HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - APPEAL MC 03-347 GV RANCH (2)Agenda Item: 16—
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by:
DATE: May 11, 2004
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF MASTER CASE 03-347 - GOLDEN VALLEY
RANCH COMMERCIAL CENTER ENTITLEMENTS
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Building Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and adopt a
resolution considering the Initial Study/EBR Addendum together with the Final EIR and
approving Master Case 03-347 (Tentative Parcel Map 60337; Conditional Use Permit 03-010;
Minor Use Permit 03-045; Development Review 03-027; and Sign Review 03-018) for a 618,759
square -foot commercial center exceeding 35 feet in height, consisting of a variety of retail uses,
including alcohol sales (Target, Shop 1, Shop 3, Pads A, C, D, E, F and G, and the gas station),
an automated, self-service car wash, two drive-through fast food restaurants, and three on-site
freeway commercial signs and one off-site freeway commercial sign as part of the Golden Valley
Ranch development located east and adjacent to State Route 14, subject to the Conditions of
Approval.
BACKGROUND
Prior Golden Valley Ranch Project History
The Golden Valley Ranch Project (Master Case 97-212) and the associated entitlement requests
were approved by the Santa Clarita City Council on January 24, 2002. The overall project
consists of residential, commercial, and institutional uses and open space. Specifically, Tentative
Tract Map 52414 was approved to subdivide the 1,259 -acre property into the following:
• 390 single-family residential parcels;
• 1 parcel (future condo map) to accommodate 108 age -restricted single-family homes;
• two commercial parcels;
Adopted:
• one elementary school site;
one trailhead staging area site;
• one water tank site;
• one fire station site; and
• numerous open space lots.
Other entitlements approved as part of Master Case 97-212 included the following:
A General Plan Amendment (GPA 97-003 "A") was approved to change the previous
Residential Estate (RE) land use designation on the 1,259 -acre Golden Valley Ranch
project site. Approximately 89.8 acres was changed to a Community Commercial (CC)
land use designation and 1,169.2 acres was changed to a Residential Suburban (RS) land
use designation. An additional 6.1 acres along the east side of State Route 14, which the
applicant is acquiring from Caltrans, was also designated Community Commercial (CC) as
part of this General Plan amendment.
• A General Plan Amendment was approved (GPA 97-003 `B") to modify the Circulation
Element text and the Master Plan of Highway & Roadway System Map for the purpose of
eliminating the Golden Valley Road link between Via Princessa and Placerita Canyon
Road.
A Prezone request (PZ97-001) was approved to designate Residential Suburban (RS)
zoning on 1,169.2 acres, and Community Commercial (CC) zoning on 89.8 acres, to allow
for annexation of the Golden Valley Ranch property (Annexation 1997-001) to the City of
Santa Clarita. An additional 6.1 acres along the east side of State Route 14, which the
applicant is acquiring from Caltrans, was designated Community Commercial as part of
this prezone request.
The City of Santa Clarita initiated an annexation request with the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) to annex all of the proposed 1,259 -acre Golden Valley Ranch
prezone area, plus the 6.1 acres the applicant is acquiring from Caltrans along SR 14.
LAFCO approved the annexation of the Golden Valley Ranch property to the City of Santa
Clarita in November 2002.
• A Conditional Use Permit was approved to allow grading activity over 100,000 cubic
yards and for the clustering of residential development. Specifically, a total of 9.5 million
cubic yards will be graded, with 7.0 million cubic yards of remedial grading to be balanced
on-site. As part of the project, 285 acres, or 23 percent of the site, will be graded.
• An Oak Tree Permit was approved to allow the removal of up to 23 live oak trees. The
oak tree report indicates that the project would require the removal of three dead trees and
18 live oak trees within the graded area. An additional five oak trees located adjacent to
the graded area may require removal. Of the 23 live oak trees, three are heritage oak trees.
The 1.259 -acre project site contains 3,616 oak trees, of which 88 trees are heritage oaks.
. A Hillside Review was approved to allow grading on slopes in excess of 10%.
Development of the entire Golden Valley Ranch site will occur on the westernmost 285 acres of
the total 1,259 -acre site. The 89.8 -acre commercial component, approved in 2002, included the
development of 610,930 square feet of commercial uses on two major super pads zoned
Community Commercial immediately adjacent to State Route (SR) 14. Actual commercial
development will occur on 55.93 gross acres. Golden Valley Road, to extend east from SR 14,
and Lost Canyon Road, to extend south from the Fair Oaks Ranch development, will provide
direct access to the commercial properties.
In October 2003, PacSun, LLC submitted an application requesting approval of an additional
7,829 square feet for a mezzanine level storage area within Kohl's department store. After
consideration of the staff report, an Addendum to the EIR, and public testimony, the City
Council approved this request on November 25, 2003. The additional square footage will be
used for inventory storage and will not increase the building footprint, building height, or change
the proposed commercial uses on the project site. The increase in square footage will allow for a
total of 618,759 square feet of commercial uses on the commercial center site.
Prior Environmental Review/Documentation History
A Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Golden Valley Ranch Project was circulated from
August 9, 1999 to September 22, 1999. During the Planning Commission hearing process, a
number of issues were identified regarding traffic and circulation, risk to upset/human health and
safety, and geology. In addition, several alternatives (beyond those included in the Draft EIR) to
the proposed project were developed and recommended for further environmental analysis. This
warranted preparation and circulation of a Revised Draft EIR, which included revisions to five
sections of the original Draft EIR. The Revised Draft EIR was re -circulated for a 45 -day review
and comment period from November 27, 2000 to January 10, 2001.
The Revised Draft EIR identified three environmental areas that would have significant impacts
that could not be mitigated to a less -than -significant level. These are Air Quality (both
construction and operations -related), Biology, and Aesthe6cs/Light and Glare. Eight
environmental areas were identified where significant impacts would occur; however, mitigation
measures were recommended to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. These are
Hydrology, Noise, Land Use/Population, Traffic, Public Services, Public Utilities, Hazards, and
Cultural Resources. On July 5, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended certification of
the Final EIR and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, following circulation of
the Revised Draft EIR prior to City Council's consideration of the project. On January 24, 2002,
the City Council certified the Final EIR (SCH No. 97121037) for the Golden Valley Ranch
Project and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
An Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared in November 2003 to
evaluate an approximate one percent increase in the allowable commercial square footage for the
commercial component of the Golden Valley Ranch Project. The EIR Addendum documented
that the addition of the mezzanine -level storage area for a department store anticipated as part of
the original, prior project approvals for the Golden Valley Ranch commercial component did not
require the preparation of a subsequent EIR.
Commercial Center Entitlement Review Process
On August 13, 2003, the applicant, GMS Realty, submitted an application for approval of several
entitlements for the previously approved commercial component of the Golden Valley Ranch
project to the City of Santa Clarita's Planning Division. These entitlements will be part of the
618,759 square -foot commercial center to be located on the two super pads adjacent to State
Route 14. The application was deemed complete on November 24, 2003 and approved by the
Planning Commission by a 5-0 vote, with the recommended conditions of approval, on February
17, 2004. The project was appealed by Cinzia Iaffaldano on March 1, 2004.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting approval of certain additional entitlements for the previously
approved 618,759 square -foot commercial center to be located on two commercial parcels
created as part of TTM 52414. The commercial center will consist of a variety of retail and
service tenants including three anchor stores, and numerous "major" and "sub -major" stores.
One anchor store will be located on the northern commercial pad and two anchor stores will be
located on the southern commercial pad. A full-service gas station with an accessory automated,
self -serve car wash will be located in the southwestern comer of the southern commercial pad.
Two fast-food, drive-through restaurants will be provided — one on the northern commercial pad
and one on the southern commercial pad. Other sit-down restaurants will be located on both
commercial pads. An outdoor amphitheater will be located in the northwestern quadrant of the
Golden Valley Road -Lost Canyon Road intersection, on the northern commercial pad. An
outdoor plaza seating area will be provided on the southern commercial pad, in the center of the
main commercial structure. Henry Mayo Hospital will operate a physical therapy facility at an
out -building on the northeast corner of the northern commercial pad.
Permits Required
The commercial center requires multiple entitlements which include a tentative parcel map,
conditional use permit, minor use permit, development review and sign review. Each permit
request is described below:
Tentative Parcel Mai 60337 — A tentative parcel map is required for the subdivision of the
55.93 -acre site into 17 commercial lots.
Conditional Use Permit 03-015 — A conditional use permit (CUP) is required for all buildings or
portions of buildings exceeding 35 feet in height. A CUP is also required for the installation of
the on- and off-site freeway commercial signs.
Minor Use Permit 03-045 — A minor use permit (MUP) is required for two drive-through
restaurants, the sale of alcohol at Target, Shop 1, Shop 3, Pads A, C, D, E, F and G, and the gas
station, and for a fully automated, self -serve car wash, requiring no attendants.
Development Review 03-027 — A development review is required for the site plan and design of
the 618,759 square -foot commercial shopping center.
Sign Review 03-018 — A sign review is required for the sign program that will provide a
comprehensive program to establish unified signs throughout the center.
Commercial Center Environmental Review
As part of the development review process, staff prepared an Initial Study to analyze the
Commercial Center entitlements. As previously stated, CEQA analysis was conducted for the
Golden Valley Ranch Project, TTM 52414, which included entitlements for 610,930 square feet
of commercial uses on 89.8 acres of commercially -zoned property and entitlements to allow for
grading up to 16.5 million cubic yards of earth. Grading activity associated with prior
entitlement approvals will result in the creation of two large super pads adjacent to SR 14, as
shown on TTM 52414. In addition, an additional 7,829 square feet of commercial development
was approved as a separate entitlement that increased the square footage permitted for TTM
52414 to 618,759 square feet. This request involved the preparation and consideration of an
Addendum to Final EIR.
The current Initial Study/Addendum prepared for the Golden Valley Ranch Commercial Center
entitlements listed in the Permits Required section above recognizes that all grading and site
preparation, to include roadway construction and utility installation, has occurred as part of TTM
52414 and was previously analyzed in the prior certified Final EIR. Therefore, this analysis
focuses on those impacts that could occur from implementation of the Commercial Center
entitlements.
The Initial Study documents and concludes that the Golden Valley Ranch Commercial Center
will not require major revisions to the original EIR or Addendum to the original EIR, because
there are no substantial changes proposed in the project, no substantial changes with respect to
the circumstances to which the commercial center will be undertaken, and no new information of
substantial importance meeting the test of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) has arisen.
Therefore, the Addendum resulting from the Initial Study will be an attachment to the Final EIR.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION, ZONING, SURROUNDING LAND USE
The General Plan land use designation is Community Commercial (CC) with a zoning
designation of Community Commercial (CC). The Community Commercial zone "is intended
for retailing and service uses of a community -wide nature that attract people from beyond the
immediate neighborhood. The zone will typically include at least one or two (2) major users and
shall not be construed to be an allowance for a proliferation of small, multi -tenant convenience
commercial centers located on corners and in strip commercial fashion along the City
commercial streets" (Unified Development Code Section 17.11.020.J). As part of the Golden
Valley Ranch Project, a General Plan Amendment and Prezone were approved to designate the
property Community Commercial to allow for 618,579 square feet of commercial uses.
The commercial center site is located east and adjacent to SR 14, just south of the Fair Oaks
Ranch community. Single-family residential neighborhoods are located to the west, across from
SR 14. Natural, vacant land, which will be developed as part of the Golden Valley Ranch
project, TTM 52414, is located east of the commercial center site. Specifically, the area to the
east will be developed with 498 single-family homes, an elementary school, and a fire station.
Major roadway infrastructure within the Golden Valley Ranch development will include the
extension of Golden Valley Road east from SR 14, and the extension of Lost Canyon Road and
Via Princessa from the north. The planned, future extension of Golden Valley Road and Lost
Canyon Road will provide access to the commercial center site. The Disney Golden Oak Ranch,
a filming facility, is located immediately south of the site along the north side of Placerita
Canyon Road. A ridgeline separates the Golden Valley Ranch property from the Disney Golden
Oak Ranch property to the south.
RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED IN APPEAL
On February 17, 2004, the Planning Commission unanimously approved Master Case No. 03-347
for the Golden Valley Ranch Commercial Center (the "Commercial Center"). Cinzia Iaffaldano,
a homeowner living in the Fair Oaks Ranch community located in unincorporated Los Angeles
County, has appealed the Planning Commission's approval to the City Council (the "Appeal").
The written Appeal is attached to this agenda report, as well as the City's response to the issues
raised in the written Appeal, dated February 27, 2004, submitted by Ms. Iaffaldano. The City's
response also addresses those issues raised in opposition to the project during the oral testimony
at the February 17, 2004, Planning Commission hearing.
It is important to note that a number of the points raised in the Appeal are not within the scope of
the Commercial Center entitlements requested by GMS Realty and currently before the City
Council for consideration. Many of the issues are related to the validity of the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Golden Valley Ranch Project, which was certified by the
City Council in January 2002, and specific environmental impacts and mitigation measures
identified in the Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program. Please note that the statute of limitations to challenge the Final Environmental Impact
Report has long since passed. In addition, the Appeal lists a number of issues regarding the
implementation of Master Case 97-212, Tentative Tract Map 52414, including grading activity
and roadway construction which are not related to the Commercial Center entitlements. As part
of the Golden Valley Ranch Project implementation, which is currently underway, the alignment
of Via Princessa from the Fair Oaks Ranch community to the north to the Golden Valley Road
site will need to be adjusted to be consistent with the project approvals. The realignment of Via
Princessa is being addressed by City staff and the developer as a separate matter and is not part of
the Commercial Center entitlements package.
PROPOSED PROJECT MODIFICATION TO ADDRESS APPELLANT'S CONCERNS
Since the Appeal was filed on March 1, 2004, GMS Realty representatives have met several
times with Cinzia Iaffaldano and other Fair Oaks Ranch residents in an attempt to address some
of the concerns related to the construction and operation of the Commercial Center. As a result
of these meetings, GMS is proposing to modify the design of the commercial buildings located
on the northern commercial pad. Specifically, GMS has suggested that the Lowe's home
improvement store be "flipped" to relocate the truck loading/unloading area to the southern
portion of the site, further from the Fair Oaks Ranch development. This loading area is expected
to receive 10-15 deliveries on a daily basis. Instead, a lumber delivery area would be located at
the northwest corner of the Lowe's building that will receive approximately 2-4 deliveries per
week, which is far less intensive than the daily delivery area.
This site plan modification would also move the screened garden center to the south end of the
building and require other modifications to the overall design of the northern commercial pad.
Modifications include relocating a drive aisle from Lost Canyon Road to the front of the
commercial buildings, an additional retaining wall along the northern commercial slope,
relocation of the employee break area, and relocation of the customer pick-up area at Lowe's.
The applicant has stated that this modification will be more sensitive to Fair Oaks Ranch
residences with regard to noise because it provides greater buffering between daily delivery truck
movements and loading/unloading activities and the Fair Oaks Ranch residences.
In a preliminary review of the modified site plan for the northern commercial pad, staff has
identified some design issues that affect on-site circulation and aesthetics. Staff is currently
working with the applicant to address the design -related issues and ensure that all City
requirements and design standards are met. If the City Council directs staff to proceed with the
modified site plan for the northern commercial pad, please note that additional staff review,
subject to the approval of the Director of Planning & Building Services, will be required.
CLARIFICATION OF CEOA REQUIREMENTS
The Golden Valley Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report concluded that the Golden Valley
Ranch Project would have unavoidably significant environmental impacts in several areas,
including air quality, biology, and aesthetics. With regard to these unmitigated impacts, the City
Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations prior to approval of the Golden Valley
Ranch Project, finding that the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits
of the Golden Valley Ranch Project outweighed its unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
Staff has carefully evaluated the need for the City Council to adopt another statement of
overriding considerations with regard to the Commercial Center entitlements currently before the
City Council on Appeal. City staff has concluded that no new statement of overriding
considerations is required for including, but not limited to, the following reasons: (1) approval of
the Commercial Center entitlements will not result in any new or unmitigated unavoidably
significant impacts that were not contained in the Golden Valley Ranch Final EIR and the
previously adopted statement of overriding considerations; (2) the Commercial Center
entitlements now before the City Council are part of the activity which was previously approved
as part of the larger Golden Valley Ranch development and do not stand alone or apart from the
original project approval; and (3) a new statement of overriding considerations is not required
because the standards requiring preparation of a new supplemental EIR pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21166 do not apply to the Commercial Center entitlements and no EIR
tiering off of the Golden Valley Ranch EIR is required.
CLARIFICATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval for the Commercial Center entitlements package has been revised to
clean-up language and eliminate redundancies. These revisions are nonsubstantive and do not
affect the requirements or timing of the conditions. Also, a condition has been added (Condition
PL 28) which requires further staff review of the modified site plan for the northern commercial
pad, if directed by the Council, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and Building
Services.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
City Council approve the entitlements with the proposed site plan modification to the
northern commercial pad, subject to the review and approval of the Director of Planning
and Building Services.
2. City Council approve the entitlements with other modifications as directed by Council.
3. Council deny Master Case 03-347.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Golden Valley Ranch Project would yield a net positive impact to the City's General Fund
ranging from $1.13 million to $1.16 million annually after 10 years based on the buildout of 50
commercial acres and the residential area. This will result in a positive net impact to the City
after expenditures are considered.
ATTACHMENTS
Vicinity Map
Tentative Parcel Map
Site Plan
Elevations
Photo Simulations
Sign Program
Appeal Letter
City Response to Appeal
City Council Resolution
Conditions of Approval
February 17, 2004 Planning Commission Packet and Attachments available in the City Clerk's
Reading File
Final Golden Valley Ranch EIR Volume I available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Final Golden Valley Ranch EIR Volume II available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Supplemental Noise Study - April 2004
Golden Valley Ranch Commercial Center
Vicinity Map
City of
Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Phone
Suite 300
(661) 259-2489
Santa Clarita
Fax
California 91355-2196
(661) 259-8125
Website: www.santa-clarita.com
March 1, 2004
Cinzia Iaffaldano
18320 Shannon Ridge Place
Fair Oaks Ranch, CA 91387
Dear Ms. Iaffaldano:
On March 1, 2004, this office received your appeal of the action taken by the
Planning Commission on Master Case 03-347; Tentative Parcel Map 60337;
Conditional Use Permit 03-010; Minor Use Permit 03-045; Development Review
03-027; and Sign Review 03-018 for Golden Valley Ranch Commercial Center,
Tentative Tract Map 52414.
The appeal has been scheduled for the City Council meeting of April 27, 2004,
which will begin at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa
Clarita.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Lisa Hardy of the Planning
Division at 661-255-4949 or myself at 661-255-4391.
Sincerely,
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC
City Clerk
cc: Lisa Hardy, Senior Planner
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
February 27, 2004
City Clerk, City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, California 91355
7
RPCe,ya 7 ei�PS
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
2004 MAR - I A % 4b
tECEIVEIJ
CLERKS OFFICE
APPEAL: Tentative Parcel Map 60337; Conditional Use Permit 03-010• Minor
Use Permit 03-045; Development Review 03-027• Sign Review 03-018
Applicant: GMS Realty
Location: Golden Valley Ranch Commercial Center, Tentative Tract Map 52414
A. Reauest/affirmation:
1) Subdivision of commercial pads into 17 parcels (Tentative Parcel Map 60337)
2) Conditional Use Permit for structures EXCEEDING 35ft in height, off-site freeway sign &
thee on-site freeway signs
3) Minor use permit for two drive-thru "restaurants", sale of alcohol & carwash
4) Development Review of 618,759sgft commercial center
5) Program sign review.
6) General Plan Amendment GPA 97-003 "A" (eg Community Commercial of 89.8+6.1 acres)
7) General Plan Amendment GPA 97-003 `B" (eg eliminating Golden Valley Road between Via
Princessa & Placerita Canyon Road)
8) Annexation of 1,259 acre Golden Valley Ranch prezone +6.1 acres Caltrans owned land
9) Conditional Use Permit to allow 16.6M (eg 9.5M +7M +100,000) cub yards grading (of which
2.6M cub yards <9.5-7.0+0.1> will not be balanced on site)
10) Removal of 23 oak trees (3,616 oak trees total on site)
11) Grading of slopes in excess of 10%.
B. Substance of Anneal:
1) That the Golden Valley Ranch project cannot be subdivided into smaller entities, with the
smaller entities subsequently being re -entitled without considering the project/EIR in totality
2) That the Conditional use permits are being applied to maximize the content of the Commercial
pads subsequent to approval of the Golden Valley Ranch project January 2002, regardless of the
CSC having adopted a Statement of overriding conditions due to the severity of the Commercial
impact on the SCV generally & local communities specifically & regardless of the fact that the
Golden Valley Ranch project provide for additional (community) commercial space (GPA 97-
002 "A") that remains to be developed/entitled
3) That the substance of the Community Commercial space (GPA 97-002 "A" — item A6) must
be developed concurrently with the present entitlement & that such addition would constitute a
MAJOR revision of the certified entitlement/EIR
4) That the impact of the Golden Valley Ranch development was never considered/certified on
the Fair Oaks Ranch community specifically
5) Inasmuch that the Fair Oaks Ranch community is outside the jurisdiction of the CSC whatever
certification/EIR is moot in absence of (1) annexation of the Fair Oaks ranch community &
rerunning the EIR or (2) the CSC conducting a Subsequent EIR in coordination with the County
of Los Angeles inasmuch as certifying the Golden Valley Ranch project on the Fair Oaks Ranch
community (ditto impact of slated new Albertsons development by GMS on Los Canyon Road &
Via Princessa)
6) That elimination of the Golden Valley Road between Via Princessa & Placerita Canyon Road
substantially restricts access (eg consumer/commercial/Emergency) to the Golden Valley Ranch
project that in effect necessitates a new traffic/impact study & either recertification of the EIR
7) That the input data (eg FACTS) on which the certified FIR is based was essentially stale/
invalid at the time of certification & that such deficiency cannot be promulgated into perpetuity
of effectively republished via an Addendum to the FIR, regardless of the significance (albeit
insignificance) of the issues at stake
8) More specifically that the Public Resources Code Sec. 21166 & CEQA Guideline 15162
requires a Supplemental EIR in event of (1) substantial changes (2) new information or (3) new
mitigation measures that substantially impacts or may be of relevance to the project (Section C)
9) That the total extent of grading (or onsite balancing/removal of landslide material, AE Seward
01-1816P-4 p14) for the Golden Valley Ranch project has not been documented
10) That detailed grading/geotechnical designs have not been developed to date & that additional
entitlements or an Addenda/Subsequent EIR cannot be considered until such time as designs
have not been certified or submitted for public review (ditto compliance with the relevant City/
State & Federal codes)
11) That abatement of the Commercial development was never considered/attempted with
certification of the Statement of overriding conditions, regardless of the legal requirement to
consider scaling/abating <<negative>> impacts (eg grading/filling) that cannot be rationally
mitigated
12) That the Commercial development/grading has been unreasonably maximized beyond the
ridgeline separating the western component of the Fair Oaks Ranch community (eg Shannon
Ridge/Owl/Nightingale/Oakdale) & that such extension should be abated
13) That the geotechnical feasibility for the slated (#2 Commercial pad) slope abutting the Fair
Oaks Ranch community at Shannon Ridge/Owl/Nightingale/Oakdale, comprising some IOM cub
yards grading/fill, has not been specifically developed or asserted by Messrs Allan E Seward
Engineering Geology Inc, the primary Geological & Geotechnical consultants
14) That the risk of seismic hazard is real (static factor of safety <only> 1.5/1.14, AE Seward 01-
1816P-4 pC3) & that whatever assertions to the contrary has been discounted (AE Seward 01-
1816P-4 pD3: "Predicted accelerations should be considered rough estimates rather than precise
facts and, THEREFORE, ground accelerations at the subject site from future seismic <<eg
50y>> events may exceed the predicted accelerations.")
15) That the impact of the Commercial pad #2 on the Fair Oaks Ranch community is abnormally
dangerous in its making (ditto rendering unreasonable peril of destruction & lateral interference
to the Fair Oaks Ranch community)
16) That the mitigation measures are essentially illusionary/indefinite/unreasonable (eg watering
with "excessive" dust, grading six days a week @I2h/day) & that such entitlement such be both
reviewed/recirculated & contracted to a 3rd party specialist/agency
17) That the grading plans shows infringement (Via Princessa "realignment" & Lost Oak Road
boundary) on Fair Oaks Ranch common property (albeit in the name of Pardee Construction) &
that such infringement renders whatever entitlement moot
18) That concise perspective/renderings (eg straight-line human perception scaled in accordance
with the grading plans) must be developed/demonstrated for both community adjuncts as the
"big box" (Lowe's etc) structures as seen from eg the Fair Oaks Ranch elementary school, the
Hunters Ridge component of the Fair Oaks Ranch community & the La Mesa ridge
19) That agency/policing powers must be affirmatively exercised in lieu of rubberstamping/
republishing developer's requests/renderings (ditto scaling/abating non-mitigateable impacts)
20) That the proposed 1511(block) wall around the commercial center will be unreasonable
obtrusive & simply enhance the crudity/visibility of the big -box depots on top of the ridgelines
21) That the stormwater discharge into the Santa Clara river/FOR storm water basin must be
conditioned in accordance with the provisions of 33 United States Code section 1311(b)(1)(C).
C. Supplemental EIR;
Pursuant to CEQA, and specifically Public Resources Code Sec. 21166 and CEQA Guideline
15162, a Supplemental EIR is required if 1) substantial changes occur with respect to
circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to
the EIR, or 2) new information is available that is of substantial importance to the project which
was not known and could not have been known when the EIR was certified. Factors to be
considered include new impacts not studied in the EIR, impacts that would be substantially more
severe than previously rendered, or new mitigation measures now available.
As stated in Guideline 15164, an Addendum is only to be used in the case of minor technical
changes or additions to the project. Our argument is that the City is improperly using an
Addendum for these new approvals when it should be requiring a Supplemental EIR.
The primary argument is that the proposed Addendum to many of the studies which form the
basis of the previous EIR are old and that new studies are required to assess the actual current
impacts. First and foremost is the fact that the EIR was prepared before the Fair Oaks community
was built and occupied, and that actual impacts can now be assessed where only potential
impacts were reviewed before. More specifically whereas (1) the EIR Geotechnical report was
done in 1997 and that ground water and seismic data and policies have changed since that time.
(2) the Air Quality report was based on 1993 -1997 data and that new data shows significant
reductions in air quality (eg crisis PM10 count) in the region (3) the Hydrology data is based on a
1998 report which does not consider new policies implemented in the area regarding
water availability (4) the Biology study is based on 1992-1998 data which does not consider
more recent findings (5) the Noise study is based on 1995 and 1998 data which predates the Fair
OaksRanch development (6) the Aesthetics analysis does not include an accurate analysis of
impacts from Fair Oaks Ranch, and (7) the Traffic data dates back to 1994 and is no longer
accurate.
D. ADDeal Specifics:
1) Mitigating/abating the GVR impact on the Fair Oaks Ranch community specifically
2) Compiling/circulating a new traffic study
3) Compiling/circulating detailed geotechnical designs/calculations
4) Compiling/circulating a complete/comprehensive storm water audit
5) Compiling/circulating a complete/comprehensive grading/balance audit
6) Rectifying Via Princessa routing, filling the canyon adjacent to the Park on FOR common
property as well as grading on Fair Oaks Ranch property adjacent to Lost Canyon Road
7) Evaluating the impact of the slated Community Commercial component of the GVR as well as
the adjacent Albertsons/FOR development in unity/simultaneously with the Commercial pads
8) Petitioning Pardee Construction to return/convey ALL Fair Oaks Ranch common property
9) Limiting stormwater effluent content in accordance with the respective state/Federal water
quality standards (2003 ruling)
10) Presenting concise perspective/renderings (eg straight-line human perception) for both
community adjuncts as "big box" structures (ditto replacing peripheral wall with a dirt berm plus
landscaping)
11) Exercising policing/agency powers verbatim in lieu of simply rubberstamping/republishing
developer's requests/renderings (ditto scaling/abating non-mitigateable impacts in accordance
with CEQA protocol)
12) Abating the Commercial component/pads <verbatim> in accordance with the proposed
"Ridgeline" fit inasmuch as mitigating the obtrusive impact, risk of destruction & lateral
interference with the Fair Oaks Ranch development
13) Rerunning/recertifying the EIR OR conducting a supplemental EIR hence for the GVR in
TOTALITY.
E. Special Miti¢ation Items (details to be deliberated):
1) No liquid or solid material runoff from the commercial or residential development and any
associated roads or parking lots will enter the catch basin adjacent to and on the west side of the
west cul-de-sacs of Shannon Ridge Place, Owl Court, and Nightingale (ditto 33 United States
Code section 1311(b)(1)(C) compliance
2) No construction within 1,000 feet of Fair Oaks Ranch property lines will be permitted outside
of these timeframes <<Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific Time>>. No
construction noise from the Golden Valley Ranch development should be audible outdoors in the
Fair Oaks Ranch community outside of this timeframe. This is in addition to the mitigation
measures to be enforced by the City of Santa Clarita
3) Posts signs for all trucks deliveries to come in and out of Golden Valley Road at State
Highway 14
4) Posts ("No Trucks" signs on Lost Canyon (south of Via Princessa) and Via Princessa (east of
Lost Canyon) <need specific's, i.e. commercial vehicles over xx Tons, etc>
5) Post 35 MPH speed limit on Via Princessa and Lost Canyon.
6) Lights and Landscaping design for Commercial Center should address light and noise
pollution as to minimize impacts to Fair Oaks Ranch community, particularly those residences
that are closest to the Commercial Center. Lights and Landscaping design for Lost Canyon
Extension should address light and noise pollution as to minimize impacts to Fair Oaks Ranch
community, particularly those residences whose backyards face Lost Canyon.
7) Lights and Landscaping design for Via Princessa should address light and noise pollution as to
minimize impacts to Fair Oaks Ranch community, particularly to residences whose backyards
face Via Princessa
8) Lights and Landscaping design for Golden Valley Road should address light and noise
pollution as to minimize impacts to Fair Oaks Ranch community, particularly to residences with
visibility to Golden Valley Road
9) Place a berm wall on the northern section of Golden Valley Road that faces the Fair Oak
Ranch cul-de-sacs of Shannon Ridge, Owl Court and Nightingale
10) The developer and/or City of Santa Clarita will do a baseline noise measurement on the West
cul-de-sacs of Shannon Ridge Place, Owl Court, and Nightingale and provide any Fair Oaks
Ranch resident with all measurement results upon request. This measurement will be done over
a timeframe of <xx days> during days and hours the construction activity is scheduled to occur
11) The developer and/or City of Santa Clarita will do an air quality measurement on the West
cul-de-sacs of Shannon Ridge Place, Owl Court, and Nightingale and provide any Fair Oaks
Ranch resident with all measurement results upon request. This measurement will be done over a
timeframe of <xx days> during days and hours the construction activity is scheduled to occur
12) The CSC will monitor noise levels on the west cul-de-sacs of Shannon Ridge Place,
OwlCourt, and Nightingale daily, and provide any Fair Oaks Ranch resident with almeasurement
results upon request. Ditto providing funds for FOR to hire a third party to do this monitoring.
F. Rideeline Fit;
Abate/consolidate the commercial lots in accordance with the illustrated Ridgeline fit as
appended.
Sincerely,
4 w �,4-1�--
Cinzia Iaffaldano
18320 Shannon Ridge Place
Fair Oaks Ranch, CA 91387
(661) 252-5587
Golden Valley Ranch Commercial: Proposed Abatement to fit Rid el�j/2004 0222/2004 0222
MASTER CASE 03-347
GOLDEN VALLEY RANCH COMMERCIAL CENTER ENTITLEMENTS
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 60337; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 03-010;
MINOR USE PERMIT 03-045; DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 03-027;
AND SIGN REVIEW 03-018
CITY RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED IN APPEAL OF THE FEBRUARY 17, 2004,
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MC 03-347
On February 17, 2004, the Planning Commission unanimously approved Master Case
No. 03-347 for various entitlements relating to the Golden Valley Ranch Commercial
Center (the "Commercial Center"). Cinzia Iaffaldano, a homeowner living in the Fair
Oaks Ranch community located in unincorporated Los Angeles County, has appealed the
Planning Commission's approval to the City Council (the "Appeal"). The sections below
provide the text of the written Appeal dated February 27, 2004, submitted by Ms.
Iaffaldano (shown in italics) with the City's response to the issues raised in the written
Appeal. The City's response also addresses those issues raised in opposition to the
Commercial Center entitlements during the oral testimony at the February 17, 2004,
Planning Commission hearing.
Section A of Appeal "Request/Affirmation"
Section A of the Appeal entitled "Request/Affirmation" lists 11 separate entitlements as
follows:
1. Subdivision of commercial pads into 17 parcels (Tentative Parcel Map
60337);
2. Conditional Use Permit for structures exceeding 35 feet in height, off-site
freeway sign and three on-site freeway signs;
3. Minor use permit for two drive-through "restaurants, " sale of alcohol and
carwash;
4. Development review of 618,759 square foot commercial center;
5. Program sign review;
6. General Plan Amendment 97-003 "A" (community commercial of 89.8 +
6.1 acres);
7. General Plan Amendment 97-003 "B" (eg eliminating Golden Valley Road
between Via Princessa and Placenta Canyon Road);
8. Annexation of 1,259 acres, Golden Valley Ranch Project pre zone + 6.1
acres of Caltrans owned land;
9. Conditional Use Permit to allow 16.6 million cubic yards of grading (of
which 2.6M cubic yards will not be balanced on-site);
10. Removal of 23 oak trees (3,616 oak trees total on site); and
11. Grading of slopes in excess of 10%
Only the entitlements listed in the Appeal as 1 through 5 above were approved by the
Planning Commission on February 17, 2004, and these entitlements are the only items
subject to appeal to the City Council. Entitlements listed above as numbers 6 through 11
were previously approved by the Santa Clarita City Council on January 24, 2002.
Entitlements 6 through 11 served as the master entitlements for the entire Golden Valley
Ranch Project (the "Golden Valley Ranch Project" — Master Case 97-212), including its
residential and commercial components. These approvals previously authorized the
grading plan for the entire Golden Valley Ranch Project, as well as the development of a
610,930 square foot commercial center. Entitlements 6 through 11 above are not subject
to the Appeal and/or a court challenge, as the time in which to object to these
entitlements (including the applicable statutes of limitations) has long since expired.
Furthermore, the environmental impacts of entitlements 6 through 11 above, including
grading, aesthetics, air quality, traffic, and others were analyzed in the Final Golden
Valley Ranch Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR"), certified in January 2002, and a
subsequent Addendum to the EIR, approved in November 2003. The time to challenge
the EIR and Addendum have also long since expired.
As will be explained in further detail below, the applicant GMS Realty's ("GMS")
application for entitlements 1 through 5 above implement the previous master approvals
of the Golden Valley Ranch Project commercial component by filling in the specific
details of the Commercial Center development, including design review, necessary
approvals for a self-service car wash and drive-through restaurants, and the sale of
alcoholic beverages for on-site and off-site consumption, and subdivision of the two
previously approved commercial super pads into 17 parcels to facilitate the sale/lease of
the Commercial Center. The entitlements listed as 1 through 5 above have undergone
extensive review by City staff and the Planning Commission, including a subsequent
evaluation under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). City staff and the
Planning Commission have concluded that the entitlements approved by the Planning
Commission comply in all respects with applicable local and state law and recommend
that the City Council deny the Appeal and affirm the Commission's decision, approving
the Commercial Center entitlements.
Section B of the Appeal "Substance of the Appeal'
Section B of the Appeal entitled "Substance of Appeal" contains 21 separate issues.
Responses to each of these issues are as follows:
(1) That Golden Valley Ranch Project cannot be subdivided into smaller
entities, without the smaller entities subsequently being re -entitled without
considering the project/EIR in totality.
2
On January 24, 2002, the City Council approved the master entitlements for the Golden
Valley Ranch Project, including the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 52414 which
subdivided the entire Golden Valley Ranch Project site into 498 single-family residential
parcels, two large commercial parcels, one school parcel, one water tank parcel, one fire
station site, and numerous open space lots including a trail staging area. Environmental
clearance for the Golden Valley Ranch Project and the master entitlements, including
Tentative Tract Map No. 52414 was provided pursuant to the Final EIR for the Golden
Valley Ranch Project. The Golden Valley Ranch EIR was certified by the City Council
prior to its approval of the master entitlements for Golden Valley Ranch Project on
January 24, 2002.
Following certification of the EIR, a legal challenge to the EIR was filed by the Golden
Valley Ranch Task Force, a group of local residents. Ultimately, this litigation was
dismissed pursuant to an out-of-court settlement. The time in which to challenge the
legal adequacy of the Golden Valley Ranch EIR has long since elapsed, and the EIR
remains valid.
CEQA, at California Public Resources Code § 21166, provides that once an EIR has been
prepared and certified (as is the case with the Golden Valley Ranch Project), a public
agency such as the City is prohibited from requiring preparation of a subsequent or
supplemental environmental impact report, unless one or more of the following events
occur:
a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the environmental impact report.
b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which
the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the
environmental impact report.
c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known
at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete,
becomes available.
As indicated in more detail below, none of the above exceptions to the prohibition applies
to the Commercial Center entitlements subject to the Appeal. The Appeal's claim that a
new EIR is required as a result of the Commercial Center's subdivision of the two large
superpad parcels into 17 smaller parcels is without merit. The approval of Tentative
Tract Map 52414 and related entitlements by the City Council in January 2002 and a
mezzanine -level storage area by the City Council in November 2003, authorized
necessary grading to create the two superpad parcels and development of a 618,759
square -foot commercial center. These approvals included environmental review under
CEQA.
The uses permitted on the Commercial Center site are set forth as a result of the actions
taken by the City Council in 2002 and are not being changed in the present entitlement
application. The purpose of Tentative Parcel Map 60337, which is part of the Appeal, is
V
to further subdivide the two superpad parcels approved in January 2002 into 17 separate
parcels to facilitate the sale and/or lease of the Commercial Center to end users. The
entitlement package remains consistent with the January 2002 approvals. As a result, the
City concluded that approval of Tentative Parcel Map 60337 will not result in any new or
increased impacts to the environment; thus, no subsequent EIR is required.
(2) That the Conditional use permits are being applied to maximize the
content of the Commercial pads subsequent to approval of the Golden
Valley Ranch Project January, 2002, regardless of the City having
adopted a Statement of overriding considerations due to the severity of the
commercial impact on the SCV generally and local communities
specifically and regardless of the fact that the Golden Valley Ranch
Project provide for additional (community) commercial space (GPA 97-
002 "A") that remains to be developedlentitled.
The approval of the Conditional Use Permit, Minor Use Permit, Development Review,
and Sign Review that are the subject of the Appeal would allow for structures exceeding
35 feet in height (in order to provide decorative features), one off-site freeway
commercial sign and three on-site freeway commercial signs, two drive-through
restaurants, the sale of alcohol at designated locations, an automated, self-service car
wash, and sign program review as part of the development of the Commercial Center.
The Golden Valley Ranch EIR evaluated the environmental impacts of a 610,930 square
foot commercial center. Subsequent to certification of the EIR, in November 2003, the
City Council approved an additional 7,829 square feet of commercial usage (for a total of
618,759 square feet) for the Golden Valley Ranch commercial center, for purposes of a
mezzanine—level storage area. In connection with the approval of the additional 7,829
square feet, the City prepared an Addendum to the Golden Valley Ranch EIR and
concluded that a further subsequent or supplemental EIR was not required in accordance
with Public Resources Code § 21166. Thus, the Golden Valley Ranch EIR and
subsequent Addendum provided necessary environmental clearance for the development
of the 618,759 square -foot Commercial Center.
The request for additional height to exceed 35 feet is for visual enhancement of the
proposed buildings, which will vary from 26 feet to 52 feet in height throughout the
center. The added height will not alter the previously approved square footage of the
commercial center which remains at the previously approved 618,759 square feet. The
additional height is utilized for architectural projections, such as tower elements to break-
up the roofline and the massing of the structures, and to add visual interest and character
to the overall development, consistent with the City's design guidelines. The
development proposed for the commercial pads is consistent with the previously
approved Golden Valley Ranch Project as reviewed and approved by the City Council in
January 2002. With regard to the Conditional Use Permit to authorize exceeding the 35 -
foot height limit, the City has reviewed line of sight renderings specifically analyzing the
impacts of the Commercial Center entitlements and concluding that an increase in height
will not result in an unmitigated significant environmental impact. The City of Santa
Clarita Planning Commission has reviewed the site plan and entitlements for the
4
Commercial Center, found it to be consistent with City requirements, and approved it
with conditions of approval.
In order to evaluate the specific environmental impacts of the Commercial Center
entitlements (as compared to the commercial component of the entire Golden Valley
Ranch Project analyzed in the Golden Valley Ranch EIR and subsequent Addendum),
City staff prepared a new Initial Study/Addendum to the Golden Valley Ranch EIR. The
Initial Study/Addendum analyzes the various potential environmental impacts of the
Commercial Center entitlements specifically and, based upon this analysis, concludes that
no further EIR is required, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21166.
As noted in the Appeal, the City Council, as part of its certification of the Golden Valley
Ranch EIR, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to the Golden
Valley Ranch Project's impacts on air quality (both construction and operations),
biology, and aesthetics including light and glare. The Statement of Overriding
Considerations recognized that the Golden Valley Ranch Project will have unmitigated
significant environmental impacts in these three impact areas. However, the City Council
made findings that the benefits of the entire Golden Valley Ranch Project outweighed the
negative impacts of the unmitigated environmental impacts. Such a determination by the
City Council is fully consistent with CEQA. CEQA requires public disclosure of the
environmental impacts of proposed development but does not require that development
with unmitigated environmental impacts not be approved. Construction and operation of
the Commercial Center will not compound any impacts found to be significant and
unavoidable.
(3) That the substance of the Community Commercial Space (GPA 97-002
"A" — Item A6) must be developed concurrently with the present
entitlement and that such addition would constitute a major revision of the
certified entitlement/EIR.
As noted above, GPA 97-002 ("A") was previously approved in January, 2002 and is not
the subject of the Appeal. Furthermore, applicable law and the master entitlements for
the Golden Valley Ranch Project do not require concurrent development.
(4) That the impact of the Golden Valley Ranch development was never
considered/certified on the Fair Oaks Ranch Community specifically.
As noted above, the time in which to challenge the adequacy of the EIR has elapsed.
Furthermore, the EIR specifically analyzed the impact of the Golden Valley Ranch
Project relative to the Fair Oaks Ranch community. The EIR recognized that Fair Oaks
Ranch was under development at the time the Draft EIR was prepared and ultimately
certified. For example, the EIR's description of surrounding land uses to the north of the
Golden Valley Ranch Project describes the 1,800 -unit Fair Oaks Ranch residential
community as being currently under construction. In addition, using Santa Clarita
Valley -wide traffic and air quality modeling, which included existing and planned
development in the City and unincorporated County areas (including Fair Oaks Ranch),
the EIR analyzed the impacts of the Golden Valley Ranch Project on surrounding
5
existing, and future, development, including Fair Oaks Ranch, in impact areas such as
land use, traffic, air quality, water supply, and others.
In addition, the Golden Valley Ranch EIR specifically included evidence that the
proposed Golden Valley Ranch Project was compatible with adjacent land uses, including
residential development under construction to the north (Fair Oaks Ranch). The EIR
recognizes that the proposed Golden Valley Ranch Project (as well as the adjacent Fair
Oaks Ranch development) would transform the character of the area between State Route
14 and Sand Canyon by adding over 2,600 residences in an undeveloped hillside area.
The EIR recognized that land use conflicts, including increased noise, traffic, and
environmental hazards would arise as the surrounding area was built out, but that such
conflicts could be mitigated through careful site design and planning. Mitigation
measures consistent with these findings were imposed on the Golden Valley Ranch
Project and imposed on the Commercial Center in particular, which is the subject of the
current Appeal. With regard to aesthetic impacts, the Golden Valley Ranch EIR
concluded that the Golden Valley Ranch Project would be seen from vistas and from
public viewing locations and would obstruct views of City -designated primary ridgelines
and the EIR concluded that such impacts were significant and unavoidable. However, as
noted above, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to
such impacts. The Commercial Center entitlements do not compound the impacts that
were found to be significant and unavoidable.
(S) Inasmuch as the Fair Oaks Ranch Community is outside the jurisdiction of
the City whatever certification/EIR is moot in absence of (1) annexation of
the Fair Oaks ranch community and rerunning the EIR or (2) the City
conducting a subsequent EIR in coordination with the County of Los
Angeles inasmuch as certifying the Golden Valley Ranch Project on the
Fair Oaks Ranch Community (ditto impact of slated new Albertson's
development by GMS on Los Canyon Road & Via Princessa.)
As noted above, the Golden Valley Ranch EIR analyzed the impacts of the Golden
Valley Ranch Project with respect to the Fair Oaks Ranch community. Furthermore, the
County of Los Angeles, including the Department of Regional Planning, participated in
the public review process for the EIR. The fact that the Fair Oaks Ranch community is
within the unincorporated area of the County of Los Angeles is not relevant for CEQA
purposes and does not moot the prior certification of the EIR (which is immune from
further legal challenge). Any subsequent annexation request of the Fair Oaks Ranch
community to the Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") for annexation to
the City is unrelated to the Commercial Center and the Appeal. The City is not aware of
any involvement by GMS in the proposed development on Lost Canyon Road and Via
Princessa. Furthermore, the impact of such a development is not within the scope of the
Appeal and is unrelated to the Golden Valley Ranch Commercial Center entitlements in
that it is a separate project subject to its own environmental review by the County of Los
Angeles.
(6) That elimination of the Golden Valley Road between Via Princessa and
Placerita Canyon Road substantially restricts access (eg
11
consumer/commercial/Emergency) to the Golden Valley Ranch Project
that in effect necessitates a new traffic/impact study and either
recertification of the EIR
General Plan Amendment No. 97-003 (B), which modified the Circulation Element of the
General Plan and the Master Plan of Highways and Roadway System Map to eliminate
the Golden Valley Road for the length between Via Princessa and Placerita Canyon
Road, was previously approved by the City Council in January 2002 and is not the
subject of this Appeal. Objection/legal challenge to such approval is time-barred. The
Golden Valley Ranch EIR, including a traffic study dated June 5, 2000, evaluated the
traffic impacts of the elimination of Golden Valley Road between Via Princessa and
Placerita Canyon Road. The elimination of Golden Valley Road between Via Princessa
and Placerita Canyon Road will not substantially restrict access to the Golden Valley
Ranch Project because this section of roadway was intended to serve proposed residences
that were not ultimately approved as part of the Golden Valley Ranch Project. Thus,
deletion of the roadway segment does not restrict access.
(7) That the input data (eg facts) in which the certified EIR is based was
essentially stale/invalid at the time of certification and that such deficiency
cannot be promulgated into perpetuity of effectively republished the via
an Addendum to the EIR, regardless of the significance (albeit
insignificance) of the issues at stake.
As noted above, the previously certified EIR is presumed valid under CEQA and is not
subject to further legal attack, regardless of the Appeal's claim that the data in the
certified EIR was stale/invalid at the time of certification. All the future -year traffic data
was developed from information contained in the joint City/County computerized traffic
model. This model contains projected land use and highway network information
consistent with the City's General Plan, including all approved and planned development
in the vicinity of the Golden Valley Ranch Project, as well as the remainder of the Santa
Clarita Valley.
As noted above, the City can only require a new subsequent or supplemental
Environmental Impact Report in very limited circumstances which are not applicable
here. CEQA does not require that information contained in a certified EIR be updated in
perpetuity, as such a requirement would result in a large degree of uncertainty in the
CEQA process. Neither the appellant nor anyone else has provided any information to
the City supporting the claim of staleness and the City knows of none.
(8) More specifically that the Public Resources Code § 21166 and CEQA
Guideline § 15162 requires a Supplemental EIR in the event of
(1) substantial changes (2) new information or (3) new mitigation
measures that substantially impacts or maybe of relevance to the project
(Section Q.
The Appeal substantially misstates the applicable legal standard for requiring a
subsequent EIR. CEQA Guideline § 15162 provides that a subsequent EIR shall not be
7
prepared unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light
of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require
major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances in
which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions
of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known
and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable
diligence at the time the previously EIR was certified as complete
shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not
discussed in the previous EIR;
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be
substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to
be feasible would in fact be feasible and would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the
project, but the project proponents declined to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative; or
(d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably
different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents declined to adopt
the mitigation measure or alternative.
The Appeal's statement that a new EIR is required for changes, information, or
mitigation measures that substantially impact or may be "of relevance" is not the
applicable legal standard for a subsequent environmental review under CEQA and should
be disregarded. As noted above, the City knows of no information which would justify
the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
(9) That the total extent of grading (or onsite balancing/removal of landslide
material, AE Seward 01-1816P-4 p. 14) for the Golden Valley Ranch
Project has not been documented.
(10) That detailed grading/geotechnical designs have not been developed to
date and that additional entitlements or Addenda/Subsequent EIR cannot
be considered until such times as designs have not been certified or
submitted for public review (ditto compliance with the relevant City/state
and federal codes).
As noted above, the grading plan for the Commercial Center was previously approved as
part of the approval of Tentative Tract Map 52414 on January 24, 2002, and the related
conditional use permit authorizing grading of 16.6 million cubic yards for the entire
Golden Valley Ranch Project pursuant to environmental clearance provided by the
Golden Valley Ranch EIR. The Commercial Center entitlements subject to this Appeal
do not change the grading plan previously approved as part of the master entitlements for
the Golden Valley Ranch Project and the grading plan is not subject to this Appeal. In
addition the Golden Valley Ranch EIR, including all underlying geotechnical and related
studies, carefully analyzed the impacts of the Golden Valley Ranch Project due to
grading.
In addition, per the City Council's direction in June 2001, PacSun, LLC retained Allan E.
Seward Engineering Geology, Inc. (AES) to prepare a new geologic and geotechnical
report for the Golden Valley Ranch property. On October 31, 2001, the City received the
Geologic and Geotechnical Report, Investigation of Maximum Landslide Depths Relative
to the Feasibility of Development, prepared by AES. The study focused primarily on
evaluating the presence or absence of deep-seated mega -landslides (greater than 100 feet
deep) on the site which may underlie previously recognized landslides. AES's
conclusions are listed on page 28 of the report as follows:
1. It is the opinion of this firm that a deep-seated mega -landslide as
postulated by others does not exist beneath the Golden Valley Ranch
(TTM 52414) and hence does not impede the feasibility of the proposed
development.
2. The landslides in the area of the proposed development (TTM 52414) can
be mitigated by complete removal and recompaction without adversely
affecting the proposed development or off-site properties.
Per the City Council's direction in June 2001, the City retained Cotton, Shires and
Associates, Inc. to conduct a peer review of the AES geologic and geotechnical report.
Their scope of work included a review of all prior geologic studies prepared for the
property, geotechnical site reconnaissance, review of AES's methodology and
conclusions, and preparation of the peer review report to the City of Santa Clarita.
In their December 7, 2001 letter to the City, William R. Cotton of Cotton, Shires and
Associates, Inc. concurs with AES's conclusions regarding the mega -landslide issue and
landslide mitigation. Specifically, the letter states, "Using geomorphic and geologic data,
we conclude that a large landslide does not underlie the subject property. We find that
the geologic model presented by AES is consistent with the available geologic database,
and is the most likely explanation for features and data observed in the region."
4
In addition, Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. prepared a supplemental review letter
dated January 7, 2002, for the City to evaluate the potential geotechnical constraints with
respect to the geotechnical feasibility of the proposed development. This letter concluded
that, "the proposed development has been demonstrated to be feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint.... If designed and constructed with the recommendations and
geotechnical design criteria provided by AES, the proposed development should not
result in unanticipated off-site impacts" (page 5).
(11) That abatement of the Commercial development was never
consideredlattempted with certification of the Statement of
overriding considerations, regardless of the legal requirement to
consider scaling/abating << negative impacts>> (eg
gradingfftlling) that cannot be rationally mitigated.
As indicated above, the environmental impacts of the commercial component of the
Golden Valley Ranch Project were previously evaluated in the Golden Valley Ranch EIR
and subsequent Addendum, as well as in the current Initial Study/Addendum for the
Commercial Center entitlements. The Golden Valley Ranch EIR, which was certified in
2002, is not subject to legal challenge and is presumed valid. Furthermore, the Golden
Valley Ranch EIR contained substantial mitigation measures to mitigate the impacts of
the commercial and residential development and the City Council adopted such
mitigation measures as part of the Golden Valley Ranch EIR and mitigation monitoring
program. Mitigation measures to reduce construction -related air quality, noise, and
grading impacts are listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the
Golden Valley Ranch EIR. Mitigations related to lighting, aesthetics, and traffic &
circulation will be also be implemented as part of the construction and operation of the
Commercial Center.
(12) That the Commercial Development/Grading has been unreasonably
maximized beyond the ridge lines separating the western component of the
Fair Oaks Ranch Community (eg Shannon
Ridge/Owl/Nightingale/Oakdale) and that such extension should be
abated.
(13) That the geotechnical feasibility for the slated (#2 Commercial Pad) slope
above the Fair Oaks Ranch Community at Shannon
Ridge/Owl/Nightingale/ Oakdale, comprising some 10 million cubic yards
creating/fill, has not been specifically developed or asserted by Allen E.
Seward Engineering Geology Inc., the primary Geological and
Geotechnical Consultants.
(14) That the risk of seismic hazard is real (static factor of only 1.5/1.14, AE
Seward 01-1816P-4 p. C3) and that whatever assertions to the contrary
has been discounted (AE Seward 01-1816P-4 p. D3: "Predicted
acceleration should be considered rough estimates rather than precise
facts and, therefore, ground accelerations at the project site from future
seismic events may exceed the predicted accelerations).
10
(15) That the impact of the Commercial Pad No. 2 on the Fair Oaks Ranch
Community is abnormally dangerous and its making (date of rendering
unreasonable peril of destruction and lateral interference to the Fair
Oaks Ranch Community).
As noted previously, the grading plan for the commercial component of the Golden
Valley Ranch Project was previously approved in January 2002 and is not the subject of
this Appeal. In addition, contrary to what is stated above, no off-site grading will occur
along the northern commercial pad. The size and configuration of the commercial pads
shown on TPM 60337 are consistent with the pads shown on TTM 52414. All grading
will occur within the Golden Valley Ranch Project limits for the preparation of the two
commercial super pads. Also, please see the answer to #10 above.
Grading for the entire Golden Valley Ranch Project was evaluated, reviewed and
certified as part of the EIR process in January 2002. Rough grading activities will occur
to create the two commercial pads and, as part of the commercial development, fine
grading will occur to finish the pads for the actual construction of the commercial center.
All grading activities will be subject to the City's review and approval of the grading
plans to ensure that the grading activities are consistent with the previous approval for the
Golden Valley Ranch Project.
(16) That the mitigation measures are essentially
illusionary/indefinite/unreasonable (eg watering with "excessive" dust,
grading six days a week at 12 hours per day) and that such entitlement
such be both reviewed1re-circulated and contracted to a third party
specialist/agency.
The mitigation measures and conditions of approval imposed on the Golden Valley
Ranch Project are not the subject of this appeal and are not subject to legal challenge.
The conditions imposed on the Commercial Center entitlements package comply with
applicable law with respect to fugitive dust, and hours of operation of grading activities.
Furthermore, as part of the EIR, the City adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program that ensures compliance with applicable mitigation measures; furthermore, the
City's code enforcement staff will monitor on-going development of the Golden Valley
Ranch Project.
(17) That the grading plans shows infringement (Via Princessa "realignment"
& Lost Oak Road boundary) on Fair Oaks Ranch common property (albeit
in the name of Pardee Construction) & that such infringement renders
whatever entitlement moot
Grading activity that will occur along Via Princessa for the roadway realignment is not
the subject of this Appeal. The southerly extension of Via Princessa to connect with
Golden Valley Road is part of TTM 52414, which was approved in January 2002. Site
preparation for the two commercial super pads will not involve any off-site grading or
encroachment onto property within the Fair Oaks Ranch community.
11
(18) That concise perspective/rendering (eg straight-line human perception
scaled in accordance with the grading plans) must be developed/
demonstrated for both community adjuncts as the "big box" (Lowe's
etc.) structures as seen from eg Fair Oaks Ranch elementary school, the
Hunter's Ridge component of the Fair Oaks Ranch community and the La
Mesa ridge.
The applicant has prepared photo simulations which illustrate that the majority of the
commercial center buildings located on the northern commercial pad are set far enough
back from the Fair Oaks Ranch area so as not to be seen from the existing residences.
Specifically, Pad A is located 790 linear feet (0.15 mile) and the northeast corner of the
Lowe's building is located 835 linear feet (0.16 mile) from the terminus of Shannon
Ridge Place within the Fair Oaks Ranch neighborhood. The difference in elevation of the
Fair Oaks Ranch neighborhood (which is situated lower), as well as the landscaping to be
planted along the ridgeline, will shield views of the freeway and the Commercial Center
structures from the closest residences on Shannon Ridge Court. The northeast comer of
the Lowe's building may be visible from some residences in the area, however, this is not
expected to be a negative visual impact because the Fair Oaks/Canyon Country area is
suburban in character with a mix of residential, commercial, and institutional land uses as
well as major roadway infrastructure including SR 14, Sierra Highway, and Via
Princessa. The architecture of the commercial center will be compatible with the
architecture of the surrounding area and buffered by landscaping to soften the appearance
of the structures. As the trees along the ridgetop mature, the appearance will be further
softened.
The commercial structures to be located on the southern commercial super pad will not
be visible from the Fair Oaks Ranch neighborhood because of the distance and change in
topography. A short segment of Golden Valley Road will be visible, however, this will
not create either a land use or an aesthetic impact on adjacent properties. Furthermore,
conditions of approval have been imposed with regard to landscaping and grading to
ensure that the Commercial Center has a sensitive interface with the Fair Oaks Ranch
Community to the north. With regard to the Appeal's request for additional line -of -site
renderings, the locations for the renderings that were prepared were chosen based upon
the goal of providing input on those specific locations based upon there sensitivity. The
City believes that the existing renderings provide an accurate depiction of the potential
visual impacts of the commercial center.
(19) That agency/policing powers must be affirmatively exercised in lieu of
rubberstamping/republishing developer's requests/rendering (ditto
scaling/abating non-mitigatible impact).
Consistent with CEQA, the City exercises its own independent judgment when evaluating
materials submitted by the applicant. This includes hiring independent consultants to
review the submissions in order to supplement the City's in-house staff expertise. The
City, as the lead agency, undertook an extensive CEQA process which included the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, additional studies and recirculation of
the EIR, and numerous public hearings before the Planning Commission and City
12
Council before the EIR was certified and Golden Valley Ranch Project approved, with
conditions. The City has conducted independent analysis of the Golden Valley Ranch
project, as well as the entitlements related to commercial center operation. Also, the
City's Transportation and Engineering Department staff have conducted an in-depth
review of the renderings and other materials, evaluating them against the grading plans
submitted for the Golden Valley Ranch Project.
(20) That the proposed 15 foot block wall around the commercial center will be
unreasonable and unobtrusive and simply enhance the crudity/visibility of
the big -box depots on top of the ridge lines.
A retaining wall will not surround the commercial uses on the northern commercial pad.
One, 400 -foot -long retaining wall is proposed along the SR 14 frontage on the northwest
corner of the northern commercial super pad, which is shown on the site plan for the
northern commercial pad. The wall will range in height and measure 15 feet at its highest
point. The block wall is required due to the topography of the commercial center site.
Approximately 200 feet of the retaining wall is situated behind the Lowe's building. The
remaining 200 feet will be shielded by parking lot landscaping. The Lowe's building and
parking lot landscaping will shield views of the site from the east. The retaining wall was
evaluated as part of the Development Review process for the Commercial Center
entitlements.
(21) That the storm water discharge into the Santa Clarita River/FOR storm
basing must be in condition in accordance with the provisions of 33
United States Code § 1311(b)(1)(C).
Consistent with the appellant's request, the Commercial Center is subject to the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Conditions of Approval
of the Commercial Center require that an urban storm water mitigation plan that
incorporates best management practices be approved prior to issuance of any grading or
building permits. Further, prior to grading, the Golden Valley Ranch Project must obtain
a general construction permit pursuant to the City's municipal storm water permit,
including a storm water pollution prevention plan ("SWWP") prior to obtaining a grading
permit.
Section C of the Appeal "Supplemental EIR"
Section C of the Appeal entitled "Supplemental EIR" states as follows:
Pursuant to CEQA, and specifically Public Resources Code Sec. 21166 and
CEQA Guideline 15162, a Supplemental EIR is required if 1) substantial changes
occur with respect to circumstances under which the project is being undertaken
that will require major revisions to the EIR, or 2) new information is available
that is of substantial importance to the project which was not known and could
not have been known when the EIR was certified. Factors to be considered
include new impacts not studied in the EIR, impacts that would be substantially
13
more severe than previously rendered, or new mitigation measures now
available.
As stated in Guideline 15164, an Addendum is only to be used in the case of
minor technical changes or additions to the project. Our argument is that the City
is improperly using an Addendum for these new approvals when it should be
requiring a Supplemental EIR.
The primary argument is that the proposed Addendum to many of the studies
which form the basis of the previous EIR are old and that new studies are
required to assess the actual current impacts. First and foremost is the fact that
the EIR was prepared before the Fair Oaks community was built and occupied,
and that actual impacts can now be assessed where only potential impacts were
reviewed before. More specifically whereas (1) the EIR Geotechnical report was
done in 1997 and that ground water and seismic data and policies have changed
since that time.
(2) the Air Quality report was based on 1993 -1997 data and that new data shows
significant reductions in air quality (eg crisis PM10 count) in the region (3) the
Hydrology data is based on a 1998 report which does not consider new policies
implemented in the area regarding water availability (4) the Biology study is
based on 1992-1998 data which does not consider more recent findings (5) the
Noise study is based on 1995 and 1998 data which predates the Fair Oaks Ranch
development (6) the Aesthetics analysis does not include an accurate analysis of
impacts from Fair Oaks Ranch, and (7) the Traffic data dates back to 1994 and is
no longer accurate.
Section C of the Appeal entitled "Supplemental EIR" restates the applicable legal
standard for the City to be authorized to require a supplemental EIR where, as is the case
here, a certified EIR exists. Section C indicates that the primary argument that a new EIR
should be required is that the Initial Study/Addendum relies upon outdated studies and
that new studies are required to assess current impacts. As noted above, CEQA does not
require updating of studies in prior EIRs except under one or more of the events
enumerated in Section 21166 and the Appeal provides no evidence that such studies
should be prepared.
Section C also argues that EIR was prepared before the Fair Oaks Community was built
and occupied. As noted above, the Golden Valley Ranch EIR did include an analysis of
the impacts of the proposed Golden Valley Ranch Project on the Fair Oaks Ranch
Community that was then under development.
In addition, Section C of the Appeal argues that new geotechnical, air quality, hydrology,
biology, noise, aesthetics, and traffic studies are required to analyze the Commercial
Center entitlements because prior studies are outdated and/or do not include a discussion
of the Fair Oaks Ranch Community. As noted above, CEQA does not require perpetual
updates of prior studies. To the extent necessary to support the Initial Study/Addendum
prepared for the Commercial Center, the City has conducted additional analysis after
14
certification of the EIR through the development review process. The Commercial
Center entitlement package has been examined to ensure consistency with TTM 52414
and that no new impacts would result from implementation of the commercial center.
Section D of the Appeal "Appeal Specifics"
Section D entitled "Appeal Specifics" essentially contains a restatement of 13 different
issues involving the Appeal stated elsewhere in the Appeal.
1) Mitigating/abating the GVR impact on the Fair Oaks Ranch community specifically
Please see response to Appeal Section B.6 above.
2) Compiling/circulating a new traffic study
Please see response in Appeal Section C above.
3) Compiling/circulating detailed geotechnical designs/calculations
Please see response to Appeal Sections B.12 through B.17 above.
4) Compiling/circulating a complete%omprehensive storm water audit
The Golden Valley Ranch Project will be required to comply with all applicable state and
local regulations with regard to storm water quality, including applicable conditions of
approval. Please see response to Appeal Section B.21 above.
5) Compiling/circulating a complete%omprehensive grading/balance audit
The Golden Valley Ranch Project will be required to comply with all applicable state and
local regulations with regard to grading, including applicable conditions of approval.
6) Rectifying Via Princessa routing, filling the canyon adjacent to the Park on FOR
common property as well as grading on Fair Oaks Ranch property adjacent to Lost
Canyon Road
The extension of Via Princessa and on- and off-site grading activity are not part of the
Commercial Center entitlement package and therefore, are not under consideration.
7) Evaluating the impact of the slated Community Commercial component of the GVR as
well as the adjacent Albertsons/FOR development in unity/simultaneously with the
Commercial pads
Please see response to Appeal Section B.5 above.
8) Petitioning Pardee Construction to return/convey ALL Fair Oaks Ranch common
property
15
Matters related to Fair Oaks Ranch property are not part of the Commercial Center
entitlement package and, therefore, are not under consideration.
9) Limiting stormwater effluent content in accordance with the respective state/Federal
water quality standards (2003 ruling)
The Golden Valley Ranch Project will be required to comply with all applicable federal,
state and local regulations with regard to storm water quality, including applicable
conditions of approval. Please see response to Appeal Section B.21 above.
10) Presenting concise perspective/renderings (eg straight-line human perception) for
both community adjuncts as "big box" structures (ditto replacing peripheral wall with a
dirt berm plus landscaping)
Please see response to Appeal Section B.18 above
11) Exercising policing/agency powers verbatim in lieu of simply
rubberstamping/republishing developer's requests/renderings (ditto scaling/abating non-
mitigateable impacts in accordance with CEQA protocol)
Please see response to Appeal Section B.19 above.
12) Abating the Commercial component/pads <verbatim> in accordance with the
proposed "Ridgeline"fit inasmuch as mitigating the obtrusive impact, risk of destruction
& lateral interference with the Fair Oaks Ranch development
Matters related to ridgeline fint and grading -related mitigation are not part of the
Commercial Center entitlement package and, therefore, are not under consideration.
13) Rerunning/recertifying the EIR OR conducting a supplemental EIR hence for the
GVR in TOTALITY.
As explained in more detail above, the time in which to challenge the EIR for the Golden
Valley Ranch Project has lapsed and the circumstances that are required in order for the
City to require a subsequent or supplemental EIR are not present in this case.
Section E of the Appeal "Special Mitigation Items (details to be deliberated)"
1) No liquid or solid material runoff from the commercial or residential development and
any associated roads or parking lots will enter the catch basin adjacent to and on the
west side of the west cul-de-sacs of Shannon Ridge Place, Owl Court, and Nightingale
(ditto 33 United States Code section 1311(b)(1)(C) compliance)
Stormwater currently flows from the Golden Valley Ranch site to the existing Los
Angeles County stormwater debris basin located on the southern portion of the Fair Oaks
16
Ranch community. Post -construction conditions will not divert any stormwater flows
and, in addition, will not increase the volume of runoff into this area. Los Angeles
County Flood Control reviews and approves the levels of post -construction stormwater
flow that go through that area per all appropriate standards.
2) No construction within 1,000 feet of Fair Oaks Ranch property lines will be permitted
outside of these timeframes <<Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific
Time>>. No construction noise from the Golden Valley Ranch development should be
audible outdoors in the Fair Oaks Ranch community outside of this timeframe. This is in
addition to the mitigation measures to be enforced by the City of Santa Clarita
The applicant is required to comply with Chapter 11.44 of the City's Municipal Code,
which limits construction hours to Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.,
Saturdays 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and no work is permitted on Sundays and legal holidays.
3) Posts signs for all trucks deliveries to come in and out of Golden Valley Road at State
Highway 14
Lost Canyon Road and Via Princessa are arterial level roadways per the City and County
General Plans. Arterial level roadways are designed to accommodate truck traffic, and
specifically truck traffic destined to commercial centers. This is consistent with the
City's General Plan, which states that arterials provide through access to large volumes of
traffic between major activity locations and generators. Therefore, it would be
inappropriate to post signs prohibiting truck traffic on arterial level roadways.
4) Posts ("No Trucks" signs on Lost Canyon (south of Via Princessa) and Via Princessa
(east of Lost Canyon) <need specific's, i.e. commercial vehicles over xx Tons, etc>
These specific locations mentioned for weight restriction signs (Lost Canyon Road, south
of Via Princessa and Via Princessa, east of Lost Canyon Road) are in the unincorporated
area of the County of Los Angeles, not within the City of Santa Clarita.
5) Post 35 MPH speed limit on Via Princessa and Lost Canyon.
The setting of speed limits are determined by specific guidelines established by the State
of California and outlined in the California Vehicle Code. If a local agency (City or
County) sets speed limits lower than that determined by an official engineering and
traffic survey, the courts will not allow radar enforcement. All arterial streets within the
City limits (including portions of Via Princessa and Lost Canyon Road) were surveyed in
2000 and the speed limits were established or re-established accordingly. In order for the
Fair Oaks Ranch community to obtain lower speed limits for the segments of Via
Princessa and Lost Canyon Road that are within unincorporated Los Angeles County, the
citizens will need to contact the County directly.
6) Lights and Landscaping design for Commercial Center should address light and noise
pollution as to minimize impacts to Fair Oaks Ranch community, particularly those
17
residences that are closest to the Commercial Center. Lights and Landscaping design for
Lost Canyon Extension should address light and noise pollution as to minimize impacts
to Fair Oaks Ranch community, particularly those residences whose backyards face Lost
Canyon.
Lighting will be provided throughout the commercial center site for the parking areas and
the buildings. The height of the proposed parking lot light standards will not exceed 30
feet in height and the applicant has submitted a photometric survey to demonstrate
compliance with the UDC. Upon reviewing the photometric study, staff determined that
commercial center lighting will not spill over onto adjacent properties and, therefore,
commercial center lighting conforms with the UDC. In addition, a condition has been
placed on the commercial center entitlements which requires that all on-site light sources
be directed downward and shielded to prevent glare and spill over onto adjacent streets
and properties.
In addition, the Golden Valley Ranch Environmental Impact Report analyzed light and
glare impacts in Section 4.6, Light and Glare and included mitigation measures to reduce
impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure AES -2(a) states, "Light
fixtures that shield excessive brightness at night shall be included in the lighting plan.
Non -glare lighting shall be used." Also, Mitigation Measure AES -2(c) states that, "All
on-site street lighting shall use cutoff luminaries instead of semi -cutoff luminaries. This
would avoid creating high levels of glare and light pollution for motorists." Lost Canyon
Road will be extended as part of TTM 52414 implementation to serve the Golden Valley
Ranch site. All lighting will be installed in accordance with City standards for roadways.
7) Lights and Landscaping design for Via Princessa should address light and noise
pollution as to minimize impacts to Fair Oaks Ranch community, particularly to
residences whose backyards face Via Princessa
Lighting and landscaping for Via Princessa are not part of the Commercial Center
entitlement package and, therefore, are not under consideration.
8) Lights and Landscaping design for Golden Valley Road should address light and noise
pollution as to minimize impacts to Fair Oaks Ranch community, particularly to
residences with visibility to Golden Valley Road
Lighting and landscaping for Golden Valley Road are not part of the Commercial Center
entitlement package and, therefore, are not under consideration.
9) Place a berm wall on the northern section of Golden Valley Road that faces the Fair
Oak Ranch cul-de-sacs of Shannon Ridge, Owl Court and Nightingale
The design of Golden Valley Road is not part of the Commercial Center entitlement
package and, therefore, is not under consideration.
18
10) The developer and/or City of Santa Clarita will do a baseline noise measurement on
the West cul-de-sacs of Shannon Ridge Place, Owl Court, and Nightingale and provide
any Fair Oaks Ranch resident with all measurement results upon request. This
measurement will be done over a timeframe of <xz days> during days and hours the
construction activity is scheduled to occur
Noise impacts related to the development of the Golden Valley Ranch Project were
analyzed as part of the Golden Valley Ranch Environmental Impact Report. Section 4.5,
Noise of the Golden Valley Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report identifies the Fair
Oaks Ranch residential community as a sensitive receptor. The Final EIR states
that,"The noise level at sensitive receptor locations from grading operations in the
western portion of the project site was calculated based on the number and type of
equipment expected to be used for the proposed project." Therefore, noise measurements
were collected to fully identify the extent of noise -related impacts and are included in
Appendix C of the Final EIR. In addition, mitigation measures to reduce potential noise -
related impacts were developed as part of this environmental analysis and will be
implemented during the construction period. Mitigation measures include muffling
diesel equipment, use of noise attenuation techniques such as sound blankets and sound
barriers, and limitations on construction hours. These measures will reduce noise -related
impacts to a less than significant level.
In addition, a supplemental acoustical study, conducted by Purcell + Noppe + Associates,
Inc., was prepared to study the noise conditions that are expected to occur at the existing
residential properties located in the Fair Oaks Ranch development to the north and east of
the easternmost property line due to the typical day-to-day operation of the Commercial
Center. This supplemental acoustical study is available in the City Council's reading file.
A series of acoustical on-site measurements were taken, as well as measurements at an
operating Lowe's facility located in Canoga Park to be used for comparison purposes.
These measurements included the noise generated by typical on-site activities such as:
unloading of delivery trucks; forklift operations; back-up beeps from trucking; local
automotive traffic; motorcycle drive-bys; car alarms; and noise from permanently -
mounted equipment serving the Lowe's facility. The acoustical study concluded that "the
normal day-to-day activity occurring on the Commercial Center site would be inaudible
within the interior of any of the residences located in the Fair Oaks Ranch development,
and only occasionally, subject to weather conditions, would sounds from the shopping
center be audible at the exterior of those properties located in the quietest areas along the
western boundary of the residential development."
11) The developer and/or City of Santa Clarita will do an air quality measurement on the
West cul-de-sacs of Shannon Ridge Place, Owl Court, and Nightingale and provide any
Fair Oaks Ranch resident with all measurement results upon request. This measurement
will be done over a timeframe of <xx days> during days and hours the construction
activity is scheduled to occur
Air quality mitigation measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, which was adopted by the City Council in January 2002 and is part of the Final
19
Environmental Impact Report for the Golden Valley Ranch Project. These mitigation
measures include activities and monitoring to reduce construction -related air quality
impacts. Specifically, this will include general dust controls measures, fugutive dust
control measures, and ozone precursor control measures, among others.
12) The CSC will monitor noise levels on the west cul-de-sacs of Shannon Ridge Place,
Owl Court, and Nightingale daily, and provide any Fair Oaks Ranch resident with
measurement results upon request. Ditto providing funds for FOR to hire a third party to
do this monitoring.
See answer to #10 above.
Section F of the Appeal "Ridgeline Fit"
Abate%onsolidate the commercial lots in accordance with the illustrated Ridgeline fit as
appended.
A handdrawn graphic was attached to the Appeal which reduces the size of the northern
commercial superpad by half to create a greater buffer between the Golden Valley Ranch
site and the Fair Oaks Ranch community. The grading and pad sizes and locations were
determined as part of TTM 52414 approval by the City Council in January 2002.
Topographic changes combined with a landscaped slope along the northern commercial
pad, in addition to the L.A. County Flood Control debris basin and Fair Oaks Ranch
Homeowner Association slopes provide a natural buffer between the nearest residences
and the edge of the northern commercial pad. Therefore, additional buffering is not
needed.
Opposition Testimony at February 17, 2004, Planning Commission Public Hearing
Staff has carefully reviewed testimony by the opponents at the February 17, 2004
hearing. The bulk of the issues raised at the Planning Commission hearing are also raised
in the written Appeal discussed above. With regard to those issues raised at the Planning
Commission hearing (but not in the Appeal), staff has the following brief comments:
With respect to concerns regarding the accuracy of the fiscal impacts of the Commercial
Center, the City has reviewed the Fiscal Impact Analysis and has determined that the
Golden Valley Ranch Project would yield a net positive impact to the City's General
Fund ranging from $1.13 million to $1.16 million annually after 10 years based on the
buildout of 50 commercial acres and the residential area. The City calculations and
PacSun's revenue calculations show a positive net impact to the City after expenditures
are considered.
With respect to grading in Fair Oaks Ranch as a result of the Via Princessa Extension,
such grading is not within the scope of the Appeal.
20
Similarly, concerns expressed regarding Fair Oaks Park are not within the scope of the
Appeal. The Fair Oaks Park is not located within the City of Santa Clarita. However,
please note that Fair Oaks Park will not be modified as part of the Via Princessa roadway
realignment.
21