Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-01-28 - AGENDA REPORTS - CONSIDER APPEAL MC 24 008O Agenda Item: 2 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Li ' DATE: January 28, 2025 SUBJECT: APPEAL TO THE SECOND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (MASTER CASE 24-008) DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTER: David Peterson RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council: Conduct a public hearing to consider Appeal No. 24-005, an appeal of a Planning Commission decision on October 1, 2024, approving a recreational vehicle metal garage, subject to conditions; 2. After receiving testimonial and written evidence from the public hearing, adopt a resolution denying Appeal 24-005 and upholding the Planning Commission's October 1, 2024, decision; and 3. Take other action as determined by the City Council. BACKGROUND REQUEST On October 1, 2024, the Planning Commission considered an appeal challenging the Hearing Officer's approval of a project for a second accessory structure in the rear yard of an existing single-family home. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to deny the appeal and affirm the Hearing Officer's approval of the project with new conditions of approval that the applicant must provide landscaping to screen the project along the southern (side) property line. After the conditions of approval were finalized (at the Planning Commission's direction and approval), Mr. Eugene D. Nelson (appellant), appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. Page 1 Packet Pg. 15 O PROJECT DESCRIPTION The approved project consists of an 810 square -foot, prefabricated metal garage to be used as RV parking for the existing residence. Dimensionally, it is 17-feet, 6-inches tall, 45-feet long, and 18-feet wide. The height of the proposed structure does not exceed the height of the 19-foot-tall existing primary structure. The location of the garage would be 15 feet from the western (rear) property line and five feet from the southern (side) property line, consistent with the requirements of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC). The walls and roof of the structure would be painted to be consistent with the primary residence. An aerial map depicting the location of the site, a site plan indicating the location of the proposed garage, and the elevations of the garage are attached for reference. ZONING AND LAND USES The subject property has a General Plan designation of residential land use and is located within the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District (PCSSD) area, as provided in SCMC Section 17.39.020. The zoning designation for the subject property is Urban Residential 1 (UR1). The UR1 zone, as provided in SCMC Section 17.33.010, is for residential neighborhoods at densities that require urban services. Table 1 below, and the attached zoning map, summarizes the zoning designations and land uses surrounding the subject property: Table 1— Land Use, Zoning, and Existing Uses Zoning Land Use/Existing Uses Project UR1 Residential — single-family homes and other Site residential uses North Non -Urban 5 (NU5) Residential — single-family homes and other residential uses East UR1 Residential — single-family homes and other residential uses South UR1 Residential — single-family homes and other residential uses West Mixed -Use Neighborhood Mixed Use — residential with complementary (MX-N) commercial services, including retail and office uses ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL AND APPEAL Submittal On January 16, 2024, the applicant, Stephen J. Bradley, filed a request for an Administrative Permit (AP) and a Minor Use Permit (MUP) for a second accessory structure in the rear yard. The proposed accessory structure is a new prefabricated RV metal garage. The current rear yard also includes a detached car garage that was permitted in 2000. The application was deemed complete on February 14, 2024. Page 2 Packet Pg. 16 O On March 6, 2024, a public notice was circulated to surrounding property owners providing a 15-day comment period, in accordance with the requirements of the SCMC. During the noticing period, City of Santa Clarita (City) staff received letters, generated by neighbors, objecting to the request. Of the letters received, only one requested an Administrative Hearing. The letter requesting the hearing cited concerns about consistency with the PCSSD, an oak tree adjacent to the property, and the structure's architecture. Administrative Hearing On May 6, 2024, an Administrative Hearing was held before a Hearing Officer and was attended by approximately seven members of the public. The Hearing Officer received the staff presentation, opened the public hearing, and received comments from the applicant, and four of the public attendees who spoke in opposition to the project. Key concerns raised by the public speakers were regarding the material of the structure, that the structure does not align with the purpose of the PCSSD, a lack of screening from the adjacent property, and inconsistencies in how the City reviews similar projects. After conducting the hearing, the Hearing Officer approved the project with an additional condition of approval, that requires landscaping in the rear yard to screen the proposed structure from the neighbor to the west of the project site. Planning Commission Appeal On May 20, 2024, the City received an appeal statement and payment of the applicable fee (Appeal 24-002), appealing the Hearing Officer's approval of the project to the Planning Commission. The appeal justification statement identified the following concerns and matched those made to the Hearing Officer by the appellant: 1. A concern that the proposed structure is not consistent with the PCSSD because it does not enhance the surrounding neighborhood; 2. A concern regarding an oak tree adjacent to the subject's property; 3. A concern that the accessory structure's proposed architecture is not consistent with code requirements; and 4. A concern that the structure is a modular building for nonresidential use and requires additional regulations. Section 17.07.040 of the SCMC (Initiation of Appeals) requires that a request for appeal must specifically state whether: 1. A determination or interpretation is not in accord with the purposes of this code (SCMC); or 2. It is claimed that there was an error or abuse of discretion; or 3. The record includes inaccurate information; or 4. A decision is not supported by the record. The appellant asserts that the approval determination or interpretation is not in accord with the purposes of the SCMC. The appellant has not provided further specific documentation to support the basis of the appeal. Page 3 Packet Pg. 17 O Planning Commission Action On October 1, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the appeal. The Planning Commission received staff s presentation; opened the public hearing, and received comments from the applicant and members of the public. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 24-15, which denied Appeal 24-002 and upheld the Hearing Officer's approval of the proposed project. A copy of the Planning Commission's staff report is available in the City Clerk's reading file. In addition to affirming the project approval, the Planning Commission added two new conditions of approval to the project. The Planning Commission's intent for the new conditions were to address the visibility of the structure and the noise concerns from the appellant's property. The conditions of approval added by the Planning Commission are as follows: "PC I. Before the Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must provide a final landscape screening plan to the Director (the "Screening Plan") that includes existing landscaping located on the adjacent property. The Screening Plan must ensure that the permittee's accessory structure is uniformly screened from view of the adjacent property to the extent practicable, to the Director's satisfaction. The Screening Plan must be designed with the plant palette suitable for Santa Clarita (Sunset Western Garden Book Zone 18, minimum winter night temperatures typically 20° to 30° F; maximum summer high temperatures typically 105' F to 110' F) and generally complement the plants included in the landscape screen of the adjacent property. The plants proposed in the screening plan must be acceptable to the City's Urban Forestry Division as well as the Los Angeles County Fire Department. PC2. Before the Building Official issues a final certificate of occupancy, the permittee must install landscaping in the Screening Plan (if any) and provide a surety to the Director, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to secure maintenance of the Screening Plan for two years. The surety amount will be calculated based upon the value of the existing adjacent landscape screening as determined by the Director." Note that the language for these new conditions was finalized based upon specific Planning Commission direction, but was drafted following the meeting. The final form of these conditions was released on October 15, 2024. Appeal to City Council After the Planning Commission hearing and decision, the City received one appeal letter and an email in support of the appeal on October 16, 2024. A hearing was scheduled before the City Council to consider the appeal request made by Eugene D. Nelson (Appeal 24-005). The decision of the City Council is a final decision; any subsequent appeal must be made to the Superior Court. Before the appeal was filed, both the applicant and appellant received a draft copy of the new conditions of approval added by the Planning Commission. The applicant and the appellant both Page 4 Packet Pg. 18 O expressed their concerns of the new conditions. The applicant has concerns of being responsible for landscaping on the neighboring property. A copy of the appeal letter is attached to this report for the City Council's review. In summary, the appeal letter states the appellant's concerns that: The project does not comply with the SCMC or General Plan; The two conditions of approval added by the Planning Commission are contradictory to the Planning Commission's direction to staff, and There is an abuse of power in the discretionary process. RESPONSE TO APPEAL Consistency with the SCMC The project site is an existing residential site with a primary home and an accessory garage. Based on the zoning, the proposed MUP is required to allow for a second accessory residential structure. The proposed residential accessory structure meets the requirements of rear and side setbacks, distance between main and accessory structures, and the height for accessory structures of the UR1 zone. Santa Clarita Municipal Code § 17.57.040(D) — the code section relied upon by the appeal — is for nonresidential uses or structures in a residential zone. Relying upon this code section, therefore, is misplaced in this case. The SCMC requirements for residential structures and the project proposal are summarized in Table 2, below: Table 2 — Existing and Proposed Project Requirements UDC Requirements SCMC Section Description Requirement Applicants Plans 17.33.010 Side yard setback, each side (in feet) 5/5 5 17.33.010 Rear yard setback (in feet) 15 15 17.33.010 Maximum height of accessory structures not exceeding 35 the height of the main structure without a CUP (in feet) 17.5 To address concerns regarding the oak tree adjacent to the subject property, the City's oak -tree specialist conducted a site visit on March 26, 2024, and determined there would be no impact on the oak tree given the project would not create any further ground disturbance under the oak tree. The proposed accessory structure would be built on the driveway that exists on the project site. Accordingly, an Oak Tree Permit is not required. To be consistent with the primary structure on -site, the proposed accessory structure uses a pitched roof, does not exceed the height of the primary structure, and would be finished with a smooth panel painted to match the colors of the primary structure. Page 5 Packet Pg. 19 O ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.; "CEQA") and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines"). Per CEQA Guideline § 15303, activity that results in new construction or conversion of small structures is exempt. The proposed structure qualifies as a Class 3 exemption because the proposal includes the construction of an accessory structure. PUBLIC NOTICING On January 7, 2025, as required by SCMC Sections 17.06.110 and 17.24.120 (D), public notices regarding the proposed project were mailed to all property owners and residents within 1,000 feet of the project site, and all parties requesting notification regarding the project. In addition, a notice was published in The Signal newspaper. On January 14, 2025, a notice of public hearing sign was posted on the project site. The original requests for an administrative hearing, along with other correspondence received before the administrative hearing are attached. As of the writing of this staff report, two comments have been received before the City Council hearing. All requests and comments are attached for reference. CONCLUSION The proposed use is consistent with the PCSSD, the SCMC, would not endanger the public, and is physically suited for the subject site. Therefore, staff has drafted the necessary findings for approval of a MUP as set forth in SCMC Section 17.24.120, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval in Exhibit A of the draft resolution. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Other actions as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Aerial Image Site Plan Elevations Zoning Map Public Comments Page 6 Packet Pg. 20 O Appeal Public Notice Page 7 Packet Pg. 21 2.a RESOLUTION NO. 25- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEAL 24-005 AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MASTER CASE 24-008, INCLUDING MINOR USE PERMIT 24-003, AND ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT 24-003, TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 24715 ADEN AVENUE (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 2834-033-015), IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT FOR MASTER CASE 24-008. The City Council makes the following findings of fact: A. An application for Master Case 24-008 (Minor Use Permit 24-003 and Administrative Permit 24-003) was filed by Stephen Bradley (applicant), with the City of Santa Clarita (City) on January 16, 2024. The property for which this application was filed is located at 24715 Aden Avenue, Assessor's Parcel Number 2834-033-015 (subject site). B. The application was deemed complete on February 14, 2024. C. The applicant proposes to construct a second accessory structure on a single-family site at 24715 Aden Avenue. The site currently has a detached garage that was permitted in 2000. The project would construct an 810 square -foot detached prefabricated recreational vehicle garage that is 17-feet, 6-inches tall, 45-feet long, and 18-feet wide. D. The zoning and General Plan designation for the subject site is Urban Residential 1 (UR1). The site is further located in the Placenta Canyon Special Standards District (PCSSD). E. The surrounding land uses include existing single-family residences north, east, south and west. F. On March 17, 2024, Eugene D. Nelson (appellant), filed a letter requesting an administrative hearing for Master Case 24-008. G. On May 6, 2024, a duly noticed administrative hearing was held before the City of Santa Clarita Hearing Officer at 1:00 p.m. at The Centre, Oak Room, 20880 Centre Pointe Parkway, Santa Clarita, CA 91350. H. At the administrative hearing, the Hearing Officer considered the staff report, the staff presentation, the applicant presentation, and public testimony, and approved Master Case 24-008, determining that it was consistent with the City's objective standards for an accessory structure project. At the hearing, a condition of approval was added that the applicant must provide landscaping to screen the accessory structure along the rear Page 1 of 6 Packet Pg. 22 2.a property line. On May 20, 2024, the appellant filed an appeal (Appeal 24-002), and payment of the appeal fee, appealing the Hearing Officer's approval to the Planning Commission. On October 1, 2024, a duly noticed public hearing regarding the appeal was held before the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. K. At this public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff report, the staff presentation, the applicant presentation, and public testimony. At this hearing, two conditions of approval were added that the applicant must provide landscaping to screen the accessory structure on their neighbors' property along the applicant's side property line. L. On October 16, 2024, the appellant filed an appeal (Appeal 24-005), and payment of the appeal fee, appealing the Planning Commission's approval to the City Council. M. On January 28, 2024, a duly noticed public hearing regarding the appeal was held before the City Council at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. The City reviewed the environmental impacts of this Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. "CEQA") and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines"). Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council finds as follows: A. The project is exempt from additional review under the CEQA Guidelines § 15303 as a Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures categorical exemption. A Class 3 exemption consists of projects characterized as the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities, or structures; B. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is based is the Master Case 24-008 project file, located within the Community Development Department and in the custody of the Director of Community Development; C. Based upon the findings set forth above, the City Council finds the Notice of Exemption for this Project was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and D. This resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence presented to the City Council at its October 1, 2024, hearing, including, without limitation, the Staff Report submitted by the Community Development Director. SECTION 3. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 24-008. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for Master Case 24-008, the City Council determines as follows: Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 23 2.a A. That the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan's Land Use Element and the zoning designation of Urban Residential 1 (UR1). The UR1 General Plan designation is meant for single-family homes and associated uses. With the approval of an Administrative Permit and Minor Use Permit, the accessory structure would be permitted on the project site. B. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of the SCMC. The proposed second accessory structure is permitted with an MUP pursuant to Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC) § 17.57.040. If approved, as part of the MUP the applicant would be required to comply with the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) which would ensure that the proposal would comply with all provisions of the SCMC. As proposed, the accessory structure complies with all setbacks, height, and design standards for an accessory structure in the UR1 and PCSSD. C. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The proposed second accessory structure would not include any hazardous materials and would not require the handling of, or use of, any hazardous materials. The applicant is required to comply with all applicable law for a residential accessory structure. There are no anticipated impacts to persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone. Further, similar structures are located throughout the PCSSD. D. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the proposal's physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable for the proposed use; The subject property includes an existing 2,950 square -foot single-family home and an existing 979 square -foot accessory detached garage. The proposed project includes adding a second accessory structure. The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics of the project site are suitable for the proposed use. The project complies with the SCMC's requirements for residential setbacks, height, roof pitch, and consistency of colors with the primary home. Adequate space exists to access the existing and proposed garage, and all applicable law is met. 2) The highways or streets that provide access to the site are ofsufcient width and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such proposal would Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg. 24 2.a generate; The project would not require any street improvements and would not cause any traffic -related impacts to the site or its vicinity. Because the daily operation of the subject property would not change, there would be no impact to the adjacent Placeritos Boulevard. 3) Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriprotection, etc.) are readily available; and The proposed use would be within an existing residential property, which is located within a developed area within the service area of public protection services, including those provided by the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (LACFD) and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD). The proposal is also required to comply with all applicable requirements of the LACFD and LASD. 4) The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.) is adequate to serve the site. The proposed use would be located within an existing residential area, which is located within a developed area with available and adequate utilities to serve the site. SECTION 4. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR A MINOR USE PERMIT. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for Master Case 24-008, the City Council determines as follows: A. Neither present nor anticipated future traffic volumes generated by the use of the site reasonably require strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation: The proposed use is a typical residential use, to store a personal vehicle, in the UR1 zone and would not result in an increase in expected traffic volumes. The project would result in no significant impact to traffic. B. The granting of the permit will not result in the parking or loading of vehicles in public and private streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic on the streets: All parking or loading of vehicles associated with the accessory structure would occur on the subject property and not on private or public streets. Accordingly, the request would not interfere with the free flow of traffic on the surrounding streets. C. The parking demand would be less than the requirements identified in SCMC Section 17.51.060(M): Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 25 2.a There would be no changes for parking demand as the proposed structure would be used for storage of a recreational vehicle (RV) that exists on the property. D. That sufficient parking would be provided to serve the use intended and potential future uses of the subject property. Sufficient parking is already provided to serve the existing property and the proposed accessory structure is not expected to increase parking demand as it will serve as a garage for an RV. SECTION 5. APPROVALS. The City Council takes the following actions: Appeal 24-005 is denied. The Planning Commission's approval of a request by Stephen J. Bradley to construct a second accessory structure (Master Case 24-008) is upheld in its entirety. Resolution No. 24-015, adopted October 1, 2024, is incorporated by reference in its entirety as if fully set forth including, without limitation, the conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission. There are no amendments to those conditions of approval. SECTION 6: RELIANCE ON RECORD. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. SECTION 7: SUMMARIES OF INFORMATION. All summaries of information in the findings, which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. SECTION 8: NOTICE. The City Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this resolution to the City Council and any other person requesting a copy. SECTION 9: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution becomes effective immediately upon adoption and memorializes the City Council's final decision made on January 28, 2025. Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 26 2.a PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2025. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK DATE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 25-_ was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of 2025, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK Page 6 of 6 Packet Pg. 27 2.a EXHIBIT A MASTER CASE 24-008 ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT 24-003 MINOR USE PERMIT 24-003 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL CONDITIONS GCL The approval of this project will expire if the approved use is not commenced within two years from the date of this approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the City of Santa Clarita's (City) Unified Development Code (UDC). GC2. To the extent the use approved with this project is a different use than previously approved for the property, the prior approval is terminated along with any associated vested rights to such use, unless such prior approved use is still in operation, or is still within the initial pre -commencement approval period. Once commenced, any discontinuation of the use approved with this project for a continuous period of two years or more terminates the approval of this use along with any associated vested rights to such use. The use may not be re-established or resumed after the two-year period. Discontinuation includes cessation of a use regardless of intent to resume. GC3. The permittee may file for an extension of the conditionally -approved project before the date of expiration. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed not later than 60 days before the date of expiration. GC4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "permittee" includes the permittee and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The permittee must defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this project by the City, including any related environmental approvals. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City will promptly notify the permittee. If the City fails to notify the permittee or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee is not thereafter responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both of the following occur: 1) the City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The permittee is not required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the permittee. GCS. The permittee and property owner must comply with all inspections requirements as deemed necessary by the Director. GC6. The project site must be developed and/or used in the manner requested and must be in substantial conformity with the submitted plans date -stamped October 1, 2024, unless revisions and/or additional conditions are specifically required herein. Packet Pg. 28 2.a Exhibit A Master Case 24-008: Minor Use Permit 24-003 and Administrative Permit 24-003 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 7 GC7. This approval runs with the land. All rights and obligations of this approval, including the responsibility to comply with the Conditions of Approval, are binding upon Permittee's successors in interest. The Conditions of Approval may be modified, terminated, or abandoned in accordance with applicable law including, without limitation, the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC). GCB. Any proposed deviations from the Exhibits, Project Description, or Conditions of Approval must be submitted to the Director for review and approval. Any unapproved deviations from the project approval will constitute a violation of the permit approval. GC9. When exhibits and/or written Conditions of Approval are in conflict, the written Conditions of Approval prevail. GC10. The effectiveness of this project will be suspended for the time period that any Condition of Approval is appealed whether administratively or as part of a legal action filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. If any Condition of Approval is invalidated by a court of law, the project must be reviewed by the City and substitute conditions may be imposed. GC 11. The permittee is responsible for ascertaining and paying all City fees as required by the SCMC. This condition serves as notice, pursuant to Government Code § 66020(d) that the City is imposing development impact fees (DIFs) upon the project in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code § 66000, et seq.) and the SCMC. The permittee is informed that it may protest DIFs in accordance with Government Code § 66020. GC12. The permittee must sign these Conditions of Approval, as set forth below, to acknowledge acceptance, within 30 days from the date of approval by the Hearing Officer. GC 13. The City will only issue permits for the development when the construction documents (e.g., building plans) substantially comply with the approved plans. Substantial conformity is determined by the Director. GC14. This decision is not effective until permittee acknowledges acceptance of all project conditions and any appeal period has lapsed, or a waiver of right to appeal is filed or if there is an appeal, until a final decision has been made on the appeal. By use of the entitlements granted by a development application, the permittee acknowledges agreement with the Conditions of Approval. GC15. Anything which is not shown on the application/plans, or which is not specifically approved, or which is not in compliance with this section, is not approved. Any application and/or plans which are defective as to, without limitation, omission, dimensions, scale, use, colors, materials, encroachments, easements, etc., will render any Packet Pg. 29 2.a Exhibit A Master Case 24-008: Minor Use Permit 24-003 and Administrative Permit 24-003 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 7 entitlements granted by this approval null and void. Construction must cease until all requirements of this approval are complied with. Development entitlements may be withheld until violations of the SCMC are abated. GC16. The City will not issue a final certificate of occupancy until the permittee complies with all project conditions. GC 17. Permittee must reimburse the City for all attorneys' fees expended by the City that are directly related to the processing of this project. The City will not issue a Final Certificate of Occupancy or other final occupancy approval until all attorneys' fees are paid by the Permittee. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AHL Before the Building Official issues a building permit, landscaping must be installed along the rear property line to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Landscaping approved by the Director must be installed before the Building Official issues a final certificate of occupancy for the accessory garage. PLANNING COMMISSION PC1. Before the Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must provide a final landscape screening plan to the Director (the "Screening Plan") that includes existing landscaping located on the adjacent property. The Screening Plan must ensure that the permittee's accessory structure is uniformly screened from view of the adjacent property to the extent practicable, to the Director's satisfaction. The Screening Plan must be designed with the plant palette suitable for Santa Clarita (Sunset Western Garden Book Zone 18, minimum winter night temperatures typically 20' to 30' F; maximum summer high temperatures typically 105' F to 110' F) and generally complement the plants included in the landscape screen of the adjacent property. The plants proposed in the screening plan must be acceptable to the City's Urban Forestry Division as well as the Los Angeles County Fire Department. PC2. Before the Building Official issues a Final Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must install landscaping in the Screening Plan (if any) and provide a surety to the Director, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to secure maintenance of the Screening Plan for two years. The surety amount will be calculated based upon the value of the existing adjacent landscape screening as determined by the Director. PLANNING DIVISION PLI . The permittee is granted approval to construct anew 45-foot long by 18-foot wide and 17-foot, 6-inch tall (810 square -foot) detached accessory structure (recreational vehicle Packet Pg. 30 2.a Exhibit A Master Case 24-008: Minor Use Permit 24-003 and Administrative Permit 24-003 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 4 of 7 garage) in the rear yard of the existing single-family home. The construction of the project must be consistent with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. Any modification to the approved plans is subject to further review and approval of the Director of Community Development. PL2. The colors of the accessory structure, including paint and roofing, must be consistent with the main house. The height of the accessory structure must not exceed the height of the primary structure, at 19 feet. PL3. The accessory structure is not permitted as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and is not permitted as living space. PL4. The accessory structure is permitted for private, residential use only and must not be used for commercial purposes. PL5. Unless otherwise stated in this permit, the proposed project must comply with the UDC including, but not limited to, residential development standards pursuant to Chapter 17.51 and Chapter 17.57. PL6. The applicant must comply with the City's Noise Ordinance including, but not limited to, Section 11.44.040(A) of the City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code regarding the following noise limits: a. Residential Zone, Day Time: 65db b. Residential Zone, Night Time: 55db c. Commercial Zone, Day Time: 80db d. Commercial Zone, Night Time: 70db PL7. This approval does not supersede the approval of any other affected agency. PL8. The applicant must obtain all necessary approvals from the Building & Safety Division and Los Angeles County Fire Department. ENVRIONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION ES1. All demolition projects regardless of valuation, all commercial construction projects valuated greater than $200,000 or over 1,000 square feet for new construction, all new residential construction projects, and all residential additions and improvements that increase building area, volume, or size must comply with the City's Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance. ES2. C&D Materials Recycling Ordinance: Packet Pg. 31 2.a Exhibit A Master Case 24-008: Minor Use Permit 24-003 and Administrative Permit 24-003 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 5 of 7 A Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (C&DMMP) must be prepared and approved by the Environmental Services Division prior to obtaining any grading or building permits. A minimum of 65% of the entire project's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and 65% of the remaining C&D waste must be recycled or reused rather than disposing in a landfill. For renovation or tenant improvement projects and new construction projects, a deposit of 2% of the estimated total project cost or $15,000, whichever is less, is required. For demolition projects, a deposit of 10% of the estimated total project cost or $15,000, whichever is less, is required. The full deposit will be returned to the permittee upon proving that 65% of the inert and remaining C&D waste was recycled or reused. ES3. Per the California Green Building Standards Code, 100 percent of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing must be reused or recycled. For a phased project, such material may be stockpiled on site until the storage site is developed. ES4. All projects within the City not self -hauling their waste materials must use one of the City's franchised haulers for temporary and roll -off bin collection services. Please visit GreenSantaClarita.com for a list of approved haulers. BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION Plans and Permits BSI. Construction drawings must be submitted to the Building & Safety Division Permit Center for plan review and building permit issuance. Structural calculations must be part of the plan submittal. A soils investigation report is required for buildings over 1,000 square feet. This project will be considered a Group U Occupancy detached metal accessory building used as a garage. BS2. Construction drawings submitted for plan review must show full compliance with all applicable local, county, state and federal requirements and codes. The project must comply with the building codes in effect at time of building permit application. The current state building codes are: the 2022 California Building (CBC), Mechanical (CMC), Plumbing (CPC), Electrical (CEC), Fire (CFC), Energy Code, and the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen). BS3. Accessory buildings may also comply with the detailed architectural requirements of the 2022 California Residential Code. BS4. Construction drawings submitted for plan review must be complete. Submitted plans must show all architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical work that will be part of this project. Plans must include a foundation plan with properly sized Packet Pg. 32 2.a Exhibit A Master Case 24-008: Minor Use Permit 24-003 and Administrative Permit 24-003 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 6 of 7 perimeter footings. Footings under exterior walls must be a minimum of 12-inches wide and 18 to 24-inches deep. A soils report may require different sized footings depending on soil type and strength. BSS. All plans must be prepared by qualified licensed design professionals (California licensed architects and engineers). BS6. Construction drawings may be submitted electronically or by submitting paper plans. In either case an "eService Account" must be created to use our online permitting system. Please log on to: www.santa-clarita.com/eservice and create an account by clicking "register for an Account." BS7. The submitted site plan must show all lot lines, any easements, restricted use areas, fire zone, etc. Any construction proposed in an easement must obtain the easement holders written permission. BS8. For an estimate of the building permit fees and the estimated time for plan review, please contact the Building & Safety Division directly at (661) 255-4935. Agency Clearances BS9. Prior to issuance of building permits, clearances from the following agencies will be required: a. City of Santa Clarita Planning Division, b. City of Santa Clarita Environmental Services (Construction & Demolition Plan deposit), and c. Los Angeles County Fire Prevention Bureau. BS 10. An agency referral list with contact information is available at the Building & Safety public counter. Please contact the agencies above to determine if there are any plan review requirements and/or fees to be paid. Clearances from additional agencies may be required and will be determined during the plan review process. Hazard Zones BS11. The project is located within the City's Fire Hazard Zone. New buildings must comply with the California Building Code Chapter 7A: MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS FOR EXTERIOR WILDFIRE EXPOSURE. Detached accessory buildings located over 50-feet from an applicable building (main residential building built after July 1, 2008), are exempt from the Fire Hazard Zone requirements. BS12. Indicate in the project data of the plans that this project IS LOCATED in a Fire Hazard Zone, IS NOT LOCATED in a Flood Hazard Zone, and IS NOT LOCATED in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone. Packet Pg. 33 2.a Exhibit A Master Case 24-008: Minor Use Permit 24-003 and Administrative Permit 24-003 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 7 of 7 Additional Info BS13. These general conditions are based on a review of conceptual plans submitted by the applicant to the Planning Division. This list must not be considered a full plan review by the Building & Safety Division. Detailed comments will be listed during the plan review process when a building permit application and plans are submitted to Building & Safety. Packet Pg. 34 Aerial Map 2.b Packet Pg. 35 0 E L d Q (ea dd¥a mom; Ajosa o¥puo a )umd 0;|S:;ueeL13e1;¥ /) /( \) \\; j\ }( \( `\ \ \) \« \ ®§ J§= \2/ � o, �(S) / qo - \}) /«2% 5 2 (S) 2±%\ \\ zomvcqe,»� ma 7"w«NV7,1 �AS _ e>a,u w ms clues )/; CZ vn/ �_z - xwe� \ \§\} A Orqejeo 010g9A yuogea aa% ma\ % 2 p/} \ G o \ \ ) - © \ ( 2 :> / _ ofz..: \ / )) -. - }/ ^ x\t \y \ _ § \_ , \ }} \ \�: \ \ e y s \ \ G t u o\/ 6 { \ \ t + a \ /\//\®\ ( - / s < 112 _ = z= >_as\K | �0 \/ /{ Z 3/ ` V \ ° \ ` / �a a � '� �� � � � S �nN� v N�a at z � *]]Ov�B ]a]IS e� _:� _,� r ) S �Od�vog]� S ]S@d�� N] s � /oSsv /s����e� ��� S« ���5 . m����e 3nN� v N 2.e Zoning Map t t :4761 22,31 �NUS ti 22119 22115 aa2Crg40PD 24816 I a 1S1t 24f02 N� !C 29745 24752 2213E Oak'Or a :a81J 24741 112 247513-"JC-.haC Jq,.Ve Q 21809 rQSr 24741 246.33 P� U 7 W49 24392 ��I 2212fi 24749 221743 22033 c JIJ CO)J 7?143 24731 U \ 2292; 22019 2200 t. U' 0 24730 2 N N 24730 9737 a7 �li 33 24719 V 24i32 Q sue, 729 = .0 24721 2205E 0 24723 U 24710 `�ubleCf PTO 21917 G7 2471E 22147 perty 24721 24716 fA ' r 24713 22149 - >y 22139 UR1 tC 24709 3' 24716 it 24718 , 24701 2e1'S N{ 24711 0 22101 Q' C r: i" N P d # J rt-aC.e�%t ps. Qr 24702 24712 f1,rS V2 cf ..E �. e. - 2217E B�V} G7 24 91 E NA 2214E 22136 21925 lUC 22139 'a RR 24€G4 2211a flSgL{ Q os ZONING KEY =! ! -5r • �fff �`_ UR1 — Urban Residential 1 r: f, f 2acas UR2 — Urban Residential 2 N �IS 22940 {//•�',% NU5 — Non Urban 5 22131 9 MX-N — Mixed Use Neighborhood Packet Pg. 3 2.f Re: Appeal 24-005 re: Master Case 24-008: Minor Use Permit 24-003, AP 24-003 The following is a letter sent to each of the listed planning commissioners on 10/25/24. We never heard any sort of response so we are including it here again... Tom and Laurie Ozanich 22139 Placeritos Blvd. Newhall, CA 91321 ozanich@mac.com October 25, 2024 Santa Clarita Planning Commission 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Commissioners; Tim Burkhart, Patsy Ayala, Lisa Eichman, Renee Berlin, Denise Lite We would like to thank you for listening to our perspective at the hearing on October 1, 2024 regarding Master case 24-008; Minor Use Permit 24-003 for a prefabricated garage permit at 24715 Aden Ave. We were very grateful for the attention given to our concerns and the specific recommendations for the project like screening plants, etc. you gave at the hearing. We were satisfied with the result and fully expected to see Mr. Bradley's project move forward with your specific recommendations included in the requirements of the project. Unfortunately some information was shared only at the last minute which we felt forced an appeal in order to get the planning director to actually require the specifications laid out in the Oct,1 hearing. The day after the hearing our neighbor, Del Nelson, requested a copy of the final conditions as they would be written into the permit. He did not receive that information until October 15th, one day before the deadline to appeal. Del emailed the head of the planning office because the conditions that were brought up by the planning commission at the meeting were not added to the conditions for the permit. (The email chain is included at the end of this letter.) Basically, the way it is currently written, nothing is tangibly different in the requirements versus prior to the hearing. The Planning Commission is effectively being ignored from what we can tell. Everything seems to be left to the discretion of Packet Pg. 40 2.f the Director. It says; "...the permittee must install landscaping in the Screening Plan (if any)"... which would seem to suggest that they certainly could do nothing at all. Screening from only one adjacent property is mentioned which would appear to be the Nelson's since the wording also suggests the existing Oleanders on the Nelson's property is sufficient screening. The specific plant heights discussed at the hearing (15-17ft at time of planting), spacing, irrigation, holes being filled in, etc. are all missing from the conditions as written. Additionally, required maintenance is only required for 2 years. This is obviously upsetting because we feel as if we were duped. Our question to you is, is the planning office obligated to put in the recommendations raised by the planning commission? We are reaching out to you hoping for some assistance and clarification. You can reach us at ozanichomac.com, 22139 Placeritos Blvd. Newhall, CA 91321, or 661-210-8477. Sincerely, .lam Tom & Laurie Ozanich Begin forwarded message: From: "E.D. \(Del\) Nelson" <n el so nco n str@earth link.net> Subject: RE: Appeal 24-0G'2 J's-:a7 Shed Date: October 16. 2024 at 12:11:11 PM PDT To: "David Peterson"' <DPETERSON@santa-clarita.com>, "'Kyla Danforth"' <KDANFORTH@santa- ciarita.com> Cc: "'Patrick Leclair- <PLECLAIR@santa-clarita.com>, "'Jason Crawford"' <JCRAWFORD@santa- clarita.com> Good morning Dave: The Planning Commission conditionally ap._ roved the project expressly based on the height of trees and additional screening e sures. When we left the Planning Comr nis inn meeting, it was clear frorn the commissioner's comments the nal work they directed that staff perform. They also made it clear that they waned Urban Forestry involved with the screening plan. Packet Pg. 41 The inclusion of the phrase "if any" with regards to the Screening Plan makes it sound as ti" ul_�,Jh the "Director" may not require any new plantings, which is clearly contradictory .o 'he Planning Commission's statements. They also directed that the holes and openings in the oleanders be filled. 'The commission was addressing both properties, not just one..... We were hopeful that after the Planning Commission meeting th °: ; issues had been addressed but the way this is written he could put in an 1 Rd be done with it. We will await your response in the morning. Thanks. E.D. (Del) Nelson 'yla Danforth <KDANFORTI-i@santa-clarity com> nt: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 3:57 E='M E.D. (Del) Nelson <nelsonconstr@earth Iink. net> David Peterson <DPETERSON@santa-clarita.com>: Patrick Leclair <PLECLAIR@santa-clarita.com>; Jason Crawford <JCRAWFORD@santa- clarita.com> : iect: RE: Appeal 24-002 Metal Shed Good afternoon Del, Thank you for your pC i_ nce. Below is a draft of the two conditions that reflect the motion of the Plan regarding landscaping: PC1. Before the issues a building permit, the permittee must provide a final Iandsc&_ .Je sc,�3ening plan to the Director (the "Screening Plan") that includes existing landscaping located on the au-'Jacent property. The ;,::caning I i�zn must ensure that permittee's accez3,-, ­yY structure is uniforn ly screened ,view of the adjacei ;-roperty to lire e ,�t practicable. to the Director`v s t5�cf ii� ; The ScreenIi Pl,;.n rw be c :signed with the plant palette suitable Ycrk Sari i (Sunse� ` este en Kok Zone 18, minimum winter nia ternpe ure-s 20' to 30' l=; n saximurn summer high temperatures typicaliv 1050 F to 110° generally complement the plants included in the landscape screen of the adiact-nt property. The plants proposed in the screening plan must be acceptable to the Gi y's Urban Forestry Division as well as the Los Angeles County Fire Department. FC2. Before the Build issues a final cE s gate of occupancy, the oermittee must instal; in the Scre-� �;r any) and provide a suretyto the Director, in e,.n approved by th._. ',troEf,��y. to secure maintenance of the Screening Plan for two The surety amount will be calculated based upon the value of the existing adjacent landscape screening as determined by the Director. Packet Pg. 42 2.f As a reminder, tomorrow is the last day to submit an appeal to the Planning Commission's decision. If you have any questions, please reach out. Best, Kyla Danforth I Planning Technician Planning Division Email: kdanforth@santa-clarita.com ,- S.�^�N_TIN CLARI'TA 'r!< nne E.D. (Del) Nelson <nelsonconstr@earthlink.net> t\lednesday, October 2, 2024 1:38 PM, To: Kyla Danforth <KDANFORTH @santa-clarita.com> Cc: David Peterson <DPETERSON@santa-clarity com> nr-�i�e­l.Pb: Appeal 24-002 Metal Shed Cood afternoon Kyla, Thank you fo (,?.+r time last evening at the Planning Commission meeting. I wanted to chec ,;; i£{. you to see if we will be able to review the final conditions that urban forestry cos es up with for the screening of the shed. We also wanted to ch:.cl' with you to see if it was possible to request a bond for replacement of our oleanders when they become distressed from the tin wall reflected heat. We would like to get this information before our window to appeal expires 15w . Thanks. =.D. (Del) Nelson President E.D. Nelson Construction, Inc. %2115 Placeritos Blvd. Newhall, CA 91321 O (661) 254-1321 F (661) 254-1368 C (818) 400-1531 http://www.ednelsonconstruction.com,' Packet Pg. 43 2.f City of Santa Clarita Planning Department Attn: Kyla Danforth City Hall 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, CA 91355 24715 Aden Ave., Santa Clarita, CA 91321 (Assessor's Parcel Number: 2834-033-015) MASTER CASE 24-008 MINOR USE PERMIT 24-003 ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT 24-003 P.C. APPEAL 24-002 Is this What Your "Vision for Santa Clarita" is? 17.57.040 K. Accessory Buildings Outbuilding. - An accessory structureloutbuilding is an acres_ sore structure on a residential lot that provides enclosed or conditioned space in addition to the primary dwelling unit and/or accessory dwelling unit. Such structures _may include barns, pool houses, studios, greenhouses, offices, storage buildings, ag rapes, etc. We are APPEALLING the PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL as well as the implementation of their determinations and decisions by Planning Staff of the above noted Case and Associated Permits pursuant to the Class III Application called out in UDC 17.24 for a Minor Use Permit as well as UDC 17.06.030 (C) for Minor Use Permits. Packet Pg. 44 2.f We are appealing against the Planning Commission Decision affirming the approval of the Minor Use Permit noted above, because, among other reasons, the approval does not comply with the following City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code or General Plan sections; The Planning Department has written Conditions that are completely dishonest and contradictory to the intent and directions that were given at the conclusion of the Planning Commission Hearing / Meeting; the proposed metal building is not physically suitable for the site and the proposed location and size are not suitable for the proposed UR-1 lot, as is a required finding for a Minor Use Permit; there is an Abuse of the Discretionary Powers of the Director, Planning Manager and especially Planning Staff, by completely ignoring the General Plan, Municipal Code and the Unified Development Code o of Santa Clarita. 7.01.040 Applicability of Zoning Regulations B. Compliance with Regulations. No land shall be used, and no structure shall be constructed, occupied, enlarged, altered, or moved unless it is in accordance with the provisions of this code. No permit or entitlement may be issued or renewed for any use, construction, improvement, or other purpose unless specifically provided for, or permitted by, this code. No person shall use, or permit to be used, any structure, or land, nor shall any person erect, structurally alter, or enlarge any structure, or advertise on any structure, except in accordance with the provisions of this code. 17.01.030 Consistencwith the General Plan "Any permit or approval issued pursuant to this code must be consistent with the General Plan. in the event of inconsistency of this title with the goals, policies, and objectives of the adopted General Plan and its elements, the General Plan goals, policies, and objectives shall govern. " Santa Clarita General Plan Page L-14 "in addition, development in the area must comply with the City's Special Standards District to maintain the rural community character desired by residents." COMMERCIAL USE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE FALLACY The Planning Manager has consistently stated (including Timestamp 43.20 of the Planning Commission Hearing) that the Setbacks are referring to some mysterious "Commercial" Aspect of the RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. He is making this up as he goes. He offers no code section as verification. The "Commercial" section of the UDC is 17.53 that has a Section of Accessory Buildings but has NO reference to Accessory Garages. That is very clearly called out in UDC 17.57.040 (K) His argument is False unless it can be documented by the UDC. 2 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 45 2.f 17.57.040 (K)(2). Development Standards. An accessory structur%utbuilding shall be subject to all the development requirements of the underlying zone with the exception Of the following: a. Accessory structures/outbuildings shall meet the setbacks applicable to accessory structures. 17.57.040 Accessory Buildings and Structures. D. 1. Must beset back twenty-five (25) feet from property lines of properties developed with residential uses; 17.01.050 Administration of Use Classifications. I. The accessory uses and structures shall be deemed on integral part of each primary use, The Issues are: 1) The determination or interpretation is not in accord with the purposes of this code: Staff is disregarding their own Planning Department Conditions of Approval (PL-5) by not requiring adherence to 17.57 and 17.51 and allowing project to proceed in contradiction to requirements of UDC. o That condition states that "the proposed project must comply with the Unified Development Code including but not limited to Residential Standards pursuant to chapter 17.51 and chapter 17.57. o 17.57 contains the Requirements for Additional Accessary Buildings ■ 17.57.040(K) (2)(a) Accessory structures/outbuildings shall meet the setbacks applicable to accessory structures. o UDC Section 17.57.040 Accessory Buildings and Structures (D) states in the "Modular Building for Nonresidential Uses" that "Modular buildings for nonresidential uses in residential zones shall be subject to the following additional requirements:" o I. Must be set back twenty-five (25) feet from property lines of properties developed with residential uses; 0 2. Shall be subject to the approval of a minor use permit in accordance with Section 17.24.120 (Minor Use Permit); o 3. Shall be subject to the approval of a landscape plan review, in accordance with Section 17.23.150 (Landscape Plan Review), to ensure that the buildings are adequately screened from public views and from adjacent residences; 3� Packet Pg. 46 2.f There are numerous other examples in Placerita Canyon and there are owners who were told that the Proposed Accessory Building must match the primary residential structure. The record includes inaccurate information: ■ Staff Planner presented FALSE Information to the Planning Commission with regards to previously constructed Accessory buildings on UR-1 Zoned Lots. He stated that the code only requires consistency with the primary structure when it is connected to the primary structure when in truith the code calls for 17.57.040(K) (2) (d) Requires the project to "shall be consistent and compatible with the ,primary dwelling unit in terms of architecture, finish materials, and color. ". ■ Not just Painted Like "Lipstick on a Pig"! 4 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 47 2.f m�� W i AP.sf e ,Y �r;N}� a0kai Although it was stated in the Planning presentation that the existing accessory building was a 2 car garage, that UR-1 property currently has a 3 car garage (constructed with materials in the Type V manner) attached to the primary residence AND a 4 car accessory garage building (3 bays and workshop, (constructed with materials in the Type V manner)) on his UR-1, % acre lot. (Please verify by the pictures in my letter for the Hearing). Setting the precedent for "Tin Can" sheds in UR-1 zones (with 5' side yard setbacks) is going to fill this city's UR-1 suburbs with "Tin can" RV garages. Please feel free to contact me with any questions, Sincere Eugene D. Ne son 22115 Placeritos Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91321 (661) 254-1321 51Page Packet Pg. 48 City of Santa Clarita LY-I r City Clerk City Hall M 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Filing of APPEAL to the implementation of the Determinations and Decisions of the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission with regards to: 24715 Aden Ave., Santa Clarita, CA 91321 (Assessor's Parcel Number: 2834-033-015) MASTER CASE 24-008 MINOR USE PERMIT 24-003 ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT 24-003 P.C. APPEAL 24-002 We are APPEALLING the PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL as well as the implementation of their determinations and decisions by Planning Staff of the above noted Case and Associated Permits pursuant to the Class III Application called out in UDC 17.24 for a Minor Use Permit as well as UDC 17-06.030 (C) for Minor Use Permits. This Appeal is submitted with Full Payment of the Required Filing Fee of $1,636.00. (50% OF Filing Fee, within 500 feet) We are appealing against the Planning Commission Decision affirming the approval of the Minor Use Permit noted above, because, among other reasons, the approval does not comply with the following City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code or General Plan sections; The Planning Department staff has written Conditions that are completely dishonest and contradictory to the intent and directions that were given at the conclusion of the Planning Commission Hearing / Meeting; the proposed metal building is not physically suitable for the site and the proposed location and size are not suitable for the proposed UR-1 lot, as is a required finding for a Minor Use Permit; there is an Abuse of the Discretionary Powers of the Director by completely ignoring the General Plan, Municipal Code and the Unified Development Code of Santa Clarita. The Planning Department is running amuck. 17.01.030 Consistency with the General Plan. "Any permit or approval issued pursuant to this code must be consistent with the General Plan. In the event of inconsistency of this title with the goals, policies, and objectives of the adopted General Plan and its elements, the General Plan goals, policies, and objectives shall govern. " I I P a g e Q Packet Pg. 49 2.g 17.01.050 Administration of Use Classifications. 1. The accessory uses and structures shall be deemed an integral part of each primary use; The Issues are: 1) The determination or interpretation is not in accord with the purposes of this code: • Staff is disregarding their own Planning Department Conditions of Approval (PL-5) by not requiring adherence to 17.57 and 17.51 and allowing project to proceed in contradiction to requirements of UDC. 2 1 P a g e o That condition states that "the proposed project must comply with the Unified Development Code including but not limited to Residential Standards pursuant to chapter 17.51 and chapter 17.57. o 17.57 contains the Requirements for Additional Accessary Buildings ■ 17.57.040(K) (2)(a) Accessory structures/outbuildings shall meet the setbacks applicable to accessory structures. o UDC Section 17.57.040 Accessory Buildings and Structures (D) states in the "Modular Building for Nonresidential Uses" that "Modular buildings for (n nonresidential uses in residential zones shall be subject to the following additional requirements:" Q a. a 0 1. Must be set back twenty-five (25) feet from property lines of properties c m developed with residential uses, E 0 2. Shall be subject to the approval of a minor use permit in accordance with r r Section 17.24.120 (Minor Use Permit); Q 0 3. Shall be subject to the approval of a landscape plan review, in accordance with Section 17.23.150 (Landscape Plan Review), to ensure that the buildings are adequately screened from public views and from adjacent residences; ■ 17.57.040(K) (2) (d) Requires the project to "be consistent with the existing primary dwelling unit in terms of colors and materials.". Packet Pg. 50 2.g 17.01.050 Administration of Use Classifications. states: A. Primary Use. In determining compliance with the provisions of this code as it applies to the uses listed in the various zones, each primary use shall be considered a separate use, provided: 1. The accessory uses and structures shall be deemed an integral part of each primary use; The record includes inaccurate information: 0 Although it was stated in the Planning presentation that the existing accessory building was a 2 car garage, that UR-1 property currently has a 3 car garage (constructed with materials in the Type V manner) attached to the primary residence AND a 4 car accessory garage building (3 bays and workshop, (constructed with materials in the Type V manner)) on his UR-1, % acre lot. (Please verify by the pictures in my letter for the Hearing). Setting the precedent for "Tin Can" sheds in UR-1 zones (with 5' side yard setbacks) is going to fill this city's UR-1 suburbs with "Tin can" RV garages. • Staff indicated that they had received 5 applications for "Tin can" sheds as justification of the approval but did not share the Zones or areas that the applications were located in. Please feel free to contact me with any questions, Sincerely, Eugene D. Nelson 22115 Placeritos Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91321 (661) 254-1321 3 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 51 2.h CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MASTER CASE 24-008 APPLICATION: Appeal 24-005 regarding Master Case 24-008: Minor Use Permit 24-003, Administrative Permit 24-003 PROJECT LOCATION: 24715 Aden Avenue (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 2834-033-015) PROJECT APPLICANT: Stephen J. Bradley PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Stephen J. Bradley, is requesting a Minor Use Permit and Administrative Permit to allow a second accessory structure in the rear yard of an existing single-family home. The accessory structure is a prefabricated metal recreation vehicle garage that will be consistent with the colors of the primary residence. The current rear yard includes a detached car garage that was permitted and built in 2000. The property is located at 24715 Aden Avenue in the community of Newhall. The property is zoned as Urban Residential 1 and is located within the Placenta Canyon Special Standards District. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On October 1, 2024, a public hearing was conducted for the proposed project and Master Case 24-008 was approved by the Planning Commission. On October 16, 2024, Eugene D. Nelson, filed an appeal of the Hearing Officer decision to approve the project to the City Council. The City Council will conduct an appeal hearing on this matter on the following date: DATE: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: City Hall, Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as a Class 3 exemption in accordance with Section 15303 for the construction of a small structure. If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearings described in this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearings. If you wish to have written comments included in the materials the City Council receives prior to the public hearing, those comments must be submitted to the Community Development Department by Friday, January 17, 2025. For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the project planner, by appointment, at the City of Santa Clarita, Permit Center, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone: (661) 255-4330. Website: www.santaclarita.gov/planning. Send written correspondence via email to kdanforth@santaclarita.gov, or by US mail to: 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Project Planner: Kyla Danforth, Planning Technician. Mary Cusick, MMC City Clerk Published: The Signal, January 7, 2025 Packet Pg. 52 2.h PROPOSED PROJECT SITE Master Case 24-008: Second Accessory Structure (RV Garage) in Rear Yard 24715 Aden Avenue (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 2834-033-015) Packet Pg. 53