HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-26 - AGENDA REPORTS - CONFERENCE CENTER RESO 96 33 (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager
Item to be pre;
Glenn Adamick
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: March 26, 1996
SUBJECT: AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF A 6.3 ACRE SITE WITH A 203 ROOM HOTEL AND 20,000
SQUARE FOOT CONFERENCE CENTER.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-33
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
On February 6, 1996, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 4-0, adopted Resolution P96-03
approving Master Case 96-002 (Conditional Use Permit 96-001 and Minor Use Permit 96-
001).
On February 21, 1996, Mr. John Steffen filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's
approval. In a follow-up letter, Mr. Steffen cites 24 reasons for the appeal. Most of these
reasons were related to the use of E.D.A. grant money to fund certain infrastructure
improvement associated with the project. This Council action and use of the E.D.A. money
is separate from the land use review of the project and therefore may not be considered a
part of this appeal.
Other reasons cited by Mr. Steffen include concerns with the soil stability of the site, the
inclusion of the project within the original mall approval, the payment of Bridge and
Thoroughfare fees, the requiring of a traffic study, and concerns related to the environmental
review of the project.
The applicant did submit apreliminary geotechnical study in conjunction with the project.
This study has been reviewed by the City's Engineering Section and indicates that the site
soils are generally not susceptible to liquefaction, and that the site is suitable for
development.
Can►inuedTo: -/d-96
Agenda item:17
The project site is included within the original mall development approved by the Planning
Commission in 1990. The Planning Commission vested the applicant with 2.2 million square
feet of commercial building area on the 135 acre mall property. This project would be
included in this square footage. A comprehensive traffic study was prepared for the mall
project in 1990 and the appropriate traffic mitigation is being required on this project.
The project is required to pay Bridge and Thoroughfare fees, unless these fees have already
been paid in conjunction with the original mall approval.
More detailed information related to the project is included within the attached
memorandum.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The project was heard by the Planning Commission on February 6, 1996. One person offered
general comments regarding the proposal. These comments were related to the use of
approximately three million dollars in E.D.A. money for the development and concerns
related to soil stability.
Following public testimony, and after review of the staff report, the Planning Commission
approved the project. The Commission also approved the parking adjustment and the minor
use permit for on-site alcohol sales. Overall, the Planning Commission found that the project
would be beneficial to the City and would continue to further the establishment of the Valley
Center as described in the General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 96-33, approving Master Case 96-002 (Conditional Use Permit
96-001 and Minor Use Permit 96-001), subject to the attached conditions of approval.
ATTACHMENTS
Informational Memorandum
Resolution No. 96-33
Planning Commission Resolution and Conditions
Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Commission Staff Reports
Appeal Letters from John Steffen
GAC:GEA:lep
council\ar96002r.gea
Public Hearing Procedure
1. Mayor opens hearing
*States purpose of hearing
2. City Clerk reports on hearing notice
3. Staff report
4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes)
5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes)
6. Five-minute rebuttal (Proponent)
• Proponent
7. Mayor closes public testimony
S. Discussion by Council
9. Council decision
10. Mayor announces decision
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF APPROVAL
OF MASTER CASE 96-002 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-001 AND MINOR USE
PERMIT 96-001). THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 203 ROOM
HOTEL AND A 20,000 SQUARE FOOT CONFERENCE CENTER ON A 6.3 ACRE SITE.
THE PROJECT INCLUDES A PHASE II EXPANSION, INCREASING THE SIZE OF
THE HOTEL TO 273 ROOMS AND THE CONFERENCE CENTER TO 25,000 SQUARE
FEET. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE HOTEL IS PROPOSED TO BE 75 FEET.
THE MINOR USE PERMIT REQUEST WOULD ALLOW FOR THE ON-SITE SALE OF
ALCOHOL. THE PROJECT SITE IS ZONED CTC (COMMERCIAL TOWN CENTER)
IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
MCBEAN PARKWAY AND FUTURE TOWN CENTER DRIVE. THE PROJECT
APPLICANT IS VALENCIA COMPANY. THE APPELLANT IS JOHN STEFFEN.
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
Regarding an appeal of a Planning Commission decision of approval of Master Case 96-002
(Conditional Use Permit 96-001 and Minor Use Permit 96-001). The applicant is proposing
to construct a 203 room hotel and a 20,000 square foot conference center on a 6.3 acre site.
The project includes a Phase II expansion, increasing the size of the hotel to 273 rooms and
the conference center to 25,000 square feet. The maximum height of the hotel is proposed to
be 75 feet. The minor use permit request would allow for the on-site sale of alcohol. The
project site is zoned CTC (Commercial Town Center) in the City of Santa Clarita located at
the southwest corner of McBean Parkway and future Town Center Drive. The project
applicant is Valencia Company. The appellant is John Steffen.
The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 26th day of March, 1996, 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 Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita, California.
If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter 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 of Santa Clarita at, or prior to the
public hearing.
Dated: February 28, 1996
Donna M. Grindey, CMC
City Clerk
Publish Date: March 3, 1996
corres.phhotel.gd
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Rich Henderson, City Planner
DATE: March 26, 1996
SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL REPORT REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF MASTER CASE 96-002 (THE HOTEL /
CONFERENCE CENTER).
BACKGROUND
On February 20, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P90-07 approving Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map 20795, Conditional Use Permit 88-002 and Oak Tree Permit 89-013. This
action included the approval of a regional town center, which vested the applicant with the right
to construct 2.2 million square feet of building area on the 135 acre "mall property".
Development of the mall property was to occur in two phases. Phase I of the project included
the construction of 747,000 square feet of commercial floor area, which is existing. Phase II
includes the expansion of the mall to 1.4 million square feet and the development of accessory
surrounding parcels with commercial uses. The subject project is included within the Phase II
development of the "mall property". On May 23, 1995, the City Council approved three
commercial/office buildings from three to six stories with a total usable floor area of 241,000
square feet on the mall property. On December 19, 1995, the Planning Commission approved
a 52,000 square foot health club and an 18,000 square foot retail center on the mall property:
These developments, as well as the subject project, are considered part of the Phase II
development of the mall.
On February 6, 1996, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 4-0, adopted Resolution P96-03
approving Master Case 96-002 (Conditional Use Permit 96-001 and Minor Use Permit 96-001).
The proposed project includes the development of a 6.3 acre portion of the "mall property" with
a hotel/conference center and 397 parking spaces. The hotel would be five stories and
approximately 75' tall. The conference center would be one-story and approximately 35' in
height.
The project site has approximately 680' of frontage on McBean Parkway. A total of four
driveways would provide access to the project, three from McBean Parkway and one from Town
Center Drive (a private street). The primary entrance to the hotel would be from Town Center
Drive. The applicant is proposing to provide 397 parking spaces in conjunction with the project,
which requires the approval of a 20% parking adjustment.
The service area from both the hotel and conference center would be accessed from McBean
Parkway. The service area would be centrally located between the hotel and conference center
and would contain three loadinghmloading bays. The applicant is proposing to screen the
service area from McBean Parkway with a 25' landscaped area.
Drop-off\pick-up areas would be provided at the entrance to both the hotel and conference
center. The on-site sale of alcohol is proposed in conjunction with the operation of the hotel and
conference center.
ANALYSIS
The project site is zoned CTC (Commercial Town Center) and is also designated CTC by the
City's General Plan. The project site is located within the Valley Center Overlay area identified
in the General Plan. The Valley Center Area is intended to be developed as the central core of
the City, thereby allowing for higher densities and intensities. With the inclusion of the
proposed project, the "mall development" floor area ratio (FAR) would be .35:1, or well below
the 2:1 FAR encouraged in the General Plan and allowed for in the Unified Development Code..
In summary, the Valley Center Area is the area where multiple story or higher structures are
encouraged by the City's General Plan.
On February 21, 1996, Mr. John Steffen fled an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval
with the City Clerk. In a follow-up letter to the original appeal letter, Mr. Steffen lists 24
reasons for the appeal. Most of these reasons are related to the use of E.D.A grant money to
fund certain infrastructure improvements associated with the project. The use of this money
had been previously authorized by the City Council on November 28, 1995, when the Council
approved a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Newhall Land and
Farming Company. This Council action and use of the E.D.A. money is separate from the land
use review of the project and therefore may not be considered a part of this appeal.
Other reasons cited by Mr. Steffen which are related to land use and the entitlement process
include concerns with the soil stability of the site, the inclusion of the project within the original
mall approval, the payment of Bridge and Thoroughfare fees, the requiring of a traffic study,
and concerns related to the environmental review of the project.
The applicant did conduct a preliminary geotechnical study in conjunction with the project. This
study, which was reviewed by the City's Engineering Division, indicated that the site soils are
generally not susceptible to liquefaction, and that the site is suitable for development.
The State of California, Department of Mines and Geology recently released preliminary Seismic
Hazard Maps. Hazards addressed by these maps were liquefaction and landslide areas. The
reportprepared in conjunction with these maps states that the Seismic Maps should not be used
to regulate land use, nor should they be used as a substitute for site-specific geotechnical
studies. The maps indicated that the project site is located in an area that may contain
liquefiable materials. This potential hazard was also identified in the City's General Plan,
Safety Element. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant will be required to
prepare additional, more detailed soils reports for review and approval by the City Engineer.
As stated, the preliminary soils report indicated that the site soils are generally not susceptible
to liquefaction and the site would be suitable for this development.
The project site is considered to be part of the 135 acre mall property, which was originally
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in 1990. The approval included
development of the property with 2.2 million square feet of commercial building area. A
comprehensive traffic study addressing the impacts of this development was prepared and
mitigation measures/conditions included within the original approval. One of these conditions
included the preparation of a supplemental traffic study to verify the assumptions and findings
of the original study prior to occupancy of Phase II development. The applicant has submitted
this supplementary study to the City's Tz- ffc Engineering Section for their review and approval.
The appeal letter also cites the need for the applicant to pay Bridge and Thoroughfare Fees for
the project. Condition No. 11 of the attached conditions of approval for the project requires the
applicant to pay Bridge and Thoroughfare fees for development of the site, unless the fees have
been previously paid in conjunction with the original mall approval.
As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to evaluate the impacts
of the project. It was determined that any environmental impacts could be avoided through
project design and with the application of mitigation measures. Based upon this, the Planning
Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
RH:GEA:Iep
current \h otel apl. mem
RESOLUTION NO. 96-33
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
AND APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-001
AND MINOR USE PERMIT 96-001
TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
A HOTEL/CONFERENCE CENTER
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
MCBEAN PARKWAY AND THE FUTURE TOWN CENTER DRIVE
(MASTER CASE NO. 96-002)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact:
a. An application for a conditional use permit was filed on January 5, 1996
by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (the "applicant"). The
property for which the entitlement was filed is located at the southwest
corner of McBean Parkway and the future Town Center Drive (Assessor's
Parcel No, 2861-002-096). The existing zoning for the project site is CTC
(Commercial Town Center),
b. The applicant has filed a conditional use permit to develop a 6.3 acre site
with a 203 room hotel and a 20,000 square foot conference center. The
request also includes a Phase II expansion of both the hotel and
conference center. Phase II would include adding 70 rooms to the hotel
and 5,000 square feet to the conference center. The hotel would be five
stories and approximately 75' tall. The conference center would be one
story. The applicant is also requesting a 20%q adjustment to parking
standards to accommodate shared parking. A minor use permit has been
requested to allow for the on-site sale of alcohol.
c, The project site is designated by the City's General Plan as Commercial
Town Center (CTC), and is located within the Valley Center Overlay. The
uses proposed by the applicant are permitted with the inclusion of a
conditional use permit and minor use permit.
d. For the hotel, the applicant has proposed a building height of up to 75 feet
measured from the main entrance grade, and the construction of a hotel
of approximately 113,000 square feet with five stories and 203 guest
rooms. Other accessory uses include a restaurant, recreational facilities
and three meeting rooms. The Phase II expansion of the hotel would
increase the number of guest rooms to 273 rooms.
e. For the conference center, the applicant has proposed a building area of
20,000 square feet. It would include a main ballroom and three meeting
rooms. The occupancy of the facility would be 900 persons. The Phase II
expansion of the conference center would increase the building area to
25,000 square feet.
The applicant's proposal is being considered as part of the original
Valencia Town Center mall approval for 2.2 million square feet of retail
space (Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 20795). The applicant's proposals
for a building height in excess of 35-0", and for the possible use of the
retail area as a restaurant serving alcoholic beverages are non -
discretionary as both proposals were permitted under the Los Angeles
County codes in effect at the time of approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel
Map 20795.
g. The applicant is proposing one grading operation to prepare lots 2, 3, 4,
and 5 of VTPM 20795 which includes the subject site. Total proposed
grading is 372,000 cubic yards --282,000 cubic yards was approved under
VTPM 20795 and the remaining 90,000 cubic yards of grading was
approved by Master Case 95-166 (Spectrum Health Club).
h. Public services and utilities are existing adjacent to the subject property.
A storm drain will be constructed using EDA funds as part of the grading
on this site. All public services and utilities would be connected to the
site. Access to the site would be from two driveways on McBean Parkway.
The surrounding land uses are vacant commercial and a golf course to the
south, and west. East of the project site is the existing Valencia Town
Center mall, and the three story office building which is presently under
construction. The vacant property to the north and across Town Center
Drive from the project site is the future location for the Spectrum Health
Club and a restaurant/retail center,
j. On November 28, 1995, the City Council approved a Memorandum of
Understanding between the City and the Newhall Land and Farming
Company for the development of a hotel/conference center. The
Memorandum included a City funding contribution of $3,075,000 from an
EDA Grant to be used towards infrastructure improvements including a
storm drain (EDA Storm Drain CIP Project).
k Upon receipt of the application, the proposal was circulated for City
Department and agency review. An Initial Study and Negative
Declaration were prepared for the project. The City of Santa Clarita
Development Review Committee (DRC) met on January 25, 1996, and
supplied the applicant with draft conditions of approval,
A public hearing was duly noticed for the Planning Commission on
February 6, 1996, at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. At that hearing the Planning
Commission approved Resolution P96-03 approving the proposed
hotel/conference center and adopting the proposed Negative Declaration.
M. On February 21, 1996, the Planning Commission decision of approval on
the hotel/conference center was appealed by Mr. John Steffen. Mr.
Steffen cited the need for additional geologic investigation and the need
for additional environmental review as substantive reasons for the appeal.
n. A public hearing was duly noticed for the City Council on March 26; 1996,
at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita,
at 6:30 p.m. The notice of the hearing included reference to the appeal.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the public
hearing, and upon the study and investigation made by the City Council and on its
behalf, the City Council further finds as follows:
a. At the hearing of March 26, 1996, the City Council considered the staff
report prepared for this project and received testimony on the proposal
and on the appeal of the Planning Commission decision of February 6,
1996.
b. The City's General Plan designation for the project site is Commercial
Town Center (CTC), with the Valley Center Overlay. Uses may include
hotels, conference centers, health clubs, retail clothing stores,
supermarkets, movie theaters, restaurants with entertainment, and other
related uses. The CTC zone permits a wide range of retail, service, and
related activities which are of a community and regional nature and are
located in and around a large regional shopping center.
C. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the
health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in the
surrounding area; nor be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or
valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the subject
property, nor jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to
the public health, safety or general welfare.
d. The project design will not cause substantial environmental damage to
fish or wildlife, as the project is located in an urbanized area.
e. The use will not affect existing circulation, nor will it adversely affect the
peace, comfort and/or welfare of persons residing in the surrounding area.
f. A geotechnical report was submitted and reviewed as part of the
preparation of the environmental review. The mitigation measures and
conditions of approval for this project include adherence to the
recommendations of the project geotechnical study to mitigate any
potential geotechnical impacts.
g. The project was reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). It was determined that the project would not have
a significant environmental impact, as mitigation measures were included
in the project design / conditions of approval.
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council
hereby determines as follows:
a. The proposed project will not have a significant affect upon the
environment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Conditions of approval have been added to the project to
mitigate all identified impacts caused by the project.
b. The basis of the appeal of the Planning Commission decision is unfounded
since a geotechnical report was submitted for the project and incorporated
into the project approval, thereby ensuring that the project will mitigate
potential geotechnical problems. Since the initial study for the project
and attendant mitigation measures and monitoring program identify that
all potential impacts can be mitigated to levels less than significant, a
mitigated negative declaration is the proper environmental document
prepared and no additional environmental review is necessary to comply
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
C. The project is compatible with existing development in the area,
consistent with the City's General Plan, and complies with the standards
of the CTC zone with the inclusion of a conditional use permit and minor
use permit. The applicant has substantiated the required findings for the
granting of a conditional use permit, parking adjustment and minor use
permit. A condition of approval requires staff to monitor parking at the
site for a period of two years to ensure that the shared parking concept is
working.
d. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65907 and Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1094.6, any action or proceeding to attach, review, set aside, void
or annul this decision, or concerning any of the proceedings, acts, or
determination taken, done or made prior to such decision or to determine
the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached to this
decision shall not be maintained by any person unless the action or
proceeding is commenced within 90 days of the date of this resolution and
the City Council is served within 120 days of the date of this resolution.
The City Clerk shall send a certified copy of this resolution to the
applicant, and if any, the appellant at the address of said person set forth
in the record of the proceedings and such mailing shall constitute the
notice required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby adopts the mitigated negative declaration
prepared for the project with the finding that the project will not have a significant effect
upon the environment, upholds the Planning Commission decision and approves Master
Case 96-002, subject to the attached conditions of approval.
PASSED, APPROVED
'19—.
ATTEST:.
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
AND ADOPTED this day of
MAYOR
I, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at
a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of 19_ by the
following vote of Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT; COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
s: \council\res96-33.Ihs
CONDITIONS
MASTER CASE NUMBER 96-002
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-001
MINOR USE PERMIT 96-001
L, The approval of this Conditional Use Permit(Minor Use Permit shall expire if not put
into use within two years from the date of conditional approval.
2. The applicant may file for an extension of the conditionally approved Conditional Use
Permit/Minor Use Permit prior to the date of expiration, for a period of time not to
exceed one year. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed no later than 60
days prior to expiration.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Department of Community
Development, in writing, of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer,
or a change in the status of the developer, within 30 days of said change.
4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the
applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this
grant. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa
Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or
annul the approval of this Permit by the City, which action is provided for in
Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the City becomes aware of any such
claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant, or if the
City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be
responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in
this Condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim,
action, or proceeding, if both the following occur: 1) The City bears its own attorneys'
fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall
not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the entitlement is approved
by the applicant.
5. Details shown on the site plan are not necessarily approved. Any details which are
inconsistent with requirements of ordinances, general conditions of approval, or City
policies must be specifically approved.
6. At any point in the development process, a stop -work order shall be considered in
effect upon the discovery of any historic artifacts and/or remains, at which time the
City shall be notified. The applicant shall hire a qualified consultant that the City
approves to study the site and recommend a course of action, to the satisfaction of the
City.
IMM-DBA".1
The applicant shall obtain the required approvals and pay all the applicable fees at
the building permit issuance stage.
Resolution 96-33
Page 2
8., The applicant shall provide street trees to the satisfaction of the Parks and
Recreation Department. Trees shall be used from the City's approved master street
tree list, which can be obtained from the City Arborist. The irrigation and
maintenance of these trees shall be per City Ordinance 90-15.
9. The applicant shall provide final landscape and irrigation plans to the satisfaction of
the Parks and Recreation Department. Drought resistant plant material and water
efficient irrigation systems shall be utilized in the design. The landscape plan shall
include measures to adequately screen the service area from McBean Parkway.
10. The applicant shall record the subject lot as part of the original Valencia Town
Center approval (VTPM 20795) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
11. The applicant shall provide proof of payment of Bridge and Thoroughfare District
fees, as the project is included in the original Valencia Town Center Mall approval
(VTPM 20795), If proof of payment cannot be provided, then the applicant shall be
responsible for payment of Bridge and Thoroughfare Fees to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.:
12, Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a drainage
concept to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
13. Driveways shall be constructed using the City of Santa Clarita's Alley Intersection
Design No. 44-01. The applicant shall obtain approval from the, Traffic Engineer for
the location of all driveways.
14. The applicant shall construct sidewalk on: McBean Parkway along the project's
frontage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
15. The applicant shall comply with all Stormwater Utility regulations, if applicable.
16. The applicant shall be required to extend mainline sewer to the serve the site.
17, A supplemental traffic study shall be approved by the City's Traffic Engineer.
Mitigation measures identified in this study shall be in place at the required and
appropriate time as indicated in the above study..
18. All additional building and grading requirements will be established at the time of
plan check and permit issuance.
Resolution 96-33
Page 3
rim MW I► H► I\ •�
19. In conjunction with the submittal of working drawings to the Building and Safety
Division, the applicant shall submit final building plans, elevations, and exterior
materials for review and approval by the Director of Community Development.
These plans shall be substantially consistent with those elevations and renderings
approved by the Planning Commission.
20. The building layout shall conform to the exhibit submitted to the Community
Development Department and approved by the Planning Commission.
21. This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and the owner
of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, with the Director of
Community Development, their affidavit stating that they are aware of, and agree
to accept, all of the conditions of this grant.
22. It is further declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof
is violated, or if any law, statue, or ordinance is violated, the permit shall be
suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the
applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do
so for a period of 30 days.
23. All requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the specific zoning of the subject
property must be complied with unless set forth in the permit and/or shown on the
submitted plot plan.
24. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's Trip Reduction and
Travel Demand Ordinance.
25. The project shall have a maximum height of 75' above grade..
26. The applicant shall provide for minimum 26' wide drive aisles throughout the project
site.
27. Future expansion (Phase II) of the hotel and conference center, as shown on the
submitted plan, is approved subject to the following requirements:
a) Future addition areas shall not exceed 75' in height; and,
b) The future expansion shall be architecturally consistent with the Phase I
buildings; and,
c) Additional parking, per the requirements of the Unified Development Code,
shall be provided in conjunction with the future expansion of the project or a
City approved Shared Parking Program for the area west of McBean Parkway
shall be in place.
Resolution 96-33
Page 4
28. On-site sale of alcohol, in conjunction with the operation of the hotel and conference
center, is permitted.
29. Shared parking between the hotel and conference center is permitted. A maximum
parking reduction of 20% is granted. For a two year period, the Director of
Community Development shall retain discretion, upon inspection and verification of
a need for additional parking, to reconsider the parking adjustment. Upon
verification of a problem, the Director will notify the property owner to discuss
possible solutions. If a mutually agreed upon solution cannot be reached with the
property owner, the Director may schedule the item before the Planning Commission
for reconsideration of the parking adjustment. The construction of additional
parking spaces on-site or within close proximity of the site, or other potential
solutions may be required by the City to resolve a verified parking problem.
PUBLIC WORKS
30, The applicant shall provide recycling receptacles in public access areas for glass,
aluminum, and plastic.
31. The applicant shall provide space for three recycling containers, with a capacity of 10
yards each.
current\con96002.gea
Planning Commission Minutes 2-6-96
ITEM 6 MASTER CASE NO. 96-002 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-001,
MINOR USE PERMIT 96-001)
Commissioner Modugno recused himself from this project because he owns stock in a hotel
company that is one of the potential joint venture partners on this project.
The staff report and a slide presentation was given by Glenn Adamick, Associate Planner,
The property is located at the southwest corner of McBean Parkway and the future Town
Center Drive, across the street from the three-story office building that is under construction.
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to develop the 6.3 acre site with a 203
room hotel and a 20,000 square foot conference center. The request also includes a Phase II
expansion of both the hotel and conference center with the hotel going up to 273 rooms and
the conference center being increased by 5,000 square feet. Mr. Adamick said the applicant
is also requesting a 20% adjustment to parking standards based on shared parking of the two
uses.
Mr. Adamick stated that on November 28, 1995 the City Council approved a Memorandum
of Understanding between the City and Newhall Land and Farming Company for the
development of the hotel/conference center. The memorandum included a City funding
contribution of 3.075 million dollars towards the development for infrastructure. Mr.
Adamick said the money contributed towards the project was from an Economic Development
Administration Grant, not the City's General Fund.
There would be a total of four driveways providing access to the project - three from McBean
Parkway and one from Town Center Drive. The primary access to the hotel would be from
Town Center Drive. The service area would have access from McBean Parkway with its own
driveway. The service area would be screened from McBean Parkway with a 25 foot
landscape area that would be bermed.
Mr. Adamick said the maximum building height would be 75 feet. The conference center is
one story and a maximum height of 30 feet..
Commissioner Brathwaite had a question regarding a stand of trees by the project. Mr.
Adamick said those trees were on golf course property and would not be affected by the
project.
Commissioner Cherrington had a question regarding sidewalks on Town Center. Drive which
was answered in part by Mr, Adamick. He said the applicant would be able to give the
Commission further information.
The public hearing was opened at 9:34 p.m.
The fust speaker was Rich Knowland, representing the applicant, Valencia Company. Mr,
Knowland said that over the past eight months they have been working intensively with the
City to come up with a feasible conference center and hotel project. He said this is an
exciting project and sure to become an important landmark in the Santa Ciarita Valley. Mr.
Knowland said he was available to answer any questions that the Commissioners might have.
Commissioner Cherrington asked Mr. Knowland to clarify the sidewalk issue on Town Center
Drive. Mr. Knowland said it was their intention to construct a sidewalk on Town Center
Drive. He said it would be a pedestrian friendly area.
The next speaker was Marc Aronson, President of the Santa Clarita Chamber of Commerce,
26153 Los Llanos Court, Santa Clarita. Mr. Aronson said the Chamber is very much in favor
of this project. He felt it would have a positive effect on the economic development of the
community. Mr. Aronson also felt this would improve tourism in. the community.
Lynne Plambeck, representing SCOPE, P. O. Box 1182, Santa Clarita. Ms. Plambeck agreed
that a conference center was needed in the Santa Clarita Valley. She did not understand the
necessity to subsidize a private company to the tune of 3 million dollars. She also said a fire
station planned to purchase land in the area and develop a station. The purchase was
withdrawn because the soil was unstable. She wondered if this was the same site as the
proposed conference center. Ms. Plambeck requested that electric hook-ups for electric cars
be made available on a limited basis to encourage the use of electric cars.
Chairperson Townsley inquired about the fire station. Mr. Adamick said the site Ms.
Plambeck spoke about was not part of this project. The Fire Department is looking at a site
near the Sheriffs Station.
Rich Knowland further clarified the fire station question. He said the Fire Department is
looking at property behind the Bank of America Building on Citrus.
Mr. Knowland said the parking lots would be landscaped and low -lighting would be used.
In the future, if they experience the success they are hoping for, they will be using multi -
decked parking.
Chairperson Townsley asked if any soil testing had been done on the project site. Mr.
Knowland said yes, they did extensive soil and geology testing.
The Public Hearing was closed at 9:50 p.m.
Commissioner Cherrington said he had no hesitation in supporting this project even though
it may involve the expenditure of City funds.
A motion was made by Commissioner Cherrington to approve the Mitigated Negative
Declaration prepared for the project finding that the project will not have a significant effect
upon the environment and move for adoption of Resolution P96-03, approving Master Case
96-002 subject to the conditions of approval. Said motion was seconded by Commissioner
Doughman and carried by vote of 4-0.
RESOLUTION NO. P96-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMLSSION OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-001
AND MINOR USE PERMIT 96-001
TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
A HOTEUCONFERENCE CENTER
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
MCBEAN PARKWAY AND THE FUTURE TOWN CENTER DRIVE
(MASTER CASE NO. 96-002)
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 on January 5, 1996
by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (the "applicant"). The
property for which the entitlement was filed is located at the southwest
corner of McBean Parkway and the future Town Center Drive
(Assessor's Parcel No. 2861-002-096). The existing zoning for the
project site is CTC (Commercial Town Center).
b. The applicant has filed a conditional use permit to develop a 6.3 acre
site with a 203 room hotel and a 20,000 square foot conference center.
The request also includes a Phase II expansion of both the hotel and
conference center. Phase II would include adding 70 rooms to the hotel
and 5,000 square feet to the conference center. The hotel would be five
stories and approximately 75' tall. The conference center would be one
story. The applicant is also requesting a 20% adjustment to parking
standards to accommodate shared parking. Aminor use permit has
been requested to allow for the on-site sale of alcohol.
C. The project site is designated by the City's General Plan as Commercial
Town Center (CTC), and is located within the Valley Center Overlay.
The uses proposed by the applicant are permitted with the inclusion of
a conditional use permit and minor use permit.
d. For the hotel, the applicant has proposed a building height of up to 75'-
0" measured from the main entrance grade, and the construction of a
hotel of approximately 113,000 square feet with five stories and 203
guest rooms. Other accessory uses include a restaurant, recreational
facilities and three meeting rooms. The Phase II expansion of the hotel
would increase the number of guest rooms to 273 rooms.
e. For the conference center, the applicant has proposed a building area
of 20,000 square feet. It would include a main ballroom and three
meeting rooms. The occupancy of the facility would be 900 persons.
The Phase II expansion of the conference center would increase the
building area to 25,000 square feet.
f. The applicant's proposal is being considered as part of the original
Valencia Town Center mall approval for 2.2 million square feet of retail
space (Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 20795). The applicant's proposals
for a building height in excess of 35-0", and for the possible use of the
retail area as a restaurant serving alcoholic beverages are non -
discretionary as both proposals were permitted under the Los Angeles
County codes in effect at the time of approval of Vesting Tentative
Parcel Map 20795.
g. The applicant is proposing one grading operation to prepare lots 2, 3,
4, and 5 of VTPM 20795 which includes the subject site. Total proposed
grading is 372,000 cubic yards --282,000 cubic yards was approved under
VTPM 20795 and the remaining 90,000 cubic yards of grading was
approved by Master Case 95-166 (Spectrum Health Club).
h. Public services and utilities are existing adjacent to the subject
property. A storm drain will be constructed using EDA funds as part
of the grading on this site. All public services and utilities would be
connected to the site. Access to the site would be from two driveways
on McBean Parkway.
The surrounding land uses are vacant commercial and a golf course to
the south, and west. East of the project site is the existing Valencia
Town Center mall, and the three story office building which is presently
under construction. The vacant property to the north and across Town
Center Drive from the project site is the future location for the
Spectrum Health Club and a restaurant/retail center.
j. On November 28, 1995, the City Council approved a Memorandum of
Understanding between the City and the Newhall Land and Farming
Company for the development of a hotel/conference center. The
Memorandum included a City funding contribution of $3,075,000 from
an EDA Grant to be used towards infrastructure improvements
including a storm drain (EDA Storm Drain CIP Project).
k Upon receipt of the application, the proposal was circulated for City
Department and agency review. An Initial Study and Negative
Declaration were prepared for the project. The City of Santa Clarita
Development Review Committee (DRC) met on January 25, 1996, and
supplied the applicant with draft conditions of approval.
1. A public hearing was duly noticed for the Planning Commission on
February 6, 1996, at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the
public hearing, and upon the study and investigation made by the Planning
Commission and on its behalf, the Commission further finds as follows:
a. At the hearing of February 6, 1996, the Planning Commission
considered the staff report prepared for this project and received
testimony on the proposal.
b. The City's General Plan designation for the project site is Commercial
Town Center (CTC), with the Valley Center Overlay. Uses may include
hotels, conference centers, health clubs, retail clothing stores,
supermarkets, movie theaters, restaurants with entertainment, and
other related uses. The CTC zone permits a wide range of retail,
service, and related activities which are of a community and regional
nature and are located in and around a large regional shopping center.
C. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the
health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in the
surrounding area; nor be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment
or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the
subject property; nor jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a
menace to the public health, safety or general welfare.
d. The project design will not cause substantial environmental damage to
fish or wildlife, as the project is located in an urbanized area.
e. The use will not affect existing circulation, nor will it adversely affect
the peace, comfort and/or welfare of persons residing in the surrounding
area.
f. The project was reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). It was determined that the project would not have
a significant environmental impact, as mitigation measures were
included in the project design / conditions of approval.
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and fundings, the Planning
Commission hereby determines as follows:
a. The proposed project will not have a significant affect upon the
environment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Conditions of approval have been added to the project to mitigate all
identified impacts caused by the project.
b. The project is compatible with existing development in the area,
consistent with the City's General Plan, and complies with the
standards of the CTC zone with the inclusion of a conditional use
permit and minor use permit. The applicant has substantiated the
required findings for the granting of a conditional use permit, parking
adjustment and minor use permit. A condition of approval requires
staff to monitor parking at the site for a period of two years to ensure
that the shared parking concept is working.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Santa Clarita, California, as follows:
a. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the mitigated negative
declaration prepared for the project with the finding that the project
will not have a significant effect upon the environment.
b. The Planning Commission hereby approves Master Case 96-002, subject
to the attached conditions of approval.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of Febr
1996.
LindA Townsley, Chai
Pl 'ng Commission
AcampA' T.
en
Secretary, Planning mission
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of
February , 1996 by the following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Townsley, Brathwaite, Cherrington and Doughman
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: Modugno
ITY CLERK—
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
MASTER CASE NO. 96-002
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-001
MINOR USE PERMIT 96-001
DATE: February 6, 1996
T0: Tow nley and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: ( �� 1 City Manager
CASE PLANNER: Glenn Adamick, Associate Planner
Laura Stotler, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: Valencia Company
LOCATION: Southwest corner of McBean Parkway and future Town Center Drive
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the following:
1) A conditional use permit request to develop a 6.3 acre site with
a 203 room hotel and a 20,000 square foot conference center.
The request also includes a Phase II expansion of both the hotel
and conference center. Phase II would include adding 70 rooms
to the hotel and 5,000 square feet to the conference center. The
hotel would be five stories and approximately 75' tall. The
conference center would be one story; and,
2) A 20% adjustment to parking standards; and,
3) A minor use permit to allow for the on-site sale of alcohol.
On February 20, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P90-07 approving
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 20795, Conditional Use Permit 88-002 and Oak Tree Permit
89-013. This action included the approval of a regional town center, which vested the
applicant with the right to construct 2.2 million square feet of building area on the "mall
property". Development of the "mall property" was to occur in two phases. Phase I of the
project included the development of 747,000 square feet of commercial floor area, which is
presently constructed and occupied. Phase II includes the expansion of the mall to 1.4
million square feet and the development of accessory surrounding parcels with commercial
uses.
On May 23, 1995, the City Council approved three commercial/office buildings from three to
six stories in height with a total usable floor area of 241,000 square feet. On December 19,
1995, the Planning Commission approved a 52,000 square foot health club and an 18,000
• '1,-q `� - x.11 �. �.i i..,�A.
square foot retail center with a restaurant. These parcels and the subject project are
considered part of the Phase II development of the mall.
On November 28, 1995, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding between
the City and Newhall Land and Farming Company for the development of a hotel/conference
center. The Memorandum included a City funding contribution of $3,075,000 towards the
development. The money contributed towards the project would be used for infrastructure
improvements and would be from an Economic Development Administration (E.D.A.) grant
and not the City's General Fund.
A conditional use permit is requested to allow for a hotel and conference center in the CTC
(Commercial Town Center) zone. The maximum height of the development would be 75'. The
hotel would be approximately 113,000 square feet, five stories, and contain 203 guest rooms.
Other accessory uses, such as a restaurant, recreational facilities and three meeting rooms
would also be included within the hotel. The applicant is also proposing a Phase II
expansion of the hotel. This expansion would occur in the future and would increase the
number of guest rooms to 273.
The conference center would be approximately 20,000 square feet. The conference center
would include a main ballroom and three meeting rooms. The occupancy of the facility would
be 900 persons. The applicant is also proposing a Phase II expansion of the conference
center, increasing its size to 25,000 square feet.
The subject parcel is 6.3 acres in size and has approximately 680' of frontage on McBean
Parkway. A total of four driveways would provide access to the project, three from McBean
Parkway and one from Town Center Drive (a private street). The primary entrance to the
hotel would be from Town Center Drive. There is an existing traffic signal at Town Center
Drive and McBean Parkway. The applicant is proposing to provide 397 parking spaces. The
applicant is requesting a 20% parking adjustment. The applicant is presently working on a
Shared Parking Program for the commercial area west of McBean Parkway, which would
include the project site. Approximately 29% of the site would be landscaped.
The service area for both the hotel and conference center would be accessed from McBean
Parkway. The service area would be centrally located between the hotel and conference
center and would contain three loading/unloading bays. The service area would be located
approximately four to five feet below the grade of McBean Parkway. The applicant is
proposing to screen the service area from McBean with a 25' landscaped area. Berming
would be implemented in this landscaped area. The applicant would also architecturally
treat the service area in an effort to enhance its visual appearance.
Drop off/pick up areas would be provided at the entrance to both the hotel and conference
center.
The request also includes a minor use permit to allow for the on-site sale of alcohol in
conjunction with the hotel/conference center operations.
The site has been previously graded, with finished grading occurring in conjunction with the
construction of the Spectrum Health Club. All utilities and services are available to the site
and the applicant would connect to these existing facilities.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION. SURROUNDING LAND USE. ZONING
The site is presently zoned CTC (Commercial Town Center) and also designated CTC by the
City's General Plan. The project site is also located within the Valley Center Overlay area
identified in the General Plan. The following table sets forth information as it pertains to
the project site and surrounding areas, including planning categories, zoning, and land use
designations:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to evaluate the impacts
of the project. It was determined that the adverse environmental impacts could be avoided
with mitigation measures. Subsequently, a draft mitigated negative declaration was
prepared for the project.
INTERDEPARTMENT/INTERAGENCY REVIEW
The project has been distributed to the affected City Departments and agencies, and the
Community Development Department has received comments and recommended conditions.
Certain requirements and comments have been included in the attached conditions.
ANALYSIS
The subject site is designated CTC by the City's General Plan. The site is also located within
the Valley Center Overlay area identified in the General Plan. The Valley Center area is
intended to be developed as the central core of the City, thereby allowing for higher densities
and intensities. The Valley Center Overlay contains certain components. The project site
is located within the Office/Financial Corridor component and Retail component areas. The
Commission could find that the project is consistent with the General Plan, as both a hotel
and conference center should be located in the central core of the City.
The project could be found to be consistent with the following goals and policies of the City's
General Plan:
1) Goal 3, Policy 3.1 of the Land Use Element reads as follows: Promote the
development of City centers where more intensive land uses will be encouraged,
including the development of a regional commercial center, office/business park
centers, an entertainment complex, and a civic town center.
General Plan
Zoning
Land Use
Project
CTC
CTC
Vacant
North
CTC
CTC
Vacant (Spectrum Health Club
location)
South
CTC
CTC
Vacant/Golf Course
West
CTC
CTC
Golf Course
East
CTC
CTC
Office/Regional Mall
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to evaluate the impacts
of the project. It was determined that the adverse environmental impacts could be avoided
with mitigation measures. Subsequently, a draft mitigated negative declaration was
prepared for the project.
INTERDEPARTMENT/INTERAGENCY REVIEW
The project has been distributed to the affected City Departments and agencies, and the
Community Development Department has received comments and recommended conditions.
Certain requirements and comments have been included in the attached conditions.
ANALYSIS
The subject site is designated CTC by the City's General Plan. The site is also located within
the Valley Center Overlay area identified in the General Plan. The Valley Center area is
intended to be developed as the central core of the City, thereby allowing for higher densities
and intensities. The Valley Center Overlay contains certain components. The project site
is located within the Office/Financial Corridor component and Retail component areas. The
Commission could find that the project is consistent with the General Plan, as both a hotel
and conference center should be located in the central core of the City.
The project could be found to be consistent with the following goals and policies of the City's
General Plan:
1) Goal 3, Policy 3.1 of the Land Use Element reads as follows: Promote the
development of City centers where more intensive land uses will be encouraged,
including the development of a regional commercial center, office/business park
centers, an entertainment complex, and a civic town center.
2) Goal 3, Policy 3.2 of the Land Use Element reads as follows: Designate a central
commercial core of concentrated and higher intensity commercial activities to serve
the region and ultimate population, create an identity and progressive image for the
City, and capitalize on related economic and employment benefits.
3) Goal 3, Policy 3.3 of the Land Use Element reads as follows: Identify a primary town
center and other centers which encourage a pedestrian orientation and can
accommodate a clustered mix of commercial, entertainment, recreation, town
square/meeting place, multi -use complexes, and multimodal transportation activity
opportunities..
The Unified Development Code (UDC) allows for floor area ratios of up to .375:1 in the CTC
zone, and up to 2:1 in the Valley Center Overlay area. The floor area ratio (FAR.) of the
project would be approximately .48:1. The proposed future expansion would slightly increase
this FAR. With the inclusion of this project, the "mall area" FAR would be approximately
.35:1 or well below the 2:1 allowed for in the UDC. The project would also comply with
landscaping and setback requirements.
The applicant is proposing to construct a total of 397 parking spaces in conjunction with the
project. The UDC requires that a hotel or motel be parked at a ratio of one space per each
guest room. Based upon this ratio, the hotel would be required to have 203 parking spaces.
Future expansion of the hotel to 273 rooms would require 273 parking spaces. The UDC
requires that conference rooms provide one parking space per every three persons. The UDC
does not provide parking standards for these two uses as a joint use, but rather addresses
them on a "stand alone" basis. The applicant is proposing an occupancy of the conference
center (six meeting rooms and one large ballroom) of 900 persons. Based upon this
occupancy, the UDC would require the applicant to provide 300 parking spaces. Therefore,
strict application of the UDC would require that 503 parking spaces be provided in
conjunction with the hotel/conference center. The applicant is requesting a maximum 20%
reduction or adjustment from this requirement. The UDC does provide the Director and the
Commission with the authority to adjust a standard up to 20% of the requirement. Staff
believes that this parking adjustment is warranted based upon the ability of the two uses to
share parking. The applicant has had a parking consultant prepare a parking demand
analysis summarizing peak parking demand hours for the hotel and conference center. This
analysis indicates that the project peak parking demand hour, or the time when most of the
parking spaces would be used, would occur at 9:00 p.m., when a parking demand of 374
parking spaces is anticipated. The analysis finds that the peak parking demand hours for
the hotel would be early in the morning (6 a.m. to 9 a.m.) and after 9:00 p.m., times in which
the conference center would not be in operation, The peak demand hours for the conference
center would typically occur between the hours of 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.
In addition, staff would expect an "overlap" to occur on a percentage of the parking spaces.
This overlap would occur when a hotel guest, using one of the parking spaces, is in town to
attend a conference or meeting at the facility. If approval of this adjustment is considered,
staff would recommend that the Commission include a condition requiring the City to monitor
the availability of parking at the hotel/conference center for a period of two years. If a
problem is observed, staff would have the authority to schedule the item before the Planning
Commission for consideration of options to resolve the problem. These options could include
the requiring of the applicant to construct additional parking spaces at or within close
proximity of the site. Additional parking would also be required in conjunction with the
Phase II expansion of the hotel or conference center.
The applicant is in the process of preparing a shared parking program for the mall area west
of McBean, Parkway. This plan would include the establishment of reciprocal parking
easements over the area to provide shared parking for the different uses proposed in the
area.
Operation of a hotel and conference center would also involve the on-site sale of alcohol.
Since the site is not near a residential area, staff would recommend that the on-site sale be
permitted.
The maximum building height would be 75'. The Commission has approved other buildings
in the area that are similar or taller than the project. The applicant has prepared a visual
analysis which will be available at the Planning Commission meeting. Staff believes that the
building height would be consistent with other buildings approved on the mall property.
Additionally, staff believes the architecture would be complementary to other buildings
approved on the mall property, but would establish a distinct identity for this phase of the
development.
The applicant has submitted a supplemental traffic study to validate the original'
assumptions and findings of the comprehensive traffic study prepared in conjunction with the
original mall development. The submittal of this supplemental study was required prior to
Phase II development of the mall area and was also conditioned on the approval for Master
Case 92-174. This study will address what mitigation measures, if any, need to be in place
to accommodate the subject project, the Spectrum Health Club, and the three story office
building under construction at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, finding that the
project will not have a significant effect upon the environment; and,
2) Adopt Resolution P96-03, approving Master Case 96-002, subject to the attached
conditions of approval.
GEA:Iep
PIgMM%9T 600?gw
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
r f
[ X l Proposed [ l Final
�.i
PERMIT/PROJECT: Conditional Use Permit 96-001 / Minor Use Permit 96-001
APPLICANT: Valencia Company MASTER CASE NO,: 96-002
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The applicant is proposing to develop a 6.3 acre site
with a 203 room hotel and a 20,000 square foot conference center. The hotel would be five
stories and approximately 75' tall. The project includes a total of 409 parking spaces, with
29% of the site being landscaped. The project site is zoned CTC (Commercial Town Center).
A Phase H expansion of the project includes adding 70 rooms to the hotel and 5,000 square
feet to the conference center. This expansion would occur in the future.
Based on the information contained in the 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
[ l City Council
[XI Planning Commission
[ l 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
[ l are not required. [ X I are attached. [ l are not attached.
Prepared by:
(Signature)
Reviewed by: C)� Fred Follstad Associate Planner
(Signature)
Public Review Period From: l &— gl ( To: 2 r�
Public Notice Given On: � —/& —F(, By:
[XI Legal Advertisement. [ X l Posting of Properties. [XI Written Notice
CERTIFICATION DATE:
GEA:
current\nd96002.gea
February 21, 1996
.g6,.--,�L//9
John ieffen- -
22714 Fspuella Drive
Santa Clarita, California 91350
Donna Grindey
City Clerk
Qty of Santa Clarita
Santa Clarita, California 91350
CITY Of SANTA CLARITA
FEB 21 5 19 rM X96
CITY G.a
rear Nis. Grindey; f� 00 ✓•
This letter, along with the enclosed requisite check in the amount of $^450•:90 constitue
my appeal to the City Council, of the action taken by the City Planning Commission in
approving Conditional Use Permit Number 96-001, the so called "Hotel/Conference Center"
Project.
The reasons for this appeal are numerous. Some of them are as follows.
1. New information just released by the U. S. Geological Service reveals the site of
the proposal to be in a hazzardess zone for liquifaction. A fire station proposed
for this sane area was recently rejected because of this problem.
2. I support full arra free cmipetition. This site was chosen with no competition
at all.
3. When public funds are to be spent, 2 support full and free competition for the
private sector to have a chance to benefit from these funds. No amipetition
was allowed in the proposed expenditure of the public funds for this proposal.
4. No provision for the Qty to be repaid, or protected has been included in the
project as proposed.
5. Based on easy research, plenty of time exists for.the City to a1IUaw the
competition to take place that has been so strangely omitted so far.
I an gratefull for the help and encouragement I have received from many segments of
cur community in researching this issue. I file this appeal secure in the knowledge that
I speak for a large number of people who would like the damage this "deal" has caused to
be redressed.
Best regards,
John Steffen
cc; The Signal
The Daily News
The Los Angeles Times
Donna Grindey
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
FEB Z8 3 als P9'96
CityClerk CITYCL'GE
City of Santa Clarita
Santa Clarita Ca 91355
Dear Ms. Grindey,
John Steffen
22714 Espuella Drive
Santa Clarita, Ca 91350
This letter is intended to set forth the relief of action sought from the City Council
regarding our appeal of the action taken by the City Planning Commission in approving
Conditional Use Permit Number 96-001 for a hotel/conference center. We propose that the
following considerations be examined in the light of new information and objection raised by
members of the community, Therefore the approvals should be rescinded.
1. The Council should require a full geologic investigations. This must be through a
third party, chosen and administered by the City of Santa Clarita, to resolve
whether or not the site is geologically safe. Council should require this full
geologic study prior to the issuance of any CUP.
2. The Los Angeles County Fire Department refused to build on an adjacent site due
to some degree of liquefaction potential. The City Council should review all the
data regarding the geological studies made for that proposed Los Angeles County
fire station site and reference that information which applies to this proposed
hotel/conference center.
3. The City granted $3 million of tax monies to a company to build and manage a
hotel/conference center although that company has never operated or constructed
such a complex: The City Council should rescind this grant because this company
does not have the necessary experience to run such a facility.
4. The Council should require adequate promulgation of the basic facts of this
operation to the citizens of Santa Clarita by the City's Staff and provide full
disclosure of all conditions related to this matter,
5. The City Council must discuss the use of a referendum which would allow fall
participation by the citizens to voice their concerns. This discussion must take
place in a fully noticed public hearing.
6. The Council should require full protection of taxpayer monies in case of default by
the owner and provide provision of repayment of the $3 million in case the owner
sells the hotel complex at a profit.
7. The Council should require full disclosure in consideration of the complexity of
this endeavor and the dictates of prudent management. Further study is dictated
because there is ample time for such a study.
8. Because of the weight of responsibility in protecting the lives and property of its
citizens all safeguards should be employed by the City Council. The risks in this
project remain unexplored..
9. The City Council must not permit this project to be "grand fathered" as part of any
action taken previously as part of the Valencia Town Center. This project must be
ordered by the Council to be resubmitted and considered totally on its own merit.
No connection to the Valencia Town Center project approvals must be permitted.
10. The City Council must order that appropriate bridge and thoroughfare fees be
assessed on the project based on a full traffic study being performed. This project
must stand on its own. It must make bridge and thoroughfare fee contributions
based upon the traffic that it generates. No connection to the Valencia Town
Center must be permitted,
11. This project was approved by the Planning Commission with no traffic study
having been performed. The City Council must order, as part of a new application,
that a full traffic study be performed so that adequate mitigation can be determined
prior to any public hearings on the new application for this project.
12. The City Council must order, as part of a new application, that detailed
assessments of the building and grading requirements be included before any
approval considerations. The Planning Commission approved this project without
this information. The f i%So�ncil must order this omission to be corrected.
.13. The Planning Commission
fthis pr jest arbitrary exceptions to the zoning
requirements to the site, as outlined in condition #23. The City Council must
require the applicant to submit a detailed list of any and all exceptions to the
zoning requirements to the site. These proposed zoning exceptions must be
subject to full public review prior to any proposed action to be taken on this
project,
14. The City Council must order that any new CUP request from Newhall Land and
Farming Co. be limited exclusively to a specific project regarding a hotel and
conference center_ Condition #27 must be rescinded in its entirety.
15. The City Council should require that the alcohol permit should be separate from
the building permit.
16. The City Council should demand that "disposable' plates, cups and utensils be
prohibited in the project.
17. The City Council must rescind the memorandum of understanding regarding the
gift of public funds in the amount of $3 million to the Newhall Land and Farming
Co.
18. The City Council, within the next 60 days, should release a request for proposals
to build a hotel and conference center somewhere within the City of Santa Clarita,
or on land which could be annexed into the City. This proposal must indicate that
the City would contribute $3 million, and perhaps more, to the construction of this
project.
19. When the City releases this request for proposal, it should indicate that responses
are due within 60 days.
520. The request for proposal should indicate that the proposal must be submitted so
that $3 million in EDA funding may be invested in the project prior to February
1988. 117 f Y
21. By taking these actions, with this request for proposal, the City will be engaging in
full and free competition for the project and the $3 million subsidy. The lack of
competition is one of the significant defects in the current CUP.
22, The City Council must order the winning project to provide guarantees and
indemnifications to the City for the public funds which are invested.
23. The City Council must order a full explanation as to why this project received such
scanty environmental review.
24. The City Council should require a feasibility study to determine whether or not a
hotel and conference center is financially viable
I am grateful for the help and encouragement I have received from many segments of our
community in researching this issue. I file this appeal, secure in the knowledge that I speak for a
large number of people who would like the damage that this "deal" has caused to be redressed. If
necessary, the ultimate resolution of the many critical issues referenced herein will be
accomplished by a referendum placed before the voters of the City of Santa Clarita.
Best Regards,
J,f-�
John Steffen
cc Signal
Daily News
Los Angeles Times
The following individuals also support this appeal:
/%i!Allan Cameron
Pat Saletore
CITY
Valencia Company
F
23823 Vake Boulevard,Vakwwla,Caldomn 91355-2194 (805)2554000
805-255-4069
awre.s o"ccro�r•"¢a.....-
RECE'_'` ^r A
March 21, 1996 PART Or Tram f O;D AT
�L _e� Z _ f� MEETING
Carl Boyer, Mayor ITEM NO.—/-
City
0. JCity of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Valencia, CA 91351
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CUP #96-001 - CONFERENCE CENTER/HOTEL
Dear Mayor Boyer:
Please accept this letter to document our response to the appeal filed by John Steffen regarding
the City Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit #96-001 (the "CUP") for the
Conference Center/Hotel (the "Project"). We are disappointed that an appeal has been filed and
believe there is no basis for upholding the appeal. It is our desire to see the City Council affirm
the action of the Planning Commission and permit the project to proceed in a timely manner.
Our response is numerically formatted to coincide with the appeal letter. For informational
purposes only, we have responded below to comments regarding the use of EDA monies. We
wish to stress that this issue is not properly included in this Appeal since it is unrelated to
approval of the CUP, and is a totally separate City Council matter.
1) City development review procedures require that full geologic and soils investigations be
completed prior to issuance of grading permits. The Project submittal included a geologic
investigation that was completed prior to submittal of the applications. In addition, prior
to submittal of building permits, complete soils investigations will also have been
completed. Investigations completed to date for the area around the Project, and
including studies done on the adjacent Spectrum Club site, have found no to low potential
for liquefaction. Development of the site will not result in unstable earth conditions or
changes in geological substructure..
2) The Los Angeles County Fire Department (the "LACFD") is considering moving the
future fire station site at the request of Newhall Land and Farming Company ("NLF").
This request was made because a fire station adjacent to future residential projects could'
be incompatible. An alternative site within Valencia Town Center has been located and
is currently being reviewed by the fire department.
w WI9pICFT41ElMwiLMO N�PNYpCP.vIv.YN GLYOM•LMID)PW1"EibNj.
The Appeal is incorrect in stating the fine department has refused to build on this site due
to liquefaction. The fire station site at Magic Mountain Parkway is a developable parcel.
A soils problem caused by an abandoned water well that had previously been on the site
were discovered by NLF. This information was shared with the LACFD, and mitigation
measures were recommended for the site which would have allowed a fire station to be
built on that property.
3) The approximately $3 million of IDA monies the City Council approved for use for the
Conference Center was not part of the CUP approval, and therefore cannot be part of this
Appeal. Nevertheless, for informational purposes, please note that the appeal letter is
incorrect. NLF has already constructed one hotel, the Hilton Garden Hotel on The Old
Road near Magic Mountain Parkway, and used Hilton as the operator. A similar
arrangement is contemplated for the Project whereby it will be operated by an
experienced and professional third party operator as specified in the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU).
4) The City Council, in approving the use of EDA money, fully disclosed all the issues in
several public hearings prior to approving the MOU with NLF, and numerous front page
newspaper articles covered the MOU negotiations. In addition, the CUP approved by the
Planning Commission, was properly noticed (including a large sign on the property
itself), and all issues were fully disclosed at a public hearing in accordance with city and
state laws.
5) All actions before the Planning Commission regarding the Project were discussed in duly
noticed public hearings in accordance with city and state law. No additional public notice
or review is required.
6) Again, use of EDA money was not part of the CUP and, therefore, cannot be part of this
Appeal.
7) Again, all actions regarding the Project were considered in properly noticed public
hearings by the Planning Commission, and covered all aspects of the Project. No
additional study or public review is needed or required.
8) The Project will comply with all state and local development regulations, which are
intended to protect the health and safety of future users and residents.
9) The Project is being developed as part of Vesting Parcel Map 20795 (the "VPM"), which
is the regional mall site. Approval of the VPM by the City in 1990 allowed for the
development of up to 2.2 million square feet, only one-third of which has been built to
date. The VPM approval included full environmental review, and imposed numerous
mitigation measures and conditions that fully mitigated any potential environmental
impacts. In addition, the Project was considered totally on its own merit. As part of the
Application for the Project, an Environmental Assessment was submitted to the City and
a full environmental review and Initial Study was conducted by City Staff resulting in a
Mitigated Negative Declaration containing numerous conditions and mitigation measures
to ensure the project will have no negative environmental impacts.
10) A traffic study was performed for the Project and was reviewed and approved by City
staff. The study documents that traffic improvements made as part of the regional mall
and VPM approval, which include the widening of Valencia Boulevard, McBean Parkway
and Magic Mountain Parkway, numerous traffic signals, a coordinated traffic signal
system, a system of paseo bridges and the payment of Bridge and Thoroughfare District
fees, are adequate for development of the Project.
11) In fact, a traffic study dated January 1996 was performed specifically for the Project and
reviewed by City staff prior to approval of the Project by the Planning Commission. The
study documents that traffic improvements made as part of the regional mall and VPM
approval, which include the widening of Valencia Boulevard, McBean Parkway and
Magic Mountain Parkway, numerous traffic signals, a coordinated traffic signal system,
a system of paseo bridges and the payment of Bridge and Thoroughfare District fees, are
adequate for development of the Project.
12) Current City development standards require additional soils testing prior to granting
grading permits for the Project. These studies, and any related measures required by the
City, will be completed prior to any development of the site.
13) As stated in the staff report this project complies with both the General Plan and the
Zoning Code of the City of Santa Clarita. The code provides that parking requirement
reductions can be made for up to twenty percent (20%) of the parking requirement subject
to the approval of a shared parking arrangement. Shared parking studies were performed
and provided to City staff prior to Planning Commission approval. This information is
documented in the staff report and the support materials provided. Condition 1129 of the
CUP provides the Director of Community Development, for a two year period, the
discretion to reconsider the parking adjustment, upon inspection and verification of a need
for additional parking.
14) The CUP and all technical studies including traffic and geology, specifically addresses
development of the Project. Mitigation measures and conditions of approval relative to
the Project were provided in the staff report. With regard to Condition 1127, Phase II was
properly noticed as part of the Project, was included in the environmental analysis for the
Project, and is therefore correctly part of the Project approved by the Planning
Commission.
15) A Minor Use Permit for serving onsite alcoholic beverages as part of a restaurant and bar
facility within the Project was approved by the Planning Commission. This approval was
separate from any approval of a building permit.
16) The issue of prohibiting disposable plates, cups and utensils is a separate policy decision
of the City Council, and it is not relevant to the CUP.
17) ' The City approved use of EDA monies for construction of public infrastructure in the
vicinity of the Project in accordance with all requirements of state, federal and local laws.
18), 19), 20), 21) and 22)
The City Council's approval of the use of EDA monies to attract the Conference Center
to the Santa Clarita Valley was done with full public review and hearings. Complete
environmental documentation, in accordance with all local, state and federal laws
regarding the use of EDA monies, has been completed by the City.
23) As part of the application for the Project, an Environmental Assessment was submitted
to the City and a full environmental review and Initial Study was conducted by City staff,
in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act regulations. The Planning
Commission concluded that the Project would have no significant adverse impact upon
the environment, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted.
24) NLF completed feasibility studies which determined the Conference Center was not viable
without financial participation by the City of Santa Clarita. The results of these studies
were used in determining the economic development potential of the Project.
In conclusion, it is our contention that the appeal filed by Mr. Steffen, Allan Cameron, and Pat
Salatore is completely without merit and the Planning Commission action should be upheld by
the City Council. The environmental reviews and City requirements for the Project were
completed in full compliance with all local, state and federal laws. In addition, at the regularly
scheduled Planning Commission meeting of February 6, 1996, which was duly noticed to the
public, none of the Appellants, nor any other member of the public, filed either a written or
verbal communication protesting issuance of the CUP for the Project. None of the Appellants
made their views known to the Planning Commission, either prior to or at the February 6, 1996
hearing, so that the issues raised could be addressed by the Commission, and incorporated into
their decision-making process.
We respectfully request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission approval of the
CUP for the Project.
Sincerely,
Mark Subbotin
Senior Vice President
Planning
cc: Entitlements
Planning Commission
Santa Clarita City Council
VICINITY MAP
MC 96-002'
PKWY.
m
SUBJECT
SITE
t;
4
HOTEL & SANTA CLARITA CONFERENCE CENTER PROGRAM
1.0
GUEST ROOMS
213 modules z 360 S.F.
810
Corridors 213 z 50 S.F.
76,680
144
Stairs
1
0,650
4 Jan.96
PROGRAM
Elevators: Service (1)
1,200
9.0
MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING
Elevators: Public (2)
800
.
Storage, Electrical & Maids' Rooms
1,300
1.409
54
Room M ir:91,630
Kaye Modules
S.F.
Kings 110 110
10.0
RECEIVING (adjacent to Conference Center
Double Doubles 73 73
Hospitality Suites 6 12
.
Deluxe Suites 10 15
Trash Holding
150
Presidential Suites 1 3
Bottle Storage
100
Total 200 213
2.0
LOBBY
Lobby (including, lobby bar)
3,000
Retail
200
240
Public Toilets
Loading Dock
200
3,500 S.F.
3.0
FOOD AND BEVERAGE
SITE DATA
Bistro/Restaurant: 160 people z 20 S.F.
S4
3,000 S.F.
4.0
KITCHEN FACILITIES (serves Conference Center also)
11.0
STORAGE
Kitchen & Room Service
2,600
No
Food & Beverage
400
Issue:
Hotel Parking 80,640 sq. ft.
Circulation 0 15%
ADD
VICINITY MAP.
Building Site 117,700 sq. ft.
3,450 S.F.
5.0
ADMINISTRATION (serves Conference Center
also)
Sheet Number:
A0.1
Front Desk
1,000
Conference Center Parking 74. 708 so. ft.
12.0
Sales & Administration
960
Total Site Area 273,048 sq. ft (6.27 ages)
Accounting
600
100
Business Center
350
Electrical Switch Geer
Elevator Machine Room
200
300
Circulation 0 15%
landscaped Area 80,000 Eq. ft. (29a) (Landscape to be installed per C.D.C.)
Meter Room
50
3,340 S.F.•
6.0
RECREATION FACILITIES
150
-
Swimming Pool (exterior)
Mechanical
1244
Fitness Center
1.000
2000 S.F.
1,000 S.F.
7.0
EMPLOYEE FACILITIES
S.F. (430.2 S.FJmodule)
Parking
Entrance Security & Personnel
100
S.F. (101.1 S.FJmodule)
Parking Maximum
Use Code Req Size
Lockers & Change Rooms
g00
113,160
S.F. (531.3 S.FJmodule)
Employee Cafeteria
400
GROSS AREA/ROOM
113,160
Circulation ® 10%
130
13.0
8.0 HOUSEKEEPING AND LAUNDRY
0
I
a
FA
HOTEL AND
SANTA CLARITA
CONFERENCE CENTER-
For The
CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA
and
VALENCIA COMPANY
PAUL BARNARD, Architect
1540 BLUEBIRD CANYON
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92651
TEL 714.497.8267
FAX 714.494.2421
Consultant:
Housekeeping
650
Laundry
810
Circulation ® 10%
144
4 Jan.96
PROGRAM
1,600 S.F.
9.0
MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING
REVISED
.
Office & Storage
500
Circulation 0 10%
54
550 S.F.
10.0
RECEIVING (adjacent to Conference Center
& Hotel)
Refrigerated Garbage
80
Trash Holding
150
Bottle Storage
100
Compactor Birth (exterior)
Can Wash Area
100
Purchasing & Receiving
240
'
Loading Dock
200
Truck Area (exterior)
SITE DATA
Circulation 0 10%
S4
960 S.F.
Site Area Calculations
11.0
STORAGE
No
General Storage
400
Issue:
Hotel Parking 80,640 sq. ft.
Drawn By:
NK__
Grounds Equipment Storage
VICINITY MAP.
Building Site 117,700 sq. ft.
and Pool Equipment
am
Sheet Title:
SITE PLAN
1;5
Sheet Number:
A0.1
Job No:ale:
7T=50'
700 S.F.
Conference Center Parking 74. 708 so. ft.
12.0
MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL
Total Site Area 273,048 sq. ft (6.27 ages)
Telephone
100
•
Electrical Switch Geer
Elevator Machine Room
200
300
landscaped Area 80,000 Eq. ft. (29a) (Landscape to be installed per C.D.C.)
Meter Room
50
Budding Footprint 43,700 sq. ft. (includes 2,880 sq. ft. of covered area)
Transformers
150
Mechanical
1244
Total Building Area 133.000 sq. ft.
2000 S.F.
TOTAL GUEST ROOM AREA rnwlrcl.dus Cae CU)
91,630
S.F. (430.2 S.FJmodule)
Parking
TOTAL PUBLICBB.O.H. mw m.wd,.y c.d aril
21,530
S.F. (101.1 S.FJmodule)
Parking Maximum
Use Code Req Size
GRAND TOTAL mw Isludi, cepn o
113,160
S.F. (531.3 S.FJmodule)
('"nom Provided
GROSS AREA/ROOM
113,160
X200 keys. 565.8/S.F. per rm.
Hotel 1 spc./room 200 rms. 200 200
13.0
CONFERENCE CENTER
Conference I sjc.13pencins 10'00 net S F 7M. 197
Entry Foyer
900
Total Spaces 483 387••
Ball Room
6,000
Calculation = 20 S. F./ person; 1.8 persons/vehicle
Prefuncdon
3,000
" 20'/ reduction based on shared parking program
Meeting Rooms 6 x 700
4,200
Projection Room
200
Nair: Parking is subject to shared parking program; any future modifications
Banquet Pantry
800
are subject to approval by Director of Cummuruty Development
Banquet Storage
750
AV Storage
100
Future Expansion
Banquet Manager
300
Coats, Telephone Telephone & Toilets
600
Phase One Hotel 72 Rooms 3244 square feet gross area
Circulation 0 20%
3 444
?hale Two Conference Center 2,200 square feet gross area
20,250 S.F.
0
I
a
FA
HOTEL AND
SANTA CLARITA
CONFERENCE CENTER-
For The
CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA
and
VALENCIA COMPANY
PAUL BARNARD, Architect
1540 BLUEBIRD CANYON
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92651
TEL 714.497.8267
FAX 714.494.2421
Consultant:
Registration No./ Signature:
12 7 Jul.95
28 Nov.95
REVISED
4 Jan.96
PROGRAM
ADDED
29 Jan.96
REVISED
No
Date:
Revision /
Issue:
Drawn By:
NK__
Date.
JAN.96
VICINITY MAP.
10
4 d
Sheet Title:
SITE PLAN
1;5
Sheet Number:
A0.1
Job No:ale:
7T=50'
Sc
Date:
JAN. 96
Written dimensions shall have precedence over scaled
drrMnsions. Contractors shall verity and be responsible for
all dimensions and conditions on the lob and the architects
sham be informed of any variations from the dimensions and
conditions shown on the drawings. Shop drawings shall be
submitted to the architects for approval before proceeding
with Isbr{ution