Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-07-13 - AGENDA REPORTS - APPEAL MC 08-033 (2)PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: July 13, 2010 A REQUEST TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPEAL OF MASTER CASE NO. 08-033 OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISION'S JUNE 2, 2009, APPROVAL OF A 99,000 SQUARE -FOOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 10.28 ACRES IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY) ZONE Community Development RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council close the public hearing and adopt a resolution approving the appeal of Master Case 08-033, overturning the Planning Commission's June 2, 2009, approval of a 99,000 square -foot commercial development in the Community Commercial (Planned Development Overlay) zone. BACKGROUND On January 12, 2010, the City Council received a presentation on the Sierra Crossing commercial project. A resolution of denial was prepared based on site design issues and impacts to the onsite riparian habitat. However, no action was taken by the City Council. At that same meeting, the Redevelopment Agency directed staff to enter into an agreement with Poliquin Kellogg Design Group (PKDG) to conduct a conceptual design and economic analysis for the entire southeast quadrant of Newhall Gateway, which includes the Sierra Crossing project site. The analysis area consists of 18.6 acres and encompasses the triangular area bounded by Newhall Avenue on the north, Sierra Highway on the west, and State Route 14 on the east. In response to the Redevelopment Agency's action, the City Council tabled the appeal of Master Case No. 08-033 for six months to allow PKDG to complete their task. Results for the conceptual design for the southeast quadrant of the Newhall Gateway area were presented to the Redevelopment Agency on June 22, 2010. The preferred option that was selected by the Redevelopment Agency included 269,000 square feet of commercial space with ten buildings, Con inued To: 0 c}_1m.-z 6, d �) l �D including a 5 -level parking structure. With the conceptual Newhall Gateway design work completed, the Sierra Crossing commercial center project, Master Case 08-033, is again before the Council for consideration. The project, originally submitted to the City in February 2008, consisted of five buildings totaling approximately 99,000 square feet, and included a drive-through use, a hotel use, grading in excess of 10,000 cubic yards, and three buildings that would exceed 35' in height. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project which included mitigation measures in the areas of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Hydrology and Water Quality. At the conclusion of the public hearing on June 2, 2009, the project was approved by the Planning Commission in a 4-1 vote. On June 8, 2009, the project was appealed by Councilmember McLean. A public hearing was opened at the August 25, 2009, City Council meeting, and was subsequently continued to October 27, 2009, December 8, 2009, and January 12, 2010. Staff reports from those Council meetings are available in the Council's reading file. During the public hearings on December 8 and January 12, several Councilmembers expressed concern with the applicant's project based on a number of environmental and site design issues. Based on these concerns, and the Redevelopment Agency's support for a comprehensive developement plan for the Newhall Gateway area, a resolution approving an appeal of Master Case No. 08-033, overturning the Planning Commission's approval of the project, has been drafted for the Council's consideration. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Direct staff to return to Council with a resolution denying the appeal, upholding the Planning Commission's June 2, 2009, approval of the project. 2. Other action as determined by Council. FISCAL IMPACT No direct fiscal impact is anticipated as a result of this action. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Site Plan Appeal Letter City Council Exhibits SMMC Letter Scope Letter 10-24-09 Scope Letter 1-11-10 Staff Report 8-25-09 available in the City Clerk's Reading File Staff Report 10-27-09 available in the City Clerk's Reading File Staff Report 12-08-09 available in the City Clerk's Reading File Staff Report 1-12-I0 available in the City Clerk's Reading File Mitigated Negative Declaration available in the City Clerk's Reading File RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING THE APPEAL OF MASTER CASE NO. 08-033 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 08-005, MINOR USE PERMIT 08-008, AND OAK TREE PERMIT 08-006), OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT FIVE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 99,000 SQUARE FEET IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NEWHALL AVENUE AND SIERRA HIGHWAY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY OF NEWHALL, CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (APNs 2827-005-014,015,027,028, AND 029). SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita (hereafter "City") hereby makes the following findings of fact: a. On February 27, 2008, SFXS Partners (the applicant) submitted an application to construct the Sierra Crossing shopping center consisting of five buildings totaling approximately 99,000 square feet, and containing a drive-through use, a hotel use, grading in excess of 10,000 cubic yards, and three buildings that would exceed 35' in height on vacant property in the Community Commercial Planned Development Overlay (CC(PD)) zone; b. The project site includes five parcels: Assessor Parcel Nos. 2827-005-014, 015, 027, 028, and 029, and is located on the southeast corner of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway in the community of Newhall; C. On May 12, 2009, a notice of public hearing was published in The Signal newspaper and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 1,000' radius of the subject property; d. On June 2, 2009, during a duly noticed public hearing, the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission in a 4-1 voted adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved Master Case 08-033 and all associated entitlements including Conditional Use Permit 08-005, Minor Use Permit 08-008, and Oak Tree Permit 08-006; e. During the Planning Commission meeting on this matter, representatives for the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment spoke in opposition of the project citing impacts to Newhall Creek and a representative from the Old Town Newhall Association spoke in favor of the project citing the need for additional jobs and to support the downtown Newhall redevelopment effort; f. On June 8, 2009, the project was appealed to the City Council by Councilmember McLean for issues related to the overall site design for this highly visible, major 3 Council Denial Resolution Master Case 08-033 Page 2 of 6 gateway entrance to the City, aesthetics and the impact the project would have on surrounding viewsheds, and environmental issues relating to the impacts to Newhall Creek; g. On August 4, 2009, a notice of public hearing was published in The Signal newspaper and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 1,000' radius of the subject property; h. On August 25, 2009, a duly noticed public hearing was opened by the City Council on this matter and continued to October 27, 2009, in order to provide time for the applicant to discuss a modified project with an adjacent property owner; i. On October 27, 2009, during the public hearing, the appeal was again continued to December 8, 2009; j. On December 8, 2009, during the public hearing, the City Council discussed the item and continued the public hearing to January 12, 2010; k. On January 12, 2010, during the public hearing, the City Council received public testimony, received the staff presentation and also a presentation from the applicant. After discussion among the Council, the public hearing was continued for a period of six months to an unspecified date to allow sufficient time for an architectural and design firm to explore a comprehensive planning and development strategy for the southeast quadrant of the Newhall Gateway area; 1. On June 22, 2010, a public hearing notice was published in The Signal newspaper and notices were sent to all property owners within a 1,000' radius of the subject property; in. On July 13, 2010, during a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council received public testimony, closed the public hearing, received the staff presentation and also testimony from the applicant. SECTION 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts, the staff report accompanying this item, testimony presented at the public hearing, and the findings listed in Section 17.03.040(E)(1) of the Unified Development Code, the City Council hereby determines as follows: a. Finding required in Section 17.03.040(E)(1): "That the proposed location, size, design, and operation characteristics of the proposed use is in accordance with the purpose of this development code, the purpose of the zone in which the site is located, the Santa Clarita General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City; " 1) The City Council cannot make this finding because the project does not meet the 2 Council Denial Resolution Master Case 08-033 Page 3 of 6 purpose of the Planned Development Overlay Zone as listed in Section 17.16.020(A) of the Unified Development Code (UDC). As stated in Section 17.16.020(A) of the UDC, the purpose of the Planned Development Overlay Zone is to facilitate development that is creative, imaginative, that promotes more economical and efficient use of the land than is possible under traditional zoning, that provides a higher level of amenities, and that preserves natural and scenic qualities of open spaces. As proposed, the project design is not creative or imaginative in that it comprises a typical freeway -oriented development and does not meet the City's vision for development at a major gateway entrance into the City. The project does not facilitate development that would promote more economical and efficient use of the land than would otherwise be permitted under conventional zoning. The project does not provide a sufficient mix or variety of uses, or a sufficient level of amenities, nor does the project sufficiently preserve natural resources or scenic qualities of surrounding open space. The project would fill in a portion of Newhall Creek, remove oak trees, and makes no attempt to integrate or promote the historic former US Route 6 right-of-way as part of the development. There is no connectivity or relationship to other planned industrial and office complexes in the vicinity and the riparian area that is slated for preservation would be hidden behind two retail buildings instead of being used as a. project amenity. 2) The City Council cannot make this finding because the project does not conform to the development standards of the Planned Development Overlay Zone as found in Section 17.16.020(G). As stipulated in Subsection (G)(1), the project is not compatible with, or complementary to, existing and potential development in the immediate vicinity because it under utilizes commercial land adjacent to approved office and industrial parks and proposed studio uses. As a project within a gateway entrance to the City, the floor area ratio should be increased and development density should be comparable to other approved projects in the area. The buildings should be distinctive in their architecture and design, and create a strong sense of place for the City's Newhall entrance. As proposed, the project is isolated and does not connect to other approved developments, despite the fact that the subject site contains an abandoned highway alignment that could be used for such purposes. A more appropriate project would include additional commercial space, buildings that are situated closer to the street to create a stronger presence, and greater connectivity and integration to surrounding properties and developments. As stipulated in Subsection (G)(8), the project does not relate harmoniously to the topography of the site nor does the project make suitable provisions for the Council Denial Resolution Master Case 08-033 Page 4 of 6 preservation of the existing watercourse and drainage areas onsite. The project would destroy 300 linear feet of verdant creek bed, its associated bank, and riparian environment. Minimal attention was given to oak tree preservation, and the project works against the topography of the site requiring the import of 46,000 cubic yards of dirt instead of working with the natural slope to reduce the amount of grading and dirt import. As proposed, the project would have adverse impacts to the significant flora and fauna that is found in and around the creek bed, making no effort to incorporate these potential amenities into the surrounding development. The proposed project does not incorporate the former US Highway 6 right-of-way into the development, ignoring the cultural significance of what was once the longest overland highway in the United States. An appropriate development onsite would acknowledge the presence of this historic highway and use it as an amenity. SECTION 3. MINOR USE PERMIT AND OAK TREE PERMIT FINDINGS. Any development or project within the Planned Development Overlay Zone requires a Conditional Use Permit. Without the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, other lands uses, such as those contemplated by the Minor Use Permit, along with the removals and encroachments that would have been permitted by the Oak Tree Permit, cannot be approved. SECTION 4. Based on the findings contained in Sections 2 and 3 above, the City Council hereby approves the appeal, denying the following entitlements requested under Master Case 08-033: Conditional Use Permit 08-005, Minor Use Permit 08-008, and Oak Tree Permit 08-006, and overturns the Planning Commission's adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan that was prepared for the project. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. C 4 Council Denial Resolution Master Case 08-033 Page 5 of 6 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of July 2010. MAYOR CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I, Sarah P. Gorman, 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 13th day of July 2010 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 5 CITY CLERK rl Council Denial Resolution Master Case 08-033 Page 6 of 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) CERTIFICATION OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION I, , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Resolution 10-_ adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California on , 2010, which is now on file in my office. Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this _ day of 2010. City Clerk By Deputy City Clerk 3 City of CITY OF '';TA CLARITA SANTA CLARITA Lom illid I P 5' 08 23920 Valencia Boulevard • Suite 300 • Santa Clarita, California 91355-2196 Phone: (661) 259-2489 • FAX: (661) 259-8125 _ www.santa-clarita.com )_1EC ` D CI? Y CLERKS OFFICE June 8, 2009 Sharon Dawson, MMC City Clerk City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Subject: Appeal of Master Case 08-033, Conditional Use Permit 08-005, Minor Use Permit 08-008, Oak Tree Permit 08-006 Dear Ms. Dawson: On June 2, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving Master Case 08-033 for a commercial development at the southeast corner of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway. would request that, in my capacity as a City Councilmember for the City of Santa Clarita, the project's approval be appealed and that the item be brought before the City Council in a timely manner for its review. My concerns regarding this project are related to the overall site design, aesthetics and environmental issues. If you have any questions regarding this appeal, please contact me. Sincerely, Marsha McLean Councilmember S:\CD\currenWarsha Appeal letter.doc M4 V ®4 1 o z Ol���{��ry U�LL V1�4X� QbOO mmY,�mm`i n -v ZZZY hf�`I��N O U AJJIJNNNN wQ p gQ V (�'1 tY a� uQ��id� nnrynn UU J Q� QQ.p 0 Id Nr n� 0o440o04o40o UOUO� vpn�� y�ya�Q p�p�"p R' 1- zQ Z ��Y� QQ Op�pQQ zY[�yy ZQ YQ aa�o$g H� p �mmLL �<Q ��Naa hf�`I��N O IL IL ILLL Ut Ul N di N- cn mh6l AJJIJNNNN 1lQQ 1 � OO YY PP gQ V (�'1 tY �NU1�OryN n nnrynn UU J Q� QQ.p 0. Nr n� 0o440o04o40o UOUO� vpn�� • qC 4ii � N �LL LL;LL ; J1 J1 UI N N 4 _4 Q m z A F- ly <1 D-1 MR"R w 1�1, 1, �- tirir,6 4 r PQ a LA 7 ii }� ClJ4 vi < @ M f w�t 14!F S > a > z c Y cd list 55 Y Js ��& o�►a,� z Q� N �j ti ppO Q IUNNLL NrJ -tV HjY N0 raj 6' SQ m U O LLl � J 13 EN gg CL Of ly6JJFFORR;z �}LFjQQj��'i?LFQILFQ72LFa lyWNNLL4�f i -"niv LLi Qr OR gt Ed U Ci LLi �- I i u t :I-IIIIIIIIiI�!i' �3�� d 0 0 /y 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 & k 4 f 18 a @O&Coolmmmu l anNZ/, v -7_e�' IFIR 15 e�Yaa 0 < 0 x 0 G U a z z 0 z 0, ZZ Va ZZ Om � 5 .0 00 o� z< 'ION �ss91 N h 9 o u eurAcl a° 9 uo W o N H LM 41 u Ys Y" U) z ©Q cc� L CD 0 O a O `7z F STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY RAMIREZ CANYON PARK 5750 RAMIREZ CANYON ROAD MALIBU, CALIFORNIA 90265 PHONE (310) 589-3200 FAX (310) 589-3207 June 1, 2009 Planning Commission City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 Commercial Development Project Comments cup 08-005 Oak Tree Permit 08-006 Dear Commission Members: The proposed project on 9.97 acres is located at the scenic confluence of Elsmere Creek and Newhall Creek. Wildlife can enter the site via the large Elsmere Creek box channel under State Route 14 and across Sierra Highway via the cemetery and an abutting property to the north. The property is not isolated and currently functions as a wildlife corridor for some species between the San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountains. The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) is currently implementing a 4 -acre riparian habitat restoration project directly across the freeway along Elsmere Creek. The subject section of Newhall Creek and its confluence point with Elsmere Creek contains a broad range of riparian species diversity. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) conclusion that the project is ecologically isolated is false. Any project on this site should work with the constraints of the land. The applicant has been encouraging our staff to work towards accepting an open space dedication. However the proposed project fails to work with the constraints of the land and should be significantly modified before such an acceptance. The total direct loss of over an acre of fully function mature willow cottonwood woodland in the Santa Clara River watershed, and indirect adverse impact on the remaining two -plus acres of riparian woodland, is a significant impact that can be reduced through simple project modifications. The approximately 4.0 acres of habitat restoration required by the California Department of Fish and Game in the approved Streambed Alteration Agreement (sAA) will only partially mitigate these impacts. That mitigation is deferred and not well defined. Onsite mitigation will be on a biological island. In addition it is extremely difficult to find protected three acre riparian mitigation sites for restoration. The Conservancy recommends that the Commission deny the project unless the loss of willow woodland is reduced to less than 0.5 acres and that the specific habitat replacement ratios and requirements in the SAA be incorporated as MND mitigation measures. a0 City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission cup 08-005 Oak Tree Permit 08-006 June 1, 2009 Page 2 The intersection of Newhall Road and SR 14 maintains a semi -rural ambience. The proposed project would drastically alter the visual qualities over a large area. Four story buildings, 434 parking spaces, and 50,000 cubic yards of imported fill are not consistent with the old town Newhall described in the Initial Study. We encourage the Commission to insist on a project that does not fill riparian habitat, channelize drainages, and that results in an ecologically meaningful habitat area. To achieve such a project the applicant would need to remove all development out of the areas south and east of Newhall Creek. That development -free area should be dedicated in fee to the City, the MRCA or the Santa Clarita Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Such a development configuration would also provide a permanent wildlife corridor under SR 14. The MND is deficient for not adequately addressing this inter -mountain range connectivity. Please address any questions to Paul Edelman of our staff at the above address and by phone at (310) 589-3200 ext. 128. Sincerely, RONALD P. SCHAFER Chairperson SCOPE Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment TO PROMOTE, PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT, ECOLOGY AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY POST OFFICE BOX 1182, SANTA CLARITA, CA 91386 10-24-09 City Council City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Agenda Item 14 - APPEAL OF MASTER CASE NO. 08-033, A REQUEST FOR A 99,000 SQUARE -FOOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 10.28 ACRES IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY) ZONE -- CONTINUED ITEM FROM THE AUGUST 25, 2009 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Dear Mayor and City Council: We wish to object to the inaccuracy of the staff report on this item that fails to mention SCOPE's public comment on this agenda item at the June 2nd hearing. At that time we expressed concern over the loss of riparian native vegetation on this site, channelization of the stream, the fact that we had been told that references made to the SMMC's acquisition of the property appeared to be inaccurate, and the failure to do adequate environmental review for this project. Since oral comments at a hearing have the same standing as written comments, those concerns should have been noted in the staff report for this project. We can only wonder why the staff would write a report in such a way as to make it seem that there were no objections to this project, when in fact there were. Further, the staff report seems to indicate that the City will pay for the needed environmental review on this project. Such a commitment is an inappropriate use of taxpayer money and sets an untenable precedent for other developments in the Santa Clarita Valley. We oppose any use of City funds to pay for environmental review for this project, or for any project. That is the responsibility of the developer, not local taxpayers. Sincerely, Lynne Plambeck President mor SCOPE Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment TO PROMOTE, PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT, ECOLOGY AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY POST OFFICE BOX 1182, SANTA CLARITA, CA 91386 City Council, Acting as the Redevelopment Agency Lisa Webber, Community Development City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Redevelopment Agenda Item 5- APPEAL OF MASTER CASE NO, 08-033, A REQUEST FOR A 99,000 SQUARE -FOOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 10.28 ACRES IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY) ZONE -- CONTINUED ITEM FROM THE AUGUST 25, 2009 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Dear Mayor and City Council: We concur with the staff recommendation to not approve this project in its current form and develop a plan for that intersection that takes into consideration the unique qualities of Newhall Creek and the historical Route 66 area, We appreciate the Council's efforts to preserve these important resources and integrate their unique qualities into the vision for the Newhall area. Such care during the planning process will result in a neighborhood in which we can all be proud to live. However, we continue to express our concern that a plan for this areals to developed with taxpayer money in the form of monies from the redevelopment tax increment. We believe that such funding will set a precedent for other developers to demand funding for planning efforts that should rightfully be paid for by the developer, not the public. We therefore oppose the authorization of the appropriation of $199,200.00 from available funds in the redevelopment Agency Non -Housing Fund Balance to Account 13400-5161.001. We continue to believe that any project proposing to concrete a reparian area, as well as eliminate oaks and a historical area requires CEQA review. When will this occur? Should the Council decide not to deny this project at this time, we request that the public hearing remain open. Sincerely, �? C= 1 � N • y cn Cn C:> Fri Lynne Plambeck President c� CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF MASTER CASE 08-033/NOTICE TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL APPLICATION: Master Case Number 08-033 Conditional Use Permit 08-005; Minor Use Permit 08-008; Oak Tree Permit 08-006; and Initial Study 08-003. PROJECT PROPONENT: SFXS Partners PROJECT LOCATION: 23300 Newhall Avenue (formerly San Fernando Road) Assessor Parcel Numbers 2827-005-014, 015, 027, 028, and 034. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is proposing the development of a five -building retail, office, and hotel development on a 10.28 -acre site in the Community Commercial Planned Development Overlay Zone in the community of Newhall within the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed project would contain approximately 99,000 square feet (98,900) of commercial development and have a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .22. The project consists of the following improvements: a four-story hotel that would not exceed 55' in height and contain 55,200 square -feet; two, 2 -story office/retail buildings not to exceed 48' in height with 16,420 and 14,700 square -feet respectively; a 7,000 square -foot stand-alone restaurant pad; and a 5,584 square -foot multi -tenant building with a drive-through lane. The project will require approval of the following discretionary actions by the City of Santa Clarita: a Conditional Use Permit for development in the Planned Development Overlay zone, and also for three buildings exceeding 35' in height; a Minor Use Permit for dirt -hauling to import 46,000 cubic yards of fill, and for a hotel and drive-through use in the Community Commercial zone; and an Oak Tree Permit to allow for the removal of eight (8) oak trees, encroachment into the protected area of four (4) oak trees, and also to provide mitigation measures for the remaining 32 oak trees on-site, including five (5) heritage specimens. The proposed project requires 385 parking spaces. A total of 434 parking spaces are provided, including 145 subterranean spaces located beneath the commercial/office buildings. This project was approved by the Planning Commission on June 2, 2009, with a 4-1 vote and was appealed to the City Council on June 8, 2009. The item was last heard by Council on January 12, 2010, when the public hearing was continued to a date uncertain. A public hearing on this matter will be conducted by the City of Santa Clarita City Council on the following date and time: DATE: July 13, 2010 TIME: 6:00 PM or later LOCATION: City Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for the proposed office park development. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for public review at the Valencia Library 23743 W. Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA, 91355; and also at Santa Clarita City Hall; Community Development Department; 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302; Santa Clarita, CA, 91355. If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearing. For Further information regarding this proposal, please contact the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone: (661) 255-4330. Project Planner: Ben Jarvis, AICP, Associate Planner. Sarah P. Gorman, Esq. City Clerk Posted: Santa Clarita City Hall Published: The Newhall Signal June 22, 2010 June 22, 2010 OWN Agenda Item• / I CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: Ben Jarvis DATE: August 25, 2009 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF MASTER CASE 08-033, A REQUEST FOR A 99,000 SQUARE -FOOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY) ZONE. DEPARTMENT: Community Development RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council open the public hearing and continue it to October 27, 2009, to allow additional time for the applicant and the adjoining property owner to discuss the potential of changing the project to include other parcels in the Newhall Gateway area. BACKGROUND On February 27, 2008, SFXS Partners (the applicant) submitted an application to construct the 99,000 square -foot Sierra Crossing shopping center located on a vacant piece of property at 23300 Newhall Avenue (formerly known as San Fernando Road) on the southeast corner of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway in the community of Newhall. A public hearing was heard before the Planning Commission on June 2, 2009, and the project was approved with a 4-1 vote. On June 8, 2009, the project was appealed and referred to the City Council for further discussion and review. Reasons cited for the appeal included the overall site design of the project, aesthetics, and environmental issues. On August 3, 2009, the applicant met with the adjoining property owner, the University of Southern California (USC), to discuss the possibility of expanding the project to include all of the land between Sierra Highway and the Antelope Valley Freeway. An appraisal will be conducted for the 7.32 acre USC property to.determine the viability of including that land in the proposed project. Staff will return to the City Council in October 2009 for consideration of the Continued To: O�hi>er- o27.009 existing project appeal and to brief the Council on any additional information or changes to the project. FISCAL IMPACT None. 0 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 Blvd., I" Floor, Santa Clarita, California, on the 25th day of August, 2009, at or after 6:00 p.m. to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve Master Case 08-033 (Conditional Use Permit 008-005; Minor Use Permit 08-008; Oak Tree Permit 08-006; and Initial Study 08-003) for the construction of a 99,000 square -foot commercial center exceeding 35 feet in height, consisting of a variety of uses including retail and office space, and a four story hotel. A total of five buildings are included in the commercial development including one building with a drive-through lane. The project would remove eight oak trees, involve four oak tree encroachments, and would require the import of 46,000 cubic yards of dirt. As part of the project, 300 linear feet of Newhall Creek would be channelized and covered. The project site is located at 23300 Newhall Avenue on the southeast corner of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway consisting of Assessor Parcel Numbers 2827-005-014, 015, 027, 028, and 034. 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 Planning Division, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355; (661) 255-4330, Ben Jarvis, AICP, 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: August 4, 2009 Sharon L. Dawson, MMC City Clerk Publish Date: August 4, 2009 S \CD\CURRENT'2008\08-033 (Santa Clanta Gateway)\City Council\Appeal Notice Sierra Crossing doc IN June 8, 2009 cq0 CITY OF ` "`; A IA ULAWI SANTA GLARITA 10Q9 JUS' I I P 5. 08 23920 Valencia Boulevard • Suite 300 • Santa Clanta, Cahforma 91355-2196 Phone (661) 259-2489 • FAX (661) 259-8125 www san ta-clanta com R E C= I V LE p CIl Y CLERKS OFFICE Sharon Dawson, MMC City Clerk City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clanta, CA 91355 Subject: Appeal of Master Case 08-033, Conditional Use Permit 08-005, Minor Use Permit 08-008, Oak Tree Permit 08-006 Dear Ms. Dawson: On June 2, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving Master Case 08-033 for a commercial development at the southeast corner of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway. would request that, in my capacity as a City Councilmember for the City of Santa Clanta, the project's approval be appealed and that the item be brought before the City Council in a timely manner for its review. My concerns regarding this project are related to the overall site design, aesthetics and environmental issues. If you have any questions regarding this appeal, please contact me. Sincerely, - - - waz 4 J, -/;/ �,& � " Marsha McLean Councilmember S \CD\cu1TTent\Marsha Appeal letter doc 4 Agenda Item: I CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: Ben Jarvis DATE: October 27, 2009 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF MASTER CASE NO. 08-033, A REQUEST FOR A 99,000 SQUARE -FOOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 10.28 ACRES IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY) ZONE --CONTINUED ITEM FROM THE AUGUST 25, 2009 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DEPARTMENT: Community Development RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council continue the public hearing to December 8, 2009 and direct City staff to explore a comprehensive planning effort for the southeast quadrant of the Newhall Gateway, in coordination with SFXS Partners and the University of Southern California, to better address the potential environmental impacts and to create a financially viable and well coordinated development for this unique area. BACKGROUND Application Submittal On February 27, 2008, SFXS Partners (the applicant) submitted an application to construct the Sierra Crossing commercial center located on a vacant piece of property at 23300 Newhall Avenue (formerly known as San Fernando Road), The 10.28 acre subject property is located at the southeast corner of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway in the community of Newhall, and is zoned Community Commercial (Planned Development Overlay). The project site consists of Assessor Parcel Numbers 2827-005-014, 015, 027, 028, and 034. The City had initial concerns regarding site design, oak tree impacts, and the opportunity for a point park-and-ride facility at this location. The City was also concerned about access to commercial property between the project site and the Antelope Valley Freeway as well as how the proposed commercial center would fit in with other planned projects in the "Newhall Gateway" area. The City and the applicant worked together to resolve outstanding issues and revised plans were submitted. The Continued To:b ? ao-d q project was deemed complete on May 11, 2009, and a public hearing was scheduled. Planning Commission Action This project was heard and approved by the Planning Commission on June 2, 2009. No letters of opposition were received from the general public, although the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy did submit written objection to the project based on the proposal to fill-in 300 linear feet of Newhall Creek. After hearing the staff presentation, the applicant's presentation, and discussing the issue, a majority of the Planning Commissioners felt that the proposed development was appropriate for the project site and the commercial project was approved with a 4-1 vote. Appeal/Continuance On June 8, 2009, the project was appealed by Councilmember McLean. Primary issues cited in the appeal letter included the overall site design, aesthetics, and environmental issues. A public hearing was opened at the August 25, 2009, City Council meeting and the item was continued to October 27, 2009. The reason for the continuance was to provide time for the applicant and the adjacent property owner, the University of Southern California, to discuss the feasibility of developing a joint project. Given the proximity of both properties to the Antelope Valley Freeway, similar environmental issues, and other proposed commercial/office projects in the area, it made sense to explore the option of developing the properties together in a coordinated effort. The discussion between the property owners was not successful and the project remains unchanged from the project that was approved by the Planning Commission in June 2009. The applicant has requested that the project be continued to December 8, 2009 to allow City staff an opportunity to explore a comprehensive planning effort for the southeast quadrant of the Newhall Gateway. This effort will require close coordination with SFXS Partners and the University of Southern California. The goal of this planning effort is to create a well coordinated development plan for this unique area which addresses the environmental features on the site and results in a financially viable and sustainable development project. This planning effort will require Redevelopment Agency funds to cover the costs of the planning and environmental work. A reimbursement mechanism would be established to enable the Agency to recover these funds at the time development occurs. As part of this effort, staff will develop a scope of work along with a project timeline prior to the December 8, 2009 City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT None by this action. However, it is the City's intent to request the Redevelopment Agency appropriate funds at a later date to prepare a comprehensive plan and environmental analysis for the subject area. This planning effort will, however, include a reimbursement mechanism for the Agency to recover these funds at the time property development occurs. 105 NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, at its regular meeting held August 25, 2009, continued a public hearing on ITEM 11 PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF MASTER CASE 08-033, A REQUEST FOR A 99,000 SQUARE -FOOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY) ZONE AT 23300 NEWHALL AVENUE to October 27, 2009. The continued public hearing will be held at or after 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California. Dated this 26"' day of August, 2009, 4.�' '27 SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK *************************************************************** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) SHARON L. DAWSON, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the duly appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita and that on August 26, 2009, she caused the above notice to be posted at the door of the Council Chamber located at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California. _4 �i SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK Santa Clarita, California S kity\public hearings\Continued PH MC 08.033 doc Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: Ben Jarvis DATE: December 8, 2009 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF MASTER CASE NO. 08-033, A REQUEST FOR THE APPROVAL OF A 99,000 SQUARE -FOOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 10.28 ACRES IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY) ZONE --CONTINUED ITEM FROM THE OCTOBER 27, 2009 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DEPARTMENT: Community Development RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council continue the public hearing to a date uncertain. BACKGROUND Application Submittal On February 27, 2008, SFXS Partners (the applicant) submitted an application to construct the Sierra Crossing commercial center located on a vacant piece of property at 23300 Newhall Avenue (formerly known as San Fernando Road). The 10.28 acre subject property is Located at the southeast corner of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway in the community of Newhall, and is zoned Community Commercial (Planned Development Overlay). Planning Commission Action This project was heard and approved by the Planning Commission on June 2, 2009. No letters of opposition were received from the general public, although the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy did submit written objection to the project based. on the proposal to fill-in 300 linear feet of Newhall Creek. A representative from the Santa Carita Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE) opposed the project in the public comment portion of the meeting based on the impact to the creek and other environmental issues. A representative from the Old Town Newhall Association spoke in favor of the project citing the need for additional jobs and Continued To: ,ia i� �� i W►��► y the potential for the development to serve the surrounding area. After hearing the staff presentation, the applicant's presentation, and discussing the issues, a majority of the Planning Commissioners agreed that the proposed development was appropriate for the subject property and the commercial project was approved with a 4-1 vote. Appeal/Continuance On June 8, 2009, the project was appealed by Councilmember McLean. Primary issues cited in the appeal letter included the overall site design, aesthetics, and environmental issues. A public hearing on this item was opened at the August 25, 2000, City Council meeting. Due to new discussions between the applicant and the adjoining property owner, the item was continued to the October 27, 2009, meeting so that the property owners could explore the possibility of doing a joint project on the site. On October 27, the item was continued to the December 8, 2009, City Council meeting to allow the City/Redevelopment Agency additional time to evaluate proposals for comprehensive planning of the southeast quadrant of the Sierra Highway/Newhall Avenue intersection, which includes the subject site. During the Redevelopment Agency meeting on November 24, 2009, the Agency considered hiring a consultant. to prepare an architectural design concept and market feasibility analysis -for the southeast quadrant. Three people spoke in opposition to that effort, in the applicant. No action was taken and the item was tabled. The applicant requested that the public hearing for the commercial project on appeal be conducted on December 8, 2009, and that an "up or down" vote of the City Council be taken at that time. On December 2, 2009, the applicant requested that the public hearing and Council action on the pending appeal be continued to a date uncertain. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Other action as determined by Council. FISCAL IMPACT None by this action. 0 NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, at its regular meeting held October 27, 2009, continued a public hearing on ITEM 14 PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF MASTER CASE NO. 08-033, A REQUEST FOR A 99,000 SQUARE -FOOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 10.28 ACRES IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY) ZONE --CONTINUED ITEM FROM THE AUGUST 25, 2009 CITY COUNCIL MEETING to December 8, 2009. The continued public hearing will be held at or after 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California. Dated this 28`h day of October 2009. SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK *************************************************************** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) SHARON L. DAWSON, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the duly appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita and that on October 28, 2009, she caused the above notice to be posted at the door of the Council Chamber located at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California. SHARON L. AWSON, CITY CLERK Santa Clarita, California S:\CI INTuhlic Bearings\Cnntcinued Pli MC 08.033 2.dnc N Agenda Item: w SC"5 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA JOINT CITY COUNCIL / REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval: UNFINISHED BUSINESS Item to be presented by: Lisa Webber DATE: January 12, 2010 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF MASTER CASE NO. 08-033, A REQUEST FOR THE APPROVAL OF A 99,000 SQUARE -FOOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 10.28 ACRES IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY) ZONE --CONTINUED ITEM FROM THE DECEMBER 8, 2009 CITY COUNCIL MEETING --AND CONSIDERATION FOR THE NEWHALL GATEWAY CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS CONTRACT DEPARTMENT: Community Development c RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council Action: Close the public hearing and adopt a resolution denying Master Case 08-033 and all associated entitlements: Conditional Use Permit 08-005; Minor Use Permit 08-008; and Oak Tree Permit 08-006. Redevelopment Agency Action: 1. Authorize the appropriation of $199,200.00 from available funds in the Redevelopment Agency Non -Housing Fund Balance to Account 13400-5161.001. 2. Authorize Executive Director to enter into a contract with Poliquin Kellogg Design Group for an amount not to exceed $199,200.00 for the purpose of providing conceptual architectural design and an.edonomic feasibility analysis for the southeast quadrant of the Newhall Gateway area, subject to review by the Agency Attorney. Continued To: a 0 s;x moh� O�� BACKGROUND Application Submittal On February 27, 2008, SFXS Partners (the applicant) submitted an application to construct the Sierra Crossing commercial center located on a vacant piece of property at 23300 Newhall Avenue (formerly known as San Fernando Road). The 10.28 acre subject property is located at the southeast corner of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway in the community of Newhall, and is zoned Community Commercial (Planned Development Overlay). Planning Commission Action This project was heard and approved by the Planning Commission on June 2, 2009. No letters of opposition were received from the general public, although the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy did submit written objection to the project based on the proposal to fill-in 300 linear feet of Newhall Creek. The Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE) opposed the project in the public comment portion of the meeting based on the impact to the creek and other environmental issues. A representative from the Old Town Newhall Association spoke in favor of the project citing the need for additional jobs and the potential for the development to serve the surrounding area. After hearing the staff presentation, the applicant's presentation, and discussing the issues, a majority of the Planning Commissioners agreed that the proposed development was appropriate for the subject property and the commercial project was approved with a 4-1 vote. Appeal/Continuance On June 8, 2009, the project was appealed by Councilmember McLean. Primary issues cited in the appeal letter included the overall site design, aesthetics, and environmental issues. A public hearing on this item was opened at the August 25, 2009, City Council meeting. Due to new discussions between the applicant and the adjoining property owner, the item was continued to the October 27, 2009, meeting so that the property owners could explore the possibility of doing a joint project on the site. On October 27, the item was continued to the December 8, 2009, City Council meeting to allow the City/Redevelopment Agency additional time to evaluate proposals for comprehensive planning of the southeast quadrant of the Sierra Highway/Newhall Avenue intersection, which includes the subject site. During the Redevelopment Agency meeting on November 24, 2009, the Agency considered hiring a consultant to prepare an architectural design concept and market feasibility analysis for the southeast quadrant. Three people spoke in opposition to that effort, including the applicant. No action was taken and the item was tabled. The applicant requested that the public hearing for the commercial project on appeal be conducted on December 8, 2009, and that an "up or down" vote of the City Council be taken at that time. In December, at the request of the applicant, the Council continued the public hearing to January 12, 2010. As part of the public hearing, a representative from the Sierra Club spoke on the item and stated that organizations concerns regarding the environmental impacts of the project, specifically citing impacts to Newhall Creek. Discussion Since the Planning Commission approved the project in June 2009, several discussions have taken place between City representatives and the two property owners in the southeast comer of Newhall Gateway: SFXS Partners and the University of Southern California. In spite of the City's D effort to broker a partnership between SFXS Partners and the University of Southern California, the parties have not been able to come to an agreement on how to develop their properties in a coordinated manner. Because the owners failed to reach an agreement, the City's Redevelopment Agency has assumed a leadership role with the understanding that it would be a missed opportunity for this quadrant to be developed in a piecemeal fashion and for a project to respond only to what the current market can support without looking at the long-term potential. A higher level of planning and economic market analysis is warranted. Although the proposed development was approved by the Planning Commission and meets the City's development standards for the Community Commercial zone, there are significant concerns that the proposed project does not meet the City's goals or objectives for this prominent City gateway. As proposed, the project fails to meet the purpose and development standards of the Planned Development Overlay zone because the development does not promote more economical and efficient use of the land than would be permitted under conventional zoning nor does the project make suitable provisions for the preservation of Newhall Creek and the significant flora and fauna found on the site. The most appropriate project would be one that works within the environmental constraints of the property and that also looks at the long-term commercial development needs of the area and complements and supports the new Disney studios at the Golden Oak Ranch, the Chinque Terra office development, and the approved 4.2 million square -foot Gate King Industrial Park. Any development at this corner should also maximize the City's efforts to revitalize downtown Newhall and bolster the number of jobs in the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area and the Enterprise Zone. As proposed, the Sierra Crossing commercial center falls short of these objectives. Developing the Newhall Gateway area in a piecemeal fashion with a short-term outlook, building a project that is supported by only what the current market can bear, would be a missed opportunity. This is one reason why a Planned Development overlay was assigned to this quadrant on the City's zoning map. Given the project's location and its access to State Route 14, it makes sense for the entire site to be planned comprehensively in order to ensure that the most sustainable and economically viable project is developed that will meet the City's long-term goals. Staff is also concerned with the impact to the environmental and cultural resources present on the southeast quadrant. The proposed project would bury 300 linear feet of Newhall Creek. While those impacts can be mitigated, the loss of any habitat is something that the City seeks to avoid. There is also the concern that the former U.S. Route 6 right-of-way was not preserved as part of the project, nor was there an effort to incorporate this important cultural resource as a trail that could connect other approved and pending developments in the area to the project site. In short, given its location and environmental resources on-site, it makes sense for the entire site to be planned comprehensively to arrive at the most sustainable and economically viable project for the long-term. For these reasons, staff recommends that the City Council deny the request to develop a 99,000 square foot commercial center in the Newhall Gateway area. Conceptual Architectural Design and Economic Feasibility Poliquin Kellogg Design Group was selected from two consultant firms that recently responded to a request for proposal on a similar conceptual design/economic analysis project in the City. The City interviewed Poliquin Kellogg and requested they revise their proposal to reflect the scope of work, cost and timeline for the Newhall Gateway project. Should this item be approved by the Redevelopment Agency, Poliquin Kellogg Design Group will be hired to conduct a planning effort that would include a development concept, architecture, and an economic feasibility study for the southeast quadrant of the Newhall Gateway. The analysis and planning effort would take approximately four months to complete with a cost not to exceed $199,200.00. The University of Southern California supports the planning effort and will work with the Agency's consultant to create a viable, comprehensive strategy that takes advantage of all of the site's strengths and opportunities. Planning the southeast quadrant as a coordinated effort will ensure that sensitive environmental areas are preserved and that the optimal amount of commercial square footage will be developed. The economic analysis will be funded by the Agency and reimbursement will be sought when the properties are developed. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. City Council continue the public hearing to a date uncertain. 2. City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the project. 3. Redevelopment Agency deny staff recommendation to enter into a contract with Poliquin Kellogg Design Group. 4. Other action as determined by Council or Redevelopment Agency. FISCAL IMPACT City Council: No fiscal impact by this action. Redevelopment Agency: The cost of the architectural design and economic feasibility analysis would be up to $199,200.00, which covers the budget listed in the proposal, $186,200.00, plus a 7% contingency. The appropriation of $199,200.00 would be from available funds in the Redevelopment Agency Non -Housing Fund balance. In the short term, these monies would not be available for other redevelopment projects. In the longer term, it is anticipated that the funds would be reimbursed to the Agency when the properties are developed. Development of the area would also generate new tax increment for the Agency. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Appeal Letter SMMC Letter Scope Letter 10-27-09 Newhall Gateway Proposal City Council Exhibits NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA . CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, at its regular meeting held December 8, 2009, continued a public hearing on ITEM 13 PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF MASTER CASE NO. 08-033, A REQUEST FOR THE APPROVAL OF A 99,000 SQUARE -FOOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 10.28 ACRES IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY) ZONE -CONTINUED ITEM FROM THE OCTOBER 27, 2009 CITY COUNCIL MEETING to January 12, 2010. The continued public hearing will be held at or after 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California. Dated this 91" day of December, 2009. SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING CITY OF. SANTA CLARITA ) SHARON L. DAWSON, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the duly appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita and that on December 9, 2009, she caused the above notice to be posted at the door of the Council Chamber located at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clari.ia, California. SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK • ;! �� �- , -� ; , Santa Clarita, California SACII'VftbllcIIcurings\ConeinuedPii11C1111' 3011210cim i;' I V RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING THE APPEAL OF MASTER CASE NO. 08-033 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 08-005, MINOR USE PERMIT 08-008, AND OAK TREE PERMIT 08-006), OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT FIVE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 99,000 SQUARE FEET IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NEWHALL AVENUE AND SIERRA HIGHWAY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY OF NEWHALL, CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (APNs 2827-005-014,015,027,028, AND 029). WHEREAS, SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita (hereafter "City") hereby makes the following findings of fact: a. On February 27, 2008, SFXS Partners (the applicant) submitted an application to construct the Sierra Crossing shopping center consisting of five buildings totaling approximately 99,000 square feet, and containing a drive-through use, a hotel use, grading in excess of 10,000 cubic yards, and three buildings that would exceed 35' in height on vacant property in the Community Commercial Planned Development Overlay (CC(PD)) zone; b. The project site includes five parcels: Assessor Parcel Nos. 2827-005-014, 015, 027, 028, and 029, and is located on the southeast corner of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway in the community of Newhall; C. On June 2, 2009, during a duly noticed public hearing, the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission approved Master Case 08-033 and all associated entitlements including Conditional Use Permit 08-005, Minor Use Permit 08-008, and Oak Tree Permit 08-006; d. In that same 4-1 decision to approve the project, the Planning Commission also approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project; C. During the Planning Commission meeting on this matter, representatives for the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment spoke in opposition of the project citing impacts to Newhall Creek and a representative from the Old Town Newhall Association spoke in favor of the project citing the need for additional jobs and to support the downtown Newhall redevelopment effort; f. On June 8, 2009, the project was appealed to the City Council by Councilmember McLead for issues related to the overall site design for this highly visible, major gateway entrance to the City, aesthetics and the impact the project would have on surrounding viewsheds, and environmental issues relating to the impacts to 5 Council Denial Resolution Master Case 08-033 Page 2 of 4 Newhall Creek; g. On June 30, 2009, City representatives met with the applicant's biologist, a representative from the California Department of Fish and Game, and also a representative from the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy to discuss the appeal; h. On August 25, 2009, a public hearing was opened by the City Council on this matter and continued to October 27, 2009, in order to provide time for the applicant to discuss a modified project with an adjacent property owner; i. On October 27, 2009, the appeal was again continued to December 8, 2009, so that the Redevelopment Agency, as part of its regular meeting on November 24, 2009, could explore hiring an architectural and design firm to comprehensively plan the southeast quadrant of the Newhall Gateway; j. On December 8, 2009, the City Council discussed the item and continued the public hearing to January 12, 2010; k. On January 12, 2010, the City Council received public testimony, closed the public hearing, received the staff presentation and also a presentation from the applicant. WHEREAS, SECTION 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts, the staff report accompanying this item, testimony presented at the public hearing, and the findings. listed in Section 17.03.040(E)(1) of the Unified Development Code, the City Council hereby determines as follows: a. Finding required in Section 17.03.040(E)(1): "That the proposed location, size, design, and operation characteristics of the proposed use is in accordance with the purpose of this development code, the purpose of the zone in which the site is located, the Santa Clarita General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City; " 1) The City Council cannot make this finding because the project does not meet the purpose of the Planned Development Overlay .Zone as listed in Section 17.16.020(A) of the Unified Development Code (UDC). As stated in Section 17.16.020(A) of the UDC, the purpose of the Planned Development Overlay Zone is to facilitate . development that is creative and imaginative. The project is not creative or imaginative in that it comprises a typical freeway -oriented development and does not meet the City's vision for development at a major gateway entrance into the City and the project does not facilitate development that would promote more economical and efficient use of the land than would otherwise be permitted under conventional zoning. The 6 Council Denial Resolution Master Case 08-033 Page 3 of 4 project does not provide a sufficient mix or variety of uses, or a sufficient level of amenities, nor does the project sufficiently preserve natural resources or scenic qualities of surrounding open space. The project would fill in a portion of Newhall Creek, remove oak trees, and makes no attempt to integrate or promote the historic former US Route 6 right-of-way as part of the development. There is no connectivity or relationship to other planned industrial and office complexes in the vicinity and the riparian area that is slated for preservation would be hidden behind two retail buildings instead of being used as an open space amenity. 2) The City Council cannot make this finding because the project does not conform to the development standards of the Planned Development Overlay Zone as found in Section 17.16.020(G) As stipulated in , Subsection (G)(1), the project is not compatible with, or complementary to, existing and potential development in the immediate vicinity because it under utilizes commercial land adjacent to office parks and proposed studio uses. As a project within a gateway entrance to the City, the floor area ratio should be maximized and development density should be comparable to other approved projects in the area. The buildings should be distinctive in their architecture and design, and create a strong sense of place for the City's Newhall entrance. As proposed, the project is isolated and does not connect to other approved developments, despite the fact that the subject site contains an abandoned highway alignment that could be used for such purposes. As stipulated in Subsection (G)(8), the project does not relate harmoniously to the topography of the site nor does the project make suitable provisions for the preservation of the existing watercourse and drainage areas on-site. The project would destroy 300 linear feet of verdant creek bed, its associated bank and riparian environment. Minimal attention was given to oak tree preservation, and the project works against the topography of the site requiring the import of 46,000 cubic yards of dirt instead of working with the natural slope to reduce the amount of grading and dirt import. As proposed, the project would have adverse impacts to the significant flora and fauna that is found in and around the creek bed, making no effort to incorporate these potential amenities into the surrounding development. WHEREAS, SECTION 3. MINOR USE PERMIT AND OAK TREE PERMIT FINDINGS. Any development or project within the Planned Development Overlay Zone requires a Conditional Use Permit. Without the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, other lands uses, such as those contemplated by the Minor Use Permit, along with the removals and encroachments that would have been permitted by the Oak Tree Permit, cannot be approved. 3 Council Denial Resolution Master Case 08-033 Page 4 of 4 THEREFORE, SECTION 4. Based on the findings contained in Sections 2 and 3 above, the City Council hereby denies the following entitlements requested under Master Case 08-033: Conditional Use Permit 08-005, Minor Use Permit 08-008, and Oak Tree 'Permit 08-006, and does not approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan that was prepared for the project. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. n H69 Council Denial Resolution Master Case 08-033 Page 5 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of January 2010 MAYOR CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I, Sarah P. Gorman, 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 12th day of January 2010 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK a City of SANTA CaLARITA 23920 Valencia Boulevard • Suite 300 • Santa Clarita, California 91355-2196 Phone: (661) 259-2489 • FAX: (661) 259-8125 mumsanta-clarita. corn June 8, 2009 Sharon Dawson, MMC City Clerk City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Subject: Appeal of Master Case 08-033, Conditional Use Permit 08-005, Minor Use Pen -nit 08-008, Oak Tree Permit 08-006 Dear Ms. Dawson: On June 2, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving Master Case 08-033 for a commercial development at the southeast corner of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway. would request that, in my capacity as a City Councilmember for the City of Santa Clarita, the project's approval be appealed and that the item be brought before the City Council in a timely manner for its review. My concerns regarding this project are related to the overall site design, aesthetics and environmental issues, If you have any questions regarding this appeal, please contact me. Sincerely, Marsha McLean Councilmember s:\CD\cun•ent\Marsha Appeal letter.doe /a STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY RAMIREZ CANYON PARK u 5750 RAMIREZ CANYON ROAD r MALIBU, CALIFORNIA 90265 PHONE (310) 589.3200 FAX (310) 589-3207 June 1, 2009 Planning Commission City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 Commercial Development Project Comments cup 08-005 Oak Tree Permit 08-006 Dear Commission Members: The proposed project on 9.97 acres is located at the scenic confluence of Elsmere Creek and Newhall Creek. Wildlife can enter the site via the large Elsmere Creek box channel under State Route 14 and across Sierra Highway via the cemetery and an abutting property to the north. The property is not isolated and currently functions as a wildlife corridor for some species between the San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountains. The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MBCA) is currently implementing a 4 -acre riparian habitat restoration project directly across the freeway along Elsmere Creek. The subject section of Newhall Creek and its confluence point with Elsmere Creek contains a broad range of riparian species diversity. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) conclusion that the project is ecologically isolated is false. Any project on this site should work with the constraints of the land. The applicant has been encouraging our staff to work towards accepting an open space dedication. However the proposed project fails to work with the constraints of the land and should be significantly modified before such an acceptance. The total direct loss of over an acre of fully function mature willow cottonwood woodland in the Santa Clara River watershed, and indirect adverse impact on the remaining two -plus acres of riparian woodland, is a significant impact that can be reduced through simple project modifications. The approximately 4.0 acres of habitat restoration required by the California Department of Fish and Game in the approved Streambed Alteration Agreement (sAA) will only partially mitigate these impacts. That mitigation is deferred and not well defined. Onsite mitigation will be on a biological island. In addition it is extremely difficult to' find protected three acre riparian mitigation sites for restoration. The Conservancy recommends that the Commission deny the project unless the loss of willow woodland is reduced to less than 0.5 acres . and that the specific habitat replacement ratios and requirements in the sAA be incorporated as MND mitigation measures. City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission CUP 08-005 Oak Tree Permit 08-006 June 1, 2009 Page 2 The intersection of Newhall Road and SR 14 maintains a semi -rural ambience. The proposed project would drastically alter the visual qualities over a large area. Four story buildings, 434 parking spaces, and 50,000 cubic yards of imported fill are not consistent with the old town Newhall described in the Initial Study. We encourage the Commission to insist on a project that does not fill riparian habitat, channelize drainages, and that results in an ecologically meaningful habitat area. To achieve such a project the applicant would need to remove all development out of the areas south and east of Newhall Creek. That development -free area should be dedicated in fee to the City, the MRCA or the Santa Clarita Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Such a development configuration would also provide a permanent wildlife corridor under SR 14. The MND is deficient for not adequately addressing this inter -mountain range connectivity. Please address any questions to Paul Edelman of our staff at the above address and by phone at (310) 589-3200 ext. 128. Sincerely, RONALD P. SCHAFER Chairperson l01 SCOPE Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment TO PROMOTE, PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT, ECOLOGY AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY POST OFFICE BOX 1182, SANTA CLARITA, CA 91386 10-24-09 City Council City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Agenda Item 14 - APPEAL OF MASTER CASE NO. 08-033, A REQUEST FOR A 99,000 SQUARE -FOOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 10.28 ACRES IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY) ZONE -- CONTINUED ITEM FROM THE AUGUST 25, 2009 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Dear Mayor and City Council: We wish to object to the inaccuracy of the staff report on this item that fails to mention SCOPE's public comment on this agenda item at the June 2"d hearing. At that time we expressed concern over the loss of riparian native vegetation on this site, channelization of the stream, the fact that we had been told that references made to the SMMC's acquisition of the property appeared to be inaccurate, and the failure to do adequate environmental review for this project. Since oral comments at a hearing have the same standing as written comments, those concerns should have been noted in the staff report for this project. We can only wonder why the staff would write a report in such a way as to make it seem that there were no objections to this project, when in fact there were. Further, the staff report seems to indicate that the City will pay for the needed environmental review on this project. Such a commitment is an inappropriate use of taxpayer money and sets an untenable precedent for other developments in the Santa Clarita Valley. We oppose any use of City funds to pay for environmental review for this project, or for any project. That is the responsibility of the developer, not local taxpayers. Sincerely, Lynne Plambeck President 43 P'0'LQUINAI-FIXOGG DE FG ]Kdk;— P B18.313.6843 proposal for .................................. CO ai C otic CU C CU CU 6 0) CZ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction........................................................ 1 TheFirm.......................................................1 2 Scope of Services ....... ....................................... I......... 3 Technical Design Outline ................................................. 4-5 Project Schedule........................................................ 6 Program Management........................................................ 7-8 Costs / Compensation / Offer & Sig. nature .................................... 9 PersonnelQualifications ................................................. 10-13 Project Team / Consultants ................................................ 14 Firm Qualifications ........................ 15 Current / Recent Project List ............................................... 16-17 Relevant Projects / References ............................................ 18 References ............................... I ........... 19 Certificate of Liability Insurance ................. I ......................... 20 Lee Newman & Associates - Landscape Architect 21 FirmProfile....................................................... 22 Scopeof Work Proposal ........................................... 23-28 Personnel Qualifications ............................ I ...... I ...... 29-30 Firm Qualifications ............................................... 31 ProjectList .......................... I............................ 32-36 ProjectSamples .................................................. 37-43 References ......................................... I............ 44 Kevin Read — Economic Consultant Scope of Work.Proposal......................................... 45 Personnel Qualifications ............................................ 46 INTRODUCTION Poliquin Kellogg Design Group is pleased to provide you with this proposal for the City of Santa Clarita, Sierra Gateway Master Planning, Conceptual Architectural Design and Economic Feasibility Study. With PKDG's experience in the Santa Clarita area, including multiple office projects on Tourney Road, North Park Community Church, Entrada and Mechanix Wear, we feel that our firm is well vested and maintains an understanding of your community. With the joint cooperation between PKDG and the Project representatives input, we are confident that we can develop a Master Pian for this location which establishes a thoughtful and exciting planned development which can establish an impetus for this area to become a true city gateway location. It is our understanding that this project will be planned, to establish a forward looking planned development that becomes the Gateway for this area of the city. The Master Plan will establish a scale and density which is appropriate to the location, without becoming stagnant, by only reflecting on existing adjacent developments. The project will be located on two approximately ten acre sites adjacent to each other and to the 14 freeway. The planning effort will involve incorporating an existing riparian area into the design, which we feel establishes some of the potential character of the development itself. Possible coordination with the California Department of Fish and Game may be required in order to make adjustments to the shape of the riparian area. Existing trees including Heritage Oaks will be considered in the design and require coordination into the design. This Master Pian will require that PKDG establish a sense of place where a mixed use of services can be provided in a pleasant atmosphere to the surrounding community. The forward looking aspect of the development will consider the growth of this corridor regarding residential and business, including the future Disney Studio development. Considering this potential future development, the density of the project will be such, that it respects the general community scale and character, yet allows for substantial services and activity to occur on the site. The project will include amenities which establish the site as a significant community destination. Amenities will include the integration of the existing riparian as a design element, celebration of the old Route 6 with a trail head element to tell the story of this significant US Highway, bike and pedestrian trail, possible bridge connection across Newhall Avenue for bikes and pedestrians, as well as bridge connections across the riparian to help establish theme and convenience connections across the site. The project will also consider LEED opportunities where applicable, including community connectivity, reduction of heat island effect, use of, or access to mass transit, reduction of water usage, as well as possible green building features including, systems, materials and performance. A key component for the project will be its economic feasibility which will be thoroughly studied. Feasibility will be considered looking forward, and will consider market needs, project cost and viability. The project will be designed to be viable from an economic point of view. This project represents a wonderful and exciting opportunity for our firm and for the City to create a Master Plan which establishes a new city gateway, which goes beyond being simply reactive to established adjacencies; it instead leads the way to how development should characterize itself at this important location. As always, we view an opportunity such as this, to be a great privilege and responsibility, to establish a place for which the city and the community can be proud of. PKDG looks forward to the opportunity to accept this responsibility and to deliver this new Sierra Gateway Master Plan for the City of Santa Clarita. Page 1 THE FIRM ® POLIQUIN KELLOGG DESIGN GROUP is a full service Architecture, Interior Design and Master Planning firm. The principals of Poliquin Kellogg Design Group bring a combined experience of over 50 years in these disciplines to the firm. The assembled staff further expands the breadth of experience that the firm has to offer. Our project experience includes Master Planning, Low to Mid Rise Office Buildings, Corporate Facilities, Tenant Improvements, Medical Offices, R&D, High - Tech, Industrial Facilities, Commercial and Retail Centers. ® POLIQUIN KELLOGG DESIGN GROUP prides itself on attention to client satisfaction as a barometer for project success. We believe that client satisfaction is achieved through innovative design solutions, rigorous attention to budget criteria, maintenance of the project schedule and stringent attention to programming requirements. ® POLIQUIN KELLOGG DESIGN GROUP is a locally owned and operated firm. The principals remain intimately involved with all projects and maintain an interest in being personally committed and responsible for the success of each and every project. We strongly believe that the success of each project, regardless of size and/or scope, perpetuates our firm's success. © POLIQUIN KELLOGG DESIGN GROUP has extensive recent and current build -to -suit experience. We have been involved with over 2,000,000 square feet of build -to -suit office, manufacturing and warehouse facilities over the past 3 years and are involved presently with over 1,000,000 square feet of currently proposed build -to -suit projects in Santa Barbara County, Ventura County, and Los Angeles County. POLIQUIN KELLOGG DESIGN GROUP maintains experience in interfacing with the majority of local governing agencies, including processing for projects in the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, Simi Valley, Moorpark, Calabasas, Thousand Oaks, City of Santa Clarita, Santa Barbara County and more. Our experience includes obtaining approvals through various planning commissions and city councils for development permits, variances and minor and major modifications, as well as obtaining building permits. ® POLIQUIN KELLOGG DESIGN GROUP is a contemporary and expanding firm that prides itself on providing outstanding services through thorough research, creative solutions and a genuine commitment to the achievement of our client's goals. Page 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES o Field review of site conditions for the proposed Sierra Gateway Master Plan. o Assemble and review existing plans, surveys, utilities connections and other information available for the project site. e Attend a kick-off meeting with Project Representatives to determine project goals, and to further determine the needs and desires for the Sierra Gateway Master Plan design. o Prepare two (2) alternative conceptual Master Plans. Includes up to three (3) conceptual Master Plans (if necessary). a Prepare two (2) computer generated block models of the two (2) preliminary conceptual Master Plans. ® Once two (2) conceptual master plans have been prepared, the Economic Consultant will prepare a preliminary feasibility study for each plan. o PKDG shall meet multiple times with Project Representatives during the development of the conceptual plans and through to completion of the final plan. ® From the two (2) conceptual alternatives, the City shall select one (1) conceptual Master Plan for a final detailed Master Plan. (Includes multiple iterations of concept plan.) • A final presentation shall include computer generated renderings, site plans, and 3D views of the proposed plan. Drafts shall be provided in 11"x17" sheets. Final plans shall be submitted in color in digital format and in 24"x36" sheets, ® Based on the final Master Plan selected, the Economic Consultant shall prepare an economic analysis determining estimated costs of construction and property acquisition market feasibility and city tax benefit. Conduct a meeting with Staff and Project Representatives to present the final Sierra Gateway Master Plan design and economic evaluation. ® Submit all original material and copies of electronic data files to the City to become the property of Santa Ciarita. Page 3 TECHNICAL DESIGN OUTLINE Establish Project Goals PKDG would take a proactive approach in order to establish all the requirements and goals for this project. Once the project designer evaluates the site, receives and reviews base materials and pertinent project information, PKDG and supportive Consultants would engage in an open discussion "charette" with the respective representatives involved in the project. This input would identify functional programmatic goals and aesthetic desires for the City Center. This interaction would include real time conceptualization through sketching and discussion. This process should not be restrained or overly limited, as this interaction will allow both designer and client to have a proactive and effective participation in the conceptualization process. The deliverable from this process is to generate the Plan Concept. Preparation of Conceptual Plans Once the plan concept direction is complete, the design team will prepare three (3) initial concepts, which shall include all the program elements. These concepts would include information justifying the concept regarding building site, related parking, hardscape, softscape, pedestrian circulation, LEED concepts regarding site planning, etc. This task, legitimizes the proposed concepts from a programmatic view, and allows the client to understand visually how the project may be developed. During this process, PKDG and Consultants would meet with Representatives to continue to maintain proactive and open discussion of the Plan, addressing organization, adjacencies, pedestrian experience, and massing. The Economic Consultant would begin preparation of an economic feasibility, based upon developing concepts. This process would include the preparation of two (2) Conceptual Plans and two (2) Computer Generated Block Models to establish massing created by the pian organization. Economic analysis would illustrate cost related to proposed designs. Selection of Conceptual Plan The two (2) Conceptual Plans would be submitted for review to the Project Representatives, for selection of a Final Master Plan. Discussion of the chosen concept between PKDG and Project Representatives would occur to resolve detail issues and determine refinements of the Plan. The final selection of a Conceptual Plan would be determined. Economic Analysis The Economic Consultant would prepare an economic analysis study which will consider land cost, all support utilities and infrastructure, architectural character and quality, hardscape, softscape and potential phasing and construction duration and city tax benefit. As well as considering contingency to cover the broad -brush scope of the project. Preparation of Economic analysis for Project Representative review Page 4 TECHNICAL DESIGN OUTLINE (Cont.) Preparation of Final Presentation PKDG would prepare the final Master Plan. The final preparation will include any elements necessary to properly describe the Master Plan. The Master Plan would describe all building location, size, shape, all circulation, walks, plazas, landscape, entries, etc. The Plan would be detailed as to describe the organization, aesthetics, and massing qualities of the concept, as well as establish an architectural character consistent with the goals of the City. LEED measures would be considered and pertain to the nature of design. During this process PKDG would again engage with staff and Project Representatives maintaining a transparent design process through completion of the final plan. Final economic analysis would be prepared based upon final site design and illustrations. Included in the final presentation shall be the following: (Submitted in color in digital format and in 24"x36" sheets.) ° Concept to illustrate project history and refinement. ' One (1) Detailed Site Plan including landscape / hardscape detail with Surrounding Vicinity shown. ° Plaza / public space plan enlargements. ° Photo Composite Site Plan showing plan in context. ° One (1) 3D Aerial View showing massing and architectural character as well as site detail. ° Project Elevations —all four sides. ° Project Sections — illustrate pedestrian areas. e Computer generated renderings (up to three (3) renderings) illustrating aesthetic character of the concept, at key visual locations. ° Economic feasibility of project. ° Entire project would be presented on 24"x36" boards and 11 "x17" full color booklet provided for City officials to review, Page 5 a L a p f i s I� ......... _............... 4 p{ I �I _. p _ a C ' ' _. ....,. �._..._.... ......._ , .. ._ _..__.. . _........ .:...., . :,, a..,..,__......... .. ............ _ ...._... I �t j .....__..._... _............. .... _._._ ----- - ._. _» ,.......... _ ... ...._.._... _....._. ..__._..,_., ...... _._�, ............ ' RlI ry .....,.... .. ....._........_ _.. .. ........_ ...... _.......... ..._.__.._.__..._.____..._........_ _.- .. .....__..............__... ...._.._' r . • , ............ ......... ...... ................... ............. z j ' t I � ............. ........... a _ 'azoit>u LLUNUU I0 +;h ! ? CC 0. Www !N I�� f iz .' wV zo '� �¢ '� .1 Ila W j u� pV :g C7H o o�woa r� :IKOWU¢�O �u Q ;°° iaa '� IN !wo qz iLL oCL I� j w O I Q oD 'F ow ''wvr ,a¢°!�w Izy .w �z�' w I �-" o `� .-UJ �a !ao !0"i oo 'W. ,z �U' >- 8 <a 'x 'w wa j°s�ywW'41go w:'wy, Iaoaow au`% a i g ao.'� laa '� ,° ;�'a a, < U~ +Y :zg ,oa z !aa w Ir W4 w¢ > ;° v o Qx Wr i �� �o �o muwlaLLo igy a>i 13: oy:az� o %2w�O„z 'F�i 'aF wU.w 'c~i`4n w`� z !aW iWs wa x I�w I' o �a i N i�z vwa ! Jr !uwia Iroi ILL° iw j��N��a � aw vow o zo ° jaw I I F+ W I a » ';aa 'rsai !°- FE;zPz:z �u� OOwy 0 aJ I�Cu v,a f p1� aO O U wO !aH iz z zzs i! �O° -- oZ F o LL> , .O¢ ! I IQ� o! ia o roZ rO fir= So !tL° ow ;aro wz �z4 ''wz_i- ?wzaLL�'r-v� win ow^��z �LL o�m'W�zlai a ao 3 U ay �wo z- tau �3w I�z �rN ��w ;0w aU iw Ivy G� F `Ww ao ( �wj a ���mg zre a� �w "�wrrro ;zz Q f w �v�y wz ,> Ya�>LLI w go O �iiz WO 'w fu ty a 'w U- �s IOU wz !aO z o jaZS�w ow5 ww ;zCL w ;ma IDw µ.,0 ��55 !!-O Iw5 'a C. —a!a`S Ya0:000�n.0_ 2V iKIL •ww '2a 'UN 'cLU UU i�g' .C. C. �a -ad icna __. W` a n e w i 1 _�! a A L .- ry n r n o .• PROGRAM MANAGEMENT The project will be managed through Principal direction assisted by a team Designer and Draftsman, for conceptual plan preparation. Principal, Designer and Landscape Architect will meet with Project Representatives, includes multiple meetings by PKDG, as necessary, to establish the desired direction and requirements for each concept. Landscape Architect will be engaged to determine hardscape plaza concepts, pedestrian experience concepts and general landscape concepts. Designer and draftsman in conjunction with Landscape Architect will prepare the deliverable three (3) concept plans. Designer will then prepare 3D computer generated block models for each of the three (3) concept plans. PKDG will engage with Economic Consultant to prepare conceptual economic feasibility of project on acceptance of the two (2) conceptual plans, to be refined to the final plan. Principal and Designer will once again meet with Project Representatives to further refine final Master Plan. On the acceptance of one of the two (2) conceptual plans, the final Master Plan and assisting deliverables will be prepared, During this process PDKG's Principal, Designer and Consultants will meet with Project Representatives to refine the final master plan. This allows staff and Project Representatives to be involved in the project process allowing for a refined and successful result in achieving project goals. As the final plan is refined, the Designer will engage 3D illustrator to begin preparation of an aerial site photo composite and three (3) computer generated renderings for final presentation. The Economic Consultant will prepare a final economic analysis based upon selected plan exhibits. PKDG will once again meet with Project Representatives for input on final master plan concept and all its elements. PKDG's Principal, Designer and Consultants will present the Final Master Plan and provide all final deliverables as described in RFP. Page 7 �3 COSTS / COMPENSATION / OFFER & SIGNATURE (The Fees shown below are effective for Ninety (90) days from the date herein.) Please Note: Fees below inchide Consultant fees, Architect hereby acts as Agent for Consultant solely in regards to the Compensation for their services. Architect with Consultants prior consent to act as Agent will payout their fees from the compensation received by Architect. Initial Project Goal $ 15,350.00 Site Review, Meetings with Project Representatives and Review of Materials Preparation of Initial Concepts Preliminary Conceptual Plan 1 / Computer Generated Block Model Preliminary Conceptual Plan 2 / Computer Generated Block Model (Includes up to three (3) Preliminary Plans.) $ 46,250.00 Economic Feasibility Analysis Preliminary Conceptual Plan 1 Preliminary Conceptual Plan 2 $ 9,250.00 Final Plan Preparation / Presentation Final Master Plan Preparation $ 53,600.00 (Includes multiple iterations of concept plan.) Landscape Architecture Site Assessment, Meetings, Conceptual Drawings and Resource Evaluation $ 25,000.00 3D Photo Comp Aerial View 24" x 36" 30 Color $ 6,000.00 Computer Generated Renderings Three (3) Computer Generated Color Renderings $ 16,500.00 Final Economic Analysis Economic Analysis based on One (1) Final Master Plan $ 6,250.00 Project Reimbursables $ 8,000.00 Includes project related mileage, reproductions, plots, documents, color boards, renderings, postage & handling, and overnight deliveries. Total Amount Not to Exceed $186,200.00 POLIQUIN KELk0SG DESIGN GROUP Ar-afifaffi—aion 1\ Brian R. Poliquin, AIA!NCARB, LEED AP President Architect License No. C 21165 Accepted and Agreed by: Signature Print Name Date Page 9 BRIAN R. POLIQUIN, AIA EDUCATION: University of Southern California Bachelor of Architecture 1982 Member of American Institute of Architects Member of National Council Architectural Review Board Member of U.S. Green Building Council LEED Accredited Professional PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS: Licensed Architect, State of California, State of Arizona, State of Nevada EXPERIENCE: Mr. Poliquin has been in architecture for over twenty-five years. An experienced professional, Mr. Poliquin in addition to his administration responsibilities, is responsible for client contact; assembling and supervising project teams, and guiding their efforts from initial design through to construction administration. Mr. Poliquin's experience includes leadership involvement in many notable projects, some of which are listed below: Project Building Type Size m LNR Warner Center Spec Office 1.2 Million S.F. Woodland Hills, California ® Ricon Build to Suit 200,000 S.F. Panorama City, California ® GM ("At the Plant") Build to Suit 1 Million S.F. Van Nuys, California o Haas Automation Build to Suit 420,000 S.F. Oxnard, California e General Research Corporation Build to Suit 80,000 S.F. Santa Barbara, California ® Standard Abrasives Build to Suit 80,000 S.F. Chatsworth, California ® Mail Marketing Build to Suit 420,000 S.F. Moorpark, California ® Warner Elektra Atlantic Build to Suit 200,000 S -F. Simi Valley, California ® The Cheesecake Factory Corporate Office/Bakery 65,000 S.F. Calabasas, California o Mechanix Wear Build to Suit 70,000 S,F. Valencia, California ® Grand Central Air Terminal Building Remodel / 32,000 S.F. Glendale, California Historical Renovation o Downtown Mesa Redevelopment Master Plan + 1,000,000 S.F. y Mesa, Arizona e Bank One Renovation 5 Story Office & 55,000 S.F. Mesa, Arizona New Parking Garage © Orange County Register Corporate Offices 150,000 S.F. Santa Ana, California 5 Story Bldg. & Parking Garage ® Long Beach Airport Business Ctr 8 & 10 Story Office 500,000 S.F. Long Beach, California Towers GOVERNMENT: General Services Agency Mineral Management Services, 80,000 S.F. tenant improvements, offices, computer room, etc., Camarillo, CA Environmental Health Care, 12,000 S.F. tenant improvements, offices, E.H.C. had some federal/funding, County of Santa Barbara, CA.;. Chambers for Judge Harry Pregerson, 5,000 S.F, Woodland Hills, CA.; Chambers for Judge Rusario Aldisert, Goleta, CA Page 10 MARK R. KELLOGG EDUCATION: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Bachelor of Architecture PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS: Licensed Architect, State of California EXPERIENCE: Mr. Kellogg has over thirty years of experience in the architectural, interior design and planning field. Mr. Kellogg's diverse background includes healthcare facilities, banking and financial institutions, high-tech research and development facilities, corporate offices and tenant improvement services for several major developers. The following is a partial list of experience and project involvement: Projects Building Type Size ® Citrix Online Corporate Offices 35,000 S.F, Goleta, California ® Univision Music Group Full Service Interiors 30,000 S.F. Woodland Hills, California ® DPA Labs Office/R&D 20,000 S.F. Simi Valley, California O ATK Missile Systems Office/Retail 70,000 S.F. Woodland Hills, California V Toyota Motor Sales Offices 45,000 S.F. Torrance, California o U. S. Census Bureau Offices 30,000 S. F Chatsworth, California o Cablevision Office/Studios 35,000 S.F. Chatsworth, California O Teledyne Controls Corporate Offices 124,000 S.F. EI Segundo, California o Wachovia Securities Tenant Improvement 35,000 S.F. Woodland Hills, California o General Research Corporation Corporate Offices 50,000 S.F. Santa Barbara, California e State of California Regional Offices 50,000 S.F. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control Chatsworth, California o ADC Fibermux Regional Offices, 65,000 S.F. Chatsworth, California Manufacturing ® Syncor International • Corporate Offices 60,000 S.F. Woodland Hills, California ® Reynolds & Reynolds Regional Offices 25,000 S.F. Chatsworth, California Customer Center Mark has also completed various tenant improvement work for Trust Company of the West, Cabot, Cabot & Forbes, Search Builders, The Halferty Company, Mar Ventures, Inc., Equitable, The Voit Companies, Lowe Enterprises Realty Services and Trammel Crow Company. Page 11 ANTHONY MOLINA EDUCATION: Sci-Arc Southern California Institute of Architecture Bachelor of Arts in Architecture EXPERIENCE: Mr. Molina has been practicing in the field of architecture for more than twenty five years. While serving as a Project Designer for PKDG, his duties include overseeing and coordinating the production of architectural drawings and coordination with various consultants. His background consists of working on numerous sizable Master Planning, Commercial Retail Centers, Office/R&D Buildings and Tenant Improvements projects including: Projects Building Type Size e Commonwealth Studios Film Studios 500,000 S.F. Moorpark, California ® Paseo Camino Real Retail / Office Building 500,000 S.F. Camarillo, California ® San Fernando Missions Bldg. Medical Office Building 30,000 S.F. San Fernando, California ® Patriot Commerce Center Offices / R&D 302,500 S.F. Moorpark, California o Washington Glencoe Mixed Use Building 25,000 S.F. Culver City, California ® Medical Analysis Systems Two -Story Offices / Labs ! 200,000 S.F. Camarillo, California Manufacturing • Bank One Five Story Office Building 55,000 S.F. Mesa, Arizona o North Ranch Country Club Tenant Improvements 25,000 S.F. Westlake Village, California e Marcasal Mixed Use 70,000 S.F. Culver City, California o Media Center Mixed Use 25,000 S.F. Burbank, California A Park One Exterior Remodel 40,000 S.F. Goleta, California Tenant Improvements o VCA Hospital 1 Offices Five Story Office 71,000 S.F. Santa Monica, California w/Subterranean Parking o Superstition Springs Office I R&D 1.2 Million S,F. . Mesa, Arizona o Lady Face Mountain Condominium 77,500 S.F. Agoura Hills, California o Mesa Town Center Master Planning +1,000,000 S.F. Mesa, Arizona Page 12 G EDWIN MACALINTAL EDUCATION: University of Santo Tomas, Manila, Philippines, Bachelor of Architecture 1985 EXPERIENCE: Mr. Macalintal has over twenty years of production and AutoCAD experience in site, shell, core and tenant improvements. He has served as Project Manager on a variety of projects. Below is a partial list of current and recent projects which he has been involved with: Projects Building Type Size ® ADC Fibermux Office/Manufacturing 65,500 S.F. Chatsworth, California Tenant Improvements o GRC International Two -Story Office 84,000 S.F. Santa Barbara, California Build to Suit o Dames & Moore Office Tenant Improvements 10,000 S.F. Santa Barbara, California ® Haas Automation One Story w/Mezzanine 420,000 S.F. Oxnard, California Office/Assembly/Marketing Build to Suit ® City of Mesa Master Plan + 1,000,000 S.F. Mesa, Arizona ® Wellpoint Health Networks Two Story Office 112,000 S.F. Newbury Park, California Build to Suit * County of Santa Barbara Tenant Improvements 14,000 S.F. Santa Barbara, California ® Dole Food Company Office Tenant Improvements 50,000 S.F. Westlake Village, California v University of California Office Tenant Improvements 40,000 S.F. Santa Barbara, California o Vivitar Assembly and R&D 52,000 S.F. Chatsworth, California Tenant Improvements e Kaiser Permanente Optical Office 12,000 S.F. Woodland Hills, California Tenant Improvements e Aquaria Office/Warehouse 86,500 S.F. Moorpark, California Tenant Improvements a Datametrics Corporation Assembly/Office 65,000 S.F. Woodland Hills, California Tenant Improvements a Haas Automation - Phase II One Story Office, R&D 200,000 S.F. Oxnard, California ® Medical Analysis Systems Two Story Office, R&D 200,000 S.F. Camarillo, California Build to Suit ® Matrix of Greater Los Angeles Two Story Bldg. Addition 22,000 S.F. Chatsworth, California Page 13 PROJECT TEAM / CONSULTANTS POLIQUIN KELLOGG DESIGN GROUP - ARCHITECT Principal in Charge BRIAN POLIQUIN Director of Interiors MARK KELLOGG Senior Designer ANTHONY MOLINA Senior Project Draftsman EDWIN MACALINTAL Master Planning and Site Design Project Supervisor for duration of project. Master Planning Coordinator Resource Project Architect Master Planning and Site Designer Preparation of Block Models Preparation of AutoCAD Design, Drawings and Documents. LEE NEWMAN & ASSOCIATES - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Principal Landscape Architect LEE NEWMAN President Design Development ROBERT BOMBARDIER Design Development & Systems Manager RYAN BRADDOCK Vice President Horticulture JOHN OBLINGER KEVIN READ — ECONOMIC CONSULTANT Economic Consultant KEVIN READ Landscape Site Designer Project Supervisor for duration of project. Landscape Site Designer Senior Project Manager Preparation of AutoCAD Design, Drawings and Documents Analysis of Economic Feasibility Study and Cost Evaluation Page 14 031 FIRM QUALIFICATIONS LNR WARNER CENTER Woodland Hills, California Owner: Ken O'Neill LNR Property Corporation 5700 Canoga Avenue Woodland Hills, CA 91367 [P] 818 206-3005 [F] 818 887-7578 SANTA BARBARA CORPORATE CTR Santa Barbara, California Owner:_ Andrew Bermant Bermant Development Co. 5383 Hollister Avenue, Suite 150 Santa Barbara, CA 93111 [P] 805 964-7200 [F] 805 964-2535 1.2 Million SF Office Buildings 180,000 SF Mixed Use / Retail / Office Construction Value: $120/SF (Shell Building) Construction Value: $150/SF $ 50/SF (Parking Structure) Completion Date: TBD Completion Date: 2007 General Contractor: Kevin Urban Snyder Langston Builders 17962 Cowan Irvine, CA 92614 [P] 949 863-9200 [F] 949 863-1087 COMMONWEALTH STUDIOS Moorpark, California Owner: Valerie Draeger Triiliad Development 270 Conejo Ridge Avenue, Suite 200 Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 [P] 805 379-9800 [F] 805 379-2718 General Contractor: Bob Larson Oltmans Construction Co. 270 Conejo Ridge Avenue, Suite 210 Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 [P] 805 495-9553 [F] 805 379-2718 500,000 SF Film Studios Construction Value: $140,000,000.00 Completion Date: June 2011 Page 15 General Contractor: Andrew Trabbucco Trabucco Commercial Construction 5383 Hollister Avenue, Suite 150 Santa Barbara, CA 93111 [P] 805 964-6654 [F] 805 895-4846 PASEO CAMINO REAL Camarillo, California Owner: Bob Selleck Selleck Properties 5655 Lindero Canyon Road, Suite 301 Westlake Village, CA 91362 [P] 818 991-7890 (F] 816 991-8811 General Contractor: Bud Cummings Valley Commercial Contractors 21110 Oxnard Street Woodland Hills, CA 91367 [P] 818 710-7838 [F] 818 710-7855 500,000 SF Retail / Office Construction Value: $170,000,000.00 Completion Date: In Progress CURRENT 1 RECENT PROJECT LIST MASTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS 0 CASCADES BUSINESS PARK - 1,500,000 SF Manufacturing, R & D Sylmar, California Office, Retail 0 GM "AT THE PLANT" - 1 Million SF Retail, Theater Van Nuys, California 70 Acres Manufacturing, R & D ® HAAS TECHNOLOGY CENTER - 1,500,000 SF Industrial, Oxnard, California 80 Acres Manufacturing 0 LNR WARNER CENTER - 1.2 Million SF Business Park Woodland Hills, California - 50,000 SF 2 -Story Office Carpinteria, California 350,000 SF 5 Story Office 0 MISSION OAKS - 1,000,000 SF Office, Manufacturing Camarillo, California R&D 0 NORTHEAST REDEVELOPMENT - 1 Mile Block Retail, Commercial, City of Mesa, Arizona Government 0 SUPERSTITION SPRINGS - 1,200,000 SF R & D, Office, Mesa, Arizona 70 Acres Manufacturing e THOUSAND OAKS - 250,000 SF Industrial, R & D, COMMERCE CENTER 20 Acres Manufacturing Newbury Park, California BUILDINGS m AT & T - 120,000 SF 2 -Story Office Mesa, Arizona Expansion a BANK ONE - 55,000 SF 5 Story Office & Mesa, Arizona Parking Garage o BEGA / USA - 80,000 SF Corporate Carpinteria, California Headquarters, Manufacturing ® CARPINTERIA BLUFFS OFFICE - 50,000 SF 2 -Story Office Carpinteria, California Shell & Core ® GENERAL RESEARCH CORP. - 80,000 SF 2 -Story Office Santa Barbara, California Build to Suit 0 HAAS AUTOMATION - 415,000 SF Manufacturing, Oxnard, California Corporate Office • JERRY LEIGH APPAREL - 190,000 SF Office, Manufacturing Van Nuys, California Distribution Build to Suit Page 16 8/ CURRENT / RECENT PROJECT LIST (Cont.) BUILDINGS a LOOP 101 BUSINESS PARK - 200,000 SF Office Industrial Phoenix, Arizona Business Park a MEDICAL ANALYSIS SYSTEMS - 200,000 SF Offices,Labs, Camarillo, Calffomia Manufacturing ® MISSION OAKS SPEC. - 140,000 SF Offices, Labs, Camarillo, California Manufacturing a M.S. AEROSPACE - 39,000 SF Manufacturing, Sylmar, California Corporate Office n NORTHPARK CHURCH Santa Clarita, California - 55,000 SF Educational / Church a RICON - 200,000 SF Office, Manufacturing Van Nuys, California Build to Suit a SEMTECH - 90,000 SF R & D Office Camarillo, California ® STANDARD ABRASIVES INC. - 75,000 SF Corporate Simi Valley, California Headquarters, Manufacturing ® SUPERSTITION SPRINGS - 50,000 SF Spec. R & D, Mesa, Arizona Manufacturing a THE IMPORT COLLECTION - 150,000 SF Office, Warehouse Van Nuys, California o VERATEX - 100,000 SF Office, Manufacturing Van Nuys, California > Warehouse ® WELLPOINT HEALTH NETWORKS - 112,500 SF 2 -Story Office Newbury Park, California Build to Suit ® WESTWIND TERRACE - 54,000 SF Office Mesa, Arizona e ZODAX - 100,000 SF Office, Manufacturing Van Nuys, California Warehouse a TOURNEY ROAD - 80,000 SF Office Building Valencia, California a SANTA BARBARA CORPORATE CTR - 180,000 SF Office, Retail and Mixed Use Van Nuys, California a MECHANIX WEAR - 70,000 SF 2 -Story Office/Warehouse Valencia, California Build to Suit Page 17 RELEVANT PROJECTS 1 REFERENCES CITY OF MESA (Master Plan) TOURNEY RD BUILDING Mesa, Arizona Santa Clarita, California 1 Million SF Redevelopment Master Plan 75,000 SF Dorothy Chimel I Laura Hyneman James Backer City of Mesa JS8 Development Co. Economic Development / Planning 27451 Tourney Road, Suite 100 55 North Center Street Valencia, CA Mesa, AZ 85201 [P] 661255-3275 [P] 480 644-0273 [F] 661 255-1137 [F] 480 644-2418 WASHINGTON GLENCOE GM "AT THE PLANT" Culver City, California Van Nuys, California 25,000 SF Mixed Use + 1 Million SF Build to Suit Kevin Read Tim Regan Bastion Development Voit Development Co. 586 3dh Street 21700 Oxnard Street Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Suite 350 [P] 310 545-9898 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 [P] 818 593-6235 MECHANiX WEAR AGOURA ROAD OFFICE BLDG. Valencia, California Agoura Hills, California 70,000 SF Build to Suit 85,000 SF Offices w/ 105,000 SF Subterranean Parking Jim Hale Len Kdstensen Mechanix Wear Realty Bancorp Equities 28525 Witherspoon Parkway 21800 Burbank Blvd. Valencia, CA 93036 Suite 330 [P] 661257-0474 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 [F] 661 257-0189 [P] 818 251-9911 [F] 818 251-9912 Page 18 3 REFERENCES Mr. Ken O'Neill LNR PROPERTIES CORP. 5700 Canoga Avenue, Suite 120 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 (818) 206-3005 Mr. Andrew Bermant BERMANT DEVELOPMENT 5383 Hollister Avenue, Suite 150 Santa Barbara, CA 93111 (805) 964-7200 Mr. Robert Larson OLTMANS CONSTRUCTION 270 Conejo Ridge Avenue, Suite 210 Thousand Oaks, CA 91361 (805) 4959553 Mr. James Backer JSB DEVELOPMENT, INC. 27441 Tourney Rd., Suite 260 Valencia, CA 91355 (661) 255-3275 Mr. Kevin Read BASTION, LLC 585 30TI Street Manhattan Beach, CA 90265 (310) 701-0282 Ms. Valerie Draeger TRILIAD DEVELOPMENT 270 Conejo Ridge Ave. #200 Thousand Oaks, CA 91361 (605) 379-9800 Mr. Robert Lumley BLT Enterprises 501 Spectrum Circle Oxnard, CA 93030 (805) 278-8220 Mr, Lee Dukehart VALLEY COMMERCIAL CONST. 21550 Oxnard Street #760 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 (818) 710-7843 Mr. Phil Modglin Mr. David Sweeney BEGAIUS STANDARD ABRASIVES, INC. 1000 Bega Way 9351 Deering Avenue Carpinteria, CA 93013 Chatsworth, CA 91311 (805) 684-0533 (818) 718-7070 Mr. Ron Kessler ORION REALTY 31332 Via Colinas, Suite 103 Westlake Village, CA 91362 (818) 575-9997 Mr. Gordon Morrell YARDI SYSTEMS 430 South Fairview Ave. Goleta, CA 93117 (805) 966-3373, Ext. 105 Page 19 3y I 171 [9iTRT# ' Al e ACORD- CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE 08125, 09 PRODUCER Dealey, Renton & Associates P. O. Box 10550 Santa Ana, CA 92711-0550 714 427-6810 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # INSURED Poliquin Kellogg Design Group 6400 Canoga Ave. Suite #215 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 INSURERA: Travelers Property Casualty Co of Am 25674 INSURER B: Travelers Casualty Ins. Co. of Ameri 19046 INSURER c: Travelers CasualtyBSurety Co of Amer 31194 INSURER D: INSURER E: COVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. L g TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER PDATE JOW90ffyj LILY EFF@CTIVE PDT IID ON LIMITS A GENERAL LIABILITY 6808885L823 03/15/09 03115/10 EACH OCCURRENCE $2,0Q0,000 DMAGE TO RENTED $1 QQO QQQ P -SIF �„�� X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY General Liab. CLAIMS MADE Fx-1 OCCUR excludes claims MED EXP (Any one parson) $10,000 PERSONAL 8 ADV INJURY s2_000,000 X Contractual Liab. arising Out of GENERAL AGGREGATE s4 000 000 the performance of professional GEN'L AGGREOATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS - COMPnP AGO s4,900,000 17 POLICY X PRD- LOC Services. A AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY BA8886L580 03115109 03/15110 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $2,000,000 ANY AUTO (Ea account) BODILY INJURY $ ALL OWNED AUTOS (Per parson) SCHEDULED AUTOS BODILY INJURY $ X HIRED AUTOS X NON -OWNED AUTOS (Per eccldenl) PROPERTY DAMAGE $ (Par accident) GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $ OTHER THAN EA ACC $ ANY AUTO AUTO ONLY: AGG $ EXCESSIUMBRELLA LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ AGGREGATE $ OCCUR FICLAIMS MADE $ $ DEDUCTIBLE $ RETENTION $ B WORKERS COMPENSATION AND UB6543Y743 05101109 05101110 TH- X WC STATU- OER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $11,000100D EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETORlPARTNERIEXECUTIVE OFFICERIMFMBER EXCLUDED? E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $1,000,000 E.L. DISEASE • POLICY LIMIT s1 000 00D Ifyes, dascAbe under SPECIAL PROVISIONS be C OTHER Professional 105281800 05/01/09 05/01/10 $2,000,000 per claim Liability $2,000,000 annl aggr. Claims Made DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES I EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT) SPECIAL PROVISIONS Re: All Operations as pertains to named Insured. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Community Development Department Attn: Darin Seegmiiler 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 ACORD 25 (2001108) 1 of 1 #S2577851M256479 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLeO BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL • n DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED To THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO Do SO SHALL IMPOSE No OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS DR REPRESENTATIVES. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATN Page 20 TMN © ACORD CORPORATION 1888 J5 M� 0 L. Newman Design Group, Inc. ■ Landscape Architecture ■ Planning ■ Horticulture ■ Biological Restoration 31300 Via Colinas, Suite 104 Westlake Village, CA 91362-3924 PH: 818-99-5056 FAX: 818-991-3478 Indg@lndg.net Page 21 3 � We believe that landscape architecture is a three-dimensional art form; it is the discipline that combines people and their environment together in harmony. The land, flora, fauna, air and water are the elements that people need for their personal and spiritual development. Our goals are to be creative in developing natural and man-made projects while providing the project with excellence. We strive to blend projects into the surrounding environments in a cost-effective manner while making them personal, inspirational and functional. Over the past thirty odd years, the nucleus of the organization has worked diligently supporting the "team approach" to projects. We have endeavored to provide the Client and User with a sense of pride and accomplishment. Developments do not need to be an imposition upon the land; they should be considerate of life and land form requirements. They need to blend with the surroundings while being exciting, imaginative and fiscally responsible. Mr. Newman, owner and founder of L. Newman Design Group, Inc. has been in business since 1969. The company employs a staff of 15 professionals consisting of landscape architects, planners, horticulturists and administrative personnel. We approach each project from an analytical prospective, taking into consideration all elements of a site: the type of task required, the owner, the governmental agencies, and its users. Our clientele includes large landholders, commercial developers, residential developers, and governmental agencies. Our involvement commences with research and analysis of data. We provide schematic designs, sketches, delineating goals for the Client, preliminary plans, cost analysis, documentation, and working drawings. We are adamant that we participate in construction observations in order to insure compliance and excellence to the approved design documents. ■ Page 22 L. Newnan Design Group, Inc. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ARCHITECT AND TDE ]LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 77:is Agreement is made this day of , 2009, and is between: THE ARCHITECT.• Poliquin Kellogg Design Group 6400 Canoga Avenue 4215 Woodland Malls, CA 91367 PH: (818) 313-6813 FX: (818) 313-6817 Attn: Mr. Brian Poliquin and THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.• L. Newman Design Group, Inc. 31300 Via Colinas, Suite 104 Westlake Village, CA 91.362-3924 PIS: (818) 991-5056 1+'X: (818) 991-3473 E-mail: lndg@lndg.net for THE PROJECT.- The ROJECT The landscape development of thefollowing is hereinafter referred to as 'the project': CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Sierra Gateway City of Santa Clarlta, CA, Page 23 Poliquin Kellogg Design Group Sierra Gateway -2- LEELY—TEN-L, is the intention of the Architect to engage the Landscape Architect (Consultant) to perforin the described design services as mentioned herein: AR7TCLE 1 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN PHASE A. We will provide two (2) landscape plans at a 1 " = 30' scale wherein we will describe all the planting concepts for each design given to us by the Architect. B. We will provide one (1) illustrated site cross section that illustrates the landscape conceptfor each design. C We will provide tnvo (2) gendered landscape conceptplansfor each conceptual design. The Architect will provide two (2) concept plans. D. We will provide a native and drought tolerant plant list drat follows the local codes, environment and governmental policies. We will coordinate with the biologist on the creek area. E We will provide one (1) conceptual landscape budget on each concept developed by the Architect for the owner's approval. F. We will conduct one (1) site i4sit io familiarize ourselves with the project environment. G. We will attend meetings. Fifteen (1 S) hours are provided tinder this agreement to be billed, as used, far both concepts. H. We will provide hai•dscape and site design input to Poliquin Kellogg Design Group. L We will coordinate oak tree preservation with the Architect utilizing their Oak- tree aktree report. H. ARTICLE11 ARCHITECT'S RESPONSIBILITY A. The Architect shall provide to the Consultant electronic files of the project' site "if mwailable ". 77iis it formation shall be CD ROM and 100 MB zip disk (Windows IBMPC Formal) AutoCAD f les 2000. In addition, he shall provide and pay for the following upon request by the Consultant, !f authoilzed in whiting by the Architect prior to its execution: Page 24 39 Poliquin Kellogg Design Group Sierra Gateway -3- Outside eonsrdting services, (e g. Agronomist, Strnctu al Engineer, Geologist, Eleeh•ical and mechanical Consultants, Professional Illuso-ator, etc) where they are required by the governing authority or when, inn the best professional fudgment of fire Consultant, they are necessary to the adequate performance of bis services, These services shall have prior written approval by Architect. If these services are authorized, a» additional fee will be charged for coordination. B. The Architect shall cooperate in every reasonable way with the Consultant so as to allow him to provide his services in an expeditious and continuous effort. C The Architect shall examine all documents supplied to hien in order to f dly comprehend the workperfo7ned by the Consultant. D. The Architect/Client shall allow the Consultant access to the site during progr ess of the work. E. Provide Architect/Engineering drawings at an appropriate scale and in a timely manner. F. Provide conditions of approval or other pertinent data to enable the Consultant to understand the issues and scope of work. G. Neither the Architect nor his subcontractors shall make changes in the approved drawing unless authorized in writing by the consultant and all applicable Federal, State, County and City Agencles. The Architect shall be responsible for• all liabilities arising out of the changes wade by Its subcontmclors. Ill. dRTICj,,UIII WORKNOTINCLUDED UNDER ZUELLMSUMAC,RF.EMENT A. Plan Check Fees, Pemit Fees, and Landscape Review Fees as may be required by tine governingpublic authorities (including fees of consultants hired by those authorities). B. Reproductions of Landscape Drawings and Speciflcadons, cornputer related costs (i.e. plotting, disks, etc.). C Oatside consulting senIces as described lit ARTICLEII, Paragraph A., 1. D. Changes in the Drawings, Reports, and Sketches requested mid authorized by the Client. E. Landscape Observations. F Meetings (over and above those hours mentioned herein). Page 25 Poliquin Kellogg Design Group Sierra Gateway -4- G. This project's fee is based ipon completion by the Consultant within one (1) year ft-orn the date of execution of this Agreement. In the event that tine "project " is developed in more phases, the Consultant shall be entitled an increase in fees to be negotiated with the Architect. Consideration shall be cost of living increases (minimum of 10%), change in office rates or a change in scope of work. K One Preliminar), Plan shall be provided. Other designs or changes in can sept shall be negotiated moth the Architect. L Special Budgets. J. Phasing. IC Photography. I V ARTICLE IV PAYMENT TO THE CONSULTANT A. If a purchase order is required far pawiicrrt on our contract, it artist be stibrnitted with the signed contract. B. Under no cirermtstances shall the Architect withhold fees for sen�ices because they have not been paid by their entity. Complete payment oil invoices shall be due this Consultant prior to atry final certification or compliance letters. C. Reimbursables are to be billed for actual expenditures plus 10% handling charge, for: 1. Cost of collation, printing/plotting or copying drawings, specifications, reports, photography and photographic reproduction of drawings and documents; 2. Transportation costs, lire tise of personal automobiles @ S. S0 per unite, rental vehicles, and regularly scheduled commercial airline flights; 3. Food and lodging; 4. Long distance telephone charges (outside of southern Calornia); S. Hiring outside consulting services or subcontractors; d. Expenses beyond original submittals for reproductions of'reports and/or snaps; 7. Computer Expenses (i.e, plotting, disks, etc.) D. Preliminary Phase.............................................................................$25,000.00 FEESDUE CONSUL M7 ........... .............. _.............................. t ................. ...,...$25,000.00 Page 26 q— / Poliguin Kellogg Design Group Sierra Gateway -5- E. Additional services shall be negotiated and atttho►•iaed ir► ivriii►►g prior• to services being performed at the follalving hourly rates_ PRINCIPAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT #1 $195.00 PRINCIPAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT #2 135.00 PRINCIPAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT #3 113.00 SENIOR ASSOCIATE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT #1 105.00 SENIOR ASSOCIATE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT #2 90.00 ASSOCIATE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 70.00 L.,MSCAPE DRAFTSPERSON 60.00 HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT 80.00 HORTICULTURAL TECHNICIAN 45.00 PRINCIPAL LANDSCAPE OBSERVER #1 195.00 PRINCIPAL LANDSCAPE OBSERYER #2 135.00 PRINCIPAL LANDSCAPE OBSERVER #3 115.00 SEMOR ASSOCIATE LANDSCAPE OBSERVER #1 10.5.00 SENIOR ASSOCIATE LANDSCAPE OBSERVER #2 40.00 ASSOCIATE LANDSCAPE OBSER TIER 70.00 CLERICAL 35.00 CONSULTATIONITESTIMONY/PUBLIC HEARINGS 250.00 1. The Architect shall promptly pay the ►not►thly invoices of the Consultant for services and reinibnrsables within 30 days front date of receipt of invoice. Imoices not paid within 60 days shaft accrue interest at 8% per annum oil the unpaid balance. Y. ARTIC A Y ARCHITECT'S RIQHT TO TERMINATE CONTRACT A. 79►e Archiiect and/or Consultant have the right to abandon or suspend any portion of the buildingproject prior to the completion of the Landscape Architecdmal Agreement. In said event, the Consultant shall be paid the amount due him for set -vices actually performed and completed to the date as determined raider ARTICLE IV. YL ARTICLE YI TIME SCHEDULE A. Completion of the Report Documents and Specificatlons shall be no later than the Architect's agreed upon schedule. B, Extension of this time schedule shall be valid only in writing to the Consultant by the Architect. C. Time is of the essence to the pe►,jbrmanee of this Ag►•een►ent's time sel►ed:►le. Page 27 Poliguint Kellogg Design Group Sierra Gateway -6- VII. A,RTf= VII. A7-QRNzY'SF ES A. Should either party hereto reasonably retain an attorney to enforce the terms of this Agreement, then the prevailing parry shall recover costs and reasonable attorney's fees. VIII. ARTICLE M IND FINS A. To the f rllest extent permitted by law, the Architect agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the Consultant, its agents, employees and representatives harmless from and against all claims, damages, costs, expenses and liabilities (including attorney'sfees) collectively, ("Claims') arising out of Architect's negligence or wil id misconduct in connection with the Project of the perforniance or non- performance of its Services under this Agreement, regardless of any acth a or passive negligence by or an behalf of Consultant, but not to the extent the loss arises from Consultant's willfrtl nrisconduct. LK ARTIGLEiX. UNENFORCEABLE,P.ROVISION A. If wry of the provisions of this agreement are unenforceable the balance shall be enforced. X. 4MTICLEX ENTIREAGREEMENT A. This Agreement constitutes the whole Agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject hereof, and neither party nor any of its agents or employees has made representations, except as specifically provided herein. B. Neither party in executing or performing this Agreement is relying upon any statement or information to whomsoever made or given, directly or indirectly, verbally ar in wilting, by any individual or corporation except as specifically provided herein. EXECUTED on this day and year first above written. SIGNATURES: Poliguin Kellogg Design Group Date IEVOD 6. 09 r Group, I m Date ASIA, Cal fornia State License #1319 Page 28 3� Lee Newman Licensed Landscape Architect California License #1314 Mr. Newman is the principal officer of the firm. He supervises management in addition to maintaining hands-on designing of projects and forward planning. Mr. Newman's thirty-nine years of experience (since 1969) in design spans a multitude of projects, as well as travel to foreign countries and cultures to study architectural and garden design. Mr. Newman is affiliated with the following organizations: B.I.A. (Building Industry Association),A.S.L.A. (American Society of Landscape Architects), W.W.F. (World Wildlife Fund, Wilderness Society, Nature Conservancy), SBATAC (Los Angeles County Regional Planning, Biological and Habitat Management Team), M.i.R.M. (Sales and Marketing Council Speaker), and the American Horticultural Society. Mr. Newman holdsa Bachelorof Sclence in environmental design with a major in landscape architecture and an art minor from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. Robert L. Bombardier Licensed Landscape Architect California License #2464 Mr. Bombardier has more than thirty-five years of experience in the field of Landscape Architecture (joining the firm in 1974). He has been licensed as a Landscape Architect since 1964. Mr. Bombardier is responsible for design development, land planning, client relations, production, scheduling, technical support, irrigation hydraulics, plan review, construction management and documentation. He has completed a multitude of award-winning, diverse projects, both public and private. . Page 29 ® L Newman Design Group, Inc. / IN ► ..:W I UA ► ►: IJ,) . ►k V ►) k')&J W ZF:.0 4J Ryan Braddock Design Development And Systems Manager Mr. Ryan Braddock joined the firm in 1998. He has completed a wide range of projects including Hotels, Public and Private Parks, Housing Developments, Commercial and Residential. Mr. Ryan Braddock is a Senior Project Manager. Coupled with these duties he is responsible for design development, production, construction management, and documentation. He also manages the office computer system and operations standards. Mr. Ryan Braddock holds a Bachelor of Architecture Degree from California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo. He has been practicing Landscape Architecture and Design for over ten years. His degree in Architecture gives him the ability to provide workable, functional and cost effective architectural elements for our Landscape Architecture endeavors. John Oblinger Certified Arborist #We -6820a Mr. John Oblinger entered the field of ornamental horticulture by working in landscape maintenance and installation, then in retail and wholesale nursery operations including plant propagation. He joined the firm in 1987 and is the principal investigator for residential and commercial horticultural studies that include tree assessment, project coordination, and development of landscape maintenance programs. He is an experienced AutoCAD user. Mr. Oblinger is associated with the Conejo Valley Botanic Garden (past Board Member) and the California Native Plant Society. Mr. Oblinger holds a Bachelors degree from the University of Massachusetts and has been practicing horticulture for twenty-six years. . Page 30 L. Newman Design Group, Inc. The following outline will delineate the nature and extent of services available from our organization: Special L,andscane Architgctural Se _ Ices: ■ Feasibility Studies and Site Analysis • Master Site Development and Landscape Planning • Building, Siting and Parking Layouts ■ Resort and Recreational Facilities Planning ■ Special Outdoor Use Areas Planning ■ Resource Management Maps Landscape Architectural &,rvices: ■ Review of Site Information • Schematic Design ■ Preliminary Design ■ Demolition Plans ■ Site Plans ■ Construction and Dimensioning Plans ■ Construction Details ■ Grading and Drainage Plans ■ Irrigation and Planting Plans ■ Lighting Plans ■ Special Features; Lake, Streams, Waterfalls and Entry Buildings ■ Construction Budget Projections • Landscape Observations/Certifications ■ Xerascape Design • Green Design Special Fnyoronmental Diol aical/Horticultural Services: ■ Native Habitat Restoration Plans • Tree Consultation ■ Special Horticultural Reports ■ Oak, and other, Tree Reports ■ Focused Environmental Impact Reports ■ Landscape Maintenance Manuals • Field Evaluation and Cost Projections for Tree Transplanting and Protection • Native Plant Mitigation Plans ■ Oak Tree Mitigation Pians ■ Compliance Plans and Reports for California Department of Fish & Game, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Army Corps of Engineers. E Page 31 4-4, ® L. Newman Design Group, Inc. community Master Plans ftlideotiall • DOS VIENTOS RANCH; Newbury Park, CA -A Master Landscape Planned community of 2,300 homes. ■ LANG RANCH; Thousand Oaks, CA - Master landscape plan development and oak tree mitigation for a 2,257 -unit housing project. ■ BIG SKY; Simi Valley, CA—A master planned community with parks. ■ CITY OF CAMARILLO; Old Town Streetscape; 2006 APWA Project of the Year • CITY OF SOLVANG; Downtown revitalization ■ CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS; Redevelopment agency; Commercial revitalization • CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS ENTRY MONUMENT • CITY OF WESTLAKE VILLAGE; Entry Monument and Citywide Streetscapes 17.1771 rn I MWU, 17ni i, M r 7 1; . i.!. ■ UNIVERSITY VILLAGE; Thousand Oaks, CA- Retirement community. ■ BELMONT VILLAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA ■ THE TERRACE AT HIDDEN HILLS - BELMONT, Los Angeles County, CA • CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, Marina Del Rey, CA • SUNFLOWER CONDOMINIUMS; Palm Springs, CA • RANCHO CAMARILLO LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT; Camarillo, CA ■ CAPE/COLONY/REGATTA; Ventura, CA ■ HIDDEN CANYON; Thousand Oaks, CA ■ FLORIDA SENIOR HOUSING; Coral Gables, FL 0 Page 32 ® L. Newman Design Group, Inc. Sc4inMercla1 ■ MUSEUM OF PRESIDENTIAL TRAVEL, REAGEN LIBRARY; Simi Valley, CA ■ EXXON OIL CORPORATE OFFICES; Thousand Oaks, CA ■ NORTH RANCH COUNTRY CLUB; Westlake Village, CA ■ WESTON-MANDALAY MARKET PLACE; Port Hueneme, CA ■ AMGEN CORPORATE BIOTECH BUILDINGS; Thqusand Oaks, CA ■ MT. SINAI MEMORIAL PARKS; Simi Valley/Los Angeles, CA ■ DOLE WORLD HEADQUARTERS; Westlake Village, CA Hotels ■ DOLE/FOUR SEASONS; Hotel and Spa, Westlake Village, CA ■ HARBORTOWN INN RESORT, Ventura, CA ■ RESIDENCE INN; Hilton; Westlake Village, CA ■ NEIGHBORHOOD INNS; Chatsworth, CA Schools • CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY at Hayward/ Fullerton/ Los Angeles; Los Angeles, CA • CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY; Thousand Oaks, CA a PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, Malibu, CA EKI ■ WESTLAKE PARK; Westlake Village, CA ■ SPRING MEADOW PARK; Thousand Oaks, CA ■ STECKLE PARK; Santa Paula, CA ■ THREE SPRINGS PARK; Westlake Village, CA • DOS VIENTOS PARKS; Newbury Park, CA ■ RED MOUNTAIN PARK; Ventura County, CA E Page 33 ® L. Newman ' Design Group, Inc. ■ JORDAN RANCH; Ventura County, CA- 2,300 Acres, 750 Homes and a P.G.A. Tournament Golf Course. • TAPO COUNTRY CLUB; Simi Valley, CA- Master landscape architectural site development; a 194 unit housing project. This public golf course is designed by J. Michael Poellot. ■ DRY CANYON COUNTRY CLUB; Simi Valley, CA- Master landscape architectural design site development for 80 single-family housing unit. The golf course architect is Roy Dye. it NORTH RANCH GOLF COURSE; Thousand Oaks, CA- Provided master landscape planting and oak tree protection work for course. Provided landscape architectural design services for original country club. Furthermore, provided design and construction services for waterfall and lakes. • LAKE SHERWOOD RANCH; Ventura County, CA- 850 unit golf course development; provided the developer with landscape architectural design services for the country club; tennis facilities, entry features, housing units, oak tree mitigation measures and management reports. ■ RANCHO PACIFICA GOLF COURSE; Simi Valley, CA- Oak tree management and resource plan. ■ OAK CREEK GOLF COURSE; Santa Clarita, CA - 36 -hole public golf course. Oak tree consultant, vegetation restoration consultant and landscape architecture for golf course and clubhouse. • ELSMERE CANYON LANDFILL PROJECT, Los Angeles County, CA • TRACT 46628; Palos Verde, CA - Coastal Bluff Restoration • TAPO CANYON HABITAT RESTORATION; Simi Valley, CA ■ CANYON OAK COUNTRY CLUB; Topanga, CA • HIDDEN OAKS, Simi Valley, CA BIG SKY RANCH, Simi Valley, CA ■ MT. SINAI MEMORIAL PARKS, Simi Valley, CA . Page 34 ® L Newman Design Group, Inc. The following is a list of clients for whom we have performed oak tree studies. CLIENT au QUANTITY Ahmanson Land Development Ahmanson Ranch - Ventura County 10,000 Ben Johnson Homes Tract 2996 - Thousand Oaks 136 B.K.K. Corporation Elsmere Canyon - LA County 4,250 Continental Communities Tract 49159 - Calabasas 1,026 Continental Communities Tract 47927 - LA County 451 Daon Corporation Cypress Point - Santa Barbara 501 Griffin Homes Hidden Canyon - Thousand Oaks 201 Heller Construction Paramount Ranch - LA County 549 Jefferson Development Lake Hollywood - Los Angeles 361 Lang Ranch Company Lang Ranch - Thousand Oaks 2,500 Leisure Technology Tract 43593 - LA County 782 Metropolitan Insurance Tract 3803 - Ventura County 150 Micor Development Hope Ranch - LA County 2,044 Murdock Development Lake Sherwood - Ventura County 10,000 Robinson Golf Design Sand Canyon - Santa Clarita 899 Pacifica Corporation Black Lake - San Luis Obispo County 327 PIA Sports Properties Jordan Ranch -Ventura County 3,767 Prudential Insurance North Ranch - Thousand Oaks 6,000 Salvation Army Camp Gilmore - LA County 847 Shapell Industries MGM Ranch - Thousand Oaks 201 Shea Homes Big Sky- Simi Valley 150 Summit Architects SOKA University - LA County 2,419 Watt -Land Tract 45882 - LA County 529 Western Pacific Parker Ranch- Simi Valley 300 Page 35 L. Newman Design Group, Inc. ■ CONSULTANT FOR "OLD GLORY", Santa Clarita's Largest Oak Ever Moved, 42' Sq. Box • PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; BOB HOPE PROPERTY; Ventura County, CA -10,000+ Oaks • PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, NORTH RANCH; Los Angeles/ Ventura Counties, CA - 5,000+ Oaks ■ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; Calabasas, CA -1,500 Oaks ■ TREE CONSULTANT; Hidden Hills, CA. ■ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; Sherwood, CA- 10,000+ Oaks Page 36 ® l.. Newman Design Group, Inc. Community Master Plan Big Sky Ranch - Simi Valley, CA • Clients: Shea Homes, DR Horton, and Standard Pacific • Project Description: A 1,600 lot master planned community. • Service Provided: Master Planning, Oak Tree Consulting, Model Homes, Nine Fully Developed Tracts and Residential Estate Lots. • Project Duration: 2000-2009 • Water Feature • Oak Transplants 1, Central Irrigation Design r Landscape Design • Greenbelts • .. :'.711 � S�id1' .: uTi'". . • Hardscape • Fencing • Individual Tracts • Model Homes • Themed Signage ® L Newman Design Group, Inc. S r•f• •F +• r t n '�� rS.+4d -`�`hN r �'j .� !� z t C � ,,,E • 1 �� Y�tr! ., +zy �,` ' }.: �'• 501-, Paae 37 501-, Community Master Plan Dos Vientos Ranch - Newbury Park, CA • Clients: Operating Engineers and Miller Brothers • Project Description: A 2,300 home master planned community, recreation parks with sports fields, lighting, open space play area, recreational courts and children's play areas. • Service Provided; Master Planning, Landscape Architecture, Coordination with the City of Thousand Oaks Planning and Conejo Recreation and Park District. Several individual tracts within the community for various developers. • Project Duration: 1977 through 2009 • Entry Features • Meandering Walks • Neighborhood Parks • Individual Tracts • Various Gated Communities • Model Homes • Themed Entry Monument Structures • Streetscapes ;sf, • Walls and Fencing • Wildlife Corridors • Overall "Old World" _ Themed Tile Signage and White Stucco Walls ® L. Newman Page 38 ..................... _. r _..... _ Design Group, Inc. 53 Community Master Plan Lang Ranch - Thousand Oaks, CA • Client: Lang Ranch Company • Project Description: A master planned community with large open space, private residences, streetscapes, park areas and individual tract development. • Service Provided: Oak Tree Consulting, Master Planning, Landscape Architecture, Coordination with City of Thousand Oaks, Conejo Recreation & Park District and Fish and Game. • Project Duration: 1988 through 1998 • Biological Restoration • Streetscapes • Fencing N ® L. Newman Design Group, Inc. Page 39 Transplanted Oaks with Themed Entry Features Gated Individual Residential Tracts • Hardscape and Meandering Sidewalks Civic, Governmental and State City'of Camarillo - Ventura Boulevard `Old Town' Streetscape • Client: The City of Camarillo • Project Description: One mile of streetscape renovation for commercial and retail storefronts. • Service Provided: Design for hardscape, entry monuments, arbors, fencing, sculptures, pottery, lighting, landscape, central irrigation system and construction management assistance. • Project Duration: 2002 - 2008 • Awards: 2008 APWA Project of the Year • Median Planting • . Specimen Trees - Box Size - Craned In place • Parking • Trellis Arbors • Sculptures ■. . ® L. Newman Design Group, Inc. Page 40 • Nostalgic Light Poles • Site Furniture • Columns with Tile • Pottery • Custom Skateboard Clips • Paving Patterns • Specimen Palms • Irrigation for Planters and Pottery S5 Retirement Community / Multiple Housing University Village - Thousand Oaks, CA • Client: Continuing Life Communities • Project Description: A 60 -acre retirement community including a restaurant and medical facility in a park like preserve with numerous garden, recreational amenities and biological preservation. • Service Provided: Oak tree Consulting, Master Planning, Landscape Architecture, Structural Design, Swimming Facilities, Water Features, Trellis Arbors, Site Observation and coordination with the City of Thousand Oaks Planning and COSCA. • Project Duration: 2003 through 2008 Trellises . Hardscapes and Patios .-, • Water Feature ;.' . Pool and Spa Design Irrigation Design • Ornamental Entry Gates • Monument Signage • Landscape ■ ® L. Newman Page 41 Design Group, Inc. J,b Commercial Dole Food Company World Headquarters - Westlake Village, CA • Client: Dole Food Company • Project Description: Corporate Office Facilities • Service Provided: Landscape Architecture, site design, bid process, field observations. • Project Duration: 1997-2001 Water Features Transplanted Ornamental Trees 1 • Landscape Design Structural Design Coordination • ADA Accessibility k` a �.�1�R'rw' ••an?old ,,.,a: �� :; � �,'� tits^' � � �.a ��t4�+"'�i '�rFi•:. y , • Hardscapes • Private Courtyards • Walls and Fencing • Signage • On Slab Planters ■ ® L. Newman Page 42 Design Group, Inc. Hotels Four Seasons Hotel - Westlake Village, CA • Client: Westlake Wellbeing Properties • Project Description: A five star Hotel, TV Studio, Spa and Medical Center with extravagant gardens and numerous amenities. • Service Provided: Tree Consulting, Master Planning, Landscape Architecture, Structural Design and Large Scale Water Features. • Project Duration: 2003 through 2008 d }w` � A •�� �'x �•}� t�ie �� r. • •f S } •• r ,•, f: 'i 'Fal, i'M � _�y�t4� �' �� flys y "'F _� �(. ..;p..S�; .. j:.- ��/IIJ �'RyR•r gem W; Fh �'� i�► � • �, �•�� ! Vii.. !r*. 'ja•. y,�✓Fk ,`� 4 � � ' r %��/ r��' �;,.. .�{� i • f � el lye .: t 7,, rA: < 4 � �I {; 4 4 {��y t1: A' • � T • �: I I I Comnanu Name AECOM Contact Mr. Glen Hille ehone No. (805) 644-9704 Behr Browers Architects, Inc. Mr. Francisco Behr (805) 496-1101 Mr. Mike Browers B & E Engineers Mr. Ramy Awad (626) 446.4449 Castle & Cooke Mr. Arnold Savrann (310) 209-3809 City of Camarillo (Planning Department) Mr. Ed Burns (805) 388-5366 City of Moorpark Mr. Joe Fiss (805) 517-6200 City of Thousand Oaks Mr. John Prescott (805) 449-2114 City of Westlake Village . Mr. Ray Taylor (818) 706-1613 Continuing Life Communities Mr. Bob Bouchard (805) 241-3317 County of Ventura (Engineering) Mr. Karl Novak (805) 654-3706 Haaland Group Mr. Dale Ortmann (805) 497-4554 John Laing Homes Mr. Bill Rattazzi (818) 267-3700 Miller Brothers Development Co. LLC Mr. Arlen Miller (818) 871-2900 Pardee Homes Mr. Marc Cannon (661) 222-3200 Sherwood Development Company Mr. Bob Parmele (805) 496-1833 VTN West, Inc. Mr. Bill Egerdahl (818) 779.8740 Willdan Associates Mr. John Knipe (805) 653-6597 ■ Page 44 ® L. Newman Design Group, Inc. Kevin Po Read ad Bastion Deve2 pmenit November 5, 2009 Mr. Brian Poliquin POLIQUIN KELLOGG DESIGN GROUP 6400 Canoga Avenue, Suite 215 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 RE: SIERRA GATEWAY MASTER PLAN Dear Brian, Pursuant to our recent conversations, please accept this proposal for the financial analysis of Sierra Gateway Project (the `Development"): Scope of Work: There will be up to three (3) Conceptual Master Plans from which two (2) selected Conceptual Master Plans will require the following services: • Assistance in the planning and design of the site plan and product mix of the Development; • Underwrite the proposed Development scheme. Necessary to the underwriting will be a market evaluation of the future most likely tenant -mix, demand, potential phasing of the Development and projected absorption of space in the Development; • Pricing of the Development, including hard costs (site work, infrastructure, building costs), soft costs (design, permits and fees, leasing commissions, etc.), and financing costs. Included in this analysis will be a land residual valuation for the Development; • Coordinate with the City of Santa Clarita Planning and Finance Departments to determine the fiscal impact of the proposed development plan. The above scope of work is based on my understanding of your needs with regard to evaluating the efficacy of the future proposed Development and its potential future economic impact for the City. If there are any additional items required by the City in the planning and evaluation of the future Development, please advise me at your earliest convenience. Fee: The fee for the above scope of work is as follows: Economic Analysis Two (2) Conceptual Master Plan $ 9,250.00 Final Economic Analysis Economic Analysis based on Final Master Plan $ 6,250.00 TOTAL $15,500,00 Brian, 1 look forward to working with you and the City of Santa Clarita on this Project. Sincerely, <&46L A ,Redd Kevin P. Read Page 45 Kewhn Po Rand Kevin Read has worked with Bastion Development since March 2005. Kevin is currently managing Bastion Development's California property portfolio, including Washington Glencoe, a 19 condominium unit mixed-use project and Washington Inglewood, a 42 unit mixed-use Project, both located in Culver City. Kevin has more than 20 years of real estate, finance, and investment experience. Prior to his involvement with Bastion, Kevin was Vice President of Acquisitions and Development at LNR Property Corp. (Lennar), a National real estate investment and development company. While at LNR, Kevin either purchased and developed a wide range of property types, including retail, industrial, office, urban mixed-use centers. Kevin's past projects at LNR included LNR Warner Center, a 1.3 million square foot mid -rise office Campus located in the Warner Center (Woodland Hills) California; Washington Square, the adaptive re -use of a 225,000 square foot office Project into a 115 unit condominium and retail Project located in Venice, California; and Philadelphia Place, a 113 acre, 2.5 million square foot industrial development located in Ontario, California. Prior to the formation of LNR Property Corp, in 1996-1997, Kevin acted as an Asset Manager for Kearney Street, a joint venture of Lennar Properties and Morgan Stanley Real Estate Fund Partnerships. While at Kearney Street Kevin repositioned and sold a variety of property types acquired through distressed loan portfolios, including office, retail, multi -family and vacant land. Total value of properties sold was in excess of $100 million. Prior to LNR/Kearney Street, from 1993-1995 Kevin served as the Portfolio Manager for the Trident Group, a Los Angeles -based developer of office and retail properties. While at Trident, he managed a portfolio of over 40 office and retail properties comprising a total of.1.3 million square feet and participated in the acquisition of over $150 million of office and retail properties. Previously, Kevin spent five years in the Real Estate Investment Group at Jones Lang Wootton where he brokered the acquisition and disposition of over $300 million of commercial real estate. Kevin earned a Masters of Business Administration from the Anderson School at the University of California at Los Angeles and a Bachelors of Arts in Business Economics and English from the University of California at Santa Barbara. Kevin resides in Manhattan Beach with his wife and two children. Page 46 Jill of U fel� < "� `d alaic Ig � g.� HI f1 fN'Ir Nrtl IL, LL, cI: ^,y PJNNJ j 1a5 6g 7T�R 1=J yNpN(N(��N M1ry�\Nh Yy YY d N y. �JINNJIN of ILI < n �• � SOY Di V.�O.Y 9,( xi xa c9 w 81 0 =F) I is 4 J o. of let, 14 f-4 w I it t ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Project Title and Master Case Number: Lead Agency name & address: Contact Person and phone number: Sierra Crossing Master Case No. 08-033 Conditional Use Permit No. 08-005 Minor Use Permit No. 08-008 Oak Tree Permit No. 08-006 Initial Study No. 08-003 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Ben Jarvis, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department (661) 255-4330 Project Location: The proposed project is located at 23300 Newhall Avenue (formerly known as San Fernando Road) in the City of Santa Clarita, in the County of Los Angeles. The project site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway, west of the Antelope Valley (SR -14) Freeway. Applicant's name and address: Property Owner and address: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation(s): SFXS Partners, LLC 24933 San Fernando Road Santa Clarita, CA 91321 SFXS Partners, LLC 24933 San Fernando Road Santa Clarita, CA 91321 Community Commercial Community Commercial Planned Development Overlay (CC(PD)). Proiect Descri)tion and Setting: Retional Settin The project site is located at a southern gateway entry to Santa Clarita, adjacent to State Route 14 (Antelope Valley Freeway). The area currently has limited, freeway -oriented commercial uses and is located in the City's Newhall Community. Newhall was founded in 1876 and was the first location of permanent settlement in the Santa Clarita Valley. The town grew in conjunction with the railroad and oil industries and was later the setting for motion picture and filming ranches in the early 1900s. As a community, Newhall has retained its identity as an old western town. This identity is reflected in local architecture as well as cultural resources such as the Western Walk of Stars and the William S. Hart Regional Park. As the oldest community in the Santa Clarita Valley, Newhall is home to numerous historic resources. Historic areas are primarily located in the downtown area along Main Street (a portion of the former San Fernando Road), at Heritage Junction located within William S. Hart Park, and in nearby canyons and neighborhoods. Recently, there have been significant changes in Newhall as part of a major community redevelopment effort. As part of the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan and the City's Beautification Master Plan, San Fernando Road was renamed to better reflect the road's relationship to the local area. The roadway portion through downtown Newhall was renamed "Main Street" and now serves as the backbone for downtown redevelopment. The segment north of 11 m Street northward to the intersection of Magic Mountain Parkway is now known as "Railroad Avenue." The name change reflects the proximity of the roadway to the Metrolink train tracks and also serves as a logical extension of the existing Railroad Avenue in downtown Newhall. The remaining portion of San Fernando Road, the segment that runs between the Antelope Valley Freeway and 5`h Street, was renamed "Newhall Avenue." This provides greater cohesiveness within Newhall itself and also provides regional visibility for travelers on the Antelope Valley Freeway. Historically, San Fernando Road was the primary route between the San Joaquin Valley and the Los Angeles Basin. In the early and mid - twentieth century, the intersection of today's Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway served as a northern gateway to Southern California. The intersection was the literal junction where travelers either headed north toward Sacramento and San Francisco, or northeast to Nevada, the Rocky Mountains, and the east coast. Modern freeways have routed traffic away from the area and the Newhall Avenue/Sierra Highway intersection. While the intersection remains one of the busiest within the Santa Clarita Valley, it no longer functions as the northern gateway to Southern California. Newhall development consists of a mix of uses, including large lot single-family homes, high-density apartment communities, industrial uses in Railroad Canyon, and traditional Main Street commercial development in downtown. The area immediately surrounding the subject property consists of freeway commercial uses, a mobile home park, a movie production storage lot, a cemetery, vacant land, and the Antelope Valley Freeway. Project Setting The 10.28 -acre project site is located within the Cityof Santa Clarita and comprises the following five parcels: Assessor Parcel Nos. 2827-005-014, 015, 027, 028, and, 034. Originally, the property reflected the rolling topography of the area; however, the site is now generally flat and has been substantially graded and disturbed. The property is routinely mowed and grubbed for weed control and fire prevention. The property is not located on a hillside. The eastern property boundary is the former centerline of US 6, the original highway that connected Los Angeles to Provincetown on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The natural drainage through the property was channelized when the highway was constructed in the early Twentieth Century. More extensive grading occurred when Sierra Highway was constructed in the early 1900s and then widened in the 1930s. Sierra Highway comprises the western boundary of the property. The property is bounded to the north by Newhall Avenue (formerly San Fernando Road), and to the south by other commercial property that is currently used as a vehicle storage yard. A residential structure was built on the site in the 1940s but was demolished sometime before 1992. Only remnants of concrete foundations and steps remain. The foundations have no historic or cultural value. Newhall Creek runs in a northwesterly direction along the property's eastern edge. The creek was directed into a partially -manufactured gully during highway construction in the early 1900s and has been altered significantly from its original course and situation on the property. Runoff from Eternal Valley Cemetery and Sierra Highway enters the gully at the south end of the site and joins the Elsmere Canyon drainage as it emerges from a concrete culvert under the former US 6 right-of-way. Water then flows northward and crosses under Newhall Avenue in a box culvert. When the creek 2 emerges on the other side of the intersection of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway, it converges with the Whitney Canyon drainage and continues flowing northwesterly toward the South Fork of the Santa Clara River. The creek channel has a soft -bottom and lush vegetation. As part of the proposed project, 300' of the creek's northern end would be covered to create parking and retail space. On August 28, 2008, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) sent the applicant a draft Streambed Alteration Agreement (# 1600-2008-0080-R5 Revision 1) that reflects the proposed modification of this drainage. The United States Army Corps of Engineers also has jurisdiction over this drainage, as does the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Permits with those agencies are pending. Project maps are found in Exhibits 1 and 2. Exhibits 3 through 18 show photos of the project site and the surrounding land uses. Project Description The Applicant is proposing the development of a five -building retail, office, and hotel development in the Community Commercial Planned Development Overlay Zone in the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed project consists of a total of approximately 99,000 square feet (98,900) of building area. The commercial space will be distributed between five buildings. Two buildings will be single story, two buildings will have two stories and will be constructed over a subterranean parking deck, and the last building will be a four story hotel. The project will have a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .22. This falls below the limit of .375 FAR potentially allowed in the Community Commercial zone (167,924 square feet). The project consists of the following improvements: • One (1) Four-story hotel that would not exceed 55' in height and contain 55,200 square -feet; • Two office/retail buildings comprising 31,120 square -feet (approximate), that would be 48' feet tall, would share a common roof and would be built over an underground parking structure (one building would be 16,420 square -feet the other would be 14,700 square feet); • One (1) 7,000 square -feet stand-alone restaurant pad; and • One (1) 5,584 square -feet multi -tenant building with a drive-through lane. Both the hotel and restaurant pad would be built at a later time; only the multi -tenant building and the two office/commercial buildings would be constructed in the near term. The restaurant pad and hotel would require a Development Review Permit but would not require a public hearing before the Planning Commission provided that a development application is received within applicable timelines. The project will require the following discretionary actions of the City of Santa Clarita: • Conditional Use Permit for development in the Planned Development Overlay and also for buildings exceeding 35' in height; • Minor Use Permit for a drive-through lane and dirt -hauling to import 46,000 cubic yards of fill; and • Oak Tree Permit to allow for the removal of eight (8) oak trees, permit for four (4) oak tree encroachments, and also to provide mitigation measures for the remaining 32 oak trees on-site, including five (5) heritage specimens (there are currently 40 oak trees on the project site, not counting an oak tree in the public right- of-way that will be removed by the city). The proposed project requires 385 parking spaces. A total of 434 parking spaces are shown on the site plan, including 145 subterranean spaces located beneath the commercial/office buildings. Proiect Site Access and Infrastructure The project site will take access to public streets via two driveways on Sierra Highway and a single driveway on Newhall Avenue. The southern -most entrance on Sierra Highway would be signalized and would permit traffic to turn right or left into or out of the project. The other entrance on Sierra Highway, as well as the entrance on Newhall Avenue, would provide a "right in/right out" configuration. Each driveway is at least 28' wide and meets the City and Fire Department 3 standards. Surface parking will be located across the project site and a subterranean parking deck would be located off the main driveway that connects Siena Highway and Newhall Avenue. There will be three stand-alone trash enclosures and a dedicated trash and loading area for the restaurant pad. There would be multiple outdoor break/eating areas, at least one per building. All of the buildings would be linked together by a cohesive, prominent, pedestrian path/walkway. The project is being developed in a manner that will allow for access to the vacant parcels east of the site, between the subject property and the Antelope Valley Freeway, should that land ever be developed. Project Grading and Drainage The project site slopes gently from the south to the north, is not located on a hillside, and has an average cross -slope of 6%. The project site ranges in elevation from 1,428' above sea level at the south end of the site near Sierra Highway to 1,374' where Newhall Creek flows into the culvert under Newhall Avenue. Approximately 80% of the project site will be graded (8.2 acres). The proposed project will require 7,000 cubic yards of cut and 53,000 cubic yards of fill. The difference in dirt totals will require the import of 46,000 cubic yards of fill. This amount of dirt hauling will require a Minor Use Permit. The existing site drainage includes a soft -bottom channel that conveys water from the Elsmere Canyon and Sierra Highway drainages. These waters converge at the south end of the project site to form Newhall Creek. Newhall Creek flows northwesterly across the property and under Newhall Avenue where it j oins with drainage from Whitey Canyon. Portions of the project site are within a floodplain (see Section VIII). In order to protect the project from flood waters, the proposed project includes the construction of a flood wall and extension of an existing culvert. The flood wall would be constructed along the west side of the existing natural channel, along the edge of the California Department of Fish and Game's jurisdiction. In addition, the existing double reinforced concrete box culvert would be extended upstream into the property approximately 300 feet. The 8'x 22' box culvert extension would be constructed in Newhall Creek and would connect to the existing culvert under Newhall Avenue. The culvert extension will affect 300 linear feet of the Newhall Creek and approximately 0.11 -acre of "waters of the United States." Avoidance and minimization measures for project impacts associated with the extension of the culvert are included in the biological assessment, wetland delineation report, and diversion plan as discussed in Section IV -Biological Resources. Mitigation would consist of on-site creation of riparian habitat (0.34 -acres), restoration/enhancement of riparian habitat (2.79 -acres), and preservation of riparian habitat (3.13 -acres). The applicant would provide any additional mitigation required in order to satisfy California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) requirements, as part of obtaining a required Streambed Alteration Permit for the project. Surrounding Land Uses: North: A fast-food restaurant (Carl's Jr.) is located directly north of the project site, across Newhall Avenue. This land is zoned CC(PD). South: Industrial/Commercial use (an auto storage yard) and vacant land (CC(PD)). East: Vacant land with the Antelope Valley Freeway and undeveloped wilderness area beyond (CC(PD)). West: Various commercial uses including a cemetery, an auto repair business, gas station, and a vehicle storage lot. All of these uses are in the CC(PD) zone except for the cemetery which is located in the Open Space (OS) zone. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Los Angeles County Fire Department California Department of Fish & Game Army Corps of Engineers Regional Water Quality Control Board h a E Q = :Ak g ;Z.�, l- L";0 A ------------- 'k LIS J, 7 to � cr- e' I Il O ! NYON ROA v a �. �I � i0y I •— Q I o f r �dSsN�yd b I Q Imo, o :_� .•. _. j 2 a V z F U LLJ J O W W y9 0 vy j_ r �NStl - J ,�2J4' AVMH9IH U ✓ xl' r� � � �31� �� XIX (.-__� VOH NOANVD ONS �' pllEY ST0.EET Vi Q = dOJ �,O WEV. CANYON ROAD U r N .., i' F � � • . yi�j�7s ��QOAD r'• y.� Ob20-i pVO R�pO �'yjNa�1'O 2y, �\ iQO,i' THE o �7 �✓ 31S J A, � j 3 8 OL h M I ry6J'�J', j S 1 j• j r P-; I 'o I g tl1NtlS ( O I G 0 d `OKAI -• RRA HWY OpK�V Y sI I --------• '1 Y a StP .O °Od'3w Q a 'tio L •� i \ W J .. W an aaiJ h311vn ,--1tlNil313____--,-- M 'i 1� ��j�" �• jM1' � �' 1. \ ��i�7' z` "�.�.:..,�.;arc�;�r- •, Am �/l -•y'T ''{cy rya � . / r;: _ V' �. � Tom) � ti�� •�y �, \A #wyi'¢�" y ,•� `LE .G,,_ t � ./ � � 'f, „�5 }E `' 3 '�-c "W .'2'• >� N� � L ,>� r' }i'j r ` �pp�� �,v •'Y' �- n,.�iq s s � .n i �+-�,y i CY ..y kgLy�p1 1 c cc LL 00 rII 'E 00 L J 1J ----------------L11 jwg�� 02 M - as iJ no< 1 +1 > D < 0 .7E F- LL: <� F- C.) z z W (00< > D OL C) CO 0 T % CL Z LL (� I i,,, Ell -7-11 in m u 17� I q 4 tu I LL D CD Z CD Z LO LLI z Ui El mi CD ia o lun, uj gil CL Z LL cq o"e 96= Rfi - § t� 8�a sas yp �o i� �F• 3 3 (CILU 'p 6e PHS � H 5 i(i Q N 00>> / w HIL iL- O Lr c n y Q to V UVKCKO id \_1 0 ' ' a d o ooaaa cq m 5f y. .. -_ __._ -•�f— I c 'W�14 �+ �� tt:�:i �' +< r' fie., ��;. r s, e-, a� �� I t'lI���F a�;,?r l�� 3, r�" h..,. ��_r i�;•t �r{ -•y_> > �. cis �i •7'"XtF tis r a ofF { �,�, CSA�.t�rti}T az. � � • .:1 t-_, 1 ,.� � T '+fir �� -�- L vr�� � � �� •vvr.-'-�' -�� � µ t-ZI ,S: ;��,,�.s�.,.,,t sty. f- - .�" �r,t � !••�:-fir �'C -_Y ' t�" .,LM ik.xr'r • s l ` -�� � y4 $s- d L � s.; a �...�.•�i.;- -�4.E1 - .�,-,r -+`,� 5 yC.e, • � 1'-. it . Q t'`'roy. ^i y.ti r° �' ^" � ".��' 1 «� � =Z� �-T °I � t y_ • '. �`4 % i 3 ��i' iS J+,y. l� '`-� f C �. f -, - ,f -s ?ct .�"`rS-�' ,.t i -,`mow �i yc•} 4 - "��,-�,�.'�,t` � ''a i •�. `it'd g j{ 1. i .a:/� it �'j�:v 4.} �-•�{#x�s�•,r �`c.� e'*:. •�+ � s•.,�-:7 • � � ['.. ` ` ""� rt -. ter^ '�.dy'* 'r^� f ,-� X'-' -rt "_`i- 'i' rS r . �' ti*,•a.c }, r+s .y.j3,i'y�,- ' c i�3,yy c� N i 4yS, �yf••L,-.� , 74a'f'}-r( • I !1 3� �� 46 ttT'+yT7.`�!1'M 1. 72'1 „•�, is 'rt •+'� rs+4. � t4 yz r =• l�r C t 7 a yt t s • y � i ,�!rt{ • • - � �! i �: S� -Sp, -r lfti t. tom''..."' .-..<� '. ' ._ 11 1 `4-...(� `� -_ .•sr�~ •_ � k '" •• b } -�. �'�. . j �_w '] i r,, ,�+ •ice r? ' �� � .,?t�,#�('�� C'0..•'•�� r`_�yr .Nib _ ;."'`' c -� �r,� L.� i ��. s kiiby �•Jh�,F��sa wl + Hip �: - r�� �: , - \fir'.-.,.� �'•�_ - � ¢m..,QSl 411. � a'`?'''�°� is - ��`•+:. ��' �," ' .F =^• �+4��," � £• : w {-. `mac n-. _ - - : --�-.c c ��� - �.�>, 3 Tek- R " •� ,- rte"" _i'".- 1 - 1•!. J. �. ' 1'�'� I _ _ tea,,, !� Y � ` �sA�`ri{'F ; '� �'�� `;., � r � e—•.. f t � - }fit •:x � o . � "t-e7,J�i � ' Z _ oaw 4Y.['1 1 :..�---� �•1v' ! �f � V f f�'. ;'�;ti 'x" �' P;ls . �G..,3��.—yG'"'y`•.., }'ti`s'.^,��. _ � � r � .y ! ;. Z `'-'•c' � -F� ,BMJ:{ -. � 1• �7��tt Y., '' , yP�'. ` -ra•�_' � ;ter _ "'' �,' `.t �,� — ['� �' :�- - - ,� � � , i., c• •tee+ '� '�.. _ .. ♦ •� '� � 1 . Y s "tY. \4. � � �'l 'T✓G f � .� • 4 ,� � ;gar � : f - �,;: N �\M1 ♦ T/ 1yj!jM1_j{ifl:'jft � ry'• , `r h; '... � -- �, ,fie..! ♦." ya�Rbb_ i � �•�' � � - "''rte - .,i w, JL��' i'l•(r LM 11.• f '� � ( ��. \; �'' ;tom, ✓- � .�— ��• fY f i� � ! ifl tf �',1`• vYii1�y rN. •'� i �+iF.� pili �1 }' 'i9giR a K�f.. i.. +y�ry}�� .' t ,y _ -. i1kYe�i 13+..999999 i �] ��`�■+���.;/� .�sai vc 16 —1'_s+Jftr, I- -� ajQj(pppS' JpVvi F' f IT • K 7 i r F. • � -� Tor _ - � h t-- • 1 !'/c:, t^ , '.• : � ak�"a : �r 1 \ Z7. L , lrll�� m VA 0 E wal al"M W IA, m VA 0 E wal al"M W A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or a "Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Agricultural Resources [X] Air Quality [X] Biological Resources [X] Cultural Resources [X] Geology/Soils [XJ Hazards & Hazardous [X] Hydrology & Water Quality [ ] Land Use & PIanning Materials [ ] Mineral Resources [) Noise [ ] Population & Housing [ ) Public Services [ ] Recreation [X] Traffic & Transportation [ ] 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 aNEGATIVE 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant impact on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been mitigated adequately 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, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, 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, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. S71 11 1 t)11 Signature r Date '9Erj C k k �J of S�AJ1 Pr LLAP- i Printed Name For 23 C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but ❑ ❑ ® ❑ not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock Other El ❑ ❑ Ll outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied scenic highway? determinations. Would the project: c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ �] ® ❑ ❑ quality of the site and its surroundings? [] applicable air quality plan? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that ❑ ❑ ® ❑ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the 1:1 substantially to an existing or projected air quality area? violation? e) Other ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ II. 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 Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? e) Other El ❑ ❑ Ll III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ® [] applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute El El 1:1 substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ❑ ® ❑ El any criteria pollutant for which the project region is 24 25 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Tnpact With Impact No Mitigation Impact 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 ® 11 E] concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial El number of people? f) Other: Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions El TV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or 1:1 ® EJ El 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 ® El ❑ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and 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 biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat El Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or El Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map? 25 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in'15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, either on or off site? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Change in topography of a primary or secondary 26 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ED ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 27 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact ridgeline? g) Move or generate grading of earth exceeding 100,000 F El ® ❑ cubic yards? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1 ® El environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [l El El environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation)? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or El Z acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, El El E] where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with E El an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential El health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? 27 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere El 0 substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ® El site or 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 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 ® 0 the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ® El g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as El El mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures E] El ® EJ which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, El D EJ injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? F k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and El EJ El directions of surface water and/or groundwater? 1) Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? E' ® F 0 m) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 29 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact i.) Potential impact of project construction and project ❑ post -construction activity on storm water runoff? ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, 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 E ® El flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff? iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases ❑ ❑ ® ❑ in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? v) Storm water discharges that would significantly impair or 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 ® El systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies? vii) Does the proposed project include provisions for IJ El ® El the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Disrupt or physically divide an established community? El 0 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ❑ 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, E El natural 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 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 resource recovery site delineated on a local 29 general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? YJ. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING— Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, Necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 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 30 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No ❑ Mitigation Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Z. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 31 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? ® El iii) Schools? ❑ ❑ El iv) Parks? El 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 El E] 0 construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ® ❑ ❑ relation to 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? ❑ E] E] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 31 Potentially Significant Impact 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? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future 32 Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Impact No Mitigation Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ INK Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will ❑ ® ❑ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 33 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts I. AESTHETICS I a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is a 10.28 -acre parcel that is located at the southeast comer of Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue, in the vicinity of the Antelope Valley Freeway. The development would consist of five buildings, the tallest being four stories. The property is generally flat, is not situated on a hillside, and ranges between 1,374' and 1,428' in elevation. The site is located along Sierra Highway and is bordered by hills to the west (Eternal Valley Cemetery) and the Antelope Valley Freeway embankment to the east. The proposed project would affect views in the area by placing structures as tall as four stories next to Sierra Highway. The project would not block views from existing neighborhoods located off Dockweiler Drive, nor would the project significantly impair the view shed of the wilderness areas located east of the Antelope Valley Freeway. The project site is not located along a scenic vista. Therefore, any visual or aesthetic impacts created by the project would be less than significant. I b. Less Than Significant Impact The project is not located along a state scenic highway, does not impact ridgelines, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. Some vegetation would be lost due to project grading, including eight (8) non -heritage oak trees; however project landscaping and oak plantings would add new foliage where none existed before. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant. I c. Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project will change the character of the area and its surroundings in that the project will develop a parcel that is currently vacant. The project will create a community entry statement where none currently exists. The proposed development is subject to the City's development standards and the aesthetic details of the project, including the site's architectural and landscape plans, are subject to City review. This ensures that the development will be designed with high professional standards and will be consistent with the aesthetic character of the City and the Newhall community. Therefore, while the project would alter the aesthetics of the site, it would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the site or the nearby vicinity, and would not cause any significant impacts concerning aesthetics. The project site is located within an area that has been identified as a City gateway in the Santa Clarita General Plan. Per the General Plan, developments in this area must provide a sense of entry into the community. The proposed development meets all height, density, and setback requirements in the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) and would be consistent with surrounding land uses and structures. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to the visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. I d. Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project will add light sources to the immediate area; however, additional light would not be significant. The project is located within a commercially -zoned area and is surrounded by other businesses including a fast food restaurant, a gas station, vehicle storage yard, and a cemetery. The project would include street lights, parking lot lights, outdoor lights on the buildings, and other lights along pedestrian sidewalks and paths -of -travel. In accordance with the City's UDC, all light sources will be covered and focused downward to prevent glare and spillover onto adjacent properties as well as the riparian area. 34 The light generated on-site would not detract from daytime or nighttime views nor would it adversely affect surrounding businesses. Therefore, the project would neither cause nor create significant impacts due to light or glare. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES lx a. No Impact There are no agricultural operations located on the project site. The city of Santa Clarita's General Plan does not identify any important farmlands or any area for farmland uses. The site is in the CC(PD) zone and is not within an area of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance as identified by the California Department of Conservation. Therefore, development of the proposed project would have no impact to agricultural resources. III. AIR QUALITY II b. No Impact According to the City of Santa Clarita General Plan, there are no agriculturally - zoned lands within the city limits. Likewise, there are no Williamson Act contract lands within the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contracts, and would have no impacts to agricultural resources. II c. No Impact The site is vacant and not used for agricultural purposes. There are no agricultural land uses in the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed project consists of general commercial/retail uses in a designated commercial zone; therefore, the project will not have any impact that could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses III a. Less Than Significant Impact Since the proposed project is consistent with the CC zoning and General Plan designation of the site, the proposed project would not exceed Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) growth projections upon which regional air quality planning is based. Consequently, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast region. III b, c. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation The project site is within the South Coast Air Basin, which includes all of the non -desert portions of Los Angeles County. Although air quality in the southern California region continues to improve as additional pollution controls are implemented, the air basin remains a non -attainment area for both the federal and state standards for ozone, fine particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM,o), and fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Ozone is a pollutant that is formed by a chemical reaction involving reactive organic gasses (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. The proposed development would generate vehicle trips and increase consumption of electricity and natural gas, which would generate air pollutant emissions. Such emissions would have the potential to adversely affect local and regional air quality. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has adopted numeric thresholds for various "criteria" air pollutants that are used to assess a project's impact to regional air quality. A project's impact on regional air 35 quality is considered significant if project operation would result in emissions exceeding: • 55 pounds per day of reactive organic gasses (ROG) • 55 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides (NOx) • 550 pounds per day of carbon monoxide (CO) • 150 pounds per day of PMIO • 55 pounds per day of PM2.5 • 150 pounds per day of sulfur oxides (SOx) The LTRBEMIS2007 (Version 9.2.4) air quality model produced by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) was used to estimate emissions associated with operation of the proposed project. The results of the modeling are included as Appendix A of this document, and the estimated area and operational pollutant emissions are shown in Table III -1. As shown in Table III -1, project -generated emissions during operation would be less than SCAQMD thresholds for all five criteria air pollutants. Consequently, the project's impact on regional air quality is not considered significant. Table III -1 Area and Operational Air Pollutant Emissions/SCAQMD Re ional Threshold Comparison Matrix Pollutant Emissions Threshold Threshold (lbs/day) (lbsida Exceeded? ROG 17.85 55 No NO, 21.37 55 No CO 157.15 550 No SO2 .014 150 No PM10 23.51 150 No PM2.5 4.61 55 No Emissions calculated using URBEMIS2007 computer model, California Air Resources Board. See Appendix A for model outputs. In addition to operational emissions, construction of the proposed project would generate air pollutants. Construction -induced air pollutants include fugitive dust (PMIO and PM2.5) from earth movement and equipment exhaust, which includes NOx, ROGs and CO. Of note, SCAQMD's Rule 403, which regulates/limits the generation of fugitive dust (particulate matter) during construction, would apply to the project. Table III -2 compares the project's construction emissions as estimated with the URBEMIS 2007 model to the SCAQMD's significance thresholds, which are: • 75 pounds per day of reactive organic compounds (ROC) • 100 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides (NOx) • 550 pounds per day of carbon monoxide (CO) • 150 pounds per day of PMIO • 55 pounds per day of PM2.5 • 150 pounds per day of sulfur oxides (SOx) As shown in Table II1-2, after mitigation, construction of the proposed project would be less than SCAQMD's thresholds for all five criteria pollutants. M. Consequently, the project's construction impact to regional air quality is less than significant with the implementation of the mitigation measures below: Mitigation Measure AQ -1: During grading and construction, fugitive dust emissions shall not exceed the performance standards in SCAQMD Rule 403. Mitigation Measure AQ -2: During grading and construction, active areas and haul roads shall be watered at least twice (two times) per day. Mitigation Measure AQ -3: During construction, replace 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 replaced. Mitigation Measure AQ -4: Off-road vehicles on-site shall not travel at speeds greater than 15 miles per hour. Table III -2: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions/SCAQMD Regional Threshold Com arison Matrix Emissions Threshold Threshold Pollutant lbs/da lbs/da Exceeded? ROG 66.18 75 No NO, 89.44 100 No CO 40.55 550 No SO2 0.06 150 No PM10 23.73* 150 No PM2.5 7.81* 55 No *After Mitigation Emissions calculated using URBEMIS2007 computer model, California Air Resources Board. See Appendix A for model outputs. The maximum daily emissions for each pollutant are presented. The highest emissions will occur during different construction phases for different pollutants. For example, the highest ROG emissions would occur during building construction, while the highest NOx emissions would occur during fine grading of the site. In addition to the regional significance thresholds, the SCAQMD identifies Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) for stationary pollutant sources and construction sites. Since the proposed project would not be a stationary pollutant source, only the construction LSTs apply to this project. The appropriate LSTs vary on a project -by -project basis depending on the project's location, the acreage of the construction site, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. For this project, the appropriate LSTs are for the Santa Clarita Valley, for a 5 -acre (or greater) site, where sensitive receptors are at least 100 meters from the site. Table III -3 compares the peak -day construction emissions to the relevant LSTs. As shown in this table, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ -4, the proposed project would not generate pollutants in excess of the LSTs. Therefore, the proposed project's impact on local air quality is less than significant. 37 Table III -3: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions/SCAQMD LST Comparison Matrix Emissions Threshold Threshold Pollutant lbs/da lbs/da Exceeded? NOx 66.18 233 No CO 89.44 2,922 No PM10 23.73 52 No PM2.5 7.81 13 No *After Mitigation ** Source: SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Appendix C Mass Rate Look -Up Tables. LSTs used are for a 5 -acre (or greater) site in the Santa Clarita Valley, with sensitive receptors at least 100 meters away. Emissions calculated using URBEM1S2007 computer model, California Air Resources Board. See Appendix A for model outputs. The maximum daily emissions for each pollutant are presented. The highest emissions will occur during different construction phases for different pollutants. For example, the highest ROG emissions would occur during building construction, while the highest NOx emissions would occur during fine grading of the site. III d. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are the residential uses on the west side of Sierra Highway, which are located more than 100 meters from the project site. As discussed above in part III(b-c), both the operational and construction impacts of the project were found to be below SCAQMD pollutant emission thresholds. In particular, the project's emissions, after mitigation, were found to be below the LSTs and, as such, the proposed project is not anticipated to cause localized concentrations of air pollutants to reach unhealthful levels, Therefore, the proposed project, after mitigation, would not cause sensitive receptors to be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the project's impact on sensitive receptors is less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ -4. III e. Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project is not anticipated to generate objectionable odors other than potential short-term odors from construction equipment and occasional localized odors from food preparation and/or refuse areas. Such odors are anticipated to dissipate rapidly and would not noticeably affect any residential uses. Therefore, the proposed project's odor impacts are less than significant. III f. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation "Greenhouse gases," so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth, are emitted by human activity and are implicated in global climate change. This is more commonly referred to as "global warming." These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide. Collectively GHGs are measured as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. 38 Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions. California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 1368, Executive Order (EO) S-03-05, EO S-20-06 and EO S-01-07. AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California has adopted. Among other things, it is designed to maintain California's reputation as a "national and international leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship." Most notably AB 32 mandates that by 2020, California's GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels. As of yet, the State of California has not set thresholds for GHG emissions, but is likely to do so in the future. In the meantime, local and regional agencies are left to determine their own approach for reducing GHGs. The project's GHG emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 model along with manual calculations for electricity and natural gas demand. Manual calculations were also used to estimate the project's methane and nitrous oxide emissions. The project's GHG calculation spreadsheets are included in Appendix A of this document. The proposed project is estimated to generate 3,130.28 metric tones per year of COZe, The following mitigation measures would reduce the project's GHG emissions to a less than significant level: Mitigation Measure AQ -5: To the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita, the project shall have greater energy efficiency than Title 24 standards. Mitigation Measure AQ -6: To the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita, the project shall comply with the following "GHG Reduction" policies of the City's Draft General Plan: Policy: Promote construction of energy efficient buildings through requirements for LEED certification or through comparable alternative requirements as adopted by local ordinance. Policy: Encourage on-site solar generation of electricity in new retail and office commercial buildings and associated parking Iots, carports, and garages, in concert with significant energy conservation efforts. Policy: Encourage new development to use passive solar heating and cooling techniques in building design and construction, which may include but are not be limited to building orientation, clerestory windows, skylights, placement and type of windows, overhangs to shade doors and windows, and use of light colored roofs and paving materials. Policy: Encourage the use of trees and landscaping to reduce heating and cooling energy loads, through shading of buildings and parking lots. 39 Policy: Encourage energy -conserving heating and cooling systems and appliances, and energy -efficiency in windows and insulation, in all new construction. Policy: Limit excessive lighting levels, and encourage a reduction of lighting when businesses are closed to a level required for security. Policy: Provide incentives and technical assistance for installation of energy- efficient improvements in existing and new buildings. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The following biological resource evaluations were prepared for the project and are the basis of the analysis in this section: • Biological Assessment, Sierra Crossing, Forde Biological Consultants, February 19, 2008; and follow-up letter to Mike Redmond from Forde Biological Consultants, dated December 16, 2008; • Sierra Crossing, Special -Status Plant Species Surveys, Forde Biological Consultants, October 1, 2008; • Jurisdictional Delineation, Sierra Crossing, Forde Biological Consultants, February 14, 2008; • Results of Protocol Surveys for the Least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, San Fernando Project Site, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California, Ecological Sciences, Inc. September 5, 2006 • Agreement Regarding Proposed Stream or Lake Alteration (i.e., Draft Streambed Alteration Agreement), between the California Department of Fish and Game and Mike Redmond of SFXS Partners LLC; and • Oak Tree Survey Report, Impact Sciences, February 28, 2007. • Oak tree #88 at "Sierra Crossing project (233300 San Fernando Rd.), Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC, August 28, 2008. These reports are available for review as part of.the project file at the City of Santa Clarita Planning Counter, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. General Biological Characteristics of the Site The project site contains two habitat types — ruderal/disturbed habitat and Willow Riparian Forest. The ruderal/disturbed habitat occupies the majority of the site and is dominated by non-native grasses and forbs, with scattered coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and western sycamores (Platanus racemosa). This portion of the site is regularly maintained for weed abatement. The Willow Riparian Forest community on-site is centered around Newhall Creek, which traverses the eastern portion of site, flowing from south to north. This plant community is dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), Freemont cottonwood (Populous fremontii), western sycamore (along the creek's western bank), and coast live oak (along the creek's eastern bank). IV a. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Given the presence of Willow Riparian Forest, the project site has the potential to support a variety of special -status plant and animal species. Review of the 40 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) by Forde Biological Consultants (FBC) revealed 29 special -status plant species have been officially observed within the project region (i.e., the area encompassed by the Mint Canyon 7.5" USGS Quadrangle and the surrounding 8 quadrangles). The project site was surveyed for special -status plant species by FBC, with three site investigations occurring in October, June, and May of 2008. No special - status plants were observed on-site. In addition, FBC concludes, "Due to the geographic location of the property, elevation range, soil types, and lack of suitable habitat, the majority of the species considered are not expected to occur or were determined to have a low potential to occur by the biologists based on the presence of marginal habitat." However, FBC determined that there is potential for Davidson's bush mallow (Malacothamnus davidsonii) (a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 113.2' species) and Greata's aster (Symphyotrichum greatae) (CLAPS List 1.13.3Z) to occur within areas adjacent to the Willow Riparian Forest. To ensure the project would not impact Davidson's bush mallow or Greata's aster, and to ensure special -status plants have not propagated on-site and thus be impacted by project construction, Mitigation Measure BIO -1 requires that a pre - construction survey for special -status plants be conducted and any such plants found on-site to be protected, preserved, or relocated. With the incorporation of this measure, the project would not significantly impact any special -status plants. The review of the CNDDB for the Mint Canyon 7.5" USGS Quadrangle and the surrounding 8 quadrangles revealed the potential for 26 special -status animal species to occur in the project region. FBC concludes the following in their Biological Assessment of the project site regarding special -status fish, amphibians, lizards, and mammals: • The San Diego desert woodrat (a California species of special concern (CSC)) has a high potential to occur and a woodrat house was observed on-site by FBC. • The silvery legless lizard (CSC) has a high potential to occur within the area dominated by Willow Riparian Forest above the ordinary high water mark. • Somewhat suitable habitat for the western pond turtle (CSC) exists on- site where pools in Newhall Creek are created by high velocity flows through culverts. • The project ornithologist, Jim Greaves, observed an individual of the Lepus genus on-site. There is one member of the genus in California, the black -tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus). FBC did not observe this species on the property and does not expect it to occur based on lack of suitable habitat. FBC concluded that the species observed by Jim Greaves is a member of the Sylvilagus genus. FBC does not expect any special -status fish or the two -striped garter ' CNPS List I B = Plants rare, threatened or endangered (RTE) in California and elsewhere. CNPS recognizes the following degrees of RTE in California: (1 B.1) Seriously threatened in California; (1 B.2) Fairly threatened in California; (1 B.3) Not very threatened in California. Of note, the CNPS designations are not formal designations of any regulatory agency but plants listed by the CNPS are considered special -status for CEQA purposes. ' Ibid. 41 snake (a special -status reptile) to occur on-site due to historical conditions and the intermittent nature of Newhall Creek and the presence of several culverts that would restrict movement. The stretch of Newhall Creek on-site lacks suitable breeding pools for the arroyo toad and red -legged frog. There are no seasonal upland ponds for western spadefoot toad (special -status amphibians) and, as such, these species are not expected to occur on-site. FBC does not expect coast -homed lizard (a special -status lizard) to occur on-site due to the lack of suitable habitat and prey. Mitigation Measures BIO -2 through BIO -5 are included to ensure the project would not significantly impact the San Diego desert woodrat, silvery legless lizard, western pond turtle, or the San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit. With the incorporation of these mitigation measures the proposed project would not significantly impact any special -status fish, amphibians, lizards, and mammals. In addition to these terrestrial and aquatic species, the project site has the potential to support a variety special -status birds. In particular, the Willow Riparian Forest on-site could support two formally listed bird species — the Least bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) (LBVI), which is a state and federally listed endangered species, and the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) (SWFL), a federally listed endangered species. To determine if these species were present on-site, Ecological Sciences, Inc. (ESI) conducted protocol surveys in accordance with US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) guidelines in 2006, ESI concluded that both species were absent from the site in 2006. Since protocol surveys are valid for a period of 1 year, Mitigation Measure BIO -6, requires updated surveys be prepared for these two species within one year of project construction. While the protocol surveys conducted on-site did not discover LBVI or SWFL, 47 other bird species were discovered on-site, of which at least 9 bred on-site in 2006. None of the birds found to be breeding onside are special -status species. However, one observed bird species on-site, the yellow warbler Dendroica petechia brewsteri), is a CSC. This is consistent with the project's Biological Assessment, which concludes that two CA species of special concern, the yellow warbler and the Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), have the potential to nest on-site. Mitigation Measure BIO -7 ensures the project would not impact any nesting yellow warblers, Cooper's hawk, or any other nesting birds, which are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the CDFG Code. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO -6 and BIO -7, the project's impact on special -status birds is considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure BI0-1: No greater than 30 days prior to construction, the project site shall be surveyed for special -status plants by a qualified botanist. While the survey shall be conducted for all special -status plants, the botanist shall specifically determine if Davidson's bush mallow or Greata's aster are present on-site. If any special - status plant species are encountered, avoidance, transplant, or replacement measures shall be undertaken in accordance with the Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants from USFWS's Recovery Plan for Six Plants from the Mountains Surrounding the Los Angeles Basin (USFWS 1999). If any of such plants are eliminated or transplanted, the California Department of Fish and Game shall be notified. If any of these plants are to be transplanted, they shall be 42 planted in a suitable location under the supervision of a qualified biologist. Temporary irrigation shall be provided to transplanted plants until such time that they are able to survive on their own. Mitigation Measure BI0-2: A qualified biological monitor with all required collection permits shall be on- site during the vegetation removal and grading operations and shall survey for species prior to these activities. If any life stages of any native vertebrate species are found in the path of construction, the monitor shall relocate the species to a pre -determined, safe location. Exclusionary devices shall be erected to prevent the migration into or the return of the species into the work site. Mitigation Measure BI0-3: The Applicant shall have a qualified wildlife biologist survey the area to confirm the presence/absence of silvery legless lizard, black -tailed jackrabbit, woodrat, and/or other species of concern likely to be found in the area during construction. If evidence exists that additional surveys are required, survey techniques, timing, and schedule shall be subject to the review and approval of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Survey results, analysis, and recommendations, along with the filed notes shall be provided to the CDFG prior to commencing construction or within two weeks of completion of field surveys, whichever is earlier. Should any sensitive species be found during pre - project surveys, and work must be done in identified areas during sensitive periods, the applicant shall develop and implement a plan for the protection of these species. This plan shall be approved by the CDFG prior to commencing work. The results of any surveys and any protective measures instituted, as part of the protection and monitoring plan, shall be provided to the CDFG within one week from implementation. The applicant shall be responsible for reporting all observations of threatened/endangered species or of species of special concern to the CNDDB within ten days of sighting. Mitigation Measure BIO -4: The applicant shall not allow any activity near the nesting sites of the woodrat during the recognized nesting, rearing, and dispersal season, which is November through April. The applicant shall develop a relocation plan to ensure the protection of this species. This plan shall include the trapping of individuals and the relocation of the nests to a suitable open space area outside of the project footprint. Trapping shall occur for a minimum of three nights and any captured woodrats or other small mammals shall be released outside of the project's footprint (e.g., in the Willow Riparian Forest preserve area). The method of breaking up the nest shall be in a manner that allows any individual in the nest to escape without being harmed (e.g., dismantled by hand). This shall be done during the late afternoon hours. These activities shall be done outside of the woodrat breeding/rearing season to avoid impacts to this species. Mitigation Measure BTO -5: Immediately prior to construction (within 1 day prior to construction), the project site shall be raked for silvery legless lizard by a qualified biologist. Any discovered silvery legless lizards shall be released into the Willow Riparian Forest preserve area. Exclusionary devices shall be erected to prevent the migration into or the return of the species into the work site. Mitigation Measure BI0-6: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and no greater than one year from the start of construction, updated protocol surveys for the least Bell's vireo and the southwestern willow flycatcher shall be conducted by a permitted biologist in 43 accordance with US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) guidelines. If either species is determined to be present on-site, the City of Santa Clarita shall not issue a grading permit for the project until the appropriate take permits have been issued by the FWS and/or the CDFG. Mitigation BTO -7: The applicant shall not remove or otherwise disturb vegetation or conduct any other project activities on the project site from March I to September 15 to avoid impacts to breeding/nesting birds. If work during the breeding/nesting season cannot be avoided then, prior to construction or site preparation activities, the applicant shall have a qualified biologist survey all breeding/nesting habitat within the project site and adjacent to the project site for breeding/nesting birds. Surveys shall be conducted for 5 consecutive days or other methodology acceptable to CDFG. If active nests are present, the nest -site shall be protected by a 300 -foot buffer (500 feet for raptors) or as determined by CDFG. No construction activities will be allowed within the buffer area until the nest becomes inactive (the young have fledged, the young are no longer being fed by the parents, the young have left the area, and the young will no longer be impacted by the project). If there are no nests present, vegetation should be removed within 3 days after completion of the survey. Documentation of findings, including a negative finding must be submitted to the CDFG for review and concurrence. If no breeding/nesting birds are observed and concurrence has been received from the CDFG, site preparation and construction activities may begin. IV b, c. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation As noted, the project site contains Willow Riparian Forest, which is a sensitive riparian community. The Willow Riparian Forest on-site is centered around Newhall Creek, which is a jurisdictional watercourse pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 1602 of the CDFG code. FBC prepared a Jurisdictional Delineation report for the project, which determined that the project site contains 3.313 acres of CDFG jurisdictional streambed/riparian habitat and 950 linear feet of Newhall Creek that is within the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. The Corps jurisdictional land on-site is limited to the bed and bank of Newhall Creek, as no wetlands meeting Section 404 criteria exist on-site outside of the creek's ordinary high water mark. The proposed project would impact 1.283 acres of CDFG jurisdictional riparian habitat/streambed (of which 0.183 were previously impacted by site maintenance activities) and 0.11 acres of the Corps jurisdictional watercourse (300 linear feet). By law, the project proponent will be required to enter into a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) with the CDFG for impacting 1.283 acres of riparian habitat; and the applicant will also be required by law to obtain a Section 404 permit from the Corps for filling 0.11 acres of a jurisdictional watercourse. The project applicant has entered into a draft Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) with the CDFG, which accounts for both the 0.183 acres of CDFG jurisdictional habitat that were previously impacted and the additional 1.1 acres that would be impacted by the proposed project. Mitigation Measures BIO -8 through BIO -10 are based on the requirements included in this draft SAA and would reduce the project's impacts on riparian habitat and Newhall Creek to a less than significant level. 44 Mitigation Measure BI0-8: The project proponent shall provide replacement Willow Riparian habitat to the satisfaction of the CDFG at a ratio of 7:1 (replacement to impacts) for the 0.183 acres of habitat previously impacted and at a ratio of 3:1 (replacement to impacts) for the 1.10 acres impacted by the proposed project. Mitigation Measure BI0-9: A 50 -foot wide buffer of native vegetation shall be provided along the mitigation area and along all riparian and wetland drainages. The buffer shall serve to minimize the amount of light, noise, and other human generated impacts on the streambed habitat. All fuel modification activities shall be conducted outside of the streambed and native vegetation buffer area. Mitigation Measure BIO -10: The limits of the project's construction footprint shall be flagged prior to any construction activities on-site. Vegetation shall not be removed or intentionally damaged beyond these limits. IV d. Less Than Significant Impact The ability of wildlife to move from one tract of habitat to another increases the value of the habitat. Habitats with wildlife movement opportunities allow for population dispersal and seasonal migration, and increase the area for home range activities. Wildlife movement opportunities are often called wildlife corridors. The project site does not connect two tracts of habitat. Rather, the site is surrounded on all sides by roads, highways, and urban development, which act as impediments to wildlife movement. In particular, the Antelope Valley Freeway substantially restricts wildlife movement between the project site and the Angeles National Forest, which lies to the east of the site. Additionally, the use of Newhall Creek as a wildlife travel route is greatly prohibited by the various storm drain improvements on- and off-site. The culvert under Newhall Avenue, in particular, includes a drop-off that would prevent most wildlife movement. Due to the aforementioned, development of the proposed project would not restrict the migration or dispersal of wildlife. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact wildlife movement. IV e. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation The City of Santa Clarita's Oak Tree Ordinance (Ordinance 88-34) is the only local policy or ordinance that protects biological resources. This ordinance establishes regulatory measures that mandate the manner in which oak trees may be removed, pruned, cut or encroached upon. Oak trees subject to this ordinance include any tree of the oak genus Quercus, which includes, valley oaks, California live oaks, canyon oaks, interior live oaks, and scrub oaks regardless of size. Per the Oak Tree Ordinance, in order to remove or modify any trees on the project site, an applicant will need to secure an Oak Tree Permit from the City. According to the project's Oak Tree Survey Report prepared by Impact Sciences and the supplemental survey of oak tree #88 by Jan C. Scow (JCS) Consulting Arborists, the project site contains 40 oak trees. All of these trees are coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia), with the exception of tree 22, which is a scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia). Trees 5, 8, 13, 28, and 36 are considered heritage oaks and have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of at least 30 inches. 45 None of the heritage oaks on-site would be removed or relocated as part of the project. However, the project does involve the removal of eight (8) oaks — trees 1, 2, 29-33, and 37. Table IV -1 identifies the type, size, and value of the oak trees to be removed. In addition to these removals, the project would encroach into the protected areas of Oak Tree Nos. 28(H), 34, 35, and 36(H). Each of the encroached -upon trees is a Coast Live Oak and two (#28 and #36) are heritage specimens. Since implementation of project activities will result in the loss of eight (8) mature oak trees protected by the City's Ordinance, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project to lessen the impacts to an insignificant level: Mitigation Measure BIO -11: In order to avoid accidental damage or disturbance to oak trees on or near the site, prior to the issuance of grading permit all oak trees on site that are not approved for removal and all oak trees within 50 feet of the potential area of ground disturbance shall be fenced at their protected zones with a minimum 4' high fence before any site grading commences. Fencing shall remain during all phases of construction and shall not be moved or removed without City approval. Mitigation Measure BIO -12: In order to avoid accidental damage or disturbance to oak trees on or near the site during construction, no equipment storage, debris drop, or parking shall occur within the drip lines of any oak tree not approved for removal. Mitigation Measure BIO -13: Pursuant to the City of Santa Clarita's Oak Tree Ordinance (Ordinance 88-34) and to the satisfaction of the City's Oak Tree Specialist, the oak trees removed from the site shall be replaced with oak trees at a value commensurate with the fully appraised value of the trees removed. A planting plan shall be provided to the City for approval of trees with locations and sizes, and three years of maintenance shall be provided to ensure the trees survive. Mitigation Measure BIO -14: Oak Tree Maintenance A. Arborist of Record Agreement — The applicant shall retain an Arborist of Record (AOR) to assist with Mitigation Measure compliance. The AOR will review the landscape plans and provide recommendations as needed. Landscaping — Landscaping shall follow the City's minimum requirements; Eral Table IV -1 Trees Proposed for Removal Tree Number ,hype Diameter at Breast Height (dbh in inches) Appraised Value 1 Coast Live Oak 22 $13,843.00 2 Coast Live Oak 16, 15 $8,014.00 29 Coast Live Oak 12 $4,615.00 30 Coast Live Oak 12 $4,392.00 31 Coast Live Oak 8 $2,237.00 32 Coast Live Oak 19, 15, 13 $12,141.00 33 Coast Live Oak 20, 13, 12 $13,682.00 37 Coast Live Oak 15 $7,355.00 Since implementation of project activities will result in the loss of eight (8) mature oak trees protected by the City's Ordinance, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project to lessen the impacts to an insignificant level: Mitigation Measure BIO -11: In order to avoid accidental damage or disturbance to oak trees on or near the site, prior to the issuance of grading permit all oak trees on site that are not approved for removal and all oak trees within 50 feet of the potential area of ground disturbance shall be fenced at their protected zones with a minimum 4' high fence before any site grading commences. Fencing shall remain during all phases of construction and shall not be moved or removed without City approval. Mitigation Measure BIO -12: In order to avoid accidental damage or disturbance to oak trees on or near the site during construction, no equipment storage, debris drop, or parking shall occur within the drip lines of any oak tree not approved for removal. Mitigation Measure BIO -13: Pursuant to the City of Santa Clarita's Oak Tree Ordinance (Ordinance 88-34) and to the satisfaction of the City's Oak Tree Specialist, the oak trees removed from the site shall be replaced with oak trees at a value commensurate with the fully appraised value of the trees removed. A planting plan shall be provided to the City for approval of trees with locations and sizes, and three years of maintenance shall be provided to ensure the trees survive. Mitigation Measure BIO -14: Oak Tree Maintenance A. Arborist of Record Agreement — The applicant shall retain an Arborist of Record (AOR) to assist with Mitigation Measure compliance. The AOR will review the landscape plans and provide recommendations as needed. Landscaping — Landscaping shall follow the City's minimum requirements; Eral 1. Plantings within any oak tree protected zone must be drought tolerant only; 2. No spray -type irrigation systems are permitted within the protected zone; 3. A three-inch layer of organic mulch will be installed within the protected zone; 4. Landscape plans are subject to City approval. B. Monitoring after construction — The applicant shall obtain the authorization of future residents or owners allowing continued access by the AOR after construction is finished. C. The AOR shall visit the property on a quarterly basis for two years after the completion of the project, and semi-annually for one year after that, as required by the City. The AOR shall inspect all mitigation -installed oaks on the property. At the discretion of the AOR, the frequency of the monitoring may be reduced if the oak trees appear to be flourishing and in stable condition. D. Per the City requirements, the AOR shall certify that the property is in compliance with all the conditions of the oak tree permit. Observations regarding the oaks' health shall be reported to the City, including if any oaks decline or fail to survive. Oaks failing to survive during the monitoring period, including any that fail to thrive after planting, will be mitigated for as determined by the City. E. 48 -Hour Notice and Certification of Oak Tree Work: the applicant shall provide 48 -hours notice to the department of Community Development before planting the mitigation oak trees or before doing any work on or near them one they are planted. (AOR requires 96 -hour notice) F. The AOR will evaluate and report the findings to the Department of Community Development regarding the work related to or potentially affecting the planted oak trees. These reports will certify whether all work was conducted in accordance with the oak tree permit and oak tree report. Reports shall be submitted within 10 -days of the AOR being informed that the work was completed. G. Specifically, the AOR shall review the mitigation plantings and provide a report certifying that the work follows the oak tree permit and acceptable planting standards. The AOR will also evaluate and provide a report to the City as needed on any other work that may affect the mitigation oaks, including but not limited to irrigation installation, pruning anything larger than two -inches in diameter, or installation of sidewalks and other hardscape near mitigation oaks. H. Oak Tree Information Package: The applicant shall provide a sample information package to the City for approval if requested. The same packet shall be provided to the property buyer via certified mail. The information included shall be as follows: 1. Cover letter introducing the information packet; 2. Oak trees -Care and Maintenance; 3. Oak Tree Ordinance; 4. Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guideline; and 5. Copies of the Development and Oak Tree Permit; 47 The cover letter will then be forwarded to the Department of Community Development along with the signed copy of the return receipt card. In addition to the mitigation measures listed here, the applicant is also subject to Conditions of Approval for Master Case 08-033 as approved by the Planning Commission. IV f. No Impact The project site is not within a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, 9r state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any adopted habitat conservation plans, and the projects would have no related impacts. IV g. No Impact The project site is not located within a Significant Ecological Area identified on either 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 CDFG. The closest such area is the Santa Clara River Corridor Significant Ecological Area, which is far removed from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to Significant Ecological Areas or Significant Natural Areas, V. CULTURAL RESOURCES V a. No Impact. The project site is vacant. The majority of the site has been graded flat and is routinely mowed or grubbed for weed abatement to reduce the risk of fire. Newhall Creek runs through the property and is surrounded by native and non- native vegetation, including oak trees. No historical resources exist on the project site. Most historic resources in the vicinity are associated with railroad development, oil production, and the settlement of the Newhall community which is located several miles north of the project site. No known historical resources are located on subject property and there is no reason to suspect that historic resources will be found during construction. The project site has been surveyed at least twice in the past for historic resources, most recently in 2005. That survey documented remnants of concrete foundations, conduit, a linoleum floor, and concrete steps. These structural remnants are consistent with a single family home and were not believed to have historic or cultural value. A more in-depth study was conducted by W&S Consultants in January 2009. That study concluded that the foundation remnants date from post -World War II, that the structure no longer maintains integrity, and therefore is not historically significant. City records indicate that the structure was demolished in the early 1990s. No historic resources occur, or are suspected to occur, on-site. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, nor would the project create other impacts to cultural resources. V b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation The project site is not known or expected to contain prehistoric or historic archeological sites. The project site has been previously disturbed by highway grading, creek channelization, and residential use. The property is also mowed and grubbed regularly for weed abatement to reduce the risk of fire. An archeological survey was conducted on the site in January 2009 by W&S Consultants. The survey concluded that further archeological work was not 48 recommended for the property. Given this, it is unlikely that project construction and daily operations would encounter previously undiscovered archeological resources. However, in the event that archeological resources are encountered during grading or construction of the project, Mitigation Measure CUL -1 requires that all project grading and construction be halted until an archeologist examines the site, identifies the archaeological significance of the find, and recommends a course of action. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would ensure that the proposed project would not significantly impact archeological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL -1 If archaeological resources are encountered during project excavation or construction, all construction activities shall immediately cease until an archeologist certified by the Society of Professional Archeologists examines the site, identifies the archaeological significance of the find, and recommends a course of action. Construction shall not resume until the site archaeologist states in writing that the proposed construction activities will not significantly damage archaeological resources, and the City of Santa Clarita concurs with this conclusion. V c. Less Than Significant Impact The project site is not known to nor expected to contain paleontological sites. The project site has been previously disturbed by highway grading, streambed channelization, residential uses, and fire prevention/weed abatement activities. While the area is not known to produce significant vertebrate fossils, project construction would involve substantial, deep grading. Such grading could encounter previously undiscovered paleontological resources. As such, in the unlikely event that paleontological resources are encountered during grading or construction of the retail center, Mitigation Measure CUL -2 requires that all project grading and construction efforts be halted until a paleontologist examines the site, identifies the significance of the find, and recommends a course of action. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL -2 would ensure that the proposed project would not significantly impact paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL -2 If paleontological resources are encountered during project excavation or construction, all construction activities shall immediately cease until a paleontologist, with qualifications that meet the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita, examines the site, identifies the significance of the find, and recommends a course of action. If such a scenario arises, construction shall be halted and not resumed until recommended by the site paleontologist and approved by the City of Santa Clarita. V d. Less Than Significant Impact No human remains are known to be located on the project site. The project site is not part of a formal cemetery and there is no reason to suspect that the site was used in the past for burial of historic or prehistoric human remains. Therefore, it is not expected that human remains would be encountered during construction or excavation activities. Regardless, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that all project grading and construction efforts be halted if a burial site is encountered. Construction and grading activities shall not resume until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the human remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that the proposed project would not result in significant impacts due to disturbing human remains. 49 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS VI a. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation The site encompasses a portion of the eastern -most and the lower slopes of a network of low ridgelines and shallow valleys of the San Gabriel Mountains. Elevations on site range from about 1,428' on the southern -most part of the property to 1,374' in the creek bed at the northern end of the property where the channel enters the culvert under Newhall Avenue. Surface disturbance on the property has greatly altered the vegetation on the flatter areas of the site creating primarily non-native grassland. The site was graded in the past and according to the geotechnical report, between three and seven feet of fill rests upon the original topography. Riparian habitat exists along the bottom of the stream channel that flows through the project site. As with the rest of the site, the stream area does not exist in its natural state and has been disturbed by grading and channelization through the years.. The stream bank is forested and contains lush vegetation. The stream sits approximately ten feet lower than the flatter areas of the site. The San Gabriel Mountains are comprised of plutonic and metamorphic rocks that are slowly being thrust over the San Fernando Valley to the south. The Santa Clarita Valley is an east -trending trough within the Traverse Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Traverse Ranges Province is composed of parallel, east/west-trending mountain ranges and intervening sediment filled valleys. The Traverse Ranges Province is one of the most active tectonic/seismic areas of the United States. The distinctive geologic structure of the Traverse Ranges is dominated by the effects of north -south compressive deformation that results in thrust faulting, strike -slip faulting, and bedrock folding. These active geologic features are attributable to convergence between the "Big Bend" of the San Andreas Fault and northwestern motion of the Pacific Plate, and have caused thrust fault related earthquakes such as the 1971 San Fernando, the 1987 Whittier Narrows, and the 1994 Northridge earthquakes. The San Femando-Sierra Madre fault zone is a recently active portion of the larger fault system that stretches from Ventura to San Bernardino along the south side of a series of large mountain ranges. Other major east -west trending faults associated with the Traverse Ranges of Southern California include the Malibu --Santa Monica --Hollywood, Santa Susana, Oak Ridge, and the Raymond fault systems. A short segment of the potentially active San Gabriel fault has recently been shown to offset Holocene alluvial materials and therefore has been designated as being active by the State Geologist. The San Fernando -- Sierra Madre --Cucamonga fault system is associated with the most devastating temblors in the Los Angeles area in historic times, specifically the 1971 San Fernando earthquake and the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Within the City of Santa Clarita the San Andreas Fault is of major concern as it makes development in the City subject to more stringent building codes. With incorporation of proper building codes the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects related to seismic activity. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 encompasses the recommendations in the project's geotechnical report that references construction and building methods that are appropriate for the project site. Based on the analysis of the geotechnical report, if all recommendations are followed and implemented properly, potential impacts would be addressed and reduced to a level that would be less than significant. 50 (i) Less Than Significant Impact The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or within any other fault zones identified on Exhibit S-2 of the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan. (ii) Less Than Significant Impact As stated in Section VI(a), the project site is located in one of the most seismically active regions of the United States. The proposed retail center would likely be subject to strong seismic shaking at some point in time. Consequently, precautions will be taken during the design, engineering, and construction phases of the project to ensure that the structures would perform well during seismic events in an effort to minimize earthquake damage. The proposed development will be required to be built according to the Uniform Building Code and other applicable codes, and is subject to building inspection during and after construction. Structures for human occupation must be designed to meet or exceed California Uniform Building Code standards. A geotechnical report was prepared for the project and lists specific construction methods and precautions that can be taken to reduce impacts and risk due to seismic shaking. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 encompasses the recommendations in the project's geotechnical report that references construction and building methods that are appropriate for the project site. Based on the analysis of the geotechnical report, if all recommendations are followed and implemented properly, potential impacts would be addressed and reduced to a level that would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects due to strong seismic ground shaking. Any impact would be less than significant. (iii) Less Than Significant Impact The project site is located within a known liquefaction area as shown on Exhibit S-3 of the Santa Clarita General Plan. A geotechnical report was prepared by Brian A. Robinson Associates, Inc., in August 2006 to determine specific geotechnical and soil details of the project site. Based on that report, and more specifically on a liquefaction analysis, the engineer concluded the site was suitable for development. Provided that the engineer's recommendations are incorporated into building designs, and provided that the recommendations are properly implemented during grading and construction, the site would not be subjected to seismically induced liquefaction. (iv) Less Than Significant Impact Based on Exhibit S-3 in the Safety Element of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan, the project site is not located in an area that is subject to soil instability nor is the site located within a fault zone. Therefore, the proposed development will not be subject to geologic hazard from landslides, settlement, or slippage and any impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 The applicant shall follow all grading, construction, building, and engineering recommendations and methods listed in the geotechnical report prepared by Brian A. Robinson & Associates, Inc., dated August 25, 2006. The project shall also be developed in accordance with the latest State and City building codes. Any deviation from methods listed in the geotechnical report shall require written approval from the City's Planning, Engineering, and Building and Safety 51 Divisions, as well as the approval of the soils engineer, project geologist, and any other City division or public agency that has jurisdiction. VI b. Less Than Significant Impact At some point in the past, the project site was graded and filled to create a level parcel. The site drains via sheet flow into a small gully that conveys water to the northwest under Newhall Avenue and eventually into the Santa Clara River. The property is regularly mowed and grubbed for weed abatement and fire prevention. During construction, standard Best Management Practices will be incorporated to minimize wind and soil erosion. Once project construction is complete, there will be little to no potential for soil erosion due to project landscaping and paving. Provided that the all of the recommendations are followed properly in the geotechnical report, any soil erosion would either be non-existent or less than significant. VI c. Less Than Significant Impact The project site has a south -to -north trending slope and is mostly flat with the exception of a gully and stream that runs across the property in a northwesterly direction. The project site is not situated on a cliff, mountainside, bluff, or other geographic feature with known stability concerns. Furthermore, the proposed project would include additional grading, slope stabilization measures, and retaining walls that would eliminate any potential unstable conditions. The geotechnical report contains recommendations, that if properly followed and implemented, would further reduce the likelihood of landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Therefore, any impacts to unstable soil conditions would be less than significant. VI d. No Impact. According to the geotechnical report prepared for the project, the soils on the project site are not expansive (page 16). Therefore, there would be no impact. VI e. No Impact. The project would not use a septic system. Sewer service is available in the area. Wastewater would be conveyed to treatment facilities owned by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. Therefore there would be no impact. VI f. Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project site does not contain major ridgelines or other regionally significant or notable topographic features. Therefore, there would be no impact. VI g. Less Than Significant Impact The proposed grading consists of 7,000 cubic yards of cut, 46,000 cubic yards of import, for a total 53,000 cubic yards of fill. The maximum fill depth would be 21'. The topography of the project site is generally flat, sloping from the south along Sierra Highway northward toward Newhall Avenue. There is an approximate grade difference of 54' from the highest point off Sierra Highway (1,428' above mean sea level) to the lowest point where the Newhall Creek runs under Newhall Avenue (1,374'). The streambed is located at the bottom of a 10' gully that runs in a northwesterly direction across the site. The import of soil and the cut and fill activities to prepare the project site for development will result in the following finished pad grades: Hotel: 1,415' Office Pads: 1,398' Restaurant Pad: 1,401' 52 Retail 1: 1,401' Grading will include a subterranean parking deck below the office pads. Approximately 300' of the northern end of the streambed will be channelized into a box culvert and covered with 10' of fill to create the northern parking area and building pad for Retail 1. Retail I will actually be located over the box culvert. All earthwork will be engineered and graded to City standards. Finished fills, cuts, and grades will comply with the Unified Development Code. The geotechnical report lists specific construction methods and recommendations for the project that, if followed and implemented properly, would not result in significant impacts to topography, ground surface relief features, or grading and dirt hauling. Therefore, and development impacts would be less than significant. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS VII a. Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project involves the development of a 10.28 acre site with five buildings including a hotel, a restaurant, a multi -tenant retail building that would include a drive-through service window, and two office/commercial buildings. This project does not involve the use or storage of hazardous substances other than the small amounts of pesticides, fertilizers, and cleaning agents required for normal maintenance of the structures and landscaping. The project must adhere to applicable zoning and fire regulations regarding the use and storage of any hazardous substances. The site is currently vacant has been used in the past for residential and stockpiling uses. Common uses in the type of development proposed for the site do not typically generate or produce hazardous materials. Since no hazardous materials are produced, no need exists to transport those materials elsewhere. Therefore, the project would not cause a significant impact related to creating significant hazards to the public or environment through the routine transport or disposal of hazardous materials. VII b. No Impact. Typical uses in a project such as the proposed retail center would not be expected to create a significant hazard to the public due to 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). VII c. No Impact McGrath EIementary School is located one mile north of the development site and would be the nearest school to the proposed retail center. This exceeds the quarter -mile (1,350') threshold identified under CEQA. As was discussed in Section VII (a) of this report, the proposed retail development is not anticipated to store, use, or generate substantial amounts of hazardous materials and is not anticipated to utilize any acutely hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would not have any related impacts. VII d. No Impact The proposed project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 35962.5. As a result, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 53 VII e. No Impact The proposed development is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The project would not create a safety hazard for people residing or working in the proposed retail center. Therefore, there would be no impact. VII f. No Impact The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the proposed development. Therefore, there would be no impact. VII g. No Impact The proposed development is located on vacant commercial land and fronts two major arterials. The Antelope Valley Freeway (SR -14) is also located nearby. The project would not place any permanent or temporary physical barriers on any existing public streets. The subject property is not utilized by any emergency response agencies and no emergency response facilities exist in the vicinity. Therefore, the project will not affect any adopted emergency response plan, emergency evacuation plan, or have any other impact to emergency response planning. VII h. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation As shown on the City's Fire Hazards Zone map (Exhibit S-5 in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan), the project site is located within a fire hazard area. The Los Angeles County Fire Department describes the subject property as being located within the "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone." This was formerly known as "Fire Zone 4." The Los Angeles County Fire Department has reviewed the site plan for the proposed development and has provided conditions of approval. These conditions generally include requirements concerning access, water delivery systems, a fuel modification pian, and various other requirements that reduce the risk of fire damage to life and property. Mitigation Measure HAZ VII -1 requires the Fire Department's conditions to be incorporated into the proposed development. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure HAZ VII -1, the proposed project's wildfire -related impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure 19AZ VII -1 The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's "Conditions of Approval" for the project as stated in the Development Review Comments shall be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval that are subject to a public hearing and approval by the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission. VII i. No Impact There are no known sources of potential health hazards located on site. Therefore, the proposed development would have no impact. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Hydrology Report, Santa Clarita Gateway, 233000 Newhall Avenue, Santa Clarita, CA 91321. Prepared for SFXS Partners, LLC. By Pickserv., Inc, August 8, 2008. VIII a. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation 54 Section 303 of the federal Clean Water Act 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 accordance with the County -wide MS4 permit, all new developments must comply with 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 BMPs that will be implemented. This project is a development planning priority project under the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit as it consists of a commercial development of greater than one acre in size. An Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP) that incorporates appropriate post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), maximizes pervious surfaces, and includes filtration into the design of the project is required to reduce potential stormwater pollution impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures HYD -1 and HYD -2 specifies compliance with this regulatory requirement which is a standard condition of approval. (See also the discussion under VIIIf). Mitigation Measure HYD -1: An Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP) that incorporates appropriate post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), maximizes pervious surfaces, and includes filtration into the design of the project must be prepared and reviewed and approved by the City of Santa Clarita Environmental Services Division for consistency with NPDES requirements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. BMPs to meet SUSMP requirements included in the USMP shall include: 1) mitigation of potential downstream erosion 55 (retention of the increased flow due to the proposed project); and, 2) a series of VMPs to treat the first flush of stormwater (treatment train). Mitigation Measure HYD -2: Prior to site plan approval the project applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan for reviewed and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall specify measures to ensure on-site retention of all eroded sediments and other pollutants and to ensure sediments and pollutants are not transported from the site via sheetflow, swales, area drains, natural drainage courses, or wind. VIII b. Less Than Significant Impact The project would not install any groundwater wells, and would not otherwise directly withdraw any groundwater. In addition, there are no known aquifer conditions at the project site or in the surrounding area which could be intercepted by excavation or development of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically interfere with any groundwater supplies. There are two primary watersheds that drain onto the project site: the Sierra Highway watershed and the Elsmere Canyon watershed. The water flows of these watersheds eventually empty into the Santa Clara River. The Santa Clara River is the primary groundwater recharge area for the Santa Clarita Valley (City of Santa Clarita General Plan, 1991). The proposed project would alter on-site water flows with the installation of pipes, grading of the site, the addition of a flood wall, the extension of a box culvert within Newhall Creek, and the addition of impermeable surfaces. However, the drainage of the two watersheds would remain essentially the same. The proposed drainage alterations would increase the site's outflow capacity (see VIIId) but would not increase the flow from the site itself. Water would continue to flow into Newhall Creek and downstream into the Santa Clara River. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. VIII c. 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, the final design of the development's drainage systems will be 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. Due to the drainage features included in the proposed site plans, standard engineering practices are expected to achieve this requirement. Consequently, the project would not substantially increase erosion or siltation off-site. The project would result in the minor alteration of a natural drainage course with the installation of a 300 foot extension of the box culvert in Newhall Creek which would connect into the existing drainage system. Additionally, the on-site drainage systems, in accordance with the NPDES requirements discussed above in Section VIII(a), are required to include BMPs to reduce erosion and siltation to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, with the application of standard engineering practices, NPDES requirements, measures specified in VIIIa and City standards, the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite, and the project would have no additional significant impacts. 56 VIII d, e. Less Than Significant Impact Source: Hydrology Report, Santa Clarita Gateway, 233000 Newhall Avenue, Santa Clarita, CA 91321. Prepared for SFXS Partners, LLC. By Pickserv., Inc. August 8, 2008. The 10.28 -acre project site is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway. As detailed in the Hydrology Report for the project, there are two primary watersheds that flow through the project site. Approximately 580 acres of the Sierra Highway watershed drain onto the project site and approximately 1,400 acres from the Elsmere Canyon watershed drain onto the project site. The storm water runoff generated from the Sierra Highway watershed and the stormwater runoff generated from the Elsmere Canyon watershed include approximately 1,340 acres that drain under Sierra Highway north of Newhall Avenue to a confluence with the Whitney Canyon watershed below the project site. Storm Water - Siena Highway Watershed The storm water runoff from the Sierra Highway watershed collects in a concrete flume that flows north, parallel to Sierra Highway and then enters into a 6 feet high by 8 feet wide reinforced concrete box culvert on the west side of Sierra Highway just south of the entrance to Eternal Valley Memorial Park & Mortuary. The reinforced concrete box culvert turns and flows under Sierra Highway. After crossing under Sierra Highway, the reinforced concrete box culvert turn again to form an "S" curve. As the reinforced concrete box culvert approaches the southern property line of the proposed project site, it transitions into a circular 72" reinforced concrete pipe. The 72" reinforced concrete pipe flows to the north approximately 350 feet to a headwall outlet into a natural channel. Storm Water — Elsmere Canyon Watershed The storm water runoff from the Elsmere Canyon watershed flows under the Antelope Valley Freeway through a curved, 13.5 feet high concrete arch pipe. Storm water from the concrete arch pipe discharges into a 10 feet deep and 11 feet wide concrete flume. Storm water then flows into an 11 feet diameter corrugated metal pipe, through a curved concrete flume, and outlets into a natural channel. Storm Water—Project Site The storm water runoff from the Sierra Highway watershed discharges onto the site approximately 350 feet north of the southern property line of the proposed project site and flows through approximately 240 feet of natural channel to the confluence with the storm water runoff from Elsmere Canyon watershed. After the confluence, the storm water continues flowing north through approximately 750 feet of natural channel to the entrance of a curved double 8 feet high by 10 feet wide reinforced concrete box culvert that flows under the intersection of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway. Project Drainage Improvements — Flood Wall Construction and Extension of Culvert A portion of the project site is within the 50 year floodplain (Q50bb storm event) as shown in Figure 19 The on-site floodplain was determined by Pickserv, Inc. using the HEC -RAS engineering software model, as existing floodplain maps do not adequately address the project site. According to the HEC -RAS software, the existing storm drain under the intersection of Newhall Avenue and Sierra 57 Highway has the capacity to convey the Q25 storm event without overtopping the intersection of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway, but is not sufficient to convey the flow rate anticipated for the Qsobb storm event without overtopping the intersection. Based on a steady state analysis using HEC-RAS, the Hydrology Study predicts the capacity of the existing storm drain under the intersection at approximately 3,600 cfs, resulting in approximately 1,700 cfs of flow over the intersection during a Qsobb storm event. Therefore the proposed project includes the construction of a flood wall and extension of the existing culvert. The proposed project includes installation of an 8' x 22' box culvert in Newhall Creek. The existing double reinforced concrete box culvert would be extended upstream into the property approximately 300 feet, reducing the intersection overflow to approximately 1,100 cfs. The culvert will connect to the existing culvert on Newhall Avenue. The culvert will affect 300 linear feet of the Newhall Creek and approximately 0.11-acres of "waters of the US" (300 linear feet). Avoidance and minimization measures for project impacts are included in the biological assessment, wetland delineation report, and diversion plan as discussed in Section IV-Biological Resources. Mitigation will consist of on-site creation of riparian habitat (0.34-acres), restoration/enhancement of riparian habitat (2.79-acres), and preservation of riparian habitat (3.13-acres). The applicant will provide additional mitigation in order to satisfy CDFG requirements, as part of obtaining a required Streambed Alteration Permit for the project. In order to protect the proposed project from the floodplain, the proposed project includes construction of a wall along the west side of the existing natural channel. The Hydrology Report indicates that with construction of the floodwall, the existing storm drain under the intersection of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway has the capacity to convey the Qsobb storm event without overtopping the intersection. The floodwall would be constructed along the edge of the California Department of Fish and Game Jurisdictional waters. With implementation of the project features (flood wall, culvert extension), there will be adequate on and off-site capacity in the project vicinity to handle the Qsobb storm event. Flood-related impacts are therefore anticipated to be less than significant. The proposed project could increase runoff by installing impermeable surfaces. However, as discussed above in Section VIII.c, compliance with the City's SUSMP ordinance would ensure that post-development peak storm water runoff rates to not exceed pre-development peak storm water runoff rates. Therefore, the off-site drainage network that supports the project and surrounding watershed will be adequate to handle the project's post development runoff. Similarly, as discussed above in Sections VIII.a and VIII.c, the project would generate only typical, non-point source, urban stormwater pollutants. These pollutants are covered by the County-wide MS4 permit, and the projects, through the City's SUSMP ordinance, are required to implement BMPs to reduce stormwater pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, the proposed project would not create runoff that would exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage system and would not provide a substantial additional source of polluted runoff. 58 %%fl%` ( . 9 VIII f. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation The proposed development will not be a point -source generator of water pollutants. The only long-term water pollutants expected to be generated from the development are typical urban stormwater pollutants. Compliance with the City's SUSMP ordinance will ensure these stormwater pollutants would not substantially degrade water quality. (See discussion under VIIIa). The project, however, also has the potential to generate short-term water pollutants during construction, including sediment, trash, construction materials, and 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 constructions 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 on a construction site of one acre or greater, such as the proposed project, 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 the both the MS4's construction site requirements and the State's General Construction Permit, as well as implementing a SWPPP will ensure that construction of the proposed project would not significantly impact water quality. The following mitigation measure will ensure compliance with SWPPP requirements: 60 Mitigation Measure HYD -3: The project applicant shall obtain coverage under a statewide General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit (General Permit). A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and approved by the City's Environmental Services Division prior to the issuance of a grading permit and the project applicant shall demonstrate that a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the State's General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit has been submitted to the SWRCB. The proposed project includes the installation of 300 feet of box culvert within Newhall Creek, which is considered "waters of the United States." Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Activities in waters of the United States that are regulated under this program include fills for development, water resource projects (such as dams and levees), infrastructure development (such as highways and airports), and conversion of wetlands to uplands for farming and forestry. Applicants for federal permits (such as a 404 permit) that involve dredge or fill activities in surface waters (including wetlands) are required to obtain certification from the state verifying that the activity will comply with state water quality standards. This state certification is called 401 Certification in reference to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. In California, 401 Certification actions are the responsibility of the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Compliance with 401 requirements ensures that activities within waters of the United States have less than significant water quality impacts. The following mitigation measures will ensure compliance with 401 certification requirements: Mitigation Measure HYD -4: The project applicant shall obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB for construction activities within waters of the United States, prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the proposed project. Site Specific Best Management Practices Applicable to Work in Jurisdictional Areas for the Sierra Crossing Project which may be specified in the Section 401 permit at the discretion of the RWQCB include: • Construction shall be scheduled during the dry season. • Native soil backfill shall be utilized. • Prior to work, the boundaries of each impact area will be clearly marked with flagging to prevent encroachment from debris, incidental fallback, etc., into undisturbed portions of the area. • Pre -construction meetings at the impact area will be held to review/clarify all permit conditions and to ensure all contractors observe the boundaries/limits of construction. • Any removed soil will be stored outside of the jurisdictional area and protected by barriers such as sand bags, hay bails, etc. and covered if necessary for soil run-off, dust, and debris control. • Construction material, debris and any other substances associated with work within the jurisdictional area will be located/stored outside of jurisdictional area throughout construction to avoid inadvertent spill into jurisdictional areas. • Heavy equipment and other vehicles will be stored outside of jurisdictional area and any nearby sensitive habitat. • Equipment used within jurisdictional waters will be inspected regularly for potential leaks. 61 • Maintenance activities such as refueling on equipment used to remove soils within jurisdictional areas will occur outside of jurisdictional areas. • If pumps and generators are necessary they will be used with on drip pans. • Temporary work areas will be protected and re -vegetated as soon as feasible to prevent erosion. • Any potential ponding water will be dissipated as soon as possible to prevent the breeding of mosquitoes, gnats, black flies or other pests. VIII g, i. No Impact The proposed project does not include any housing. There are no dams or levees in the project vicinity that would expose the project site to flooding upon failure. VIII h. Less Than Significant Impact A portion of the project site is located within a 100 -year flood hazard area as determined by Pickserv, Inc. as detailed in the Hydrology Report for the project. See discussion under VIIId. However, the proposed project includes construction of a flood wall, as well as the installation of a box culvert in order to protect the project site from flood hazards. These measures will ensure that flood hazards will have a less than significant impact on proposed project uses. VIII j. No Impact There are no bodies of water in the vicinity of the project sites that are capable of producing seiche or tsunami. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact from seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. VIII k. Less Than Significant Impact As discussed more fully in VIIIa, VIIIc, and VIIIf, portions of the project site are located within a floodplain. In order to protect the project site from flooding a flood wall will be constructed. In addition, in order to ensure adequate stormwater conveyance capacity, a box culvert will be installed in 300 feet of Newhall Creek. The Hydrology Report for the proposed project includes a velocity comparison for the existing channel, and proposed channel velocities with the addition of the box culvert. According to the Hydrology Report the velocity at the outlet of the existing double reinforced concrete box culvert for the capital flood is 6.5 feet per second. The velocity at the same location for with the proposed project would also be 6.5 feet per second. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in velocity for the downstream property owners. Similarly velocities in the existing channel would generally be the same or less than under existing conditions. Impacts are therefore less than significant. As discussed above in Sections VIIIc and VIIId, compliance with the City's SUSMP ordinance would ensure that post -development peak storm water runoff rates to not exceed pre -development peak storm water runoff rates. Further, as discussed in section VIIIf, the proposed changes to the sites drainages would not cause any significant impacts water quality impacts with compliance with Section 401 requirements. 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. VIII 1. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation As discussed under VIIIf, the culvert extension will affect 300 linear feet of the Newhall Creek and approximately 0.11 -acres of "waters of the US" (300 linear feet). Water quality mitigations are included under VIIIa, VIIIe, and VIIIf, above. In addition, avoidance and minimization measures for project impacts 62 are included in the biological assessment, wetland delineation report, and diversion plan as discussed in Section IV -Biological Resources. Mitigation will consist of on-site creation of riparian habitat (0.34 -acres), restoration/enhancement of riparian habitat (2.79 -acres), and preservation of riparian habitat (3.13 -acres). As discussed under Section IV -Biological Resources, the applicant will provide mitigation in order to satisfy CDFG requirements, as part of obtaining a required Streambed Alteration Permit for the project. With compliance with these regulatory permit/mitigation requirements impacts will be less than significant. VIII in. Less Than Significant Impact (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi): Less Than Significant Impact As discussed above in Sections VIIIa, VIIIc, VIIId, and VIIIe and VIIIf of this Mitigated Negative Declaration, the project is required to comply with the City's SUSMP ordinance, the Countywide MS4 permit, the State's NPDES General Construction Permit, and required to implement a SUSMP compliance plan and a SWPPP. Compiling with these requirements of the Clean Water Act and the NPDES will ensure the proposed projects would not significantly impact stormwater management. In addition, the project will require Section 401 and Streambed Alteration Permits which will ensure that work within Newhall Channel will not result in water quality or biological resource impacts. No additional hydrology and water quality impacts beyond those discussed above, (see Sections VIIIa, VIIIc, and VIIIf), are anticipated to result from the proposed project. (vii): Less Than Significant Impact The project proposes commercial uses. Construction and operation of the project are required to comply with the California Waste Management Act, which requires a 50% or better diversion rate for solid waste. The City complies with this act through the City's franchised solid waste management services, which will provide waste disposal service to proposed homes. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING IX a. No Impact The project is located between the Antelope Valley Freeway and Sierra Highway. The site was graded flat sometime in the early 20`x' Century and once contained a residence. The site has been used recently for commercial storage and stockpiling, but overall the land is vacant. The current zoning designation is Community Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay. A vehicle storage yard is located to the south of the site, a cemetery, single-family residence, and gas station is located across the street to the west, and a fast food restaurant is situated to the north of the subject property on the other side of Newhall Avenue. The land located between the project site and the Antelope Valley Freeway is vacant and carries the same zoning and overlay designation as the subject property. The proposed project would not divide any community nor would the development, when completed, have any impacts on nearby residents. Therefore, there would be no impact. IX b. Less Than Significant Impact The project site is not part of a specific plan nor is the project located within the Coastal Zone as described in the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1966. The project is, however, located within the City of Santa Clarita's Redevelopment Area and the Enterprise Zone. The type of uses proposed for the site are consistent with the intent of the Redevelopment Area. Additionally, the Enterprise Zone would provide tax incentives to businesses that qualify. 63 Development on the site would be governed by the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Unified Development Code. The project site is zoned Community Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay (CC(PD)). The proposed commercial development is consistent with the uses intended for the Community Commercial Zone. Because the parcel is located in an area that has been designated as a City gateway, a Planned Development (PD) Overlay was added to the underlying zoning to ensure that any development would require a hearing before the Planning Commission. The proposed project is consistent with the City's vision for the area. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for additional height above 35'. A CUP is also required for any development within a PD overlay area. An Oak Tree Permit (OTP) is required for the removal of eight (8) non -heritage oak trees as well as mitigation measures to prevent impacts to other oak trees on the property. With the issuance of the CUP and OTP, the development will comply with all City codes and requirements and will be consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations, and any impacts associated with project construction or operation would be less than significant. IX c. No Impact The project site is not within a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved environmental resources conservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any adopted environmental conservation plans and the project would have no related impacts and no further analysis is necessary. X. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES X a, b. No Impact The project site is located within a mineral area identified on Exhibit OS -5 "Mineral Resources" of the City's General Plan. Oil wells are located in the vicinity but there is no evidence or records of past oil production on the project site itself. Furthermore, there is no reason to suspect that the site has any potential of producing oil or other mineral resources. The development would not displace nor result in the loss of any oil extraction or other mineral mining activities. Therefore, the project would have no impact. X c. Less Than Significant The project would utilize building materials for construction of the project, many of which are nonrenewable resources, including sand, gravel, earth, iron, steel and hardscape materials. Other construction resources such as lumber are renewable, albeit slowly. The project would consume energy and water resources as a result of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the development. Much of the energy that will be utilized on-site will be generated through combustion of fossil fuels which are not renewable resources. Market -rate conditions encourage the efficient use of materials and employees during construction. Similarly, the energy and water resources that would be utilized by the proposed development would be acquired from regional utility purveyors that participate in various conservation programs. There are no unique conditions that would required excessive use of nonrenewable resources on the project site and the project is expected to utilize energy and water resources in the same manner as typical commercial development. Therefore, the proposed project would not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner and the project would have no related significant impacts. 64 XI. NOISE XI a. Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would not expose persons or generate levels of noise in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance. Based on the City's Noise Contour Map which is listed as Exhibit N-3 under the General Plan's Noise Element, the proposed development would be located in an area that is subject to ambient noise levels around 65 dBA. Pursuant to the acceptable land uses that would be located in this type of noise environment, a retail/commercial development would be considered to be within acceptable limits. This means that retail and commercial buildings would be considered to include adequate noise insulation that is required by conventional construction methods. Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with the existing land uses in the immediate project vicinity which are primarily commercial in nature. The development is not in an area that would expose people to excessive noise nor would the project itself be expected to generate excessive noise. Therefore, any noise impacts would be less than significant. XI b. Less Than Significant Impact The project would not expose persons to, nor would it be expected to generate, excessive ground -born noise or vibration. Grading activities may temporarily generate vibrations; however, in accordance with the City's noise ordinance construction activities could only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction or grading would be permitted on Sundays. There are no sensitive receptors directly adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the proposed retail/commercial development would not cause significant ground -born vibration or noise impacts. XI c. Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project will not increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels that currently exist without the project. The most noise would occur during grading and construction of the project. These activities will create a temporary increase in ambient noise levels and will subside once grading and construction is complete. With a development of this size, the increase in the number of trips to and from the site will not create a noticeable difference in ambient noise levels. Therefore, no significant long-term noise impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. XI d. Less Than Significant Impact Construction of the proposed project will generate short-term noise impacts. Examples of the level of noise generated by construction equipment at 50 feet from the source is presented in Table XI -1. Noise levels decrease substantially with distance. Tractors, trucks, and graders result in noise levels in the 80-86 dBA level at 50 feet. Both Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue are more than 80' wide, providing a distance buffer between surrounding commercial parcels and the project site. 65 (continued on next page) Table XI -1: Noise Levels Generated by Typical Construction Equipment 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 Suggested Sound Residential zone R 9.9_of Sound Levels Levels for Analysis Type of Equipment (dBA at 50 feet Pile driver (12,000- Commercial manufacturing Day 18,000 ft-lb/blower __..._...... __..___81-96 .._._._ __._.__.... ___....__._.._.__ 93..__._........._._. _. Rock drill 83-99 96 Jack hammer 75-85 82 Pneumatic tools 78-88 85 �.�68-80__._.___.._._....._ _._ �_.._.._77 ._._._ Bulldozer85-90 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 Source: EPA 1971 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 manufacturing Day 80 Commercial 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. (continued on next page) 66 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: Noise Condition Correction in dB 1 Repetitive impulsive noise -5 2 Steady whine, screech or hum -5 The followinq corrections apply to day only: (3) Noise occurring more than 5 but less than 15 minutes per hour +5 (4) Noise occurring more than 1 but less than 5 minutes per hour +10 5 Noise occurring less than 1 minute per hour +20 Section 11.44.080 of the Municipal Code places limitations on construction times for purposes of limiting noise impacts and the project will subject to this limitation, therefore, no nighttime noise impacts are anticipated. 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 would be required to meet these standards. Furthermore, there are no sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause any significant impacts from temporarily generating noise. XI e. No Impact The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. XI f. No Impact The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING XII a. Less Than Significant Impact Growth -inducing impacts are caused by those 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. Commercial development that is consistent with the General Plan and existing zoning is not considered to be substantial. The project site currently includes 10.28 acres and is zoned Community Commercial Planned Development Overlay (CC(PD)). The proposed project is consistent with the commercial development and growth that is anticipated for the area under the General Plan. The commercial center would generate employment opportunities. The number and type of building tenants is too speculative at this point to anticipate the specific quantity of jobs that would be created, but the project would generate employment growth. Given the project 67 site's location near the Antelope Valley Freeway and the fact that the development would be located within the City's Enterprise Zone, the proposed development site has several advantages for businesses. Over the next twenty years, the City's population is anticipated to increase as follows: Area Year Population Source City of Santa Clarita 2000 151,088 US Bureau of the Census City of Santa Clarita 2001 153,600 CA Dept. of Finance, 8/03 Cit of Santa Clarita 2002 158,200 CA Dept. of Finance, 8/03 City of Santa Clarita 2003 162,900 CA Dept. of Finance, 8/03 City of Santa Clarita 2008 177,520 Santa Clarita, 8/03 Santa Clarita Valley 2000 213,178 US Bureau of the Census Santa Clarita Valley 2010 243,104 SCAG, 6/02 Santa Clarita Valley 2015 272,260 SCAG, 6/02 Santa Clarita Valley 2020 313,290 SCAG, 6/02 Santa Clarita Valle 2025 352,382 SCAG, 6/02 The project's direct minor growth inducing impacts affecting the City's population is therefore not considered to be substantial. Rather, the resulting increase in the City's employment base is regionally growth accommodating. The Southern California Association of Governments' planning efforts have assumed for this incremental increase in growth. Since the project is growth -accommodating rather than growth -inducing, and since the project is consistent with the growth forecasts for the Southern California region, the project would not have significant growth -inducing impacts. XII b. No Impact The project site is undeveloped and commercially zoned, therefore, the proposed project would not displace any persons and would not have any associated impacts. No impacts will result to population and housing by the construction or operation of the project. Therefore, no additional analysis is necessary. XII c. No Impact The project site is undeveloped and commercially zoned. The proposed project would not displace any housing units or people and would have no associated impacts. The project will not result in either population or housing impacts. Therefore, no further analysis is necessary. 68 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES XIII a. (i) Less Than Significant Impact The project is located within a "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" (formerly known as Fire Zone 4). As such, the project will be subject to Fuel Modification Plan approval. The project is subject to Fire Department requirements regarding the location and number of fire hydrants, fire flow, street access, turn-arounds, and signage. Compliance with Fire Department requirements are included as conditions of approval. The proposed project will not result in the need for additional new or altered fire protection services and will not alter acceptable service ratios or response times. The proposed project would develop a retail center which would increase the structures served by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. However, the project is not large enough to require the development of additional Fire Department facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact fire protection services. (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 result in the development of a retail center and which would increase the number of businesses 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. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact police protection services. (iii) No Impact The proposed project would add a retail center to the City of Santa Clarita. The site is located within the Newhall Union Elementary School District boundary, and also the William S. Hart Union High School District boundary. Although the new retail center would be located within these districts' jurisdiction, the project does not include a residential component that would increase attendance at any local school. Therefore, the project would not result in any impact to enrollment at local schools. (iv) Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would construct a retail development in the City of Santa Clarita, which may minimally increase the use of the local and regional parks system. They City's General Plan establishes Parks Standards to ensure that adequate Community and Neighborhood Parks are provided for its residents. To maintain these park standards, and in accordance with the Quimby Act, the City collects impact fees to offset the increased use of parks generated by new development. Payment of these fees mitigates the project's potential to increase the use of parks. With the payment of the City's park impact fees, if applicable, the project would not significantly impact park services. The project would not result in any significant impacts to public services. XIV. RECREATION XIV a. No Impact The proposed project consists of the development of general commercial/retail center that would be utilized primarily by surrounding communities and local population within the City. The project is not expected to increase the use of public parks. Therefore, development of the retail center would not lead to physical deterioration of existing neighborhood and regional recreational facilities and would have no related impacts. XIV b. No Impact The proposed project does not involve, and would not require, the construction or expansion of off-site recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed project does not involve the development of recreational facilities that would have an adverse effect on the environment nor would the project have any other associated impacts. No significant impacts will result to recreation facilities or resources from the project and therefore no further analysis is necessary. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC XV a. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Source: Santa Clarita Gateway Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Austin - Foust Associates, Inc., September 2008 and also the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The project is a proposed retail development consisting of approximately 99,000 square -feet of retail, office, and hotel space. The project is located at the corner of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway. This intersection is listed in the City's General Plan Circulation Element as a key intersection, which means that it is a vital component of the circulation network. As such, this is one of the intersections that plays a key role in the development and function of the arterial roadway system within the City. The proposed project could possibly generate changes to the circulation pattern in the local vicinity which could negatively impact the Level Of Service (LOS). Because of this, the applicant was required to prepare a traffic analysis to assess the possible impacts of the project on local traffic. Overall, findings contained in the traffic assessment reveal that the project would decrease (worsen) the LOS at the Sierra Highway/Newhall Avenue intersection unless mitigation measures (roadway improvements) are implemented. The total number of trips generated by the project is forecasted to be 4,400; however, this includes all trips, including "pass by" trips that currently use Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway. These trips already impact the intersection and cannot be attributed to the new development. Based on traffic forecasts, the proposed development would create 3,050 "net -new" trips that will be added to area roadways. These trips would be a direct result of the Sierra Crossing retail center. The intersection of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway currently operates at LOS A in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour. Without the project, the short term prediction (year 2010) for this intersection is LOS B in the AM peak hour (worse than the present) and LOS B in the PM peak hour (unchanged). The Sierra Crossing retail center is forecasted to generate 3,050 new daily trips. Peak hour forecasts consist of 170 trips during the AM peak hour (105 trips inbound) and 260 trips during the PM peak hour (140 trips outbound). With the additional traffic that would be generated once the project is completed, the Sierra Highway/Newhall Avenue intersection would operate in 70 the short term (year 20 10) at LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour without mitigation. Long-term forecasts (Interim Year/2015) take into account the traffic impacts of the proposed project along with the cumulative impacts that will be generated from other approved projects in the area. Without the Sierra Crossing retail center, the Interim Year/2015 condition for the Sierra Highway/Newhall Avenue intersection is forecast to be LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. With the construction of the proposed project, the AM peak LOS would remain the same at LOS F. The PM LOS, however, would worsen to LOS F unless mitigation measures are implemented. Project mitigation measures have been identified that would offset traffic impacts at the Sierra Highway/Newhall Avenue intersection. With the proposed project, and with the incorporation of the identified mitigation measures, Interim Year/2015 conditions in the AM peak hour would actually improve from LOS F to LOS E. Afternoon peak hour conditions would remain unchanged at LOS F. To put this another way, as long as the mitigation measures are implemented, the Sierra Crossing retail center would not worsen future traffic conditions at the intersection. Mitigation Measures TR -1, TRF -2, and TRF -3 are listed below: Mitigation Measure TRF -1 Widen northbound Sierra Highway approach along project frontage to provide a separate right -tum lane (for 2 left turn lanes, 2 through lanes, and 1 right -turn lane). Mitigation Measure TRF -2 Modify the westbound Newhall Avenue approach by relocating the existing raised median approximately six (6) feet south, and restripe to add a second left - turn lane (for 2 left -turn lanes, 2 through lanes, and one shared through/right turn lane). Mitigation Measure TRF -3 Modify traffic signal to provide a right -turn overlap phase for the northbound right -turn. XV b. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation The project is a proposed retail development consisting of approximately 99,000 square -feet of retail, office, and hotel space. The project is located at the corner of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway. This intersection is listed in the City's General Plan Circulation Element as a key intersection, which means that it is a vital component in the circulation network. The project is also in the immediate vicinity of three roadways that are recognized by the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) as being critical mobility corridors in the Southern California region. These roadways include State Route 14 (the Antelope Valley Freeway), Sierra Highway, and Newhall Avenue. Due to potential impacts of the project on these regionally significant mobility corridors, the applicant was required to submit a traffic study to determine the impacts to these roadways. CMP methodology states that a significant impact occurs when a proposed project increases traffic demand at a CMP monitoring location by two percent or more of capacity (V/C > .02), causing or worsening LOS F. From this trip distribution, an analysis of the affected area surrounding the project site was undertaken. The intersection of Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue, which is a CMP monitoring location, was evaluated for peak -hour conditions since the 71 project is anticipated to add more than 50 peak hour trips (the threshold specified by the CMP) to this location. The peak hour volumes were derived using the trip distribution and the trip generation data contained in the traffic assessment report. The nearest CMP freeway monitoring location is SR -14 and Interstate 5. Based on the trip generation and distribution values noted in the report, the project will add less than 150 peak hour trips in either direction at this location. This is below the threshold specified by the CMP for analysis and is not considered significant. CMP traffic analysis procedures only consider cumulative conditions reflected in the interim year (2015) analysis. The CMP analysis of the Sierra Highway/Newhall Avenue intersection revealed that in the year 2015 without the project, the intersection would operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. If the proposed project is built, and the identified mitigation measures implemented, the intersection would improve to operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour and remain unchanged at LOS F in the PM peak hour. Moreover, Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratios would decrease by .12 in the AM peak hour and .03 in the PM peak hour. Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there would be no impact, either individually or cumulatively to designated CMP roadways. XV 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. XV d. No Impact. The project has been reviewed and evaluated by the City's Traffic Division. That division has made the determination that the circulation design does not contain any hazardous conditions. Additionally, the project's circulation design meets the City's engineering standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses, and would have no associated impacts. XV e. Less Than Significant With Mitigation The Los Angeles Count Fire Department has reviewed the site plan for the retail development and provided conditions of approval for the project. These conditions include various access requirements, including all weather access, Fire Department access extended to within 150 feet of all structures, turnaround requirements, and clearance requirements. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires the Fire Department's conditions of approval to be incorporated into the project. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to emergency access. XV f. No Impact As proposed, the project meets the City's parking requirement for the uses on- site. The proposed development would require 385 parking spaces; 434 spaces are provided. Buildings that will not be built initially, the hotel and stand-alone restaurant pad for example, will require separate development review. During the development review process those buildings will be reviewed and compared against available parking to ensure that parking requirements are met. Parking spaces will be accommodated in surface parking lots as well as a subterranean parking deck located in the middle portion of the site. Given that all City 72 requirements for parking have been satisfied, the proposed project would not create any parking impacts. XV g. No Impact The proposed project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs that support alternative transportation. XV h. No Impact The proposed project involves the development of a commercial/retail center. The construction and operation of the proposed project would not place any permanent or temporary physical barriers on any existing public street. Furthermore, all development for the proposed project would occur on-site and, thus, the proposed project would not impose any physical barriers on any existing pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle travel route. Therefore, the proposed project would not create hazards or barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS XVI a. No Impact The project proposes the construction of two 1 -story retail/restaurant buildings, two 2 -story retail/office buildings, and a 4 -story hotel building. None of the proposed uses for the project would generate atypical wastewater such as industrial or agricultural waste matter. The wastewater generated by the proposed development is expected to be domestic sewage. The local wastewater treatment facilities are designed to treat domestic sewage. Since the proposed development would not generate atypical wastewater, and since local facilities exist to treat the effluent that would be created by the development, the proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements and would not have any associated impacts. XVI b. No Impact Water planning is addressed through the Urban Water Management Plan. The Plan indicates that there is sufficient water to meet projected residential and commercial demand. The Plan also identifies conservation measures that can be implemented in the future during drought years. The proposed project would be subject to any future water conservation requirements of the Urban Water Management Plan. The only water improvements required for the project are on-site connections to the infrastructure system, which are subject to connection fees. Therefore, the proposed project would neither require nor result in the construction or expansion of new water or wastewater treatment facilities offsite, and the project would have no associated impacts. XVI c. Less Than Significant Impact As discussed in Section VII, the project will not significantly impact the stormwater drainage system. No offsite stormwater improvements are proposed or required. 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 run-off rates. XVI d. Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning ordinance. The Newhall County Water District (NCWD) will provide water services to the project area. The NCWD's water resources are derived primarily from the State Water Project, local groundwater, and the Castaic Lake Water Agency. Contract entitlements from the State vary from year to year. Currently, the NCWD has the ability to provide water to the project without impacting its 73 ability to provide water to its other customers. As proposed, the project will not have any significant impacts on the water supply. XVI e. Less Than Significant Impact Wastewater services to the proposed project are provided by the County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County (Sanitation District). The existing facilities for the Sanitation District are sufficient to accommodate the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed project would result in determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has adequate capacity to serve the project. Any impact to wastewater resources would be less than significant. XVI f. Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would be served by the Chiquita Canyon Landfill. Chiquita Canyon has sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. The Chiquita Canyon Landfill is expected to be permitted through 2019. XVI g. No Impact. The project would comply with all solid waste statutes and regulations. Los Angeles County has developed a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) in order to meet the County's long-term solid waste disposal needs. California's Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) requires each County to adopt a Non -Disposal Facility Element (NDFE), also known as a Countywide Siting Element (CSE), and a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). The NDFE is a 15 -year planning document that addresses the solid waste disposal needs of the cities and the incorporated communities for that portion of the solid waste stream that remains after all recycling, composting, and other waste diversion activities are completed. The SRRE describes each County's program to meet the 50% solid waste diversion goals of AB 939. The SRRE includes the following components: waste characterization, source reduction, recycling, composting, solid waste facility capacity, education and public information, funding, special waste (asbestos, sewage sludge, etc.), and household hazardous waste. Pursuant to the CIWMP, the County is developing infrastructure, conversion technologies, and recycling programs aimed at diverting 70 percent of Los Angeles County's solid waste stream by 2020. The proposed project is required to comply with all state, county, and City solid waste diversion regulations. Therefore, the project would not cause any significant impacts from conflicting with statutes or regulations related to solid waste. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE XVII a. Less Than Significant Impact As discussed in Section IV of this document, the proposed project would not have substantial impacts to special status species, 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. XVII b. Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would not cause impacts that are cumulatively considerable. The project has the potential to contribute to cumulative air 74 quality, biological resources, hydrology, noise, and traffic impacts. However, the project's contribution to these cumulative impacts would not be considerable. Therefore, the proposed project does not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to cumulative impacts. XVII c. Less Than Significant Impact As discussed in Section 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; however, modem engineering practices would ensure that the geologic and seismic conditions of the proposed project would not cause substantial adverse effects on humans. Section VII of this document examines the projects for potential impacts from hazards and hazardous material. As explained in Section VII, there are no significant hazardous conditions on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance from environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on humans. VAI MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities I. AESTHETICS None required II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES None required III. AIR QUALITY Mitigation Measure AQ -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: The monitor shall conduct periodic site inspections during construction to ensure compliance with this measure. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division Mitigation Measure AQ -2: During grading and construction, active areas and haul roads shall be watered at least twice (two times) per day. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall conduct periodic site inspections during construction to ensure compliance with this measure. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division Mitigation Measure AQ -3: During construction, replace 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 replaced. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall conduct periodic site inspections during construction to ensure compliance with this measure. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division Mitigation Measure AQ -4: Off-road vehicles on-site shall not travel at speeds greater than 15 miles per hour. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall conduct periodic site inspections during construction to ensure compliance with this measure. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division 76 Mitigation Measure AQ -5: To the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita, the project shall have greater energy efficiency that Title 24 standards. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall conduct periodic site inspections during construction to ensure compliance with thi's measure. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division and Building and Safety Division Mitigation Measure AQ -6: To the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita, the project shall comply with the following "GHG Reduction" policies of the City's Draft General PIan: Policy: Promote construction of energy efficient buildings through requirements for LEED certification or through comparable alternative requirements as adopted by local ordinance. Policy: Encourage on-site solar generation of electricity in new retail and office commercial buildings and associated parking lots, carports, and garages, in concert with significant energy conservation efforts. Policy: Encourage new development to use passive solar heating and cooling techniques in building design and construction, which may include but are not be limited to building orientation, clerestory windows, skylights, placement and type of windows, overhangs to shade doors and windows, and use of light colored roofs and paving materials. Policy: Encourage the use of trees and landscaping to reduce heating and cooling energy loads, through shading of buildings and parking lots. Policy: Encourage energy -conserving heating and cooling systems and appliances, and energy -efficiency in windows and insulation, in all new construction. Policy: Limit excessive lighting levels, and encourage a reduction of lighting when businesses are closed to a level required for security. Policy: Provide incentives and technical assistance for installation of energy-efficient improvements in existing and new buildings. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall conduct periodic site inspections during construction to ensure compliance with this measure. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division and Building and Safety Division 77 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure BI0-1: No greater than 30 days prior to construction, the project site shall be surveyed for special -status plants by a qualified botanist. While the survey shall be conducted for all special -status plants, the botanist shall specifically determine if Davidson's bush mallow or Greata's aster are present on-site. If any special -status plant species are encountered, avoidance, transplant, or replacement measures shall be undertaken in accordance with the Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants from USFWS's Recovery Plan for Six Plants from the Mountains Surrounding the Los Angeles Basin (USFWS 1999). If any of such plants are eliminated or transplanted, the California Department of Fish and Game shall be notified. If any of these plants are to be transplanted, they shall be planted in a suitable location under the supervision of a qualified biologist. Temporary irrigation shall be provided to transplanted plants until such time that they are able to survive on their own. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: The applicant shall notify the City project manager and shall provide survey and constructions timelines. Construction shall not commence until the City has been notified and grants its approval. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division Mitigation Measure 13I0-2: A qualified biological monitor with all required collection permits shall be on-site during the vegetation removal and grading operations and shall survey for species prior to these activities. If any life stages of any native vertebrate species are found in the path of construction, the monitor shall relocate the species to a pre -determined, safe location. Exclusionary devices shall be erected to prevent the migration into or the return of the species into the work site. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall conduct periodic site inspections during construction to ensure compliance with this measure. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division Mitigation Measure BIO -3: The Applicant shall have a qualified wildlife biologist survey the area to confirm the presence/absence of silvery legless lizard, black -tailed jackrabbit, woodrat, and/or other species of concern likely to be found in the area during construction. If evidence exists that additional surveys are required, survey techniques, timing, and schedule shall be subject to the review and approval of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Survey results, analysis, and recommendations, along with the filed notes shall be provided to the CDFG prior to commencing construction or within two weeks of completion of field surveys, whichever is earlier. Should any sensitive species be found during pre -project surveys and work must be done in identified areas during sensitive periods, the applicant shall develop and implement a plan for the protection of these species. This plan shall be approved by the CDFG prior to commencing work. The results of any surveys and any protective measures instituted, as part of the protection and monitoring plan, shall be provided to the CDFG within one week from implementation. The applicant shall be responsible for reporting all observations of threatened/endangered species or of species of special concern to the CNDDB within ten days of sighting. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall conduct periodic site inspections during construction to ensure compliance with this measure. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division 78 Mitigation Measure BIO-4: The applicant shall not allow any activity near the nesting sites of the woodrat during the recognized nesting, rearing, and dispersal season, which is November through April. The applicant shall develop a relocation plan to ensure the protection of this species. This plan shall include the trapping of individuals and the relocation of the nests to a suitable open space area outside of the project footprint. Trapping shall occur for a minimum of three nights and any captured woodrats or other small mammals shall be released outside of the project's footprint (e.g., in the Willow Riparian Forest preserve area). The method of breaking up the nest shall be in a manner that allows any individual in the nest to escape without being harmed (e.g., dismantled by hand). This shall be done during the late afternoon hours. These activities shall be done outside of the woodrat breeding/rearing season to avoid impacts to this species. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: If woodrat nests are found on site, the applicant shall notify the City of the date and time that the nests are will be dismantled so that the monitor can be present when the nests are broken up. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Immediately prior to construction (within 1 day prior to construction), the project site shall be raked for silvery legless lizard by a qualified biologist. Any discovered silvery legless lizards shall be released into the Willow Riparian Forest preserve area. Exclusionary devices shall be erected to prevent the migration into or the return of the species into the work site. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: The applicant shall contact the City and inform the City project manager of the date and time that raking will be conducted. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and no greater than one year from the start of construction, updated protocol surveys for the least Bell's vireo and the southwestern willow flycatcher shall be conducted by a permitted biologist in accordance with US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) guidelines. If either species is determined to be present on-site, the City of Santa Clarita shall not issue a grading permit for the project until the appropriate take permits have been issued by the FWS and/or the CDFG. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: The applicant shall contact the City and inform the City project manager of the date and time that raking will be conducted. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Engineering Division Mitigation Measure BIO-7: The applicant shall not remove or otherwise disturb vegetation or conduct any other project activities on the project site from March 1 to September 15 to avoid impacts to breeding/nesting birds. If work during the breeding/nesting season cannot be avoided then, prior to construction or site preparation activities, the applicant shall have a qualified biologist survey all breeding/nesting habitat within the project site and adjacent to the project site for breeding/nesting birds. Surveys shall be conducted for 5 consecutive days or other methodology acceptable to CDFG. If active nests are present, the nest-site shall be protected by a 300-foot buffer (500 feet for raptors) or as determined by CDFG. No construction activities will be allowed within the buffer area until the nest becomes inactive (the young have fledged, the young are no longer being fed by the parents, the young have left the area, and the young will no longer be impacted by the project). (Mitigation Monitoring Program continues on next page 79 (Mitigation Measure 13I0-7 Continued ...) If there are no nests present, vegetation should be removed within 3 days after completion of the survey. Documentation of findings, including a negative finding must be submitted to the CDFG for review and concurrence. If no breeding/nesting birds are observed and concurrence has been received from the CDFG, site preparation and construction activities may begin. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall conduct periodic site inspections during construction to ensure compliance with this measure. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division Mitigation Measure BI0-8: The project proponent shall provide replacement Willow Riparian habitat to the satisfaction of the CDFG at a ratio of 7:1 (replacement to impacts) for the 0.183 acres of habitat previously impacted and at a ratio of 3:1 (replacement to impacts) for the 1.10 acres impacted by the proposed project. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the monitor shall verify that the applicant has complied with this mitigation measure. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division and Development Services Division Mitigation Measure 13I0-9: A 50 -foot wide buffer of native vegetation shall be provided along the mitigation area and along all riparian and wetland drainages. The buffer shall serve to minimize the amount of light, noise, and other human generated impacts on the streambed habitat. All fuel modification activities shall be conducted outside of the streambed and native vegetation buffer area. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall conduct periodic site inspections during construction to ensure compliance with this measure. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division Mitigation Measure BIO -10: The limits of the project's construction footprint shall be flagged prior to any construction activities on-site. Vegetation shall not be removed or intentionally damaged beyond these limits. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall conduct periodic site inspections during construction to ensure compliance with this measure. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division continues on next 80 Mitigation Measure BIO -11: In order to avoid accidental damage or disturbance to oak trees on or near the site, prior to the issuance of grading permit all oak trees on site that are not approved for removal and all oak trees within 50 feet of the potential area of ground disturbance shall be fenced at their protected zones with a minimum 4' high fence before any site grading commences. Fencing shall remain during all phases of construction and shall not be moved or removed without City approval, Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall conduct periodic site inspections during construction to ensure compliance with this measure. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division and Oak Tree Specialist. Mitigation Measure BIO -12: In order to avoid accidental damage or disturbance to oak trees on or near the site during construction, no equipment storage, debris drop, or parking shall occur within the drip Iines of any oak tree not approved for removal. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall conduct periodic site inspections during construction to ensure compliance with this measure. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division and Oak Tree Specialist. Mitigation Measure BIO -13: Pursuant to the City of Santa Clarita's Oak Tree Ordinance (Ordinance 88-34) and to the satisfaction of the City's Oak Tree Specialist, the oak trees removed from the site shall be replaced with oak trees at a value commensurate with the fully appraised value of the trees removed. A planting plan shall be provided to the City for approval of trees with locations and sizes, and three years of maintenance shall be provided to ensure the trees survive. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall conduct periodic site inspections during construction to ensure compliance with this measure. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division and Oak Tree Specialist. Mitigation Measure BIO -14 Oak Tree Maintenance: A) Arborist of Record Agreement — The applicant shall retained an Arborist (AOR) to assist with Mitigation Measure compliance. The AOR will review the landscape plans and provide recommendations as needed. Landscaping — Landscaping shall follow the City's minimum requirements; 1. Plantings within any oak tree protected zone must be drought tolerant only; 2. No spray -type irrigation systems are permitted within the protected zone; 3. A three-inch layer of organic mulch will be installed within the protected zone; 4. Landscape plans are subject to City approval. B) Monitoring after construction — The applicant shall obtain the authorization of future residents or owners allowing continued access by the AOR after construction is finished. C) The AOR shall visit the property on a quarterly basis for two years after the completion of the project, and semi-annually for one year after that, as required by the City. The AOR shall inspect all mitigation -installed oaks on the property. At the discretion of the AOR, the frequency of the monitoring may be reduced if the oak trees appear to be flourishing and in stable condition. 81 (Mitigation Measure BIO -14 Oak Tree Maintenance Continued ...) D) Per the City requirements, the AOR shall certify that the property is in compliance with all the conditions of the oak tree permit. Observations regarding the oaks health shall be reported to the City, including is any oaks decline or fail to survive. Oaks failing to survive during the monitoring period, including any that fail to thrive after planting will be mitigated for as determined by the City. E) 48 -Hour Notice and Certification of Oak Tree Work -the applicant shall provide 48 -hours notice to the department of Community Development before planting the mitigation oak trees or before doing any work on or near them one they are planted. (AOR requires 96 -hour notice) F) The AOR will evaluate and report the findings to the Department of Community Development regarding the work related to or potentially affecting the planted oak trees. These reports will certify whether all work was conducted in accordance with the oak tree permit and oak tree report. Reports shall be submitted within 10 -days of the AOR being informed that the work was completed. G) Specifically, the AOR shall review the mitigation plantings and provide a report certifying that the work follows the oak tree permit and acceptable planting standards. The AOR will also evaluate and provide a report to the City as needed on any other work that may affect the mitigation oaks, including but not limited to irrigation installation, pruning anything larger than two -inches in diameter, or installation of sidewalks and other hardscape near mitigation oaks. H) Oak Tree Information Package -The applicant shall provide a sample information package to the City for approval if requested. The same packet shall be provided to the property buyer via certified mail. The information included shall be as follows: I . Cover letter introducing the information packet; 2. Oak trees -Care and Maintenance; 3. Oak Tree Ordinance; 4. Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guideline; 5. Copies of the Development and Oak Tree Permit; The cover letter will then be forwarded to the Department of Community Development along with the signed copy of the return receipt card. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall conduct periodic site inspections during construction to ensure compliance with this measure. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division and Oak Tree Specialist. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure CUL -1: If archeological resources are encountered during project excavation or construction, all construction activities shall immediately cease until an archeologist certified by the Society of Professional Archeologists examines the site, identifies the archaeological significance of the find, and recommends a course of action. Construction shall not resume until the site archaeologist states in writing that the proposed construction activities will not significantly damage archaeological resources, and the City of Santa Clarita concurs with this conclusion. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall conduct periodic site inspections during construction to ensure compliance with this measure. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division 82 Mitigation Measure CUL -2: If paleontological resources are encountered during project excavation or construction, all construction activities shall immediately cease until a paleontologist with qualifications that meet the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita, examines the site, identifies the significance of the find, and recommends a course of action. If such a scenario arises, construction shall be halted and not resumed until recommended by the site paleontologist and approved by the City of Santa CIarita. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall conduct periodic site inspections during construction to ensure compliance with this measure. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The applicant shall follow all grading, construction, building, and engineering recommendations and methods listed in the geotechnical report prepared by Brian A. Robinson & Associates, Inc., dated August 25, 2006. The project shall also be developed in accordance with the latest State and City building codes. Any deviation from methods listed in the geotechnical report shall require written approval from the City's Planning, Engineering, and Building and Safety Divisions, as well as the approval of the soils engineer, project geologist, and any other City division or public agency that has jurisdiction. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: The monitor shall review building and grading plans to ensure consistency with soils report. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita, Planning, Building & Safety and Development Services Divisions VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's "Conditions of Approval" for the project as stated in the Development Review Comments shall be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval that are subject to a public hearing and approval by the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission. Party Responsible for Mitigation: City Project Manager Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to project approval, the monitor shall ensure the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's "Conditions of Approval" for the project are incorporated into the project's conditions of approval. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Building & Safety and Development Services Divisions; and the Los Angeles County Fire Department. (Mitigation Monitoring Program continues on next page) 83 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Mitigation Measure HYD -1: An Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP) that incorporates appropriate post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), maximizes pervious surfaces, and includes filtration into the design of the project must be prepared and reviewed and approved by the City of Santa Clarita Environmental Services Division for consistency with NPDES requirements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. BMPs to meet SUSMP requirements included in the USMP shall include: 1) mitigation of potential downstream erosion (retention of the increase flow due to the proposed project); and, 2) a series of VMPs to treat the first flush of stormwater (treatment train). Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Environmental Services Division Mitigation Measure HYD -2: Prior to site plan approval the project applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan for reviewed and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall specify measures to ensure on-site retention of all eroded sediments and other pollutants and to ensure sediments and pollutants are not transported from the site via sheetflow, swales, area drains, natural drainage courses, or wind. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the monitor shall review the "Construction Site Plan Review Application" and corresponding DOGGR approval. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division Mitigation Measure HYD -3: The project applicant shall obtain coverage under a statewide General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit (General Permit). A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and approved by the City's Environmental Services Division prior to the issuance of a grading permit and the project applicant shall demonstrate that a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the State's General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit has been submitted to the SWRCB. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Engineering Division Mitigation Measure HYD -4: The project applicant shall obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB for construction activities within waters of the United States, prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the proposed project. Site Specific Best Management Practices Applicable to Work in Jurisdictional Areas for the Sierra Crossing Project which may be specified in the Section 401 permit at the discretion of the RWQCB include: • Construction shall be scheduled during the dry season. • Native soil backfill shall be utilized. • Prior to work, the boundaries of each impact area will be clearly marked with flagging to prevent encroachment from debris, incidental fallback, etc., into undisturbed portions of the area. • Pre -construction meetings at the impact area will be held to review/clarify all permit conditions and to ensure all contractors observe the boundaries/limits of construction. • Any removed soil will be stored outside of the jurisdictional area and protected by barriers such as sand bags, hay bails, etc., and covered if necessary for soil run-off, dust, and debris control. 84 Mitigation Measure IIYD-4 Continued ...) • Construction material, debris and any other substances associated with work within the jurisdictional area will be located/stored outside of jurisdictional area throughout construction to avoid inadvertent spill into jurisdictional areas. • Heavy equipment and other vehicles will be stored outside of jurisdictional area and any nearby sensitive habitat. • Equipment used within jurisdictional waters will be inspected regularly for potential leaks. • Maintenance activities such as refueling on equipment used to remove soils within jurisdictional areas will occur outside of jurisdictional areas. • If pumps and generators are necessary they will be used with on drip pans. • Temporary work areas will be protected and re -vegetated as soon as feasible to prevent erosion. • Any potential ponding water will be dissipated as soon as possible to prevent the breeding of mosquitoes, gnats, black flies or other pests. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING None required. X. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES None required. XI. NOISE None required. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING None required. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES None required. XIV. RECREATION None required. 85 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Mitigation Measure TRF -1: Widen northbound Sierra Highway approach along project frontage to provide a separate right -turn lane (for 2 left turn lanes, 2 through lanes, and 1 right -turn lane). Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division Mitigation Measure TRF -2: Modify the westbound Newhall Avenue approach by relocating the existing raised median approximately six (6) feet south, and restripe to add a second left -turn lane (for 2 left -turn lanes, 2 through lanes, and one shared through/right turn lane). Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division Mitigation Measure TRF -3 Modify traffic signal to provide a right -tum overlap phase for the northbound right -turn. Party Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS None required. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE None required. 86