HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-08-01 - AGENDA REPORTS - HILLSIDE MGMT/CEQA (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented by- 4F
Lynn M. Harris Walt/{.(,0
DATE: August 1, 1990
SUBJECT: Study Session
- Hillside Management
- California Environmental Quality Act
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Staff has prepared outlines for presentation and discussion at the study session
on the above topics. We will have additional visual aids at the meeting to
facilitate discussion.
RECOMMENDATION:
Hillside Management: Receive and file program information; direct Planning
Commission to prioritize hillside regulations as No. 1 work effort for
recommendation to Council, direct staff to proceed and return Phase II of
contract for consultant assistance for future Council action.
CEQA: Receive and file background information, direct staff to prepare local
implementing CEQA resolution for future Council action.
LMH:sw
Agenda Item:
HILLSIDE I
CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST
PROGRAM
I. INTRODUCTION
STUDY SESSION
1, 1990
OUTLINE
A. Natural Setting and Topography of Santa.Clarita Valley
1. Santa Clara River Valley
2. Series of mountains, rivers and canyons
3. Framed by Angeles and Los Padres Forests
B.. Evolution of.Hill.and Canyon Development
1. Initially level valley areas
2. Secondarily penetrated canyons
3. Foothill development
4. Leveling/terracing diverse terrain
5. Ridgeline development
II. REGULATION OF HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
A. Philopsophy
1. Vista (primary, secondary ridgelines) preservation
2. Not density control tool
3. Emphasis on vistas after development vs before
development
4. Public open space vs private vistas
5. Access and drainage objectives; engineering
solutions
B. County of Los Angeles
1. County General Plan - Hillside Management
Designation (HM)
a. Exceptions
b.. Amendments
c. Specific plans
2. Zoning and Subdivision Code provisions
a. Exceptions
b. Conditional Use Permit
c. Residential planned development
3. Grading Ordinance - engineering perspective
4. Environment assessment
5. No. of Hillside units approved/year in SCV
C. City of Santa Clarita - Current/Interim
1. City's Draft General Land Use Plan as interim
reference '(see also #7)
2. County General Plan as unofficial guideline
3. County Zoning and Subdivision Code - strict
interpretation vs past practice
4. Grading Ordinance - engineering perspective
5. Role of environmental assessments; need for policy
direction
7. General Plan in preparation
a. Draft issues/goals/policies, overview
1. Hillside conservation area overlay
2. Reduced slope densities
3. Sensitive grading techniques
4. Ridgeline identification and protection
5. Biological resources
6. Viewshed
7. Interface with Forest Lands
III. OVERVIEW OF ISSUES
A. Location ofDevelopment
B. Protection of the Environment/Quality of Life
C. Adequacy of Regulations
1. Ridgelines and vistas
2. Manufactured slopes
a. Landform modifications
b. Contour grading
c. Slope height
d. Revegetation
e. Stability
f. Drainage benches
g. Retaining walls
3. Street width, grades and crossings
4. Natural hazards
a. Fire
b. Landslides
c. Earthquakes
d. Flood
e. Emergency access
5. Neighborhood character
a. Usable pad area
b. Lot widths
c. Setbacks
d. Height/bulk/scale/mass
e. Architecture/design/layout
D. Need to Implement Before.General Plan and
Comprehensive Unified Development Ordinance
IV. ALTERNATIVE: ACTIONS
A. Await General Plan/Uniform Development Ordinance -
Continue Processing As Present
1. Pros
a. Provided for in General Plan Consultant
Contract
b. Individual case by case review
c. Gain experience through projects
2. Cons
a. Projects driving policy
b. Inconsistency of implementation
C. Some standards inadequate
d. Lack of clear purpose and direction
B. Await General Plan/Uniform Development.Ordinance -
Cease All Hillside Processing
1. Pros
a.
b.
2. Cons
a.
b.
c.
Specific rules known
Consistent implementation possible
Stops good projects along with bad
Drives growth to the unincorporated area
Stops annexations
C. Accelerate Hillside Study and Ordinance
1. Pros
a. Proactive
b. Establishes clear rules for developers, the
public and staff
c. Consistency of implementation
d. Reduces potential for interim/irreversible
errors
e. Earlier project quality improvements
2. Cons
a. Staff.resources already strained
b. Consultant costs
V. PURSUIT OF EXPERT HILLSIDE CONSULTANT
A. Request for Qualifications Sent
B. Discussions with Qualified Consultants in Progress
1. Staff experience/resources/availability
2. Computerized visual analysis
3. Exemplary/state-of-the-art standards