Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - OAK RIDGE DR ZC REQUEST (2)Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT M PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: Patrick Leclair DATE: November 24, 2009 SUBJECT: A REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (MASTER CASE 05-172; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 05-005, ZONE CHANGE 05-005, AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 05-011) TO CHANGE THE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) TO COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD (CN) TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 35,818 SQUARE -FOOT NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER ON OAK RIDGE DRIVE (APN: 2836-064-016), IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DEPARTMENT: Community Development RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council: 1) Adopt a resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Master Case 05-172, General Plan Amendment 05-005 and Development Review 05-011 for the development of a 35,818 square -foot neighborhood commercial center, subject to the attached conditions of approval. 2) Introduce and pass to a second reading on December 8, 2009, an ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 05-005 (MASTER CASE 05-172) TO AMEND THE CITY'S ZONING MAP AND CHANGE THE ZONING OF PARCEL 2836-064-016 FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) TO COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD (CN) ON THE PROJECT SITE LOCATED ON OAK RIDGE DRIVE IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA.11 Ordinance passed to Adopted: -P,So. Oaf -Ids, Second reading BACKGROUND On October 20, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed project and voted 5-0 to adopt Planning Commission Resolution P09-27 recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve Master Case 05-172 with the conditions of approval (Exhibit B of the Resolution). PROJECT SETTING The project site is located on a 3.05 -acre parcel (APN: 2836-064-016) on the southeast corner of Railroad Avenue and Oak Ridge Drive. The project site is surrounded by an existing building material supply yard (Pueblo, Builders Supply) to the north, a 148 -unit apartment complex built in 1988 to the east, a single-family attached condominium complex to the south, and a transportation corridor to the west consisting of Railroad Avenue (formerly San Fernando Road) and a Metrolink rail line. Oak Ridge Drive runs along the north and eastern property lines. The project site is currently vacant, however has been disturbed by Beazer Homes in the 1990's as result of their adjacent residential development. A sound wall was installed along the Metrolink rail line to buffer existing residences to the east of the rail line from the noise generated by traffic along the rail corridor. A stormdrain channel was constructed and runs along the south and western property lines and is maintained by Los Angeles County Flood Control District. Trees were also installed along the western property line to soften views of the stormdrain and sound wall. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The application consists of a request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Development Review to change the subject site's designation on the City's Zoning and General Plan land use maps from the Industrial (I) zone to the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zone to allow for the construction of a 35,818 square -foot neighborhood commercial center on Oak Ridge Drive. The commercial center will be broken up into three buildings as follows: • Building 1 is located on the northwest corner of the project site, running parallel with Oak Ridge Drive. Building 1 will total 3,755 square feet and will be one-story in height. The average height of Building 1 will be 19'-6" with tower elements up to 35'-0" in height. This building has been designed to be a single tenant restaurant pad with indoor seating of 120 seats and an outdoor patio to accommodate 15 seats. • Building 2 is situated along the eastern property line, along Oak Ridge Drive. Building 2 will total 16,359 square feet and will be a one-story, multi -tenant commercial building. The average height of Building 2 will be 23'-6" with tower elements up to 35'-0" in height. The end -cap tenants to the north and south will have opportunities for outdoor dining areas. Total restaurant seating (indoor and outdoor) proposed for Building 2 will not exceed 74 seats. • Building 3 is located on the southeast corner of the project site, oriented perpendicular to Oak Ridge Drive. Building 3 will total 15,704 square feet and is anticipated to be a two- story medical office building with an 8,358 square -foot first floor and a 7,346 square -foot CZ second floor. The average height of Building 3 will be 26'-0" with tower elements up to 35'-0" in height. Parking The project proposes the construction of 203 parking stalls, including 10 handicapped accessible stalls. Parking for general commercial retail and office uses is one (1) parking stall to each 250 square feet of building area. However, additional parking is required for more intensive uses such as medical offices (1 stall: 200 square feet) or restaurants (1 stall: 3 fixed seats). At this time, no tenants are identified for the proposed neighborhood commercial center. To provide flexibility as the center is leased, the applicant has accommodated for a mixture of uses on the project site that require a total of 201 parking stalls. This leaves a surplus of two (2) parking stalls on the project site. Two loading stalls will be provided on the project site, one for the medical office building (Building 3) and one for, the commercial buildings (Building 1 and 2). Light standards will be installed throughout the parking area at a maximum height of 16'- 6". Shields will be installed to screen the lights from the surrounding uses, if necessary. Landscape The project includes a 10'-0" landscape setback from Oak Ridge Drive to provide a buffer to the apartments across Oak Ridge Drive. Further, a 5'-0" landscape planter is proposed to run along the property lines to the south and west, buffering the site from the proposed trail within the stormdrain and the condominiums to the south. Trees will be planted throughout the parking area on the project site to provide shade for vehicles. Eucalyptus trees were previously installed along the western property line. These trees will remain in place to the extent possible. Any trees removed for the construction of the parking lot will be replaced. Landscape area on the project site totals 17% of the site. Trails The proposed project includes the installation of a Class I trail along the Los Angeles County stormdrain charnel running along the south and west of the project site. The trail will connect with the proposed meandering sidewalk running along the project frontage and will further connect to the existing trail network to the south of the project site. Grading The project site was graded relatively flat as a part of previous development activity for the installation of the stormdrain that runs along the south and west of the project site. Minor grading will be required to prepare the building pads for the proposed buildings. However, all grading activities will be balanced on-site and will not require the import or export of earth for the proposed project. ANALYSIS General Plan Amendment and Zone Change The Zoning and General Plan land use designation for the project site is Industrial (1). The I zone "is for a limited range of commercial uses and existing industrial and manufacturing use in the 3 City outside of business parks. Clean industry and light to medium manufacturing is permitted, including research and development, and the provision of employee recreation opportunities is encouraged" (UDC 17.11.020.P). The proposed project would change the Zoning and General Plan Land Use Map designations of the project site to Commercial Neighborhood (CN). The CN zone "is intended for small neighborhood shopping centers located in close proximity to residential areas. More intensive commercial uses are generally not permitted" (UDC 17.11.020.K). The following table includes a breakdown of the surrounding properties: Zoning General Plan EXISTING I PROPOSED CN North I East Residential High (RH) South Residential Moderate (RM) West Open Space (OS) Zoning Land Use I Vacant CN Neighborhood Commercial Center I Building Materials Supply Yard RH Apartment Complex RM Single-family Condominiums OS Transportation Corridor General Plan Development of a neighborhood commercial center on the project site complies with Goal 2 of the Land Use Element of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. Goal 2 seeks, "To achieve the development of a well-balanced, financially sound, and functional mix of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, recreational, institutional, and educational land uses." No commercial uses are located in the vicinity of the project site. The development of the neighborhood commercial center will provide a transition between the existing residential uses of the Circle J Ranch community and the exiting and future industrial uses to the north of the project site. Further, uses and structures associated with the CN designation will be less intrusive and more compatible with the neighboring residential uses. The development of the proposed neighborhood commercial center would further comply with Policy 2.2 of the Land Use Element which seeks to, "Promote the development of service and neighborhood commercial activities to meet existing and future needs. These centers must be nonintrusive, sensitive to surrounding residential land uses, and should be located adjacent to arterial roadways." The center complies with Policy 2.2 by developing a neighborhood commercial center in the underserved community of Circle J Ranch. The nearest commercial center to the Circle J Ranch community is located approximately two (2) miles away, generating vehicle trips throughout the City to provide basic services for the Circle J Ranch community. The development of the proposed retail center will provide convenient access to retail and medical services and dining opportunities and would reduce vehicle trips. The neighborhood commercial center would be easily accessible to commuters, further reducing vehicle trips for basic services. The center is designed to be compatible with the neighboring apartments and condominiums adjacent to the project site. Zoning Development of a commercial center requires the compliance with the City's Zoning Map and Title 17 (Zoning) of the Unified Development Code (UDC). Title 17 of the UDC regulates the density and type of development in the commercial and industrial zones. Projects must comply I/ with the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), setbacks, parking, and landscape standards. The project site is currently located in the Industrial (I) zone, with an allowable FAR of 0.675:1. The existing I designation would allow for the construction of up to 89,679 square feet of industrial buildings on the project site. With the approval of the proposed Zone Change to the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zone, the allowable FAR would be reduced to 0.375:1 and the construction of up to 49,821 square feet of commercial buildings on the project site. As proposed, the project complies with the FAR of the CN zone developing at a 0.269:1 FAR with 35,818 square feet of commercial building. Further, the proposed project complies with the setbacks, parking requirements, and landscape standards outlined for the commercial zone. With the approval of the proposed Zone Change and Development Review, the project site will comply with the Zoning Map and the UDC. Aesthetics Site Design Staff had concerns with the initial building locations on the project site. Building 1 was originally located to the east, closer to Building 2, to allow for a drive aisle to run along the western property line and provide a secondary access point on Oak Ridge Drive. Given the proximity of the drive aisle to the at -grade crossing of the Metrolink rail line, staff required the drive aisle to be removed and the building to be shifted to the west. Building 3 was initially located to the north, closer to Building 2, with parking and a drive aisle that served as the primary access point for the project site to the south. Given the traffic conflicts that existed between the proposed drive aisle and the existing drive aisles across Oak Ridge Drive, staff required the applicant to redesign this portion of the project site. After various revisions, the building was finally positioned in its current location along the southern property line to allow for the installation of the site's only access point to align with the southern drive aisle for the apartments to the east of the project site, across Oak Ridge Drive. With the exception of minor alterations, the configuration of Building 2 has not changed. The result of the modifications to the initial site plan is a project site with improved traffic circulation, street presence, and parking lot design. A rrhitertnre Staff had significant concerns with the initial architecture proposed for this project. Initial building fagade submittals were busy with various, conflicting architectural colors and styles including Contemporary, Mediterranean, Mission, and Craftsman elements. The mixture of these design elements did not fit in with the surrounding community. However, the proposed massing and height ranging from approximately 20 feet to 35 feet (average of 25 feet) was consistent with the surrounding two and three-story structures. Staff worked with the applicant to reach a design solution that would fit in with the surrounding community. The result is the proposed "Rustic Californian" design. The buildings incorporate pitched roofs and tower elements finished with clay tile, a mixture of stone bases, pillars and towers to break up and further accent the primarily stucco finish, with exposed wood eves and trellis structure accents to tie the buildings into the surrounding community. The buildings are pushed out toward the street with a strong street 5 presence and will be visible on all sides. The applicant has incorporated 360° architectural treatments for all of the proposed buildings to ensure a high level of design. Landscape planters throughout the project site, as well as along property line setbacks, help to soften the view of the proposed buildings and further break up the massing of the buildings, softening views of the structures to the neighboring residential uses. The proposed buildings comply with the Community Character and Design Guidelines, and further meet the City's high standard for architectural design. Traffic A Traffic Study was prepared by Iteris, Inc. to evaluate the impacts the neighborhood commercial center would have on the surrounding roadway network. The traffic study anticipates the project will generate 2,320 vehicle trips per day based on anticipated commercial and medical uses. Based on these trip generation numbers incorporated into the traffic model, including the projects identified for the interim year 2015, the project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on any of the intersections evaluated for this project. No impacts to the capacity of the surrounding roadway network, or to the traffic Volume/Capacity ratios for the AM or PM peak hours were identified and therefore, no traffic -related mitigation measures are required as a result of this project. However, at the October 20, 2009, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission approved the subdivision of 12 industrial lots on the 43 acres of Industrial (I) zoned property to the north of the project site. As a part of the industrial subdivision, a traffic study was completed to evaluate the potential traffic impacts associated with the project. The traffic study determined that the cumulative impact of the proposed industrial subdivision, along with the proposed 35,818 square -foot retail center would require the restriping of westbound Magic Mountain Parkway approaching the Valencia Boulevard intersection to allow for two left turn lanes, one dedicated through lane, and one through/optional right turn lane. This mitigation measure has been required for other projects in the City and will be required to be installed by the first project to develop that requires this mitigation measure. Sustainability The proposed One Valley One Vision General Plan includes goals and policies to encourage development in village settings with a mix of services within walking distance of residential development. The proposed commercial center will support these efforts by establishing the village concept in the Circle J Ranch community by providing retail, medical, and restaurant opportunities in close proximity to the isolated Circle J Ranch neighborhood. Further, the proposed Class I trail will connect the project site to the sidewalk along the project frontage, and further connect the project site to the existing sidewalk and trail network that runs along Oak Ridge Drive to the south of the project site, connecting to the Circle J Ranch community and the City's existing trail network. The construction of the proposed center will create a pedestrian friendly, walkable community, consistent with the City's vision for sustainable communities. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS The proposed development qualifies as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Initial Study was prepared. Based on the Initial Study's findings, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. The Initial Study identified impacts associated with air quality and noise that could be significant; however, the measures listed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate any impacts associated with the project to a level that is less than significant. The environmental documents were posted for public review for review, from September 29, 2009, to October 20, 2009. Staff received comments from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) directing staff to contact two (2) local Native American groups. These groups were notified and have declined the need for consultation. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Other action as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact to the City's General Fund exists as a part of this project. However, this project is expected to generate additional jobs and improve the City's jobs -housing balance. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Exhibit A: General Plan Amendment Exhibit Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study Ordinance - Exhibit A: Zone Change Exhibit Site Plan and Building Elevations Planning Commission Staff Report available in the City Clerk's Reading File CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, 1St Floor, Santa Clarita, California, on the 24th day of November, 2009, at or after 6:00 p.m. to consider the approval of the construction of a 35,818 square -foot commercial center consisting of three buildings (one for a stand-alone restaurant, one for a two-story, medical office, and one multi -tenant commercial building) and the associated 203 parking stalls. To develop the proposed project a Development Review is required in conjunction with a General Plan Amendment and zone change to change the general plan land use and zoning designation on the project site from Industrial (I) to Commercial Neighborhood (CN). A DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this project. The document is available for a public review period, during which the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department will receive comments, beginning at 12:00 p.m. on November 3, 2009 and ending at 12:00 p.m. on November 24, 2009. During the public review period a copy of the draft mitigated negative declaration and all supporting documents will be located at the Planning Division public counter located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. A copy of the draft mitigated negative declaration (without all supporting documents) will be posted at the Los Angeles County Library, Valencia Branch during the public review period noted above. Proponents, opponents and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting 'the Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355; (661) 255-4330, Patrick Leclair, Associate Planner. If you wish to challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council, at, or prior to, the public hearing. Dated: November 2, 2009 Sharon L. Dawson, MMC City Clerk Publish Date: November 3, 2009 S \city\public Hearings\09 05-172 CC Notice doc RESOLUTION 09- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING MASTER CASE 05-172 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 05-005 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 05-011) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 35,818 SQUARE -FOOT NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER 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. In 1991, the City Council adopted the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita and certified the Envir6nmental Impact Report. The City's General Plan presently designates the subject property as Industrial (I). Zoning on the subject property is presently Industrial (I); b. In 1994, the Planning Commission approved Master Case 94-038 for the Beazer Homes development located to the south of the project site. The subject property was originally included as a part of the Beazer Homes development and was removed prior to project approval. However, as a part of Master Case 94-038 the subject property was rough graded and a stormdrain channel was installed along the southern and western property lines of the subject site; C. On May 25, 2005, the applicant filed an application (Master Case 05-172) for the construction of a 35,818 square -foot neighborhood commercial center located on the southeast corner of Railroad Avenue and Oak Ridge Drive (APN: 2836-064-016), in the City of Santa Clarita. Oak Ridge Drive runs along the north and east property lines with a Los Angeles County stormdrain channel along the south and west property line; d. The application includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA 05-005) and Zone Change (ZC 05-005) to change the Zoning and General Plan land use designation of the subject site from Industrial (I) to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) and a Development Review (DR 05-011) to develop a neighborhood commercial center on Oak Ridge Drive; e. The surrounding land uses include a building material supply yard to the north, an apartment complex to the east, single-family attached condominiums to the south, and a transportation corridor to the west; f. The application was deemed incomplete on June 24, 2005, lacking the necessary information to process the development application. The applicant worked with 401 staff to provide the necessary information to deem the application complete on September 11, 2009; g. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue commencing on October 20, 2009. The project was advertised in The Signal newspaper, through on-site posting and by mailing to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject site. The hearing was held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m.; h. At the October 20, 2009, public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff presentation, staff report, applicant presentation and public testimony on the proposal. The Commission then closed the public hearing and by a vote of 5-0, recommended approval to the City Council of the project and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration; The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the project on November 24, 2009. The project was advertised in The Signal newspaper, through on-site posting and by mailing to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject site. The hearing was held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:00 p.m. j. At the November 24, 2009, public hearing, the City Council considered the staff presentation, staff report, applicant presentation and public testimony on the proposal; and k. The documents and other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is based, are located in the Master Case 05-172 project file within the Community Development Department and are in the custody of the Director of Community Development. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, 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, if any, have been considered. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on September 29, 2009, in accordance with CEQA. The public review period was open from September 29, 2009, through October 20, 2009; 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; K ri d. The location of the documents and other material which constitutes the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is the Master Case 05-172 project file within the Community Development Department and is in the custody of the Director of Community Development; and e. The Planning Commission, 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. FINDINGS FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held by the Planning Commission and City Council, reports from City staff to the Planning Commission and City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City Council and on its behalf, the City Council finds, as follows: a. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Unified Development Code, General Plan and development policies in the City. Following approval of General Plan Amendment 05-005 to the Land Use Element Land Use Map, Master Case 05-172 is consistent with the land use designation of Commercial Neighborhood (CN). Furthermore, General Plan Amendment 05-005 is consistent with the City's General Plan, as documented in the Mitigated Negative Declaration Section IX (Land Use) of the Initial Study for Master Case 05-172, which contains a detailed analysis documenting the project's consistency with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan. SECTION 4. FINDINGS FOR A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows: a. The design of the proposed commercial development is consistent with all of the on- and off-site improvements required to implement the purposes of the Unified Development Code, the General Plan, and adopted design guidelines and policies of the City Council. The proposed project complies with the Commercial and Industrial Development Standards of Section 17.15.040 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) and the Parking Standards of Section 17.18 of the UDC. The proposed neighborhood commercial center will comply with the required Floor Area Ratio, setbacks, landscape, height, and parking standards of the Commercial Neighborhood zone. Further, the project complies with the City's Community Character and Design Guidelines and will be compatible with the surrounding community of Circle J Ranch. /D 3 SECTION 5. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any, received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigations made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council further finds and determines that this proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan, including the land use designation for the project site of Commercial Neighborhood (CN) as noted in Exhibit A, subject to the approval of the entitlements. SECTION 6. The City Council hereby adopts the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and approves Master Case 05-172 consisting of General Plan Amendment 05-005 and Development Review 05-011 for the development of a 35,818 square -foot neighborhood commercial center subject to the conditions of approval as referenced herein as Exhibit B. SECTION 7. This resolution will take effect upon the adjournment of the City Council's November 24, 2009, City Council meeting. The change to the City's General Plan contemplated herein will take effect upon adjournment of the November 24, 2009, City Council meeting simultaneously with any other changes to the General Plan approved by the City Council at that same meeting so that for purposes of Government Code section 65358, all such changes shall constitute one amendment to the General Plan. SECTION 8. 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. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 24th day of November, 2009. ATTEST: CITY CLERK M MAYOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA) I, Sharon L. Dawson, MMC, 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 24th day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK �a 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 09-_ adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California on November 24, 2009, which is now on file in my office. Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this day of 2009. Sharon L. Dawson, MMC City Clerk By Susan Caputo, CMC Deputy City Clerk on 13 H ?�V l� J 22SHf.FF1ELV EL' mo m N C N 01 U m C S vg' c o: a 3 CP�CUTiA I?ASS•l"N G4 y Spss 3 yY Y7 ' J� G bJ mC� OR Nu�Ye�R K i 0.1MiE � n o OA0. II,, y, uonW h2- pAAKW � E'_u i � s 'w ba NV3a arWyb'Aa a s i 0 F2[ i RAILROAD PV AY Oi'OM1ryy N O EXHIBIT A H EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF SANTA CLARITA MASTER CASE 05-172 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL CONDITIONS GCL The approval of this project shall expire if the approved use is not commenced within one (1) year from the date of conditional approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the City of Santa Clarita's Unified Development Code (UDC). GC2. Once commenced, any discontinuation of the use approved with this project for a continuous period of one hundred eighty (180) calendar days or more shall terminate the approval of this use along with any associated vested rights to such use. The pre-existing legal use shall not be re-established or resumed after the one hundred eight (180) day period. Discontinuation shall include cessation of a use regardless of intent to resume. GC3. 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 attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval by the City. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both the following occur: 1) The City bears its own 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. GC4. Details shown on the site plan are not necessarily approved. Any details which • are inconsistent with the requirements of ordinances, conditions of approval or City policies must be specifically approved in writing. GC5. At the time of issuance of building permits, the applicant agrees to develop the property in conformance with the City Code and other appropriate ordinances, including but not limited to the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Ordinance, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Unified Development Code, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and Fire Code. Improvements and other requirements may be imposed pursuant to such codes and ordinances in accordance with vested rights as provided for in the Government Code. GC6. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and the owner of the 15 Master Case 05-172 Page 2 of 15 property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed with the Director of Community Development, their affidavit stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this approval. PLANNING DIVISION PL1. The applicant is granted approval to develop a 35,818 square -foot commercial center in accordance with the site plan, elevations, preliminary landscape plan, conceptual drainage plan, floor plans, elevations, and color and materials boards. PL2. Any modifications to the approved plans must be submitted to the Planning Division for review and may require additional review. PL3. The applicant shall provide 360° architecture on the commercial buildings. All building elevations fronting on the public street shall have a street presence and shall not appear to be the rear of the buildings. PL4. The applicant shall comply with all of the mitigation measures outlined in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. PLS. Should any tenant require shopping carts, the applicant shall provide cart returns on the project site. The shopping cart returns shall not replace required parking on the project site and shall be designed to be an integral part of the project site. PL6. The applicant shall comply with all noise standards (Municipal Code Section 11.44) having to do with construction -related and operations -related noise generated on the project site. PL7. All lighting shall be down lit and shall not create light or glare impacts to the surrounding residential uses. The applicant shall submit a photometric/lighting plan prior to the issuance of any building permits to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Prior to activating the parking lot lighting, the applicant shall schedule a site inspection with the Planning Division to inspect the lights and determine if additional screening will be needed on the light standards. PL8. All of the pedestrian walkways provided in the parking lot areas shall consist of decorative pavement, rather than striped with paint, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. PL9. The applicant shall provide a minimum of one (1) bicycle parking stall for every 25 vehicle parking stalls. /6 Master Case 05-172 Page 3 of 15 Landscape Comments PL10. The applicant shall maintain the existing mature trees on the project site to the extent possible under this approval. All removed trees must be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. PL11. The applicant shall incorporate landscape planters into the outdoor plaza areas on the project site. These planters may be either permanent planters, or potted shrubs or trees. PL12. 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). PL13. Additional fees shall be required for the review of required landscape and irrigation plans by the City's landscape consultant based on an hourly rate. An invoice will be provided to the applicant at the completion of the review of the plans. The applicant will be required to pay all associated fees to the City of Santa Clarita prior to the release of the approved landscape and irrigation plans for the project. PL14. Applicants are encouraged to incorporate plant material that is complementary to the natural landscape and environmental conditions of the Santa Clarita Valley. Minimizing the use of common and over planted landscape plants such as Agapanthus spp., Rhaphiolepis spp., Photinia spp., Phormium tenax, and Dietes spp. will help promote a strong sense of place and identity for your project. This is in accordance with the City of Santa Clarita's Landscape Development Guidelines stating that "planting design shall develop a landscape character that supports and strengthens the landscape image of the City of Santa Clarita as a unique identifiable place as well as the individual development project". PL15. The landscape plan shall conform to all current Municipal Code /Unified Development Code requirements for landscaping (available at http://www.santa- clarita.com/cityhall/admin/code/). Applicable code sections include but are not limited to: (a) § 17.15.040((A)(4) (property development standards for commercial and industrial zones); (b) § 17.18.070(E) (parking standards); (c) § 17.28 (drainage and terracing/erosion control); (d) § 13.76 (parkway trees). PL16. Required Landscape Plan Elements. Final landscape plans shall contain all elements as listed in the checklist for preliminary landscape plans, and shall conform to the following: /7 Master Case 05-172 Page 4 of 15 (a) Commercial and Industrial Projects i. 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); I7.18.070(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. 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 Department for a pre -planting inspection. vii. In commercial/industrial areas where multiple property owners are located within the same center or property, a property owner's association (POA) shall be formed prior to the first occupancy to have responsibility and authority for all maintenance, including but not limited to landscaping, irrigation, slopes and drainage devices of all common areas. (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 for a residential project shall be a minimum 24" box size, and shall include a proportionate number of 36," 48," and 60" box- Master Case 05-172 Page 5 of 15 size specimens (Santa Clarita Community Character and Design Guidelines, adopted March 2009). 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 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 three (3) inches deep. ix. Trees planted within fourteen (14) feet of the paved road section along Oak Ridge Drive 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. /9 Master Case 05-172 Page 6 of 15 Fuel Modification Conditions PLI T The project site is located within the high fire severity fuel modification zone. Asa result, the landscape and irrigation plans will require the review and approval of the Los Angeles County Fuel Modification Unit. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit the final set of landscape and irrigation plans for review to the Fuel Modification Unit and the City at the same time to allow for a concurrent review of the plans. PL18. The applicant shall submit the following materials to the Fuel Modification Unit with the landscape and irrigation plans to undergo review: (a) Labeled photos of the project site; (b) Labeled photos of the surrounding properties to the project site; (c) An aerial photo (can be copied from the City of Santa Clarita's website); (d) Contact information for the City Planner assigned to the project, including address, phone number, and email address; and, (e) Project site plan and building elevations. PL19. Please contact Fuel Modification for the latest Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines, including the most recent Undesirable and Desirable Plant list. Post Planning Approval PL20. The applicant shall submit a sign program outlining the type of signs, illumination, colors and size of the signs permitted throughout the project site. Please be advised that once the sign program is approved, signs that vary from the sign program will require a sign variance unless a completely new sign program is prepared for the center. PL21. Prior to painting the commercial buildings, the applicant shall provide color samples on the buildings for review and final approval. Upon site inspection, staff may require that colors be modified to consistent with the colors of the surrounding community. PL22. The applicant shall provide a phasing plan if the project is to be completed in phases. PL23. Prior to any final planning inspection, the applicant shall pay the "Planning Final" fee in place at the time that the final inspection is requested. Please be advised that additional inspection fees may be required for multiple inspections. ENGINEERING DIVISION 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, M Master Case 05-172 Page 7 of 15 Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and Fire Code. EN2. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall quitclaim or relocate easements running through proposed structures, as directed by the City Engineer. EN3. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan consistent with the approved site plan 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. EN4. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a notarized Letter of Permission for grading over all easements. ENS. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a notarized Letter of Permission for grading outside of the property lines/tract boundary from the adjacent property owner(s). EN6. The site plan shows connection of the on-site storm drain system to a public storm drain system. Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall obtain approval and connection permit from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Land Development Division. ENT This project is a development planning priority project under the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit as commercial development greater than one acre in size and a parking lot 5,000 square feet or more or with 25 or more parking spaces. Prior to issuance of gradingibuilding permit, the applicant shall have approved by the City Engineer, an Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP) that incorporates appropriate post construction best management practices (BMPs), maximizes pervious surfaces, and includes infiltration into the design of the project. Refer to the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) guide for details. EN8. This project will disturb one acre or more of land. Therefore, the applicant must obtain coverage under a statewide General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit (General Permit). In accordance with the General Permit, the applicant shall file with the State a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the proposed project. Prior to issuance of grading permit by the City, the applicant shall have approved by the City Engineer a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall include a copy of the NOI and shall reference the corresponding Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number issued by the State upon receipt of the NOI. EN9. Prior to occupancy, all new and existing power lines and overhead cables less than 34 KV within or fronting the project site shall be installed underground a 1 Master Case 05-172 Page 8 of 15 EN 10. 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 site plan and conditions of approval and obtain encroachment permits from the Engineering Division. EN 11. Prior to street plan approval, the applicant shall show the removal of the existing sidewalk and the reconstruction of a meandering sidewalk as shown on the site plan. The applicant shall relocate utilities as needed to accommodate the construction of the meandering sidewalk on Oak Ridge Drive. EN12. Prior to street plan approval, the applicant shall show on the street plan drive approaches using a modified commercial driveway design (APWA 110-1, Type C or equivalent) that will provide a street/drive approach transition with a maximum algebraic grade difference of 7%. Construction details shall be shown on the street plan providing a transition no greater than this maximum. EN 13. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall construct the following street improvements along the frontage of the project site, as directed by the City Engineer: EN14. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk, and relocate utilities on streets within or abutting the project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN 15. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall annex the property into the County Sanitation District. The applicant shall provide the City's Building & Safety Division with written confirmation from the Sanitation District that the property has been annexed. EN 16. 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. EN 17. Prior to first occupancy, the applicant shall construct all sewer upgrades per the approved sewer area study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN 18. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay the applicable Bridge and Thoroughfare (B&T) District Fee to implement the Circulation Element of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this project. This project is located in the Via Master Case 05-172 Page 9 of 15 Princessa B&T District. The current rate for this District is $17,780. The B&T rate is subject to change and is based on the rate at the time of payment. 0 The B&T Fee shall be calculated as follows: Commercial = the gross acres (3.06), times the district rate ($17,780), times 5.0; which is equal to $272,034 until June 30, 2010. PARKS. RECREATION. AND COMMUNITY SERVICES PRI. Applicant shall make the connection to the existing Class I Trail along Oak Ridge Road at the southeast corner of the project site. PR2. Applicant shall provide striping and signage on the flood control access road to City Class I Trail standards. PR3. Applicant shall provide lodge pole fencing along the property line next to the Class I Trail on the flood control access road to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. In addition, the applicant shall provide fencing between the flood channel and access road/trail to satisfaction of Los Angeles County Flood Control. PR4. The applicant shall provide access to Oak Ridge Road to the flood control/trail at the northwest end of the project site. Also, provide and install vehicle/trail access gates at both ends of the trail to the satisfaction of Los Angeles County Flood Control and the City's Parks Division. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT FDI. The applicant shall provide a minimum of 26 feet of access width to within 150 feet of all portions of buildings on the project site. FD2. Upon formal submittal to the Fire Department, please show all existing public fire hydrants within 300 feet of all property lines on Oak Ridge Drive. FD3. Additional hydrants may be required upon a detailed review of the architectural plans. FD4. Project is located in a High Hazard Fire Zone 4 and shall submit landscape drawings to LACOFD Fuel Modification Unit. Please contact 626-969-5205 with any questions. FDS. Prior to submittal to the Building and Safety Division, a full set of architectural plans shall be submitted for a detailed review of the plans. a3 Master Case 05-172 Page 10 of 15 BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION General Comments BS 1. At the time of application for a building permit, please submit to the Building and Safety Division the following construction documents for plan review: two sets of plans that include architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing plans and two sets of truss drawings & calculations, if used. Also, one set structural calculations, energy calculations and a copy of the soil / geology report. BS2. All buildings and structures shall comply with the detailed requirements of the 2007 California Building (CBC), Mechanical (CMC), Electrical (CEC)and Plumbing (CPC) and Energy Codes and the 2008 City of Santa Clarita amendments to the California codes. A copy of the City amendments is available at the Building and Safety public counter and on the city website at www.santa-clarita.com. BS3. The project will require a soils and geology investigation report. The report shall be formally submitted to the Development Services Division (Engineering) for review and approval. However, please include one copy of the report to Building and Safety when the plans are submitted for plan review. BS4. Prior to issuance of building permits the following shall be completed regarding grading: a. Obtain a grading permit and perform rough grading and/or re -compaction. b. A final compaction report and a Pad Certification shall be submitted to and approved by the City's Engineering Division. BSS. The project shall fully comply with the disabled access requirements as specified for public accommodations in Chapter 11 B of the California Building Code. The Federal ADA requirements are not reviewed by California jurisdictions. However, ADA compliance is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor. For this project please provide: • An accessible path of travel between the buildings on site; between Building 3 and the public way and access from the public way to Building 1 or to the north end of Building 2. • The accessible parking spaces shall be dispersed on the site and located as close as possible to all building entrances. • All rear doors of the buildings that are also ground floor required exits shall be accessible. BS6. All of the disable access requirements including site accessibility information and details shall be part of the architectural plans (vs the civil plans) and will be reviewed by Building and Safety. Civil plans used for grading purposes are not reviewed or approved for site accessibility requirements. Master Case 05-172 Page 11 of 15 BST For an estimate of the building permit fees and the backlog time for plan review, please contact the Building and Safety Division directly. BSB. Prior to issuance of building permits, additional clearances from agencies will be required from: a. William S. Hart School District and appropriate elementary school district, b. Castaic Lake Water Agency, c. L. A. County Sanitation District, An agency referral list is available at the Building and Safety public counter. BS9. The plans submitted to Building and Safety shall have a Building Code Analysis containing the following minimum information: type of construction, occupancy groups, occupant loads, floor area justification calculations, height of building, number of stories, summary of the fire rated of walls and all other related data. BS 10. The site plan submitted to Building and Safety shall show all lot lines, easements, required sideyards, restricted use areas, flood hazard areas, etc. Any structures proposed in an easement shall obtain the easement holders written permission first. BSI 1. The California Plumbing Code (CPC) shall be used to determine the minimum number of plumbing fixtures. Horizontal drainage piping shall have a minimum slope of per foot, or 2%, to the point of disposal. (CPC sec 708.0) Slopes shallower than 2% will not be approved by the Building Official. Specific Comments BS 12. For any Medical Office Building or uses, any future tenants that will be a licensed medical clinic shall comply with OSHPD 3 requirements and must be identified as such at the time of plan submittal of those tenant improvement plans. BS 13. If any future tenants in the Medical Office portions of the building will be providing outpatient services or services to the mobility impaired, additional accessible parking spaces shall be required per Section 1129B.2 of CBC. Additional Information BS 14. Each separate structure, such as trash enclosures, fences, retaining walls, shade structures require separate building permits. These other structures need not be on separate plans, but may be part of the same plans for the project. a 5 Master Case 05-172 Page 12 of 15 BS15. Each tenant space in a multiple tenant building will be required to obtain a separate certificate of occupancy from the Building and Safety Division prior to occupancy. BS 16. Prior to submitting plans to Building and Safety, please contact Deanna Hamrick, (661) 255- 4935, for project addressing. BSIT The Building and Safety Division has begun scanning plans for permanent storage. To facilitate this effort, please incorporate the following data/features into the plans on the full size sheets when submitted to Building and Safety: a. The Plan Check Number, Sheet Title, and the Sheet Number of the Total Number of Sheets shall be located in the lower right hand corner of each sheet of the plans. b. A copy of the Planning Conditions. c. The Recommendation Section of the Soils/Geology Report. d. ICC, ICBG, UL and other outside testing agency reports when those reports contain information required by the contractor for construction or installation of items or materials that are not otherwise shown or detailed on the plans. e. The Truss drawing layout. (if used) ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION ES 1. Based on the square footage of the proposed buildings on the submitted plans, provide sufficient trash enclosures for the following buildings: Building 1 (Restaurant) - Provide sufficient trash enclosure to house at least 3 three yard bins. One of the bins should be reserved for recyclable materials only and one for food waste materials only. • Building 2 (Retail) - Provide sufficient trash enclosure to house at least 2 three yard bins. One of the bins should be reserved for recyclable materials only. • Building 3 (Medical Office) - Provide sufficient trash enclosure to house at least 2 three yard bins. One of the bins should be reserved for recyclable materials only. ES2. The enclosures should be shown on the site plan with dimensions, consistent with the surrounding architecture, and shall be constructed with a solid roof. The enclosures shall be located to provide convenient pedestrian and collection vehicle access. ES3. All new construction projects valuated greater than $500,000 must comply with the City's Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance. Master Case 05-172 Page 13 of 15 ES4. If the project is valuated above $500,000 the applicant shall: • Divert a minimum of 50% of the entire project's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and 50% of the remaining C&D materials, including green waste. • Have a Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (C&DMMP) approved by the Environmental Services Division prior to obtaining permits. • Submit a deposit of 3% of the estimated total project cost or $50,000, whichever is less. The deposit will be returned to the applicant upon proving that 50% of the inert and remaining C&D waste was diverted. ES5. All projects within the City that are not self -hauling their waste materials must use one of the City's 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 DIVISION SD 1. No on-site, private property landscaping will be maintained by the Landscape Maintenance District (LMD). The applicant must contact the Special Districts Office to clarify how the landscaping will be maintained prior to the issuance of final conditions. SD 2. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall annex the property into the LMD for the maintenance and improvement of landscaped medians and streetscapes. Applicant shall agree to an LMD assessment pursuant to the LMD benefit received by the property. A minimum of 90- 120 day is required for annexation processing. J SD 3. The applicant shall annex the property into the City's Streetlight Maintenance District (SMD) for the operations and maintenance of street lighting and traffic 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. URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION OF 1. The applicant shall be required to install parkway street trees within the Public Right of Way along Oak Ridge Drive. UF2. Prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits, the applicant shall submit a final landscape plan. The landscape plan shall include the location of all parkway trees required within the public right of way. UF3. All parkway trees within the Public Right of Way shall be planted according to the City of Santa Clarita Street Tree Planting and Staking Detail sheet. A copy of this information can be obtained through the Urban Forestry Division. Urban Forestry can be reached at (661) 294- 2548. Sir Master Case 05-172 Page 14 of 15 UF4. All parkway trees shall be a minimum 24 inch box size container grown tree and shall meet or exceed the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Specification Guidelines for Container -Grown Landscape Trees. UFS. All parkway trees planted within a turf parkway shall have a minimum three foot diameter mulched tree well installed and maintained at the base of each tree. UF6. Lineal root barrier which measures 24" inches in depth by a minimum length of 10' feet shall be installed on center with the trunk of each tree and placed along the edge of both the sidewalk and curb/gutter. UFT Arbor guards with a minimum height of eight inches shall be installed at the base of each tree planted within the public right of way. Refer to City of Santa Clarita Tree Planting and Staking Detail Sheet. UF8. The applicant shall be required to install and maintain irrigation to all trees planted within the Public Right of Way. All irrigation to parkway trees shall be approved by the City of Santa Clarita Urban Forestry Division, Special Districts (LMD) and Community Development (Planning). UF9. Spacing of parkway/street trees shall be no less than 30' feet on center and shall not exceed 40' feet on center. UF 10. The applicant shall be advised that all trees planted within the public right of way shall be protected under City of Santa Clarita Street Tree Ordinance 90-15 immediately following sign off from the Department Community Development and the Urban Forestry Division. UF 11. The property owner shall be advised that pruning parkway trees for sign visibility is not permitted at anytime. The applicant shall be required to inform all future tenants of this requirement. UF12. Prior to installation, all parkway trees shall be inspected and approved by the City of Santa Clarita Urban Forestry Division. Trees which do not meet the minimum specifications listed above will be rejected. UF13. Prior to final sign off and the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall contact the Urban Forestry Division for a final inspection of all parkway trees to verify compliance. OF 14. Prior to final sign off and the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a detailed spread sheet to Urban Forestry which verifies the number of parkway trees planted, Master Case 05-172 Page 15 of 15 the genus and species of each tree planted within the parkway and the location of each tree planted. Oak Trees: OF 15. The applicant shall be required to incorporate native oak trees at the ingress and egress areas of the proposed project. Refer to marked site plan. UF16. Approved native oak species for the Santa Clarita area (Sunset Zone 18) are California coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Canyon oak (Quercus chrysolepis), Blue oak (Quercus douglasii) and Valley oak (Quercus lobata). OF 17. The applicant shall be required to show all proposed oak trees on the final landscape plan. Oak trees shall be a minimum size 48" box. The applicant shall install parkway street trees within the Public Right of Way along Oak Ridge Drive. Current street tree for Oak Ridge Drive is the London Plane sycamore "bloodgood" (Platanus acerfolia). S \PED\CURREN1�12005\05-172\05-172 Conditions doc Igm CITY OF SANTA CLARITA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION [X] Proposed [ ] Final MASTER CASE NO: Master Case 05-172 PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: General Plan Amendment 05-005; Zone Change 05-005; and Development Review 05-011 APPLICANT: TMC Properties Attn: Mark Sullivan PO Box 800970 Santa Clarita, CA 91350 LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: The proposed retail center is located to the south and west of Oak Ridge Drive, just east of the intersection of Railroad Avenue and Oak Ridge Drive (APN:2836-064-016) in the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The proposed project includes the construction of a 35,818 square -foot commercial center consisting of three buildings (one for a stand-alone restaurant, one for a two-story, medical office, and one multi -tenant commercial building) and the associated 203 parking stalls. To develop the proposed project a Development Review is required in conjunction with a General Plan Amendment and zone change to change the general plan land use and zoning designation on the project site from Industrial (I) to Commercial Neighborhood (CN). 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 [X] City Council [ ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Planning and Building Services 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. Webber, AICP PLANNING MANAG Prepared by: Patrick Leclair, Associate Planner ( ignature) 4(Name/Title) Approved by:, �� Sharon Sorensen, Senior Planner (Signature) (Name/Title) Public Review Period From Sgptember29, 2009 To October 20, 2009 Public Notice Given On September 29, 2009 [X] Legal Advertisement [X] Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: S \CD\CURREN 12005\05-172\05-172 MND.doc �J(9 Project Title/Master Case Number: Lead Agency name and address: Contact person and phone number: INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Master Case 05-172 General Plan Amendment 05-005 Zone Change 05-005 Development Review 05-011 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Patrick Leclair Associate Planner (661) 2554330 Project location: The proposed retail center is located to the south and west of Oak Ridge Drive, just east of the intersection of Railroad Avenue and Oak Ridge Drive (APN:2836-064-016) in the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA. Applicant's name and address: TMC Properties Attn: Mark Sullivan PO Box 800970 Santa Clarita, CA 91350 Existing General Plan designation: Proposed General Plan designation: Existing Zoning designation: Proposed Zoning designation Description of setting and project: Industrial (1) Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Industrial (I) Commercial Neighborhood (CN) This initial study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a Zone Change (ZC), General Plan Amendment (GPA), and Development Review (DR) for the construction of a 35,818 square -foot retail center. The project site is located on the southeast intersection of Railroad Avenue (formerly San Fernando Road) and Oak Ridge Drive (APN: 2836-064-016), just north of the Via Princessa and Oak Ridge Drive intersection. The project site is immediately bound by Oak Ridge Drive to the north and east, with a Los Angeles County maintained stormdrain channel to the south and west. The project site is surrounded by property with the General Plan land use and zoning designation of Industrial (I) to the north, Residential High (RH) to the east, Residential Moderate (RM) to the south, and Open Space to the west (across the stormdrain channel). The surrounding land uses include a building materials supply yard to the north, a three-story, apartment complex to the east, single-family attached condominiums to the south, and a transportation corridor to the west including Railroad Avenue and the Metrolink right-of-way, The proposed project would allow for the construction of a 35,818 square -foot commercial center. The proposed center would consist of three buildings and the associated 203 parking stalls. Building 1 will be a 3,755 square -foot restaurant, Building 2 is proposed to be a 16,359 square -foot multi -tenant commercial building, and Building 3 will be a 15,704 square -foot medical office building. The buildings are situated along the street frontage with the associated parking internal to the project site. The project proposes one point of access Oak Ridge Drive, directly across from the southern driveway of the existing apartment building to the east of the project site. To develop the proposed project, a General Plan Amendment and zone change is required to change the general plan land use and zoning designation on the project site from Industrial (I) to Commercial Neighborhood (CN). Further, the project requires the approval of a Development Review application to review the development of the proposed commercial 3� Initial Study Page 2 of 38 center and ensure compliance with the City's General Plan, Zoning Code, and Community Character and Design Guidelines. Surrounding land uses: The project site is immediately bounded by Oak Ridge Drive to the north and east, with a Los Angeles County maintained storm channel to the south and west. The project site is surrounded by property with the General Plan land use and zoning designation of Industrial (I), Residential High (RH) to the east, Residential Moderate (RM) to the south, and Open Space to the west (across the storm channel). The surrounding land uses include a building materials supply yard to the north, a three-story, podium apartment complex to the east, single-family attached condominiums to the south, and a transportation corridor to the west including Railroad Avenue and the Metrolink Right of way. Other public agencies whose The project plans are subject to approval from the Los Angeles approval is required: County Fire Department and the Los Angeles County Flood Control. No discretionary approvals from agencies other than the City of Santa Clarita are requested or required for the project. Initial Study Page 3 of 38 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 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 [ ] Geology /Soils [ ] Hazards & Hazardous Materials[ ] Hydrology / Water Quality [ ] Land Use / Planning [ ] Mineral Resources [X] Noise [ ] Population / Housing [ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation [ ] 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 environment, 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 the0oposed project, nothing further is required. September 29, 2009 Patrick Leclair, Associate Planner Date 4 September 29, 2009 Sharon Sorensen, Senior Planner Date Initial Study Page 4 of 38 C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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 [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would [ ] [ ] IN [ ] adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? e) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 11. 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] IN 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: I a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to [ ] IN [ ] [] I an existing or projected air quality violation? 3q Initial Study Page 5 of 38 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any [ ] [ ] [XJ [] criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant [] concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of [ ] people? f) Other [ ] IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through [ ] 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 [ ] 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 [ ] 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 [ ] 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 [ 1 biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat [ ) Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? F [1 [X] [1 [ 1 [ 1 1X1 [] [1 [X1 [1 [] [X1 [1 [1 [X1 S13 Initial Study Page 6 of 38 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita [ ] [ ] [] [XJ ESA Delineation Map? h) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] historical resource as defined in '15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] formal cemeteries? e) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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 i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? [ ] [ ] [ ] IN iv) Landslides? [ ] [ ] [ ] IN b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of [ J [ ] IN [ ] topsoil, either on or off site? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that [ ] [ ] IN [ ] 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 [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? V Initial Study Page 7 of 38 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] more? h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10% [] [] [X] [ ] natural grade? i) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique [ ] [ ] [ ] IN geologic or physical feature? j) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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 [ ] [ ] 11, [X] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] IN project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 7 S9 Initial Study Page 8 of 38 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury [ ] [ ] [X] [ J or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] hazards (e.g. electrical transmission Imes, gas lines, oil pipelines)? j) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge [ J [ ] [X] [ J requirements? , b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere [ ] [ J [X] [ J 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 pennits 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] [ J 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? " 3� Initial Study Page 9 of 38 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation 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? 1) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river? [ ] [ ] IN [ ] m) Impact Stormwater Management in any of the following ways: [ ] [ ] IN [ ] i) Potential impact of project construction and project post- [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] construction activity on storm water runoff? ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, [ ] [ ] [ ] IN 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 [ ] [ ] IN [ ] erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? v) Storm water discharges that would significantly impair or [ ] [ ] IN [ ] 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? Initial Study Page 10 of 38 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [XJ 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? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral [ J [ ] [ ] [X] 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 [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]' manner? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess [ ] [X] [ J [ J 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 [ J [ ] [X] [ ] groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise [ ] [ J IN [ ] levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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? Initial Study Page 11 of 38 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 ROUSING— 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 result in: a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental 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? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? XIV. RECREATION - Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks 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 expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 11 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [] [7 I [X] [] [] [X] 11 [J [] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [] H [X] [] [] [] [] [Xl [] [] [] [Xl [X] [X] 91 Initial Study Page 12 of 38 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to [ ] 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 [ ] 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 [ ] 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., [ ] sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [ ] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting [ ] alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? h) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] 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? 12 [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [] [l [X] [] [X] [] [] [X] [] [l [l [X] [l [l [X] [l [] [Xl [] [Xl [] [] [X] [] Initial Study Page 13 of 38 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] 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 [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] 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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 13 Initial Study Page 14 of 38 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 of the City with existing development on all sides including a building materials supply yard to the north, apartments to the east, single-family attached condominiums to the south, and a transportation corridor to the west. The site has been previously graded as a part of storm drain improvements that run along the south and west property lines of the project site. While the development of the site will change views to the surrounding land uses, the project site is not located on, or adjacent to a scenic vista. Therefore, development of the project site will have a less than significant impact on a scenic vista. b) No Impact: The project site is not located on, or adjacent to, any state scenic highway. Potential scenic resources in the vicinity of the project site include the South Fork of the Santa Clara River to the west of the site (across Railroad Avenue) and the existing undeveloped ridgelines to the northeast of the project site (beyond existing developed property). No historic buildings or rock outcroppings are located on or near the project site. However, there are existing trees along the western property line. These trees were planted as a part of previous development activity on the project as a part of the construction of a stormdrain and sound wall adjacent to the project site. The trees will remain in place with this project and serve as parking lot shade trees. Since the project site is not located on any state scenic highway, development on the project site will not block any views to these scenic resources since there is existing development currently obscuring views to these resources. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources. c) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed development will alter the visual character of the project site by constructing three commercial buildings totaling 35,818 square feet and the 203 associated parking stalls. Two of these buildings will be single -story, commercial buildings. The third building will be a two story, medical office building. The proposed buildings will be oriented toward the street (Oak Ridge Drive) with the majority of the parking areas tucked behind the commercial buildings. The proposed buildings will provide 360 -degree architecture with an architectural scheme consistent with the surrounding residential structures. The buildings have been designed to be consistent with the City's Community Character and Design Guidelines. To further enhance the design of the project site, a 10 -foot landscaped setback will be installed between the proposed commercial buildings and the front property line. The project site is currently vacant allowing unobstructed views of the existing stormdrain channel, with associated chain link safety fencing, along with the 13 - foot high sound wall installed to buffer residences from noise generated by train traffic to the west of the project site. While trees were planted along the western property line to soften the view of these improvements to the existing apartment building, the construction of the three proposed commercial buildings, and associated landscape, will further provide a visual buffer to these improvements. Additional landscape will be installed on the project site The following conditions of approval were added to the project to enhance the Initial Study Page 15 of 38 architectural design of the building and the site landscape for the proposed project: Landscape Condition: A mixture of 24 -inch, 36 -inch, and 48 -inch box trees shall be installed at the time of planting throughout the project site to buffer building and parking areas from Oak Ridge Drive and the surrounding residences. Trees shall be an appropriate mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees to provide year-round screening. Landscaping shall be carried forth per the preliminary landscape plans submitted by the applicant. Architectural Condition: Construction of architectural treatments to break up massing of the building visible from Oak Ridge Drive shall be installed in accordance with the Santa Clarita Community Character and Design Guidelines and per the approved elevations, photo simulations, and color and materials board. d) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project includes a 35,818 square - foot office building, including 203 onsite parking stalls. The project proposes light sources that will be scattered evenly throughout the landscape and exposed parking area. In accordance with the City's UDC, the proposed outdoor light sources will be covered and facing down in order to minimize creation of glare and ambient light sources that could impact surrounding residential areas. Therefore, the project would cause a less than significant impact associated to lighting or glare. e) Other: The project would not cause any other aesthetic impacts. H. AGRICULTURE a) No Impact: There are currently no agricultural operations being conducted on RESOURCES the project site, and the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan does not identify any important farmlands or any lands for farmland use. The project site is currently zoned Industrial with a proposal to change the zoning and General Plan designation to Community Commercial. Further, the project site is not within an area of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Grazing Land, or Farmland of Local Importance as identified by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection on the Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2002 map (California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2004). Therefore, the proposed protect would have no impact to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. b) No Impact: The City of Santa Clarita does not have any agricultural zoning designations, nor does the City's General Plan identify any agricultural land use designations. Further, there is no Williamson Act contract land in the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contracts, and would have no related impacts. c) No Impact: The vacant project site is not currently used for agricultural purposes, nor are there any agricultural uses in the project vicinity. Furthermore, the proposed project would not, in any way, hinder the operations of any existing agricultural practices. Therefore, the project will not have an impact that could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Other: The project would not cause any other impacts to agricultural resources. 15 q Initial Study Page 16 of 38 M. AIR QUALITY a) Less than Significant Impact: The Santa Clarita Valley, an 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 technical 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 2007 AQMP, adopted by the AQMD on June 1, 2007 and by CARB on September 27, 2007. 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 proposed project will change the zoning and General Plan land use designation of the project site from Industrial (I) to Commercial Neighborhood (CN). The I zone allows for a maximum floor area ration of 0.675:1 for heavy industry and manufacturing uses. The CN zone allows for a maximum floor area ration of 0.375:1 for neighborhood serving commercial and office related uses. This reduction in building area and change in land use will not adversely affect the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) growth projections. Since the air quality plans are based on SCAG projections, the proposed project is anticipated to have a minimal effect on the AQMP. Therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact to the region's air quality plan and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation: The project site is located within the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the boundaries which consist of 6,600 square mules throughout Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. The project site is located within the Santa Clarita Valley which is considered a non -attainable area for both the federal and state standards for ozone, fine particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). The proposed project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact associated with the operations related impacts associated with the vehicle emissions generated by the proposed project, while it may have a temporary impact associated with the construction related activities. The proposed development would change the Zoning and General Plan land use designation of the project site from Industrial (1) to Commercial Neighborhood (CN). The I designation has provisions for heavy industry and manufacturing uses, while the CN zone has provisions for light commercial, office, and service related uses for the immediate community. The CN zone is not intended to be a regional shopping center and draw additional vehicle trips to the project site. The proposed Zone Change and General Plan Amendment to CN will allow for the development of the proposed Initial Study Page 17 of 38 35,818 square -foot commercial center. Currently, the Circle J Ranch Community travels nearly two (2) miles to the nearest commercial center. The development of the proposed commercial project will create a walkable community, providing commercial services within walking and biking distance to the Circle J Ranch community. A City trail will be established along the Los Angeles County Flood Control Channel, connecting to the existing trail system to the south allowing for further pedestrian accessibility and opportunities in the Circle J Ranch Community. As a result, it is anticipated that vehicle emissions will be reduced in the vicinity of the project site, as well as the rest of the City. Therefore, a less than significant impact to any air quality violation. However, the construction related air quality impacts associated with the project are anticipated to be temporary in nature. The site has been previously graded flat as a part of previous construction operations on and adjacent to the project site. Minor grading work is anticipated to prepare the proposed building pads and prepare for the proposed parking lot. Minor air quality impacts are anticipated from fugitive dust generated during grading, and as a result of the emissions from machinery required to grade and build the proposed project. These unpacts are anticipated to be temporary and will be reduced to a less than significant impact with the following mitigation measures: Mitigation Measure III -1: During grading and construction, fugitive dust emissions shall not exceed the performance standards in SCAQMD Rule 403, Mitigation Measure 111-2: During grading and construction, active areas shall be watered at least twice (two times) per day. Mitigation Measure I11-3: During construction, install ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Disturbed surfaces shall be maintained in a stabilized condition using water or other chemical dust suppressant until ground cover is planted. Mitigation Measure III -4: Vehicles on-site shall not travel at speeds greater than 15 miles per hour until paving is installed. c) Less than Significant Impact: 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 (PM2.5), Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10), and Carbon Monoxide (CO), and is in a maintenance area for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). The proposed project would not exceed the thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD. The SCQAMD established these thresholds in consideration of cumulative air pollution in the SCAB. As such, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds are not considered a hindrance to the long-term attainment status of the basin and, therefore, do not significantly contribute to cumulative air quality impacts. Since, the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, and the project would have no related significant impacts. d) Less than Significant Impact: 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 174� Initial Study Page 18 of 38 receptors congregate include schools, day care centers, parks, recreational areas, medical facilities, rest homes, and convalescent care facilities. The project site is located approximately 700 feet to the west of an existing City park. The park is separated from the project site by an existing three-story apartment complex and a single family attached condominium development. The park is neighborhood park built by the City within right of way of the Metropolitan Water District and consists of a playground, restroom, turf field, and walking trail. The park is not programmed with City sponsored sport activities and is mainly used by Circle J Ranch residents. As such, the park is not anticipated to have high concentrations of sensitive receptors. Further, as a neighborhood park, peak hours of usage are generally later in the day after school hours, and outside of the hours of the heaviest construction activity. Therefore, a less than significant impact related to sensitive receptors is anticipated. 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. f) Other: The project would not cause any other air quality impacts. IV. BIOLOGICAL a) No Impact: The 3.05 -acre project site is vacant and was previously graded RESOURCES during the construction of the stormdrain channel on the project site. Vegetation existing on the project site consists of eucalyptus trees along the western property line. The remaining project site is seasonally maintained for weed and dust control. The site is not known or expected to contain any species identified as 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. Further, the site does not contain any habitat capable of supporting special status species known to exist in the Santa Clarita Valley. Therefore, the project would have no impact to habitat or any sensitive or special status species. ' b) No Impact: The proposed project site contains no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish or Wildlife Service. Vegetation on-site consists of maintained non-native grasses and mature trees. Therefore, the project would have no impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities. c) No Impact: The proposed project site does not contain any federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.). Therefore, the proposed project would not have adverse effects on protected wetlands. d) No Impact: The project site is surrounded on all sides by developed parcels. Further, the project site is bordered by Oak Ridge Drive to the north and east, with 18 2 3 Initial Study Page 19 of 38 19 4q a stormdrain channel to the south and west. Therefore, the project site is not directly or indirectly connected to any wildlife corridor or migration path for any fish or wildlife species. Further, the project site does not connect wildlife to any native nursery sites. Therefore, the proposed project will not have any impact on any migration patterns, wildlife corridors, or wildlife nursery sites. e) No Impact: The City of Santa Clarita's Oak Tree Ordinance (Ordinance 88-34) is the only local policy or ordinance that protects biological resources within the City. The project site does not contain any oak trees. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an impact on any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. f) No Impact: The project site is not within a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any adopted habitat conservation plans, and the project would have no related impacts. g) No Impact: The project site is not within a Significant Ecological Area identified on either the Exhibit OS -2 of the City's General Plan or the Los Angeles County Significant Ecological Area mapping. The project site is also not within a Significant Natural Area identified by the California Department of Fish and Game. The project site is currently designated as Industrial (1) and would change to Commercial Neighborhood with this project. The project site is located in a developed portion of the City and was previously disturbed as a part of previous infrastructure improvements on and adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the project site is not located in a Significant Ecological Area or Significant Natural Area, and the proposed project would have no related impacts. h) Other: The project would not cause any other impacts to agricultural resources V. CULTURAL a) - d) Less than Significant Impact: The project site was disturbed during RESOURCES previous construction activity on, and adjacent to the project site. During the previous activities on the project site, no resources of a historical, paleontological, or archaeological significance were found. Further, no human remains were identified on the project site during prior construction or grading activities. Therefore, it is considered highly unlikely that any of these resources would be found on the project site during any construction activities associated with this project. However, in the unlikely event that any resources are found on the project site during construction associated with this proejct, the applicant will be required to comply with Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and an archeologist will be hired to investigate, and recommend a course of action to protect these resources. Therefore, a less than significant impact related to cultural resources is anticipated with the proposed project. e) Other: The project would not cause any other impacts to cultural resources. VI. GEOLOGY AND a)i. No Impact: The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake SOILS Fault Zone. Regardless, the proposed project is required to comply with the 19 4q Initial Study Page 20 of 38 California Building Code that establishes regulations for structures in potentially hazardous areas, in order to withstand impacts caused from localized earthquake activity. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from the rupture of a known earthquake fault and would cause no associated impacts. a)ii. Less Than Significant Impact: The City of Santa Clarita is within a seismically active region of southern California. Consequently, future development will likely be subject to strong seismic ground shaking. The proposed structures are required to comply with the Uniform Building Code and other construction standard codes, and are subject to inspection during construction to ensure proper construction. Conforming to these required standards will ensure the proposed project would not result in significant impacts due to strong seismic ground shaking. a)ili. and iv. No Impact: The project site is not located within a designated Seismic Hazard Zone, as shown on the Seismic Hazard Zones map, of the City of Santa Clarita. The map includes earthquake -induced landslide hazard zones, and liquefaction hazard zones. Properties with the potential for liquefaction are located to the east and south of the project site. However, the project site is not located within either hazard area and is not anticipated to see any seismic -related ground failure. Therefore, no impact to seismic ground failure is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. b) Less than Significant Impact: During construction of the proposed project, the soils on-site may become exposed, and thus subject to erosion. However, the project is required to comply with existing regulations that reduce erosion potential. The proposed project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which as described in Section III of this report would reduce the potential for wind erosion. Similarly, water erosion during construction would be substantially reduced by complying with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). As further detailed in Section VIII of this report, NPDES requires the construction of the project to incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and prevent eroded soils from washing offsite. Thus, the potential to increase erosion during any construction activity would be effectively mitigated through the required compliance activities. Therefore, a less than significant impact to wind or water soil erosion is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. c) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed commercial center is located on a flat graded parcel that is currently vacant, and surrounded by developed and/or improved parcels. The project site is not located in an identified landslide or liquefaction hazard area as identified on the City's Seismic Hazard Zones Map. Therefore, the proposed project is unlikely to be located on any unstable geologic unit or soil and is not anticipated to result in any on- or off-site instability. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a substantial risk to life or property due to expansive soils, and the project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact. d) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project site was previously graded as a part of previous construction activity on and adjacent to the project site. The grading work required as a part of the proposed project is anticipated to be minor for the preparation of the proposed building pads. The project will require the preparation of a soils report for review and approval of the City Engineer. The Initial Study Page 21 of 38 project will be required to comply with all recommendations outlined in the report, including, but not limited to expansive soils. Further, all projects are required to be designed and built in compliance with all of the applicable building codes in place at the time of permit issuance. Therefore, the project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact due to expansive soil that would create substantial risks to life or property. e) No Impact: The project will be required to connect to the existing sewer system. Therefore, soil suitability for septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems is not applicable in this case, and the proposed project would have no associated impacts. f -h) Less than Significant Impact: The project site is currently vacant, however was graded flat as a part of previous construction activities on, and adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project does not include the alteration of any existing surface relief features. The site is anticipated to require the movement of less than 5,000 cubic yards of earth for the preparation of the proposed building pads. The project site has a natural grade less than 10% with an average elevation ranging from 1,192 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 1,196 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to have an impact related to topography, earth movement, and development on a slope greater than 10% natural grade. i) No Impact: As discussed, the topography of the project site, as existing, is effectively flat. The site does not contain any ridgelines or other regionally notable topographic features. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature, and the project would have no related impact. J) Other: The project would not cause any other impacts related to geology and soils. VII. HAZARDS AND a) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed commercial center is not HAZARDOUS anticipated to store, use, or generate substantial amounts of hazardous materials, MATERIALS and is not anticipated to utilize any acutely hazardous materials. The only hazardous materials expected to be utilized onsite are typical cleansers, solvents, pesticides, and fertilizers for the normal maintenance of structures and landscaping. These chemicals are used for normal maintenance and are not typically of sufficient amount or concentration to pose hazards to the public. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. b) Less than Significant Impact: The site is not known or expected to contain any underground storage tanks (USTs), aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), gas lines, or other hazardous material conduits or storage facilities. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to 65962.5. There exists no evidence of willful industrial abuse, legal/illegal dumping, mining, or oil and gas exploration/production. The project does not propose any industrial uses, waste treatment/storage facilities, power plants, or other land uses that are typically associated with hazardous material accidents. Further, the proposed project includes a zone change and General Plan land use designation modification Initial Study Page 22 of 38 to change the site from the Industrial (1) zone to the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zone. This will limit the activities on the project site to neighborhood serving commercial uses and would not allow any industrial uses on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. c) No Impact: The project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Furthermore, as discussed in Section VII.a) of this report, the proposed uses are not anticipated to store, use, or generate substantial amounts of hazardous materials, and are not anticipated to utilize any acutely hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would have no related impacts. d) No Impact: The project site is not known to contain any hazardous materials. The site is not found on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e) No Impact: There are no airports located within ten (10) miles of the project site; and the project site is not within an airport land use plan. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in proximity to an airport, and the proposed project would have no associated impacts. f) No Impact: The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. There are no airplane transportation facilities, public or private, within ten (10) miles of the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in proximity to a private airstrip, and the proposed project would have no associated impacts. g) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project involves the development of a commercial center on a 3.05 -acre parcel. The construction and operation of the proposed project would not place any permanent or temporary physical barriers on any existing public streets and the project site is not utilized by any emergency response agencies, and no emergency response facilities exist in the project vicinity. Furthermore, the streets accessing the project site are fully developed to their ultimate rights-of-way, allowing for emergency access to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to emergency response planning. h) Less than Significant Impact: As identified on the City's Fire Hazards Zone map, the project site is located within a fire hazard zone. However, the project site is surrounded on all sides by developed land. These developed parcels serve as a buffer, reducing any threat of a wildland fire on the project site. However, the project will be required to comply with all safety requirements of the applicable building and fire codes addressing fire safety for commercial structures. This may include, but is not limited to, the installation of fire sprinklers or applicable fie rated walls. Furthermore, the project's landscape plan is subject to review and approval by the City's Community Development Department and Los Angeles County Fuel Modification Unit. This review ensures the proposed plant pallet is appropriate for the conditions at the subject site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a 22 5a Initial Study Page 24 of 38 permit and the SUSMP would ensure that the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and the project would have no related significant impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to water quality standards and waste water discharge. b) Less than Significant Impact: The Santa Clara River and its tributaries are the primary groundwater recharge areas for the Santa Clarity Valley (City of Santa Clarita General Plan, 1991). The proposed project would convert an existing vacant lot into a commercial development and add impermeable surfaces which could reduce the site's groundwater recharge potential. However, the applicant has designed the drainage system for this project to incorporate permeable pavement within the parking lot that will allow for a portion of the water that would typically drain off of the site to be filtered and permeate back into the water table. The remainder of the site's runoff will flow into the existing engineered storm drain system. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and the project would have a less than significant impact on groundwater. c) - e) Less than Significant Impact: Development projects that increase the volume or velocity of surface water can result in an increase in erosion and siltation. Increased surface water volume and velocity causes an increase in siltation and sedimentation by increasing both soil/water interaction time and the sediment load potential of water. As required by the City of Santa Clarita and the Countywide MS4 Permit, any development on the site will require that the final design of the development's drainage system is engineered so that post - development peak runoff discharge rates (a measure of the volume and velocity of water flows) are equal to or less than pre -development peak runoff rates. The project site is relatively flat, surrounded by existing developed parcels, including existing drainage systems. While the proposed project will design on-site drainage systems to adequately address the flow on the project site, these drainage systems will tie into the existing drainage systems adjacent to the project site. There are no existing rivers, streams, or waterways on the project site. Therefore, the development of the project site will not alter any existing water ways and would therefore, not create any impact to any erosion or siltation on or off of the project site. In addition, the onsite drainage system in accordance with the NPDES requirements discussed above in Section VIII(a), is also required to include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and siltation to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, with the application of standard engineering practices, NPDES requirements, and City standards, the project would have a less than significant impact related to erosion or siltation on- or offsite, flooding on- or offsite, or polluted runoff. f) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project will not alter the water sources on the site and the surrounding area. The proposed development will not be a point -source generator of water pollutants. Compliance with the City's SUSMP ordinance will ensure that the proposed project would not generate stormwater pollutants that would substantially degrade water quality. The project, however, also has the potential to generate short-term water pollutants during construction, including sediment, trash, construction materials, and Initial Study Page 23 of 38 significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, and the project would have a less than significant impact. i) Less than Significant Impact: The Santa Clarita Valley has various utility lines traversing the valley including, but not limited to, electrical transmission lines, gas and oil pipelines, and water pipelines. However, there are no known utility lines on or immediately adjacent to the project site that would be impacted by the proposed development. A Los Angeles City Metropolitan Water District water line is located approximately 700 feet to the east of the project site and electrical transmission lines owned by Southern California Edison are located approximately 1,000 feet to the west of the project site. Therefore, exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards would be considered less than significant. j) Other: The project would not cause any other impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND a) Less than Significant Impact: Section 303 of the federal Clean Water Act WATER QUALITY requires states to develop water quality standards to protect the beneficial uses of receiving waters. In accordance with California's Porter/Cologne Act, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) are required to develop water quality objectives that ensure their region meets the requirements of Section 303 of the Clean Water Act. Santa Clarita is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB. The Los Angeles RWQCB adopted water quality objectives in its Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SQMP). This SQMP is designed to ensure stormwater achieves compliance with receiving water limitations. Thus, stormwater generated by a development that complies with the SQMP does not exceed the limitations of receiving waters, and thus does not exceed water quality standards. Compliance with the SQMP is ensured by Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, which is known as the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Under this section, municipalities are required to obtain permits for the water pollution generated by stormwater in their jurisdiction. These permits are known as Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permits. Los Angeles County and 85 incorporated Cities therein, including the City of Santa Clarita, obtained an MS4 (Permit # 01-182) from the Los Angeles RWQCB, most recently in 2001. Under this MS4, each permitted municipality is required to implement the SQMP. In addition, as required by the MS4 permit, the City of Santa Clarita has adopted a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) ordinance to ensure new developments comply with SQMP. The City's SUSMP ordinance requires new developments to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) that reduce water quality impacts, including erosion and siltation, to the maximum extent practicable. This ordinance also requires most new developments to submit a plan to the City that demonstrates how the project will comply with the City's SUSMP and identifies the project -specific BMP that will be implemented. This project is considered a development planning priority project under the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit with the construction of a commercial center development greater than one acre in size. In accordance with the MS4 Permit and the City's SUSMP ordinance, a SUSMP that incorporates appropriate post construction BMPs into the design of the project must be prepared and approved prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Compliance with the MS4 23 0 Initial Study Page 25 of 38 equipment fluids. The Countywide MS4 permit requires construction sites to implement BMPs to reduce the potential for construction -induced water pollutant impacts. These BMPs include methods to prevent contaminated construction site stormwater from entering the drainage system and preventing construction -induced contaminates from entering the drainage system. The MS4 identifies the following minimum requirements for construction sites in Los Angeles County: 1. Sediments generated on the project site shall be retained using adequate Treatment Control or Structural BMPs; 2. Construction -related materials, wastes, spills or residues shall be retained at the project site to avoid discharge to streets, drainage facilities, receiving waters, or adjacent properties by wind or runoff; 3. Non -storm water runoff from equipment and vehicle washing and any other activity shall be contained at the project site; and 4. Erosion from slopes and channels shall be controlled by implementing an effective combination of BMPs (as approved in Regional Board Resolution No. 99-03), such as the limiting of grading scheduled during the wet season; inspecting graded areas during rain events; planting and maintenance of vegetation on slopes; and covering erosion susceptible slopes. In addition, projects with a construction site of one acre or greater, such as the project site, are subject to additional stormwater pollution requirements during construction. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) maintains a statewide NPDES permit for all construction activities within California that result in one (1) or more acres of land disturbance. This permit is known as the State's General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit or the State's General NPDES Permit. Since the proposed project involves greater than one (1) acre of land disturbance, the project is required to submit to the SWRCB a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the State's General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. This NOI must include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that outlines the BMPs that will be incorporated during construction. These BMPs will minimize construction -induced water pollutants by controlling erosion and sediment, establishing waste handling/disposal requirements, and providing non - storm water management procedures. Complying with both the MS4's construction site requirements and the State's General Construction Permit, as well as implementing an SWPPP will ensure that future construction activity on the project site would have a less than significant impact on water quality. g) No Impact: The project site is not within the 100 -year or 500 -year flood zones as shown on the City's "Flood Zones" map. Therefore, the proposed project would not place future housing in flood hazard areas and would have no related impacts. h) No Impact: The project site is not within the 100 -year or 500 -year flood zones as shown on the City's "Flood Zones" map. Therefore, the proposed project would not place future structures in a flood hazard area and would have no related impacts. Q No Impact: There are no levees, dams, or other water detention facilities in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project or future related projects would not expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, and the project would have no related impacts. 25 S Initial Study Page 26 of 38 j) No Impact: There are no bodies of water in the vicinity of the project site that are capable of producing seiche or tsunami. Similarly, the project site is not in an area prone to landslides, soil slips, or slumps. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact from seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. k) Less than Significant Impact: The project would alter the site's drainage patterns. However, as discussed above in Sections VIII.c) and VIIIA), compliance with the City's SUSMP ordinance would ensure that post -development peak storm water runoff rates do not exceed pre -development peak storm water runoff rates. Further, development activities associated with the proposed commercial center will be limited to the surface for building pad preparation. No grading activities will be conducted on the project site that would com into contact with any groundwater flows. Consequently, groundwater flows would not be affected. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts from changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water and groundwater. 1) No Impact: The project would not cause any other impacts due to the modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river. m) Less than Significant Impact: As discussed above in Sections VIII.a), VIII.c), VMA), and VIII.e) of this report, the project is required to comply with the City's SUSMP ordinance, the Countywide MS4 permit, the State' NPDES General Construction Permit, and required to implement a SUSMP compliance plan and SWPPP. Compliance with these requirements of the Clean Water Act and the NPDES will ensure the proposed project would not significantly impact stormwater management. IX. LAND USE AND a) No Impact: The proposed project includes the construction of a 35,818 square - PLANNING foot commercial center on a vacant, 3.05 -acre parcel located on Oak Ridge Drive. The project site is surrounded by developed land to the north, east, and south with a transportation corridor to the west. Development of the site as proposed will not divide an existing community. The project will locate services in close proximity to a community that is currently under -served, having to travel nearly two (2) miles to the closest commercial services. Further, the project site is currently zoned Industrial and would not affect a residential community, low-income, minority, or otherwise. All development for the proposed project would occur onsite and would not impose any physical barriers on any existing pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle travel routes. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community and would have no associated impacts. b) Less than Significant Impact: The project site is not part of a specific plan or redevelopment plan, and the City of Santa Clarita is not within the Coastal Zone, as described in the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1966, or any other plan designed with the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. However, the proposed commercial center would not be consistent with the existing zoning of the subject parcel. The project site (APN: 2836-064-016) is currently designated as Industrial (I) on the City's General Plan land use and zoning maps which does not allow for retail centers. Section 17.11.020 of the City's Unified Development Code states that the I zone "is for a limited range of commercial uses and existing industrial and manufacturing uses in the City outside of business parks. Clean industry and light to medium manufacturing is permitted, Initial Study Page 27 of 38 including research and development, and the provision of employee recreation opportunities is encouraged." In order to develop the site as the proposed commercial center, the project would require the approval of a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment to designate the project site as Commercial Neighborhood (CN). Section 17.11.020 of the UDC states that the CN zone "is intended for small neighborhood shopping centers located in close proximity to residential areas. More intensive commercial uses are generally not permitted." Although the project requires the approval of the Zone Change and General Plan Amendment, this change is not anticipated to have a significant impact relating to the City's land use policies. The project site is located immediately north of an existing single-family attached residential condominium development and to the west of an existing apartment complex. Land uses consistent with the I zone would be industrial and manufacturing use types and are generally not compatible with residential uses. Industrial uses are likely to create noise, odor, and/or air quality impacts to residential uses far above those anticipated with the proposed commercial center. The CN zone would allow for a variety of service, restaurant, office, and other general commercial uses that would be neighborhood serving. Further, the I zone would allow for a greater Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (0.675 to 1) than the CN zone (0.375 to 1). The proposed Zone Change and General Plan Amendment would reduce the intensity of development on the project site, and would further eliminate the possibility of locating heavy industrial uses adjacent to the existing residences. Therefore, with the proposed Zone Change and General Plan Amendment, the proposed project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact to the land use policies of the City. c) No Impact: As discussed in Section IV.f) of this report, the project site is not within a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved environmental resource conservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any adopted environmental conservation plans, and the project would have no related impacts. X. MINERAL AND a -b) No Impact: The project site is not within a mineral area identified on Exlubit ENERGY RESOURCES OS -5 "Mineral Resources" of the City's General Plan, and is not otherwise known to contain mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource, and the project would have no related impacts. c) Less than Significant Impact: The project would utilize building materials and human resources for construction of the project. Many of the resources utilized for construction are nonrenewable, including manpower, 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 will be utilized onsite 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 commercial development would be supplied by the regional utility purveyors, which participate in various conservation programs. Furthermore, there are no unique conditions that would require excessive use of nonrenewable resources onsite, and the project is expected to utilize energy or water resources in the same manner as typical modem development. 27 7 Initial Study Page 28 of 38 Therefore, the proposed project would not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner, and the project would have a less than significant impact. XI. NOISE a) Less than Significant with Mitigation: The proposed project involves the development of a 35,818 square -foot commercial center on a vacant 3.05 -acre project site. The site currently has the zoning and General Plan land use designation of Industrial (I). Uses associated with the I zone generally include machinery, trucks, and activities that are not compatible with the noise levels of residential uses. The Noise Element in the City's General Plan (Exhibit N-1) identifies the City's normally acceptable noise level for commercial areas at 70 dBA. However, since the project site is located immediately adjacent to existing residences to the south, and to the east across Oak Ridge Drive, the City's Municipal Code requires that the project keep all noise levels be reduced to a residential standard at the property line for the commercial center. The acceptable residential noise standard is 65 dBA during the day (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.) and 55 dBA during the night (9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), measured along the eastern and southern property lines. However, the project proposes to locate the proposed commercial buildings along the eastern and southern property lines. These structures are anticipated to buffer the noise generated on the project site related to vehicles and general ambient noise of a commercial center. In addition, the project site is located immediately to the east of a rail corridor owned by Metrolink. In order to reduce impacts to residents in the Circle J Ranch community, prior development activities required the installation of a sound wall just west of the project site along the property line for the Metrolink rail line. This 13' wall has served as a buffer for sound generated by the rail line. The proposed 35' tall commercial buildings are anticipated to improve the noise levels to the east of the project site by providing an additional buffer for noise along the rail line. The commercial buildings on the project site are anticipated to experience periodic noise events associated with the traffic along the adjacent rail line. In order to reduce the noise levels inside the building to less than significant levels after construction, the following mitigation measure should be incorporated into the project: Mitigation Measure XI -1: To meet the 45-dBA CNEL noise standard for medical office uses, mechanical ventilation, such as an air-conditioning system, shall be required for the medical office building to ensure that windows can remain closed for prolonged periods of time. It is anticipated that the construction of the proposed retail center would generate construction related noise impacts. However, these impacts are anticipated to be temporary. The City's noise ordinance (Section 11.44 of the Municipal Code) limits the hours of construction to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. during the week, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, with no construction on Sundays or specified holidays. Compliance with this ordinance will limit the construction related noise impact associated with the construction of the proposed project. To further reduce the construction related noise on the project site to less than significant levels, the following mitigation measures should be incorporated into the project: Mitigation Measure 3U-2: During all excavation and grading, the project applicant shall require the project contactor(s) to equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. Measure XI -3: 28 53 Initial Study Page 29 of 38 The project applicant shall require the project contractor(s) to located equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest distance between construction -related noise sources and noise -sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction, to the extent practicable. Therefore, with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to noise as it relates to the existing ordinances or the City's General Plan. b) Less than Significant Impact: There are no established vibration standards in the City of Santa Clarita. However, minor grading work will be required for the proposed project to prepare the building pads for the proposed buildings. This earth movement might generate small amounts of groundborne vibration and noise. However, these impacts would be temporary in nature and would not be permanent However, the proposed project does not involve construction practices that are typically associated with heavy ground vibrations, such as pile driving and large- scale demolition. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to vibration impacts. c) Less than Significant Impact: The project consists of the development of a 35,818 square -foot commercial center. Additional noise will be generated as a result of the additional vehicle trips and noise associated with the proposed center. However, the increase in noise is not anticipated to exceed the existing ambient noise levels since the project site is located adjacent to an existing transportation corridor for Railroad Avenue and the Metrolink rail line. The noise generated by this transportation corridor raises the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. As previously stated in section XIa) the construction of the proposed 35' tall buildings is likely to provide an additional buffer, in excess of the existing 13' tall screen wall, to the existing residential community. Therefore, there is anticipated to be a less than significant impact related to ambient noise levels as a result of the proposed project. d) Less than Significant Impact: Construction of the project will generate short- term noise. Examples of the level of noise generated by construction equipment at 50 feet from the source is presented in the following table: Table XI -1 Noise Levels Generated by Typical Construction E ui ment Range of Suggested Sound Sound Type of Equipment Levels Levels for Analysis (dBA at 50 feet) Pile driver (12,000- 81-96 93 18,000 ft-lb/blow) Rock drill 83 —99 96 Jack hammer 75-85 82 Pneumatic tools 78 —88 85 Pumps 68-80 77 29 S Initial Study Page 30 of 38 Dozer 85-90 88 Tractor 77-82 80 Concrete mixer 75-88 85 Front-end loader 86-90 88 Hydraulic backhoe 81 —90 86 Hydraulic excavator 81-90 86 Grader 79-89 86 Air compressor 76-86 86 Truck 81-87 86 Source: EPA 1971 Noise levels decrease substantially with distance. Tractors, trucks and graders result in noise levels in the 80-86 dBA level at 50 feet. Title 11, Chapter 44, Noise Regulations of the City's Municipal Code (Section 11.44.040) provides the following noise production limitations: A. It shall be unlawful for any person within the City to produce or cause or allow to be produced noise which is received on property occupied by another person within the designated region, in excess of the following levels, except as expressly provided otherwise herein: Region Time Sound Level dB Residential zone Day 65 Residential zone Night 55 Commercial and manufacturing Day 80 Commercial and manufacturing Night 70 At the boundary line between a residential property and a commercial and manufacturing property, the noise level of the quieter zone shall be used. B. Corrections to Noise Limits. The numerical limits given in subsection A above shall be adjusted by the following corrections, where the following noise conditions exist: Section 11.44.080 of the Municipal Code places the following limitations on construction times for purposes of limiting noise impacts and the project will be subject to this limitation, therefore, no nighttime noise impacts are anticipated: Noise Condition Correction (in dB) (1) Repetitive impulsive noise -5 (2) Stead whine, screech or hum -5 The following corrections apply to da only: (3) Noise occurring more than 5 but less than +5 15 minutes per hour (4) Noise occurring more than 1 but less than 5 +10 minutes per hour 5 Noise occurring less than 1 minute per o �� hour +20 o �� Initial Study Page 31 of 38 No person shall engage in any construction work which requires a building permit from the City on sites within three hundred (300) feet of a residentially zoned property except between the hours of seven a.m. to seven p.m. Monday through Friday and eight a.m. to six p.m. on Saturday. Further, no work shall be performed on the following public holidays: New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Memorial Day and Labor Day. Project construction is required to meet these standards, and the project poses no unique conditions that require excessive noise to be generated during construction, such as jack -hammering or demolition. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause any significant impacts from temporarily generating noise. e) No Impact: The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan of within two miles of a public airport. f) No Impact: The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND a) Less than Significant Impact: Growth -inducing impacts are caused by those HOUSING characteristics of a project that foster or encourage population and/or economic growth. These characteristics include adding residential units or businesses, expanding infrastructure, and generating employment opportunities. The project would involve construction of a 35,818 square foot commercial center. Additional jobs will be created as a result of the construction and operation of the center on the project site. The jobs created as a result of the proposed project are anticipated to be varied from service and general retail sales jobs to specialized medical specialties. The proposed activities will lead to an increase in local traffic and the congregation of people. However, the project would change the zoning and Genera Plan land use designation from Industrial (I) to Commercial Neighborhood (CN). The CN zone has a floor area ratio of 0.375 to 1, less than the 0.675 to 1 ratio of the I zone. With the proposed change is zoning, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact since the density of buildings has been reduced on the project site, reducing the overall build -out limits as provided in the City's General Plan. Furthermore, the proposed project would not otherwise induce growth by expanding the capacity of the roadway network or utility infrastructure. The project site is adequately served by the existing roadway network surrounding the project site. The project would serve as a neighborhood shopping center and provide services to an existing community that is currently underserved, having to travel nearly two (2) miles to the nearest commercial services. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact relating to population growth as a result of the proposed commercial center. b) No Impact: The project site does not consist of any existing housing and does not contain any land designated for housing. The project site is vacant and is surrounded by developed land. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any housing, and would have no associated impacts. c) No Impact: The project site does not consist of any existing housing. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any people, and would have no associated impacts. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a)i. Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project is not anticipated to result in the need for additional new or altered fire protection services and will not alter Initial Study Page 32 of 38 acceptable service ratios or response times. The proposed project would include the development of a 35,818 square -foot commercial center, and, in turn, would increase the structures served by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. However, the project itself is not large enough to require the development of additional Fire Department facilities. Furthermore, the project applicant is required to pay development fees, which are established to offset incremental increases to fire service demand. Therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact related to fire protection services. a)ii. Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project will not result in the need for additional new or altered police protection services and will not alter acceptable service ratios or response times. The proposed project would include the development of a 35,818 square -foot commercial center, and, in turn, would increase the structures served by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. However, the project itself is not large enough to require the development of additional police facilities. Furthermore, the project applicant is required to pay development fees, which are established to offset incremental increases to police service demand. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact police protection services. a)iii. No Impact: The proposed project would add a 35,818 square -foot commercial center to an underserved residential community. The project would be within the Newhall School District (NSD) for elementary school, and the William S. Hart School District (WHSD) for junior high and high school. However, the proposed project would not develop any new residential dwellings and, thus, would not directly increase the population of school -aged children served by the SUSD and the WHSD. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact school services. a)iv. No Impact: The proposed project would not contribute new residences to the area that would lead to an increase in the use of the local and regional parks systems. Therefore, the proposed project would have no adverse impact on park services. XIV. RECREATION a) No Impact: The proposed development involves the construction of a commercial center that would be utilized primarily by the surrounding residential community of Circle J Ranch. The proposed project does not propose additional residences and is therefore not expected to increase the use of public parks. Therefore, the project would not lead to physical deterioration of any existing recreational facilities, and would have no related impacts. b). No Impact: The proposed project includes the construction of a commercial center and does not include residential units that would require park development fees or implementation of new recreational facilities. Therefore, the project would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment from the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. XV. TRANSPORTATION / a) Less than Significant Impact: The City of Santa Clarita adopted the TRAFFIC Circulation Element of its General Plan in 1997. This Circulation Element includes a master plan for the City's highway and roadway system (General Plan Exhibit C- 2). This master plan was developed to serve the City's existing transportation needs, as well as the City's projected transportation needs. The City's projected transportation needs were determined largely by evaluating build -out conditions of the City in accordance with land use designations. As such, the master plan for the City's highway and roadway system was established to accommodate the traffic Initial Study Page 33 of 38 generated by a built-up Santa Clarita. The project proposes a 35,818 square -foot commercial center on a vacant 3.05 -acre parcel. The applicant has prepared a traffic study to address the additional vehicle trips associated with the proposed commercial development. The traffic study prepared by Iteris, Inc. concludes that the proposed project will generate 2,320 additional vehicle trips per day on the City's existing roadway network (Table 4 of the Iteris, Inc. Traffic Study). There are existing intersections that operate at an unacceptable level of service E (Bouquet Canyon/Soledad Canyon and Valencia Boulevard/Magic Mountain Parkway) in either, the AM or PM peak hours. The proposed project does not increase vehicle trips at these intersections that will have any significant impact (Table 5 of the Iteris, Inc. Traffic Study) on these intersections. The remaining intersections surrounding the project site will continue to operate at an LOS "A" or `B" before and after the proposed project. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated with. respect to the volume and capacity of the existing roadway network. b) Less than Significant Impact: As stated in Section XVa), the proposed project will increase vehicle trips on the City's existing roadway network. However, the increase in vehicle trips will not reduce the LOS of any roadways or intersections to a significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, an established level of service standard for any designated CMP roadway, and would have a less than significant impact. c) No Impact: The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Consequently, the proposed project would not affect any airport facilities and would not cause a change in the directional patterns of aircraft. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to air traffic patterns. d) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project does not involve construction of hazardous design features connected to roadway systems. The project proposes one point of access on Oak Ridge Drive that will align the southern driveway of the existing apartment building to the east of the project site. Further, vehicles exiting the project site will have adequate visibility in either direction, and will be adequately visible to traffic, while exiting the project site. However, the project does use Oak Ridge Drive as its primary access point. Oak Ridge drive intersects with Railroad Avenue with an at -grade crossing over the existing Metrolink rail line. Oak Ridge Drive also connects directly with Via Princessa. Via Princessa has an above -grade crossing over the rail line and Railroad Avenue that will serve as a secondary means of access for the proposed retail center. Therefore, any potential conflicts or issues with the at -grade crossing are reduced to less than significant impacts. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact to traffic hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. e) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed development would have one point of access onto Oak Ridge Drive. The project's ingress/egress and circulation are required to meet the Los Angeles County Fire Department'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. Thus, standard engineering practices are expected to achieve the Fre Department's standards. Furthermore, final project plans are subject to review and Initial Study Page 34 of 38 approval by the Fire Department to ensure that the site's access complies with all Fire Department ordinances and policies. With the required compliance with all Fire Department ordinances and policies, the project would not cause significant impacts due to inadequate emergency access. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact related to emergency access. f) No Impact: The proposed development includes 203 standard size parking stalls which include 10 handicapped parking stalls. The UDC parking requirement of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of general commercial and office space, with varying ratios for other specific commercial and office uses. The applicant has included a mixture of uses that are consistent with current market trends in commercial development including a mix of medical office, restaurant, and outdoor dining. Based on the variety of uses included in the proposed parking analysis, the project requires 201 parking stalls. Therefore, the project meets the anticipated parking demand for the commercial center. Therefore, the project would have no impact on parking. g) No Impact: The proposed development would not conflict with the adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Transit stops are located within 500 feet of the project site on Railroad Avenue. The project would be developed with bicycle racks to provide another alternative in transportation for the project. Further, a City trail will be installed along the stromdrain channel on the sout and west of the site. The trail will connect with the sidewalk and trail system to the south of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would assist the City in meeting objectives for implementing policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, and the project would have no related impacts. h) No Impact: The proposed project involves development of a 35,818 square foot commercial center. The project will provide pedestrian connections to enable adequate pedestrian access to the site. The construction and operation of the proposed project would not place any permanent or temporary physical barriers on any existing public streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not create hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists, and the project would have no related impacts. XVI. UTILITIES AND a) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project proposes to develop a SERVICE SYSTEMS 35,818 square -foot commercial center that will primarily service the surrounding residential community of Circle J Ranch. None of the proposed uses would generate atypical wastewater such as industrial or agricultural effluent. All wastewater generated by the proposed project is expected to be domestic sewage. Wastewater treatmdnt facilities are designed to treat domestic sewage; and thus, typical domestic sewage does not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, the project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact related to wastewater treatment. b) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed development is anticipated to slightly increase the demand for water and wastewater service. However, as discussed in Sections XVI. d) and e) of this report, the increase to water/wastewater service demand, is minimal in comparison to the existing service areas of the water and wastewater service purveyors. In addition, the facilities currently maintained by the service purveyors are adequate to serve the proposed increase in demand. The only water and wastewater improvements required for the project are onsite pipelines and unit connections to the infrastructure systems, which are subject to Initial Study Page 35 of 38 connection fees. Therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact related to new water and wastewater treatment systems. c) Less than Significant Impact: As discussed in sections VIII.c) and VIIIA) of this report, the proposed project would replace the site's natural sheet flow drainage with an engineered drainage system. As required by the City of Santa Clarita and the Countywide MS4 Permit, the final design of the development's drainage system will be engineered so that post -development peak runoff discharge rates are equal to or less than pre -development peak runoff rates. The proposed drainage system would achieve this requirement. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new offsite stormwater drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities offsite, and the project would have a less than significant impact. d) Less than Significant Impact: The Santa Clarita Water District (SC)ArD) provides water services to the project site. The SCWD's water sources are derived from the State Water Project and local groundwater resources generated primarily from the Santa Clara River. These existing water supplies are sufficient to serve the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed project would not require new or expanded water entitlements, and the project would have no related significant impacts. e) Less than Significant Impact: The County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County (Sanitation District) provides wastewater services to the project site. The Sanitation District's existing facilities are sufficient to accommodate the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has adequate capacity to serve the proposed development, and the project would have no related significant impacts. f) Less than Significant Impact: The project would be served by local landfills (Sunshine Canyon, Chiquita Canyon, and Antelope Valley) with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. However, the project would be required to comply with the City's Construction and Demolition Ordinance, which requires the provision of adequate areas for collection and loading recyclable materials in concert with Countywide efforts and programs to reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills. Therefore, a less than significant impact to solid waste is anticipated with this project. g) Less than Significant Impact: The California Integrated Waste Management Act requires that jurisdictions maintain a 50% or better diversion rate for solid waste. The City implements this requirement through the City's franchised Solid Waste Management Services. Per the agreements between the City and the franchised trash disposal companies, each franchisee is responsible for meeting the minimum recycling diversion rate of 50% on a quarterly basis. Franchisee's are further encouraged to meet the City's overall diversion rate goal of 75%. The proposed project is required to comply with the applicable solid waste franchise's recycling system, and thus, will meet the City's and California's solid waste diversion regulations. Therefore, the project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact to statutes or regulations related to solid waste. XVII. MANDATORY a) Less than Significant Impact: As discussed in Section IV of this document, Initial Study Page 36 of 38 FINDINGS OF the proposed project would not have substantial impacts to special status species, SIGNIFICANCE: stream habitat, and wildlife dispersal and migration. Furthermore, the proposed project would not affect the local, regional, or national populations or ranges of any plant or animal species and would not threaten any plant communities. Similarly, as discussed in Section V of this document, the proposed project would not have substantial impacts to historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources, and thus, would not eliminate any important examples of California history or prehistory. Therefore, the proposed project does not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to impacts to biological or cultural resources. b) Less than Significant: With the incorporation of mitigation measures the proposed project would not cause impacts that are cumulatively considerable. The project has the potential to contribute to cumulative aesthetic and noise impacts. However, due to the mitigation measures contained in the Air Quality and Noise sections of this document, none of these cumulative impacts are substantial, and the project would not cause any cumulative impacts to become substantial. Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measures the proposed project does not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to cumulative impacts. c) Less than Significant Impact: As discussed in Sections VIII and XV of this document, the proposed project would not expose persons to flooding or transportation hazards. Section VI of this document explains that occupants of the proposed project could be exposed to strong seismic earth shaking due to the potential for earthquakes in Southern California. In addition, the site is within a liquefaction hazard area, although preliminary geotechnical investigation of the site indicates that the site has a low potential for liquefaction. Therefore, the project would not create environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on humans and a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Initial Study Page 37 of 38 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities I. AESTHETICS None Required II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES None Required III. AIR QUALITY Mitigation Measure III -1: During grading and construction, fugitive dust emissions shall not exceed the performance standards in SCAQMD Rule 403. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: During construction and grading activities. Enforcing, -Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Mitigation Measure III -2: During grading and construction, active areas shall be watered at least twice (two times) per day. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing; During construction and grading activities. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Mitigation Measure III -3: During construction, install ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Disturbed surfaces shall be maintained in a stabilized condition using water or other chemical dust suppressant until ground cover is planted. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Upon completion of applicable grading and construction activities. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division Mitigation Measure 1114: Vehicles on-site shall not travel at speeds greater than 15 miles per hour until paving is installed. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing; During construction and grading activities. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clanta Planning Division IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES None Required V. CULTURAL RESOURCES None Required VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS None Required VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS None Required VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY None Required IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING None Required X. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES 37 6`7 Initial Study Page 38 of 38 Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities None Required XI. NOISE Mitigation Measure XI -3: The project applicant shall require the project contractor(s) to located equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest distance between construction -related noise sources and noise - sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction, to the extent practicable. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to grading and construction activities. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division Mitigation Measure XI -2: During all excavation and grading, the project applicant shall require the project contactor(s) to equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior and during grading and construction activities. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division Mitigation Measure XI -1: To meet the 45-dBA CNEL noise standard for medical office uses, mechanical ventilation, such as an air-conditioning system, shall be required for the medical office building to ensure that windows can remain closed for prolonged periods of time. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to issuance of building permits. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING None Required XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES None Required XIV. RECREATION None Required XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC None Required XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS None Required S:\CD\CURRENT\!2005\05-172\05-172 INITIAL STUDYMOC ORDINANCE 09 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 05-005 (MASTER CASE 05-172) TO AMEND THE CITY'S ZONING MAP AND CHANGE THE ZONING OF PARCEL 2836-064-016 FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) TO COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD (CN) ON THE PROJECT SITE LOCATED ON OAK RIDGE DRIVE IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. On May 25, 2005, an entitlement application was filed by TMC Properties (the "applicant") with the Community Development Department for Master Case 05-172. The entitlement requests (collectively "Entitlements") included General Plan Amendment 05-005, Zone Change 05-005, and Development Review 05-011 to develop a 35,818 square -foot, neighborhood commercial center located on the southeast corner of Railroad Avenue (Formerly San Fernando Road) and Oak Ridge Drive in the City of Santa Clarita (the "subject site"). b. Zone Change 05-005 will change the zoning designation of APN 2836-064-016 from Industrial (I) to Commercial Neighborhood (CN). The zoning will be consistent with the proposed General Plan classification (see Exhibit A, zone change exhibit). C. A Mitigated Negative Declaration for Master Case 05-172 has been prepared and circulated in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). d. On October 20, 2009, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Master Case 05-172. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and that the City Council approve the Entitlements, per Resolution No. P09-27. e. On November 24, 2009, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue, commencing at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, City of Santa Clarita. f. On November 24, 2009, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved Master Case 05-172 with the associated entitlements for the development of a 35,818 square -foot neighborhood commercial center on project site. The Council approved, and passed the ordinance to a second reading on December 8, 2009. g. All public hearings and meetings on Master Case 05-172 held by the Planning Commission were at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, City of Santa Clarita. All public hearings and meetings held by the City Council were at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, City of Santa Clarita. All public hearings were advertised in The Signal newspaper and by direct first-class mail to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property. In addition, the date and time of the public hearings were posted on the subject site. h. The documents and other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is based, are on file within the Community Development Department and are in the custody of the Director of Community Development. SECTION 2. FINDINGS FOR A ZONE CHANGE. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Master Case 05-172, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the project, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the City Council finds, as follows: a. The proposed change is consistent with the objectives of the City's Unified Development Code, the City's General Plan, and the development policies of the City of Santa Clarita. Following approval of Zone Change 05-005 to the City's Zoning Map, Master Case 05-172 is consistent with the designation of Commercial Neighborhood (CN). Furthermore, Section IX (Land Use) of the Initial Study prepared for Master Case 05-172 contains a detailed analysis documenting the project's consistency with the City's Unified Development Code (UDC), the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and the development policies of the City of Santa Clarita. SECTION 3. The City Council approves the request to re -designate the project site and specifically APN 2836-064-016 from Industrial (1) to Commercial Neighborhood (CN). The zoning will be consistent with the proposed General Plan classification (see Exhibit A, zone change exhibit). SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from its passage and adoption. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. 70 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of December, 2009. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK '1 f 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 Ordinance 09- was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 24th day of, November 2009. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 8th day of December, 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance and was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law (G.C. 40806). CITY CLERK 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) CERTIFICATION OF CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE 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 Ordinance 09- , adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, CA on December 8, 2009, which is now on file in my office. Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this day of 52009. Sharon L. Dawson, MMC City Clerk By Susan L. Caputo, CMC Deputy City Clerk 5 113 `l� g g ty�FftiF LD LN � 5 F C � C � Q) N CL N E N '410 0 'U U Q a U C� co U 1100110 O a z 5 GALCU'rT A PASSYN � L� � u 'LASS Pis 7 0 O Q NOLLY 2 Z� � 0 OAK R1OGE DR �6 O. 6y ?yb %gyp PAR KwOOO LN EZ U > 3 0 o LL ... w N U `s O 2 W RAILROAD AV AV OVOyIIby N 0 EXHIBIT A `l� C 1 �aaCoI j laoHo IIN i ill It A tw.. d'11i'3 1 o 1NIS 1 31 ) (I'MS ' V I N M a[a!I )Oa4S l # 1aa4S f6tiliNlII R' I L� ill 11 rTOW. P f6tiliNlII R' I L� ill 11 P I O LSIfM21 ��• B7V am nvoudivlryui xxx MW ml zf Wl _ p V 9Z 0)) P� OfEi6 VJ'4P4J®S �k S2P'!w hBP09L11991'�d Of1f6 114ll.+vuN ■ Oftlfi YJ'Fl�ml—V ia;aa� IwpR'�00'd ^.9 "Z aar� tnupc '�'ir[ essaam rd �W L sopoary 1a4�!W C Wd Z(IIT 60W,9116 O a ggs a 8�' zo ummus1 J IL J m ■ �>a oa 0000® as BEE BEEoao®ooa b 3 J IL J m ■ p� Wv K zs I1 60(Zzol ZS -Ir iif I in crc 4^ulz m a3 0.t16VJ' D—q OL90-00d '311 essaamad 3WI �— V64sap 1 v 199) 40OLI-wIInm ni W ttAOfMk(I�NI n{g7(I4R.(1 w A_= gWO.dl 5c9cz sollo�!`I •3 Q lmtpp;ag a;�ap[� plaeS 1a43!w s pp pp F pp �3 z-clbsozoc � s m m� i 9 as aosoc"os'os LL� ii cam.. zaa � zrru��'�oa'a � zSS I I I I I I I I I I I s _ 8 --ill I I II II I I I I _ I I I I I I I I I I /4 I 0 I I I I o � � I I I I I I I I I I I El � � - - - - I LAJ I 0) I Q m U � A'� d M e� 04 \ •�\ / _ - ■ f 1 .k a o .f J l a u• 1) d l\\ I 1 a a l y a a t" I'I \' I ) I?LLS 31AU3HJS'/%3H aN!1 aaayS # aaayS .. �I . . �� •. . .i� µixa!� I •y, l l • i/, k �k tµ I'i :! 1!� � Y �,i � Y•w11111i..�1111 ,, .1«i.;�,e � ® ® �E��. '1 O ♦ d •191 � . BEY r E rEEEEEF 1 dj i��; II/ sOkk�al u 1 - . �:�� t �_� a: I /• JI q4i Ip ,,/l,tl,1 �f.k r p ,k �IIII� s i � 1 © � ,7 ; � /� / '1 �' � id w! ao•-'-�r'r`;' O r7t�� I��i � Ikl ti I 1 I i �rf, '�/�e� kl it fi•/I � � i is ' �1,I W , I i•S' .y� 0t .� �+•j 1 k� �h %•sly^i O �'hh��'r� � ^sok° t�.4 "Y�i SC�T...'�.. •il!.�iu r. s, �.� 4{j vp 1 �4n I tq,r3y Ltwk1YY A s; AM 1 1 Ir `1 a, ■I / n av I • i1 • ail I, f fi 1 - r E EEEEEEEEI �a t:. - I I II 1 �r r�E�, • :. 1 �� _ _ 'I _ I r • s Zi-Irn l xm f1lV ��,, \\ vWia,�n nxx LZ 011 ue4sap 9) -09011")m , .ra;Qat n,ieN.l' n. IVB' f r■■ reaoa9¢nv�tniauiNw1 i .. S OLfAMAlx1 Od 1 i ry ' t W MtIfi F:1 TR^I."1 Fl�n� '�+k' la#IVt�R i59ii ;� 1e1J p;uu �SsaaUnad AkL sone!�4�!W i 7r Ilk ao O .,j1 M r O ib ON J FIM M i5-ItrtkZl � nu.:mW�vppm nnx zv;emwizsrn U s2 nmmzn�,i•,iau.io9¢nw�,•�i. as IIa �nabr _� �c,ee�aA� murc i w •3,j,1 Ussaamad 3WI sopom- Wd 9f161�L MOU71�6 a LS'\fIML\ ,un-xv zxserrf�azsr%i� U��sB,Uw��y�a,.ti„oi�.�� da Qa nnev �s s / p � r�rovznwi„iaaitir nw ,• N Nilfi \;I�MU�re'S essaamad AWL soll��!?I p;Qp� x�II 1a4�!IU'� 70 -.�.F •F { :t t i ■rm � YVd 91412!{NRiY)1/5I , I.i,iload 14 "0 � (IM 'Iti :4 tr¢y.t P � r t� r r P of Z<-Ir11K1 �y�m ��x�xrc �stt rrs Oil U6aS2 /p�� essaama 1 MUM ��� d �W I�II�!X 143iW 1 D NM SS�61 i HMILKII �fi o � Wd 9(1'( :Z 60OZQI,6 Zm.M �. sor�sm UD� ,,, ``52 P )l W :wd,vlryur.xxx �o r nmroxnsvladaa.i�ll9�l�ul � as;aa� IKdM1A�Bf1'd �':� an\Mk'�FI��CSS'AZ — �a 1, '3'j'j BSS3:)Ul d 3K MU 913 Mab sopony la4a!IVup r. { 0 a— z m x x � �p 3 j y �E 9 �i $y 9S � a�J S� �qyoy 5 go E� S6 F b�g � 99 S� I I I I o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II �I 1 I of I I I I I I I III 1 1 \ 3. Ij-M �o g PH 11=8 IMM, ��° ° Q f C`gQ�4i BMJ U Wd 9C�SSN GODi.RB ow iS-I /MMZI �u+vO�d.r�, 6 �soP I I 6 js -410 'd ' HIX %6(W)9OS(Ibtlo-w •��1 � tl aaugfivud$ S59SZ miz a - Ussaaa�ad J11I,L sopon3l Ia9aIW a d I�IIBS p a f o jjjjja a b O I Nora a a a! 4 a ginamas •A3H aB1 L 1 45 # 1�4S I I I I o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II �I 1 I of I I I I I I I III 1 1 \ 3. Ij-M �o g PH 11=8 IMM, ��° ° Q f C`gQ�4i BMJ U W g¢" ow roU �u+vO�d.r�, 6 13. I 6 js Ij-M �H g PH 11=8 IMM, ��° ° Q IN W g¢" ow 6 13. I 6 js CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 05-172 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 05-005; ZONE CHANGE 05-005; AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 05-011 DATE: October 20, 2009 TO: Chairperson Trautman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lisa M. Webber, AICP, Planning Manager CASE PLANNER: Patrick Leclair, Associate Planner APPLICANT: TMC Properties LOCATION: The proposed retail center is located to the south and west of Oak Ridge Drive, just east of the intersection of Railroad Avenue and Oak Ridge Drive (APN:2836-064-016) in the Industrial (1) zone of the City of Santa Clarita. REQUEST: The proposed project includes the construction of a 35,818 square -foot neighborhood commercial center consisting of three buildings (one for a stand-alone restaurant, one for a two-story, medical office, and one multi - tenant commercial building) and the associated 203 parking stalls. To develop the proposed project, a Development Review is required in conjunction with a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change the General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation on the project site from Industrial (1) to Commercial Neighborhood (CN). BACKGROUND Setting The project site is located on a 3.05 -acre parcel on the southeast corner of Railroad Avenue and Oak Ridge Drive. The project site is surrounded by an existing building material supply yard (Pueblo Builders Supply) to the north, a 148 -unit apartment complex built in 1988 to the east, a single-family attached condominium complex to the south, and a transportation corridor to the west consisting of Railroad Avenue (formerly San Fernando Road) and a Metrolink rail line. Oak Ridge Drive runs along the north and eastern property lines. The project site is currently vacant, however has been disturbed by Beazer Homes in the 1990's as result of their adjacent residential development. A sound wall was installed along the Metrolink rail line to buffer existing residences to the east of the rail line from the noise generated by traffic along the rail corridor. A stormdrain channel was constructed and runs along the south and western property lines and is maintained by Los Angeles County Flood Control District. Trees were also installed along the western property line to soften views of the stormdrain and sound wall. Master Case No. 05-172 October 20, 2009 Page 2 of 8 Previous Development Proposals The project site was originally part of a Beazer Homes development (Master Case 94-038) that constructed the neighboring condominium complex and the single-family residences to the south of Oak Ridge Drive and Via Princessa. During the development process, the site was removed from the project and remained vacant as a remainder parcel. However, the site was graded as a part of the installation of the stormdrain channel adjacent to the project site and left as a flat graded pad. A second development proposal was submitted by Beazer Homes in 1998 (Master Case 98-292) to change the Zoning and General Plan land use designation from the Industrial (1) zone to Residential Moderate (RM). The project would have subdivided the site into 35 condominium units similar to the existing condominium site to the south. The project went through the Development Review process and was presented to the Planning Commission in April 1999. Following the Planning Commission hearing, Beazer Homes decided not to proceed with the project, withdrew their application, and subsequently sold the site to the current property owner and applicant, TMC Properties. Project Timeline On May 25, 2005, an application was submitted to the Planning Division to change the Zoning and General Plan land use designation from the existing Industrial (1) zone to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) to allow for the development of a neighborhood commercial center on the project site. The project was deemed incomplete on June 24, 2005, lacking the necessary materials to process the application. Once staff had an acceptable amount of information to evaluate the proposal, the project was distributed for review and scheduled for the Development Review Committee (DRC) on March 9, 2006. At the DRC meeting, concerns were expressed with respect to the site design and building architecture. The applicant was directed to revise the site plan and architecture to be consistent with the City's Design Guidelines in place at that time. Over the next year and a half, the applicant slowly progressed with the revisions requested by City staff. In December of 2007, the applicant resubmitted a revised project attempting to address City staff s comments. The project was routed to RRM Design Group to review the proposed architecture and ensure consistency with the Design Guidelines. The applicant was again given direction to revise the architecture to be consistent with the Design Guidelines. In early 2008, progress on the project had again slowed, thus requiring staff to send a letter to the applicant informing him that the project would be administratively withdrawn if no progress had been made on the project by April 18, 2008. As a result of the City's letter, the applicant again submitted a revised project and has since worked closely with staff to design a site plan and architectural style that is compatible with the surrounding uses, as well as with the current Community Character and Design Guidelines. The project was then scheduled for tonight's Planning Commission meeting. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The application consists of a request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Development Review to change the subject site's designation on the City's Zoning and General Plan Master Case No. 05-172 October 20, 2009 Page 3 of 8 land use maps from the Industrial (1) zone to the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zone to allow for the construction of a 35,818 square -foot neighborhood commercial center on Oak Ridge Drive. Building and Site Design The proposed project includes the construction of three buildings on the project site totaling 35,818 square feet of commercial space. The following is a summary of the proposed buildings: ❑ Building 1 is located on the northwest comer of the project site, running parallel with Oak Ridge Drive. Building 1 will total 3,755 square feet and will be one-story in height. The average height of Building 1 will be 19'-6" with tower elements up to 35'-0" in height. This building has been designed to be a single tenant restaurant pad with indoor seating of 120 seats and an outdoor patio to accommodate 15 seats. ❑ Building 2 is situated along the eastern property line, along Oak Ridge Drive. Building 2 will total 16,359 square feet and will be a one-story, multi -tenant commercial building. The average height of Building 2 will be 23'-6" with tower elements up to 35'-0" in height. The end -cap tenants to the north and south will have opportunities for outdoor dining areas. Total restaurant seating (indoor and outdoor) proposed for Building 2 will not exceed 74 seats. ❑ Building 3 is located on the southeast corner of the project site, oriented perpendicular to Oak Ridge Drive. Building 3 will total 15,704 square feet and is anticipated to be a two- story medical office building with an 8,358 square -foot first floor and a 7,346 square -foot second floor. The average height of Building 3 will be 26'-0" with tower elements up to 35'- 0" in height. The proposed buildings are oriented toward the street with the required parking located internal to the project site. An open plaza area will be installed at the northeast corner of the project site to allow for a gathering area as well as for the opportunity for dining areas for future restaurants. The project incorporates a "Rustic Californian" design that will include exposed timbers, varied rooflines, and tower elements with tiled roofs. Further, the stucco finishes, tile roofs, trellis structures, and stone base enhancements compliment the surrounding the community while giving the center its own presence. Parking The project proposes the construction of 203 parking stalls, including 10 handicapped accessible stalls. Parking for general commercial retail and office uses is one (1) parking stall to each 250 square feet of building area. However, additional parking is required for more intensive uses such as medical offices (1 stall: 200 square feet) or restaurants (1 stall: 3 fixed seats). At this time, no tenants are identified for the proposed neighborhood commercial center. To provide flexibility as the center is leased, the applicant has accommodated for a mixture of uses on the project site that require a total of 201 parking stalls. This leaves a surplus of two (2) parking stalls on the project site. Two loading stalls will be provided on the project site, one for the medical office building (Building 3) and one for the commercial buildings (Building 1 and 2). Master Case No 05-172 October 20, 2009 Page 4 of 8 Landscape The project includes a 10'-0" landscape setback from Oak Ridge Drive to provide a buffer to the apartments across Oak Ridge Drive. Further, a 5'-0" landscape planter is proposed to run along the property lines to the south and west, buffering the site from the proposed trail within the stormdrain and the condominiums to the south. Trees will be planted throughout the parking area on the project site to provide shade for vehicles. Eucalyptus trees were previously installed along the western property line. These trees will remain in place to the extent possible. Any trees removed for the construction of the parking lot will be replaced. Landscape area on the project site totals 17% of the site. Lighting The project includes the installation of lighting standards within parking areas, as well as building accent lights. The proposed buildings are oriented toward the street and will serve to buffer the surrounding uses from any parking lot lights. Light standards will be 16'- 6" in height. Shields will be installed to screen the lights, if necessary. Trails The proposed project includes the installation of a Class I trail along the Los Angeles County stormdrain channel running along the south and west of the project site. The trail will connect with the proposed meandering sidewalk running along the project frontage and will further connect to the existing trail network to the south of the project site. Grading The project site was graded relatively flat as a part of previous development activity for the installation of the stormdrain that runs along the south and west of the project site. Minor grading will be required to prepare the building pads for the proposed buildings. However, all grading activities will be balanced on-site and will not require the import or export of earth for the proposed project. ANALYSIS General Plan Amendment and Zone Change The Zoning and General Plan land use designation for the project site is Industrial (1). The I zone "is for a limited range of commercial uses and existing industrial and manufacturing use in the City outside of business parks. Clean industry and light to medium manufacturing is permitted, including research and development, and the provision of employee recreation opportunities is encouraged" (UDC 17.11.020.P). The proposed project would change the Zoning and General Plan Land Use Map designations of the project site to Commercial Neighborhood (CN). The CN zone "is intended for small neighborhood shopping centers located in close proximity to residential areas. More intensive commercial uses are generally not permitted" (UDC 17.11.020.K). The following table includes a breakdown of the surrounding properties: Master Case No 05-172 October 20, 2009 Page 5 of 8 General Plan Zoning EXISTING I PROPOSED CN North I East Residential High (RH) South Residential Moderate (RM) West Open Space (OS) Land Use I Vacant CN Neighborhood Commercial Center I Building Materials Supply Yard RH Apartment Complex RM Single-family Condominiums OS Transportation Corridor General Plan Development of a neighborhood commercial center on the project site complies with Goal 2 of the Land Use Element of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. Goal 2 seeks, "To achieve the development of a well-balanced, financially sound, and functional mix of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, recreational, institutional, and educational land uses." No commercial uses are located in the vicinity of the project site. The development of the neighborhood commercial center will provide a transition between the existing residential uses of the Circle J Ranch community and the exiting and future industrial uses to the north of the project site. Further, uses and structures associated with the CN designation will be less intrusive and more compatible with the neighboring residential uses. The development of the proposed neighborhood commercial center would further comply with Policy 2.2 of the Land Use Element which seeks to, "Promote the development of service and neighborhood commercial activities to meet existing and future needs. These centers must be nonintrusive, sensitive to surrounding residential land uses, and should be located adjacent to arterial roadways." The center complies with Policy 2.2 by developing a neighborhood commercial center in the underserved community of Circle J Ranch. The nearest commercial center to the Circle J Ranch community is located approximately two (2) miles away, generating vehicle trips throughout the City to provide basic services for the Circle J Ranch community. The development of the proposed retail center will provide convenient access to retail and medical services and dining opportunities and would reduce vehicle trips. The neighborhood commercial center would be easily accessible to commuters, further reducing vehicle trips for basic services. The center is designed to be compatible with the neighboring apartments and condominiums adjacent to the project site. Zoning Development of a commercial center requires the compliance with the City's Zoning Map and Title 17 (Zoning) of the Unified Development Code (UDC). Title 17 of the UDC regulates the density and type of development in' the commercial and industrial zones. Projects must comply with the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), setbacks, parking, and landscape standards. The project site is currently located in the Industrial (1) zone, with an allowable FAR of 0.675:1. The existing I designation would allow for the construction of up to 89,679 square feet of industrial buildings on the project site. With the approval of the proposed Zone Change to the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zone, the allowable FAR would be reduced to 0.375:1 and the construction of up to 49,821 square feet of commercial buildings on the project site. As proposed, the project Master Case No. 05-172 October 20, 2009 Page 6 of 8 complies with the FAR of the CN zone developing at a 0.269:1 FAR with 35,818 square feet of commercial building. Further, the proposed project complies with the setbacks, parking requirements, and landscape standards outlined for the commercial zone. With the approval of the proposed Zone Change and Development Review, the project site will comply with the Zoning Map and the UDC. Aesthetics Site Design Staff had concerns with the initial building locations on the project site. Building 1 was originally located to the east, closer to Building 2, to allow for a drive aisle to run along the western property line and provide a secondary access point on Oak Ridge Drive. Given the proximity of the drive aisle to the at -grade crossing of the Metrolink rail line, staff required the drive aisle to be removed and the building to be shifted to the west. Building 3 was initially located to the north, closer to Building 2, with parking and a drive aisle that served as the primary access point for the project site to the south. Given the traffic conflicts that existed between the proposed drive aisle and the existing drive aisles across Oak Ridge Drive, staff required the applicant to redesign this portion of the project site. After various revisions, the building was finally positioned in its current location along the southern property line to allow for the installation of the site's only access point to align with the southern drive aisle for the apartments to the east of the project site, across Oak Ridge Drive. With the exception of minor alterations, the configuration of Building 2 has not changed. The result of the modifications to the initial site plan is a project site with improved traffic circulation, street presence, and parking lot design. Architecture Staff had significant concerns with the initial architecture proposed for this project. Initial building fagade submittals were busy with various, conflicting architectural colors and styles including Contemporary, Mediterranean, Mission, and Craftsman elements. The mixture of these design elements did not fit in with the surrounding community. However, the proposed massing and height ranging from approximately 20 feet to 35 feet (average of 25 feet) was consistent with the surrounding two and three-story structures. Staff worked with the applicant to reach a design solution that would fit in with the surrounding community. The result is the proposed "Rustic Californian" design. The buildings incorporate pitched roofs and tower elements finished with clay tile, a mixture of stone bases, pillars and towers to break up and further accent the primarily stucco finish, with exposed wood eves and trellis structure accents to tie the buildings into the surrounding community. The buildings are pushed out toward the street with a strong street presence and will be visible on all sides. The applicant has incorporated 360° architectural treatments for all of the proposed buildings to ensure a high level of design. Landscape planters throughout the project site, as well as along property line setbacks, help to soften the view of the proposed buildings and further break up the massing of the buildings, softening views of the structures to the neighboring residential uses. The proposed buildings comply with the Community Character and Design Guidelines, and further meet the City's high standard for architectural design. Master Case No. 05-172 October 20, 2009 Page 7 of 8 Traff c A Traffic Study was prepared by Iteris, Inc. to evaluate the impacts the neighborhood commercial center would have on the surrounding roadway network. The traffic study anticipates the project will generate 2,320 vehicle trips per day based on anticipated commercial and medical uses. Based on these trip generation numbers, the project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on any of the intersections evaluated for this project. No impacts to the capacity of the surrounding roadway network, or to the traffic Volume/Capacity ratios for the AM or PM peak hours were identified and therefore, no traffic -related mitigation measures are required. Sustainability The proposed One Valley One Vision General Plan includes goals and policies to encourage development in village settings with a mix of services within walking distance of residential development. The proposed commercial center will support these efforts by establishing the village concept in the Circle J Ranch community by providing retail, medical, and restaurant opportunities in close proximity to the isolated Circle J Ranch neighborhood. Further, the proposed Class I trail will connect the project site to the sidewalk along the project frontage, and further connect the project site to the existing sidewalk and trail network that runs along Oak Ridge Drive to the south of the project site, connecting to the Circle J Ranch community and the City's existing trail network. The construction of the proposed center will create a pedestrian friendly, walkable community, consistent with the City's vision for sustainable communities. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed development qualifies as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Initial Study was prepared. Based on the Initial Study's findings, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. The Initial Study identified impacts associated with air quality and noise that could be significant; however, the measures listed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate any impacts associated with the project to a level that is less than significant. PUBLIC NOTICING As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the subject property were notified of the public hearing by mail. A public notice was placed in a local newspaper (The Signal) on September 29, 2009, and a sign was posted at the site on October 6, 2009. Copies of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration were available for public review at the Valencia Library and at City Hall. To date, the Planning Division has not received any written correspondence or telephone inquiries regarding the proposed project. Master Case No. 05-172 October 20, 2009 Page 8 of 8 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. Open the public hearing; 2. Receive testimony from the public; and 3. Adopt Resolution P09-27, recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve Master Case 05-172 (General Plan Amendment 05-005, Zone Change 05-005, and Development Review 05-011) to change the Zoning and General Plan land use designation from Industrial (I) to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) to allow for the construction of a 35,818 square -foot neighborhood commercial center on Oak Ridge Drive (APN: 2836-064- 016), in the City of Santa Clarita, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit "A"). ATTACHMENTS Vicinity Map Resolution P09-27 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Map Existing and Proposed Zoning Map Site Plan Colored Elevations CD of Proposed Elevations and Building Renderings S \CD\CURREN V2005\05-172\05-172 Staff Report.doc