Agenda Item: 2
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
DATE: October 22, 2024
SUBJECT: CONFORMANCE REVIEW OF THE RIVERVIEW PROJECT -
MASTER CASE 21-205
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
PRESENTER: Justin Sauder
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council:
1. Conduct the public hearing;
2. Provide direction to staff on project-related issues; and
3. Continue the meeting to a date certain.
BACKGROUND
REQUEST
The applicant, Integral Communities, is proposing a development consisting of a residential component with 318 residential units and a non-residential component with an approximately 127,000 square-foot light manufacturing building on the subject property. The project also includes a proposal to subdivide the subject property into five parcels with a Tentative Map that would allow for the creation of condominium lots for the residential units.
PLANNING COMMISSION
The project was introduced at the July 16, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. The meeting provided an opportunity for the community and the Planning Commission to receive a project introduction, discuss the project, and ask questions of the applicant and staff. Several members of the community spoke on the item as well as the applicant. The Planning Commission asked questions of the applicant, and staff asked the applicant to consider revising the project to address the Planning Commission’s concerns and directed staff to bring the item back to the
September 17, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. In summary, the Planning Commission asked for additional information regarding:
• How the proposed project would impact the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) regulated in the Housing Element;
• Whether the project would affect on-site oak trees;
• Traffic impacts resulting from the project;
• How the project would be designed in light of the mixed-use designation; • Operational characteristics of the proposed light manufacturing use; • How buffers might be constructed to separate transit corridors and the project; • Phasing of project amenities;
• How the project would be affected by the Transportation Demand Management Program; • Whether the neighboring rehabilitation facility had been notified of the project; • Whether the affected school districts were notified regarding the project; and • How the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone (JCOZ) relates to the project.
Upon submission of additional project materials, answers were able to be provided to the Planning Commission’s questions at the September 17, 2024, Planning Commission meeting regarding the health of oak trees, traffic impacts, the buffers between transit corridors and the project, the Transportation Demand Management Program, and the notification of the neighboring rehabilitation facility and local schools. In addition, staff was able to provide information regarding the RHNA numbers and how the JCOZ relates to the project proposal. The applicant did not propose any changes to the project and consequently was unable to address the concerns of the Planning Commission regarding meeting the RHNA numbers for the suitable site; providing a commercial/retail use that would be more compatible with the residential use; the operational characteristics of the light manufacturing building; and the phasing of on-site amenities. After public comment and Planning Commission discussion, the Planning Commission’s motion to deny the project resulted in no consensus with a 2-2 vote. Absent any alternate motion, with a deadlocked Planning Commission, the project can be considered denied and appealable to the City Council.
On September 18, 2024, the item was called for Conformance Review by Councilmember Weste which necessitates a public hearing.
An in-depth project description and analysis can be found in the staff reports for the July and September Planning Commission meetings (available in the City Clerk’s reading file).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is located at 22500 Soledad Canyon Road (Assessor’s Parcel Number 2836-011-018) within the Mixed-Use Corridor (MXC) zone in the community of Saugus. The project is also within the JCOZ and the High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The project site is directly adjacent to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station and was formerly utilized as the Saugus Speedway.
Currently, there is a swap meet on Sundays and Tuesdays at the subject property. The property is approximately 35 acres in size, and the majority of the site is relatively flat and paved, except for the northwest portion of the site which consists of a previously disturbed hillside. The overall
cross slope of the site is approximately 14 percent.
The project includes a Tentative Map that would divide the site into five planning areas. Four of the planning areas would contain the residential component of the project, and the fifth planning area would contain the non-residential, light manufacturing component.
The four residential planning areas are on approximately 28 acres which would contain 318 total residential units. This total includes 122 detached single-family condos and 196 attached townhomes, 22 of which are identified as affordable for low income. o Planning Area 1 would include 17 buildings with 95 single-family attached units. o Planning Area 2 would include 60 single-family detached units. o Planning Area 3 would include 62 single-family detached units. o Planning Area 4 would include 31 buildings with 101 single-family attached units.
The residential portion would also include several on-site amenities for residents including a pool, spa, bathroom, barbeque grills, picnic tables, dog park, tot lot, chess gaming tables, fire pit, and a community garden. There are also five seating nooks spread throughout the site which include benches, bike racks, and dog waste stations. Parking areas and landscaping are included within each planning area.
Planning Area 5 encompasses approximately seven acres and includes an industrial building on the northwestern portion of the site. The building would include 116,790 square feet of light manufacturing and 10,000 square feet of office/mezzanine space with a maximum building height of 39 feet. The project also includes various on-site improvements such as landscaping, an employee break area, paving, parking and lighting, and 18 docking stations for trucks. The building is being contemplated for a light manufacturing use, but there is currently no tenant proposed for the building.
Should the project be approved, the applicant has agreed to record an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City for Planning Area 5, in the event they are unable to secure a tenant for the light manufacturing portion of the project. The City may accept the offer on the third anniversary after the map recordation or when the Building Official issues a final certificate of occupancy for the last residential unit, whichever is soonest.
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION AND HOUSING ELEMENT
The Riverview project site is identified as Suitable Site #23 in the Housing Element and was projected to have a capacity for 792 units with 225 units for low-income and 567 units for moderate-income levels. The project is proposing 22 units in the low-income category with the remaining 296 being market rate. The project does not propose any units in the moderate-income category. The Housing Element has a buffer of 345 low-income units and a buffer of 462 moderate-income units. If the project is approved as proposed, the low-income buffer would be reduced to 142 units. However, the moderate-income buffer would be depleted and would require 105 units to be included in the moderate-income category from the “B List” of housing sites of the Housing Element. There is adequate capacity in the “B List” to accommodate the project as proposed.
The proposed project meets the definition of a housing development in accordance with Senate Bill 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. This type of housing development cannot be denied if it meets the City’s objective standards for development, unless the project, based upon a written standard, creates a health and safety concern that cannot be mitigated. State law also requires, if the project does not meet objective standards, that the City identifies those standards to the applicant within 30 days of the date the application was deemed complete, or conformance with those requirements is waived. No inconsistencies were identified by staff during this timeframe.
As such, the project is subject to and must be evaluated based on compliance with the objective standards of the Unified Development Code for the MXC zone and the City’s Community Character and Design Guidelines.
TIMELINE
The applicant submitted a similar project with a One Stop application and received comments in September 2019. The formal application was submitted on October 18, 2021, and subsequently deemed incomplete in November 2021, due to missing information including all technical reports required for the creation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The project included a residential component and a proposal for a sound studio for Shadowbox Studios. Staff issued comments to address the need for additional residential density and for the applicant to consider a mixed-use development with commercial/retail use at the east end of the project site in proximity to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station. In addition, the applicant was encouraged to consider an affordable component for the project consistent with the Housing Element. With continued correspondence and coordination with the applicant, staff received the necessary technical reports and other items identified in the incomplete letter and the project was then deemed complete in January 2023.
Between October 2021, when the application was submitted, and January 2023, when it was deemed complete, staff continued to review the project and provide comments to the applicant with two Development Review Committee (DRC) meetings. After the project was deemed complete an additional DRC meeting was held in March 2023 to provide additional feedback to the applicant.
At various times during the design review process, the applicant considered revising the residential portion of the project based on the DRC comments to increase the density. One such proposal included the addition of accessory dwelling units, but the project has essentially remained the same and the residential density has not increased since the original submission.
However, the applicant did revise the project to include 22 of the 318 units as affordable in the low-income category.
In November 2023, the applicant notified staff that the non-residential portion of the project would need to be modified due to Shadowbox Studios no longer needing a studio at the project site. The applicant then provided an updated site plan with the approximately 127,000 square- foot building intended to be utilized for light manufacturing in February 2024, and the updated technical reports for the MND were subsequently submitted in April 2024. Staff provided updated comments on the site plan and comments on the technical reports on May 6, 2024, and the project was scheduled for the July 16, 2024, Planning Commission meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration
The project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the project by SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) and circulated for a public review period from June 25, 2024, to July 16, 2024. The draft IS/MND analyzed potential impacts to seven areas and determined that, with mitigation, none of the impacts from the project would be significant as mentioned previously in the July and September Planning Commission staff reports.
Areas for Mitigation
The draft IS/MND identified the seven areas as having impacts that, with mitigation, would be less than significant. The seven areas with mitigation measures are air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources. All other areas analyzed would have either less than significant impacts or no impacts. The majority of the potential impacts can be reduced to a level of less than significant, with mitigation measures that are considered standard best management practices.
Staff received six comment letters regarding the draft IS/MND during the public review period ending on July 16, 2024. The draft IS/MND that was presented to the Planning Commission at the July 2024 Planning Commission meeting did not include a response to comments as comment letters were received the day of the meeting. The response to comments was also not included at the September 17, 2024, Planning Commission meeting as the technical studies needed in order to respond had not been provided by the applicant. However, since the September 17, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has provided the necessary technical studies to respond to the comment letters that were received during the public review period for the IS/MND. The draft Final IS/MND includes the comment letters and responses that were received during the public review period. In conjunction with SWCA and the applicant, staff has provided responses to those comment letters as summarized below. After the close of the public review period and after the draft Final IS/MND was substantially complete, two additional comment letters were received on October 1, 2024, and October 8, 2024. Staff is working with the applicant to respond to these comment letters.
The draft Final IS/MND is attached for reference and the following is a summarized response to comments included in the document.
Department of Toxic Substance Control
The Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) provided comments recommending that if any structures were to be demolished at the project site a survey should be conducted for the presence of lead, mercury, asbestos, or polychlorinated biphenyl caulk, and if found, the removal and disposal of any contaminated materials should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations. In addition, DTSC recommends that any imported soil and fill materials should be tested for contaminants.
Surveys will be required for any buildings that will be demolished on-site to look for asbestos, lead, and other hazardous materials and require clean-up and disposal in accordance with the Universal Waste Rules. While these are standard requirements, the City will also provide for a condition of approval stating these requirements, if the project is approved.
While the project is expected to balance all soil on-site, should the need arise to import material, the City will require that imported soil and fill material be tested to ensure that they meet screening levels outlined in the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual noted by DTSC with a condition of approval, if the project is approved.
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts provided comments regarding the project’s proximity to the Saugus Water Reclamation Plant and recommended that, if necessary, the MND analyze any potential impacts on the proposed project from the reclamation plant. The comment letter also detailed how and where wastewater will be handled and the application of connection fees.
An analysis of the existing environment on the proposed project is not required per CEQA; therefore, it is not necessary to analyze the project’s proximity to the Saugus Water Reclamation Plant. The remainder of the comments regarding wastewater and connection fees have been provided to the applicant, and it is not anticipated that the project would require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities as the system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the project. This is affirmed by the will-serve letter received from the Sanitation District.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) provided comments detailing concerns about the potential air quality impacts of a light manufacturing use next to a residential use, utilizing the cleanest technology for construction equipment to further mitigate emissions related to construction, recommendations for building filtration systems, and finally the need to acquire air permits from SCAQMD for the backup generator for the project.
The applicant prepared a Health Risk Assessment (HRA), which includes an operational health risk analysis to estimate the increased health risk levels for people living and working near the project site associated with toxic air contaminants (TACs), consistent with SCAQMD guidelines.
The purpose of the HRA is to document the increased cancer and noncancer health risk levels from project-related emissions of TACs on existing nearby sensitive receptors, including residents and workers. The results of the HRA demonstrated that all health risk levels to nearby receptors from the operational-related emissions would be below the SCAQMD’s HRA threshold, and no significant health risk would occur from project operation emissions.
Therefore, identification and analysis of mitigation measures are not required.
The HRA also included a project-specific construction health risk analysis, which evaluates construction-period health risk to off-site receptors and concluded that no significant health risk
would occur from project construction emissions. As such, identification and analysis of additional mitigation, including the use of Tier 4 equipment, would not be required to reduce emissions to a less than significant level.
The applicant has been made aware of the need to acquire permits from SCAQMD for the backup generator.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) provided comments regarding possible impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee, the slender mariposa lily, and California Species of Special Concern.
Following the submittal of the project, Crotch’s bumble bee was identified as a California endangered species candidate. To address this concern, the applicant conducted a survey for Crotch’s bumble bee using CDFW’s guidelines and the results were negative. Therefore, the species is not expected to be found at the subject site. The survey also concluded that the opportunities for nesting habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee are very low. The project, if approved, would result in the loss of foraging habitat for the bees. However, the impact on the foraging area is not expected to be significant due to the abundant natural open space areas surrounding the project site with potential foraging habitat. The IS/MND and the additional survey concluded that there is a less than significant impact with the incorporation of a mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-3 has been revised to require a preconstruction survey and monitoring for Crotch’s bumble bee prior to any ground disturbance.
The amount of potential habitat for the slender mariposa lily that the project would impact is not expected to meet any of the Mandatory Findings of Significance as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15065. As such, the existing MM BIO-1 provides adequate compensation for the potential loss of any of the species. However, in response to CDFW’s comment, MM BIO-1 has been revised to require that the project replace those specimens that may be lost through planting replacements within the project site.
Neither Crotch’s bumble bee nor the slender mariposa lily is listed as a Species of Special Concern. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires a preconstruction survey where any special-status species found would be relocated out of harm’s way and MM BIO-3, which requires biological monitoring during the initial vegetation removal and grading, provides sufficient mitigation by avoiding and minimizing direct impacts to individuals of the species that may be present. As such, the mitigation measures within the draft Final IS/MND are adequate to mitigate any impacts to the species.
Lozeau and Drury on behalf of SAFER
The law firm Lozeau and Drury provided a comment letter on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) with potential concerns regarding noise. However, on September 23, 2024, staff received another letter from Lozeau and Drury stating that the issues brought up by SAFER had been resolved; and, therefore, have withdrawn their comment letter.
Los Angeles County Office of the Sheriff
The comment letter from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office included recommendations to incorporate Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, landscape maintenance, installation of security cameras, security plans, a Construction Traffic Management Plan, increasing visibility of building addresses, and installing a fence between the subject property and the railroad tracks. The letter also states that the increase in population due to the proposed residential component of the project would generate an increased demand for law enforcement services, which would require the applicant to pay a law enforcement facilities mitigation fee.
The project would comply with applicable regulatory requirements related to security and safety during construction and operation. The project includes CPTED principles such as low- level exterior lighting and way-finding signage to enhance safety and security. The project entries would be constructed to City design standards, which would allow for access to emergency vehicles. Furthermore, the IS/MND has concluded that project-generated traffic would not substantially adversely affect the performance of nearby roadways. Therefore, emergency service response times and disaster evacuation routes would not be affected.
The applicant has been made aware of the required fees from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office.
Advocates for the Environment
The comment letter from the Advocates for the Environment argued that the project should be required to be net-zero when it comes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, that the MND should have analyzed all applicable plans concerning GHG, and finally that an Environmental Impact Report should be drafted.
The comment letter was received on October 1, 2024, which is outside of the comment period that ended on July 16, 2024. As previously discussed, the IS/MND was substantially complete by the time this comment was received. However, the applicant and staff have reviewed the comment letter and are preparing a response.
Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency
The comment letter from Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (SCV Water) states that it is a project that has a water demand equal to, or greater than, a 500-unit residential project; therefore, the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment must be prepared. It further states that the project is within the SCV Water’s services area and the evaluation of impacts should address any needed new facilities either on-site or off-site to serve the proposed project and be included in the project description for the draft Final IS/MND. Finally, the comment letter concludes that mitigation measures should be required for the project to adhere to the low-impact development water quality and hydromodification standards and additionally require the payment of all water supply-related fees prior to the issuance of building permits.
The comment letter was received on October 8, 2024, which is outside of the comment period that ended on July 16, 2024. As previously discussed, the draft Final IS/MND was substantially complete by the time this comment was received. However, the applicant and staff have reviewed the comment letter and are preparing a response.
PUBLIC NOTICING
All notices required by law were completed which consisted of a legal advertisement in The Signal newspaper on October 1, 2024. A sign was also posted on the subject property on October 8, 2024. As of the writing of this staff report, staff has received no correspondence from the community.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive a presentation from staff and the applicant, open the public hearing, provide direction to staff, and continue the meeting to a date certain.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Other actions as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.
ATTACHMENTS
Public Notice
MC21-205 Riverview Final ISMND
MC21-205 Riverview ISMND Response to Comments
Agenda - Tuesday, July 16, 2024 (available in the City Clerk's reading file) Agenda - Tuesday, September 17, 2024 (available in the City Clerk's reading file)