Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-08-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - APPEAL CUP 90-001 (2)PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: BACKGROUND AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented by: c Lynn M Harris August 14, 1990 Appeal of Planning Commission denial without prejudice: Conditional Use Permit No. 90-001 Community Development On June 29, 1990, the applicant's agent, Hale and Associates, filed an appeal regarding the denial without prejudice of the Conditional Use Permit-- No. 90-001. Conditional Use Permit 90-001 proposes a three storyoffice building comprising 6,250 square feet at'24568 Newhall Avenue between 11th Street and Lyons Avenue. Craig Wanek, the applicant, originally received approval for Zone.Change No. 86-533 and Conditional Use Permit No. 86-533 through the County of Los Angeles on December 15, 1987. The project.became effective on January 14, 1988, thus changing the zone to C -2 -DP (NeighborhoodCommercial, Development Program overlay). The conditional use permit expired one year after issuance but the C -2 -DP zoning remains in place. Due to project deficiencies, the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission denied a one-year time extension for the County approved CUP. The applicant redesigned the project and applied with the City of Santa. Clarita for approval of Conditional Use Permit No.90-001. on January 5, 1990. The Planning Commission found continued deficiencies with the, project, including excessive height (39 feet in a two story zone), inadequate, parking, loading and landscaping. ANALYSIS The Planning Commissioners denial of the conditional use permit found the following project deficiencies: 1. The parking lot configuration does not meet the regulations of Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 22.52.1060H which prohibits backing- of vehicles over an alley. 2. Properties in the C-2 Zone are required to landscape 10% of the site area, pursuant to Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 22.28.170. The project does not meet landscape requirements after dedication. 3. There are no loading facilities to accommodate the proposed office use on-site. This is a specific requirement of the.City's Parking Ordinance. Continued To: Agendalfem: 4. Properties in the C-2 Zone are limited .to two stories or 35 feet by the Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is for a three story office at 39 feet in height. The Planning Commission believes that a development proposal of this scope is not appropriate for the 2.86 acre site. In the appeal letter to Mr. Caravalho, the applicant's agent has stated that they were effectively granted a continuance which would allow them to redesign the project and schedule another public hearing within a 30 day period. They also state that a continuance of the.project would be more efficient for both the applicant and the City of Santa Clarita. These statements are not consistent with the Planning Commission proceeding and denial of the project. The applicant did not request a continuance to allow time to redesign nor did he indicate at any time during proceedings that they were willing to redesign. After the denial, at staff's request, the Planning Commission provided direction to the applicant and confirmed that the office use was an acceptable use at this site, but that a major redesign was necessary for any new project submittal. In subsequent conversations with staff, the applicant stated they were appealing the denial to avoid paying new application filing fees. Following testimony at this public hearing, the City Council may choose among the following several options: 1. Uphold the Planning Commission's denial without prejudice and require a new application be filed. 2. Approve the application as proposed to the Commission on June 5, 1990. 3. Approve the application with conditions and/or modifications. 4. Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission with directions to re -hear the application with or without City Council suggestions on the application at no additional expense to the applicant. Staff recommends option 1 above; that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial without prejudice, thus requiring the applicant to submit a new application with the Community Development Department. Filing fees paid in January 1990 have been expended in full in that the project has received extensive staff review and public hearing costs. ATTACHMENTS 1. Appeal letter to Mr. Caravalho by the applicant's agent. 2. Response letter to Mr: Uselding regarding letter. 3. Staff report to the Commission dated June 5, 1990. 4. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting from Tuesday, June 5, 1990 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-001 WHICH PROPOSES A THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING COMPRISING 6,250 SQ. FT. AT 24568 NEWHALL AVENUE BETWEEN 11TH STREET & LYONS AVENUE IN THE C-2 (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS) ZONE PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission to deny, without prejudice, Conditional Use Permit No. 90-001 proposing a three story office building comprising 6,250 square feet at 24568 Newhall Avenue between 11th Street and Lyons Avenue in the C-2 (Neighborhood Business) zone. The hearing will be heard by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., lst Floor, the 14th day of August, 1990,. at or after 6:30 p.m. 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 City Clerk's Office, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Ste. 300, Santa Clarita, Ca. Dated: July 23, 1990 Donna M. Grindey City Clerk Publish Date: July 30, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE 1. Mayor Opens Hearing a. States Purpose of Hearing 2. City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice 3. Staff Report (City Manager) or (City Attorney) or (RP Staff) 4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes) 5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes) 6. Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent) a. Proponent 7. Mayor Closes Public Testimony 8. Discussion by Council 9. Council Decision 10. Mayor Announces Decision HALE & ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consulting Engineers June 29',"'1990 George Caravalho, City Manager City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Attention: Donna Grindey Dear Mr. Caravalho, 24303 San Fernando Rd. Newhall, Catifornia 91321 Telephone: (805) 259-9700 C.U.P. # 90 -001 --------------- --------------- This letter is being written on behalf of our client, Craig wanek, to appeal the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) 90-001. The Commission voted to deny this application, "without prejudice", on June 5, 1990. The. grounds of our appeal is not to circumvent the Planning Commission, but rather an attempt to incorporate the Commission's intent and suggestions into a revised design. We believe that it was the Commission's intent to allow the project a "continuance", as Commissioner Brathwaite stated that the denial "without prejudice" would allow for redesign without new filing fees being required. Based on the Commission's testimony we believe that. we were effectively granted a "continuance". The assumption that a denial "without prejudice" functions identically to a "continuance" is simply not accurate. A denial "without prejudice" terminates a project, unless appealed, but does allow an applicant to resubmit a project to the City- without waiting for one year. A "continuance" allows an applicant to make some revisions to the project and allows the staff an opportunity to perform some additional research before another hearing. The continuance is a far more equitable and efficient method of project redesign and revision, both for the City and for the applicant. Our current C.U.P. was filed on January 5, 1990 but was not heard by the Commission until June 5, 1990 (a period of five months). We believe that a continuance would have allowed for a second hearing within 30 days. We also believe that it was the Commission's intent to grant us a continuance. We have appealed the project to the City Council in an attempt to expedite the review of our new design and obtain the City's approval. The subject of application filing fees has also been a matter of some controversy. Commissioner Braithwaite stated at the public hearing that it was the intent of the Commission to waive the filing fees for a new application under a denial "without prejudice". Mr. Richard Henderson, City Principal Planner, told us on June 7. 1990 that the Commission does not have the authority to waive filing fees, and that if we were to file a new C.U.P. a fee of 91.405.00 would be imposed. Evidently, the City staff and the City attorney were aware that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to waive filing fees, but they chose not to disclose that important fact to. the Commission at the June 5th hearinc. Under these circumstances an appeal to the City Council is our only practical option. we have experienced extreme frustration in working with the City's Community Development Department staff through the course of this project and we feel that the City has not been well represented by the staff during this project. I would like to take this opportunity to summarize the history of this project and the difficulties we have encountered. The design for this property improvement was prepared and submitted by another engineering firm. The project was approved for a zone change and C.U.P. by the County of Los Angeles in 1987. The C.U.P. had an expiration date of January 14, 1989. Prior to this date the property was sold to the current owner/applicant Mr. Craig Wanek. Mr. Wanek was not aware that the City would deny a request for a time extension. Mr. Wanek requested a time extension from the City of Santa Clarita, but the Director of` Community Development denied the request. Although the City had not adopted new designs standards which applied to this project, the project was denied based on pending design standards, such as the building area to parking ratio. Mr. Wanek appealed this decision to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission upheld the Director's denial of the.time extension in June 1989, because of some specific design concerns related to the approved project. We recognize that the size of the site presents some design constraints, but we have attempted to remedy the design concerns of the Commission. We prepared a new site plan and attempted to file a plot plan application with the City. Although a plot plan application is not specifically required under a C.U.P., our strategy was to obtain written comments and/or conditions from the Community Development staff prior to filing for the C.U.P. • Mr. Henderson reviewed our new site plan and building elevations and he assured our client that the City staff would support the project. He stated that we could receive no written comments on the plot plan and that he would recommend approval of the new project because of the tremendous improvements to the design. Mr. Henderson advised us to file a C.U.P. application, at the cost of $1,405.00. We filed our application on January 5, 1990. On February 17, 1990 we received a letter from another member of the Community Development staff, stating that the project had some design issues that needed to be resolved to allow for further processing. Apparently there had been no communication between Mr. Henderson and the staff, as no mention of staff's commitment to support the project was made. Upon receiving the letter we contacted Mr. Henderson and requested that he again become involved in the review of our project. because of his familiarity with the project's history. Mr. Henderson again stated that staff would support the project. We felt that we had a design that could gain the approval of the Planning Commission. The City scheduled a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting for this project on February 22, 1990, but neglected to notify us or Mr. Wanek that a DRC meeting was scheduled. Upon learning that a DRC had been held, we requested that Mr. Henderson personally conduct another DRC meeting for our project. We were scheduled for another DRC meeting. However, Mr. Henderson was not present at that meeting. Our project was scheduled and advertised for a Planning Commission hearing on May 15, 1990. Due to complications in preparation for the hearing, the project was rescheduled for June 5, 1990. On May 31, 1990, we obtained a staff report for our project from City staff. Upon review of the report, we discovered that the City staff was recommending denial of our project. We immediately contacted Mr. Henderson who stated that he would present our project at the hearing and would demonstrate to the Commission the vast improvements which had been made from the previous plan. Suildinc size had been substantially decreased, parking and landscaping had been increased, but the staff report made no statement to that effect. We were also assured that improvement requirements and design conditions would be given to us prior to the Planning Commission meeting. We have still not received these requirements. At the Planning Commission hearing on June 5, 1990, Mr. Henderson gave the staff presentation, but made no specific comments as to the design improvements or staff's commitment to support the project. We feel that the City staff has not dealt with us in good faith. Furthermore, we believe that it is not in the best interest of the City and/or citizens of the City to have projects denied without a diligent effort of both staff and the consultant to work out any problems that may exist. We thought that we had worked out the problems with Mr. Henderson. We are extremely frustrated by the implications at the Commission hearing that we had not done so. Numerous personnel changes at the Director of Community Development position has further complicated the approval process (three directors have been involved in this project over the past two years). The new Director, Ms. Lynn Harris has been less than cooperative with this project. She admitted that she recommended denial without any knowledge of the case history or any knowledge that her staff had worked with us and agreed to support it. Five separate meetings with Ms. Harris were scheduled through her office. Her office called to cancel one. Four other meetings were kept by our client, but not by Ms. Harris. We are attempting to cooperate with the city. We would appreciate it if the City would share our cooperative attitude. We expect the City Council to approve our newly designed project. We do not request special privileges for this project, but we would hope to receive consideration for the tremendous design improvements that we have made. Sincerely, v KEITH USELDING Project Manager 23920 Valencia Blvd.. Phone Suite 300 (805) 259.2489 City of Santa Clanta Fax California 91355 (805) 2598125 - IZ A City of July 13, 1990 Santa Clarita First, your firm's redesigns of a project originally conceived in 1987 are noteworthy in the context of pleasing your client. I did not see any evidence, based on the project submitted to the Planning Commission, that any of this redesign effort took into account the foregoing facts: - The property is zoned C -2 -DP with a two story or 35 feet height limit and requires 25 parking places. - The City's parking ordinance specifically addresses and discourages backing into public rights of way. - The building design and bulk are not related to the neighborhood, commercial and residential, context. The number of redesigns does not in any way guarantee an applicant project approval nor create.an expectation that the project will not be reviewed under the current zone and in the context of the surrounding neighborhood. The project presented at public hearing continued to request variances under the CUP application for height, setbacks and parking. I understand from staff that we were informed this was the "best" redesign your firm would submit and that you wished to proceed to public hearing with the subject project. Mr. Keith Uselding Project Manager Hale & Associates 24303 San Fernando Rd. Newhall, CA 91321 Re: Conditional Use Permit 90-001 Your letter to Mr. Caravalho dated June 29, 1990 Dear Mr. Uselding: Jo Anne Darcy The above referenced letter has been forwarded to me for Mayor response. I apologize for the apparent misunderstandings that have occurred during the processing of the subject Can Boyer 3rd CUP. I believe; however, that it is important that we Mayor Pro. rem clarify a few key facts about this case. Jan Hear Councamemoer The applicant, nor any of his representatives at the JillKla,c meeting, did not request a continuance for this item at Councirmem0er the Planning Commission level. In addition, your summary of project history is based upon certain premises of the Howard *Buck McKeon project review process which I feel are erroneous. Councamemoer First, your firm's redesigns of a project originally conceived in 1987 are noteworthy in the context of pleasing your client. I did not see any evidence, based on the project submitted to the Planning Commission, that any of this redesign effort took into account the foregoing facts: - The property is zoned C -2 -DP with a two story or 35 feet height limit and requires 25 parking places. - The City's parking ordinance specifically addresses and discourages backing into public rights of way. - The building design and bulk are not related to the neighborhood, commercial and residential, context. The number of redesigns does not in any way guarantee an applicant project approval nor create.an expectation that the project will not be reviewed under the current zone and in the context of the surrounding neighborhood. The project presented at public hearing continued to request variances under the CUP application for height, setbacks and parking. I understand from staff that we were informed this was the "best" redesign your firm would submit and that you wished to proceed to public hearing with the subject project. Mr. Keith Uselding July 12, 1990 Page Two We believe the decision to deny this project without prejudice allows your client the opportunity to reassess the zone in which the properly is located and design criteria therein. You now have the added benefit of the Planning Commission having commented in the public forum about the inadequacies of the height, bulk, width, building materials, and parking proposals of this design. I would say a denial resulting in a requirement for a new project submittal allows your client to start fresh and not be encumbered by previous comments on the project. A new project submittal also allows the City to avoid confusion at the public level and permits us to advertise a "new" project to be reviewed on its own merits, rather than another phase of a previous design be advertised on public hearing. Regarding the one meeting you referred to which my office cancelled (the only meeting), my secretary followed up on this cancellation and contacted your office to reschedule, only to be informed that a rescheduling was not necessary. I am available and would be most happy to meet with Mr. Wanek, yourself, Mr. Hale, or anyone else concerned about this project at any time. I would hope we could work together to create a project that would meet both City objectives and your client's objectives. We note'in passing that you are not listed as an authorized agent for Mr. Wanek, and therefore may not file an.appeal on his behalf. I have spoken with Mr. Hale personally, asked him to rectify this situation, and assured him there will be no delay in the City Council appeal hearing because of this administrative oversight. Sincerely yours, M. Harris ector of Community Development cc: Craig Wanek Don Hale Donna Grindey, City Clerk George Caravalho, City Manager Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager Rich Henderson, Principal Planner DATE: TO: FROM: PROJECT PLANNER APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION: BACKGROUND CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-001 June 5, 1990 Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Planning Commission Lynn M.Narris, Director of Community Development Darene Sutherland�j% Craig Wanek 24568 Newhall Avenue between 11th Street and Lyons Avenue. Conditional Use Permit to implement the Development Program addendum within the C -2 -DP zone. Deny the request. The proposal exhibits several design deficiencies relating to parking and loading, access, signage and building configuration. Zone change 86-533-(5) and Conditional Use Permit number 86-533-(5) were originallyapproved by Los Angeles County on December 15, 1987 and became effective on January 14, 1988. The expiration of the permit was one year later on January 14, 1989. Prior to the expiration date, the applicant filed a request for a one-year extension with the newly incorporated City of Santa Clarita. The extension request was denied by this Commission because of design deficiencies exhibited by the plan as originally approved by the County. Some of the county standards in effect at the time of the original approval were not reflected in the plan as approved by the County. The design, as presently submitted, continues to reflect code inadequacies. Project Description: The proposal is to develop a three story, (39 foot) office/professional building comprising 6,250 square feet. The building facade will front Newhall Avenue. The parking lot will be landscaped and is located in the rear of the site and is accessed by 11th Street and the adjacent alley. The width of the parcel is 100 feet by a length of 125 feet (125,000 square feet, gross). The proposed building footprint is to be 93 feet (fronting Newhall Avenue) by 20 feet (the proposed width of the structure). The total area of the.building is to be 6,250 square feet. The parking lot takes access from 11th Street and the alley located behind the proposed structure. The design incorporates 8 standard and one handicapped spaces.adjacent to the building, and 16 spaces (12 standard and 4 compact) to the rear of the property. Eight of these spaces take access from the alleyway. The landscaped areas total 2,300 square feet. Areas proposed to be landscaped includes: Fifteen feet in front of the building as it faces Newhall Avenue (however, 10 of the fifteen feet is to be dedicated for future widening. This area amounts to 1,000 square feet); six feet adjacent to lith Street; Four feet between the building facade and parking area; two fifteen gallon trees within the parking area and one ornamental next to the trash enclosure. The following is a summary of the staff's concerns about the proposed project design: 1. The zoning of C-2 (Neighborhood Business) limits building height to two stories or 35 feet (Section 22.28.170). The applicant is requesting modification through the conditional use permit to allow a height of thirty-nine (39) feet/three stories. It is staff's opinion that the parcel is not of an adequate size for the proposed structure. 2. The parking lot configuration does not meet Section 22.52.1060H of the City Planning Code inasmuch that the code states "Parking lots shall be designed so as to preclude the backing of vehicles over a sidewalk, public street, alley or highway". 3. Newhall Avenue is shown as an eighty (80) foot arterial on the Master Highway Plan. The applicant has proposed the appropriate dedication; however, in the event the street widening occurs, the required landscaped area for this proposal can no longer be met. 4. A five (5) to six (6) foot high concrete block wall is required by code along an alley. The requirement cannot be met due to the proposed parking lot design. 5. The signage design on the front facade of the proposed building is considered inappropriate due to proximity of institutional and single family residential uses. 6. The proposed design is void of loading facilities. Parking Ordinance 89-14 prescribes one loading space to accommodate a delivery van for the proposed size of the project. 7. Staff is concerned about the configuration of the building: width of 20 feet, length of 93 feet and height of 39 feet. General Plan Categories The City of Santa Clarita has not adopted the County general plan, however these designations are used as a guide in reviewing new project proposals. The Santa Clarita Valley Areawide Plan currently designates the project site as C (Commercial). The proposed preliminary general plan designates the site as commercial. Zoning and Land Use: The subject site currently has four (three are currently occupied) single family structures located on the parcel. The zoning for the site is C -2 -DP (Neighborhood Business -Development Program). The alley behind the subject property contains one occupied single family residence. A multi -family development, a single family structure used as an engineer/geologist business and an occupied single family residence abut the alley and front on Chestnut Street (the engineering business was recently granted rear parking accessed by the aformentioned alley). The following table sets forth information as it pertains to the project site and surrounding areas including planning categories, zoning and land use designations. Santa Clarita Valley Zoning Land Use Designations PROJECT Commercial C -2 -DP Residential Single Family SURROUNDING AREA North Public/Institutional R-2 Elementary School East Urban 2 R-3 Multi -Family Residential Commercial C-1 Commercial Office South Commercial C-3 Single Story Office West Commercial C-2 Service Station and Single Story Commercial Urban 2 R-2 Residential ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS A negative declaration was prepared by the County of Los Angeles February 4. 1987. A subsequent study was prepared by the City of Santa Clarita and found no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. It is the opinion of City staff that this proposed project should be denied on the basis of Zoning Ordinance Section 22.56.090, paragraph (3), to wit: "That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this title, or as otherwise prescribed in this title...". Were this project to be developed in accordance with the submitted plan, it would exhibit a variety of functional inadequacies. For this reason, staff recommends that the Commission deny Conditional Use Permit No. 90-001. W. d VICINITY MAP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 90-001 a,� �� 4J•' a , � E.� .:'F.' as 'Q � d •.• ,r "; ,� ��` � q� "X—x� w,.w. F •s a9t •n „� Nt� I WIIIIAM S. M.Ii I COW I.II YA i j I 1 4 II. ig y p' Newhall, 1 � 3 u®w 1 1 J _ Y 1 .4g4LLNY 1 4 a - .g PROJECT SITE 1 kq PROJECT PROXIMITY MAP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 90-001 300 and 2,500 FOOT RADIUS CITY OF SANTA CLARITA N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N CERTIFICATION DATE: April 6. 1990 APPLICANT: Craig Wanek TYPE OF PERMIT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE NO.: CUP 90 - LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Southeast parcel located at the intersection of Newhall Avenue and 11th Street. DESCRIPTION OF THE -PROJECT: To develop a three story office/professional building (6,250 square feet) with appurtenant parking and landscaping on a 125,000 square foot lot. [ ] City Council It is the determination of the [ ] Planning Commission [X] Director of Community Development upon review that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. Mitigation measures [X] are attached [ ] are not attached Form completed by: (Signature) Darene Sutherland. Assistant Planner (Name and Title) Date of Public Notice: April 9. 1990 and May 15, 1990 [X] Legal advertisement. [X] Posting of properties. [X] Written notice. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CASE NO. CUP 90-001 Prepared by: Darene Sutherland Project Location: Southeast corner of Newhall Avenue and 11th Street Project Description and Setting: A three story (39 feet in height) office/professional building with appurtenant parking and landscaping on a 125.000 square foot lot currently developed with three occupied single family residences and one vacant residence. General Plan Designation Commercial Zoning: C -2 -DP (Neighborhood Commercial -Development Program) Applicant: Craig Wanek Environmental Constraint Areas: Located within designated flood fringe l]��i:►'I1; � ,tet z1(i��x�Y�9 YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? .................. [ ] [ ] [x] b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? ............... [ ] I I [X] C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ........................... [ ] [ ] [X] d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? .................................. I j I ] •[X] e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? .......... [ j [ ] [X] f. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ................................... I I IX] [ I g. Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ................................. I ] I ] IXI h. Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? ........................... [ j [X] I I i. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? ....................... [ j [ ] [X] 2. 3. - 2 - YES MAYBE NO j. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 25Z natural grade? ............ [ ] [ I (X] k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ] I 1 [X] 1. Other? Development proposed in a mapped Shrink/Swell area .................... [X] [ ] [ Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? .................... [ I [ ] (X] b. The creation of objectionable odors? ....... ( ) [X] [ I C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? .............. ( ] I ] [XI d. Development within a -high wind hazard area? ...................................... [ ) [ I IX] e. Other? I ] I ] [x] Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ............................ [ ] [X] I ] b. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? .............................. [ I IXI I I C. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ......................... [ ] I ] [XI d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ ] I ] [X] e. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ..................... [ ] [ ] (X] f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ............ [ ] ( ] [X] g. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ............................ I I I I (XI - 3 - h. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? .......... i. Other? YES MAYBE NO [ J [XJ [ ] [ J [ J [X] 4. Plant Life. Will'the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, ] [ ] [X] shrubs, grasses, crops, and.microflora)? ... [ ] [ ] [X] b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, ] [ J [XJ rare or endangered species of plants? ...... [ ] [ J [XJ C. Introduction of new species of plants into ] [X] [ ] an area, or in a barrier to the normal re- plenishment of existing species? ........... [ J [ J [XJ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural J [ ] AXI crop? ...................................... [ ] [ ] [X] 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: ] [X] a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and ] [X] [ J insects or microfauna)? .................... [ J [ ] [X] b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ] [ J [XJ C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ...... [ ] [ ] [X] d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat and/or migratory routes? ........... [ ] [ J [XJ 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [ ] [X] [ ] b. Exposure of people to severe or unacceptable noise levels? ................. [ J [X] [ J C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [ J [ ] AXI 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? ................. [ ] [X] [ ] 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial alteration of the present land use of an area? ....................... [ ] [X] [ J L -I /A - 4 - YES MAYBE NO b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of an area? ............... [ ] [ ] [X] C. A use that does not adhere to existing zoning laws? ............................... [ I [ I [X] d. A use that does not adhere to established development criteria? ...................... [ ] [ I [X] 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ................................. [ ] [ ] [XI b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources? ......................... [ ] [ ] [X] 10. Risk of Upset/Man-Made Hazards. Will the proposal: a. Involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? .......................... [ ] [ I [X] b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard- ous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ................................ [ l [ I [XI C. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ...................................... [ ] [ I [XI d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety hazards? ................................... [ ] [ ] [XI 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? ..................... ( ] [ ] [X] b. Other? [ ] [ I [XI 12. Housing. Will the proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? ........................ [X] [ ] [ ] b. Other? [ I [ I [XI - 5 - YES MAYBE NO 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ........................ [ ] [X] [ ] b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ................. [ ] [ ] [X] C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation7 ............................ [ ] [ ] (X] d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ........................... [ ] ( ] (X] e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [ ] [X] [ ] f. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? .............................. ( ] ( ] (X] 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? ........................... [ ] [ ] [X] b. Police protection? ......................... [ ] [ ] [X] C. Schools? ................................... ( ] ( ] (X] d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .... [ ] [ ] [X] e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ........................... ( ] [ ] [X] f. Other governmental services? ............... [ ] ( ] [X] 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in? a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy . .................................... ( ] [ ] (x] b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? [ ] [ ] [X] 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X] �s 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X] 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration YES MAYBE NO b. Communications systems? .................... [ ] [ I [XI C. Water systems? ............................. [ ) [ I [X] d. Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ ] [ ] (X] e. Storm drainage systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [X] f. Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [ ] [X] [ I g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of delivery system improvements for any of the above? ......... [ ] [ ) [X] 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? ... ( ] [ ] [X] b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards7................................... [ I [ I [XI 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? ................... [ ] [ ] [X] b. Will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ....................... [ ] ( ] [XI C. Will the visual impact of the proposal be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ ] [X] [ I 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X] 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? .............. [ ] [ I [X] b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? ... [ ] [ ] [X] C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ] [ I [XI d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ..................... [ ] [ ] [XI d-11 - 7 - Discussion of Impacts. The following is a discussion of the •yes' and 'maybe' responses in the Initial Study. Responses to 'no' items are optional. 1: g,h. Maybe: The site is currently developed with four single family residences. The proposal is to pave and build upon all but 101 of the site which will increase runoff due to the introduction of impervious surfaces. 1. 1. Yes: The site is located in a mapped area indicating shrink/swell potential. 2. b. Maybe: The site is currently occupied with four single family residences. Heavy machinery for construction purposes will introduce emissions that could create objectionable orders for a limited time. 3. a. Maybe: The introduction of a paved parking areas will increase the surface runoff. 3. b,h. Maybe: The site is located in a mapped area of potential flood inundation. 6. a&b. Maybe: The noise associated with construction will expose adjacent residents and the elementary school to increased noise levels. 7. Maybe: Currently the site is developed with three occupied single family residences. The proposal will introduce security lighting within the parking area and may negatively impact the adjacent residences. 8. a. Maybe: The land use will be changing from residential to commercial. An office building is adjacent to the proposed site: however, the height is only a single story, while the proposed sturcture is three stories. 12. a. Yes: The proposal is to demolish four single family residences. 13. a&e. Maybe: Currently the site is developed with four single family residences. The applicant is proposing an office/professional building with a potential occupant load of 63 individuals. 16. f. Maybe: The proposed project has the potential to generate an increase of solid wastes. Due to limited capacity of landfill space, an additional wastes will decrease avaliable space. 18. c Maybe: The proposed structure will be 39 feet in height and located 10 feet from Newhall Avenue. The surrounding area is developed with single story commercial. B. DISCUSSION OF VAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED 1. g&h The site is located within an urban area. Storm drain facilities are currently developed which will accept the increased runoff. 1. 1. Building techniques will be incorporated into the building design to alleviate potential inundation impacts. 2. b. All machinery will require AQMD permits and must meet emmission control standards. 3. a,b&h. The storm drain system has been deemed adequate. 6 a&b. The noise associated with construction will be temporary and will be limited to designated hours and days of operation. 7. The lighting plan will require approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All lighting will be required to incorporate nonglare properties and designed as to not impact adjacent residential unit. 8. a. The proposal may be considered an extension of commercial uses associated with Lyons Avenue. 12. a. Three low-income housing -units will be lost. Presently there is no mechinism to require replacement of this type of housing. 13. a&e. The increase in the number of vehicles using the site will impact the elementary school directly accross 11th Street. A good parking design and site plan can mitigate these effects. Decreasing the occupant load from the proposed 63 individuals and car pooling could lessen the vehicular trips per day and ingress/egress from Newhall Avenue would mitigate impacts on lith street. 16. f. A recycling program shall be required and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. 18. c. The building could be developed as a two story structure. C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act states, in part, that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. YES MAYBE NO 1. 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 sus- taining 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? ................. ( ] [ ] [X] 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals7 (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ........... [ ] [ ] [X] 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) .. [ ] [ ] [X] 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ......... [ ] [ ] [X] D. DETERMINATION On the basis of .this Initial Study, it is determined that: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED . .................................... [X] 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 in this Initial Study have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED ..................................... [ ] The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required . ......................................... [ ] - 10 - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY -OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA Dafe Signature Darene Sutherland, Assistant Planner Name and Title RESOLUTION P90-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 90-001 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and determine as follows: a. An application for a Conditional use Permit ("Application") was filed by Craig Wanek on January 5, 1990. The request was for authorization to implement the Development Program addendum of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-533. The location is described as 24508 Newhall Avenue, Parcel 1: the southwesterly 60 feet of lots 21, 22, 23, and 24 in block 12 of the Newhall Tract as per map recorded in book 53, pages 21 of miscellaneous records, in the office of the County Recorder of said county and Parcel 2 described as lots 21, 22, 23 and 24 in block 12 of the Town of Newhall as per map recorded in book 53, page 21 of miscellaneous records, in the office of the county recorder of said county. Except from said lots, the southwesterly 60 feet thereof. b. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee met on March 1, 1990, and supplied the applicant with a list of deficiencies and recommendations. c. A duly noticed public hearing was held on the application by the Planning Commission on June 5, 1990 at the City Hall Council Chambers, first Floor, 23920 -Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California at 6:30 p M. Section 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Commission further finds and determines as follows: a. The subject property is zoned C -2 -DP (Neighborhood Business -Development Program), a zone which requires a Conditional Use Permit to implement the "DP" addendum. b The applicant has submitted Exhibit "A" which depicts the proposed building and the four single family units to be demolished. C. Development.standards for premises located within the zone C-2 shall be subject to height limitations of two stories (Section 22.28.170 C). RESO P90-26 d. The proposed structure exceeds the height limitations of the above referenced section. e. Parking lots shall be designed so as to preclude the backing of vehicles over a sidewalk, public street, alley or highway (Parking.Ordinance 89-14 Section 12 H). f. The proposed parking lot configuration includes the backing of vehicles into an alley. g. There are no oak trees on the site. h. The subject property is not physically suited for the proposed development in that the proposed height and bulk of the building is uncharacteristic of the vicinity. i. Sections 22.20.110 and 22.56.040 of the Los Angeles County Code, as adopted by reference by the City of Santa Clarita, sets forth the burden of proof as applicant must meet to justify approval of a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission finds that the applicant has not met the burden of proof as required by the referenced codes of the Los Angeles County Code, and pursuant thereto, for the reasons stated in paragraphs a through h of this Section 2, above, the Planning Commission further finds as follows: Conditional Use Permit 1. That the requested use at the location is likely to: 1. Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area; or 2. Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property or other persons located in the vicinity of the subject property; or 3. Jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare. i. Based upon the review of the submitted plan, the subject property is inadequate in size and shape to accommodate the development features prescribed in the City's Municipal Code. SECTION 3. Based upon the findings stated above, the Planning Commission hereby denies the requested Conditional Use Permit Case No. 90-001. RESO P90-26 SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and shall transmit a copy to the applicant, the Departments of Public Works. and the City Engineer. PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of June, 1990. Rita G as airwoman Planning Commission I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 19th day of June, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4 c LM.Harris, Director mmunity Development PESO P90-26 1 MEETING OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY June 5, 1990 6:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to -order by Chairwoman Garasi, at 6:35 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Worden led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. ROLL CALL The Secretary called the roll. Those present were Commissioners Worden and Modugno, Vice Chairman Brathwaite, and Chairwoman Garasi. Also present were City Manager George Caravalho; City Attorney Doug Holland; Director of Community Development Lynn M. Harris; Principal Planner Richard Henderson; Building and Engineering Services Office Manager Dick Kopecky; City Engineer Jim Van Winkle; Administrative Assistant Terri Maus; and Administrative Clerk Robyn Dowd. APPROVAL OF It was moved by Brathwaite, seconded by Worden, MINUTES and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the meeting of May 1, 1990. OATH OF OFFICE Newly appointed Planning Commissioner Jerry D. Cherrington wassworninto office by City Clerk/City Manager George Caravalho at 6:40 p.m. COMMISSION A short recess was called for a reception for RECESS Commissioner Cherrington. COMMISSION Chairwoman Garasi called the meeting back to order RECONVENES at 7:00 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR Item No. 1 - It was moved by Modugno, seconded by Brathwaite and unanimously carried to approve a resolution for Tentative Parcel Map 21761. Item No. 2 - It was moved by Modugno, seconded by Brathwaite and unanimously carried to approve the resolution on Conditional Use Permit 89-017 for denial. Item No. 3 - Rescheduled for public hearing on June 19, 1990, by request of the Director. 6-5-90 PC 2 ITEM 4 Mr. Henderson made the staff presentation on CONDITIONAL this permit to implement the Development Program USE PERMIT addendum within the C -2 -DP zone. Several design 90-001 deficiencies relating to parking and loading, access, signage and building configuration were brought to the. Commission's attention with the recommendation for denial. Chairwoman Garasi declared the public hearing open at 7:10 p.m. Speaking in favor of the item were Keith Uselding and Don Hale, applicants for the developer, 24303 San Fernando Road. Applicant Craig Wanek, 24405 Derian Drive, also spoke in favor. Hearing no other comments favoring or opposing the item, Chairwoman Garasi declared the public hearing closed at 7:38 p.m. Following discussion, it was moved by Modugno and seconded by-Worden to deny 'Conditional Use Permit 90-001. Motion carried unanimously. ITEM 5 This request is to place a mobile home on a CONDITIONAL USE ten acre parcel of land to be used as a senior PERMIT 89-021 citizen's dwelling unit. The construction will. and OAK TREE encroach on one oak tree. The removal of an PERMIT 90-009 existing dilapidated building will also encroach into the protected zone of one oak tree. Richard Henderson made the staff presentation. Chairwoman Garasi declared the public hearing open at 7:50 p.m. Speaking in favor of the item was the project's engineer, Jeff Jones, Andel Engineering, 24285 LaGlorita Circle. Hearing no other comments favoring or opposing the item, Chairwoman Garasi declared the public hearing closed at 7:54 p.m. It was moved by Worden, seconded by Modugno, and unanimously carried to approve Conditional Use Permit 89-021 and Oak Tree Permit 90-009. ITEM 6 This request is to subdivide 189 acres of land into VESTING TENTATIVE 299 single family lots, 3 open space lots and 1 TRACT 34466, flood control lot. Also requested, to remove 150 PREZONE 88-01, native oak trees and to prezone the site to R -1 -(DP). CONDITIONAL USE Richard Henderson made the presentation. The PERMIT 89-023 and Director advised that letters were received from OAK TREE PERMIT Wm. S. Hart and Sulphur Springs School Districts 89-062 stating that mitigation measures had been accepted. A letter from Crystal Springs Homeowners on concerns for circulation and one from Oak Springs Homeowners on flood control was entered into the record. 6-5-90 PC Chairwoman Garasi declared the public hearing open at 8:15 p.m. Speaking in favor, developer Jack Shine, American Beauty Homes, 16830 Ventura Blvd., Encino. Handouts were given to the Commissioners. Discussion on the EIR ensued with Wally Weaver, 28082 Oak Springs Canyon Road; Joe Russo, 15620 Condor Ridge Drive; Jay Hecht, 27563 Oak Springs Canyon Road; John and Bobbe Higbey, 27900 Graceton; Linda Jahelka, 27550 Oak Springs Canyon Road; Mark Hanson, 27944 Graceton Drive; Dennis Ostrom, 16430 Sultus Street; Ruth Kelley, 27500 Oak Spring Canyon; David S. Peck, 27562 Oak Springs Canyon Road; Gorky Chin, 27568 Oak Springs Canyon Road; and Janis Lee, 28111 Oak Springs Canyon Road. Those opposed were Charmaine.Posten, 16442 Los Canyon Road; David H. Boydston, 27875 Oak Spring Canyon; Ken Boydston, 1624 Foothill, Ojai; Zetla Sheehan, 28458 Oak Spring Canyon Road; Janet Feeder, 27873 Oak Springs Canyon; Tim Boydston, 27873 Oak Springs Canyon Road; and Willard Frandson, 15222 Foothill, Sylmar; Ben Curtis, P. 0. Box 1367; Hal Good, 27800 Sand Canyon Road; Vincent N. Gallegos, 28448 Oak Springs Canyon Road; Bob Good, 15920 Whitewater Canyon Road; Rich Sloniker, 28456 Oak Springs Canyon Road; and Alan Manee, 112 S. Main Street, Lake Elsinore. Concerns that were brought to the Commission were flooding, water supply for the homes, fire danger, sanitation and safety in general. After a brief discussion on impacts, it was moved by Worden; seconded by Modugno and unanimously carried to continue the public hearing to a date uncertain. COMMISSION Chairwoman Garasi declared a recess at 10:40 p.m. RECESS COMMISSION Chairwoman Garasi called the meeting back to order RECONVENES at 10:45 p.m. OTHER ITEMS The appeal of Plot Plan 90-016 was presented by the Director. Applicant, Kurt Jastrow, 27906 Stonehill Way, and his father Gustave Jastrow presented their request for an addition to an existing building. Chairwoman Garasi requested if there was a.motion to overturn the denial of the plot plan. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Garasi, Brathwaite and Cherrington NOES: Modugno and Worden 6-5-90 PC DISCUSSION Budget presentation by Terri Maus, Administrative Assistant. It was moved by Modugno, seconded by Worden and unanimously.carried to pass the budget onto the Council. DIRECTOR'S Director presented two letters of opposition to the ANNOUNCEMENTS Swap Meet at College of the Canyons. Letters on the Whitney Canyon Off-road Vehicle Park were presented by the Director. Commission requested that the draft EIR be shared with them for comments. Comments on City Council items: 1) Land use/hillside management provisions item and the Chatterly land division (August 28, 1990 it will be reviewed by Council); 2) Weston/Landmark was approved.with minor changes, not needed for Commission review; 3) Sign ordinance abatement should be explored; 4) Mobile home ordinance moratorium expires June 27, 1990; public hearing date on this is anticipated, July 3, 1990; and 5) Environmental assessment procedures to be reviewed for resolution. New staff introductions to Commission and staff promotions. COMMISSION Commissioner Worden would like to have a discussion AGENDA on water supply for our area. Also, Worden stated she would like San Fernando Road's appearance to be improved. PUBLIC BUSINESS Chairwoman Garasi advised that no member of the public has requested to speak. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. RITA—GA SI, rwoman� Planning Commission ATT S V. , CL4/il.Q/ L M. HARRIS, Director C unity Development City of Santa Clarita CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONAL USE PERNIT No. 90-001 GENERAL 1. This grant allows.for the subdivision on a vacant 6.3 net acre site into three residential lots containing 82 multi -family residential units and one open space lot. 2. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or entity making use of this grant. 3. This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and the owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have, filed with the Director of Community Development their affidavit stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions -of this grant. 4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall' include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, -.or other entity making use of this permit. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of this subdivision by the City, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant and shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City.- Nothing contained in this Condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both of the following occur: (1) the City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and (2) the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the applicant. 5. The applicant may file for an extension of the conditionally approved map prior to the date of expiration for a period of time not to exceed one (1) year. Any such extension must be filed at least 60 days prior to, expiration of the map hereby approved. 6. The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant, and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity . on the subject property. Failure of the applicant to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be in violation of these conditions. 7. It is further declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof is violated, or if any -law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the permit shall be suspended and the privilege granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of 30 days. 8. That all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the specific zoning of the subject property must be complied with unless set forth in the permit orshownon the approved Exhibit "A". 9. All structures shall conform with the requirements of the Division of Building and Safety or the Department of Public Works. 10. The subject facility shall be developed and maintained in compliance with requirements of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. 11. In the event that the operation of any part of this facility should result in substantial complaints to the Community Development Department or the Planning Commission, the above described conditions may be modified if, after a duly advertised public hearing by the Planning Commission, such modification is deemed appropriate in order to eliminate or reduce said complaints. 12. The applicant shall secure any necessary permits from the South.Coast Air Quality Management District. PUBLIC WORKS Tentative Man Conditions 13. Provide all materials necessary to substantiate that there is an adequate',' water supply and a firm commitment from the water purveyor that the necessary quantities of water will be available to the proposed development. From the information available to this office, there are only limited water supplies available to the area. Map Requirements 14. If all easements have not been accounted for on the approved tentative map, the applicant shall submit a corrected tentative map to the Planning Department for approval. 15. The owner, at the time of issuance.of permits or other grants of approval agrees to develop the property in accordance with City Codes and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Zoning Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code and Fire Code. 16. The applicant shall note all offers of dedication by certificate on the face of the final map. 17. The.applicant shall file a final map which shall be prepared by or under the direction of a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer. The map shall be processed through the City Engineer prior to being filed with the County Recorder. 18. The applicant shall remove existing structures prior to final approval. 19. The applicant shall quitclaim or relocate easements running through proposed structures. 20. If signatures of record title interests appear on the•final map, the applicant shall submit a preliminary guarantee. A final guarantee will be required. If said signatures do not appear on the final map, a title report/guarantee is needed showing all fee owners and interest holders and this account must remain open until the final parcel map is filed with the County Recorder. Road Improvements 21. The applicant shall provide a single point of access/egress from/to 11th Street and a single point of access/egress from/to the alley. 22. The applicant shall assure appropriate site distance for motorists entering the alley from the project's parking lot. 23. On -street parking shall be prohibited on either Newhall Avenue or 11th Street, adjacent to the property. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the cost involved in the initial installation of either painted curb markings or traffic signs necessary to accomplish this. . 24. The applicant shall design intersections with a tangent section from: "beginning of curb return" (BCR) to BCR. 25. Where applicable, the applicant shall pay fees for signing and striping: of streets as determined by the.City Traffic Engineer or shall prepare signing and striping plans for all multi -lane highways within or abutting the project site to the satisfaction of the Department. 26. The applicant shall place above ground utilities including, but not limited to, fire hydrants, junction boxes and street lights outside sidewalk. 27. The applicant shall remove existing trees in dedicated right-of-way or right-of-way to be dedicated if they are not acceptable as street trees. 28. The applicant shall not grant or record easements within areas proposed to be granted; dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets;or highways, access rights, building restriction rights, or other easements until after the final map is filed with the County Recorder unless such easements are subordinated to the proposed grant or dedication. If easements are granted after the date of tentative approval, a. subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing of the final parcel map. 29. The applicant shall replace driveways to be abandoned with standard curb, gutter, and sidewalk. 30. The applicant shall construct full -width sidewalk at all walk returns.. 31. The applicant shall repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk and.pavement on streets within or abutting the.subdivision. 32. The applicant shall offer future right-of-way: 40 feet from centerline on Newhall Avenue 30 feet from centerline on 11th Street 33. The applicant shall construct wheelchair ramp at the intersection of _ 11th Street and Newhall Avenue 34: The applicant shall construct the following required road improvements: Street Curb & Street Street Name Width Gutter Paving Lights Trees Sidewalk, Newhall Avenue 80 FT X X X X X 11th Street 30 FT X X X X X Water 35. The applicant shall file with the City Engineer a statement from the water purveyor indicating that the water system will be operated by the " purveyor and that under normal operating conditions, the necessary quantities of water will be available, the system will meet the requirements for the land division, and that water service will be provided to each lot/parcel. 36. The applicant shall construct the necessary improvements to the existing. water systems to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows. 37. The applicant shall file a water UtilityCertificate of Registration.with the Public Works Department. Grading, Drainage & Geology 38. The applicant shall provide drainage facilities to remove the.flood hazard and dedicate and show necessary easements and/or rights-of-way on the final map. 39. Applicant shall comply with requirements for construction of structures within a flood fringe hazard area. No structures are allowed within a. floodway and all structures within the flood hazard area must have the finish floor elevated 1'-0" above the projected surface of the water elevation. Applicant.shall obtain approval for finish floor elevation from the Public Works Department. 40. The applicant shall provide for the proper distribution of drainage. 41. Prior to final approval, enter into a written agreement with the City.of Santa Clarita whereby the subdivider agrees to pay to the City a sum '(to be determined by the City Council) times the factor per development unit for the purpose of contributing to a proposed Bridge and Thoroughfare Benefit District to implement the highway element of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this and other subdivisions in the area. The form of security for performance of said agreement shall be as approved by the City. The agreement shall include the following provisions: Upon establishment of the District and the area of benefit, the fee, shall be paid to a special Department of Public Works fund. In the event funds are required for work prior to formation of the. District, the Director of Public Works may demand a sum of $1}000 (or greater as determined by the City Council), times the factor per development unit to be credited toward the final fee established under the District. Factors for development units are as follows: Development Unit Single Family per unit Townhouse per unit Apartment per unit Commercial per unit Industry per unit The project is in the: [X] Via Princessa Bridge and Thoroughfare District [ ] Bouquet Canyon Bridge and Thoroughfare District [ ] Route 126 Bridge and Thoroughfare District [ ] Valencia City Bridge and Thoroughfare District CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Sewage/Waste Disposal Concerns Factor 1.0 0.8 0.7 5.0 3.0 42. The applicant shall specify the projected sewage flow rate. 43. The applicant shall demonstrate that wastewaters from the project will be adequately collected, transported, and that the receiving treatment plant will have adequate capacity to treat, and dispose of the wastewaters in a satisfactory manner. 44. The applicant shall submit an analysis of the cumulative flows generated' by all proposed, pending and approved projects within the service area of the designated treatment plant. If expansion of the treatment plant facilities will be required to meet projected wastewater demand,'the applicant must demonstrate that additional capacity will be available prior to new connections for the proposed development. 45. The applicant shall pay's deposit as required to review documents and. plans for final map clearance in accordance with Section 21.36.010(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance. 46. The discharge of sewage from this project into the public sewer system willnotviolate the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code. 47. The Community Development Department requires that a written confirmation be obtained from.the Planning and Scheduling Department, Bureau of Engineering, stating that there will be available treatment capacity at the time of connection. A copy of this letter must be sent to this Regional Board prior to the approval of this -project. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 48. The expected average wastewater flow from the project site is 1,250 gallons per day. 49. Because of the projects' locations, the flow originating from the proposed project would have to be transported to the Districts' sewer by local sewer(s) which are not maintained by the Sanitation Districts. 50. Any wastewater generated by the proposed project would eventually discharge into the Newhall Trunk Sewer, Section 1, which is a 21 inch diameter sewer line located in Walnut Street at 16th Street. This trunk sewer has a peck capacity of 4 million gallons per day (mgd) and:conveyed a peak flow of less than 1 mgd when last measured (1987). 51. The County Sanitation Districts provide sewage treatment in the Santa Clarita Valley by operating two water reclamation plants (WRP), the - Saugus WRP and the Valencia M. These treatment plants have been. interconnected to form a regional system. The Saugus WRP operates at its treatment capacity of 5 million gallons per day-(mgd). Any flows in excess of 5 mgd are conveyed to the Valencia WRP for treatment. The Valencia WRP currently processes a flow of 6.9 mgd and has a capacity of ' 7.5 mgd. The Districts have proposed to expand the Valencia WRP to a capacity of 13.5 mgd by early 1993. The wastewater from the proposed' project will be directly treated at the Valencia WRP. 52. The Sanitation Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting to the Sanitation Districts' Sewerage System. This connection fee is required to construct an incremental expansion of the Sewerage System to accommodate the proposed projects which will.mitigate the impact of these projects on the present Sewerage System. Payment of a connection fee will be required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued. 53. The Districts, through the Connection.Fee Program, have established a system whereby the fees collected from all new users will provide the necessary funds for the timely incremental expansions of the District No. 26/32 Sewerage System. In an effort to accommodate the rapid growth currently being experienced in the Santa Clarita Valley, the Districts are attempting to monitor the development proposed in this region in order to plan and construct the necessary system expansions in an efficient manner. To assist us in our efforts, the Districts request that the developers forward information regarding the construction and/or build -out schedules for the proposed projects so that the timing of the District's expansions may be coordinated with the increased demand. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 54. Provide Fire Department and City -approved street signs, and building address numbers prior to occupancy. 55. Access shall comply with Section 10.207 of the Fire Code which requires. all weather access. All weather access may require paving. 56. Fire flows of 2,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a 2 hour duration will be required. 57. Final fire flows will be based on the size of the building, its relationship to other structures and property lines, and the type of construction used. 58. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. 59. The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. 60. No portion of the lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access from the public hydrant, and no portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced hydrant. Additional fire life safety requirements will be addressed at building plan check. PARRS AND RECREATION 61. The applicant shall submit three copies of landscape and irrigation plans to the Directors of Parks and Recreation and Community Development for approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 62. The applicant shall indicate water mains and lateral lines, head type and location, backflow type and location, controller and POC on the irrigation plans. 63. The applicant shall provide irrigation to street trees required with this development. COM MDNITY DEVELOPMENT 64. The applicant shall submit three copies of a landscape and irrigation plans to the Directors of Parks and Recreation and Community Development for approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 65. The height of the building is limited.to two stories or 35 feet, which ever is less. 66. The backing into alleyways is prohibited.' 67. For every ten parking spaces, one fifteen gallon tree shall be planted in the parking lot area. These trees shall be subject to the approval by the Director of Community Development. 68. Signage is limited to one monument sign located in the front setback area on Newhall Avenue. The sign is subject to approval of the Director of Community Development. 69. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a materials pallet for approval by the Director of Community Development.