
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25Z natural grade? ............ [ J
Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ]
Other? [ ]
Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? .................... ( ]
b. The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [ ]
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? .............. ( ]
d. Other? [ ]
Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff7 [ ]
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? .............................. [ ]
C. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ......................... [ j
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? [ ]
3
f
[ ] [X]
[ ] I ]
[ I [X]
I l IX]
[ ] [Xl
[] []
I
4
5
19
f.
Change in the quantity of ground waters, ,s
either through direct additions or with-
a
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? ............
[ ]
g.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ...........................
[ ]
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? ..........
[ ]
i.
Other?
Plant
Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species or number
of any species.of plants (including.trees,
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ...
[ J
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ......
( ]
C.
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species? .........
( I
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? ......................................
[ I
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)? ....................
[ ]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species,of animals? .....
[ J
C.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ...
[ ]
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? ...........
[ ]
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Increases in existing noise levels? ........
[X]
b.
Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? .................
[ ]
C.
Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ...IP
[ ]
L
'sur" # �.a# f fryer. YES MAYBE NO
Vicat $
T':
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? [ ] [ ] [X]
C. A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? ............................... ( J ( ] [X]
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? ................................. ( l ( ] [X]
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
naturalresou_ces? ......................... ( ]
10. Risk of Upset/Man-Made Uazards. Wibl 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? [ J
b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous
or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ....... ...................... [X]
C. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ...................................... ( ]
d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? ................................... f j
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the.human
population of an.area?. ..................... [ ]
b. Other? ( ]
s
(X]
( ]
I
( ]
I
(XJ
[ J
(XJ
YES MAYBE NO
12. Housing. Will the proposal:'.
�"��rY•r�, •gym
a. Remove or otherwise affect. existing'
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................ [ ] ] [X]
b. Other? [ ) [ ) I )
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? .............................. [ 1 I 1 [XI
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [ ] [X] [ ]
f. A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? [ ] [ 1 [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? ........................... [ ] [XI [ l
b. Police protection? i ......................... [ ] [X] [ ]
C. Schools? ...... [ ] [ 1 [XI
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .... [ ] [X] [ ]
e. Maintenance of public facilities,,
including roads? [ ] [ ] [X]
f. Other governmental services? ............... [ ] [ ] [X]
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in? '
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy'. ................... [ ] [ ] [XI
t
a�
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas7 [ ] [ J [X]
b. Communications systems? .................... [ ] [ J [X]
C. Water systems? [ ] [ J [XJ
d. Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [XJ
e. Storm drainage systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [X]
f. Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [ ] [ J [XJ
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? ......... [ J [ ] [X]
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? . [ J [ ] [X]
b. Exposure of people to'potential health
hazards? ...................................• [ ] [ J '..[XJ
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ................... [ ] [ ] [XJ
b. Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? ........................ [ J [ J [X]
C. Will the visual impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area? [ J [ J [X]
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreaLional opport...uties? ..................... [ ] [ ] [XJ
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? [ ] [ ] [X]
a
9
�
b. Substantial increase in demand nptin Fr
F
Csf-
existing sources of energy, or require `"�
'
the development of new sources of energy?
[`F
[XJ
YES
MAYBE NO
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas7 [ ] [ J [X]
b. Communications systems? .................... [ ] [ J [X]
C. Water systems? [ ] [ J [XJ
d. Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [XJ
e. Storm drainage systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [X]
f. Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [ ] [ J [XJ
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? ......... [ J [ ] [X]
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? . [ J [ ] [X]
b. Exposure of people to'potential health
hazards? ...................................• [ ] [ J '..[XJ
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ................... [ ] [ ] [XJ
b. Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? ........................ [ J [ J [X]
C. Will the visual impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area? [ J [ J [X]
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreaLional opport...uties? ..................... [ ] [ ] [XJ
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? [ ] [ ] [X]
a
9
b. Will the proposal result in adverse phy�; cay
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric di4 " mist° 4✓ iF 9v
historic building, structure, or object? ... )"Qz
C. Does the proposal have the potential to i
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic.cultural values? ............. [ ] [ J [X]
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ..................... ( ] [ J [X]
1. EARTH
Discussion of Impacts
The development of the site will not result in unstable earth conditions
or changes in geologic substructure. A submitted soils report indicated
the soils on the. subject property are capable of supporting the proposed
project. Presently the project site is relatively flat. Minimal
grading, consisting of 80 cubic yards of fill, will occur on
approximately 36,500 square feet of the property. The site is located
within a seismically dynamic region (City of Santa Clarita draft General
Plan), though not within a designated Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
Zone. This project will not cause any additional impacts in this
category (Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures `
The applicant shall comply with all applicable Building and Safety
Department requirements. ;
Prior to construction, the applicant, shall submit a drainage concept and
grading plan to the satisfaction of the City's Public Works Department.
2. AIR
Discussion of Impacts
The project will not have a long-term significant impact on air quality.
There will be short-term impacts 'associated with the grading and
construction of the project site. Any air pollution beyond that would be
associated with automobile traffic (Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Air Quality
Management District and the applicable Building and Safety Codes. The
City's Code Enforcement Officers and Building and Safety Inspectors will
ensure compliance with these regulations.
3
o13
3. WATER I)RAFT
Discussion of Impacts
The project will alter the existing absorption rates, drainage patterns,
and the amount of surface runoff. As indicated in Section 1, grading
will be utilized to accommodate the project. The project site is located
within Flood Zone C (Flood Insurance Rate Map, produced by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency), which does not designate a flood hazard
area. There are no surface waters or water bodies near the project site,
nor is any extraction of ground water proposed with the project. The
proposed car wash is expected to create an additional demand upon
existing water supplies. No additional impacts are anticipated with this
subdivision proposal (Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The applicant shall submit a drainage concept to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Department, at the building permit stage.
The applicant shall submit a grading plan, based on the submitted soils
and geology report, to the satisfaction of the City,s Public Works
Department.
The applicant shall utilize a recycled water system in the automatic car
;ash.
4. PLANT LIFE
Discussion of Impacts
The project site is flat' and the plant environment consists of shrubs and
trees, The applicant will be implementing landscaping into the project
in conjunction with the construction of the buildings. No significant
impacts are anticipated with this proposal (Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a
landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Department.
5. ANIMAL LIFE
Discussion of Impacts
The site and the surrounding vicinity are not identified as .within a
significant wildlife use area. No animals were observed on an inspection
of the site (Community Development).
6. NOISE
Discussion of Impacts
The applicant is proposing an auto retail center with some service
a.
of
}
1, Im
_..
:ci fir. p ,>
oriented uses such as: an automatic ar w�sh\,,.,`t � sha and auto
service shop. The applicant submitted a noise stuy',4sprep d by
Advanced Engineering and Acoustics, outlining expected decibel levels of
the project during three phases; pre -project, project construction, and
post -project. The impacts of these phases are listed below:
A) Pre -Project- Existing noise readings at the site and 'adjacent
mobilehome, park as measured at 316 feet from the
centerline of Soledad Canyon Road are approximately 57.4
dBA.- The implementation of the project could generate
traffic that creates up to 2 dB of additional noise to
Soledad Canyon Road. The addition of the project and
landscaping can be expected to additionally buffer the
residential units of the mobilehome park from the noise
generated by traffic on Soledad Canyon Road.
B) Construction- Short-term impacts can be . expected during the
construction phase of the project, though these impacts
are anticipated to cease at the conclusion of
construction activities.
C) Post -Project- As indicated before the project will include uses such
as a car wash, tire shop, and auto repair. The
applicant's noise study indicated noise measurements
were taken at three tire, brake, and oil retail outlets.
for fifteen minutes each. The measurements were taken
behind the service centers in order to closely match the
conditions at this project. The average tire center
noise level was 65.1 dBA at 30 feet from the most active.
bay. The average auto service center was 46.1 dBA at 20
feet fro;a the most active. bay. The average car wash
level was 47.9 dBA at 60 feet from the entrance. The
nearest residence , to the automatic car wash is
approximately70 feet. The nearest residence to the
auto repair and tire shops are not indicated by the
applicant, but are as near as 45 feet. The City's Draft
General Plan is indicating, as a goal, the need to
prevent and mitigate noise levels in residential
neighborhoods to below 60-65 dBA.
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The applicant shall conform to the applicable City Codes that regulate
hours of operation and permitted noise levels during the development of
the property. The City's Code Enforcement and Building Inspector's will
ensure compliance with these codes.
The unit locations of the tire shop and auto service shops would be to
the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. This shall
enable the above described uses to conform to the submitted noise study.
The existing four foot high wall shall be increased to ,eight feet where
adjacent to existing residential units. inhere adjacent to a use other
than residential, the wall shall be increased to a height of six feet.
In addition to this, mature landscaping sh i)pI e„ o out
the project site in the areas adjacent Eralxw31tL•.. �4na
The Director of Community Development shall reserve the right to conduct
project noise evaluations at any time to illustrate conformance with the
submitted noise study.
All automotive work shall be conducted within the buildings. In
addition, the storage of automobiles shall not be permitted outside of
the buildings.
All the rear access doors of the buildings shall only be used for vehicle
access and shall otherwise remain closed.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE
Discussion of Impacts
This project will be a new source of light and glare to the immediate
area. Additional lighting will be implemented in the parking and
landscaped areas of the project site. No additional impacts are
anticipated with the project (Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
.rior to .the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a
lighting plan to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Department. All light standards shall be directed towards the project
and not in the direction ofthe residential units.
S. LAND USE
Discussion of Impacts
The property presently is vacant. The applicant is requesting to change
the the site zoning of. the project from C-2 and R -3-20U to C-2. The
proposed project is an auto retail center which is consistent with the
proposed site zoning of C-2 with the application of a conditional use
permit to allow for the following uses: tire service, car wash, muffler
service, and automotive repair/service. The maximum building height in
the C-2 zone is two stories or 35 feet high, which this project conforms
to. The City's draft General Plan proposes a designation of Commercial
Neighborhood for the project site. The Commercial Neighborhood
designation can accommodate auto repair uses with the application of a
conditional use permit. The floor area ratios governed by this
designation are between .25 to .5:1. This project is well within the
proposed floor area ratios for. the Commerical Neighborhood designation.
No additional impacts are anticipated (Community Development).
Discussion of.Impacts
The project will utilize auto repair/service related uses and therefore
use such nonrenewable natural resource as oil. No additional impacts are
anticipated (Community Development).
a:
�.
Discussion of Mitigation Measures �qF• uWA
The applicant shall provide a public recycling/ai% sal 'lity +'thin
the project. This facility shall be operated as either a primary or
accessory use.
10. RISK OF UPSET/MAN-MADE HAZARDS
Discussion of Impacts
The project may cause limited, short-term exposure to various hazardous
and toxic materials during the construction phase. In addition to this,
the applicant is proposing automotive related uses, which .would include
the storage of toxic materials such as oil and other related substances.
Toxic waste such as oil, is not permitted to be disposed of in domestic
trash pick-up. The inclusion of an auto service shop into the center
impacts the existing need for additional oil disposal/recycling
facilities in the City of Santa Clarita. No additional impacts are
anticipated (Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The applicant shall comply with all applicable agencies requirements.
The City's Code Enforcement. Division and applicable enforcement agencies
will ensure compliance with these applicable codes.
The applicant shall provide an oil disposal/recycling facility within the
project. This facility shall be open to the general public. The
applicant shall also include signage, to the satisfaction of the City, to
facilitate the identity of this service.
11. POPULATION
Discussion of Impacts
The applicant's Initial
jobs. This number is
(Community Development).
12. HOUSING
Discussion of Impacts
Study (Form A) indicated the addition of 60
not anticipated to have a significant impact -
This proposal is for a commercial center. No significant impacts
associated with housing are anticipated due to the availability of
housing within the project vicinity. In addition to the above, the
City's Draft General Plan designates the entire project site as
Commercial Neighborhood (CN) (Community Development).
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Discussion of -Impacts
The applicant's traffic study is indicating approximately 1,320 trips per
day, of which 90 would occur during the morning peak hour and 120 would
i
' ✓ "s j` '
occur during the evening peak hour. The Pb�ia 99Noiks�par merg ra is
Division is indicating this number to be va1�iII.4ky}s jSkbpd�)aal a
cumulative basis can be expected to impact the existing S6 d C on
Road circulation system. The Public Works Department/Traffic Division is
indicating certain improvements are required to ensure that the Soledad
Canyon Road circulation system remains at an adequate level. The project
will be utilizing a total of three driveways, two of which will be
exclusively used by the project, and the third will be 'a shared driveway
between the project and the adjacent mobilehome park. The applicant's
traffic study indicates this driveway can accommodate the anticiapated
traffic volumes associated with the project, in addition to the existing
residential generated traffic. The City's Public Works
Department/Traffic Division concurs with the study, with the addition of
improvements to the existing driveway. No additional impacts are
anticipated (Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The applicant shall provide an auxiliary lane on Soledad Canyon Road
along the project's frontage. The dimensions of the lane shall be to the
satisfaction of the City's Public Works/Traffic Division.
The applicant shall install "Right Turn Only" signs and provide for'
subsequent maintenance thereof, for exiting traffic .from the project's
two easterly driveways.
The applicant shall modify the existing mobilehome park driveway to
accommodate the additional anticipated traffic volumes from this project.
The applicant, as a condition of approval, shall be granted one "in and
out" left turn access across the proposed median at the southern driveway.
The applicant shall participate in: the funding and establishment of
appropriate mechanisms whereby the City is assured of the implementation
of the widening of the.Soledad Canyon Road bridge over the Santa Clara
River. This action shall be done in a timely manner, to the satisfaction
of the Directors of Public Works and Community Development.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Discussion of Impacts
Fire service is provided for by the Los Angeles County Fire Department,
and the .nearest station is located approximately three miles from the
project site. The Fire Department is indicating certain requirments of
the Department be included in the plan to ensure safety of the project
site. The Sheriff's Department has commented on. the project indicating
possible impacts in the areas of noise, circulation, lighting, and the
possiblity of criminal activity to adjacent land owners. The Parks and
Recreation Department is indicating the need to landscape medians located
on major highways within the City. Presently, the median adjacent to the
project site is: not landscaped. No. additional impacts are anticipated
with this proposal (Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The applicant shall comply with all'1applicable regulations and fees of n
affected agencies at the building perlit stage. ..%X
I r �
l f
���r�
The development of the project. must comply csl�$ a �appl�& ode
ordinance requirements for construction, access, wale Mai s?, "ire ws,
and fire hydrants as dictated by the Los Angeles County Fire Departm0.
The .applicant shall post parking Lot signage to the satisfaction of the
Sheriff's Department and the City's Traffic Division.
All automobile work shall be done within the buildings. No outside work
or storage of vehicles shall be permitted.
The required lighting plan shall also be to the satisfaction of 'the
Sheriff's Department. - -
The applicant shall provide median landscaping improvements adjacent, to
the project frontage to :the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and
Recreation.
15. ENERGY
Discussion of Impacts
The project will not use substantial amounts of fuel or energy (Community
Development).
16. UTILITIES
Discussion of Impacts
All utilities and applicable public facilities are provided for in
Soledad Canyon Road. The applicant will connect to these existing
services. No impact is axticipated (Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The applicant will be required .to connect to the necessary water, sewer,
utility, and storm drain systems.
17. HUMAN HEALTH
Discussion of Impacts
The project may have short-term impacts- on human health during the
construction phase of the project. Additionalimpacts are not
anticipated with this proposal (Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The applicant shall comply with all applicable codes and conditions
imposed by the City's Building and Safety Department at the building
permit stage.
18. AESTHETICS -
a
a9
ix Y
Discussion of Impacts
The project site will be highly visible and �itVY locar n So dad
Canyon Road, adjacent to an existing mobile home park. The max mum
height of the structures will be 22 feet. The applicant, as required
with a conditional use permit application, has submitted. project
elevations to the Community Development Department. No additional
impacts are anticipated (Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The -applicant shall be required to construct the project as shown on the
submitted site plan and elevations. This shall be a condition of
approval requiring the applicant to submit final architectural drawings
to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
19. RECREATION
Discussion of Impacts
The project is a commercial project. No impacts are anticipated in the
area of Recreation (Community Development).
20. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Discussion of Impacts
The project does not lie within an area with archaeological finds
(ESRI). No other historical, religious, and cultural sites or activities
are known (Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The applicant shall stop work on the project site if there are any
archaeological,finds made during the construction phase of the project.
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
fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustain-
ing levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
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? ................. [ ] [ J [X]
a
30
3. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable7
(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? ......... [ ]
D. DETERMINATION
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 . .................................... [ J
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
isrequired.. ......................................... [ 1
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared By:
C— Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II' Lr
(Signature) (Name/Title) (Date)
Ar ed Bat ,
Kevin Michel, Associate Planner
(Signature) (Name/Title) (Date)
3l
2. Does the project have the potential to achiev
��
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
s L
environmental goals? (A
short-term impact on the
i
environment is one which
occurs in a relatively
S
:i:✓
brief, definitive period
of time while long-term
impacts will endure well
into the future.) ...........
[ ) [
] [XJ
3. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable7
(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? ......... [ ]
D. DETERMINATION
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 . .................................... [ J
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
isrequired.. ......................................... [ 1
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared By:
C— Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II' Lr
(Signature) (Name/Title) (Date)
Ar ed Bat ,
Kevin Michel, Associate Planner
(Signature) (Name/Title) (Date)
3l