HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-09-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - APPEAL CUP 90-001 PC DENIAL (2)AGENDA REPORT
City.Manager Approval
Item to be presented y '.
PUBLIC HEARING Lynn M. Harris
DATE: September 25, 1990 T
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission denial without prejudice:
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-001
! DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
This appeal item was heard previously by the City Council. on August 14, 1990.
At that .time, the applicant's agent requested the City Council:to review a
i. redesign of the project. Rather than review a revised site -plan, the:Council
referred the item back to the Planning Commission for conceptual approval, and_''
the item was continued to the September 25th City: Council meeting. On
September 4, 1990, the Planning. Commission again considered the item`: as
directed by the City Council. The public hearing on this item remains open. '
At the request of the City Council, staff reviewed the submitted revised site
plan for compliance with the development. standards of the Zoning. Ordinance and
consistency with the Planning Commission's previous recommendations.
The Planning Commission believes that the project site is located in an "area
of transition," one that. combines victorian architectural elements. 'and
contemporary design. Given the constraints of the project site .and. -the.
project history, the Planning Commission feels that the updated design was the
best attainable project. The Planning Commission directed staff.'to refer the
item back to the City Council for potential approval of the project.
ANALYSIS
The revised proposal is a two story, 8,200 square foot office building on a,
12,500 square foot parcel. The proposed building is 32 feet in height, 42
feet in width, and 95 feet in length. The project site has. 100 feet of.
frontage on Newhall Avenue and 125 feet of frontage on 11th Street.
Access to the office building will occur either from 11th Street or from the.
public alley at the rear of the property. The access point from the alley
will occur through the use of a subterranean parking. structure. This parking
structure will extend beneath the entire project site.and will accommodate 22
parking spaces.
Specific project revisions include:
1. The required parking for the project will be within a subterranean
parking structure. This specific redesign eliminates the backing of.. '
vehicles over the public alley.
n o I Agenda Item..
2. The proposed office building has been reduced. from a 39 foot three story
structure to a 32 foot two story g complies building. This lies with the height
P
regulation of the C-2 Zone, which .is two stories, or 35 feet maximum
height.
i 3. The project incorporates the required landscaping and required street
dedications. 1+250 square feet of landscaping is required and: the
applicant is proposing 1,380 square feet.
4. The implementation of a 12 foot by 20 foot loading area to' accommodate
the office use. This is a specific requirement of the Parking. Ordinance
for commercial office buildings.and was not previously shown.on the plan.
The project has met all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as well as.the
: recommendations of the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Allow additional testimony, close the public hearing, and deliberate on
this project.
2. Make any.additional.appropriate changes and approve the project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. CUP 90-001 Planning Commission informational report.
2. Agenda Report from July 24th City Council Meeting, with updated project
conditions.,
3. Revised Site Plan for C.U.P. 907001
• CITY OF SANTA CLARITA O
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., 1st 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
•
• 4
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE
• 1. Mayor Opens Hearing
a. States Purpose of Hearing
Z. City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice
3. Staff Report
(City Manager)
or
(City Attorney)
or
(RP Staff)
4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes)
S. Opponent Argument (30 minutes)
6. Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent)
a. Proponent
7. Mayor Closes Public Testimony
8. Discussion by Council
9. Council Decision
0 10. Mayor Announces Decision
0
-0 0
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
Informational Report:
Conditional Use Permit 90-001
DATE: September 4, 1990
TO: Chairman Rrathwaite and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development-
STAFF PLANNER: Daniel D. Powers, Assistant Planner
APPLICANT: Mr. Craig wanek
LOCATION: Newhall Avenue, between Lyons Avenue and 11th Street
REQUEST: The applicant has requested an appeal to the City Council of
the Planning Commission's denial without prejudice. The
appeal item was referred back to the Planning Commission by.
the City Council for review and comment prior to further
action on the matter.
. 116110111
Conditional Use Permit 90-001 was heard originally by the Planning Commission
on June 5, '1990. The Planning CommisAion denied the project without
prejudice due to site deficiencies including landscaping, parking, building
configuration, and building height. According to the appeal letter dated
June 29, 1990, Keith Uselding of Hale and Associates stated that the
applicant believed that it was the Commission's attempt to allow a redesign
of the project without payment of fees. The appeal was heard by the City
Council on July 24, 1990. The applicant's agent had revised the site plan
and recommended that the Council review the updated plan. Staff had not
reviewed any revisions to the original plan and consequently recommended that
the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial without prejudice.
Prior to taking action on the appeal, the City Council recommended that both
Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission review the revised
project and report back to the Council on September 25, 1990 to continue the
public hearing.
At the request of the Council, staff reviewed the revised plan for compliance
with the development standards of the C -2 -DP Zone. After several issues
related to architectural design, parking standards, and traffic safety were
resolved, the plan met with staff's approval for conformance to code
requirementsand traffic safety issues. The applicant's revisions include
compliance with parking ordinance requirements and incorporating a
subterranean parking facility for the proposed office structure. Through the
implementation of the subterranean parking facility, the applicant has
decreased the height of the building from 39 feet to 32— feet and has
•
0
increased the building width from 20 feet to 42 feet. Staff considers the
project changes to be appropriate given the constraints of the project site.
RECOt4ENDATION:
The project revisions meet with staff's approval and comply with all
applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and traffic safety measures.
Therefore, staff recommends the following actions to the Commission:
1. Review the revised site plan for conformance with the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance, and of adherence to previous Commission
recommendations.
2. Direct staff to report back to the City Council for potential approval
of Conditional Use Permit 90-001.
LIIH : DDP : ddp
0 . J 0
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented by:
PUBLIC HEARING Lynn M. Harris �z
DATE: August 14, 1990
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission denial without prejudice:
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-001
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
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 story office 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 (Neighborhood Commercial, 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 10I 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.
Agenda hem: �:r
11
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.
RECOMMENDATION
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 tha 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
w
•
0
HALE & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
24303 San Fernando Rd
Newhall, California 91321
,June 2 9', 1990 Telephone (805) 259 9700
George Caravalho. City Manager
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita. CA 91355
Attention: Donna Grindey
C.U.P. # 90 -001
---------------
---------------
Dear Mr. Caravalho.
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 Commi'ssion's
intent to grant us a continuance. we have appealed the pro)ect to
the City Council in an attempt to expedite the review of our new
design and obtain the City's approval.
0 0
-he 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 51.405.00 would be imposed. Evidently, the City staff and the
Citv_ attornev 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 hearing.
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 Citv 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.
• 0
On February 17, 1990 we received a letter from another member of
the Community Development staff, stating that the project had some
desian 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 t`!e
project's history. Mr. Henderson again stated that staff wou'd
support the project. We felt' that we had a design that could aa:n
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
Mr. Wanek that a DRC meeting was scheduled. Upon learning that a
DRC had been held, we reo_uested 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.
Building 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
•
0
years). The new Director. - Ms. Lvnn Harris has been less than
cooperative with this Droiect 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 h, -r-
0 f f i c e
eroffice. Her office called to cancel one. Four other meetings were
kept by -our c':_ent but not by Ms. Harris. We are attempting to
cooperate with the city. We would aDp_reciate 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.
KEITH USELDING /
Project Manager
City of
Santa Clarita
,c -nne Darcy
Ua yor
,an Boyer Bra
,kpayor Pro.Fem
jan -e-at
ounCamemper
:,Ka,c
..ovncamemper
—o -aro Buck McKeon
JvnC,Imemaer
•
3920 Valencia Bird
Suite 300
C,ty ot'Santa Cianta
Ca) lo(nia 9 1355
July 13, 1990
or,one
i805i 259 2489
Paf
;805) 259-8125
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:
The above referenced letter has been forwarded to me for
response. I apologize for the apparent misunderstandings
that have occurred during the processing of the subject
CUP. I believe, however, that it is important that we
clarify a few key facts about this case.
The applicant, nor any of his representatives at the
meeting, did not request a continuance for this item at
the Planning Commission level. In addition, your summary
of project history is based upon certain premises of the
project review process which I feel are erroneous.
First, your firm's redesigns o.f 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.
Xr. Keith JseidLng July 12, :9 ")
Page Two
We believe the decision to deny this Droject wLthout
pre]udice 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 ours,
,;,
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
0 •
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-001
DATE: June 5, 1990
TO: Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Planning
Commission
FROM: Lynn M.Harris, Director of Community Development
PROJECT PLANNER Darene Sutherland
APPLICANT: Craig Wanek
LOCATION: 24568 Newhall Avenue between 11th Street and
Lyons Avenue.
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit to implement the
Development Program addendum within the C -2 -DP
zone.
RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the request. The proposal exhibits several
design deficiencies relating to parking and loading,
access, signage and building configuration.
BACKGROUND
Zone change 86-533-(5) and Conditional Use Permit number 86-533-(5)
were originally approved 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.
r�
u
0
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 Cateeories
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
PROJECT Commercial
SURROUNDING AREA
North Public/Institutional
East Urban 2
Commercial
South Commercial
West Commercial
Urban 2
Zoning Land Use Designations
C -2 -DP Residential
Single Family
R-2
Elementary School
R-3
Multi -Family Residential
C-1
Commercial Office
C-3
Single Story Office
C-2
Service Station and
Single Story Commercial
R-2
Residential
0
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.
RECOMMENDATION
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.
C
VICINITY MAP
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 90-001
�l ;
r o•wl��
r �
4 `yr PROJECT SITE
I
• 0
PROJECT PROXIMITY MAP
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 90-001
300 and 2,500 FOOT RADIUS
,pp <2
:�• y
iF a�i�Y\ \\ (
f O OP Z° oo- uar v of} r —
?
+Q h. t 9Pp ` P N`•'vIR HILA SCM, 7� 1ZL �
Fy P+O ON ` �s
0
LVI,t vP4 (P`P 1h`\y SQFba�/ Y IINf ♦ \J +• i t1
`1r fr
Lt DEQ\� /. 'MS'` ■1-01.`l Vl`P CJ H M Nt IAII S.O. S J
FBA SQ NO �SO F F fa Nt 1•(� `
Y OE105 M OkLP r' y. \01
Vt+'CORS4y Pit P`F'pp J�P_•^ P l 7
c h VU C P nAal AC(RI
A BECU INE OOSS M Nlll()N �•• <fC ^ (A
VIA -
� NOp0.0.A yIA PMP p(,!J
(+eT � r y
�i RO p - AVEUIDPJ O$ v j L ,• r' °f C -An
ROSE` Pp •� f+j l vZ tr f} I . II
�' OI O ORCHARD • y y �� `'a
L I fY PARK r AVE ' P rw HAS rEe s cow
L . u■ i
Ory f
N ;
i f
A r �'
'VA \ NfH n•!l
c "l • CFS r ;
QLIIEWRI' _ SI 'a
vIt
u/ Q O \
II r W
VVT VAI lf9 DR m� VAIIE IIAVVI LN fr
C,
Lt PF
_ 0 s ' D0. O•v'
MUSEUM
p !f
All NEARGA(E 6nl n �''4'^•�
JS / cROV/CPG0.
AVE < MKNCI IS
N M '
WILLIAM 5 MART
ILOT
0.0 tiC O clo•■la _ `L
51 `0 1
HOUGHTON FL V � � ♦ p
NSGNLANOGLEN COUNTY PARR I /0••1 1
p0. E '^ Y .J, tfl•ht 11
AL AFI '
w'w t 2
J\ ' LN AVE_
L, y GSI! A
II fC st % 'C t i co -Y `yJ 4 N�wl�all
tT 4Oi>F� G ��i a °/ r j�;° r 'b
3
o-� 51
s � OR o
i f
v ou
W Nt�Ar VO cc r,
•
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 90-001
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Southeast parcel located at the intersection of
Newhall Avenue and lith 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
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? ............... [ ] [ ] [XJ
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ........................... [ ] [ J [X]
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features? .................................. [ ] [ ] [X]
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? .......... [ J ( J [X]
f. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards? ................................... [ ] [X] [ ]
g. Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? ................................. [ ] [ ] [X]
h. Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ........................... [ ] [XJ [ ]
i. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? ....................... [ ] [ ] [X]
LY -/ /
0
3.
•
2 -
0
YES MAYBE NO
I. Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25Z natural grade? ............ [ ] ( I [X]
k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ]
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? .................... [ ]
b. The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [ ]
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? .............. [ ]
d. Development within a high wind hazard
area? ...................................... ( I
e. Other? ( ]
Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................ [ ]
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? .............................. [ ]
C. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ......................... [ ]
d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ ]
e. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? ..................... [ ]
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? ............ [ )
g. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ............................ ( ]
( I (XI
[XI ( I
( I (XI
( I (XI
[X]
(X]
- 3 -
YES MAYBE NO
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? ..........
[ ] [X] [ ]
1.
Other?
[ ] [ ] [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,
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ...
[ J [ ] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ......
( ] [ I [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal re-
plenishment of existing species? ...........
[ ] [ ] [X]
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? ......................................
[ ] [ ] [X]
S.
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
insects or microfauna)? ....................
[ ] [ ] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? .....
[ ] ( ] [X]
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? ...........
[ ] [ I [XI
6.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Increases in existing noise levels? ........
[ ] [X] [ ]
b.
Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? .................
[ ] [X] [ ]
C.
Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ...
( ] [ ] (X]
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? .......................
( I [X] [ ]
- 4 -
YES
MAYBE NO
b.
A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? ............... ( 1
( J [XJ
C.
A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? ............................... ( ]
( 1 1X1
d.
A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? ...................... [ 1
( 1 [X]
9.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? ................................. [ l
( 1 1X1
b.
Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? ......................... [ ]
[ 1 [XJ
10.
Risk
of Upset/pian-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? .......................... [ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ................................ [ ]
( 1 [X1
C.
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ...................................... [ ]
( 1 (X1
d.
Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? ................................... [ l
[ 1 1X1
11.
Population. Will the proposal:
a.
Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ..................... [ ]
( 1 [X]
b.
Other? ( ]
[ 1 1X1
12.
Housing.
Will the proposal:
a.
Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................ [XJ
[ ] [ ]
b.
Other? [ 1
[ 1 [X.
- 5 -
YES MAYBE NO
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................ [ ]
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? ................. [ ]
C. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ............................ [ )
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? .............................. [ J
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... ( ]
f. A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? .............................. [ ]
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? ........................... ( ]
f
b. Police protection? ......................... ( ]
C. Schools? ................................... [ )
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .... [ J
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ........................... [ J
f. Other governmental services? ............... [ ]
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy. .................................... [ )
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? [ ]
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]
[ J [X]
- 6 -
YES MAYBE NO
b
Communications systems? ....................
( ] [ J [XJ
C.
Water systems? .............................
[ ] ( J (XJ
d.
Sanitary sever systems? ....................
[ ] [ ] [XJ
e.
Storm drainage systems? •....................
[ ] [ ] [XJ
f.
Solid waste and disposal systems? ..........
[ J [XJ [ J
g.
Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? .........
[ J [ J [XJ
17.
Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ...
( J [ J [XJ
b.
Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ...................................
[ J [ J (XJ
18.
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a.
The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ...................
j ] [ ] [XJ
b.
Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? .......................
[ J [ ] [XJ
C.
Will the visual impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area? ....
[ J [XJ ( J
19.
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? .....................
[ ] ( J [XJ
20.
Cultural Resources.
a.
Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? ..............
( J ( J [XJ
b.
Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? ...
[ J [ J [X]
C.
Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? .............
[ J ( J [XJ
d.
will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? .....................
[ J [ ] [XJ
- 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 10I
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.
- 8 -
B. DISCUSSION OF WAYS 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 pian 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
11th 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.
iJ -/, '
M
- 9 -
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 goals? (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. ............................ I............ [ l
or 4
- 10 -
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
Z62 Z
Dafe Signature
Darene Sutherland, Assistant Planner
Name and Title
/1 -)4)
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 Z. 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
0
•
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 X40 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 puhlic health. safety or general welfare.
1. 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
0
0
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 asi,"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:
L M.Harris, Director
mmunity Development
RESO P90-26
6-5-90
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 was sworn into 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 89-421 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 • 4
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.
RIT SI, rwoman
Planning Commission
AT
LY M. HARRIS, Director
C unity Development
City of Santa Clarita
EXHIBIT "B°
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-001
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant"
shall include the applicant and any person, corporation, or other
entity making use of this grant.
2. 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 office of Community Development their
affidavit stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all
of the conditions of this grant.
3. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Santa Clarita, its agents, officers and employees to attack, set
aside, void, or annul this permit approval, which action is brought
within the applicable time period of Government Code Section 65907.
The..City., shall_ promptly notify. the ,permittee of ,any claim, action,
or proceeding. and the City shall.cooperate-fully in the defense. If
the City fails to promptly notify of any claim, action, or
proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense,
and if such failure to notify or failure to cooperate results 'in
prejudice, to the permittee's ability to defend the 'claim, the
permittee shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify,
or hold harmless the City.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 or shown on the approved plan.
7. All structures shall conform with the requirements of the Division
of Building and Safety or the Department of Public Works.
8. The subject facility shall be developed and maintained in compliance
with requirements of the Los Angeles County Department of Health
Services.
CUP 90-001 EXHIBIT "B •
• pg. #2
9. 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.
10. The applicant shall secure any necessary permits from the South
Coast Air Quality Management District.
PUBLIC WORKS
11. 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.
12. 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.
Road Improvements
13. 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 requirement.
14. 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 restriping plans for all multi -lane
highways within or abutting the project site to the satisfaction of
the Department.
15. The applicant shall place above ground utilities including, but not
limited to, fire hydrants, junction boxes and street lights outside
sidewalk.
16. 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.
17. The applicant shall replace driveways to be abandoned with standard
curb, gutter and sidewalk.
18. The applicant shall construct full -width sidewalk at all walk
returns.
CUP 90-001 EXHIBIT "B
• pg. #3
19. The applicant shall repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter,
sidewalk and pavement on streets within or abutting the project site.
20. The applicant shall offer future right-of-way:
40 feet from centerline on Newhall Avenue
30 feet from centerline on 11th Street
21. The applicant shall construct wheelchair ramp at the intersection of
11th Street and Newhall Avenue.
22. The applicant shall
improvements:
Street
Name Width
Newhall Avenue 80 FT
11th Street 30 FT
construct the following required road
Curb & Street Street
Gutter Paving Lights Trees Sidewalk
X X X X X
X X X X X
23. The applicant shall construct the necessary improvements to the
existing water systems to accommodate the total domestic and fire
flows.
24. The applicant shall file a water Utility Certificate of Registration
with the Public Works Department.
25. The applicant shall provide for the proper distribution of drainage.
26. 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 projects 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-.
CUP 90-001 EXHIBIT "B9
Factors for development units are as follow:
Development Unit
Single Family
per
unit
Townhouse
per
unit
Apartment
per
unit
Commercial
per
unit
Industry
per
unit
The project is in the:
• pg. #4
Factor
(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
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
1.0
0.8
0.7
5.0
3.0
27. 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 issue.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
28. Provide Fire Department and City -approved street signs, and building
address numbers prior to occupancy.
29. Access shall comply with Section 10.207 of the Fire Code which
requires all weather access. All weather access may require paving.
30. Fire flows of 2,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch
residual pressure for a two hour duration will be required.
31. 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.
32. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted
prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and
maintained serviceable throughout construction.
33. The development of this project must comply with all applicable code
and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains,
fire flows, and fire hydrants.
CUP 90-001 EXHIBIT•"B'
pg. #5
34. 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.
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
35. 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.
36. The applicant, shall, indicate water mains and lateral lines, head
type and location, backflow type and location, controller and POC on
the irrigation plans-.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
37. 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.
38. All signage shall be subject to the, approval of the Director of
Community Development.
39. The proposed trash area shall be accessible from both the public
alley and the parking area.
u