Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-10-30 - AGENDA REPORTS - WESTFIELD TOWN CENTER APPEAL (2)PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented by: October 30, 2007 Lisa Hardy 13 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A 331,860 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION OF THE WESTFIELD TOWN CENTER EAST MALL DEPARTMENT: Community Development RECOMMENDED ACTIO Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission to adopt a resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Master Case 06-122 (Tentative Parcel Map 68039, Conditional Use Permit 06-011 and Minor Use Permit 06-025) to allow for the 331,860 square foot addition to the Westfield Town Center East Mall, BACKGROUND On May 30, 2006, Westfield Corporation, Inc. (herein referred to as the "applicant") submitted an application for the expansion of the Town Center East Mall. The proposal is to add 331,860 square feet of area for retail and restaurant uses. Planning Commission Approval The Town Center East Mall expansion proposal was presented by City staff and the applicant to the Planning Commission for their consideration and review during a series of three public hearings (May 15, 2007, June 5, 2007 and July 17, 2007) and was approved by the Planning Commission on July 17, 2007. Stages 1 and 2 were approved, however, Stage 3 was removed from the approval by the Planning Commission at the request of the applicant. Stage 3 consisted of one building for a future major tenant. The applicant has stated that they will be submitting a separate application for this major tenant in the future. Adopted: Leso,, :--�--7b During the public comment process, specific comments were provided regarding the existing parking conditions at a separate but neighboring property to the project, the Town Center West Mall retail/entertainment area. After close review of the Town Center West parking issues mentioned during the public hearings, the Planning Commission determined that the issues raised are independent of the Town Center East expansion and, therefore, should be addressed though a separate city process with INVESCO, Inc., the owners and managers of the two Town Center West parking structures. Staff has also reviewed the matter with the City Attorney's office and the City Attorney concurs that all discussions and actions for this evening's City Council meeting shall be focused on to the Town Center East project proposal. The existing parking issues at the Town Center West are being addressed through a MUP (Minor Use Permit) process pending before the Planning Commission. Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval An appeal of the Town Center East Mall Expansion was submitted to the City Clerk's office on August 1, 2007 by HackerBraly, LLP on behalf of their clients, Salt Creek Grille and Poquito Mas. The letter sites reasons for the appeal as "long existing parking, traffic management and public safety issues" on the Town Center West Mall property. The letter of appeal is attached to this agenda item for the Council's review. In addition, for the Council's reference, please see the attached brief summary of the Town Center West that is being reviewed at separate proceedings and is unrelated to the item before the Council this evening. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed Expansion The project is an expansion to the Town Center East Mall which would include detached pads, as well as, additions to the existing enclosed building. The proposed expansion would include 331,860 square feet of commercial uses within two construction stages. The proposed expansion would be made to various areas around the Town Center East Mall, including an outdoor pedestrian corridor between the anchor department stores (Macy's and Sears), a two-story addition to the Macy's Department Store and two additional retail pads to the parking area at the northwest corner of Citrus Drive and Magic Mountain Parkway. Landscaped surface parking areas will also be provided, in addition to two parking structures. The expansion would be developed in two stages (1 and 2). Development of this project would occur in sequential order. Stage 1 would include 190,000 square feet of shopping center uses including retail and restaurant uses located within the southeastern portion of the site and designed to be compatible with the existing shopping center buildings and connected by landscaped promenades and plazas. In addition, two single -level retail pads, Pad 2 and 3, shown on the attached site plan, totaling 20,500 square feet of building area would be constructed at the signalized entrance to the site along the Valencia Boulevard frontage. Stage 1 would also include the construction of a two-level, 50,000 square -foot expansion to the existing Macy's. Thus, the total building area for Stage 1 is 260,500 square feet. During Stage 1, the applicant is also proposing to import approximately 41,000 square feet of earth to the site. Stage 2 would include the development of approximately 71,360 square feet of commercial space (restaurant and retail uses) in a two-story structure located just south of the intersection of Magic Mountain Parkway and Citrus Drive. Both parking structures will be constructed accordingly to the required amount of parking spaces. Entitlement Requests The application includes the following entitlements: • A Tentative Parcel Map is requested to move existing property lines. Town Center East is comprised of 23 lots. The parcel map would move property lines to dissolve lots and create nine lots. • A Conditional Use Permit is required because the proposed expansion would exceed 35 feet in height. The proposed `lifestyle' center, which is Stage 1 of the project (an addition adjacent to the existing main entrance to the enclosed mall) would be 55'-6" in height, the higher portions of the buildings being architectural projections at no more than 60'. Other buildings would range between 16' and 48' in height. The two-story additions to the Macy's and the Stage 2 retail would be a maximum height of 60'. All new buildings and additions to existing buildings would not exceed two stories, with the exception of the parking structures. The five -level parking structure would be 69' high, (88' high measured from the top of the light standards on the rooftop). The three-level parking structure would be 24' high (42' measured from the top of the light standards). • A Minor Use Permit has been submitted to allow alcohol service and consumption at 10 proposed restaurants included as part of the expansion. The restaurants would serve alcohol accessory to the food service use that would occur. As part of the minor use permit, the applicant also proposes to import 41,000 cubic yards of earth to the site. Parking The Town Center East Mall was built with 723,411 square feet of retail and restaurant uses with an overall square footage of 905,102 square feet that includes the indoor atrium and enclosed pedestrian corridors. The required amount of parking spaces at the time when Town Center East Mall was constructed was 2,894 spaces, based on four parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet. However, 3,787 parking spaces were provided with the anticipation that these additional spaces would be needed to expand the mall in the future. Since the development of the existing Town Center East Mall, the UDC has been modified to require five parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet for large commercial developments, rather than four parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet. Under the existing UDC parking requirements, the proposed 331,860 square foot expansion is required to provide a total of 1,660 parking spaces. Thus, the proposed expansion and the existing Town Center East Mall would require a total of 4,554 parking spaces based on what was originally required when the mall was constructed and what is required today for the 331,860 square foot expansion. The applicant is anticipating in providing up to a total of 5,409 parking spaces for the two stages of development (855 spaces more than what is required by the UDC) with the appropriate amount of parking spaces being provided for each stage, including the existing Town Center East Mall. The additional 855 parking spaces are anticipated to accommodate a future building for a major mall tenant that will require separate approvals. Parking will be provided with surface spaces and parking structures. The existing surface parking will be added to with new spaces in areas that are not currently paved, including those along Magic Mountain Parkway, Citrus Drive and Valencia Boulevard and at the Valencia Boulevard/McBean Parkway intersection. There are two parking structures proposed with the expansion. The three-level parking structure located on the northwest corner of Citrus Drive and Valencia Boulevard (adjacent to the existing Sears pad) would house a total of 396 spaces. The second parking facility would be a five -story structure and located along the Magic Mountain Parkway frontage (close to the existing JC Penny pad). This structure will provide a total of 1,708 spaces. Landscaping will be planted along the exterior facades of the parking structures, similar to the parking structure landscaping provided throughout Town Center West. Architecture & Landscaping The applicant has submitted architectural elevations for the proposed stages of development. Staff has worked with the applicant, as well as the City's Architectural Consultant, RRM Design Group, to design an expansion that matches the existing facility, and is similar in scale and design to the uses along Town Center Drive. The applicant and City staff have agreed that the Town Center Drive theme shall be integrated into the proposed expansion and architectural details, such as parapets, varying rooflines and pop -outs, to further articulate the buildings. The applicant will be required to return to the Planning Commission with architectural elevations, colors and materials for each building prior to building permit approval. Preliminary architectural renderings are attached to this report. These elevations are representative of the proposed theme of the buildings and parking structures. The applicant has submitted a conceptual landscape plan that lists the species and locations of shrubs and trees, including parking lot trees and landscaping in the common areas. A condition of approval has been drafted requiring the applicant to provide enhanced landscaping at entry points on Valencia Boulevard and in front of the parking structure along Magic Mountain Parkway. Further refinement and approval of a detailed landscaping plan will be required prior to issuance of grading permits. Lifestyle Center Environment Similar to the Town Center Drive concept, Westfield has designed the expansion as a lifestyle center that offers a rich, visually -stimulating environment that encourages social interaction in outdoor, public spaces. The project is designed with focal points to define the space, pedestrian corridors for window shopping and strolling, and open-air plazas that offer places to sit and take in the scene. Permanent, fixed shopping kiosks are positioned throughout to add variety and interest. Restaurants will offer outdoor seating to also provide opportunities for "people watching" and an experience of the town center scene. Pedestrian -scale architecture and enhancements, to include storefront windows, awnings, and special fixtures, will be applied to appeal to patrons and create a place that is enjoyable. Also, a combination of hardscape, landscape and shade structures will be incorporated to direct pedestrian traffic, offer shaded areas and provide relief to the built environment. Other elements include street furniture and a water feature to create a fun, playful environment. The "living room concept," which includes lounge chairs surrounding a fire pit, will appeal to adults, while the children's plaza provides an area for families. This lifestyle center is designed to accommodate daytime and evening activity, catering to employees from nearby offices on their lunch breaks during the work week, and providing a destination for enjoyment in evenings and on weekends. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW On May 7, 2007, staff circulated the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the expansion. This NOP was distributed to the California State Clearinghouse for distribution. The MND was circulated for the 30 -day public review and comment period which started on May 7, 2007. The MND concluded all impacts associated with the project can be mitigated. PUBLIC REVIEW The public notices for the October 23, 2007 City Council hearing were sent to property owners within 1,000 feet of Town Center East on October 2, 2007. A notice was published in the local newspaper on October 2, 2007. The project site was posted with a notice of public hearing sign on October 9, 2007. Members of the community have contacted staff by phone and in person to review the proposed site plan. Questions have included the types of businesses that will occupy the expansion area, as well as the location of the proposed parking structures. TERNATIVE ACTIONS Other action as determined by the Council. FISCAL IMPACT No negative fiscal impact is anticipated. The entire cost of development and operation of the proposed project will be paid in full by the applicant. Bridge and Thoroughfare fees (B&T fees) will be collected from the applicant for the 331,860 square foot addition. After project completion, it is anticipated that City will have tax revenue from retail sales in the estimated amount of $60,000.00 a month. PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENTS IN REPORT DATED OCTOBER 23, 2007 ATTACHMENTS Resolution Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) Mitigated Negative Declaration Appeal Letter Public Comment Letter Site Plan/Elevations/Renderings Tentative Parcel Map 68039 Town Center West Summary (Attachement A) NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, at its regular meeting held October 23, 2007, continued a public hearing on 13. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A 331,860 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION OF THE WESTFIELD TOWN CENTER EAST MALL - A request to appeal the approval of the Planning Commission's July 17, 2007 approval of the Town Center expansion. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission to adopt a resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Master Case 06-122 (Tentative Parcel Map 68039, Conditional Use Permit 06-011 and Minor Use Permit 06-025) to allow for the 331,860 square foot addition to the Westfield Town Center East Mall. to October 30, 2007. The continued public hearing will be held at or after 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California. Dated this 24`h day of October, 2007. �r SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK *************************************************************** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) SHARON L. DAWSON, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the duly appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita and that on October 24, 2007, she caused the above notice to be posted at the door of the Council Chamber located at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California. SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK Santa Clarita, California PubHrg/contph.doc RESOLUTION NO. 07- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING MASTER CASE NO. 06-122 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 68039, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-011, MINOR USE PERMIT 06-025) AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE 331,860 SQUARE FOOT TOWN CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF VALENCIA BOULEVARD AND MCBEAN PARKWAY, SOUTH OF MAGIC MOUNTAIN PARKWAY AND WEST OF CITRUS DRIVE IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. An application for Master Case 06-122 was filed by the project applicant Westfield Corporation, Inc. (the "applicant") with the City of Santa Clarita on May 30, 2006. The entitlement request (collectively, "Entitlements") included: i. Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 68039 to consolidate the property lines of 23 contiguous lots on the project site to allow for the construction of a 331,860 square foot expansion of the existing Westfield Town Center Mall East; ii. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 06-011 to allow building heights in excess of 35 feet for a total building height of 60', including a 42' tall three-level parking structure and a 88' tall five -level parking structure; and iii. Minor Use Permit (MUP) 06-025 for the import of 41,000 cubic yards of earth to the project site and for accessory alcohol service at 10 restaurants that would be located in the expansion area. b. The application was deemed complete on April 30, 2007; c. The project site, Westfield Town Center Mall East, is located at 24201 Valencia Boulevard, on 72.8 acres at the northeast corner of Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway. Town Center East consists of 23 contiguous parcels of land that have been developed with 905,102 square feet of building area and 3,787 surface parking spaces; d. The Unified Development Code (UDC) land use designation for the project site is Commercial Town Center (CTC). The General Plan designates the site as CTC with a Valley Center Concept (VCC) Overlay, which allows for a range of uses associated with a regional mall and allows a floor area ratio of 2:1 to 4:1. With the proposed expansion, the Town Center Mall will have a 39% floor area ratio, which is within range of the allowable FAR for the site; e. The surrounding land uses consist of a commercial center, offices, City Hall and the Los Angeles County Civic Center to the east; auto dealerships and a commercial center to the north; offices, attached condominiums and a commercial center to the south; and a gas station, restaurant, and Town Center West (retail/entertainment/offices/dining) to the west of the site. The subject property is immediately bordered to the north by Magic Mountain Parkway, to the south by Valencia Boulevard, and to the west by McBean Parkway (all designated Major Highways by the City's General Plan); f. This project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Initial Study was prepared. The initial study determined that the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment with mitigation. The City of Santa Clarita prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project which determined that the proposed project would have less than significant impacts; g. The project was posted in the local newspaper and mailed to property owners in accordance with the noticing requirements for a conditional use permit, minor use permit and tentative parcel map on April 24, 2007 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration public review period began on May 7, 2007 and was posted in the local newspaper in accordance with the CEQA notification requirements; h. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this issue commencing on May 15, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The Planning Commission considered the staff presentation, staff report, applicant presentation and public testimony on the proposal. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to June 5, 2007; i. On June 5, 2007, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed continued public hearing on this issue at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this hearing, the Commission considered the staff presentation, staff report, applicant presentation and public testimony on the proposal. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to July 17, 2007; On July 17, 2007, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed continued public hearing on this issue at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this hearing, the Commission considered the staff presentation, staff report, applicant presentation and public testimony on the proposal. During the meeting, the Planning Commission gave direction to staff to remove Stage 3 from the approval documents and voted to approve Stages 1 and 2 of the Town Center East expansion project; k. By action of the Planning Commission on July 17, 2007, the applicant was granted approval to construct a 331,860 square foot expansion of the Westfield Town Center East Mall with two parking structures; 2 1. On August 1, 2007, the action of the Planning Commission was appealed by HackerBraly, LLP, representing Salt Creek Grille and Original Baja Taco Stand, LLC (Poquito Mas); in. On October 23, 2007, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this hearing, the Council considered the staff presentation, staff report, applicant presentation and public testimony on the proposal; and n. On October 23, 2007, the City Council denied the appeal and affirmed the Planning Commission's approval of the 331,860 square foot expansion of the Westfield Town Center East Mall with two parking structures. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the Valencia Town Center East expansion project, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Valencia Town Center East expansion project, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and on behalf of each, the City Council finds, as follows: a. An Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); b. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, and all comments received, have been considered. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on May 7, 2007, in accordance with CEQA. The public review period was open from May 7, 2007 through June 5, 2007; C. There is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Santa Clarita; d. The location of the documents and other material which constitutes the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is the Master Case 06-122 project file within the Community Development Department and is in the custody of the Director of Community Development; and e. The City Council, based upon the findings set forth above, hereby finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. SECTION 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the Valencia Town Center East expansion project, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings 3 held on the Valencia Town Center East expansion project, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and on behalf of each, the City Council finds, as follows: a. That the proposed location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed use is in accordance with the purpose of this Development Code, the purpose of the zone in which the site is located, the Santa Clarita General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City; The City's Unified Development Code (UDC) designates the site Commercial Town Center (CTC). The proposed 331,860 square foot expansion to Westfield Town Center Mall and two accessory parking structures have been designed in accordance with the UDC and the City's Architectural Design Guidelines. The UDC requires that all projects exceeding 35 feet in height obtain a conditional use permit. The expansion is proposed to contain buildings 60' maximum in overall height. In addition, two parking structures are proposed that would exceed 35 feet in height. The first parking structure is proposed to be 24' high (42' maximum height measured from the top of the light standards) and a second parking structure is proposed to be 69' in height (88' maximum height from the top of the light standards). Town Center is considered a regional mall facility for the Santa Clarita Valley and has been developed with 905,102 square feet of building area used as an enclosed mall. The proposed mall expansion will operate in a manner consistent with the Commercial Town Center CTC) zone with the approval of the conditional use permit. The General Plan designation for the site is CTC with a Valley Concept Center (VCC) Overlay. This overlay designates the project site as a regional mall facility for the Santa Clarita Valley and allows flexibility in development standards to encourage the development of an intensive floor area (2:1 to 4:1) for a wide range of uses including residential, office, retail and hotel. The expansion of Town Center East will support and compliment the existing commercial uses, residences, offices, restaurants, and hotel in the vicinity. Based on the design of the proposed uses and structures, the project will be compatible with the neighboring uses, because attention is given to the design, materials, colors and landscape materials of the existing and proposed mall facility to ensure consistency with the existing development. b. That the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with and will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, residents, buildings, structures, or natural resources, with consideration given to: 1. Harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density; E The Town Center East Expansion is located on a site designated as a regional mall facility. The site is designated CTC and is subject to all of the development standards for this zone. The site also carries a VCC Overlay designation that promotes more intensive uses and development standards to encourage the development of a regional facility for the Santa Clarita Valley. The VCC Overlay allows for a higher floor area ratio (FAR) than the underlying zoning designation. The proposed expansion, including the existing 905,102 square feet, would have a FAR of 39%, which does not exceed the allowable FAR for the site, and therefore, complies with the FAR allowed by the VCC Overlay. The parking lot and parking structures will also be accommodated on the project site. The expansion is proposed to contain buildings 60' maximum in overall height. In addition, two parking structures are proposed that would exceed 35 feet in height. The first parking structure is proposed to be 24' high (42' maximum height measured from the top of the light standards) and a second parking structure is proposed to be 69' in height (88' maximum height from the top of the light standards).The proposed expansion is in harmony with the existing Town Center Mall as the expansion is similar in height to the existing buildings and will be compatible with the multi -family residential, retail, and office uses that are adjacent to and in proximity to the project site. The proposed development and use is conforming to all of the setback requirements as well as all landscaping requirements for the CTC zone. 2. The availability of public facilities, services, and utilities; The project site is located in a developed portion of the City of Santa Clarita that is currently serviced by sewer, power, gas and water utilities and will not create a significant demand for additional utilities on the project site. The project site is bound by three Major Highways (designated by the City's General Plan). The site plans and preliminary grading plans show that all utilities exist on-site and that the project will be able to hook up to the utilities. Fire and police services will be adequate for the area, as discussed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. 3. The harmful effect, if any, on desirable neighborhood character; The proposed regional mall expansion and parking structures are located in an area within the City of Santa Clarita that is currently developed with an existing regional mall (Town Center). The site is designated as CTC, which is for the development of a regional mall facility. The project site, as well as adjacent properties has been developed with uses compatible with a regional facility (multi -family residential, public services, offices, retail and restaurants). Further, the project site is located on a corridor surrounded by Major Highways (McBean Parkway, Valencia Boulevard, and Magic E Mountain Parkway) that provide access to the site, which is suitable for the proposed development. The Westfield Town Center East expansion height will be consistent with the surrounding uses and will not create a harmful effect on the neighborhood character. The expansion is proposed to have similar architecture and landscaping to what is currently constructed at the Town Center Mall and neighboring developments. The proposed building height, use, and design is consistent with the existing and adjacent development and uses, and the City's Architectural Design Guidelines, the General Plan, as well as all of the standards outlined in the Unified Development Code with the approval of the conditional use permit. 4. The generation of traffic and the capacity and physical character of surrounding streets; The proposed project is located in a developed portion of the City that is predominantly developed with uses consistent with a regional mall and the CTC designation such as offices (medical and professional), retail, restaurant, auto sales, and civic center uses. The surrounding streets (three of which are designated as Major Highways) are improved to the City standards and will be able to accommodate the proposed expansion. The three adjacent Major Highways (McBean Parkway, Valencia Boulevard and Magic Mountain Parkway) are adequate to accommodate the proposed expansion and, with the mitigation listed in the Mitigation Negative Declaration prepared for the project, will not lower a service standard on the surrounding streets to a substandard level, as the area was designated CTC with a VCC Overlay in the General Plan, which anticipated the type of proposed use and development. 5. The suitability of the site for the type and intensity of use or development which is proposed; and The proposed expansion to the regional mall will be developed in accordance with the City's Unified Development Code and will further be consistent and compatible with the uses in the CTC (Commercial Town Center) zone. The project site is designated CTC, with a VCC Overlay in the City's General Plan, which allows for a Floor Area Ratio of 2:1 to 4:1 on the project site. Therefore the proposed expansion of 331,860 square -feet of floor area to an existing 905,102 square feet of floor area on a 72.8 -acre project site will be consistent with the CTC designation. With an approval of a conditional use permit (CUP), the CTC zone permits for buildings that exceed 35 feet in height. The expansion is proposed to contain buildings 60' maximum in overall height. In addition, two parking structures are proposed that would exceed 35 feet in height. The first parking structure is proposed to be 24' high (42' maximum height measured from the top of the light standards) and a 2 second parking structure is proposed to be 69' in height (88' maximum height from the top of the light standards). The existing project site has a maximum building height of 67'-6" and directly adjacent to the project site is an existing five -level parking structure within Town Center West. Therefore, the proposed building heights within the Town Center East expansion will be consistent with the existing Town Center East heights as well as heights of structures of neighboring properties. 6. The adverse significant effect, if any, upon environmental quality and natural resources which cannot be mitigated unless the approving authority adopts a statement of overriding considerations. The project site has been previously graded and is not known to have any sensitive species, animal or plant, on the project site. There are no oak trees on the site, therefore, no oak trees will be impacted as a part of the proposed development of a 331,860 square foot expansion. No natural resources are located on-site. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed expansion. No impacts to natural resources would occur as part of this project. c. That the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity: The project site is located in a developed area with a Commercial Town Center designation within the City of Santa Clarita. The construction of the proposed mall expansion will not create a significant impact to the surrounding area as it will be complimentary to the existing uses as well as accessible from the three adjacent Major Highways (McBean Parkway, Valencia Boulevard and Magic Mountain Parkway). The project requires the approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of buildings in excess of 35 feet in height. The expansion is proposed to contain buildings 60' maximum in overall height. In addition, two parking structures are proposed that would exceed 35 feet in height. The first parking structure is proposed to be 24' high (42' maximum height measured from the top of the light standards) and a second parking structure is proposed to be 69' in height (88' maximum height from the top of the light standards). The existing project site has a maximum building height of 67'-6" and directly adjacent to the project site is an existing five -level parking structure within Town Center West. The architectural treatments proposed for the buildings and the two parking structures are required to include 360 -degree architecture to provide a well designed, highly articulated building on all sides, from all views. In addition, it is conditioned that the applicant brings all proposed buildings back to the Planning Commission for architectural review and approval. 7 Therefore, the size and design of the proposed buildings will not be detrimental to properties in the vicinity. Further, the proposed architecture and use will compliment the surrounding uses and development consistent with the CTC zone. d. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the City of Santa Clarita Unified Development Code, except for an approved variance or adjustment; The project site requires the approval of a conditional use pen -nit (CUP) for the development of buildings to exceed 35 feet in height. The expansion is proposed to contain buildings 60' maximum in overall height. In addition, two parking structures are proposed that would exceed 35 feet in height. The first parking structure is proposed to be 24' high (42' maximum height measured from the top of the light standards) and a second parking structure is proposed to be 69' in height (88' maximum height from the top of the light standards). The development is proposed to be located on a 72.8 -acre site. With the approval of the proposed CUP, the project site will be consistent with all regulations established in the City's Unified Development Code requirements as well as with the goals and policies outlined in the City's General Plan. No variance is required with the proposed development and use. SECTION 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FINDINGS. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Valencia Town Center East expansion project, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Valencia Town Center East expansion project, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and on behalf of each, the City Council finds, as follows: a. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Santa Clarita General Plan, the Unified Development Code, and any specific plan. This application is to reconfigure 23 existing lots into nine lots. The proposed expansion to the existing Town Center East would be consistent with the CTC zone, as well as the City's General Plan designation of the site. The construction and operation of the site, as a regional mall, is consistent with the City's General Plan and Unified Development Code. There are no specific plans in the area of the project site. b. The project site is physically suited for the type of development. The project site is within an area designated for the development of a regional mall facility. The proposal is to expand the existing 905,102 square feet with 331,860 square feet of area to be used as a mall. The project site is 72.8 acres in N. size. The overlay designation (Valley Concept Center) of the site allows for a floor area ratio of 2:1 to 4:1, therefore, the proposed expansion meets the floor area requirement for the site. Included in the request is a conditional use permit to exceed 35 feet in height. The existing Town Center East facility is 67' in height, the proposed building height of the expansion would be 60' and will be consistent with the existing facility. Both proposed parking structures will exceed the 35' in height. One structure would be three levels and not exceed 42' and a second structure would be five levels and would not exceed 88' in height. Both structures would be similar in height to the existing parking structures at Town Center West, adjacent to the project site. The tentative parcel snap would dissolve property lines of 23 existing lots and create nine lots on the project site, which would allow for the building expansion to occur without crossing boundary lines, which is not permitted by the City's UDC. The project site is physically suited for the type of development. C. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is to be developed with a regional mall facility. This proposal is to dissolve boundary lines of 23 existing lots to create nine lots. The VCC Overlay on the site allows for a higher FAR (2:1 to 4:1) to be developed to promote the development of a regional mall facility, which is consistent with the proposed 331,860 square foot expansion to the existing 905,102 square foot regional mall. d. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. The proposal is to dissolve the boundary lines of 23 existing lots and create nine lots on the project site. There are no water bodies on the project site and the existing property is comprised of existing buildings and parking lots with pockets of landscaped areas. Therefore, the parcel map for this project is not likely to cause any environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. e. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious health problems. The proposal is dissolve the boundary lines of 23 existing lots and create nine lots on a 72.8 -acre site. The site has been designated by the City's General Plan as a regional mall; therefore, the proposal to expand the existing mall on the project site is consistent with the land use designation and goal for the site. The site and surrounding uses, which are consistent with uses adjacent to a regional mall facility, including civic center, auto sales, retail, restaurant, multi -family residential and office are consistent with the land use designation of the site. This project would not cause health problems. f. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, or for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. This proposal is to expand the City's regional mall with an additional 331,860 square feet of floor area. Included in the proposal is a tentative parcel map to dissolve the boundary lines of 23 existing lots and create nine lots. This will allow for the construction of the mall expansion to occur on lots formed without the proposed buildings crossing the existing property lines. Improvements will occur on adjacent rights-of-way, though all proposed improvements are mitigation for the project analyzed as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. The mitigation will reduce traffic access impacts related to the project to less than significant. The design of the project will not conflict with easements or for access through or use of the project site. SECTION 5. MINOR USE PERMIT FINDINGS. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Valencia Town Center East expansion project, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Valencia Town Center East expansion project, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and on behalf of each, the City Council finds, as follows a. That the proposed use is in accordance with the General Plan, the objectives of the Unified Development Code, and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located; The proposed expansion of the regional mall facility that would be located on the site is in accordance with the General Plan, the Unified Development Code, and the purposes of the zone in which it is located. The project site is designated as a regional mall facility and the proposed construction and uses, including restaurant and retail are consistent with the development and operation of a regional mall. The proposed project includes the import of 41,000 cubic yards of earth to the site and for accessory alcohol service at 10 restaurants that will be located within the proposed Town Center East expansion. The Unified Development Code requires a Minor Use Permit (MUP) for the import of earth exceeding 10,000 cubic yards and for the allowance of accessory alcohol services within the City of Santa 10 Clarita. With the approval of the proposed MUP, the project will be consistent with all regulations established in the City's Unified Development Code, as well as with the goals and policies outlined in the City's General Plan. b. That the proposed use or activity, together with the conditions applicable thereto will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and The Town Center East expansion includes the request for a 331,860 square foot expansion to the Town Center Mall. The proposed expansion of the regional mall facility that would be located on the site is in accordance with the General Plan, the Unified Development Code, and the purposes of the zone in which it is located. The project site is designated as a regional mall facility and the proposed construction and uses, including restaurant and retail, are consistent with the development and operation of a regional mall. The proposed expansion includes a request for the import of 41,000 cubic yards of earth and the sale of alcohol in accessory to food service for a total of 10 restaurants within the Town Center East expansion area. All grading and import amounts proposed for this project have been analyzed in an initial study and, as a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. The applicant is required to implement all mitigation measures as a part of the development and as part of grading activities. The applicant will be required to receive an approved haul route, days and times from the City of Santa Clarita's Public Works Department to prevent operational impacts to streets and surrounding properties. As such, the proposed import of 41,000 cubic yards of earth to the proposed project site will not be detrimental to the public safety or welfare, as the proposed uses and operation of the project are consistent with the CTC land use designation for the site. The sale of alcohol as an accessory use is proposed for 10 restaurants within the Town Center East expansion. The existing regional mall facility is a suitable site for the accessory sale of alcohol, as existing restaurants with alcohol permits already exist on-site and are compatible with the retail use and regional mall facility. Therefore, permitting the accessory alcohol permits will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. C. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the development code. The proposed expansion to the City's regional mall complies with each of the provisions of the code. A minor use permit is requested for the issuance for the accessory alcohol service at 10 proposed restaurants and for the import of 41,000 cubic yards of earth to the site. The proposed mall expansion is consistent with the project site land use designation (Commercial Town Center) and no other 11 variances, with the exception of the entitlements listed above, are necessary for this project. With the approval of the proposed MUP, the project will be consistent with all regulations established in the City's Unified Development Code, as well as with the goals and policies outlined in the City's General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California, does herby resolve as follows: SECTION 6. The City Council does hereby approve Master Case 06-122 (Tentative Parcel Map 68039, Conditional Use Permit 06-011, and Minor Use Permit 06-025) and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow for the development of the proposed 331,860 square foot Westfield Town Center Mall East expansion; to allow for the construction of buildings that exceed 35 feet in height for a total building height of 60'; to allow for the construction of two parking structures that exceed 35 feet in height, one a maximum height of an 88' (including lighting fixtures) and the second to be a maximum height of 42' (including lighting fixtures); for the import of 41,000 cubic yards of earth; and, to allow for accessory alcohol service at 10 restaurants on the project site located at 24201 West Valencia Boulevard in the CTC (Commercial Town Center) zone, in the City of Santa Clarita subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken. 12 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of October, 2007. ATTEST: CITY CLERK 13 MAYOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 23rd day of October, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 14 CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) CERTIFICATION OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Resolution No. 07- , adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California on October 23, 2007, which is now on file in my office. Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this 23rd day of October, 2007. Sharon L. Dawson, CMC City Clerk By Susan Caputo Deputy City Clerk 15 Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Parcel Map 68039, Conditional Use Permit 06-011, Minor Use Permit 06-025 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General Conditions GCI. The approval of this project shall expire if not put into use within two years from the date of this approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the City of Santa Clarita's Unified Development Code or the project improvements have begun. GC2. The applicant may file for an extension of the approved project prior to the date of expiration. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed no later than 60 days prior to expiration. GC3. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Department of Community Development, in writing, of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or change in the status of the developer, within 30 days of said change. GC4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Project by the City, which action is provided for in, Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this Condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both of the following occur: 1) The City bears its own attorney's fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the applicant. GC5. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approvals granted by the City. Any modifications shall be subject to further review by the City. GC6. The applicant shall sign and have notarized the attached "Acceptance Form". This form shall be returned to the City's Planning Division. GC7. It is further declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof is violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the City may commence proceedings to revoke this approval. GC8. The project shall fully comply with the Title 16 and 17 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) including, but not limited to, the Commercial and Industrial Development Standards, Parking Standards, Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, Sign Ordinance, Landscaping Standards, and Subdivision Ordinance. Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 2 GC9. The applicant is required to comply with all of the mitigation measures described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this development. Planning Approvals PL1. The applicant is granted approval to construct an additional 331,860 square feet of retail and food uses within the existing Town Center East area. The approval of the buildings shall comply with the following heights and square footage as indicated on the approved site plan: Structures Height Maximum Square Footage Stage One 60 feet /2 story 210,500 square feet Macy's Expansion 60 feet/ 2 story 50,000 square feet Stage 1 / 2 Parking 24' to parapet Structure 42' to top of parking lot lights Stage Two 35 feet /2 story 71,360 square feet Stage 2 Parking Structure 60' top of parapet 88' top of parking lot lights and elevator tower All development shall be consistent with the approved site plans, architectural plans and landscape plans on file in the Planning Division PL2. The applicant shall construct the proposed project in accordance with the approved site plan. All structures are subject to the approval of a Development Review and approval of the Director of Community Development for conformance with this approval and all relevant development codes. The Director shall refer the architecture of the proposed development as well as a proposal to the Planning Commission for their review as part of the Architectural Review process, prior to issuance of building permit. PL3. The minor use permit shall allow the applicant to import no more than 41,000 cubic yards of earth to the site and for a maximum of 10 restaurants serving alcohol as an accessory use. Any additional restaurants with accessory alcohol service shall apply for the appropriate land use entitlement. PL4. The applicant is approved for a tentative parcel map to dissolve the existing 23 lot lines to create a minimum of nine new lots as part of Stage 2 of the project. Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 3 Site Design PL5. Section 17.15.030 of the Unified Development Code requires a minimum of 5'-0" landscape setback from public right-of-way on commercial collector streets (Citrus Drive). The UDC requires a minimum landscape setback of 10'-0" from public right-of-way along major highways (Magic Mountain Parkway, Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway). Parking spaces, light standards and structures are not permitted to be located within these setback areas. PL6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a lot line adjustment to dissolve the existing lot lines on the project site. The applicant shall not be permitted to construct buildings that cross property lines. PL7. The number and placement/location of 16 the kiosks shall be the same as that on the approved site plans. The design and placement of the proposed kiosks or any additional kiosks or kiosk areas shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. PL8. All pick-up and drop-off areas shall be labeled on the site plan. These areas shall include a turnout from the required drive aisle, a bench, trash receptacle, lighting, shade structure and decorative pavement to define the area. This area shall be large enough to accommodate a City Dial a Ride vehicle as one of the drop-off areas will be the primary pick-up location for the Town Center area. PL9. Bike racks shall be provided throughout the project site at a ratio of 1 bike stall/rack to each 25 new parking stalls constructed (Section 17.18.105 of the UDC). The applicant is encouraged to utilize bicycle lockers in lieu of required bike racks. Please identify these locations on the site plan prior to submittal for a building permit for each phase. PL10. The applicant shall install a pedestrian friendly system as shown on the pedestrian access exhibit, which links the project development areas to the existing mall, surrounding streets, existing paseo bridges and network and the existing transit station. This system shall be separated from existing driveways and parking lots and includes landscaping, lighting and trellis features to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. PL11. The applicant shall prepare an on-site security plan. This plan shall include provisions for traffic control, parking lot security and emergency services. This plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review by the Director of Community Development and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Signs PL12. The applicant shall be required to prepare a comprehensive sign program for proposed signs and signs at Town Center that will be replaced as part of this proposal prior to sign installation. All signs shall comply with the City's UDC and the existing Town Center Drive sign guidelines. • This includes the use of externally lit or "halo" effect signs and excludes the use of internally lit plastic channel letters with the exception of directional signage. Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 4 • These sign restrictions shall not apply to the interior courtyards which are not visible from the parking lot or public right-of-way. • The sign program shall include a unified theme for on-site directional signs for directions to parking structures similar to the existing Town Center Drive program. PL13. The applicant shall redesign the existing monument sign at the intersection of Valencia Boulevard and the project entrance prior to the construction of "Pad 3" to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Architecture PL14. All buildings and parking structures shall include an enhanced level of architecture consistent with the existing structures and to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. PL15. Final architectural elevations are not approved. The applicant shall continue to work with Planning Division staff on architectural details, colors and materials of the proposed expansion areas prior to issuance of building permit. These details include, but not limited to, pop -outs, varying rooflines, awnings, unique signage, parapets and pedestrian -oriented window display areas. The expansion area architecture shall maintain a similar theme to the existing Town Center West, including materials and scale. PL16. The applicant shall participate in a City -sponsored public art installation program. The applicant shall work with the City's Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department to determine the on-site placement and fund the installation and maintenance of a California (Santa Clarita) Bear at Town Center East prior to issuance of a building permit. PLI T The applicant is encouraged to use images of the Santa Clarita Valley in the artwork to be mounted on the proposed parking structures. The applicant shall work with the City's Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department to use images from local artists. Images should focus on the history, history makers, events and communities (Canyon Country, Newhall, Valencia, Saugus) of the Santa Clarita Valley. PL18. The applicant shall work with City staff to locate areas throughout Town Center Mall for the display of temporary art exhibitions. PL19. All buildings require 360° architecture and must conform to all of the City's development standards including the Commercial/Industrial Standards of the Unified Development Code (Section 17.15.040 of the UDC) along with the Architectural Design Guidelines available on the City's website at www.santa-clarita.com. PL20. All -roof mounted equipment shall be adequately screened from public view with a parapet/screen wall or other approved architectural treatment. Please submit a roof plan with cross sections for the proposed buildings and equipment to be screened prior to the issuance of any building permit. Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 5 PL21. Stage One of the project shall include a "lifestyle" pedestrian -oriented outdoor center within the public spaces within the retail development area. This shall include provisions for specimen size landscape plants, water feature(s), shade structures, fixed seating, fountains, public art, outdoor restaurant seating and other amenities. The entry arcade feature shall include an increased level of enhancements. This area may include seasonal displays. PL22. Pad 2 shall be designed to create an inviting gateway to the project with architectural towers and projects. Outdoor dining is encouraged. All buildings shall be oriented to have the Valencia Boulevard frontage serve as the front or main fagade. PL23. The applicant shall include provisions in the design of the tower elements that would not preclude the placement of stealth or flush -mounted wireless communication facilities to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. PL24. The applicant shall include green building techniques in the design of the expansion. This shall include the use of the following: Compressed natural gas(CNG) construction vehicles; Recycling of construction materials; Reflective Insulated Cool Roofing System; High insulation values - R-19 walls/R-30 roof, Double paned glazing (high reflective/R value glazing); High efficiency HVAC equipment; Controlled exterior lighting system; Low flow toilets; Waterless toilet fixtures; Smart irrigation system; Material specification manufactured from within 500 miles of site; Material specification from Sustainable resources (bamboo etc.); Low VOC paint for interior. Parking and Circulation PL25. All new buildings shall be parked at one parking space for 200 square feet of gross floor area. The applicant shall provide proof of this requirement prior to the issuance of any building permits. PL26. All new parking spaces and drive aisles shall be in compliance with the City's Unified Development Code unless additional area is required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department or City of Santa Clarita Department of Public Works. PL27. All parking structures shall be designed so each floor allows for a minimum clearance of 8'-2" per parking deck. This measurement shall be calculated from the floor to the lowest pipe, light or support. Internal drive aisles shall be designed to provide optimum vehicular circulation. Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 6 PL28. In accordance with Section 17.18.120.0 of the Unified Development Code, loading stalls shall be provided on-site. Patron loading stalls shall be located on the project site to provide convenient pedestrian access to the proposed buildings and shall not be counted towards required parking. PL29. All outdoor lighting shall be directed downward and installed consistent with existing lighting and lighting shown on the approved parking structure elevations. No lighting shall spill over property lines and impact the surrounding rights-of-way and adjacent uses. PL30. Prior to installation of lighting, a photometric plan shall be submitted, which depicts the lighting details, including height of lighting. This plan shall include all parking structure lighting and surface parking lighting. PL31. The applicant shall provide off-site employee parking with shuttle service to and from Town Center during the peak parking winter holiday season (November through January) if parking capacity reaches 95% on the project site. This plan shall be submitted for review prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. PL32. The project shall provide the required number of parking spaces as approved. For Stage 1 the required parking is 4,197; and, for Stage 2 the required parking is 4,454. If, at the Planning Director's discretion, the need for additional parking is continually needed due to the volume of business, the applicant shall be required to install a parking structure earlier than required. The parking structure shall be completed 18 months after the applicant receives notice of such a need. If the square footage constructed is less than that requested with this application (as documented in PL1), the applicant shall provide the appropriate number of parking spaces required by the UDC. PL33. The applicant shall provide a construction staging and parking management plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of the first grading permit for each stage. This plan shall include provisions for the staging of equipment, construction vehicle parking, construction signage, customer parking and access and security. This plan shall show the number and location of parking spaces, including access to the spaces available to customers during each stage of development. PL34. If determined necessary by the Director of Community Development, the applicant shall be required to provide traffic attendants to assist traffic flow at the Valencia Boulevard entrance during peak parking and business periods. PL35. When determined necessary by the Director of Community Development, the applicant shall be required to participate in a feasibility study analyzing the relocation of the existing pedestrian bridge on McBean Parkway. Upon further determination by the Director of Community Development and the feasibility study, the applicant shall be required to participate in the relocation of the pedestrian bridge on McBean Parkway to include financial participation. Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 7 Alcohol Service PL36. This approval is for a maximum of ten restaurants with accessory alcoholic beverage service. PUT Operating hours of restaurants serving alcoholic beverages shall be determined by the Director of Community Development as part of the Building Permit process. PL38. Each business that proposes to sell alcohol must obtain the appropriate permits from the ABC (Alcohol Beverage Control) and shall be in full compliance with all ABC regulations. PL39. This approval does not grant the establishment of any stand alone bar (separate from an accessory use to a restaurant), liquor store, night club or other live entertainment on the project site. The applicant shall file for the appropriate permits with the Community Development Department at the time that such uses are requested. PL40. A full menu food service must be available for purchase and consumption by customers during the hours alcoholic beverages are served. Importation of Earth PL41. The applicant is approved to import not more than 41,000 cubic yards of fill material to the subject site as part of the Stage 1 development. PL42. The export site for this material shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development and Public Works and, if applicable, the County of Los Angeles and the California Department of Transportation. PL43. Prior to the importation of any material, the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Director of Public Works for the proposed haul route for the material. This shall include the hours of hauling operations. The Director of Public Works may, at his discretion, limit the hours of operation and routes to be utilized. PL44. During the importation operations, a minimum of 25% of the dump trucks being used shall be fueled with an alternative fuel such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas or ethanol. If alternative vehicles are not available during the importation process, the Director of Community Development may require alternative methods to reduce the amount of particulates generated by the project. PL45. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall update the existing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program previously prepared for the site to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and the Director of Public Works. Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 8 Landscape Project Specific Comments LRL The applicant is required to install enhanced and mature landscaping including the use of specimen trees at the entrance to the project site on Valencia Boulevard. The plantings installed shall be consistent with the species currently planting on site. The applicant is encouraged to transplant existing on-site trees to fulfill this requirement. Decorative pavement is also required in this area. All these improvements shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.. LR2. The applicant is required to install enhanced and mature landscaping along the Magic Mountain Parkway five -level parking structure frontage. The landscaping at this location shall be the same as the existing landscaping at the frontage of the existing parking structure on Magic Mountain Parkway. This shall include the use of specimen evergreen trees including the use of Deodar Cedars, additional mature shrubs and the use of vines to create an enhanced landscape buffer between the parking structure and Magic Mountain Parkway. LR3. All new and/or reconfigured at -grade parking areas on the project site shall be planted at a minimum of one box tree for every four parking spaces per the existing UDC requirements. This requirement does not apply to parking spaces within a parking structure or future Stage 2 building areas. This ratio shall be shown on the landscape plans. Standard Landscape Requirements and Conditions LR4. Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the applicant shall provide final landscape, lighting and irrigation plans for Planning Department/Landscape Review Consultant review and approval. The plan must be prepared by a California -registered landscape architect who is familiar with the plant palette suitable for Santa Clarita (Sunset Western Garden Book Zone 18, minimum winter night temperatures typically 20° to 30° F; maximum summer high temperatures typically 105° F to 110° F). LR5. Required Landscape Plan Elements. Landscape plans shall contain all elements required by the Development Review checklist for preliminary landscape plans, shall be materially similar to those approved by the Director, Planning Commission and/or City Council, and shall conform to the following: (a) Commercial and Industrial Projects Site and landscape plans shall include a calculation showing the percentage of the site to be landscaped (a minimum of ten (10) percent of the site area for landscaping, with a minimum of five (5) percent planting area in the parking lot) and a calculation showing the square footage of parking lot(s) and percentage of landscape in parking lot(s) (Municipal Code/UDC § § 17.15.040(A)(4);17.18.070(E)(2)). ii. Landscape and site plans shall show an outdoor employee break area, which shall be handicap -accessible, shaded and furnished with, at a minimum, tables, benches or chairs, bicycle racks, and waste container with ashtray. Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 9 iii. Landscape plans shall show at least one (1) 24" box tree per four (4) parking stalls in parking lots/areas, and 36" box trees in planters at the ends of parking aisles. The plans shall show tree species selection, distribution and spacing to provide 50% canopy coverage of all parking lots/areas within 5 years of planting (Municipal Code § 17.18.070(E)(10)). iv. Landscape plans shall show headlight -screening hedges or landscaped earthen berm, not less than thirty (30) inches nor more than forty-two (42) inches in height at specified locations on parking lot perimeters. Individual hedge plants shall be 36" tall and spaced so that they touch leaf -to -leaf at time of final inspection (Municipal Code § 17.18.070(D)(1)). V. Where parking and/or drive aisles abut walls, fences, property lines, walkways or structures, landscape and site plans shall show planter beds delineated by continuous concrete curbing at least six (6) inches high and six (6) inches wide, at least (3) feet from such walls, fences, etc. These planter beds shall be landscaped except as permitted by the Director of Community Development (Municipal Code § 17.18.070(E)(9)). vi. Prior to planting, the applicant shall flag all tree locations along the project's street - facing frontage and call the Planning Division, Landscape Review official for a pre - planting inspection. (b) All projects i. The plant palette shall not include any plants listed as invasive exotic pest plants by the California Invasive Plant Council (lists available at http://groups.ucanr.org/ceppc/), or other plants determined to be invasive by a competent botanist or biologist. ii. Trees visible from the property's public street frontage and/or in the property's street - facing common area shall be a minimum 24" box size, and shall include a proportionate number of 36," 48," and 60" box -size specimens (Santa Clarita Architectural Design Guidelines, adopted December 2002). iii. Landscape plans shall show plant material to screen at maturity all trash enclosures, transformer boxes, vault boxes, backflow devices, and other exterior mechanical equipment. Screening material may include trees, shrubs (15 gallon minimum size), clinging vines, etc. Masonry block (concrete masonry unit) trash enclosures shall be screened with both shrubs and clinging vines (Municipal Code § § 17.15.040(B)(1-4). iv. Landscape plans shall show all lighting fixtures, base dimensions, and typical finish elevations. V. The applicant shall apply jute netting to all graded slopes five feet (5') and higher in vertical elevation and elsewhere where needed for erosion control, and shall landscape graded slopes (Municipal Code § 17.28.020(B)). vi. Slope planting shall consist of at minimum one (1) tree per 150 square feet of slope area and one (1) shrub per 100 square feet of slope area (Municipal Code § 17.80.040(K)(3)). Should this requirement become impossible or impracticable because of fuel modification requirements, the applicant may substitute a proportionate number of Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 10 appropriate larger specimen trees to the satisfaction of the, Director of Community Development. vii. The applicant shall design all irrigation systems for water conservation. viii. The applicant shall place water -conserving mulching material on all exposed soil in planting areas not covered by turfgrass. Mulching material may include, and is not limited to, shredded bark, river rock, crushed rock, pea gravel, etc., and must be at least two (2) inches deep. ix. Trees planted within fourteen (14) feet of Citrus Drive and Valencia Blvd. shall conform to Municipal Code § 13.76.110 et seq (Parkway Tree Influence Area) and City Ordinance 92-38 (Parkway Influence Area). The property owner/manager/homeowners' association shall irrigate and maintain these trees according to City standards. X. Trees planted within City right-of-way shall conform to Municipal Code § 13.76 et seq (Parkway Trees). xi. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install all proposed irrigation and landscaping, including irrigation controllers, staking, mulching, etc., to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The Director may impose inspection fees for more than one landscape installation inspection. xii. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development a letter from the project landscape architect certifying that all landscape materials and irrigation have been installed and function according to the approved landscape plans. En ing eerin Development Services General/Mapping ENI. At issuance of permits or other grants of approval, the applicant agrees to develop the property in accordance with City codes and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Unified Development Code, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and Fire Code. EN2. Prior to issuance of Stage 1 building permits, the applicant shall file with the County Recorder, a Certificate of Compliance for Lot Line Adjustment encompassing all parcels within the boundaries of this project. Prior to being filed with the County Recorder, the Lot Line Adjustment shall be reviewed and approved the City Engineer. EN3. Prior to issuance of first occupancy permit for Stage 1, the applicant shall file with the County Recorder a snap prepared by or under the direction of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor in the State of California. The map must be reviewed and approved the City Engineer. The applicant shall note all offers of dedication by certificate on the face of the map. The applicant shall pay a deposit as required to review documents and plans for final map clearance in accordance with Section 16.26.060 of the Unified Development Code. Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 11 EN4. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall record a covenant for easement for all shared parking areas, shared driveways and drive aisles, and common landscaping/slope maintenance areas, as directed by the City Engineer. EN5. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall label driveways as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" on the map, as directed by the City Engineer. EN6. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall quitclaim or relocate easements running through proposed structures, as directed by the City Engineer. ENT Prior to final map approval, the applicant must inform the City if he intends to file multiple final maps. The boundaries and phasing plan of these maps shall be designed, as directed by the City Engineer and the Director of Community Development. EN8. At map check submittal, the applicant shall provide a preliminary parcel map guarantee. A final parcel map guarantee is required prior to final map approval. EN9. Prior to final snap approval, the applicant shall establish a Property Owners' Association (POA), or similar entity, to ensure the continued maintenance of all shared/common lots and drainage devices not transferable to the County Flood Control District. EN10. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and the City Attorney for Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for this development. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the City Attorney's review and approval fee. The CC&Rs shall include a disclosure to comply with the Geologist's recommendations in the Geology Report for restrictions on watering, irrigation, and planting, and recommend types of plants. ENI I. This tentative map approval is subject to the applicant's acceptance of the following conditions for acquisition of easements/right-of-way: a. The applicant shall secure at the applicant's expense sufficient title or interest in land to permit any off-site improvements to be made. b. If the applicant is unable to acquire sufficient title or interest to permit the off-site improvements to be made, the applicant shall notify the City of this inability not less than six months prior to occupancy of Stage 1. c. In such case, the City may thereafter acquire sufficient interest in the land, which will permit the off-site improvements to be made by the applicant. d. The applicant shall pay all of the City's costs of acquiring said off-site property interests pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5. Applicant shall pay such costs irrespective of whether the final map is recorded or whether a reversion occurs. The cost of acquisition may include, but is not limited to, acquisition prices, damages, engineering services, expert fees, title examination, appraisal costs, acquisition services, relocation assistance services and payments, legal services and fees, mapping services, document preparation, expenses, and/or damages as provided under Code of Civil Procedures Sections 1268.510-.620 and Overhead. Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 12 e. The applicant agrees that the City will have satisfied the 120 -day limitation of Government Code Section 66462.5 and the foregoing conditions relating thereto when it files its eminent domain action in superior court within said time period. f. At the time the applicant notifies the City as provided in "b." hereinabove, the subdivider shall simultaneously submit to the City in a form acceptable to the City all appropriate appraisals, engineering specifications, legal land descriptions, plans, pleadings, and other documents deemed necessary by the City to commence its acquisition proceedings. Said documents must be submitted to the City for preliminary review and comment at least 30 days prior to the applicant's notice described hereinabove at "b." g. The applicant agrees to deposit with the City, within five days of request by the City, such sums of money as the City estimates to be required for the costs of acquisition. The City may require additional deposits from time -to -time. h. The applicant shall not sell any lot/parcel/unit shown on the final map until the City has acquired said sufficient land interest. i. If the superior court thereafter rules in a final judgment that the City may not acquire said sufficient land interest, the applicant agrees that the City may initiate proceedings for reversion to acreage. j. The applicant shall execute any agreements mutually agreeable prior to approval of the final map as may be necessary to assure compliance with the foregoing conditions. k. Failure by the applicant to notify the City as required by "b." hereinabove, or simultaneously submit the required and approved documents specified in "e." hereinabove, or make the deposits specified in ' £" hereinabove, shall constitute subdivider's waiver of the requirements otherwise imposed upon the City to acquire necessary interests in land pursuant to Section 66462.5. In such event, subdivider shall meet all conditions for installing or constructing off-site improvements notwithstanding Section 66462.5. EN 12. Prior to final map approval, the applicant is tentatively required to grant easements on the final map. The easements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Grading, Drainage & Geology Requirements EN13. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan consistent with the approved tentative map, oak tree report and conditions of approval. The grading plan shall be based on a detailed engineering geotechnical report specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer that addresses all submitted recommendations. EN14. The site plan shows an import of 41,000 CY of dirt from the project. Prior to issuance of a grading pen -nit for this project, the applicant shall submit a copy of the grading permit for the exporting site and an exhibit of the proposed haul route. The applicant is responsible to obtain approval from all applicable agencies for the dirt hauling operation. EN15. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements for the dirt hauling operation: Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 13 • Obtain an encroachment permit for the work. The hours of operation shall be between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm. • Provide non-stop street sweeping service on all City streets along the haul route during all hours of work, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. • Provide traffic control and flagging personnel along the haul route, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN16. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall pay a Haul Route Pavement Repair Security Cash Deposit (Deposit) of $50,000.00, which may be increased or decreased based upon an estimated cost to complete the repairs of streets damaged during the dirt hauling operation. The limits and scope of the repairs shall be determined by the City Engineer. In order to receive a refund of the Deposit, the applicant or subsequent property owners shall complete the pavement repairs to the satisfaction of the City Engineer within one year from the completion of the dirt hauling operation. If the pavement repairs are not completed within one year, the City may use the Deposit to complete the repairs. If the Deposit is insufficient to complete the repairs, the City may seek additional funds from the applicant. Any funds remaining will be reimbursed to the applicant. ENIT The site is located within a mapped liquefiable area, per the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical report which adequately addresses the Seismic Hazard Zone. All required mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the development plans. EN18. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a notarized Letter of Permission for grading over all easements. EN19. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall eliminate all geologic hazards associated with this proposed development, or delineate restricted use areas on the final map as approved by the consultant geologist, as directed by the City Engineer. EN20. Prior to issuance of building permits for each phase, the applicant shall construct all grading and drainage facilities within that phase. EN21. Prior to issuance of building permits and after final map recordation, the applicant may file with the County Recorder, an amending map prepared by or under the direction of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor in the State of California. EN22. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall adjust, relocate, and/or eliminate lot lines, lots, streets, easements, grading, geotechnical protective devices, and/or physical improvements to comply with ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the City determined the application to be complete, all, as directed by the City Engineer. EN23. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall show on the map all Los Angeles County Flood Control District right-of-ways. A permit will be required for any construction affecting the rights-of-way or facilities. Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 14 Street Improvement Requirements EN24. All streets shall be designed in accordance with the City's Unified Development Code, General Plan, and street design criteria. EN25. Prior to any construction (including, but not limited to, drive approaches, sidewalks, curb and gutter, etc.), trenching or grading within public or private street right-of-way, the applicant shall submit a street improvement plan consistent with the approved tentative map, oak tree report and conditions of approval and obtain encroachment permits from the Engineering Division. EN26. Prior to street plan approval, the applicant shall contact the City's Urban Forestry Division for street tree location, species, and approved method of installation and irrigation. The applicant shall submit a street tree location plan to the Urban Forestry Division for review and approval. EN27. Prior to street plan approval, the applicant shall dedicate to the City the right -of way required for off-site street improvements as identified in the Traffic Study. EN28. Prior to the final map being filed with the County Recorder, the applicant shall not grant or record easements within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets or highways, access rights, building restriction rights, or other easements; unless subordinated to the proposed grant or. dedication. If easements are granted after the date of tentative map approval, subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing of the final map. EN29. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall dedicate the right to restrict direct vehicular ingress and egress on all streets having a projected volume of 2000 vehicle trips per day and within 100 feet of any secondary or major highway, on the final map or by separate document. EN30. Prior to issuance of occupancy, the applicant shall repair any pavement damaged by the dirt hauling operation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The limits of the road repairs shall be consistent with the approved haul route. EN31. Prior to occupancy of each phase, the applicant shall construct all improvements required to adequately serve this development as identified in the Traffic Study. EN32. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall construct wheelchair ramps at intersections, as directed by the City Engineer. EN33. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk, and refurbish the half section of pavement on streets within or abutting the project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 15 Sewer Improvement Requirements EN34. Prior to sewer plan approval, the applicant shall provide a sewer area study in accordance with City policies for review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicant will be responsible for any upgrades to existing sewers as identified in the sewer study. EN35. Prior to first occupancy, the applicant shall construct all sewer upgrades per the approved sewer area study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Bonds, Fees and Miscellaneous Requirements EN36. Prior to final map approval, or prior to issuance of encroachment permits for public improvements, whichever is first, the applicant, by agreement with the City Engineer, shall guarantee installation of the improvements through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or any other acceptable means. Occupancy shall be withheld if the improvements are not completed. EN37. This condition will not apply if the applicant submits verification that the Bridge and Thoroughfare District Fee obligation has already been satisfied for this site: The applicant shall pay the applicable Bridge and Thoroughfare District Fee to implement the highway element of the General Plan, as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this project. The applicant may construct off-site improvements of equivalent value in lieu of paying the fee, subject to approval of the City Engineer. The fee shall be paid at the times stated below and will be reimbursed upon completion and acceptance of such off-site improvements. The fee is subject to change and is based on the rate at the time of payment. [ ] Bouquet Canyon Bridge and Thoroughfare District ($15,650) [ ] Eastside Bridge and Thoroughfare District ($16,200) [X] Valencia Bridge and Thoroughfare District ($11,380) [ ] Via Princessa Bridge and Thoroughfare District ($17,080) The total square footage of the proposed buildings as provided by the applicant is as follows: Phase 1 = 260,500 square feet Phase 2 = 71,360 square feet The calculation of B&T Fees for commercial retail on an under-utilized parcel shall be calculated as follows: B&T District Fee Obligation = Proposed building SF x 5 x District Fee per FDU 16,335 Due prior to Phase 1 building permit = 260,500 x 5 x $11,380 = $907,404 16,335 Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 16 Due prior to final map approval = (71,300) x 5 x $11,380 = $248,361 16,335 Traffic Engineering Please note that phasing referred to in the following Traffic Engineering conditions is consistent with the staging plan shown in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Austin Faust dated July 2006. TEL Adequate sight visibility is required at all intersections (street -street intersections or driveway -street intersections) and shall follow the latest Caltrans manual for applicable requirements. Adequate sight visibility (including corner sight visibility) shall be demonstrated on the final map and grading plan. All necessary easements for this purpose shall be recorded with the final map. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE2. All private driveways and roadways shall intersect with a public street at 90 degrees or as close to 90 degrees as topography permits (no less than 80 degrees). This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE3. All project driveways shall have a minimum stacking distance (from face of curb) of 100 feet. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE4. No access will be permitted within curb return. This shall be included as a note on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE5. Minimum width of all interior driveways and drive aisles shall be 26 feet and shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit, except as required by the Traffic Division and L.A. County Fire Department. TE6. Prior to issuance of the precise grading plan, the applicant shall obtain approval from the L.A. County Fire Department for any private driveway sections. TET Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy permit, the applicant shall post "No Parking— Fire Lane" signs along all driveways with a curb -to -curb width of less than 34 feet. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE8. The location, width and depth of all project driveways shall conform to the approved site plan. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. No additional driveways shall be permitted. TE9. Dead-end drive aisles shall have a hammerhead or turn -around area to facilitate vehicular movements. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 17 TE10. The site shall be designed to adequately accommodate all vehicles (e.g. automobiles, vans, trucks) that can be expected to access the site. This includes, but is not limited to, adequate maneuvering areas around loading zones and parking spaces, and appropriate turning radii. TE11. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy permit for Stage 1, the applicant shall extend the southbound left -turn lane at the intersection of McBean Parkway and Town Center Drive. The left -turn lane shall have 300 feet of storage and 120 feet of taper. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE12. Prior to the issuance of the first building occupancy permit for Stage 1, the intersection listed below shall be in place and shall include the required number of lanes and operational traffic signal. It is the applicant's responsibility to acquire sufficient right-of-way to complete these required improvements prior to issuance of building permit for this phase. a. McBean Parkway/Creekside Road Eastbound: 1 left -turn lane, 1 shared through/left-turn lane, 1 right -turn lane Westbound: 1 left -turn lane, 1 shared through/left-turn lane, 1 right -turn lane Northbound: 1 left -turn lane, 3 through lanes, 1 shared through/right-turn lane Southbound: 2 left -turn lanes, 4 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane TE13. Prior to the issuance of the first building occupancy permit for Stage 2, the intersections listed below shall be in place and shall include the required number of lanes and operational traffic signals. It is the applicant's responsibility to acquire sufficient right-of-way to complete these required improvements prior to the issuance of building permit for this phase. a. McBean Parkway/Magic Mountain Parkway Eastbound: 2 left -turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane Westbound: 2 left -turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane Northbound: 2 left -turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane Southbound: 2 left -turn lanes, 4 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane b. McBean Parkway/Creekside Road Eastbound: 1 left -turn lane, 1 shared through/left-turn lane, 1 right -turn lane Westbound: 1 left -turn lane, 1 shared through/left-turn lane, 1 right -turn lane Northbound: 1 left -turn lane, 3 through lanes, 1 shared through/right-turn lane Southbound: 2 left -turn lanes, 4 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane TE14. Prior to the issuance of the first building occupancy permit for Stage 1, the applicant shall install system detection on all approaches at each of the Town Center driveways/access locations. The system detection system shall be designed and installed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 18 TE 15. Prior to the issuance of the first building occupancy permit for Stage 1, the applicant shall pay a traffic -signal timing fee for the update of the traffic -signal timing at up to 20 intersections in the surrounding area. The cost is $4,000 per intersection ($80,000 total). This fee shall be used to improve traffic flow and minimize traffic congestion along the corridors impacted by project -related traffic, through traffic signal retiming and related infrastructure improvements. Los Angeles County Fire Department FDI. Access shall comply with Section 902 of the Fire Code, which requires all weather access. All weather access may require paving. FD2. Fire Department access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any exterior portion of all structures. FD3. Where driveways extend further than 150 feet and are of single access design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final map. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed and maintained to ensure their integrity for Fire Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways that extend over 150 feet in length. FD4. Private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" with the widths clearly depicted and shall be maintained in accordance with the Fire Code. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. FDS. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to all required fire hydrants. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. FD6. Provide Fire Department or City approved street signs and building access numbers prior to occupancy. FD7. Additional on site access requirements will be addressed by the Santa Clarita Fire Prevention Office. Mitigating factors are required to be approved by the Fire Prevention Captain of the Santa Clarita Fire Prevention Office, FD8. Provide water mains, fire hydrants and fire flows as required by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, for all land shown on the map which shall be recorded. FD9. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 5,000 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a duration of five hours, over and above the maximum daily domestic demand. Three hydrants flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow. FD10. The applicant shall install or upgrade 39 hydrants or as determined by the Fire Department. Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 19 FDI 1. All hydrants shall measure 6" x 4" x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal. All on-site hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 feet form a structure or protected by a two hour rated fire wall. FD12. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted or bonded for prior to final map approval. Vehicular access must be provided or maintained serviceable throughout construction. FD13. Additional water systems requirements will be required when this land is further subdivided and/or during the building permit process. FD14. Provide an exhibit indicating the fire hydrant locations. The fire hydrant locations shall be noted as either existing or as proposed, and if they are public or private. The fire hydrant locations proposed by the Fire Department shall also be noted on the exhibit. Based on the fire hydrant exhibit, fire hydrant locations may be modified. The fire flow may be reduced during the building plan check process. FD15. Three-level parking structure (Stage 1 and 2): The applicant shall provide a minimum unobstructed driveway width of 28 feet, clear -to -sky to be posted "No Parking - Fire Lane". The centerline of the driveway shall be located parallel to within 30 feet or the exterior wall on at least one side of such building. FD 16. Five -level parking structure (Stage 2): The applicant shall provide unobstructed driveway width of 28 feet clear -to -sky, to be posed "No Parking — Fire Lane". The centerline of the driveway shall be located parallel to within 30 feet of the exterior wall on at least one side of such building. No portion of the proposed "Fire Lane" can be under the parking structure. The "Fire Lane" shall remain clear -to -sky. FD 17. Retail area: The applicant shall provide a minimum unobstructed driveway width of 26 feet clear -to -sky to be posted "No Parking — Fire Lane" to within 150 feet of all exterior portions of the structure. FDI 8. The applicant shall provide a 32 foot centerline turning radius for each turn. FD19. When a driveway is separated by an island, provide a minimum unobstructed driveway width of 20 feet on both sides of the island to be posted "No Parking — Fire Lane". FD20. Additional access requirements may be addressed with further reviews by the Land Development Unit, and/or during the building plan check process by the Santa Clarita Fire Prevention Office. Building and SafetX General Comments BU1. All design and construction shall be done in accordance with applicable laws and regulations of the State of California and local codes and ordinances. Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 20 BU2. Effective late 2007-2008 it is anticipated the California Building Code will be revised to reflect the provisions of the 2006 International Building Code, as Published by the International Code Council. Applications for building permits submitted on or after the effective date will be subject to the provisions of the effective code. Please plan your design and permit application submittal and related scheduling accordingly. BU3. Construction drawings are required to be submitted to Building and Safety for review to verify compliance with applicable State construction codes and standards prior to issuance of building permits. The following "Clearances for B&S Review" are required for review by B&S: • City Planning; and • City Engineering and Development Services. BU4. The following clearances are required for issuance of building permits: a. City Planning b. City Engineering and Development Services c. City Transit d. William S. Hart School District and Saugus Elementary School District e. Castaic Lake Water Agency f. L. A. County Sanitation District g. L. A. County Environmental Programs (Industrial Waste), An agency contact list is available at the Building and Safety public counter. BUS. For information regarding plans and documents to be submitted for Building and Safety plan review prior to issuance of building permits please refer to the Plan Requirement List (available at the City's Building & Safety public counter). BU6. Please allow approximately four to six weeks for initial Building and Safety plan review. One or more additional reviews may become necessary depending on completeness and clarity of plans. Reviews following the initial review may take up to two weeks depending on the nature of pending requested clarifications. Specific Comments BUT Access for pedestrians and the physically disabled is required to/from the public way at each street that fronts the project sites (and as close as possible to public bus stops) by means of an uninterrupted path of travel to each of the buildings proposed. Access to all buildings is also required from designated disabled parking spaces. BUB. Maintain appropriate clearances between buildings so that these do not encroach into these designated yards. Yard agreement letters will be recorded on the property title with the County Recorder. BU9. Establish final pad elevations such that the connection points from the furthest sanitary plumbing fixtures will allow a minimum 2% slope for the sanitary on-site sewer line to the point of connection at the public sewer. Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 21 BU 10. The expanded mall area and all other retail/restaurant spaces and anchors that qualify as "mall" designations, as defined in the California Building Code shall maintain a smoke exhaust system to work in unison with the existing system. BU11. Maintain adequate travel distances from all retail areas to designated emergency exits as established by the CBC. BU12. All detached buildings and structures shall be constructed under separate permits. Please submit separate permit applications and related plans for separate buildings BU13. Please submit a separate addressing plan to establish building addresses at least four weeks prior to submitting permit applications. BU14. This parcel is located in an area that may be subject to liquefaction. Please have the geotechnical engineer address this issue and make recommendations for the buildings' foundations systems accordingly. BU 15. The required number of plumbing fixtures for restroom facilities in each of the buildings shall be as outlined in the California Plumbing Code (CPC), Table 4-1. Restroom facilities must be within 300 feet from public places and stores in the each of the following locations: h. The mall, including restrooms for added retail areas and non -complying existing retail areas i. Each new anchor and restaurant j. Each new habitable detached building BU16. The types of construction selected for added retail space to the mall shall have the same type of construction as currently established for the existing mall. BUTT New detached buildings shall have types of construction that allow for the use, area, and building height as permitted by the California Building Code (CBC). BU 18. Please allow for adequate means of egress for able and disabled occupants from buildings #1 and #6 on west property for any emergency exits along north and east exterior walls. Allow sufficient clearance between building and property line to allow for path of travel independent of motor vehicle driveways. BU19. Buildings adjacent to or attached to parking structures shall be separated as required for the types of construction and uses involved, as provided by the CBC. Environmental Services ESI. This project is a development planning priority project under the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit as a commercial facility greater than 1 acre. An Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP) that incorporates appropriate post construction best Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 22 management practices (BMPs) into the design of the project must be prepared and approved prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. If the project is to be completed in phases, all phases must be in accordance with the standards at the time of construction. Please refer to the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) guide for details. ES2. This project will disturb one acre or greater of land. Therefore, the developer must obtain coverage under a statewide General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit (General Permit). The applicant must submit to the City proof of filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) and provide the accompanying Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number as per the General Permit. In addition, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared and approved by the City's Environmental Services Division prior to the issuance of any grading permits. ES3. Please note the applicant shall be required to pay the review fees, currently $1,328 for USMP review and $507 for the SWPPP review, upon formal submittal of these documents. Contact the Environmental Services Division at (661) 284-1422 with any questions. ES4. All trash compactors and enclosures shall be screened from public view and designed to be out of view form the public areas of the site. ESS. The enclosure(s) should be shown on the site plan with dimensions, consistent with the surrounding architecture and shall be constructed with a solid roof. The enclosure(s) shall be located to provide convenient pedestrian and collection vehicle access. The parking structure is an inappropriate location for trash bins unless it provides a minimum of 20 feet overhead clearance. ES6. All new construction projects valuated greater than $500,000 must comply with the City's Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance. EST If the project is valuated above $500,000 the applicant shall comply with the following: • A Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (C&DMMP) must be prepared and approved by the Environmental Services Division prior to obtaining any grading or building permits. • A minimum of 50% of the entire project's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and 50% of the remaining C&D waste must be diverted from landfills. • A deposit of 3% of the estimated total project cost or $50,000, whichever is less, is required. The deposit will be returned to the applicant upon proving that 50% of the inert and remaining C&D waste was diverted. ESB. All projects within the City that are not self -hauling their waste materials must use one of the City's ten franchised haulers for temporary and roll -off bin collection services. Please contact Environmental Services staff for a complete list of franchised haulers in the City. Special Districts SDI. The applicant shall annex all property not currently in the City's Streetlight Maintenance District (SMD) into the SMD for the operations and maintenance of streetlighting and traffic Exhibit A Master Case 06-122 Town Center East Expansion Page 23 signals. A minimum of 120 days is required to process the annexation, which must be completed prior to final map approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. SD2. The applicant shall annex all property not currently in the City's Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) in to the LMD for the maintenance and improvement of landscaped medians, parkways, and streetscapes. A minimum of 120 days is required for annexation processing which must be complete prior to final map approval, grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first. Transit TRI. At this time the Transit Impact Fee does not apply to commercial/industrial developments. This fee is subject to change and the applicant shall pay the current fee at the time of final map recordation or building permit issuance, whichever comes first. TR2. The applicant shall allocate 50 spaces for a park and ride lot until a permanent lot is constructed near the existing Transit Center. TR3. Applicant shall provide a bus stop on northbound McBean Parkway on the far -side at the intersection of Valencia Boulevard. TR4. At the location of the bus stop, the applicant shall provide a stylized bus shelter which consists of a 15'x25' concrete pad placed behind the sidewalk with a bench, trash receptacle and the appropriate lighting (all electrical conduits shall be located within the shelter structure) subject to the approval of the Transit Division. TR5. At the location of the bus stop, the applicant shall provide a bus turn -out built to the required dimensions put forth by the City of Santa Clarita's Director of Public Works. TR6. Conditioned bus stops shall comply with all ADA regulations as specified in the most recent version of the California Disabled Accessibility Guidebook (Ca1Dag). Proposed disabled access shall be drawn on all plans. TR7. Prior to occupancy of the first building, the bus stops shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. TR9. The bus stop location shall be a minimum of 100' from the curb return or as specified by the Director of Public Works. TRIO. The applicant shall provide a pedestrian path from the bus stop to the Town Center East. S :\cd\current\! 2006\06-122\draftconditionsb. doc CITY OF SANTA CLARITA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION [X] Proposed [ ] Final MASTER CASE NO: 06-122 PERMIT/PROJECT: Conditional Use Permit 06-011, Minor Use Permit 06-025, Tentative Parcel Map 68039 APPLICANT: Westfield Corporation, Inc. LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Valencia Town Center Northeast corner Magic Mountain Parkway and Valencia Boulevard DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: This is a proposal to add 491,860 square feet of building area to an existing regional mall. The applicant has submitted a conditional use permit for building height; a minor use permit for transport of earth and accessory alcohol service at proposed restaurants in the expansion; and a tentative parcel map to move existing lot lines on the site. The expansion would be developed in three consecutive stages. Stage 1 would include the addition of 260,550 square feet consisting of retail pads located along the Valencia Boulevard frontage, and an addition to the existing Macy's. This stage also includes the development of a three-level parking structure. Stage 2 is an addition of 71,360 square feet of building area, consisting of retail pads at the Citrus Drive and Magic Mountain Parkway intersection. Stage 3 is the development of a 160,000 square foot anchor also located at the Citrus Drive and Magic Mountain Parkway intersection. Stage 3 includes the development of a five -level parking structure. The site is zoned CTC (Commercial Town Center). No land use designation changes are proposed with this application. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita [ ] City Council [X] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Community Development finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA. Mitigation measures for this project: [ ] Are Not Required [X] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached LISA M. HARDY, AICP PLANNING MANAGER n R Prepared by:f` Aimee Schwimmer, AICP, Associate Planner (Sign4ture) (Name/Title) Approved by Fred Follstad, AICP, Senior Planner (Signatue) �Y (Name/Title) Public Review Period,]�om: M, 4 7 2007 To: June 5, 2007 Public Notice Given On: May 7, 2007 [X] Legal Advertisement [X] Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: s:/cd/current/2006/06-122/mrd. doc INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Project Title/Master Case Number: Lead Agency name and address: O� gANT4 �,L 9� f� DECEMBE Westfield Valencia Town Center Expansion Project Master Case Number 06-122 Conditional Use Pen -nit 06-011, Minor Use Permit 06-025, Tentative Parcel Map 68039 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Contact person and phone number: Aimee Schwimmer, AICP, Associate Plamler Fred Follstad, AICP, Senior Planner Project location: The Valencia Town Center is located at 24201 West Valencia Boulevard, north of Valencia Boulevard, south of Magic Mountain Parkway, east of McBean Parkway and west of Citrus Drive within the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles. The project area to be developed with this expansion is known as "Town Center East" (See Attachment 1, Vicinity Map). Areas to be developed include the southwest corner of Citrus Drive and Valencia Boulevard; the southwest corner of Citrus Drive and Magic Mountain Parkway; and at the existing entrance to the facility on Valencia Boulevard, east of McBean Parkway. Assessor Parcel Numbers: 2861-058-023, 029, 011, 024, 032, 033 2861-059-025, 026, 027, 032, 030, 035, 021, 034, 008, 033 Applicant's name and address: Westfield Corporation, Inc. Attn: Craig Doyle 24201 W. Valencia Boulevard, Suite 150 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 of Santa Clarita Valencia Town Center Expansion Project 2007 General Plan designation: Commercial Town Center (CTC) Valley Center Concept (VCC) Overlay Zoning: Project Setting and Description: Project Setting Commercial Town Center (CTC) The project site is the Westfield Valencia Town Center. The site is located at the northeast intersection of Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway, bound by Magic Mountain Parkway to the north and Citrus Drive to the east. The project site is bound by three major highways, as designated by the City's General Plan, and is in close proximity to Interstate 5. The site is in the hub of the City of Santa Clarita, and it is the regional mall for the Valley. The site is an urbanized area, located adjacent to a range of uses including, multi-level medical and professional office buildings, commercial centers housing retail and restaurant uses, residential uses, a multi-level hotel, Santa Clarita City Hall and the Los Angeles County Regional Civic Center. The Civic Center contains the Los Angeles County Courthouse, Library, Sheriff's jail, maintenance and dispatch center, a Los Angeles County fire station, as well as County of Los Angeles satellite offices for Planning, Fire, and Building and Safety. General Plan and Zoning To promote growth of this regional activity center, the area is designated Commercial Town Center (CTC) by the City's General Plan and is zoned CTC, which allows a floor area ratio range of 0.25 — 0.5:1 square feet per gross acre. The area has a General Plan overlay designation of Valley Center Concept (VCC). The purpose of the VCC Overlay is to allow a floor area ratio (FAR) that exceeds the mid-range density allowed by the zone, therefore, the maximum floor area ratio for this site is 2:1 to 4:1. This designation encourages development for a range of Valley -wide uses, with flexibility in development standards and a mix of uses to create and enhance this regional hub. The VCC overlay provides a variety of components, such as retail, entei-taim-nent, civic center, recreation, marketplace, and office/financial. The components in this area are compatible uses which are mutually supporting and internally integrated based on location and development. The combined components create the Valley Center, which serves the entire Santa Clarita Valley and its communities. The Valley Center contains community- wide attractions, shopping opportunities, recreation and open space amenities (General Plan, L-35). The General Plan goal for the area is both a mix of regional uses, as well as making this a pedestrian and transit -oriented enviromnent. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan VCC Theme Activity and Use Matrix shows that this area's primary relationship to development of the regional mall and Civic Center include pedestrian opportunities, transportation and a multi -model transit station (General Plan, L-60). This area is in a centralized location surrounded by and linked to the Valencia Master Plan paseo system, which includes pedestrian bridges over the adjacent major highways. Page 2 There are three existing pedestrian bridges that link the paseo system throughout the Valencia Community to Town Center. The bridge over McBean Parkway is directly linked to the paseo from the bus transfer station to the east of the site. This is specifically addressed in the transportation component of the General Plan Land Use Element VCC Overlay which states that buildings and land uses within the Overlay area shall be designed to provide convenient and safe access to public transit (General Plan, L-61). Included in the proposed development is a pedestrian path through the parking area from the pedestrian bridge that is covered and linked to the existing Santa Clarita Bus Transfer station, creating a safe and visible pedestrian path from the McBean Parkway pedestrian bridge to the mall facility. Surrounding Urbanized Area The site is flat and has no topographical features on or around the project site. The site is bound by three Major Highways (McBean Parkway, Magic Mountain Parkway and Valencia Boulevard) that are currently constructed to their ultimate width. Because this area is designated for a regional use, the site and surrounding areas are urbanized with utilities and other infrastructure, such as ultimate right-of-way width for Major Highways, underground power lines, sewer lines, landscaped medians, and storm drains. There are no biological resources such as blueline streams, Significant Ecological Areas (SEA) or oak trees on the project site. Development of Stage 3 (160,000 square foot anchor) of the project requires the widening of the McBean Parkway bridge over the Santa Clara River. The bridge presently accommodates six vehicle lanes and would be widened to a total of eight. Widening would occur on both sides of the bridge with most of the widening on the west side. On November 30, 1998, the Anny Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) approved the Natural River Management Plan (NRMP) for the Santa Clara River. In conjunction with this approval, ACOE and CDFG certified an Enviromnental Impact Report (EIR) and an Environmental hnpact Statement (EIS), which analyzed impacts associated with the implementation of various infrastructure improvements (bank stabilization, new bridges, bridge widening, utility crossings, stone drain outlets, etc.) along and within portions of the Santa Clara River adjacent to property then under the ownership of Newhall Land. The widening of the McBean Parkway Bridge over the Santa Clara River is an approved project in the NRMP and its impacts have been previously analyzed and addressed in the above referenced EIR/EIS. The NRMP and its certified EIR/EIS are incorporated into this document by reference and are available at the City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302. The bridge widening will comply with all of the requirements of the NRMP. Page 3 The approvals and permits issued in conjunction with the NRMP allow Newhall Land or its designee to engage in construction and maintenance activities for the approved infrastructure improvements, including the widening of the McBean Parkway Bridge over the Santa Clara River. Prior to initiating this widening, the applicant would be required to submit a Verification Request Letter and accessory documentation to the ACOE and CDFG to ensure consistency with the NRMP and accessory agency permits. Once this consistency determination is made, the applicant will be permitted to construct the widening improvement consistent with the requirements of the NRMP. Though 463 trees will be removed as part of this expansion, the trees are ornamental parking lot trees and are not native species, as described further in this document. All of the trees will be replaced on site, i.e. the ornamental landscaping will be replaced in the areas that will be constructed with new surface parking and along the landscaped setback. Project Description Existing Town Center The existing Westfield Valencia Town Center East is a 55.6 acre site consisting of 905,102 square feet of building area. This area is located within the ring road the surrounds the project site. Town Center East was approved for construction in 1991. This area was developed as a single building, an enclosed mall facility, with three anchor department stores, and restaurant and retail uses. In 1996, Town Center West was approved. Town Center West is the area to the west of the enclosed Town Center East building and includes Town Center Drive and the retail and restaurants along Town Center Drive. This area also includes two multi-level parking structures, office buildings including Princess Cruises and the financial buildings that front on Magic Mountain Parkway. Also included in Town Center West is the mixed uses located to the west of McBean Parkway, along Town Center Drive, such as the retail, office, attached residential units, gyro and restaurants with frontage along Town Center Drive. Proposed Development The project is an expansion to Valencia Town Center East. Detached pads would be developed, as well as additions to the existing enclosed building and department store anchor. The proposed expansion would include approximately 491,860 square feet of shopping center and commercial uses within three sequential construction phases. The proposed expansion would be made to various areas around Town Center East, including the existing main structure between the anchor department stores (Macy's and Sears), a two-story addition to the Macy's Department Store and an additional retail pad to the parking area at the southwest corner of Citrus Drive and Magic Mountain Parkway. The project site has been previously graded with the development of the existing Town Center East. Approximately 98% of Town Center East has been previously developed with the pad area for multi-level retail, restaurant, and surface parking. Portions of the site that have been graded, but are currently vacant and landscaped. These previously graded areas are located at the project frontage at the northeast corner of Valencia Page 4 X 7 A T TT.T! 'F A T!)TTTT.T'f'TT.TTT)T) TVTI A T.TC1TllT.T Boulevard and McBean Parkway, and along Citrus Drive and Magic Mountain Parkway. As part of the application, the vacant areas would be paved for pedestrian access, landscaped common areas, parking and drive aisles. A site plan has been attached showing the existing and proposed development (Attachment 2). Three Stages of Development Development of this project would occur in sequential order, with Stage 1 being the first set of improvements, followed by Stage 2, and Stage 3 would be the final phase constructed as part of this application. Buildout of all three stages is proposed to occur by 2010. Stage 1 would include approximately 260,500 square feet of shopping center uses including retail and restaurant uses located within the southeastern portion of the site and designated with the existing shopping center buildings and connected by landscaped promenades and plazas. Also in this phase would be a two-level, 50,000 square foot expansion to the existing Macy's. Development of a three level parking structure would occur during this phase. This parking structure would house an additional 198 spaces on each level (the ground floor being the existing surface parking). This structure would be located at the southwest corner of Valencia Boulevard and Citrus Drive, adjacent to the existing Sears. Also during this phase, the applicant is proposing to transport dirt to the site. Approximately 41,000 square feet of earth would be transported to the site. Stage 2 would include the development of approximately 71,360 square feet of commercial space in a two-story structure located just south of the intersection of Magic Mountain Parkway and Citrus Drive. This would contain restaurant and retail uses. Stage 3 includes approximately 160,000 square feet of shopping center area, including a new anchor store to the northeast of the existing shopping center buildings. A five -level (ground floor plus four levels) parking facility will be provided to the west of the new shopping center uses. This structure would house 427 standard sized parking spaces on each of the four new levels (the ground floor parking is considered the existing surface parking and is not counted as additional parking). Landscaped surface parking areas will also be provided adjacent to the new shopping center uses. Parld ng As previously discussed, the City's General Plan VCC Overlay on the project site provides for the development of a regional shopping center at this location. The current UDC parking standards require centers that exceed 50,000 square feet to be parked at 5 parking space for each 1,000 square feet of gross building area. Based on the VCC Overlay and the parking studies provided by Westfield, the required parking for Town Center (existing and proposed) is generated by the gross leasable area (GLA). This area includes tenant lease area for sales, food and office uses, and common areas where non- perinanent sales facilities (such as kiosks or outdoor seating) may be placed. This area does not include stairwells, restrooms, or electrical rooms, etc. The existing number of parking spaces, in compliance with the UDC requirements in place at the time of the construction of the mall, is four parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of GLA. The Page 5 W A T RNTOT A TC)NXFNT (''T ?NT'rL T? RYA A NTCT()1NT required parking for the existing 723,411 square foot of GLA is 2,894. There are currently 3,787 parking spaces on site. Since the development of the existing Town Center East, the UDC has been modified to require more parking for large developments. Under the existing UDC parking requirements, the proposed 491,860 square feet of GBA would be parked at five parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of GBA. The proposed three stages of development in addition to the existing Town Center East would be required to provide 5,354 on-site parking spaces. Parking will be provided with each phase. The applicant proposes to provide a total of 5,409 parking spaces when all three stages of development for this application are completed. Parking will be provided with surface spaces and parking structures. The existing surface parking will be added to with new spaces in areas that are not currently paved, including those along Magic Mountain Parkway, Citrus Drive and Valencia Boulevard and at the Valencia Boulevard/McBean Parkway intersection. The proposed three-level parking structure located on the southwest confer of Citrus Drive and Valencia Boulevard (adjacent to the existing Sears pad) would house 198 spaces on each level. With this application to expand, the applicant will have more on site parking than is required by the City's UDC. The applicant would be required to construct this three-level parking structure upon direction from the Director of Community Development. If the Director finds a need for additional parking on the Town Center East site during the development of Stage 1 or 2, the applicant will be required to construct this paring structure. The other parking facility would be a five -story structure and located along the Magic Mountain Parkway frontage (close to the existing JC Penny pad). This structure will provide 427 spaces on each level for a total of 1,708 spaces. The proposed addition and the existing Town Center East would require a total of 5,354 parking spaces. Upon completion of the final stage, the applicant will provide a total of 5,409 on-site parking spaces. The applicant has also agreed to provide overflow parking during the winter holiday peak season. This would allow employees to park their personal vehicles at a location off-site and Westfield to provide a shuttle from that site to the mall. Entitlements Required In compliance with the requirements of the Unified Development Code (UDC), the applicant has submitted the following entitlement applications: Conditional Use Permit Portions of the proposed structures exceed 35 feet in height. The City's UDC requires that new development in excess of 35 feet in height receive the approval of a conditional use permit prior to construction. All conditional use pei-rnit applications are reviewed by the City's Planning Commission. The `lifestyle' center, which is the Stage 1 addition to the existing main entrance to the enclosed mall would be 55'-6" feet in height, the higher portions of the buildings being architectural projections, no more than 60'-0". Other buildings would range between Page 6 16'-0" and 48'-0" in height. The two story additions to the Macy's, the Stage 2 retail and the Stage 3 department store anchor would be a maximum height of 60'-0". The proposed expansion building and addition will not exceed two stories, with the exception of the parking structures. The five -level parking structure is proposed to be constructed as part of Stage 3 and would be 69'-0" tall, and 88'-0" high with the lights installed on the rooftop parking area. The three level parking structure, proposed to be constructed with Stage 1, would be 24'-0" high and 42'-0" with the parking lot lighting installed on the rooftop. Tentative Parcel Map The City's UDC requires a snap be processed when the boundary lines of more than four lots will be moved or dissolved. A lot line adjustment is processed when the boundary lines of four or fewer lots are moved or dissolved. The applicant has submitted a Tentative Parcel Map (Attachment 3) that would move existing property lines to create lots to accomplish the proposed expansion. This is a typical request for a facility of this size to allow building pads to be sold to the operators and the parking areas maintained by a property owners association. The applicant proposes to process this map for Stage 2 and 3 of this application. Currently, Town Center East is comprised of 21 contiguous lots. Stage 1 will occur on four lots along the southern portion of the site, (along the Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway frontages) therefore, a lot line adjustment can be processed for this area. Stage 2 and 3 would occur on the northern side of the project site, where there are 15 lots, whose boundary lines would be dissolved with this parcel map application. Minor Use Permit The applicant has submitted a Minor Use Permit for the transport of 41,000 cubic yards of earth. This earth would be imported to the site during the Stage 1 site preparation and construction. The earth would be transported from a site approved for earth export. Analysis of the export of earth from that the site has been analyzed with a previous application. The applicant is proposing restaurant uses in the expansion areas. The existing restaurants in the center have approved pen -nits for alcohol sales. The request for alcohol service would include beer, wine and other alcohol, and would be an accessory use to the 10 full-service restaurants in the expansion. Surrounding land uses: The project site is known as Town Center East and is the surface parking and single building located within the ring road bound by McBean Parkway, Valencia Boulevard, Citrus Drive and Magic Mountain Parkway. The project site is the area considered by the City's General Plan to be the retail core of the Valencia area. Page 7 VAT.F.NC':TA TOWN CENTER EXPANSION' The goal of the General Plan for the areas is to develop as a regional destination for retail and office uses. Valencia Town Center is surrounded by developed land consisting of various commercial and office uses. North: Magic Mountain Parkway (designated a Major Highway in the City's General Plan), auto dealerships and a small commercial center with retail and restaurant uses. South: Valencia Boulevard (designated a Major Highway in the City's General Plan), multi -story office buildings including City of Santa Clarita City Hall and medical offices and a commercial center containing Whole Foods Grocery, Kohls and various restaurant and small retail stores. A multi-level medical office building and the Sienna Villa attached condominium complex is located to the southeast of the intersection of Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway. East: Citrus Drive (designated a collector street), City of Santa Clarita/Los Angeles County Civic Center with the County Courthouse, Sheriff's office and vehicle yard, Los Angeles County Fire Station, Los Angeles County Library, County satellite offices including Building, Fire Inspection, and Planning. A retail center that specializes in home decor is located on the northern side of Citrus Drive, and a multi-level office building containing Bank of America and other financial -related offices is located on the southern side of Citrus Drive. West: The Princess Cruises building, Wachovia and other financial offices adjacent to Magic Mountain Parkway, movie theaters on McBean Parkway and the retail and restaurants along Town Center Drive. Also to the west of the ring road and Town Center east is McBean Parkway (designated a Major Highway by the City's General Plan), a gas station, City of Santa Clarita bus transfer station, The Greens (a restaurant with golf putting recreation areas), the Valencia Hyatt (a four - level structure), and Town Center Drive West (a private roadway) with mixed uses including various shopping and a mixed-use multi -family development (The Madison). Other public agencies whose Los Angeles County Fire Departinent approval is required: A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or a "Potentially Page 8 . T I A T --T A T/ ITT T /'IT XTTT.`Tl T` LIn A l.TC1T/17.T Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Measures Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Agriculture Resources [X] Air Quality [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [X] Geology /Soils [X] Hazards & Hazardous [X] Hydrology / Water [ ] Land Use / P1amling Materials Quality [ ] Mineral Resources [X] Noise [ ] Population / Housing [ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation [X] Transportation/Traffic [ ] Utilities / Service Systems [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance B. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: [ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [X] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the enviroiunent, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Page 9 I7 AT T'TTt'T A TlIIITNT f1U7- T-rCD L'VD A NTQT(1%T _ �� , Associate Planner C , Senior Plarmer Page 10 �C07 l ate d0 ate C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? e) Other Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [] I [X] I [] [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [] [] [X] [] [] [] [] [X] H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? d) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] an existing or projected air quality violation? Page 11 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any [] [X] [] [] criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of thresholds for ozone precursors)? Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant [ ] [] [X] [] concentrations? wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of [ ] [] [] [X] people? through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or f) Other [ ] [ ] [] [X] IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] ESA Delineation Map? Page 12 h) Other V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in'15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? e) Other VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, either on or off site? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [] [] [l [X] [l [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [) [] [X] [] [J [] [] H [X] H H [X] [] [l 17 [X] [] [] [X] [] [l [] [1 [] [X] Page 13 17 AT OT A r-rnlAT\T (''LMT PRT? T7VT) OTNTCT(ITKT f) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10% natural grade? i) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? j) Other Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [] [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment [ ] through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment [ ] through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation)? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely [ ] hazardous materials, substances, or waste -within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous [ ] materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where [ ] such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the [ ] project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an [ ] adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury [ ] or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] I [X] Page 14 IT AT T-1. T/+T A T/l%II TAT /'T­KTTT;T) T -VT) A TTT0 T/ITTT .. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? j) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere [ ] [] [ ] [X] substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] direction of surface water and/or groundwater? Page 15 �� X 7 n T STT! -+T A 1rr1-k7I1T.T (`T~''\TT_F�D rVD A _NTC'T(1TT I= Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation 1) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] in) Impact Stormwater Management in any of the following ways: i) Potential impact of project construction and project post- [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] construction activity on storm water runoff? ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] velocity or volume of storm water runoff? iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases in [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? v) Storm water discharges that would significantly impair or [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g. riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.) vi) Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems, [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] watersheds, and/or water bodies? vii) Does the proposed project include provisions for the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Disrupt or physically divide an established community [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (including a low-income or minority community)? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] community conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the project. a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Page 16 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING— Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [] [] [l [X] [] [] [X] [] [� [X] [] [l [] [] [X] H [] [] [X] [] [] [] [Xj [] [] [] [l [Xl H [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [] [] [] [X] H [l [] [X] Page 17 TTQT(1NT I7 A T T7T. T/"T A "`/III T -XT /-'A DT. T'T'Z;D 'C -VD A�, Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govermnental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] ii) Police protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] iii) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] iv) Parks? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] XIV. RECREATION - Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] or other recreational facilities , such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Page 18 .. _ IT AT DT.TI-T A 7'C1Tx7AT !' UNTTDD -UVD A TTQTn-NT F. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation h) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable [ ] Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or [ ] wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water [ ] drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods, of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? [] [X] [] [X] Page 19 V e T rT.TrrT A Tr)NXR\l r`FNTRR FXP A NRTON [X] c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Page 20 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [J [] [X] [l D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS: Section and Subsections I Evaluation of Impacts I. AESTHETICS a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area and the surrounding sites have been developed. The site is bounded by three designated Major Highways (Valencia Boulevard, McBean Parkway and Magic Mountain Parkway). The majority of the site includes a developed surface parking lot, while the northeast and eastern portions of the site have either been graded and/or are landscaped, and would be developed with parking as part of this request. The area surrounding the project site is primarily developed with regional multi-level buildings containing office uses, such as the City/County Civic Center, City Hall, Bank of America and medical offices. Also adjacent to the project site are commercial centers that contain major retail facilities, such as Target, Kohls, and Ethan Allen. The proposed project would not significantly alter the existing view of the project site from adjacent uses and roadways because the proposed expansion of 491,860 square feet would not exceed the height of the existing Town Center buildings. The colors and materials proposed would match the existing building design. The proposed parking structures would be located in areas that are currently developed with surface parking and would contain architectural features consistent with the other buildings on site, as well. However, the view of the project site would not be considered a scenic vista, as the site does not contain unique or unusual scenic resources. Furthermore, there are no designated scenic vistas within the vicinity of the project site nor can scenic viewsheds (i.e., mountain ranges, natural open space) be viewed from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. No further analysis is required. b) No Impact. There are no designated state scenic highways or other designated scenic roadways in the City of Santa Clarita. In addition, as discussed in Response No. I. a) above, the project site is developed with surface parking and graded areas, developed as a regional mall site, and thus does not contain any unique or unusual scenic resources, including trees, rock outcrops, or historic buildings. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway, local scenic expressway, or eligible scenic highway. No further analysis is required. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response No. I.a) above, the project site currently consists of a surface parking area and graded and/or landscaped areas. The area surrounding the project site is developed primarily with commercial, restaurant, and office uses. Implementation of the proposed project would alter the existing visual character and quality of the project site. The surface parking and graded areas that comprise the site would be replaced with multi -story shopping center and commercial uses, though the design and height of the proposed addition would be consistent with that of the existing Town Center. While the proposed development would introduce new elements of scale, mass, color, and texture to the project site, it would be similar to the regional commercial, restaurant, and office uses that are currently located to the Page 21 north, east, and west of the project site; and consistent with the City's General Plan goals for the area. In addition, the proposed development would be subject to the City's development standards as outlined in the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) and the City's Architectural Design Guidelines. Further, the site's architectural and landscape plans would be subject to City review. This ensures that the development will be designed with high professional standards and will be consistent with the aesthetic character of the City and existing buildings. Therefore, since the project would be consistent with the surrounding urban development and high quality design would be ensured through the City's review, impacts in this regard would be less than significant and no further analysis is required. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The majority of the project site is currently developed with surface parking, and 905,102 square feet of building area used as a regional mall, which includes nighttime security lighting. Light and glare currently occur on-site from the cars traversing and parking in the parking lot. The project site is impacted by light and glare from the cars traversing the adjacent roadways and the extensive commercial development surrounding the site to the north, south, east, and west. The proposed project would increase the ambient light at the project site by adding security lighting, signage, cars traversing the adjacent roadways and parking areas, and the interior and exterior lighting for the commercial uses. However, the project would be required to comply with the City's UDC, which includes lighting specifications for parking structures and signage. Specifically, Section 17.18.070 of the City's UDC requires that lighting for parking structures, "...be so arranged to prevent off-site glare or direct illumination. All lighting shall be directed downward and be of cut-off design so the luminary and/or lens do not protrude below the luminary housing." In addition, lighting associated with signage for the project would be required to comply with Section 17.19 of the City's Municipal Code. Finally, in accordance with City requirements standard condition of approval, a site lighting/photometric plan, that details all proposed project lighting, will need to be submitted before approval of building permits. This review ensures that introduced lighting will not affect adjacent land uses as the City of Santa Clarita does not allow any spill-over lighting outside of the project boundaries. In addition, the buildings would be constructed largely of non -reflective building materials and building surfaces would be treated to minimize any potential glare impacts. The low reflective character of the project's design would ensure that the project would not introduce a substantial source of glare that could interfere with off-site activities or pose any kind of visual hazard to vehicles or pedestrians traveling along the adjacent roadways. As such, potential lighting and glare impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required. e) Other. No Impact. No other impacts related to aesthetics have been identified. Pax II. AGRICULTURAL a) No Impact. The project site is not located on designated Prime Farmland, RESORUCES Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. According to the 2002 Important Farmland Map, the project site is located in an area designated as "D — Urban and Built -Up Land". Therefore, the proposed project would not convert Farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impact would occur and no further analysis is required. b) No Impact. The project site is zoned and designated by the City's General Plan as CTC (Commercial Town Center), which provides for development of a wide range of retail, service, and related uses at a regional level. Agricultural uses are not permitted within the CTC zone, nor is the project site under a Williamson Act contract. Thus, the development of the proposed project would not result in a conflict relative to existing zoning for agricultural use or with Williamson Act contracts. As no impact would occur, no further analysis is required. c) No Impact. As stated in Response II(a) above, no agricultural resources or operations exist on the project site or on adjacent properties. The project site and the surrounding area are fully developed with urban, regional land uses. The project would not result in the conversion of any farmland to non-agricultural use. The project would therefore have no impact relative to the conversion of farmland and, therefore, no further analysis is required. d) Other: No Impact. No other impacts related to agricultural resources have been identified. III. AIR QUALITY a) No Impact: The Santa Clarita Valley, and interior valley of Southern California, is within the South Coast Air Basin, which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. The air quality in the South Coast Air Basin is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The South Coast Air Basin has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Because of the violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the California Clean Air Act requires triennial preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve the standards. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) prepares the basin's air quality management plans with teclulical and policy inputs from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resource Board (CARB), and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The most recently adopted plan is the 2003 AQMP, adopted on August 1, 2003. This plan is the South Coast Air Basin's portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP outlines steps required to achieve the standards while allowing for growth projected by the Southern California Association of Governments. This plan is designed to achieve the 5 percent annual reduction goal of the California Clean Air Act. The AQMP accormnodates growth based SCAG's predictions. Future regional levels of vehicular air pollution identified in the AQMP are based on SCAG's growth forecasts in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) coupled with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Thus, projects that are consistent with employment and population forecasts are consistent with the AQMD. These Pagu PagI4 forecasts are predicted using local land use plans, particularly zoning and general plan land use designations. The proposed project is consistent with the Zoning and General Plan Land Use designations for the site. Thus, the project is consistent with the growth projections accommodated by the AQMP. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and would have no associated impacts. b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation (Mitigation III -1 to III -6): Air quality standards in Southern California are identified by both the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). These standards have been established for five pollutants — ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NOA sulfur dioxide (SOA fine particulate matter (PMro), and lead. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The majority of NOx generated from the construction site would be generated by diesel -fueled vehicles and equipment. NOx emissions can be reduced through available emissions reduction measures, specifically regular low-NOx tune-ups. These tune-ups provide a ten (10) percent reduction of NOx. The majority of the VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) emissions during construction would be generated by application of architectural coatings, such as paints, varnishes, primers, and other surface coatings. The newly incorporated SCAQMD Rule 1113, which applies to the project, limits the VOC level in paint to 100 g/l, thus, reducing VOC emissions generated by application of architectural coatings. VOC emissions can be further reduced by using high - efficiency paint sprayers. High -efficiency paint sprayers reduce VOC emissions by approximately 25 percent. SCAQMD Rule 403 applies to the proposed project. This rule requires construction practices within the SCAB to take measures to reduce emission of fugitive dust, including PM10. The City's General Plan designates the site as a regional mall facility and anticipates the proposed development. Though no significant impacts would occur as a result of the project, a short-term increase in emissions on the site during construction. These impacts are considered less than significant, though mitigation to further reduce construction -related impacts are listed below. Mitigation Measure III -1: Off-road equipment used on the proiect site shall undergo low-NOx tune-ups every 90 days. The City of Santa Clarita shall not issue a grading permit for the proiect site unless the project's grading specifications require low-NOx tune-ups of off-road equipment every 90 days. Mitigation Measure III -2: The project's construction routes shall be established to reduce interference with non -project traffic patterns. These routes shall be approved by the City of Santa Clarita prior to construction. Mitigation Measure III -3: Trucks and heavy equipment idling shall not exceed five (5) minutes. The City of Santa Clarita shall not issue arg ading permit for the project site unless the project's grading specifications restrict trucks and heavy equipment idling to five (5) minutes. Mitigation Measure III -4: Equipment and staging areas during grading shall be located as far as possible from the residential units across Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway. The City of Santa Clarita shall not issue a grading permit for the project site unless the project's grading specifications identifyquipment and staging areas that meet this requirement. PagI4 Mitigation Measure III -5: Only high pressure -low volume (HPLV) paint applicators with 50% efficiency shall be used. The City of Santa Clarita shall not issue a building -permit unless the project's architectural specifications require paints/coatings to be applied with HPLV applicators with 50% efficiency. Mitigation Measure III -6: The applicant shall be required to use pre -coated building materials. c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation (Mitigation Measures III -1 to III -6): The City of Santa Clarita is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). This basin is a non -attainment area for Ozone (03), Fine Particulate Matter (PM - 2.5), Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10), and Carbon Monoxide (CO), and is in a maintenance area for Nitrogen Dioxide (NOA The proposed project would generate 03, PM2.5i PM10, CO, and NO2 during both construction and operation. During the construction of the proposed commercial project, it is anticipated that there will be an increase in dust and vehicle emissions related to the grading and construction equipment used on the project site. With the Mitigation Measures III -1 to III -6, the short term increase in pollutants will be reduced to a less than significant impact. However, the City's General Plan anticipated the development of this project site for all future projections. While there would be some short term air quality impacts during construction, the long term operations impacts would have the most affect on the project site and the air quality in the vicinity. The City's General Plan designates the site as a regional mall facility and anticipates the proposed development. Though no significant impacts would occur as a result of the project, a short-term increase in emissions on the site during construction. These impacts are considered less than significant, though mitigation to further reduce construction -related impacts are listed below. Earth will be imported to the site from a previously analyzed development site. Transport of this earth will be required to comply with all standard conditions and requirements (Unified Development Code, Chapter 17.26) related to earth transport. d) Less than Significant: Certain residents, such as the very young, the elderly and those suffering from certain illnesses or disabilities, are particularly sensitive to air pollution and are considered sensitive receptors. In addition, active park users, such as participants in sporting events, are sensitive air pollutant receptors due to increased breathing rates. Land uses where sensitive air pollutant receptors congregate include schools, day care centers, parks, recreational areas, medical facilities, rest homes, and convalescent care facilities. The project site is an irregularly-shaped parcel, bounded by Magic Mountain Parkway to the north, McBean Parkway to the west, Citrus Drive to the east, and Valencia Boulevard to the south. Multifamily residential uses (The Madison) exist to the west of the project site, across McBean Parkway. The Sienna Villas are an attached multi -family neighborhood and are located to the southwest of the project site across McBean Parkway and Valencia Boulevard. To the north of the site, across Magic Mountain Parkway are various commercial centers, containing a Kinko's Copy Store, a Target and other retail and restaurant uses. Also across Magic Mountain Parkway are car dealerships, Parkway Hummer and Infiniti. To the south of the site, across Valencia Boulevard, is the Crossroads Coni nercial Center, which contains Kohls and Whole Foods, among other retail and restaurant uses, a multi-level Washington Mutual and the City Hall Building. To the east of the project site, across from Citrus Drive is the multi-level Bank of America office building, a LACo FD station, a shopping center that specializes in furniture sales, and the City of Santa Clarita/County of Los Angeles Civic Center. To the west of the project site, across McBean Parkway is the Town Pax Center West development including a multi-level Hyatt Hotel, The Greens restaurant and recreation facility and a gas station. Southwest of the project site, in the opposite corner of the Valencia Boulevard/McBean Parkway intersection, is a multi-level medical office building. Of these uses, the homes, and recreational facilities are potential sensitive air quality receptors. However, the proposed uses are not expected to generate any hazardous concentrations of air pollutants. In addition, as discussion in Section XV of this document, the project would not cause unacceptable and immitigable traffic congestion onsite or at any affected offsite roadway intersections. Thus, the project is not expected to cause any CO hotspots. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact sensitive air pollutant receptors. e) No Impact: The proposed use of the site and the surrounding uses are not shown on Figure 5-5 "Land Uses Associated with Odor Complaints" of the 1993 SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Therefore, the proposed project would not create objectionable odors, and would have no associated impacts. 0 Other: The project would not cause any other air quality impacts. IV. BIOLOGICAL There are no significant environmental features on the project site. The site is RESOURCES not listed as an SEA or SNA and there are no wildlife corridors or protected plant species on the project site. Development of Stage 3 (160,000 square foot anchor) of the project requires the widening of the McBean Parkway bridge over the Santa Clara River. The bridge presently accommodates six vehicle lanes and would be widened to a total of eight. Widening would occur on both sides of the bridge with most of the widening on the west side. On November 30, 1998, the Army Corps of Engineers (ALOE), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) approved the Natural River Management Plan (NRMP) for the Santa Clara River. In conjunction with this approval, ACOE and CDFG certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which analyzed impacts associated with the implementation of various infrastructure improvements (bank stabilization, new bridges, bridge widening, utility crossings, stone drain outlets, etc.) along and within portions of the Santa Clara River adjacent to property then under the ownership of Newhall Land. The widening of the McBean Parkway Bridge over the Santa Clara River is an approved project in the NRMP and its impacts have been previously analyzed and addressed in the above referenced EIR/EIS. The NRMP and its certified EIR/EIS are incorporated into this document by reference and are available at the City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302. The bridge widening will comply with all of the requirements of the NRMP. The approvals and permits issued in conjunction with the NRMP allow Newhall Land or its designee to engage in construction and maintenance activities for the approved infrastructure improvements, including the widening of the McBean Parkway Bridge over the Santa Clara River. Prior to initiating this widening, the applicant would be required to submit a Verification Request Letter and accessory documentation to the ACOE and CDFG to ensure consistency with the NRMP and accessory agency permits, Once this consistency determination is made, the applicant will be permitted to construct the widening improvement consistent with the requirements of the NRMP. Pao a) Less Than Significant Impact. The 55.6 -acre project site is located in an urbanized area that has been developed with a regional mall. A small portion of the project site is vacant, though was previously graded with the development of the existing Town Center. This area is landscaped and is located along the project frontage on Magic Mountain Parkway, Citrus Drive and the corner of Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway. As indicated on Exhibit OS -3, Biological Resources Study Areas Showing Habitat Sensitive Ranks, of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan, the project site is not identified as containing Riparian Woodland/Mulefat Scrub, Oak Woodland, or Chaparral/Scrub Habitat.I In addition, the project site does not include suitable habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special status species as shown on any California Department of Fish and Game map.2 Vegetation on the project site consists of mature ornamental trees surrounding the surface parking area and along pedestrian paths. A tree survey conducted on the project site indicated that there are a total of 595 trees currently on-site. Of the 595 tree located on-site, it is estimated that 62 of the trees would be boxed and relocated and 70 would remain protected in place. Though existing parking lot trees would be removed as part of the project, the trees would. be replaced with appropriate native species. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan showing the location of the required parking lot trees, number, location, size and species. The landscape plans comply with the City's Parking Standards. As none of the trees located on the project site are native protected trees, there would be no impacts to protected trees. No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. Finally, animal species in the area are generally limited to small terrestrial and bird species as well as other small animals that readily adapt to urban settings, none of which are listed as sensitive or endangered. Given the adaptability of any animal species occurring on-site, such species would not be affected by project implementation. The removal and replacement of ornamental vegetation and trees would have no impact on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, As such, no further analysis is required. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area consisting of a multi-level structures used for a variety of commercial uses, surface parking area and graded landscaped areas. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities exist on the project site as illustrated on Exhibit OS -1, Generalized Vegetation Map, or Exhibit OS -3, Biological Resources Study 1 City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, June 1991. 2 California Department of Fish and Game, California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, B269, Burrowing Owl, http://www.dfg.ca.govlwhdablhtnilIB269.ht7nl, accessed November 2006. California Department of Fish and Game, California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, R029, Coast Horned Lizard, http://www.dfg.ca,govlshdablhtml/R029.html, accessed November 2006. California Department of Fish and Game, California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, R029, Coast Horned Lizard, http://www.dfg.ca.govlshdablhtn7llR029.htnil, accessed November 2006. PagI7 Areas Showing Habitat Sensitive Ranks, of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan.' Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community; therefore, no further analysis is required. c) No Impact. As discussed in Response IV(b), the project site is located in an urbanized area and currently consists primarily of developed surface parking lots and a vacant but previously graded area. In addition, a site assessment of the project area did not identify any wetlands or surface water on the project site.4 The Santa Clara River is located approximately 1,100 feet northeast of the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact on federally protected wetlands and as such, no further analysis is required. d) No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area and includes a currently developed regional shopping center surrounded by various commercial uses, such as other shopping centers, the City/County Civic Center, City Hall, and a gas station. No wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites are present on the project site or in the vicinity. Additionally, there is no body of water existing on or in the vicinity of the project site that serves as natural habitat in which fish could exist. Furthermore, due to the urbanized nature of the area, the potential for native resident or migratory wildlife species movement through the project site is very low. However, the project site does support mature landscaping trees and is located approximately 1,100 feet south of the Santa Clara River, which is designated a Significant Natural Area (SNA) and a Significant Ecological Area (SEA). As such, to the extent feasible, efforts shall be made by the project applicant to schedule all vegetation removal activities outside the nesting season, which typically occurs from February 15 to August 15, in order to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. If initial vegetation removal occurs during nesting season, in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, all suitable habitats shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist before clearing. In the event active nests are identified, a buffer of at least 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the end of the nesting cycle. As such, compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act would ensure that the project would have no impacts on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or the use of any native wildlife nursery sites. Thus, no further analysis is necessary. e) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no oak trees on the project site. 3 City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, June 1991. 4 Allan E. Seward Engineering Geology, Inc., Geologic/Geotechnical Report Review of Geotechnical Constraints Lots 32 & 33, Parcel Map 20795A Northeast Corner of Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway Valencia, California, June 13, 2003. 5 City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, June 1991. ' Ibid. Paga There are no biological resources on the site protected by local policies or ordinances. As discussed in Response IV(a), the project would require the removal of existing ornamental parking lot trees on the project site. However, none of the trees located on the project site are native protected trees and were installed as parking lot trees when the site was developed in the 1990's. The trees would be replaced on the site with tree species approved by the City's Planning Division. As such, no impacts would occur and no farther analysis is required. f) No Impact. As discussed above, the project site is located approximately 1,100 feet southwest of the Santa Clara River. The Santa Clara River is designated a SNA and a SEA. However, as illustrated on Exhibit OS -2, Significant Ecological Areas, of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan, the project site is not only located a considerable distance from the Santa Clara River, it is also separated by Magic Mountain Parkway, which is considered a major thoroughfare through the City and represents the beginning of extensive urban development extending southward. As such, the project site is not located within the SNA or SEA for the Santa Clara River.5 Thus, no impact relative to any habitat or natural community conservation plans would occur and no further analysis is required. g) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response IV(f), the project site is located approximately 1,100 feet .southwest of the Santa Clara River, which is designated a SNA and a SEA. However, due to the intervening distance from the Santa Clara River and the surrounding urban environment, the project site is not located within the SNA or SEA for the Santa Clara Rivera Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard and no further analysis would be required. h) Other: No Impact. No additional biological resource impacts have been identified at this time. V. CULTURAL a) No Impact. Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the California Environmental Quality RESOURCES Act (CEQA) Guidelines generally defines historical resources as any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript determined to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. Historical resources are further defined as being associated with significant events, important persons, or distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; representing the work of an important creative individual; or possessing high artistic values. The Valencia Town Center East was developed in 1992, with the western expansion built in 1999. As such, none of the structures within the project area is more than 50 years old .7 The project site itself includes a currently developed surface parking lot and a vacant but previously graded site and is not listed in any 7 The term `project area" refers to the entire 67 -acre Town Center site, including the project site. The proposal would only construct on 55.6 acres of land. Pag 9 register of historical resources, nor does the site contain any structures with distinctive characteristics of a region or period. The project site does not meet any criteria set forth in CEQA to identify the site as an historical resource. Therefore, no impacts would result from the construction and occupancy of the proposed project and no further analysis is required. b) No Impact. The site is located within an urbanized area and includes a currently developed surface parking lot and a regional shopping center. Past development activities have included ground surface disturbance due to excavation for building foundations, roadways, as well as water, sewer, and other underground utility lines, as the surrounding property is developed with three Major Highways (Magic Mountain Parkway, Valencia Boulevard, and McBean Parkway) and regional commercial centers and other uses such as a gas station, City/County Civic Center and City Hall. There are no known archaeological artifacts or sites of archaeological significance within the project site. In addition, any surficial archaeological resources that may have existed on the project site at one time have likely been disturbed or previously removed. Project implementation would require the excavation of a total of approximately 66,000 cubic yards of soil, up to a maximum of 10 feet below existing grade. Archaeological resources are not anticipated to be discovered during construction activities for the project. No further analysis is necessary. c) No Impact. The entire site has been previously excavated and developed with a regional shopping center, and associated surface parking. The project site is underlain by terrace deposits underlying shallow alluvial deposits. Previous studies indicate that the terrace deposits are underlain by the Saugus Formation.8 These are not unique geologic features and there is no record that the underlying geologic formations contain paleontological resources. There are no records indicating that prior excavation activities have disturbed any paleontological resources or that any paleontological resources are located within the project area. No resources were discovered during the prior excavation and development of the site. No impacts would occur with the proposed project and no further analysis is required. d) No Impact. As discussed in Response V(b), the project site is located within an urbanized area and has been subject to disturbance due to prior grading and development activities. No known traditional burial sites or other type of cemetery usage has been identified within the project site or nearby vicinity. As such, the likelihood of discovering human remains is low. Nonetheless, any discovery of human remains or related resources would be treated in accordance with federal, State, and local regulations and guidelines for disclosure, recovery, relocation, and preservation, as appropriate. Specifically, if human remains are encountered unexpectedly during construction excavation and grading activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin 8 411an E. Seward Engineering Geology, Inc., Geologic/Geotechnical Report Review of Geotechnical Constraints Lots 32 & 33, Parcel Map 20795A Northeast Corner of Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway Valencia, California, June 13, 2003. P aAO and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American, who will then help determine what course of action should be taken in dealing with the remains. Therefore, no impacts would occur in regards to disturbance of any human remains and no further analysis is required. e) Other: No Impact. No additional cultural resources impacts have been identified at this time. VI. GEOLOGY AND A Geologic/Geotechnical Report was prepared for the project site by Allan E. SOILS Seward Engineering Geology, Inc., dated June 13, 2003 which examines the area adjacent to the northeast corner of Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway. This Geotechnical Report is incorporated into this document by reference. A Geotechnical Investigation was completed on January 26, 2007, by Van Beveren and Butelo, Inc. This report examined the entire project site (Town Center East) and is incorporated into this document by reference. a)i. Less Than Significant Impact. Fault rupture is defined as the displacement that occurs along the surface of a fault during an earthquake. Earthquake faults are classified as active, potentially active, or inactive. For the purposes of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map Act, the State of California defines active faults 'as those that have historically produced earthquakes or shown evidence of movement within the past 11,000 years (during the Holocene Epoch). Active faults may be designated as Earthquake Fault Zones under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, which includes standards regulating development adjacent to active faults. These zones identify areas where potential surface rupture along an active fault could prove hazardous and areas where special studies are required to characterize hazards to habitable structures. Although the project site is located within the seismically active southern California region and in the vicinity of several known faults, no known active surface faults pass through the project site or are adjacent to the project site. Review of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map for the Newhall Quadrangle, the Seismic Safety Element of the Los Angeles County General Plan, and the published Geologic Maps for the project site, indicates that no active or potentially active faults traverse the project site. Therefore, the fault rupture potential on-site is considered very low. Furthermore, compliance with City and State seismic standards would serve to reduce potential risks associated with seismic activity. Impacts related to fault rupture would be less than significant and no further analysis would be required. a) ii. Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Mitigation Measure VI -1). As 9 Allan E. Seward Engineering Geology, Inc., Geologic/Geotechnical Report Review of Geotechnical Constraints Lots 32 & 33, Parcel Map 20795A Northeast Corner of Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway Valencia, California, June 13, 2003. Paall 10 Ibid. Ibid. lz Ibid. 13 City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, June 1991. 14 Allan E. Seward Engineering Geology, Inc., Geologic/Geotechnical Report Review of Geotechnical Constraints Lots 32 & 33, Parcel Map 20795A Northeast Corner of Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway Valencia, California, June 13, 2003. " Ibid. 16 Ibid. " Ibid. Pax stated in Response VI(a)(i), the project site is not located on an active fault; however, the project site is located in a seismically active area. The majority of southern California, including the project site, is in Seismic Zone 4, the highest hazard zone, and is therefore susceptible to strong groundshaking. 10 The Geotechnical Studies prepared for the project analyzed the anticipated amount of groundshaking that would impact the project site based upon historical earthquakes in the area and the amount of faults within the vicinity of the project site. Utilizing the Probabilistic Method, the Seward Geotechnical Study determined that there would be a 10 percent chance that the project site would experience a mean acceleration motion in excess of 0.82g in 50 years, based upon a 6.5 magnitude (M) earthquake on the Santa Susana fault. The acceleration for a 7.5 M earthquake would be 0.56g. However, the project would be required to adhere to current local and State standards and regulations regarding seismic safety, including those set forth by the City's Municipal Code and the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Geologic and geotechnical evaluations of the proposed project are required to follow the guidelines presented in the California Geological Survey's (CGS) Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, which provides guidance for evaluation and mitigation of earthquake - related hazards. In addition, to ensure that impacts related to seismic groundshaking would be less than significant, Mitigation Measure VI -1 is included. Mitigation Measure VI -1: The proiect shall comply with the following City of Santa Clarita Building and Safety Division requirements: • Prior to the issuance of arg ading permit by the Building and Safety Division the consulting geologist and soils engineer shall review and approve proiect grading plans This approval shall be conferred by signature on the plans which clearly indicate the geologist and/or soils engineer have reviewed the plans prepared by the design engineer and that the plans include the recommendations contained in the report. • Prior to the commencement of trading activities, a qualified geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing fills for conformance to the 10 Ibid. Ibid. lz Ibid. 13 City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, June 1991. 14 Allan E. Seward Engineering Geology, Inc., Geologic/Geotechnical Report Review of Geotechnical Constraints Lots 32 & 33, Parcel Map 20795A Northeast Corner of Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway Valencia, California, June 13, 2003. " Ibid. 16 Ibid. " Ibid. Pax recommendations of the City Engineer, approved gradingplans, applicable grading codes, and the geotecluiical report approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. • During construction, allrg ading shall be carefully observed, mapped and tested by the project engineer. All grading shall be performed under the supervision of a licensed engineering geologist and/or soils engineer in accordance with applicable provisions of the Building Code and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. • Any recommendations prepared by the consulting_ geologist and/or soils engineer for correction of geologic hazards, if any, encountered during grading shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project. a) iii. Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Mitigation Measure VI -1 through VI -2). Liquefaction is a form of earthquake -induced ground failure that occurs primarily in relatively shallow, loose, granular, water -saturated soils. When these types of soils lose their inherent shear strength due to excess water pressure that builds up during repeated movement from seismic activity, liquefaction can occur. A low groundwater table and the presence of loose to medium dense sand and silty sand are factors that could contribute to the potential for liquefaction. The potential for liquefaction was evaluated for the alluvium materials underlying the project site. The analyses indicate that there exists the potential for liquefaction of isolated, very thin zones, which are separated by non - liquefiable layers.11 The liquefaction -prone zones are localized and the liquefaction potential and associated settlements are considered to be relatively small with a maximum calculated seismically -induced settlement of 1.0 inches with differential settlements expected to be no greater than 0.5 inches in a distance of 30 feet. 12 The Van Beveren investigation states that liquefaction potential shall be considered in the design of the proposed structures. It further states the liquefaction can be mitigated by interconnecting the foundations so that each building acts as a single unit. Parking structures shall be supported on continuous footings beneath the short span of the structures and foundations for retail buildings be interconnected with a thickened and reinforced floor slab within each of the buildings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure VIA and compliance with CGS Special Publications 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California (1997), State and local regulations including the City's Municipal Code and the UBC, would require that all adverse subsurface conditions be remediated. Mitigation Measure VI -2: At time of building permit, the applicant shall design plans that incorporate interconnecting the foundations so that each building acts as a single unit. Parking structures shall be supported on continuous footings beneath the short span of the structures and foundations for retail buildings be interconnected with a thickened and reinforced floor slab within each of the Pag13 buildings. Thus, impacts related to seismic -related ground failure would be reduced to a less than significant level. a) iv. No Impact. Landslides tend to occur in loosely consolidated soils, wet soil, and/or rock on sloping terrain. Over -steepened slopes are often prone to collapse when shaken by an earthquake. Water is often a contributing factor to landslide movement, thus springs, landscape irrigation, leaking water lines and other water sources can influence the creation of landslides and the extent of the damage. As stated in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan, the region is susceptible to geological hazards in the event of a major earthquake that could result in ground failure and liquefaction. 13 However, the project site is generally flat, thus the potential for a landslide is considered to be low. In addition, as previously described in Response VI(a), the project site is not within a special study zone and no active faults are known to exist on or in proximity to the project area. No impacts related to seismically -induced landslides within the project site are expected, and, as a result, no mitigation measures are required. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site includes a currently developed surface parking lot and a regional shopping center. The topography of the project site is relatively flat and all undeveloped or unpaved areas are vegetated with grass turf, shrubs, and trees. The project would require site grading and excavation of approximately 66,000 cubic yards of soil to a depth of up to 10 feet below existing grade. As such, construction activities associated with the project would have the potential to result in minor soil erosion during grading and soil stockpiling, subsequent siltation, and conveyance of other pollutants into municipal storm drains. Project construction is required to comply with the requirements of the Municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Permit and would implement City grading permit regulations that include compliance with erosion control measures, including grading and dust control measures. Specifically, construction would occur in accordance with Chapter 10.04, Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control, of the City's Municipal Code, which requires necessary permits, plans, plan checks, and inspections to reduce the effects of sedimentation and erosion. In addition, the project is required to have an erosion control plan approved by the City, as well as a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). As part of these requirements, Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented during construction to reduce soil erosion to the maximum extent possible. Compliance with the City's applicable building regulations regarding erosion control measures would ensure that project impacts related to soil erosion during the construction phase will be less than significant. Please refer to Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional information regarding erosion control. Furthermore, Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) provisions would be implemented throughout the operational life of the project that would assist in reducing on-site erosion. Compliance with the NPDES and the City's Pagl-4 Municipal Code regulatory requirements, as required, will ensure that potential impacts associated with erosion would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is underlain by Quaternary alluvial sediments that were deposited in the flood plain of the Santa Clara River. The alluvium consists of stiff to hard sandy silt, medium -dense to dense silty and clayey sand and stiff to hard sandy lean clay. i4 Compacted artificial fill was placed over the majority of the project site during grading for the Town Center. The fill consists of sandy lean clay and silty and clayey sand. 15 As stated in Response VI(a)(iii), the project site has been identified as being susceptible to liquefaction and settlement hazards. As stated in Response VI(a)(iv), the project site and adjacent properties are generally flat and have been previously developed, thus, the project site has not been identified as having the potential for landslides. Lateral spreading is a condition where low -angle landsliding is associated with liquefaction and occurs on mildly sloping surfaces such as drainage channels or streambanks. As the project site is nearly flat and there are no surface water courses, and despite a high liquefaction potential, there is minimal potential for lateral spreading. Subsidence is a localized mass movement that involves the gradual downward settling or sinking of the ground, resulting from the extraction of mineral resources, subsurface oil, groundwater, or other subsurface liquids, such as natural gas. The project site and surrounding area do not utilize groundwater wells nor are there any oil fields in production.16 As such, the potential for subsidence to occur on-site is low. In addition, compliance with California Geological Survey Special Bulletin 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, and the seismic building requirements established by UBC, the City's UDC, and other applicable State and local regulations would ensure that impacts related to adverse geologic or soil conditions would be reduced to a less than significant level. As such, impacts with regard to unstable geology would be less than significant and no further analysis would be required. d) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation (Mitigation Measure VI - 1). Expansive soils are typically associated with fine-grained clayey soils that have the potential to shrink and swell with repeated cycles of wetting and drying. Expansive soils can result in damage to overlying structures and infrastructure. As previously described, the project site is underlain by compacted artificial fill consisting of sandy lean clay and silty and clayey sand. The Geotechnical Studies prepared for the project site determined the expansion potential of on-site fill is low. 17 However, the Seward Geotechnical Study suggests that further expansion testing be performed at the completion of grading. As described above, Mitigation Measure VI -1 requires further geologic testing and compliance with all applicable State and City building and safety guidelines, restrictions, and permit requirements. Impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required. Pax e) No Impact. The project site is underlain by compacted artificial fill consisting of sandy lean clay and silty and clayey sand. The project site is located in an urbanized area served by existing sewer infrastructure and surrounded by three Major Highways (McBean Parkway, Valencia Boulevard and Magic Mountain Parkway), which are built to the General Plan ultimate widths. The project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur and no further analysis would be required. f) No Impact. As previously described, the project site has already been graded and includes a currently developed surface parking lot and a vacant but previously graded site. The topography of the project site is relatively flat with no ground surface relief features. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts to the natural topography or ground features and no mitigation measures would be required. g) Less Than Significant Impact. As previously described, the topography of the project site is flat with no ground surface relief features. The site was previously excavated and developed with a regional shopping center with surface parking. The proposed project, a 491,860 square foot addition to the existing facility and two multi-level parking structures, would result in the excavation of approximately 66,000 cubic yards of soil and would require the import of 41,000 cubic yards of additional fill. However, the majority of the project site is currently paved and the entire site itself is devoid of natural topographical features. Consequently, the project site does not contain any ridgelines or other regionally notable topographic features. Therefore, although the project would alter the site's topography with the excavation of 66,000 cubic yards or soils and the import of an additional 41,000 cubic yards of fill, the proposed topographic changes and earth movement are not significant impacts. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant and no further analysis is required. h) No Impact. As previously described, the topography of the project site is relatively flat as it has already been graded and partially developed with a surface parking lot. Therefore, the project would not result in development on a slope greater than 10 percent and no mitigation measures would be required. i) No Impact. As described in Response VI(f), the project site has already been graded and does not contain any unique geologic or physical features. Thus, there would be no impacts in this regard and no further analysis is required. j) Other: No Impact. No additional impacts are anticipated with regards to geologic problems. VII. HAZARDS AND A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Update was prepared by HAZARDOUS Hillman Environmental Group, LLC, for the project site, dated October 20, 2004. MATERIALS The ESA Update surveyed the entire project area, including the main mall area, western expansion area, and the project site. This document is incorporated into this document by reference. a) Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction activities typically involve the use of potentially hazardous materials such as vehicle fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. All potentially hazardous materials shall be contained, .,_9 stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers' instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Any associated risk would thus, be adequately reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with these standards and regulations. Project construction, therefore, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and no mitigation measures would be required. Hazardous materials associated with the operation of the project would involve the use and storage of small quantities of potentially hazardous materials in the form of custodial products and pesticides for landscaping. All potentially hazardous materials shall be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers' instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. In addition, development plans for the project shall be reviewed by the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) for hazardous material use, safe handling, and storage, as appropriate. Thus, operation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is necessary. Refer to Response VII(c), for further discussion regarding hazardous substance generation, storage, and disposal impacts from surrounding uses. b) No Impact. The use of hazardous materials in conjunction with construction activities would be short-term and conducted in compliance with local and State requirements, along with the manufacturer's guidelines. In addition, existing regulations require that construction activities include monitoring for the presence of stained soils or surfaces that may indicate possible hazardous materials. If such materials are identified, work shall cease and the materials shall be sampled. Hazardous materials must be removed according to regulatory procedures for the protection of human health. The operation of the project would involve the limited use of potentially hazardous materials in the form of cleaning solvents and pesticides. All potentially hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers' instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. As a result, the standard use of these cleaning and landscape products will have no impact related to the release of hazardous materials. No further analysis is required. c) No Impact. The project site is not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school is the Valencia Valley Elementary School, located at 23601 Corrizo Drive, which is approximately 0.57 mile southeast of the project site. In addition, as described in Responses VII(a) and VII(b), the limited quantities and prescribed handling procedures of hazardous materials would not pose a risk to any schools in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts regarding hazardous materials at any existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the project site and no further analysis is required. d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation (Mitigation Measure VII - 1). The ESA Update was prepared to identify the presence or likely presence, use, or release on the project site of hazardous substances as a recognized Pag17 18 Hillmann Environmental Group, LLC, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update of Valencia Town Center, October 20, 2004, 19 Ibid. Pa918 environmental condition. The ESA Update included a review of environmental agency databases, previous reports and historical documents; visual observation of the project site and adjoining properties; and, interviews with selected site representatives. This report concluded with the following information: The ESA Update revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the project area. The Sheriff's station located to the northeast of the project area is an open LUST case. This site has the potential to negatively impact the project area. 18 The Shell Service station located to the south of the project area is an open LUST case. This site has the potential to negatively impact the project area. 19 Therefore, the applicant is required to complete the following mitigation to ensure the site continues to have no evidence of hazardous materials or waste as a result of the adjacent LUST cases. Mitigation Measure VII -1: The applicant shall complete a Phase 2 environmental analysis of the project site to ensure that no waste has leaked onto the site from the adiacent LUST sites. If any waste is found, the applicant is responsible for full reconnaissance of the site prior to construction. e) No Impact. The closest airport is the Whiteman Airport in the San Fernando Valley, located approximately 15 miles south of the project site. Therefore, project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport, nor is it located within an airport hazard area. Therefore, the project would not result in an airport -related safety hazard and no further analysis is required. f) No Impact. As discussed in Response VII(e), the nearest airport is the Whiteman Airport, located approximately 15 miles south of the project site. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No safety hazards to people residing or working in the project area due to the use of any private airstrip are anticipated. Thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. g) No Impact. The City of Santa Clarita participates in the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), which is a framework for coordinating multi -agency emergency responses to address the planned response to extraordinary emergency situations, including natural disasters such as earthquakes and secondary hazards such as inundation. In addition, the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Safety Element addresses protection of the public from unreasonable risks associated with natural disasters (e.g., fires, floods, earthquakes). The project area is bounded by Magic Mountain Parkway to the north and 18 Hillmann Environmental Group, LLC, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update of Valencia Town Center, October 20, 2004, 19 Ibid. Pa918 McBean Parkway and Valencia Boulevard to the south. All three of these roadways are considered major thoroughfares through the City and provide access to Interstate 5. As such, they are considered major evacuation routes for the City. However, the project would not require the closure of any existing street or thoroughfare, or any roadway designated as an evacuation route (including Magic Mountain Parkway, McBean Parkway, and Valencia Boulevard). Construction activities and staging areas would be confined to the project site so as not to physically impair access to and around the site. The project would also be required to comply with all City and State building, fire, and safety codes, and project plans would be reviewed by the City's Public Works Department. In addition, the project would be designed to conform to the standards of the LACoFD for emergency access, including fire lane (truck access) standards. Prior to approval from the City, the applicant is required to receive approval of all proposed entitlements from the LACoFD. As such, the project would have no impact on adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Thus, no further analysis is required. h) No Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area designated by the City's General Plan for regional uses, such as a City/County Civic Center, City Hall, and national retailers with uses in multi-level buildings. The project site is developed with a 905,102 square foot shopping center on a 55.6 acre site and includes a currently developed surface parking lot and previously graded areas with minimal landscaping. As indicated on Exhibit S-6, Potential Wildland Fire Hazard Areas, of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan, the project site is not located within a wild land fire hazard area. The proposed structures would be constructed in an urbanized area and would be constructed to meet or exceed current fire codes. A standard condition of approval for the project requires the applicant to receive approval from the Los Angeles County Fire Department Fuel Modification Unit prior to the installation of landscape on the site. Furthermore, the proposed project would introduce ornamental landscaping, which is not anticipated to create hazardous conditions associated with brush fires. Thus no impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. i) No Impact. Three natural gas lines, ranging from 34 -inch to 22 -inches, extend north to south, east of McBean Parkway. The natural gas lines may rupture during a large earthquake, resulting in an increase risk of localized fires .20 However, as discussed in Response VII(g), the City has prepared an Emergency Response Plan to address the planned response to extraordinary emergency situations, including natural disasters such as earthquakes and their secondary effects. In addition, electrical transmission lines and oil pipelines do not traverse the project site and therefore, as a result of this project, no impacts will occur and no further analysis is required. j) Other: No Impact. No additional impacts are anticipated in regards to hazards. No further analysis is necessary. VIII.HYDROLOGY AND There are no water courses or water bodies that traverse the site. Development WATER QUALITY and operation of the project will not impact water courses or bodies. However, development of Stage 3 of the project includes the widening of the McBean 20 City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, June 1991. Pa919 Parkway bridge over the Santa Clara River. Development of Stage 3 (160,000 square foot anchor) of the project requires the widening of the McBean Parkway bridge over the Santa Clara River. The bridge presently accommodates six vehicle lanes and would be widened to a total of eight. Widening would occur on both sides of the bridge with most of the widening on the west side. On November 30, 1998, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) approved the Natural River Management Plan (NRMP) for the Santa Clara River. In conjunction with this approval, ACOE and CDFG certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which analyzed impacts associated with the implementation of various infrastructure improvements (bank stabilization, new bridges, bridge widening, utility crossings, storm drain outlets, etc.) along and within portions of the Santa Clara River adjacent to property then under the ownership of Newhall Land. The widening of the McBean Parkway Bridge over the Santa Clara River is an approved project in the NRMP and its impacts have been previously analyzed and addressed in the above referenced EIR/EIS. The NRMP and its certified EIR/EIS are incorporated into this document by reference and are available at the City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302. The bridge widening will comply with all of the requirements of the NRMP. The approvals and permits issued in conjunction with the NRMP allow Newhall Land or its designee to engage in construction and maintenance activities for the approved infrastructure improvements, including the widening of the McBean Parkway Bridge over the Santa Clara River. Prior to initiating this widening, the applicant would be required to submit a Verification Request Letter and accessory documentation to the ACOE and CDFG to ensure consistency with the NRMP and accessory agency permits. Once this consistency determination is made, the applicant will be permitted to construct the widening improvement consistent with the requirements of the NRMP. a) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the 21 City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, June 1991. 22 Allan E. Seward Engineering Geology, Inc., Geologic/Geotechnical Report Review of Geotechnical Constraints Lots 32 & 33, Parcel Map 20795A Northeast Corner of Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway Valencia, California, June 13, 2003. 23 Ibid. 24 Hilbnann Environniental Group, LLC, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update of Valencia Town Center, October 20, 2004. 25 Ibid. 26 Hillmann Environmental Group, LLC, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update of Valencia Town Center, October 20, 2004. 27 Allan E. Seward Engineering Geology, Inc., Geologic/Geotechnical Report Review of Geotechnical Constraints Lots 32 & 33, Parcel Map 20795A Northeast Corner of Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway Valencia, California, June 13, 2003. 18 City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, June 1991. 29 Allan E. Seward Engineering Geology, Inc., Geologic/Geotechnical Report Review of Geotechnical Constraints Lots 32 & 33, Parcel Map 20795A Northeast Corner of Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway Valencia, California, June 13, 2003. proposed 491,860 square foot addition to the existing 905,102 square foot regional shopping center have the potential to result in adverse effects on surface water quality due to minor soil erosion during grading and soil stockpiling, subsequent siltation, and conveyance of other pollutants into municipal storm drains. However, project construction activities would implement City grading permit regulations in compliance with erosion control measures, including grading and dust control measures. Specifically, construction would occur in accordance with Chapter 10.04, Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control, of the City's Municipal Code, which requires necessary permits, plans, plan checks, and inspections to reduce the effects of sedimentation and erosion. In addition, the project shall be required to have an erosion control plan approved by the City as well as a SWPPP. As part of these requirements, BMPs shall be implemented during construction, consistent with the Municipal NPDES permit, to reduce pollution in stormwater discharge to levels that comply with applicable water quality standards. As such, project construction will not violate any water quality standards or requirements. With the proposed addition to an existing regional shopping center, including surface parking and two, multi-level parking structures, project operations would likely increase trash, nutrients, bacteria, pesticides and herbicides, and oil and grease from the increased intensity of uses on-site. As indicated above in Response VI(b), project operations would comply with the City's SUSMP requirements. Under the SUSMP, the project would be required to ensure that post -development peak storm water runoff discharge rates do not exceed the estimated pre -development rates such that there would be an increased potential for downstream erosion. The SUSMP requirements also include, but are not limited to, the following: minimizing stormwater pollutants of concern; containing properly designed outdoor material storage areas; containing properly designed trash storage areas; and providing proof of ongoing BMP maintenance. Implementation of these and other SUSMP requirements will ensure that operation of the project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. With implementation of the regulatory requirements cited above and the City's standard conditions of approval regarding storinwater pollution prevention potential impacts associated with water quality will be less than significant. b) No Impact. The Santa Clarita Valley relies on the State Water Project and groundwater pumped from the upper alluvial aquifer for domestic, commercial, and agricultural uses .21 The estimated depth to the groundwater in the vicinity of the project site is approximately 52 feet. The inferred direction of the regional groundwater flow in the vicinity of the project site is estimated to be from the southwest to the northeast toward the Santa Clara River.22 As discussed in detail in Response XVI(b) below, the Valencia Water Company (VWC) has sufficient water supplies to acconunodate the proposed project and project development would not adversely affect any regional groundwater supplies. In addition, the project shall not interfere with groundwater recharge. Currently, the majority of the project site is developed with paved surfaces, with the existing pervious surface area for recharge being negligible. Minimal natural precipitation is able to permeate into the on-site soils through the existing undeveloped areas. As the historic high groundwater level is approximately 52 feet below grade and project excavation activities are expected to extend to a depth of approximately 10 feet below grade, the project is not be expected to directly affect groundwater. In addition, the introduction of new landscaping, courtyards, and changes in building footprints resulting from the project is expected to have a negligible effect on the amount of impervious surface area on- site. These alterations would not be sufficient to substantially interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. Therefore, groundwater supplies would be neither noticeably depleted nor added to under the proposed project, and there would be no impacts associated with groundwater. Thus, no further analysis is required. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is a site developed with a regional mall. The project site contains only ornamental landscaping in between buildings and no streams or rivers traverse the project site.23 Currently, storm water from the project site is conveyed by sheet flow to catch basins located throughout the project site to a 36 inch pipe that extends along the western portion of the project site along McBean Parkway. The project proposes a 491,860 square foot expansion of the existing 905,102 square foot Valencia Town Center East. The introduction of new landscaping and changes in building footprints resulting from the project is expected to have a negligible effect on existing drainage patterns and the amount of impervious surface area on-site since the majority of the project site is developed as a surface parking lot. Site -generated surface water runoff would continue to flow into the City's storm drain system. In addition, the project would include appropriate drainage improvements on-site to direct anticipated stormwater flows to the local drainage systems, similar to existing conditions. The applicant shall be required to comply with the City's standard NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) requirements which would ensure that project construction and operation complies with all applicable NPDES and City requirements, including those regarding preparation of a SWPPP and SUSMP. Therefore, the proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or alter the course of a stream or river or result in substantial erosion and impacts would be less than significant. No further analysis is necessary. d) No Impact. As described above in Response VIII(c), the proposed project will not result in the alteration of existing drainage patterns within the project site or alter the course of a stream or river. While the proposed project would result in an expansion in building area, it will not result in a substantial increase in impervious surfaces such that an increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff would result in flooding. Further, the project shall include appropriate on-site drainage improvements to convey anticipated stormwater flows. Therefore, the project shall not have an impact relative to the alteration of existing drainage patterns or flooding and no further analysis is required. e) Less Than Significant Impact. As described in Responses VIII(c) and VIII(d), the project will not noticeably increase the rate or amount of surface water runoff in relation to existing conditions. Currently, stonn water from the project site is conveyed by sheet flow to catch basins that connect to the City's P ag42 stormwater drainage system. Given the minimal increase in surface water flows, project implementation will not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. In addition, the expansion of the proposed project would generate pollution constituents in surface water runoff that are generally similar to existing conditions. As discussed in Response VIII(a), implementation of the City's standard conditions of approval will ensure that project construction and operation would comply with all applicable NPDES and City requirements, including those regarding preparation of a SWPPP and SUSMP. Therefore, the proposed project shall not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff and impacts would be less than significant. No further analysis is necessary. f) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, project -related construction activities would have the potential to result in adverse effects on surface water quality as the result of minor soil erosion, subsequent siltation, and conveyance of other pollutants into municipal storm drains. Furthermore, project operations would generate pollution constituents in surface water runoff that are similar to existing conditions, such as limited amounts of fertilizers and pesticides used for landscaping maintenance. As discussed in Response VIII(a), construction activities shall occur in accordance with City requirements, which require necessary permits, compliance with NPDES requirements, plans, plan checks, and inspections to reduce the effects of sedimentation and erosion. As a standard City requirement, the project shall be required to prepare an erosion control plan and SWPPP. As part of these requirements, BMPs shall be implemented during construction, consistent with the Municipal NPDES permit, to reduce pollution in stormwater discharge to levels that comply with applicable water quality standards. In addition, project operations shall comply with the City's SUSMP requirements, which shall minimize potential water quality impacts. With implementation of the City's standard NPDES conditions of approval, the project will not substantially degrade water quality and impacts would be less than significant. g) No Impact. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has prepared Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) identifying areas in Los Angeles County that would be subject to flooding during 100- and 500 -year storm events. The FIRM for the City indicates that the project site is located within Zone C, which is an area outside the 500 -year flood plain. 24 In addition, the project does not propose development of any housing. The proposal is to add retail, restaurant and office square footage to an existing regional mall that is not located in a flood plain. Thus, there will be no impacts in this regard and no further analysis is required. h) No Impact. As described in Response VIII(g), the project site is not located within a FEMA 100 -year flood zone or subject to flooding during 100 -year storm events (a rain storm with a one percent chance of occurring in any given year) .25 Furthermore, existing structures do not impede or redirect any 100 -year flood flows. As the project will have no impact on a flood plain, no further analysis is necessary. PaA i) No Impact. As described in Response VIII(g), the project site is not located within a FEMA 100 -year flood zone or subject to flooding during 100 -year storm events. The Santa Clarita Valley does include the Castaic Reservoir and the Bouquet Reservoir, which during a seismic or other catastrophic event, may fail. The Castaic Reservoir inundation map, prepared by the California Department of Water Resources, indicates areas of potential flooding. If the Castaic Reservoir were to fail, the flow would rapidly travel southward, flooding Castaic and Valencia within 15 minutes. At the Castaic Junction, the flow would turn westward and augment the Santa Clara River waters. The flow would cease at Magic Mountain Parkway, and therefore, would cease just north of the project site. The California Department of Water Resources map indicates that flooding from failure of the Bouquet Reservoir would occur north of McBean Parkway in the Bouquet Canyon area at an elevation under 1,200 feet within 49 minutes. After flooding down Bouquet Canyon, the flood waters would enter the Santa Clara River and inundate Newhall Ranch Road and part of I-5, south of Castaic Junction. This inundation area is located north and east of the project site. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structure to significant risks involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Thus, there are be no impacts in this regard and no further analysis is required. j) No Impact. A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi -enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank. A tsunami is a great sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, produced by a significant undersea disturbance such as tectonic displacement of the sea floor associated with large, shallow earthquakes. Mudflows result from the downslope movement of soil and/or rock under the influence of gravity. The project site is located approximately 30 miles from the Pacific Ocean and no other large bodies of water are located within the vicinity of the project site. In addition, the project site is not positioned downslope from an area of potential mudflow. Therefore, no impacts will occur associated with the inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflows and no further analysis is required. k) No Impact. The project site does not contain any wetlands or surface water.26 In addition, as previously described, the estimated depth of the groundwater underlying the project site is approximately 52 feet, which flows in the vicinity of the project site is estimated to be from the southwest to the northeast toward the Santa Clara River. 27 The project only involves regarding and resurfacing of the project site and therefore, is not expected to result in changes to the course or direction of the groundwater. Therefore, the project would not change the rate of flow, currents, or course of surface water or groundwater and no further analysis is required. 1) No Impact. As discussed in Response VIII(k), the project site does not include any surface water, including a wash, channel creek, or river. The project site includes a currently developed surface parking lot and a vacant but previously graded site, and as such, regrading and resurfacing activities would not modify a wash, channel creek, or river. There are no impacts in this regard and no mitigation measures are required. m)i. Less Than Significant Impact. As described in Responses VIII(c) and VIII(d), the project would not noticeably increase the rate or amount of storm Pag45 water runoff in relation to existing conditions, Currently, storm water from the project site is conveyed by sheet flow to catch basins that connect to the City's stormwater drainage system. Given the minimal increase in surface water flows, project implementation will not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. As discussed in Response VIII(a), construction activities would occur in accordance with City requirements, which require necessary permits, compliance with NPDES requirements, plans, plan checks, and inspections to reduce the effects of sedimentation and erosion. As a standard condition the project is required to prepare an erosion control plan and SWPPP. As part of these requirements, BMPs are implemented during construction, consistent with the Municipal NPDES permit, to reduce pollution in stormwater discharge to levels that comply with applicable water quality standards. Also, project operations shall comply with the City's SUSMP requirements and the City's standard NPDES requirements, which minimizes potential water quality impacts. With compliance with the City's standard NPDES and grading requirements, the project shall not result in potential impacts from project construction and post - construction activity to the City's Stormwater Management Plan and impacts would be less than significant. No further analysis is necessary. m)ii. Less Than Significant with Mitigation (Mitigation Measures VIII -1 through VIII -3). The project is the development of a regional shopping center and commercial, restaurant and office uses, which would include areas for delivery, loading docks and/or other outdoor work areas. Therefore, the following mitigation measures are included in order to ensure that potential discharges from these areas do not result in a significant impact to the City's Stormwater Management Plan. Mitigation Measure VIII -1: Auto related leaks, drips and spills shall be cleaned up immediately to prevent contaminated soil on paved surfaces that can be washed away into the storm drains. Mitigation Measure VIII -2: Pavement shall not be hosed down at hazardous material spills. Dry cleanup methods shall be used. Mitigation Measure VIII -3: All vehicle/equipment maintenance, repair, and washing shall be conducted away from storm drains and shall not occur on site. The site shall be used for loading and unloading of products sold at the facility. Any auto -related repairs shall be conducted off-site, with the exception of the approved auto use currently located at the Sears facility on Valencia Boulevard. Drip pans or drop clothes shall be used to catch drips and spills from vehicles. m)iii. Less Than Significant Impact. As described in Responses VIII(c) and VIII(d), the project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface water runoff in relation to existing conditions. Currently, storm water from the project site is conveyed by sheet flow to catch basins that connect to the City's stormwater drainage system. Given the minimal increase in surface water flows, project implementation will not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Further, the project shall include appropriate on- site drainage improvements to convey anticipated stormwater flows. Therefore, the project shall have a less than significant impact relative to the flow velocity Pag45 or volume of storm water runoff and no further analysis is required. m)iv. Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response VI(b), project construction shall be required to comply with the requirements of the NPDES Construction Permit and shall implement City grading permit regulations that include compliance with erosion control measures, including grading and dust control measures. Specifically, construction would occur in accordance with Chapter 10.04, Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control, of the City's Municipal Code, which requires necessary permits, plans, plan checks, and inspections to reduce the effects of sedimentation and erosion. In addition, the project is required to have an erosion control plan approved by the City, as well as a SWPPP. As part of these requirements, BMPs shall be implemented during construction and operation to reduce soil erosion to the maximum extent possible. Furthermore, SUSMP provisions shall be implemented throughout the operational life of the project that will assist in reducing on-site erosion. Compliance with the NPDES and the City's Municipal Code regulatory requirements, including NPDES requirements, shall ensure that potential impacts associated with erosion would be less than significant. No further analysis is required. m)v. Less Than Significant Impact. As described in Response IV(c), a site assessment of the project site did not identify any wetlands or surface water on the project site and the project site is not located within the SNA or SEA for the Santa Clara River.28' 29 In addition, implementation of the City's standard NPDES requirements shall ensure that the project shall not result in polluted storm water discharges. Therefore, the project shall not result in storm water discharges to the impairment of beneficial uses of receiving water. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant and no further mitigation measures are required. m)vi. Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response VIII(m)(v). m)vii. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project shall be required to comply with Chapter 15.46, Construction and Demolition Materials Management, of the City's Municipal Code. Chapter 15.46 requires the preparation of a construction and demolition materials management plan (C&DMMP), which will specify how the project contractor will divert 50 percent of the construction waste to be recycled or reused. The City of Santa Clarita also has a standard condition that has been included in order to ensure that the project includes provisions for recycling during construction and operation of the project, resulting in less than significant impacts in this regard. No further analysis is necessary. IX. LAND USE AND a) No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area and consists of a PLANNING regional shopping center and a surface parking lot. The project area has been previously graded. The project site and immediate surroundings is designated as CTC and is further surrounded by a specific plan designation further north, community serving commercial development to the east, medium-high residential development to the south, mixed uses and moderate -residential development to the west, and the Valencia County Club further west. Project development involves the expansion of the existing Valencia Town Center East with approximately 491,860 square feet of shopping center that would includes commercial and restaurant uses, and the construction of two multi-level parking Pao structures, which is compatible with the land use designation. Although there are residential developments to the south and west of the project site, the neighborhoods are buffered by distance and shall not be significantly impacted, as these multi -family residential developments are separated from the project site by two designated Major Highways (McBean Parkway and Valencia Boulevard). Therefore, the proposed project shall not disrupt or physically divide an established cominunity in the surrounding area, and no further analysis is required b) No Impact. The Santa Clarita General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map designate the project site as CTC (Commercial Town Center The CTC designation is used to indicate the centers of the various communities within the City of Santa Clarita and the Valley Center, and allows a wide range of retailing, service, and related activities located in and around a large regional shopping center. In addition, the development intensity for this designation is regulated by floor area ratio (FAR) ranging between 0.25 and .5:1. The area has a General Plan overlay designation of Valley Center Concept (VCC). The purpose of the VCC Overlay is to allow a floor area ratio (FAR) that exceeds the mid-range density allowed by the zone, therefore, the maximum floor area ratio for this site is 2:1 to 4:1. This designation encourages development for a range of Valley -wide uses, with flexibility in development standards and a mix of uses to create and enhance this regional hub. The project is to expand a 905,102 square foot regional mall with an additional 491,860 square feet. The project site is 55.6 acres in size (2,421,936 square feet). The overall square footage of Town Center East is proposed to be 1,396,962 square feet in size. This project is consistent with the intent of the CTC and Overlay designation, as the proposed project involves the expansion of the existing the Valencia Town Center East to include commercial and restaurant uses, and the construction of a five -level parking structure and a three-level parking structure. As such, the project shall not conflict with applicable land use plans and policies, and no further analysis is required. c) No Impact. As discussed above in Response IV(O, the project site is located approximately 1,100 feet southwest of the Santa Clara River, which is designated a SNA and a SEA. However, the project site is a considerable distance away from the Santa Clara River, and is also separated by Magic Mountain Parkway, a major thoroughfare through the City. As such, the project site is not located within the SNA or SEA for the Santa Clara River. Furthermore, the project site is located in an urbanized area and currently includes a developed surface parking lot and a vacant but previously graded site with ornamental landscaping. Therefore, the project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No further analysis is required. X. MINERAL AND a) No Impact. Exhibit OS -5, Mineral Resources, of the City of Santa Clarita ENERGY RESOURCES General Plan, identifies gold gulches, lode mines, oil fields and construction aggregate resource areas within the City. As illustrated on Exhibit OS -5, the project site is not located within any of these mineral resource areas and therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known PaA7 resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state. No impacts will occur as a result and no further analysis is required. b) No Impact. Refer to Response X (a). c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will utilize building materials and human resources for construction of the project. Many of the resources utilized for construction are nonrenewable, including sand, gravel, earth, iron, steel, and hardscape materials. Other construction resources, such as lumber, are slowly renewable. In addition, the project would commit energy and water resources as a result of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed development. Much of the energy that would be utilized on-site will be generated through combustion of fossil fuels, which are nonrenewable resources. Market -rate conditions encourage the efficient use of materials and manpower during construction. Similarly, the energy and water resources that would be utilized by the proposed development will be supplied by the regional utility purveyors, which participate in various conservation programs. Furthermore, there are no unique conditions that require excessive use of nonrenewable resources onsite and the project will utilize energy or water resources in the same manner as typical modern development. Therefore, the proposed project shall not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. Impacts will be less than significant and no further analysis is required. XI. NOISE A Noise Impact Study was prepared for the project in December 2006, by PCR Services Corporation. This Noise Impact Study is incorporated by reference. The findings of the noise study are discussed below. Noise measurements were taken at five locations surrounding the project site in order to determine the existing ambient noise environment. The Noise Impact Study indicates the existing noise levels range from 54 dBA at Receptor R1 (nearest residential community to the project site) to 74 dBA at Receptor R4 (a mixed-use residential/commercial). The measured sound data were utilized as baseline noise levels, against which the project noise impact is identified. In general, the existing sound environment in the vicinity of the project site is dominated by auto traffic on local surface streets such as McBean Parkway, Valencia Boulevard, and Citrus Avenue. a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation (Mitigation Measure XI -1). Government agencies have established noise standards and guidelines to protect citizens from potential hearing damage and other adverse physiological and social effects associated with noise. Standards and guidelines that may be applicable to this project are discussed below. State of California Noise Policies With respect to land use planning, the State of California has adopted noise compatibility guidelines for the general land uses planning. The level of acceptability of the noise environment is dependent upon the activity associated with the particular land use. As described by the State of California land use compatibility for community noise environment, an exterior noise environment up to 65 dBA CNEL is normally acceptable for multi -family residential, without special noise insulation requirements. Noise environment between 60 CNEL and 70 CNEL is considered "conditionally acceptable" for multi -family residential. While 75 dBA CNEL is identified as "clearly unacceptable" noise level for all residential uses. City of Santa Clarita Noise Regulations Section 11.44.040, Noise Limits, of the City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code (City's Noise Ordinance) specifies noise limits for residential, commercial, and manufacturing uses and for construction activities. Section 11. 44.040 establishes a maximum interior noise level of 65 dB during the day (7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.) and 55 dB during the night (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.) for multi -family uses. The maximum interior noise level for commercial and manufacturing uses is 80 dB during the day and 70 dB during the night. These noise levels also apply to mechanical equipment, including machinery, fans, and other mechanical equipment. Construction -related noise is exempt from the above noise limits, however, the City's Noise Ordinance limits construction activity within 300 feet of residential uses to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday and 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays. Construction Noise Impacts Noise from the construction activities would be generated by vehicles and equipment involved during various stages of construction operations: site clearing and grading, foundation preparation, building construction, and finish work. The noise levels created by construction equipment will vary depending on factors such as the type of equipment, the specific model, the operation being performed and the condition of the equipment. The dominant noise source from most construction equipment is the engine, usually diesel, without sufficient muffling. Construction noise impacts can be assessed by comparing the existing noise levels with the expected noise levels produced by various construction activities. In the absence of a specific significance threshold by the City, the following threshold will be used to evaluate significance impacts. A significant noise impact would occur if the project construction activities, including on-site noise sources, increase the existing ambient noise levels at the noise sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more. It is projected that construction noise levels ranging from 45 to 79 dB would impact the surrounding residential uses. The estimated noise levels represent a worst-case scenario where construction activities are occurring along the perimeter of the project site. Since the existing noise levels ranged from 54 dBA to 74 dBA, a significant construction noise impact would occur if construction noise levels ranged from 64 dBA to 84 dBA. Therefore, since the maximum construction noise level was 79 dBA, the construction noise levels are below the noise impact threshold. As previously described, the City's Noise Ordinance limits construction activity PaA9 PagSO within 300 feet of residential uses from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday and 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays. The nearest residential uses to the project site is a multi -family residential community located on Del Monte Drive, approximately 400 feet southeast of the project site. This residential community is partially shielded from the project site by a row of commercial buildings on the south side of Valencia Blvd (medical office building and The Crossroads commercial center). There is also a multi -family residential community, located approximately 700 feet southwest of the project site, on Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway. Therefore, since the construction activities would be at least 400 feet from the residential community off of Del Monte Drive, impacts are less than significant in this regard and no further analysis is required, The project would require the export of approximately 41,000 cubic yards of soil. Haul trucks would generally access/leave the site via Valencia Boulevard to the regional freeway, Interstate 5. There are residential uses along Valencia Boulevard, which have direct line -of -sight to the truck route. These receptors would experience temporary, instantaneous noise levels up to 76dBA at 50 feet from the roadway, due to truck movement (FHWA 2006). This noise impact would be temporary and instantaneous as the trucks pass by these receptors. The truck traffic noise would diminish rapidly as the trucks travel away from the receptors. Receptors located further away would experience less noise due to their greater distance from the roadway and to any intervening structure that may exist between them and the noise source. The estimated noise level due to truck movement are be consistent with existing traffic (i.e. trucks and busses) on Valencia Boulevard, which is designated a Major Highway by the City's General Plan, which is constructed to carry this type of traffic. In addition, construction traffic shall not occur during the noise -sensitive late evening and nighttime hours. Regardless, in order to ensure impacts remain below a level of significance, Mitigation Measure XV -1 is included in order to ensure haul trucks do not utilize residential streets. While the construction noise would exceed the State of California Noise Policy of 65 dBA for residential uses, it should be noted that the existing ambient noise in the area already exceeds the threshold (74 dBA). It should also be noted that construction noise is temporary and that the increase of 5 dBA will be short-term and will occur during sporadic events such as the starting of equipment or the dropping of raw earth materials. Therefore, construction -related noise shall not conflict with the State of California Noise Policy or the City's Noise Ordinance and no further analysis is required. Mitigation Measure XI -1: Queuing locations and haul routes shall be located along Valencia Boulevard, away from sensitive receptors (e.g. residential uses) to the extent feasible. Operational - Mechanical Equipment Noise Impact Mechanical equipment will be used for air conditioning and ventilation of the proposed buildings. The building mechanical equipment will to be located at the roof level of the proposed buildings and will be shielded from the residential receivers (i.e., solid parapet wall and intervening structures). The parapet wall and intervening building structures shall also provide noise attenuation to the PagSO existing residential receivers. A typical rooftop packaged air handling unit for commercial buildings generates approximately 80 dBA at a 10 feet distance. It is projected that mechanical equipment noise levels ranging from 39 to 48 dB may impact the surrounding residential uses. Therefore, the estimated noise due to mechanical equipment at the nearby receptors is expected to be below the City's noise limit of 65 dB for daytime noise levels and 55 dB for nighttime noise levels for residential uses and 80 dB for daytime noise levels and 70 dB for nighttime noise levels for commercial/manufacturing uses. Therefore, the project's mechanical equipment shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and be below the State of California Noise Policy of 65 dBA for residential uses. Impacts shall be less than significant in this regard and further analysis is required. Operational - Traffic Noise Impact The City does not have a specific noise ordinance with respect to traffic on public roads. Therefore, the following thresholds will be used to evaluate significance impacts: • An increase of more than 5 dBA in noise level from project related traffic and remain within the same land use compatibility classification as identified in the City's Guidelines for Noise and Land Use Compatibility; or • An increase of more than 3 dBA in noise level from project related traffic, which results in a change in land use compatibility classification as identified in the City's Guidelines for Noise and Land Use Compatibility. On-site traffic noise would be generated by traffic circulation in the surface parking lot and in the multi-level parking structure. Based on the traffic analysis, the estimated increase in traffic due to the project would be approximately 22 percent, 26 percent, and 46 percent by completion of Phase 1, 2, and 3, respectively. However, the increase in traffic volume will not increase the existing ambient noise levels at the nearby residential uses, as they are currently exposed to traffic on nearby roadways, which are significantly louder than traffic at the parking lots. Potential noise impacts due to project related off-site traffic were analyzed by calculating the increase in noise levels due to the increased in traffic volumes with and without the project. Consistent with the Traffic Impact Analysis, the traffic noise impacts were modeled for four scenarios: Phase 1 (Year 2008), Phase 1 and Phase 2 (Year 2009), Full Project-i.e., Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 (Year 2010), and Interim Year (buildout of the project plus cumulative projects); refer to Section XV, Traffic and Transportation. The following summarizes the estimated increase in peak hour traffic noise levels; refer to Table 7 of the Noise Impact Study. • Future Year 2008 - A maximum increase of less than 1 dBA without Pag%l project and with Phase 1 of the project implemented. • Future Year 2009 — A maximum increase of less than 1 dBA without project and with Phases 1 and 2 of the project implemented. • Future Year 2010 - A maximum increase of less than 1 dBA without project and with Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the project implemented. • Interim Year (Cumulative) — A maximum increase of 2.8 dBA without the project and 3.0 dBA with Full Project (Phases 1, 2, and 3) implemented, during the A.M. peak hour at the intersection of Citrus Avenue and Magic Mountain. Parkway. In summary, the project -generated traffic volume is estimated to increase the noise level by less than 1 dBA relative to the future traffic condition without project, at the nearby intersections. The increase in noise level is less than the significant impact threshold of 3 dBA. In addition, as previously described, the existing ambient noise level for the surrounding residential uses already exceeds the State of California Noise Policy regulation of 65 dBA. Therefore, an increase of 1 dBA to 3 dBA, which is not perceptible to the human ear shall not conflict the State of California Noise Policy. Thus, significant noise impact is not anticipated due to the project -related off-site traffic and no further analysis is required. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the project may temporarily generate vibrations. However, the proposed project does not involve construction practices that are typically associated with vibrations, such as pile driving, and instead would utilize spread footing for building foundations. Post - construction on-site activities would be limited to commercial uses that do not generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise. As such, temporary construction related and permanent operations related impacts associated with the project shall be less than significant and no further analysis would be required. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Operation of the project will result in an increase in ambient noise levels due to the introduction of new mechanical equipment and an increase in traffic noise levels. However, as previously described in Response XI.a), the maximum noise level experienced by surrounding uses of 48 dBA from the project's mechanical equipment noise levels shall not exceed the City's Noise Ordinance standards (65 dBA for daytime noise levels and 55 dBA for nighttime noise levels for residential uses). In addition, the mechanical equipment shall not be louder than the existing ambient noise environment of 54 dBA to 74 dBA. In addition, on-site and off- site traffic noise shall not result in a perceptible increase in the ambient noise level. Therefore, the increase in noise associated with the project's mechanical equipment and the increase in traffic noise shall not result in a permanent increase in the ambient noise level. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard and no further analysis is required. d) Less Than Significant Impact. As previously described in Response XI.a), short-term construction of the proposed project shall be compatible with the Pax City's Noise Ordinance in regards to prohibiting construction activities within 300 feet of residential, except during the daytime hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and between 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Saturday. Construction noise associated with development of the project shall not result in a 10 dBA increase in the ambient noise level and therefore, the project shall not result in a temporary increase in the ambient noise level. No further analysis is required. e) No Impact. The closest airport is the Whiteman Airport, located approximately 15 miles south of the project site. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. Therefore, construction or operation of the proposed project shall not expose people to excessive airport -related noise levels. Thus, no impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. f) No Impact. There are no private airstrips within at least 15 miles of the project site. As such, construction or operation of the proposed project shall not expose people residing or working in such an area to excessive noise levels. Thus, no impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. XII. POPULATION AND a) Less Than Significant Impact. Direct growth -inducing impacts result from HOUSING increasing the permanent population and/or economic growth through the addition of residential units or by generating employment opportunities. No development of housing is included in this project. Development of the proposed project would result in development of approximately 491,860 square feet of shopping center and commercial uses, which could result in an increase of 1,156 employment positions .30 However, the proposed project would act to satisfy localized commercial demands that currently exist due to the large amount of residences that surround the project area, and would therefore, service an existing market. The increase in the employment opportunities are anticipated to be filled by residents of the City and would not induce employees from the surrounding area to relocate permanently to the City. It should also be noted that the project would not include development of residential units, further contributing to the permanent population. The project would also not result in indirect population growth through the extension of infrastructure and utility systems into a previously unserved area. The project site is located within a highly urbanized area that is already served by existing roadways and utility systems, including sewer, storm drains, electricity, natural gas, etc. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce a substantial population increase, either directly or indirectly. Impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis would be required. b) No Impact. The project does not involve demolition and/or removal of any residential units. Therefore, the project does not displace a substantial number of houses, necessitating replacement housing elsewhere and no further analysis is required. 30 Employment growth factors are 2.36 employees per], 000 square feet for commercial uses per SCAG 2003. Pax c) No Impact. As explained in Response XII(b), the project does not require the removal of residential units and therefore, would not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. There would be no impacts in this regard and no further analysis is required. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a)i. No Impact. Fire protection service is provided to the City of Santa Clarita by the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD). The jurisdiction fire station for the project site is Fire Station 126 (Headquarters), located immediately adjacent to the project site at 26320 Citrus Street. Fire Station 126 maintains an engine company, a quint (combination engine/ladder truck apparatus), and a total staffing of seven personnel. Nationally recognized response time targets for urban areas is five minutes for a basic life support unit (engine company) and eight minutes for an advanced life support unit (paramedic squad). The LACoFD is currently meeting these standards. The average response time in the City of Santa Clarita is five minutes and 43 seconds. 31 The proposed project would expand the Regional Valencia Town Center by approximately 491,860 square feet, resulting in an increase demand on fire protection services. However, the project itself is not large enough to require the development of additional fire protection services, especially provided that the LACoFD Fire Station 126 is located immediately adjacent to the project site (east of Citrus Drive). With compliance with local LACoFD requirements, this project will result in no impact to fire services and no further analysis is necessary. a)ii. No Impact. The Santa Clarita Valley Station of the Sheriff's Department is responsible for providing general law enforcement to the City of Santa Clarita, including the project site, through a vesting contract between the two agencies. The Sheriff's station is located immediately adjacent to the project site, near the intersection of Magic Mountain Parkway and Valencia Boulevard, at 23740 Magic Mountain Parkway. The Sheriffs station maintains a staff of 161 sworn deputies, and serves an area of 656 square miles and a population of approximately 200,000 people. The Sheriff's Department has an ideal population ratio of one deputy per 1,000 residents. Currently the ratio is one deputy per 1,243 residents. The Sheriff's Department has also established an optimal response time for services of 10 minutes or less for emergency response incidents (a crime that is presently occurring and is a life or death situation), 20 minutes or less for priority incidents (a crime or incident that is currently occurring but which is not a life or death situation), and 60 minutes or less for non -emergency responses (a crime that has already occurred and is not a life or death situation).32 The proposed project will expand the Town Center by approximately 491,860 square feet, resulting in an increase demand on police protection services. However, the project itself is not large enough to require the development of additional police protection facilities. In addition, the project site is located immediately adjacent to the Sheriff's station and therefore, there is no conflict 31 RBF Consulting, Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan Program Environmental Impact Report, Noven2ber 2005. 31 Ibid. Pagi.4 ax. with meeting the Sheriff's Department optimal response time. Finally, as described in Response XII(a), the project will not result in a direct population increase and therefore, will not affect the current officer to resident ratio. No impact is anticipated and no further analysis is required. a)iii. No Impact. The project site is located within the Saugus Union School District (SUSD) for elementary school students and the William S. Hart School District (WHSD) for junior high and high school students. However, the proposed project will not develop any new residential dwellings and as described in Response XII(a), shall not result in a direct population increase. Therefore, the project will not directly increase the population of school -aged children served by the SUSD and the WHSD. Therefore, the proposed project will not impact school services and no further analysis is required. a)iv. No Impact. There are no residential uses proposed for the project site and the proposed project would not include substantial new housing in the nearby vicinity that would lead to an increase in the use of the local and regional parks system. In addition, the project includes substantial open space areas throughout the development for passive recreational use throughout the public areas and lifestyle center proposed. Therefore, the proposed project will have no adverse impact on park services and no further analysis is required. XIV. RECREATION a) No Impact. Refer to Response XIII(a)(iv). b) No Impact. The project includes opens space areas to be utilized for passive recreational use. As part of the project, the environmental impacts associated with the development of the open space areas have been analyzed in this document, in which no significant impacts have been identified. Also refer to Response XIII(a)(iv). No further analysis is necessary. XV. TRANSPORTATION/ A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the project in July 2006, by Austin - TRAFFIC Foust Associates, Inc. In February 2007, Austin -Foust Associated, Inc., prepared a technical memorandum in response to the revised project description. These documents are incorporated by reference. It should be noted this traffic impact analysis was prepared based upon a larger square footage addition by the applicant. The project has only changed based upon the reduction in square footage to the expansion. It should be noted that the Traffic Impact Analysis has labeled the three Stages of this proposed application as Phases. Therefore, Stage 1 and Phase 1 are interchangeable, etc. The Traffic Impact Analysis included two different analysis addressing intersections, including: (1) a level of service (LOS) analysis, which analyzed four scenarios: Phase 1 (Year 2008), Phase 1 and Phase 2 (Year 2009), Full Project-i.e., Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 (Year 2010), and Interim Year (buildout of the project plus cumulative projects) and (2) an operational analysis for the Full Project scenario. In addition, the Traffic Impact Analysis includes consistency with the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) with regards to the CMP highway system, the public transit system, and the State highways. ax. a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Mitigation Measure XV -1 through XV -2). LOS Analysis As previously described, a level of service (LOS) analysis was prepared to determine if the project causes a significant impact either by itself or in conjunction with other projects. The LOS analysis is based on determining the LOS from the percent of intersection capacity that is being utilized by the forecast traffic volumes in order to quantify the overall capacity utilization of an intersection. For intersections, the City's General Plan Circulation Element establishes a "threshold of significant" condition, which requires appropriate mitigation for projects where traffic increases at any location where the volume to capacity (V/Q ratio increase more than two percentage points (0.02) and where the final ratio is equal to or less than 0.90, or where traffic increases at any location where the V/C ratio increases more than one percentage point (0.01) and where the final ratio is greater than 0.90. Based on the established trip rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and rates used by the City, Phase I of the project is forecast to generate an additional 5,629 average daily trips (ADTs) more than the daily trips generated by the existing mall. Peak hour forecasts for Phase 1 consists of approximately 107 additional trips in the morning (A.M.) peak hour (65 inbound) and approximately 538 trips in the evening (P.M.) peak hour (279 outbound). Phases 1 and 2 of the project are forecast to generate an additional 6,609 ADTs compared to the daily trips generated by the existing mall (980 ADTs more than Phase 1 only). Peak hour forecasts for Phases 1 and 2 consist of 126 additional trips in the A.M. peak hour (77 inbound) and approximately 632 trips in the P.M. peak hour (328 outbound). Buildout of the project (Full Project) is forecast to generate an additional 9,825 ADTs more than the daily trips generated by the existing mall. Peak hour forecasts consist of approximately 187 additional trips in the A.M. peak hour (114 inbound) and approximately 941 trips in the P.M. peak hour (489 outbound). Based upon the ITE rates defined above, Phase 1 of the project would not result in a significant impact to any of the 22 intersections analyzed, except at McBean Parkway and Magic Mountain Parkway and at McBean Parkway and Creekside Road; refer to Table 3-1 of the Traffic Impact Analysis. Similar to the Phase 1 conditions, Phase 2 would continue to exacerbate the significant impacts at McBean Parkway and Magic Mountain Parkway and at McBean Parkway and Creekside Road; refer to Table 3-2 of the Traffic Impact Analysis. Under the Full Project condition, the project would result in significant impacts to the following intersections; refer to Table 3-3 of the Traffic Impact Analysis: • McBean Parkway and Valencia Boulevard; • McBean Parkway and Magic Mountain Parkway; • McBean Parkway and Creekside Road; Pa2$6 • McBean Parkway and Newhall Ranch Road; and • Valencia Boulevard and Magic Mountain Parkway. The Interim Year condition would result in significant impacts to the following intersections; refer to Table 3-4 of the Traffic Impact Analysis: a I-5 southbound ramps and Magic Mountain Parkway; • I-5 northbound ramps and Magic Mountain Parkway; • McBean Parkway and Magic Mountain Parkway; • McBean Parkway and Creekside Road; • McBean Parkway and Newhall Ranch Road; • Valencia Boulevard and Magic Mountain Parkway; and • Citrus Street and Magic Mountain Parkway. In summary, the project would result in significant impacts at seven intersections. Two intersections would be impacted by Phases 1 and 2, three additional intersections would be impacted by the Full Project, and two additional intersections would be impacted for Interim Year conditions. Table 4- 1 of the Traffic Impact Analysis summarizes mitigation measures that have been identified that would fully mitigate the impacts of the proposed project (refer to Table 4-2 of the Traffic Impact Analysis) and impacts in this regard will be less than significant. It should be noted that the intersections with the project, shown in Table 4-2 show that impacts from the project will be mitigated. Development of Stage 3, shown as Phase 3 in the Traffic Impact Analysis, (160,000 square foot anchor) of the project requires the widening of the McBean Parkway bridge over the Santa Clara River. The bridge presently accommodates six vehicle lanes and would be widened to a total of eight. Widening would occur on both sides of the bridge with most of the widening on the west side. On November 30, 1998, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) approved the Natural River Management Plan (NRMP) for the Santa Clara River. In conjunction with this approval, ACOE and CDFG certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which analyzed impacts associated with the implementation of various infrastructure improvements (bank stabilization, new bridges, bridge widening, utility crossings, storm drain outlets, etc.) along and within portions of the Santa Clara River adjacent to property then under the ownership of Newhall Land. The widening of the McBean Parkway Bridge over the Santa Clara River is an approved project in the NRMP and its impacts have been previously analyzed and addressed in the above referenced EIR/EIS. The NRMP and its certified EIR/EIS are incorporated into this document by reference and are available at the City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Pa§7 Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302. The bridge widening will comply with all of the requirements of the NRMP. The approvals and permits issued in conjunction with the NRMP allow Newhall Land or its designee to engage in construction and maintenance activities for the approved infrastructure improvements, including the widening of the McBean Parkway Bridge over the Santa Clara River. Prior to initiating this widening, the applicant would be required to submit a Verification Request Letter and accessory documentation to the ACOE and CDFG to ensure consistency with the NRMP and accessory agency permits. Once this consistency determination is made, the applicant will be permitted to construct the widening improvement consistent with the requirements of the NRMP. Operational Analysis The operational analysis addresses the more detailed aspects of intersection behavior- such as delay and queue lengths for the individual movements or the effect of upstream and downstream intersections. The detailed operational analysis was carried out for 11 key intersections surrounding the project site. In general, each of the 11 intersections are forecast to have acceptable LOS with the following exceptions during the P.M. peak hour: • McBean Parkway and Creekside Road; • McBean Parkway and Valencia Boulevard; • Valencia Boulevard and Magic Mountain Parkway; and • Magic Mountain Parkway and Auto Center Drive/Mall Entrance. However, as illustrated in Attachment 4 (Table 4-2 of the Traffic Impact Analysis), implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will reduce impacts to all four intersections to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure XV -1: The Applicant shall provide the roadway improvements consistent with the phasine and descriptions provided in Table 4-1 of the Traffic Impact Analysis. In addition, under the Full Project scenario (Phase 1, 2, and 3), right-of-way acquisition shall be required for the roadway widening of the Valencia Boulevard at Magic Mountain Parkway intersection. The Applicant shall implement the improvements prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase 3, at the time the mitigation is warranted. Mitigation Measure XV -2: The Applicant shall pay all applicable fees to the established Valencia Bridge and Thoroughfare District in accordance with City of Santa Clarita requirements, in order to provide a fair -share contribution of funds for future traffic system improvements in the district the project site is located within. b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation (Mitigation Measure XV -1 through XV -2). The Los Angeles County CMP requires that a proposed development address impacts related to the CMP highway system, the local and regional transit system, and also provides a threshold of significance for impacts to the State highways. CMP Highway System According to the CMP guidelines, the geographical area examined in a CMP analysis consists of: (1) CMP intersections where the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during the A.M. or P.M. weekday peak hours (of adjacent street traffic); and (2) mainline freeway locations where the project will add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the A.M. or P.M. weekday peals hours. CMP methodology states that a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand at a CMP monitoring location by two percent of capacity (V/C > 0.02) causing or worsening an intersection to LOS F. One CMP intersection (Valencia Boulevard and Magic Mountain Parkway) and no mainline freeway locations meet the above criteria. The intersection meets the above criteria for Phase 1, Phase 2, and the Full Project scenarios. However, as illustrated in Table 4-2 of the Traffic Impact Analysis, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures results in a less than significant impact since the project with mitigation results in an improvement over the no project conditions. Public Transit System The project site is located immediately across McBean Parkway, from the Santa Clarita Transit's McBean Transfer Station. Subsequently, the project site is accessible via each route within the system. Based upon the project's 9,825 ADTs and the project site's location within one-quarter mile of a transit center, it is anticipated that the project will result in 2,063 total daily transit trips and approximately 206 peak hour transit trips. 33 The City does not have level of service standards for transit service that are applicable to future development. However, it should be noted that transit service is evaluated and funded on an as - needed basis. If enhancements to the current fixed route service, such as to the existing transit center, the project applicant will coordinate with the transit provider to identify appropriate measures, which will be listed as conditions of approval. State Highways The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles east of Interstate 5 (I-5). Project trips utilizing 1-5 will primarily access the freeway via the existing 33 The proposed project is forecast to generate 9,825 ADTs and utilizing CMP guidelines of multiplying the ADT factor by an occupancy factor of 1. 4, the project would result in a total of 13,755 average daily person trips. Since the project site is located within one-quarter mile of an existing transit system, the CMP guidelines prescribe using a factor of 15 percent to convert person trips to transit trips. The peak hour trips are based on the peak hour representing 10 percent of the total daily trips. PaA9 interchanges at Valencia Boulevard and Magic Mountain Parkway. Under the Full Project scenario, the project would add three A.M. peak hour trips and 20 P.M. peak hour trips to traffic going northbound on I-5, north of Magic Mountain Parkway, and eight A.M. peak hour and three P.M. peak hour trips to the southbound traffic on I-5, north of Magic Mountain Parkway. The project would add 19 A.M. peak hour trips and 47 P.M. peak hour trips to traffic going northbound on I-5, south of Valencia Boulevard, and 12 A.M. peak hour and 33 P.M. peak hour trips to the southbound traffic on I-5, south of Valencia Boulevard. As previously described, the CMP threshold for highways is an increase of 150 A.M. or P.M. peak hour trips. Since the project would result in a maximum of 47 peak hour trips (during the P.M. for traffic going northbound on I-5, south of Valencia Boulevard), the project does not result in a significant impact to the regional transportation system. c) No Impact. The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport or private airstrip. Additionally, the project does not propose uses that would change air traffic patterns or generate air traffic. As such, safety risks associated with a change in air traffic patterns will not occur and no further analysis is required. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Access to the project site is provided via Magic Mountain Parkway, Citrus Drive, Valencia Boulevard, and McBean Parkway, with ingress and egress provided off of Citrus Drive and Valencia Boulevard. All of these roadways (with the exception of Citrus Drive) are major thoroughfares through the City and as such, they have been developed consistent with the standards for major arterials established in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan (refer to Exhibit C-4, Major Arterial Highway with Bike Trail Detail, or Exhibit C -4a, Major Arterial Highway with Bike Lane Detail, of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan), allowing access to and from the project site in all directions. In addition, there are no blind curves or dangerous intersections along Magic Mountain Parkway, Citrus Drive, Valencia Boulevard, or McBean Parkway. The project does not propose to alter the existing roadway configuration and therefore would not create any design features that would increase pedestrian or vehicular hazards. The project proposes expansion of the shopping center consistent with existing zoning and the surrounding Town Center. In addition, the project plans would be reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Division, ensuring all access to and from the project site and the internal circulation would be provided in a safe manner. Since the project would not change sight lines along the adjacent streets and does not include any hazardous design features or incompatible uses, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required and no further analysis is necessary. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The location of the project near major through streets allows adequate emergency access to the project site. With the exception of utility line connections, construction activities and the staging of construction equipment would be confined to the project site and, therefore, would not interfere with emergency access to surrounding properties. Emergency access to the project site would also be maintained during Pa&4O construction. In addition, as discussed in Response XV(d), the project plans would be reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Division, ensuring all access to and from the project site and the internal circulation shall be provided in a safe manner and is required to meet the LACoFD's standards, which ensure new developments provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. The project site and surrounding roadway network do not pose any unique conditions that raise concerns for emergency access, such as narrow, winding roads or dead-end streets. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact on emergency access and no further analysis is required. f) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation (Mitigation Measure XV - 1). The City of Santa Clarita UDC requires that shopping centers that exceed 100,000 square feet in size are developed with on site parking of five parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of building floor area. This site is previously developed with a regional shopping center that met all previous City of Santa Clarita parking requirements. The previous development of the site included the installation of 3,787 surface parking spaces. The proposed expansion of complies with the requirement to install parking for five spaces for each 1,000 square feet of building area. The applicant has used that calculation and the project exceeds the on-site parking requirement. Kaku Associates prepared a Shared Parking Study, updated October, 2006. The Shared Parking Steady assessed the parking demand for the worst case scenario - during the weekday and weekend peak hours for the month of December. The analysis was based upon parking occupancy counts taken on Thursday, August 10, 2006 and Saturday, August 12, 2006. It should be noted that the parking analysis was completed based on an earlier proposal of an additional 560,000 square feet of floor area. The proposed total square footage analyzed as part of this initial study is 491,860 square feet, therefore the numbers shown analyzed in the Parking Study are reduced based upon the less square footage proposed with this project. The overall goal of the Parking Study was to demonstrate that parking Town Center East at 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet was feasible, which it did accomplish at the higher proposed floor area, although with this project, the applicant meets the current requirements of the City's UDC (five parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area). Again, the applicant has reduced the size of the proposed expansion, therefore, the parking demand has also been reduced, and therefore, would provide enough parking spaces during peak demand. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Though no mitigation is necessary, as impacts are considered to be less than significant, the applicant has volunteered to mitigate parking impacts from Town Center employees parking on site during peak business holiday hours. Mitilzation Measure XV -1: The Owner shall provide an off-site employee parking program with shuttle services for any day where the parking occupancy level exceeds 95% of the provided on-site parking. g) No Impact. Regional policies related to alternative forms of transportation are set forth in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Pal Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG). Under the RCPG, the use of transit and alternative transportation modes are encouraged to reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled. In accordance with the RCPG, the Circulation Element of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan includes the following goals in support of SCAG's RCPG: Goal 2: Promote a diversified public transportation system that is safe, convenient, efficient, and meets the identified needs of the City of Santa Clarita and the general Planning Area. Goal 3: To promote safe and effective alternatives to the personal automobile that will meet the needs of all Planning Area residents. The proposed project shall not interfere with the existing bicycle lanes along Magic Mountain Parkway, Valencia Boulevard, or McBean Parkway, as no right-of-way improvement are necessary as part of this development. In addition, as discussed in Response XV(b), the project site is immediately adjacent to the Santa Clarita Transit's McBean Transfer Station and while ridership on local public transit would increase due to the increase in the number of visitors going to the Town Center, it would not be of such a substantial amount that it would require additional transit stops. As previously stated, this project is consistent with the VCC transportation component in the General Plan Land Use Element VCC Overlay which states that buildings and land uses within the Overlay area shall be designed to provide convenient and safe access to public transit (General Plan, L-61). The project shall extend the existing pedestrian bridge that crosses McBean Parkway and joins the transfer station to Town Center. This link from the pedestrian bridge will be in the form of a delineated pedestrian pathway. Therefore, the project would continue to support alternative transportation modes consistent with SCAG's RCPG and the goals of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. Therefore, the project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation and no further analysis is required. h) No Impact. The construction and operation of the proposed project does not place any permanent or temporary physical barriers on any existing sidewalks or bicycle lanes. Pedestrian circulation would be provided on-site through the parking areas within parking medians and throughout the shopping center within landscaped courtyards and walkways providing access directly to the existing enclosed mall and the western portion of Town Center. Also, the Town Center East expansion will connect to the existing Valencia paseo system with connections to the three paseo pedestrian bridges that access the Town Center site. Therefore, the proposed project does not create hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists and no mitigation measures would be required. XVI. UTILITIES AND a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves development SERVICE SYSTEMS of approximately 491,860 square feet of shopping center and commercial uses and the subdivision of the building pads. None of the proposed uses would generate atypical wastewater, such as industrial or agricultural effluent. All Pah 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. wastewater generated by the proposed project is expected to be domestic sewage of which the wastewater treatment facilities are designed to treat; and thus, typical domestic sewage does not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. In addition, the project applicant would be required to obtain all permits and operate in compliance with all RWQCB approvals. Since the project would not generate atypical wastewater and the project would be required to comply with all RWQCB requirements, the project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Impacts are less than significant in this regard and no further analysis is required. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Valencia Water Company (VWC) provides water to the project site. VWC concludes that it has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project and therefore the project would not require the construction of new water facilities. In addition, the project site is currently served by 12 -inch water lines. While the proposed project would require the relocation and/or removal and replacement of some of the water lines, the construction impacts associated with this have been analyzed in this document, in which no significant impacts have been identified. The project site utilizes an on-site wastewater collection system consisting of 12 - inch wastewater lines to convey wastewater flow from the site. Once the flow is conveyed through the on-site branches, it enters the off-site facilities leading to the existing City of Santa Clarita (Los Angeles County Department of Public Works) wastewater system and ultimately to the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County's (CSDLAC's) Valencia trunk sewer and wastewater treatment plants. Most wastewater generated within the Santa Clarita Valley is treated at two existing water reclamation plant (WRPs), which are operated by the CSDLAC. These two treatment facilities, the Saugus WRP (District 26) and the Valencia WRP (District 32), have been interconnected to form a regional treatment system known as the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS). These two facilities provide primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment. The SCVJSS has a combined permitted treatment capacity of 19.1 million gpd with a capacity expansion potential of 34.1 million gpd.sa The proposed project would require additional comiections to the City's wastewater system. However, the City Department of Public Works requires that new development wastewater systems connect to the CSDLAC's existing sanitary wastewater system and any developer constructing a new wastewater line would have to coordinate the construction and dedication of any such wastewater line with the Public Works Department for future operation and maintenance. It would then be the responsibility of the CSDLAC to upgrade the wastewater collection and treatment systems by providing relief for existing trunk lines nearing capacity and expanding treatment plants to provide sanitation service to outlying areas. 35 While the proposed project requires the relocation and/or removal and replacement of some of the wastewater lines, the construction impacts associated with this have been analyzed in this document, in Paffl T AT TTT/'T A-ri-NNI rXT !- _\T'rUT) L;VT) A T.TC'T/IT.T which no significant impacts have been identified. In addition, the project is estimated to generate 51,420 gpd of wastewater. 36 This represents approximately 0.27 percent of the SCVJSS existing capacity and 0.15 percent of the SCVJSS expanded capacity. Therefore, due to the limited amount of the project's wastewater in comparison to the SCVJSS capacity, the project does not require the construction of a new wastewater treatment facility. Impacts in this regard are less than significant and no further analysis is required. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response VIII(e), the majority of the project site is covered by impervious surfaces and development of the proposed project would not result in an increase of impervious surfaces that would substantially increase the amount of stormwater runoff from the project site. Since stormwater increases would be negligible, no new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities would be required as a result of the project. Thus, no impact will occur and no further analysis is required. d) No Impact. A 610 Water Supply Assessment was prepared and issued by Valencia Water Company in 2006 for a previous and larger version of the Valencia Town Center expansion plan. This previous plan included development of up to 564,000 square feet of additional retail, restaurant, and office uses to be developed in three phases. This expansion plan has since been reduced in size, resulting in a new total square footage of 491,860. As the project is now less than 500,000 square feet, a 610 Water Supply Assessment is no longer required. However, the information contained within the assessment issued for the previous, larger version of the expansion plan contains relevant information on available water supply and planned growth in the Santa Clarita Valley. The Water Supply Assessment issued in 2006 concluded that there is sufficient water supply available for the previous, larger expansion project at buildout, in addition to other existing and planned future uses in the Santa Clarita Valley. This conclusion was based upon information from numerous water resource and planning documents, including the Santa Clarita Valley 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. The City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department recently contacted Valencia Water Company to describe the changes made to the expansion plan, primarily the reduction in size and requested confirmation that Valencia's previous conclusion on available supply was still valid. Valencia Water Company confirmed that the conclusion reached in its 2006 Water Supply Assessment was still valid — there is sufficient water supply available for the revised Town Center expansion project in addition to other existing and planned future uses in the Santa Clarita Valley. e) Less Than Significant Impact. As described in Response XVI(b), the project would result in an increase of 51,420 gpd of wastewater to be treated by the SCVJSS. The current capacity of the SCVJSS is 19.1 million gpd, with an expanded capacity potential of 34.1 million gpd. Therefore, the project would adequately be served by the existing capacity and the SCVJSS has sufficient 36 Wastewater demand generation factors were based on the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power generation factors. 37 California Integrated Waste Management Board website, wwi,v.ciwinb.ca, accessed November 16, 2006. 38 California Integrated Waste Management Board website, htt,2://14)14)1-v.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profles/ Juris/Jurfrofilel.asp?RG=C&JURID=508&IUR=South +Gate, accessed November 16, 2006. P464 capacity to accommodate existing plus future development. Therefore, impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. f) Less Than Significant Impact. Two private haulers are franchised by the City of Santa Clarita Department of Public Works to collect residential, commercial, and industrial waste in the City of Santa Clarita. These haulers operate under two franchise systems; one for commercial/industrial uses and one for residential uses. Solid waste generated in the City of Santa Clarita is transported to one of 15 different landfills. The 15 landfills serving the City have a daily permitted capacity of 84,700 tons per day and a remaining capacity of approximately 272 cubic yards. 37 The California Integrated Waste Management Act, Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939), required jurisdictions to divert 50 percent of the waste stream away from land disposal by the year 2000 and prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). Currently, the City diverts approximately 51 percent of its solid waste to recycling/reuse facilities. 38 Proposed construction activities would generate construction debris from development of the proposed project. However, as discussed in Response VIII(m)(vi), the proposed project would be required to comply with Chapter 15.46, Construction and Demolition Materials Management, of the City's Municipal Code. Chapter 15.46 requires the preparation of a C&DMMP, which will specify how the project contractor will divert 50 percent of the construction waste to be recycled or reused. In addition, the City's standard conditions of approval ensure that the project includes provisions for recycling during construction and operation, resulting in less than significant impacts in this regard. Upon full occupancy of the project, it is projected to generate approximately 1,725 pounds per day (lbs/day), which is approximately 2.0 percent of the landfills permitted daily capacity. However, it can be assumed that the proposed project will meet the current recycling goals of the community and only generate approximately 863 lbs/day of solid waste, due to the mandate to divert at least 50 percent of potential waste disposal. Therefore, since the project shall be required to comply with AB 939 and the City's SRRE, and the landfills would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs, impacts are less than significant and no further mitigation measures are required. g) Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response XVI(f). XVII. MANDATORY a) Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the analysis contained in this FINDINGS OF Initial Study, no significant uiunitigated impacts to the environment will occur. SIGNIFICANCE The project site is almost entirely covered by impervious surfaces in the form of concrete pavement with the remaining vacant area having been previously graded. Therefore, the project site has few environmental attributes that could be subject to environmental degradation. The project site does contain ornamental landscaping tree, of which existing parking lot trees would be removed as part of the project. However, as discussed in Response IV(a), none of the trees located on-site are protected species and the trees would be replaced, therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Because the majority of the existing site is Pag4S developed with impervious surfaces within a highly urban setting characterized by high levels of human activity and does not contain water or vegetation habitat, the project would not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Development of Stage 3 (160,000 square foot anchor) of the project requires the widening of the McBean Parkway bridge over the Santa Clara River. The bridge presently accommodates six vehicle lanes and would be widened to a total of eight. Widening would occur on both sides of the bridge with most of the widening on the west side. On November 30, 1998, the Army Corps of Engineers (ALOE), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) approved the Natural River Management Plan (NRMP) for the Santa Clara River. In conjunction with this approval, ACOE and CDFG certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which analyzed impacts associated with the implementation of various infrastructure improvements (bank stabilization, new bridges, bridge widening, utility crossings, storm drain outlets, etc.) along and within portions of the Santa Clara River adjacent to property then under the ownership of Newhall Land. The widening of the McBean Parkway Bridge over the Santa Clara River is an approved project in the NRMP and its impacts have been previously analyzed and addressed in the above referenced EIR/EIS. The NRMP and its certified EIR/EIS are incorporated into this document by reference and are available at the City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302. This bridge widening proposed as part of Stage 3 of the development will comply with the approved NRMP. The approvals and permits issued in conjunction with the NRMP allow Newhall Land or its designee to engage in construction and maintenance activities for the approved infrastructure improvements, including the widening of the McBean Parkway Bridge over the Santa Clara River. Prior to initiating this widening, the applicant would be required to submit a Verification Request Letter and accessory documentation to the ACOE and CDFG to ensure consistency with the NRMP and accessory agency permits. Once this consistency determination is made, the applicant will be permitted to construct the widening improvement consistent with the requirements of the NRMP. As discussed in Section V., Cultural Resources, the project site does not contain any historical resources and no archaeological or paleontological resources are anticipated to exist on-site. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative impacts are concluded to be less than significant for those issues for which it has been determined that the project would have no contributory impact and/or would not require mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Environmental issues meeting this criterion include agricultural resources, land use and planning, mineral and energy resources, population and housing, schools, parks, recreation, wastewater, and water. As such, the project would not contribute to a cumulative impact to these environmental issues. However, due to the mitigation measures contained in this document, cumulative impacts are substantial and the project would not cause any cumulative impacts to become substantial. Therefore, with the incorporation of the City's standard conditions of approval and mitigation 0 measures, the proposed project does not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to cumulative impacts. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the analysis provided above, implementation of the project will not cause significant environmental impacts. Direct or indirect substantial adverse effects on human beings would not occur and no mitigation measures, beyond those previously identified, are required. Pa§7 V W 0 c� x W L W V 0 4W V HI-rhGHNfiI� 1111110 M N Ln W N a IJ M N Ln W N a IJ M E i y�s �=EPp l� ini 2 WHO >��' P qqg0gP (A ®e9 BOB® W qq� � Q "1h >w L k�Y j / 68Aca Q�al `y� igYp y v O © lL Jim ESL fl oII m �p �h U i y�s �=EPp l� ini 2 WHO >��' P qqg0gP (A ®e9 BOB® p¢ F ?i °� � tl g8 6 g n g R Ev e3 ! 1 Ev Y-�v. � P. g �a P� R I E ?•M pp (i$6p �q 9 F! g P i E'4 _[ y S v C 4 q�q ° 9$ ! ¢pp §$`Y �� �° �y� g� {� � �� RPR igi toyy y4y ! d�ne g� E E �t' � e�P� a@@ ;4 �" Yv h b�° h 9[ Y P P q@ .P F P RP@ hQ" Inn 11EF p e 1 gE gg g i a 9 d t ? V �. f� 6dY y �a Uhl MORE l�gt�l@gt f4 HIP E Yp jjgg d pp� ���� sok � . ��'•• o ',�dc! a �� Yv C .tgg!_ �"Ulu a i 9n � 6gg AR ,IEEE 1 R� yy � ; Ek 5� 0 qpE UP3 yEE Yat p i yy u b e 1 II ' Ul F P fr Y" °� I � F PE E- � Sa ( F. @@ EE � L Y`.@_ E �i Ea ¢ � � se �'� 1$s � a E- Et #� " � a � R E� E� Et E � �Pa� � z � e �E$•$p K ��,y zYzh y@ �^ Ew pp E E4fsa yyy[Y� ��,�: 6� €a Him hp ? i p S_ ah 2n PY P- 0 Y E I M I Y 4 F e 4 �Yn�? E� I h i Ep E I l 0 D O I H E U" H � �. € N � lily I. I 's: 5' 110 �E�dde �:E€�r : vT @F YE §§ g ;°E n 3g hip ; g yE sy' q p` §; y W Esi f e 8 to P # �tg sad 4 dv! d A p� n hP p hE E q K a v qhq y O E:� �� 1 p P "dY.� RS 6E� r: q g @ i� e' 3 $Eg 0111 @ Him. P n: a gE P! h- iv � � P 4: b• � g YS q'Y PER 4e �. E � .s Y zs h � -qe 1Q>51d EF$_ 8 Yh3E..qi!p]� �� I9I �aAs � �h(9 � e�$¢ 'ai• a� P• �a � 'E E`IIIE"� � Ye}E'�n���"3�IYYY"$,E�•pv:`$ °� s� E- T p v pp: � e ,\ ESL fl p¢ F ?i °� � tl g8 6 g n g R Ev e3 ! 1 Ev Y-�v. � P. g �a P� R I E ?•M pp (i$6p �q 9 F! g P i E'4 _[ y S v C 4 q�q ° 9$ ! ¢pp §$`Y �� �° �y� g� {� � �� RPR igi toyy y4y ! d�ne g� E E �t' � e�P� a@@ ;4 �" Yv h b�° h 9[ Y P P q@ .P F P RP@ hQ" Inn 11EF p e 1 gE gg g i a 9 d t ? V �. f� 6dY y �a Uhl MORE l�gt�l@gt f4 HIP E Yp jjgg d pp� ���� sok � . ��'•• o ',�dc! a �� Yv C .tgg!_ �"Ulu a i 9n � 6gg AR ,IEEE 1 R� yy � ; Ek 5� 0 qpE UP3 yEE Yat p i yy u b e 1 II ' Ul F P fr Y" °� I � F PE E- � Sa ( F. @@ EE � L Y`.@_ E �i Ea ¢ � � se �'� 1$s � a E- Et #� " � a � R E� E� Et E � �Pa� � z � e �E$•$p K ��,y zYzh y@ �^ Ew pp E E4fsa yyy[Y� ��,�: 6� €a Him hp ? i p S_ ah 2n PY P- 0 Y E I M I Y 4 F e 4 �Yn�? E� I h i Ep E I l 0 D O I H E U" H � �. € N � lily I. I 's: 5' 110 �E�dde �:E€�r : vT @F YE §§ g ;°E n 3g hip ; g yE sy' q p` §; y W Esi f e 8 to P # �tg sad 4 dv! d A p� n hP p hE E q K a v qhq y O E:� �� 1 p P "dY.� RS 6E� r: q g @ i� e' 3 $Eg 0111 @ Him. P n: a gE P! h- iv � � P 4: b• � g YS q'Y PER 4e �. E � .s Y zs h � -qe 1Q>51d EF$_ 8 Yh3E..qi!p]� �� I9I �aAs � �h(9 � e�$¢ 'ai• a� P• �a � 'E E`IIIE"� � Ye}E'�n���"3�IYYY"$,E�•pv:`$ °� s� HACKERBRALY, LLP Attorneys and Counselors at Law 26650 The Old Road / Suite 201 / Valencia, CA 91381 / Phone: (661) 259-6800 / FAX: (661) 259-6836 August 1, 2007 VIA BAND -DELIVERY —, —+ City Clerk �:o -' o City of Santa Clarita m r 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 304 Santa Clarita, CA 91355o <i n CD 1- Re: Appeal of Town Center Mall Expansion Master Case No. 06-1222, Tentative Parcel Map 68039, CUP 06-011, D MUP 06-025 - Westfield Corporation, Inc. Dear City Clerk: This is to notify you that on behalf of my clients, Salt Creek Valencia, LLC, commonly known as Salt Creek Grille and Original Baja Taco Stand, LLC, commonly known as Poquito Mas, two long term tenants in the Entertainment Center portion of the Valencia Town Center Mall, we are appealing the approval of Master Case No. 06-1222, Tentative Parcel Map 68039, Conditional Use Permit 06-011, Minor Use Permit 06-025- Westfield Corporation, Inc., by the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission on July 17, 2007. The basis for our appeal includes the fact that the applicant, Westfield, has not adequately addressed long existing parking, traffic management and public safety issues in that portion of Town Center encompassing the Entertainment Center. The original CUP required monitoring of the original shared parking analysis, which was never done, and if the parking was not sufficient then additional parking adjacent to the Entertainment Center could be required. The only property owned by Westfield adjacent to the Entertainment Center which could be used for this additional parking is part of the current entitlement application. Although Westfield made representations at the three Planning Commission Hearings on this project that they were willing to enter into agreements to solve the problems raised by my clients, as of the date of this appeal no agreements have been finalized. In addition, Westfield represented to the Planning Commission that numerous issues requested by my clients had been agreed to by itself and the owner of the adjacent office buildings and parking structures, Invesco, and had in fact been implemented. However, Westfield rejected our request to incorporate these implemented improvements as conditions of approval for this project. City Clerk City of Santa Clarita August 1, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Although the Planning Commission was very sensitive to our concerns, Invesco filed for a MUP just hours prior to the July 17th Planning Commission Hearing and staff strongly recommended that the MUP was the vehicle to deal with my client's issues and concerns. Unfortunately, all of our efforts to meet with Invesco and their representatives prior to the deadline to file this appeal have been unsuccessful. As of today a meeting coordinated by City staff is not scheduled until the week of August 13th. As a result, my clients have no choice but to file this appeal to preserve their rights to implement solutions Westfield has already implemented, and others my clients' wish adopted, incorporated into legally binding conditions of approval and to ensure that the MUP filed by Invesco is not a subterfuge. Our check in the amount of $2,100.00 is enclosed. Sincerely, HACKERBRALY, LLP C. HUNT C. BRALY HCB/im Enclosure Tel: 310 286 1050 Fax: 310 286 1070 www.marcin.com City of Santa Clarita Sharon Dawson, City Clerk 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, California 91355 MARCIN 1 I LAMBLRTH Attorneys A Professional Corporation Los Angeles • Las Vegas September 25, 2007 1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Re: Appeal frog -h Plannifty Commission's approval ofWestiieid Valencia Town Center expansion . Dear Ms. Dawson: We represent Lockheed Federal Credit Union ("LFCU") with regard to their tenancy at Valencia Town Center ("VTC"). LFCU is currently suffering considerable losses due to a lack of patron parking near its VTC branch. We have attempted to resolve our issue with Westfield, but have been rebuffed. My client fears the pending expansion of the mall will only exacerbate an already disastrous parking situation. We understand that the deadline for appealing the Plam-iing Commission's approval of the expansion has passed. However, we know that other concerned parties, Poquito Mas and Salt Creek, have filed a timely appeal of the Commission's decision. We have been informed by Jessica Humphries of the Plaruiing Office that should the appellants resolve their issues with Westfield and consequently withdraw their appeal, the City Council will not hold a public hearing on the expansion and will take no action with regard to the Plarining Commission's approval of Westfield's applications. f ^......: ry t T. .. N S 't >id�e rev evwed Ciiy of �arrta Crarita ivlun�cipai a�Zd vrrriieu i�cve�oprirerit Code section 17.01.120 which outlines the procedure for appealing a Planning Commission decision. The relevant portion of this section, addressing the consequences of a timely filed appeal, reads as follows, "the application shall be scheduled for City Council action." (Emphasis added.) There is no provision for withdrawing an appeal. The mandatory language of this section is clear — the City Council is required to act regardless of whether or not the original appellants abandon their appeal. Furthermore, pursuant to section 17.01.130, when the City Council is required to "act" it must "review and consider ... comments by. " y... the public." In sum, under the City of Santa Clarita Municipal and Unified Development Code, once an timely appeal of a Plarming Commission decision is filed, the City Council must listen to public comments and approve or disapprove the Commission's decision. Given that the City Council is required to consider public comments on the approval by the Planning Commission of the mall expansion, LFCU will be filing its own appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. In the interim please consider this our joinder in the appeal brought by Poquito Mas and Salt Creek. LFCU's forthcoming appeal will outline, for review and consideration by the City Council, the grounds for our opposition to the expansion. Please inform me immediately if you disagree with my analysis of the situation and do not intend to hold a public City Council hearing in the event Poquito Mas and Salt Creek seek to withdraw their appeal. I thank you in advance for your prompt consideration on this matter. Very truly yours, n -imothy A. Lambirth and M. Renee Orth TAL:mro cc: Ana Fonseca, Sr. Vice President, Lockheed Federal Credit Union (via facsimile) Carl Newton, City Attorney, City of Santa Clarita (via mail) Attachment A Town Center West Mall Summary Town Center West Mall is a property located directly adjacent to the Town Center East Mall property and is not a part of the proposed development or the entitlement application that is before the City Council. The boundaries of the Town Center West Mall area begin to the west of the ring road to McBean Parkway and extend north to Magic Mountain Parkway. Tenants of this area include Edward's Cinemas, BFs, Soup Plantation, Lockheed Credit Union, Glen Ivy, Princess Cruises, Rosie's BBQ, Salt Creek, Poquito Mas and many others. There are two parking structures (owned and managed by INVESCO, Inc.) that service the businesses located in the Town Center West Mall. The tenants and buildings within the Town Center West Mall are part of a shared parking agreement that was created in 1996. Since 1996, the shared parking agreement has been updated and revised in 2000 and 2002. In response to concerns raised by Poquito Mas and Salt Creek Grille, the City had the parking consultant complete a new 2007 supplemental parking study. Subsequently, INVESCO, Inc. submitted a Minor Use Permit (MUP) to amend the shared parking agreement for the Town Center West Mall and incorporate any recommendations in the MUP as a result of the conclusions of the supplemental parking study and any other changes INVESCO, Inc. may need to address parking concerns of the Town Center West tenants. The results of the parking study sited an excess of 318 access parking spaces during peak demand and included recommendations for operations. The application for the MUP is currently being reviewed by City staff and is tentatively scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission for formal action on November 20, 2007. N Lo 4� E N oa N N N N N (voo2oo V)m sm' a v >> a) (3) � w w www T v N N N aJ > N N N cz rz Q) ina�aVUQ�nw N QQQQQQce QQQ b'*' N oa LAW Q CL z LU V) w_ LU z V , V LLJ 2 U DC Q 0 uj W 0 Lu Q Ll 2 o Z 0 u O z D Q m W J W Z O Z d X Lu U Q O O u z 0 _J D m 0 0 N U z J_ D m U U Z O_ Q W J W it .•�' �..w,p,,�f, Z O F— O Q `W 'F- V I W LL J 0 0 0 1, 1 O O u z 0 _J D m 0 0 N U z J_ D m U U Z O_ Q W J W it .•�' �..w,p,,�f, Z O F— O Q `W 'F- V I W LL J 0 0 0 0 0 z 0 Q W J W I- U) W H w 0 z W W z 0 Q W J W U) Q W T— D D 0 .......... ® s X1111 l�fl � vi I` YIIY NIIIIIIIYIIYII Y IIN_fY,i MUM Mllm.lii 0 Q Q W DC W Z rr b'*' 4 LL z O a w J w F- LU 2 F - Z) O U) I z O Q w J LU U) Q LU 2 O z z O Q w J w U) Q w 2 cf O z 79t --j Hwxw#wwwwo e z O Q w J w U) Q w 2 O z =�s n O 0 vlN 0 0 0 c O x W m O V c 4) v Q a 09 z O Q w J W F- U) w S H D 0 CD m C6 z 0 Q W J W T- F - CL HQ O z Z O Q W J W c O x W 0 0 0 a a go u u V Z O Q W J W W oC Z) I 0 41 7= li c.. � S 1M`.. � ■1i � °S(y AMI S ...._..., ry,. �`�1i►�i�lf�e�vA°►r11�.� i ~ilMi�ow�Mi�t m � �'�—�,,;��"F !'1€i+.ilii _ y 14 Mme* 14 f'�:, �kR� ,�j ; �• �.�_ } � as � ;� fR wry tglli •�' . ,, . , , +s� � c.'j.. XN:, n 3 a e"i`tds'+` ' ::. � `'c.: N ,.f��s , �1 ✓t p, yah 1 a ` . s t. K , 1 - y H "; itiff, Olt, lit rq JOA ej W. 1A I io" NV i4 l ok\�. Aff Oil T-3 wo m F • • 3 3 Li 0 0 I NVESCO CITY OF -)ANTA CLARITA 2001 OCl 25 P 3: 41 REC` WED C11 Y CLERKS OFFICE October 24, 2007 Mayor Marsha McLean and City Council Members City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Honorable Mayor McLean: INVESCO Real Estate 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 420 Newport Beach, California 92660 Telephone: (949) 718-2000 Facsimile: (949) 718-2925 On behalf of INVESCO and VTC Business Center LLC, the new owners of the office buildings at the Valencia Town Center, I am writing to assure you of our continued commitment to carry out the pending Minor Use Permit (MUP) for parking under our ownership at the Valencia Town Center. We have worked diligently with your City staff and have had numerous meetings with other key stakeholders such as Westfield and office, retail, and restaurant tenants, to ensure parking management is comprehensive and balances the needs of all interested parties. I believe we have reached this balance and have developed a parking strategy that is consistent with the City's parking consultant. 1 look forward to continuing our efforts and successfully concluding this process at the public hearing before the City's Planning Commission. Sincerely, Thomas A. Hurst Senior Asset Manager TAH/nl c: Kenneth Pulskamp, City Manager Paul Brotzman, Community Development Director Lisa Hardy, Planning Manager Jeff Hogan, Senior Planner Sharon Dawson, City Clerk �..� 13 B J' S R E S T A U R A N T S, I N C. October 17, 2007 Mr. Craig Doyle Westfield Valencia Town Center 24201 W. Valencia Blvd., Suite 150 Valencia, CA. 91355 Re: BJ's Restaurant and Brewhouse — Valencia, California Parking Availability Dear Mr. Doyle: BJ's Restaurant and Brewhouse ("BJ's") has been very successful at Valencia Entertainment Center since its opening in 2000. We have not received any specific guest complaints with regard to parking availability at this location; however, we do experience higher customer traffic there during the normally busy holiday shopping periods. The patio area has recently been expanded and we anticipate continued growth of our customer base. Please feel free to c ntact me at (714) 500-2447, should you need further information. Sincerely, STAU - NTS, INC. Greg I;ynd Exec ive Vice resident Chief Development Officer cc: Laura Fox Buchan Angel Mej is 7755 CENTER AVENUE, SUITE 300 • HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92647 • (71 A) 500-2400 MAIN • (714) 500-2605 FAX %A/\A/\A/ DICD[CTi IID A -'It --.1 September 22, 2007 Mr. Craig Doyle Westfield Valencia Town Center 24201 W. Valencia Blvd., Suite 150 Valencia, CA. 91355 Dear Mr. Doyle, Since Buca De Beppo's opening at the Valencia Entertainment Center, we have not had any customer complaints with regard to problems parking. Buca de Beppo is actually located within the parking structure and parking is very convenient to our store. Let me know if I can be of any other assistance. Sincerely J. 1"4 di Beppo - Buca Inc. THE JOHNNY ROCKETS GROUP, INC. johnnyrockets.com 25550 COMMERCENTRE DRIVE • SUITE 200 • LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 • (949) 643-6100 • FAX: (949) 643-6200 September 22, 2007 Mr. Craig Doyle Westfield Valencia Town Center 24201 W. Valencia Blvd., Suite 150 Valencia, CA. 91355 Re: Johnny Rockets — Valencia Dear Mr. Doyle, I am submitting this letter to confirm that the Johnny Rockets located at the Valencia Entertainment Center has not had any customer complaints with regard to problems parking at the center. The parking serves multiple purposes. Most of our customers come to the Valencia Entertainment Center to eat at our restaurant and then they go to the Regal Theater or Borders Books. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, 5z Mike Dobrota Senior Vice President, Development The Johnny Rockets Group, Inc.