Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-03-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - ZONE CHANGE 89-02 (2)• PUBLIC HEARING �� DATE: March 27, 1990 r 1 AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented by, --- Mark Mark Scott SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 89-02 FROM R-3 (LIMITED MULTIPLE RESIDENCE) TO C-1 (RESTRICTED BUSINESS) TO ALLOW THE CONTINUING OPERATION OF A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE CURRENTLY OPERATING ILLEGALLY IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.Ordinance No. 90-6 DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a zone change on the subject property from -R-3 to C-1 to allow the continued operation of a commercial office, which is not a permitted use in a residential zone. The Planning Commission conducted several public hearings regarding this proposal, concluding that the change of zone is appropriate and recommending approval of the zone change to the City Council. In conjunction with the request for a zone change, the Planning Commission and the staff have reviewed a plot plan proposal for the site, with attached conditions, in order to improve the parking and circulation on the site. Should the Council act to approve the zone change, the use would continue to be a zoning violation because the required parking is not provided. By simultaneously approving a plot plan, we will be providing a method by which the applicant can bring his property into conformance with the City Code. The applicant requests two minor changes to the plot plan conditions recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. The first sentence of Condition No. 6 would-be modified to include the phrase, "...of the Zone Change". As amended, the condition would read, "The actions required in these conditions shall be accomplished as soon as possible, but in no case take longer than three (3) months from the date of approval of the Zone Change. The applicant requests the deletion of Condition No. 9, as approved by the Planning Commission, which reads: These conditions of approval will not take effect unless and until the City Council acts to approve the zone change and does not take any action to amend or disapprove these condi ions of approval. Agenda Item: 02- In response to the applicant's request, should the Council act to approve the zone change, staff suggests that Condition No. 9 be changed to read: The City Council has approved a zone change for this property from R-3 to C-1. The applicant shall comply with all the requirements of the C-1 zone and the conditions of this plot plan. Staff believes that the applicant should be willing to sign the acceptance form between the first and second readings. RECOPMNDATION 1. Adopt the attached Negative Declaration with the finding that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. Approve Zone Change 89-02 based on the required findings. 3. Introduce the Ordinance, waive further reading, and pass to the second reading. 4. Approve the site plan (Exhibit "A") and the conditions of approval (Exhibit "B") including the revised language for Condition No.'s 6 and 9. ATTACHMENTS Previous Staff Report Negative Declaration Zone Change Ordinance Vicinity Map CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HARING ZONE CHANGE 89-02 PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita to consider a request for approval of Zone Change 89-02. The City Planning Commission has recommended approval of the zone change to the City Council. The applicant requests a zone change from R-3 (Limited Multiple Residence) to C-1 (Restricted Business) to permit the continued operation of a commercial office. The project is located at 24523 Chestnut Street. The item will be heard by the City Council in the Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, the 27th day of March, 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., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita, CA. Dated: March 6, 1990 George Caravalho City Clerk Publish Date: March 8, 1990 • ORDINANCE NO. 90- 6 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP (ZONE CHANGE CASE NO. 89-2) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine as follows: a. Application for a Zone Change 89-02 was filed at the City of Santa Clarita by Alan and Dorothy Seward on January 18, 1989. The application relates to the real property located at 24523 Chestnut Street, on the west side of the street, between Lyons Avenue and Eleventh Street in Newhall, Assessor's Parcel No. 2831-005-016. b. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the application on Tuesday, June 6, 1989, and continued the item to July 18, 1989 at the City of Santa Clarita City Council Chambers, at 7:30 p.m. At that time, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P89-19 recommending approval to the City Council of the requested zone change, and directed the applicant to work with staff on a site plan (Exhibit "A") for the parking design for the site. c. The applicant appealed the conditions of approval drafted by staff in reviewing the site plan. At their regularly scheduled meeting of September 19, 1989, the Planning Commission approved the revised site plan with amended conditions, one of those conditions being that the City Council must approve the zone change for the site plan to take effect. The applicant has also requested minor changes to the conditions approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant's proposed conditions of approval are attached (Exhibit "B"). d. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on Tuesday, March 27, 1990 at the City of Santa Clarita City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and on their behalf, the City Council further finds and determines as follows: a. The subject property is presently improved with a single-family residence and a converted garage, which are currently in use as an office. _The property is a rectangularly -shaped, 6,250 square foot parcel located on the west side of Chestnut Street, between lith Street and Lyons Avenue. b. The original request was for a change of zone from R-3 (limited • multiple residence) to C-3 (unlimited commercial), to accommodate a 1,838 square foot office use project on the site. The applicant amended the request to the C-1 (restricted business) zone. c. The size and shape of the site is suitable for the proposed use. d. The recommended C-1 zoning classification will not create any adverse impacts to the environment which cannot be mitigated through available controls. e. The proposed site plan (Exhibit "A") is consistent with adjacent and surrounding land uses. f. Establishment of the recommended zone at the subject property is in the interest of public health, safety, and general welfare and in .conformity with good zoning practice. g. Rezoning the subject property to C-1 is more appropriate than allowing the R-3 designation to remain, since the C-1 zone would legalize a use which'is compatible with other existing uses. h. The City of Santa Clarita is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of a general plan. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the general plan proposal currently being considered or studied, that there is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed resolution is ultimately inconsistent with that plan, and that the proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. SECTION 3. The City Council has reviewed the negative declaration prepared for this project and finds that it was prepared in accordance with the terms of CEQA. The City Council further finds that this project as described will not have significant effect on the environment, and hereby approves the negative declaration. SECTION 4. In acting on the rezoning applicaton, the City Council has considered certain principles and standards, and finds and determines as follows: a. That modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning plan as it pertains to the subject property; and b. That a need for the proposed zone classification exists within the area of the subject property; and c. That the subject property is a proper location for the C-1 zone classification. d. The placement of the proposed zone at the subject property will be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare, and in conformity with good zoning practice; and +r • SECTION 5. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council does hereby ordain that the application for a zone change is approved, that the site plan (Exhibit "A") and conditions of approval (Exhibit "B") are approved, and that the official zoning map of the City of Santa Clarita is hereby amended so that the subject property is rezoned from R-3 to C-1. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner prescribed by law: PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1990. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF IAS ANGELES) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA) I, , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90- was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of at a regular meetin of the City Council on the day of 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: - CITY CLERK z89 2r.eso • • 0 EXHIBIT "B" DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE PLAN FOR ZONE CHANGE 89-02 (Contingent on City Council Approval of Ordinance 90-6) 1. The applicant must sign the attached Acceptance Form, have it verified by a notary public and return it to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the approval. 2. This approval is for the operation of an office only. A new use may require a new plot plan. 3. All parking spaces shall be striped on all four (4) sides and have the required width and depth. Parking shall be provided in strict conformance to the approved site plan or as required by these conditions of approval. 4. Parking spaces 4 and 6 shall be redesigned and striped as compact spaces. "COMPACT" shall be painted on the ground at the entrance to these spaces as required by the zoning code. Parking spaces 3, 4, and 5 shall be reserved for employee use only with accompanying signage to indicate that. Because parking space 3 must back up into a blind driveway, the use of a parking valet or other person as designated by the applicant shall be used to help drivers exiting parking space 3. 5. Parking areas shall be paved. 6. The actions required in these conditions shall be accomplished as soon as possible, but in no case take longer than three (3) months from the date of approval of the zone change. If any of the conditions of approval are not met to the satisfaction of the City within that time, the privileges granted herein shall lapse. 7. This approval does not supercede any other affected agency's requirements. S. These conditions of approval shall be recorded with the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder, and the applicant shall provide evidence of that to the Department of Community Development. 9. The City Council has approved a zone change for this property from R-3 to C-1 zone and the conditions of this plot plan. The applicant shall comply with all the requirements of the C-1 zone and the conditions above. z89 02CON.DIT • • • VICINITY MAP CASE No. ZONE CHANGE 89-02 Eta 0 '/4 '/2 3/4 I ,s S C A L E PC4 RnRrT 4 SYN LYONS AV m th • 5i. Pp- ff:::::. J J O _ 7 � MAPLE ST. NO RT K RESOLUTION NO. P89-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 89-02 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. Application for Zone Change 89-02 was filed by Alan and Dorothy Seward ("Applicant") on January 18, 1989. The application relates to the real property located at 24523 Chestnut Street, on the east side between Lyons Avenue and Eleventh Street in Newhall, Assessor Parcel No. 2831-005-016. b. ..The.project.was reviewed by the.Community Development Department, and went through the Development Review Committee process involving other City Departments and County Agencies with jurisdictional interests in this _.. _.matter. c. A duly noticed public hearing was held on Tuesday, June 6, 1989, and continued to July 18, 1989 at the City of Santa Clarita City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:30 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 p� tly improved with a structure originally used a tsingle-famj&residence and is currently in use as an office.. The property is a rectangularly -shaped, 6,250 sq. ft. parcel located on the west side of Chestnut Street, between lith Street and Lyons Avenue. b. The original request is for a change of zone from R-3 (limited multiple residence) to C-3 (unlimited commercial), to accommodate a 1,838 sq. ft. office use project on the site. The applicant has since amended the request to the C-1 (restricted business) zone. c. The subject property is of a size and shape which is suitable for the proposed development. d. The recommended C-1 zoning classification will not create any adverse -impacts to the environment which cannot be mitigated through available controls. e. The site plan, in this case, is a critical factor in the ....decision to rezone and is consistent with.adjacent and surrounding land uses. f. Establishment of the recommended zone at the subject property is in the interest of public health, safety, and general welfare and in conformity with good zoning practice. g. Rezoning the subject property to C-1 is more appropriate than allowing the R-3 designation to remain, since the C-1 zone would legalize an existing use and permits less intense uses than the R-3 zone would permit. h. The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of a general plan. There is a reasonable probability that this rezoning will be consistent with the general plan proposal which will be studied within a reasonable time. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if this rezoning -is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. This rezoning complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinance. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission has reviewed the negative declaration prepared for this project and finds that it was prepared in accordance with the terms of CEQA. The Planning Commission finds that this project as described here will not have a significant effect on the environment, and hereby approves the negative declaration. SECTION 4. In making the recommendation contained in this resolution, the Planning Commission has considered certain principals and standards,.and..finds and determines as follows: a. That modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning plan as it pertains to the subject property; and b. That a need for the proposed zone classification exists within the area of the subject property; and c. That the subject property -is a proper location for the C-1 zone classification; d. That placement of the proposed zone at the subject property will be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare, and in conformity with good zoning practice; and SECTION 5. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission recommends. that the City Council approve the application for a zone change, changing the classification of the subject property from R-3 to C-1. SECTION 6. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the adoption of this resolution, and shall give notice of this recommendation in the manner prescribed by Section 22.60.190 of the City's Planning and Zoning Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of August, 1989. Rita Garasi, Chairwoman 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 1st day of August, 1989, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: Commissioners: Modugno, Sharar, Worden, Vice Chairman Brathwaite and Chairwoman Garasi NOES: None ABSENT: None Ken Pulskamp, Actir{va;rector Community Development LJ/ M AN -tl P.O. BOX 428 ENGINEERING City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300 Valencia, CA 91355 Attention: Mr. Kevin Michel Dear Sir: COMPANY 24707 SAN FERNANDO ROAD NEWHALL, CALIFORNIA 91321 PHONE 805-259-1920 September 25, 1989 Re: J.N. 3232 Staff Report Plot Plan for Z.C. 89-02 Mr. Seward and I have discussed your staff report. Essentially, we can live with the report. There are a couple of questions that I think should be clarified. In item six, at the end of the first sentence;.. L would.appreciate .the addition, "of the Zone Change." The other question in my mind, because of item 9 is, should Mr. Seward sign, notarize and record a document that is subject to amendment by the City.Council before the City Council acts? frankly do not believe you need the City Council to re -review the Plot Plan unless an ordinance is being adopted for the Plot Plan. Lastly, when the attached document to the acceptance form is ready, could the document or conditions reflect that by a passed motion of the Planning Commission and/or the City Council these are the conditions? If you agree with me, can we either: omit Item 9 so that we can sign now or get on with the Planning Commissions recommendation to the City Council? Of course, I would sure like to include the action of the approving body with the condi:t-ions. Thank you. Sincerely, ANDEL ENGINEER! COMPANY . L. B ]den, Jr. ELB/]c cc: Allan Seward CI VI L ENG I N EE R ING —i s 11Q V V XT City of Santa Clarita Jan Heidt Mayor Jo Anne Darcy Mayor Pm -Tem Carl Boyer, III Councrlmember Dennis M. Koontz Councilmember Howard "Buck" McKeon Councilmember 23920 Valenc; ' 'Ivd. Suite 300 City of Santa Clarita California 91355 September 20, 1989 Mr. Allan Seward 24523 Chestnut Street Newhall, CA 91321 Re: Zone Change 89-02 Dear Mr. Seward: Phone (805) 259-2489 Fax (805) 259-8125 I have attached conditions of approval for the plot plan prepared in conjunction with your request for a zone change (Zone Change 89-02) at 24513 Chestnut Street. Please review the conditions of approval and sign ,the. -attached. Acceptance Form .in. the presence of a notary public to indicate that you have reviewed the conditions and will comply with them. These conditions have been amended as directed by the Planning Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting on September 19, 1989. _.....Please . return the signed and notarized Acceptance Form to my. attention as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at (805) 255-4351 if I may be of assistance. Sincerely, Kevin Michel Assistant.Planner enc. CC: Mr. Ed Bolden Andel Engineering 24707 San Fernando Road -Newhall,,-Ch -"91321 z89_2 tr.mit September 20, 1989 Applicant: Site Address: Request: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PIAT PLAN FOR ZONE CHANGE 89-02 STAFF -REPORT Allan and Dorothy Seward 24523 Chestnut Street, Santa Clarita, CA 91321 The applicant is requesting a zone change from R-3 to C-1 to allow the continued use of a commercial office. The plot plan is for the approval of the parking design. Findings: The Community Development Department has determined that the approval of this request is necessary, according to the principles and standards identified in Section 22.56.1690 of the Zoning Code, to enable the reasonable and conforming use of the property in the C-1 zone. This plot plan is approved subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant must sign the attached Acceptance Form, have it verified by a notary public and return it to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the approval. 2. This approval is for the operation of an office only. A new use may require a new plot plan review. 3. All parking spaces shall be striped on all four (4) sides and have the required...width_ and._.depth. ....Parking shall be -.provided- in strict conformance to the approved site plan or as required by these conditions of approval. 4. Parking spaces 4 and 6 shall be redesigned and striped as compact spaces. "COMPACT"...._shallbe painted on the ground at -the ...entrance ..to._these . spaces as required by the zoning code. Parking spaces 3, 4, and 5 shall be reserved for employee use only with accompanying signage to indicate that. Because parking space 3 must back up into a blind driveway, the use of a parking valet or other person as designated by the applicant shall be used to help drivers exiting parking space 3. 5. --,Parking areas shall be paved. 6. The actions required in these conditions shall be accomplished as soon as possible, but in no case take longer than three (3) months from the date of approval. 'If any of the conditions of approval are not met to the satisfaction of the City within that time, the privileges granted herein shall lapse. 7. This approval does not supercede any other affected agency's requirements. S. These conditional of approval shall be recorded with the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder, and the applicant shall provide evidence of that to the Department of Community Development. :! 9. These conditions of approval will not take effect unless and until the City Council acts to approve the zone change and does not take any action to amend or disapprove these conditions of approval. KM,zc89_O2.724 y b' Please completes this form and return to: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 300 City of Santa Clarita, CA 91355 ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA .COUNTY OF. LOS ANGELES SS CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Piot Plan for Zone Change 89-02 (Case -Number) I, the undersigned state: I am aware of and accept all the conditions of approval for the Plot Plan for Zone Change 89-02 the attached conditions as stated in _----ir-, dated SPntemhzr 01gR4 I am the owner of the real property described in the above -numbered case. Executed this day of , 19 I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. (Type or Print) Applicant: Name Allan and Dorothv Seward Owner Address 24523 Chestnut Street City, State Newhall, CA 91321 -Signature Owner: Name Address City, State Signature -8-ignatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. Attach appropriate acknowledgements. .(Where the owner and applicant are not the same, both must sign.) ROLL CALL s `1T :s . . .-V APPROVAL OF MINUTES di: PC1-96 REGULAR MEETING OHE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY September 19, 1989 7:30 p.m. The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Garasi, at 7:34 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California. Commissioner Sharar led the Pledge of Allegiance to. the flag of the United States of America. - Lori Babineau called the roll. Those present were Commissioners Modugno, Sharar and Worden, and Chairwoman Garasi. Vice Chairman Brathwaite was absent:. - --- Also present were City Attorney Michael.Woods; Acting Director of Community Development -Ken Pulskamp; Building and Engineering Services Manager Dick Kopecky; Principal Planner Richard Henderson; Principal Planner Chris Trinkley; Assistant Planner Kevin Michel; Secretary Stephanie Kuhn; and Administrative Clerk Lori Babineau. It was moved by Worden, second by Modugno, and unanimously carried.to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September.5, 1989,. ITEM 1 Kevin Michel presented this discussion item DISCUSSION ITEM regarding the Plot Plan for Zone Change 89-02. The PLOT . -PLAN FOR OZONE request was an appeal of conditions of approval, CHANGE r' as drafted by staff, of the Plot Plan.. Speaking in 89-92_._J favor were Ed Bolden, engineer for the applicant, P.O. Box 428, and Allan Seward, the applicant, _ 24523 Chestnut Avenue. In the ensuing_ -discussion, it was determined that `Condition No. 2 would be.amended, and Conditions v Nos . "3, 4',.7, and 9 deleted. - It was moved -by Worden;--� second -by Sharat, and unanimously carried to accept i, P1ot'Plan 89-02, subject to conditions,as revised.-`: ITEM 2 Mr. Henderson presented this.request for a one - TIME EXTENSION year time extension pertaining to development of , REQUEST 15 residential lots on a 5.21 acre site.... TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 4494E It was moved by Worden, second by Modugno, and unanimously carried to approve the time extension request for Tentative Tract Map 44946. r C' DATE: TO: FROH: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION: 3 STAFF REPORT DISCUSSION ITEM: a PIAT . PLAN...EOR ..ZONE .CHANGE 89-02 September 19, 1989 Chairwoman Garasi and X e Planning Commission Ken Acting Director of unity Development Alan and Dorothy Seward 24523 Chestnut Street, north of Lyons Avenue Appeal of conditions of approval, as drafted by staff, of the plot plan for Zone Change 89-02 Approve the plot plan subject to the conditions developed by staff. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: Zone Change 89-02 was previously heard by the Planning Commission at their regularly scheduled meetings of June 6 and July 18, 1989. At the July 18 meeting, the Commission approved the zone change and directed the applicant to work with staff in implementing a conceptual plot plan suggested by the Commission at the hearing. Following that, the applicant's engineer presented a revised plot plan to staff, which is included in your packets. Staff re,viewed..the,plot plan and concluded that modifications to the site plan were necessary to insure the safe and orderly operation of the site. Staff then drafted conditions of approval for the plot plan and forwarded them with a letter of acceptance to the applicant, who declined to sign. Staff sought direction .from the Planning Commission, and staff attempted to ..present the revised plot plan at the September 5 study session. At that time, the Commission felt the item was too detailed for the study session, and that in fairness, the applicant and his representative should be present to address the Commission's concerns. This is why this plot plan is before -you tonight as a discussion item. In -the--original request -for a zone change,, the applicant- was requesting a change from R-3 to C-1 in order to allow a professional office (operating as an illegal, non -conforming use) to become a legal, conforming use. With the zone change accomplished to C-1, a professional office will become a permitted use at the site, but as with any proposed use that is -allowed - in - principal by the zoning, a plot plan approval is necessary to insure that adequate parking, landscaping, and the other requirements of the zoning code are met. The conditions of approval for the plot plan were drafted to reflect the concerns raised in the two previous staff reports as well as staff concerns regarding the implementation of the parking and circulation plan. A discussion of the staff's reasoning behind the recommended conditions of approval, as forwarded to the applicant and included in your packet, follow: Condition 1. This is a routine condition for all plot plans seeking approval for a use permitted by the existing zoning. Condition 2. This condition was drafted to prevent a subsequent use from occupying the site prior to a new plot plan approval. This condition is necessary because of the constraints placed on the property such as its small size, the proximity to residential uses, and the less than ideal parking solution currently proposed. Condition 3. The applicant originally applied for a C-3 zone, but amended the request to C-1. The applicant indicated that the civil engineer operating at the site would relocate. The civil engineer engages in soils testing, which requires a C-3 zone. If the civil engineer stays, it would be an illegal, non -conforming use. The applicant also indicated that he has 15 employees. It was staff's judgement that elimination of the civil engineering office would reduce the demand for park -^g at the site, which is currently deficient. Condition 4. The traffic engineer .originally suggested a 10' minimum for the driveway. However, 9.5 feet is t`e most that can be accomplished without requiring structural changes to t.`e office. The e:cisting 8 foot driveway is too narrow. Staff feels the 9.5 foot driveway is reasonable. Condition 5. Because of the unconventional parking design, staff felt it was important to clearly delineate -"he parking spaces to encourage drivers to completely pull their vehicles into the spaces. By fully striping all spaces, those using the parking facilities will be encouraged to park carefully within the provided space. This particular site does not leave the driver much room for error, as minimal aisles and back-up areas abut the parking stalls. The statement, "Parking shall be provided in strict conformance to the approved site plan or as required by these conditions of approval," was added because staff did not feel it was necessary to have the applicant redraw the site plan to indicate the minor changes included in the conditions of approval. Staff, —however, did wish to insure that the changes to the site plan specified in the conditions of approval would be complied with even if not included in the rendering. = Condition 6. Staff concluded that the circulation for the site would not function if full-sized vehicles were located in spaces 4 and 5. Because of the limited ...maneuvering.. room, -staff. believes .that : spaces 3, .4 and 5 . should be reserved for employee use only. A parking valet or designated person to assist drivers exiting space 3 was thought necessary because the driver must back accross the driveway exit without the ability to view oncoming cars exiting.the site from other parking spaces. Condition 7. If the air conditioner is not removed from parking space 3, the space will be unusable. Ow i Condition 8. Commercial developments normally are required to have paved parking. Condition 9. An irrevocable offer of dedication of 15 feet from the .. ,.•.centerline °of, -the alley to, the, ream 'of• the •property was .required should the City wish to require_aa full -width alley at some point in the future. The applicant is not being required to widen the alley at this time, nor does the City have any expectation that the applicant will be required to widen the alley for the existing business. Future businesses might be -expected to improve the additional alley width. Condition 10. It was staff's judgement that a time line to implement the improvements is prudent and that three months would be sufficient time to accomplish the required actions. This type of condition, specifying the allowed time to accomplish a required action, is typical. Condition 11. This is a standard plot plan condition, and states that the plot plan approval does not waive the requirements of other agencies. Condition 12. This case originated because the applicant bought a residence that once had a conditional use permit for a day school and assumed that an office would be permitted just as well. This condition will warn future buyers that there is a conditional use permit in effect at the site and that any other future use will have to go through a review process prior to taking occupancy. Condition 13. Unless the City Council approves the zone change, the plot plan is a moot point. Staff concludes that the applicant did make a good faith effort to portray a site plan that followed the direction given to the applicant at the public hearing by the Commission. As t.,e discussion at the hearing was conceptual in nature, staff felt it necessary to review the mechanics of the plot plan and make modifications to reflect good planning practice and for the sake of the public's health and safety. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the site plan prepared in conjunction with Zone Change 89-02 subject •to- the -conditicns - of approval 'drafted -by -staff and _previously forwarded to the applicant. file : =89 02.774 3 City of Santa Clarita Jan Heidt Mayor Jo Anne Darcy Mayor Pro -Tem Carl Boyer, III Councilmember Dennis M. Koontz Councilmember Howard 'Buck" McKeon Councilmember 23920 Blvd. Phone Suite 300 (805) 259-2489 City of Santa Clarita Fax California 91355 (805) 259-8125 September 5, 1989 Mr. Ed Bolden Andel Engineering 24707 San Fernando Road Newhall, CA 91321 Re: Zone.Change 89-02 Dear Mr. Bolden: The site plan you prepared in conjunction with Zone Change 89-02 will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as a discussion item at their regularly scheduled meeting on September 19, 1989. As he indicated, Rich Henderson, Principal Planner, began to present the plot plan at the September 5 hearing, but the Commissioners felt that the item was too detailed to review without yourself or Mr. Seward present. Staff believes that the site plan complies with the general direction given by the Planning Commission and the requirements of the Zoning Code, but that minor modifications and clarifications are required to insure that the site works well and that the plot plan adequately addresses the parking issues. As the Commission was instrumental in the design of the plot plan, the Commission directed staff to schedule the review of the plot plan as a discussion item with the hope that you will be there to comment. Please call me if you have any comments on this process or if the date is inconvenient for you. The review of the plot plan as a discussion item does not affect the status of the zone change, which will proceed to the City Council once the staff report and resolution for the Council are completed and proper public notice is given. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 255-4351. Thank you for your cooperation to date in this matter. Sincerely, Kevin Michel Assistant Planner CC: Mr. Allan.Seward 24523 Chestnut Street Newhall, CA 91321 z89_2ebO.9O5 f, r Y City of Santa CLzrita Jan Heidt Mayor Jo Anne Darcy Mayor Pro -rem Carl Boyer. III Councilmember Dennis M. Koontz Councilmember n L 23920 �a is Blvd Suite 300 City of Santa Clarita California 91355 August 14, 1989 ...Mr.. Allan Seward 24523 Chestnut Street Newhall, CA 91321 Re: Zone Change 89-02 Dear Mr. Seward: Phone (805) 259-2489 Fax (805) 259-8125 I have attached conditions of approval for the plot plan prepared in conjunction with your request for a zone change (Zone Change 89-02) at 24513 Chestnut Street. Please review the conditions of approval and sign the attached Acceptance Form in the presence of a notary public to indicate that you have reviewed the conditions and will comply with them. Howard 'Buck- McKeon The Planning Commission has approved the change of zone for the site, Councilmember which must also be approved by the City Council before it becomes final. The staff will forward the request for a zone change to the City Council once you have returned the signed Acceptance Form to our office. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at (805) 255-4351 if I may be of assistance. Sincerely, l Kevin Michel Assistant Planner enc. cc: Mr. EdBolden _ Andel Engineering 24707 San Fernando Road Newhall, CA 91321 ' CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY - DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PIAT PLAN FOR ZONE CHANGE 89-02 STAFF REPORT August 14, 1989 Applicant: Allan and Dorothy Seward Site Address: 24523 Chestnut Street, Santa Clarita, CA 91321 Request: The applicant is requesting a zone change from R-3 to C-1 to allow the continued use of a commercial office. The plot plan is for the approval of the parking design. Findings: The Community Development Department has determined that the approval of this request is necessary, according to the principles and standards identified in Section 22.56.1690 of the Zoning Code, to enable the reasonable and conforming use of the property in the C-1 zone. This plot plan is approved subject to o l lowing,. conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant must sign the attached Acceptance Form, have it verified by a notary public and return it to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the approval. 2. This approval is for the operation of a professional geologist's office only, that business being Allan Seward Engineering Geology, Inc. No other business may operate from the site. The approval and rights conferred by this plot plan will terminate with either the sale of the business, the property, or both. 3. The civil engineering business, involving soils testing and analysis, must cease and desist at the site. The sign identifying this business on the front of the property must be removed. No Laboratory work or soils analysis is permitted at the site. 4. The driveway shall be widened to nine -and -a -half (9.5) feet. 5......All,. par -king -,,spaces, shall• be -striped - on all four ( 4 ) sides -and have the required width and depth. Parking shall be provided in strict conformance to the approved site plan or as required by these conditions of approval. t 6. Parking spaces 4 and 6 shall be redesigned and striped as compact spaces. "COMPACT" shall be painted on the ground at the entrance to these spaces as required by the zoning code. Parking spaces 3, 4, and 5 shall be reserved for employee use only with accompanying signage to indicate that. Because parking space 3 must back up into a blind driveway, the use of a parking valet or other person as designated by the applicant shall be used to help drivers exiting parking space 3. 7. The wall mounted air conditioner that protrudes into parking space no. 3 shall be relocated to the northern or eastern wall of the satellite office. S. Parking areas shall be paved. 9. Provide an irrevocable offer of dedication fifteen (15) feet from centerline on the alley behind the property. This would enable the City to require the development of a full -width thirty (30) foot alley in the future when the current use expands or is discontinued. 10. The actions required in these conditions shall be accomplished as soon as possible, but in no case take longer than three (3) months from the date of approval. If any of the conditions of approval are not met to the satisfaction of the City within that time, the privileges granted herein shall lapse. 11. This approval does not supercede any other affected agency's .._.requirements. 12. These conditions of approval shall.be recorded with the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder, and the applicant shall provide evidence of -that to the Department of Community Development. 13. These conditions of approval will not take effect unless and until the City Council acts to approve the zone change and does not take any action to amend or disapprove these conditions of approval. KM,zcS9 02. 24 - CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT ZONE CHANGE 89-02 DATE: July 18, 1989 TO: Chairman Modugno and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Kyle Kollar, Director of Community Development APPLICANT: Allan and Dorothy Seward LOCATION: 24523 Chestnut Street, on the west side of Chestnut Street between Eleventh and Lyons Avenue. REQUEST: Zone change from R-3 to C-1. RECOMMENDATION: Declare intention to approve the zone change as requested. Close the public hearing. Deny the current plot plan and request the staff to bring back a resolution when a satisfactory plot plan has been submitted. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: This item was originally heard by the Planning Commission at the June 6, 1989, meeting. At that meeting, the Commission continued the meeting and directed staff and the applicant to address fire flow and parking concerns. Copies of the previous staff report and negative declaration are included in your packets.. The fire flow issues have been adequately addressed according to the Fire Department. The Newhall County Water District conducted a fire flow test (attached), at the request of the Fire Department, which indicated that the fire flow for the site is sufficient. The Fire Department now recommends approval of the project, but their letter (attached) includes the following caveat: If the existing structure is replaced, the existing water system may not be adequate, depending on size and type of structure that is built. The Commission had requested information regarding its discretion in reviewing Fire Department comments. Section 22.16.160, "Proposed Zone Change --Water Supply Standards," on pages 52-3 addressed this issue. -Because --of=the -Fire- Department-approval,-the--use-of-Commission discretion is no longer an issue in this case. For your information, this language reads as follows: 22.16.160 Proposed Zone Change -- Water Supply Standards: In addition to the principles and standards enumerated in Section 22.16.150, the Commission, in determining its recommendation for a change of zone, shall consider whether or not the change of zone i under consideration, if adopted, will result in a need for a greater water supply for adequate fire protection and, if so, what are the existing and proposed sources of -such an adequate water supply. The Commission may request that the Forester and Fire Warden or County Engineer, or both, supply it with all facts, opinions, suggestions and advice which may be material to reaching a decision on any or all matters mentioned in this section. (Ord. 1494 Ch. 3 Art. 2 Sec. 309.3, 1927) Previously, the applicant requested a zone change from R-3 to C-3. The applicant -°has amended -his request from C-3,to C -1 -(Restricted Business Zone). Currently, a_civil engineer, whose work in soils testing, has been operating at the site as well A C-3 designation is required for this work. The applicant has indicated that this use will be discontinued at the site so the C-3 designation is no longer required. Presumably, this will reduce the number of employees, currently estimated at 15 by the applicant, and the need for office space. Enforcing this would require the approval of a plot plan with conditions or a conditional use permit. Staff supports the zone change, but suggests that a resolution for this change of zone not be forwarded to the Council until a satisfactory plot plan has been submitted. The applicant reviewed a variety of possible site plans with staff at a meeting held June 28, 1989. The one before you tonight was the most preferable in staff's opinion, though staff still has serious reservations regarding this site plan and cannot recommend approval of it: A summary of the staff concerns are as follows: 1. The Commission directed staff to work with the applicant in finding a solution to the parking issue that met the requirements of the revised parking ordinance in light of the code enforcement complaint against the site. It is the staff's position that an adequate, if not ideal, solution to the parking problem could be devised if the satellite building at the rear of the property were removed. 2. The width of the alley behind the applicant's site was addressed by the Commission at the last hearing. Currently, the alley is twenty feet (20') wide, as are many of the alleys in the Newhall area. The standard alley width, as indicated in Section 21.24.090 (page 32) of the Subdivision Code is thirty feet (301). The zone change and conditional use permit to the west of the applicant's property was required to widen the alley an- additional five feet (51) from centerline, which increases the alley width to twenty-five feet (25'). Staff is of the opinion that the applicant should also contribute five feet (5') from centerline to fully improve the alley to thirty feet (30').---Further'redesign of'the parking-wouid-be necessary if the applicant widens the alley. 3. The applicant's site has a single-family home to the south and an apartment to the north in an area currently zoned R-3. The City parking ordinance requires a decorative masonry wall (not less than thirty inches (30") nor more than forty-two inches (42") in height) behind the required landscaped area where parking facilities are located adjacent to a street right-of-way line. Such wall shall not be nearer to the front lot line than the abutting required front or side yard of property in a residential zone for a distance of fifty feet (50') from the common boundary line without the Director's approval. The R-3 Zone requires a fifteen foot (15') front yard setback. The single-family home has a fifteen foot (15') front yard. If no discretion is used, the applicant could be required to set the required wall 15 feet from his front property line. This would eliminate parking space number 7. 4. The City Code requires a solid masonry wall on side property lines of a commercial use abutting residential zones. The Commission can waive this requirement, if it deems appropriate, by substituting a decorative fence. At present there exists chain link fencing for a portion of the side lot lines. 5. As discussed at the previous hearing, parking lots shall be designed so as to preclude the backing of vehicles over a sidewalk, public street, or alley. Because of the limited room to maneuver for any car parked in space number 6 , it is most likely that a driver exiting from that space would back into the street. The removal of the planter adjacent to the driveway would provide additional maneuvering room. The backing of cars out of parking spaces numbers 1 through 3 was of concern at the first hearing. The applicant now proposes that cars utilizing these spaces will pull into the site off of Chestnut Street, proceeding along the driveway and across the rear yard to access these spaces. To exit they would proceed into the alley or, turning around in the rear yard, the cars would exit onto Chestnut Street. In staff's judgment, a much better parking design could be accomplished with the removal of the satellite office. 6. There is a wall -mounted air conditioning unit mounted in the rear wall of the satellite office that juts into parking space number 4. The air conditioner should be relocated to the front or side yard wall, away from parking spaces. Should the alley widening be improved, space number 4 would be unusable, and the required parking would not be met. 7. The traffic engineer suggested a ten -foot (10') driveway. The applicant is proposing to widen the driveway to nine and ...one-half feet (9 1/2')I --the maximum possible without making structural changes to the house. If a driver enters the rear parking area and realizes that the spaces there are full, he then must back out along the narrow driveway to Chestnut Street. To close, staff has concluded, upon further review, that a commercial designation may be appropriate, but that the current plot plan is not satisfactory. If the Commission considers the plot plan as submitted to be satisfactory, they would in effect be waiving some requirements normally imposed on commercial developments. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to submit a plan with a normal parking lot configuration by deleting the satellite building. At that time, a resolution could be presented to the Commission for a change of zone to C-1 (Restricted. Business.Zone). KK /KM / j t C _ UNTY OF LOS ANGEL,&!. ,FIRE DEPARTMENT 1= NORTH EASTERN AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 80063 (213) 720-514. P. MICHAEL FREEMAN FIRE CHIEF FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN July 7, 1989 Mr. Kevin Michel city of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Michel: SUBJECT: ZONE.GHANGE 89-002 Per your request, this Department has made a second review of proposed zone change 89--002. Based on additional information regarding the proposed project, the required fire flow for the existing structure would be 1500 gallons per minute at 20 PSI. Based on.flow information provided by the Newhall County Water District, the existing fire flow is adequate to serve this �roperty. If the existing structure is replaced, the existing water system may not be adequate, depending on size and type of structure that is built. Based on current information and proposed use of property, this Department recommends approval of zone change 89-002. if you have any further questions, please contact Inspector Bruce Mitchell at the above telephone number. very truly yours, P . - MT CHAEL ' FREEMAN By 4IC44k- 6�-- FRANK E. LUNA FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING PREVENTION AND CONSERVATION BUREAU FEL: fm SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: AGOURA HILLSBRADBURY DUARTE LA CANADA FLINTRtOGE MAYWOOD ROLLING HILLS SOUTH GATE ARTESIA CARSON C3LENDORA LAKEWOOD ' NORWALK ROLLING HILLS ESTATES TEMPLE CITY AZUSA C1:RRITOS HAWAIIAN GARDENS LA MIRADA PALMDALE ROSEMEAD WALNUT BALDWIN PARK CLAREMONT HIDDEN HILLS LANCASTER PALOS VERDE$ ESTATES SAN DIMAS WEST HOLLYWOOD BELL COMMERCE HUNTINGTON PARK LA PUENTE PARAMOUNT SANTA CLARITA WESTLAKE VILLAGE BELLFLOWER CUDAHY INDUSTRY LAWNDALE PICORIVERA SIGNAL HILL WHITTIER BELL GARDENS DIAMOND BAR IRWINDALE LOMITA RANCHO PALOS VERDES SOUTH EL MONTE a'd A32id 3Kd Gd 00 d-1 6Z:Sti 68. L0 -inf INDEX SHT. NEWHALL COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 'FIRE FLOW TEST INFORMATION DATE: 6 13 /19-1-2 TIME 3 07 (a.m.)❑ (p.m.)® WEATHER Hot month day yecr FLOW TEST PERFORMED BY: J Di Ancelaus FLOW TEST REQUESTED BY:'' L.A. CoountY Fire Dept. NEWHALL 131 CASTAIC ❑ PINETREE ❑ OTHER ❑ NEAREST STREET ADCRESS: OTHER LOCATION DES.:RIPTI ON: N E r-orner of Lyons Ave-- & Ch st-nuf- 4t- _ AVAILABLE RESERVOIF STORAGE 1,000,000 GALLONS WELLS IN PRODUCTION: AT TIME OF'TEST Wells #12, #11, 1,10 & #7 BOOSTER PUMPS IN PZODUCTION AT TIME OF TEST N/A DIAMETER OF DISTRIBUTION MAIN 6 INCHES . STEEL ❑ A.C. M CAST IRON p OTHER ❑ REMARKS: FIRE HYDRANT DATA: TYPE Si-eamer MFG. Jones SIZE 6"x4"x2;" COUNTY No. FLOW TEST DATA: FLOW OUTLET DIAMETER (HYDRANT) 41' FLOW TUBE DIAMETER 411 LENGTH OF FLOW TUBE STATIC PRESSURE RESIDUAL PRESSURE IMPACT GAUGE READING ` FLOW IN G.P.M. 1411 96 42 17 1770 FLOW IN G.P.M. AT 20 P.S.I. RESIDUAL 2124 COUNTY MULTIPLICATION FACTOR 1.20 REMARKS_ A Nvater usage report must be made witli this form. _D :��LaLea�z�.L� ♦F.^...i^•^,•.ntirvAynr i3•nRtt.hAr ¢uArtlntQ9jt7¢ nor agreeing thec it will supply water at any specific quantities or pressures ur _. pr nc Ur U=ux pajpusus Laid Liu such cb±;±gn.t±or1 is croated herob7- 11 Negative Declaration APPLICANT: Allan and Dorothy Seward TYPE OF PERMIT: Zone Chancre from R-3 to C-3 FILE NO.: ZC 89-02 City of Santa Clarita ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: 24523 Chestnut Street on the west side of Chestnut, between Lyons Avenue and Eleventh Street. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Zone change from R-3 to C-3 to permit the continued operation of a.commercial office, which is now a non -conforming use, in a residential zone. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ❑ City Council It is the opinion of -the ❑ Planning Commission upon review that the project © Director will not have a significant effect upon the environment. Q are attached Mitigation measures ❑ are not attached A01 " .' Form completed by: (Signature) Assistant Planner (Title) Date of Public Notice: May 14, 1989 Q Legal advertisement. ❑ Posting of properties. ® Written notice int sAX i C1 ��- �b�D •f DlCf�l�' CERTIFICATION DATE: 11 Negative Declaration APPLICANT: Allan and Dorothy Seward TYPE OF PERMIT: Zone Chancre from R-3 to C-3 FILE NO.: ZC 89-02 City of Santa Clarita ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: 24523 Chestnut Street on the west side of Chestnut, between Lyons Avenue and Eleventh Street. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Zone change from R-3 to C-3 to permit the continued operation of a.commercial office, which is now a non -conforming use, in a residential zone. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ❑ City Council It is the opinion of -the ❑ Planning Commission upon review that the project © Director will not have a significant effect upon the environment. Q are attached Mitigation measures ❑ are not attached A01 " .' Form completed by: (Signature) Assistant Planner (Title) Date of Public Notice: May 14, 1989 Q Legal advertisement. ❑ Posting of properties. ® Written notice I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B), CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CASE NO. a9-002 Prepared by: Kevin Michel Project Location: 24523 Chestnut Street. On the west side of Chestnut, between Lyons Avenue and 11th Street. Project Description and Setting: Zone change from R-3 to C-3, to allow the continuing use of a commercial office, now operating in a residential zone. General Plan Designation: C (Regional & Community) in County Plan Zoning: R-3 Applicant: Allan and Dorothy Seward Environmental Constraint Areas: Not in SEA. In area with potential archeological cultural resources. A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a:-Unst-able- earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any._..un.ique.....geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,-....ei.ther.._on..or._o.ff .the site? 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? X a -2- Yes Maybe Nc i. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? j. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 25% natural grade? k. Dgvelopment within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? 1. Other? 2_ 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? e. Other? 3. 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? X X X X X X Isla Yes Maybe N4 h. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? i. Other? 4. Plant Life.. -•Wil!*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)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, "rare or endangered species of plants? C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal re- plenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. 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)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat and/or migratory routes? 6. Noise. Will -the -proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure -of --peoffl-e --to-severe`-or un- acceptable noise levels? X X X X X X X X X X X X X C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new y_ght or glare. X 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial alteration of the present land use of an area? b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of an area? X _ X ism Yes MaVbe Nc C. A use that does not adhere to existing zoning laws? X _ d. 'A use that does not adhere to established development criteria? X _ 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X 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? X b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazar- dous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? X C. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety hazards? X _ 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population 'of -an area? X b. Other? X 12. -----Housing. Will the• proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X b. Other? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X _ MV b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? C. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems, including public transpor- tation? d. Alterations to present patterns of circu- lation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? f. A disjointed pattern of roadway improve- ments? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, in- cluding roads? 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? b. Communications systems? C. [nater systems? d. Sanitary sewer systems? e. Storm drainage systems? Yes Maybe N X X X X X 7 X X 17. 18. 19. 20. r -6- Yes Maybe N f. Solid waste and disposal systems? g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of delivery system improvements for any of the above? X 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 hazards? X Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? IL b. Will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? C. Will the visual impact of the proposal be detrimental to the surrounding area? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Cultural Resources_ a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a pre - 'historic or historic building, structure,. or object? g C. Does the proposal have the potential to -cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious o= sacred uses within the potential impact area? X_ t. 7 - Discussion of Impacts Identified by "Yes" or "Maybe" answers in Part A Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact 6a. The project would generate a greater number of auto trips than usually associated with a single family residence. This could negatively impact the adjacent apartment as car jockeying would be necessary because of the -narrowness of the driveway. 8a. The project would locate a commercial use in a residential zone between two residential projects. The applicant is operating an office out of a structure intended as a residence. 8b. In the County General Plan the area is designated commercial; however, the City has not adopted the County Plan and is in the process of developing its own General Plan. Approving this project could result in a potential conflict with the future decision of the City regarding the general plan designation for this area. 8c. This application for a zone change began as the result of a code enforcement action because the applicant was operating a commercial office in a residential zone. Commercial offices are not permitted in the R-3 zones, either outright or by a conditional use permit. At present, the project is an illegal non -conforming use. 8d. The_ existing.. _structure .was .built as a single-family residence and was not constructed to commercial., standards. The Fire Department indicates that the public water system does not provide sufficient fire flow for the intended use of the existing structure. Fire also indicates that this will create a commercial area where fire protection is hampered by the lack of water. The Traffic Engineer indicated the 8 -foot driveway should be widened to 10 -feet that five spaces may be inadequate, and that a 36 foot residential street is narrow for on -street parking within a commercial zone. The Zoning Code states the parking lots shall be designed so as to preclude the backing of vehicles over an alley on page 332. 10d. The increased vehicular activity associated with a commercial office use could expose people to potential safety hazards. There is a school site within half -a -block. 12a. The proposal will remove a single family home from the existing stock. 13a. The commercial office will generate additional vehicular movement in a residentially zoned area. 13b. The proposed parking is not up to the design standards specified in the code. The present design does meet the existing..... parking...., requirement by providing five ( 5 ) spaces at 1 per 400 square feet, but it includes tandem parking and 3 parking spaces backing into a public right-of-way. Also, the Planning Commission is actively ..revie,wing....the . parking . ordinance.. and.. staff .believes the ordinance will require one (1) parking space per 250 square because of the perception that current parking standards are inadequate. 13e. The project calls for a commercial use between existing residential projects. There is an elementary school site immediately to the north across 11th Street. The commercial . use will have greater impact than a single-family residence on the same site. 14e. The Fire Department indicates that the public water system does not provide sufficient fire flow. The required upgrade will be cost prohibitive with respect to this project. 17 a. b. The traffic associated with a commercial use may pose a health hazard to pedestrians and school children. If the water system does not provide sufficient fire flow, .the -danger from a fire would be heightened. - 8- B. - B. Discussion of Ways to Mitigate the Significant Effects identified. 6a. Redesign the parking in the rear so that it conforms with requirements of the City Code as to design and access. Eliminate parking on the side of the residence. 8a. d. Avoid ..spot zoning.. .Redesign parking and access. Bring the existing structures up to commercial standards, or certify that they are already at such standards, to the satisfaction of the City. Bring fire flow up to standards required . b_y_. Fire.. Department. 10. Redesign parking and access to required standards. Bring the existing structures up to commercial standards or certify that they are already at such standards. Bring fire flow up to standards required by the Fire Department. 12a. Cannot be mitigated if the applicants proposal is adopted. 13a. Redesign parking and access to the City's design standards. Eliminate tandem parking and parking on the side of the house. Eliminate parking that backs into a public right-of-way. 14a. Upgrade fire flow as required by the fire department. 17a. b. See various conditions already elaborated. I,...THE•UNDERSIGNED PROJECT APPLICANT, HEREBY AGREE TO MODIFICATION OF THE PROJECT TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDLESS OF CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP. IF I DISAGREE WITH ANY RECOMMENDED MITIGATING MEASURES, IN LIEU OF MY SIGNATURE HEREON, I MAY REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER UPON SUBMITTAL OF THE APPLICABLE FEE AND DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF MY POSITION ON SAID MITIGATION MEASURES Date: Signature of Project Applicant -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 may the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. Yes Maybe N 1. Does the project have the potential to de- grade the quality of the environment, sub- stantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or re- strict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 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 rela- tively_...bri.ef.,..d.efi.niti.ve ..period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) 3. Does..t,he ..project ..have.. impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (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.) 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 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. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in .this., -case- _be.ca.use_..the..mitig,at.ion...measures.:...described in this Initial Study have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE X DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ...._.,The......pr_o.posed._p.ro.ject _MAY -have -.a...signifi.cant .effe.ct on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X X X -10 - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA May 5, 1989 Date Signature Kevin Michel, Assistant Planner Name and Title ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE (Initial Study Form A) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 23920 Valencia Boulevard -.Santa Clarita, CA 91355 3 (805) 255-4330 FOR OFFICE USE 'Case No. Date Recd. Accepted by To Be Completed By The Applicant A. BACKGROUND 1. Project Title ZO►JE CHANGE 2. Project Location (Street address or description) 24523 CHESZ NUT S?REE7 3. Assessor's Parcel Number(s) 128-31- 5 - IG 4. Zoning: Present R-3 Proposed (if applicable) C•3 5. Brief Project Description ZONE CHANGE FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMM ROML 6. Name of Applicant ALLAIJ and Address 24523 CHES-TNUT 57R City NEWHALL Y SEWARO Phone (806) 255. 3072 tate CA. Zip 7. Name of Preparer/Agent ANGEL ENGINEERING COMPANY Address 2410-7 SAN FERNANDO ROAD Phone.(805) 259. 1920 City NEWHALL State.. GA. Zip 91321 Relation to Applicant ENGINEER 8. _Indicate all discretionary.acts..requiring review and enclosures or documents required by the City. a. Discretionary Acts requiring review: General Plan Amendment Rezoning/Prezoning - Conditional Use Permit - Variance - Annexation -1- - Tentative Subdivision Map - Grading Permit —Tentative Parcel Map - Site Plan - Other b. Enclosures or documents: - Location Map - Grading Plan - Site Plan - Parcel Map - Precise Plan - Specific Plan - Architectural Elevations - Landscape Plan - Photos of Site s Setting B. PROPOSED PROJECT - Tentative Subdivision Map - Improvement Plans - Soils Report - Geological Study - Hydrological Study - Biological Study - Archaeological Survey - Noise Assessment - Oak Tree Report - Other 1. Land Area: square footage 6,250 5.F. or acreage 0.143 If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 2. Fill in this section if project is RESIDENTIAL a. Type of development: multi -family b. Number.of structures Single family Two family Townhouse Condominium C. Number of units: 1 bedroom 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Height 2 bedrooms Total units d. Gross density (DU/total acres) e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) f. Estimated project population g. Estimated sale or rental price range h. Square -footage of habitable floor area(s) i. Percent of lot covered by buildings or structures j. ..Number of on. -site parking spaces to be provided Percent of site in road and paved surface 3. Fill in this section if project is COMMERCIAL or INDUSTRIAL a. Type(s) of land use COMMERCIAL b. Floor area 15GB S.F . Height of structure(s) ONE STORY C. Type of construction used in the structure N/A BUILOING 15 EX15TIKG OM 51TE . d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orienta- tion to adjoining properties FROM CHE5iNlS7 5TREET and ALLEY. NOR -TR and SOUTH -2- Number of on-site parking spaces provided 8 (EIGHT) Percent of site in road and parking surface + 2IB0% Estimated number of employees per shift 7 Total -7 g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate I PER WEEt� h. Estimated range of service area (miles) and basis of estimate XO Mit_ES i. Type/Extent of operations not in enclosed buildings NOtJE j. Hours of operation 8am �o 5 P.M. k. Type of exterior lighting BUIUDiNG MOWTEO FIXTURES. 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.), identify them, provide the quantities to be emitted, applicable EPA/ARB regulations and data, or evidence to show compliance with regulations. N/A 4. If project is OTHER THAN residential, commercial or industrial fill in this section. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities to be•provided C. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Height of structures? Maximum: e. ultimate occupance load of project minimum: f. Plumber of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces h. Average trip 'length C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated? NO a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards -of--earth will -be -excavated? Cut: NZA Fill: N/A b. How many cubic yards of fill as embankment will be placed? �l�A e. f. Number of on-site parking spaces provided 8 (EIGHT) Percent of site in road and parking surface + 2IB0% Estimated number of employees per shift 7 Total -7 g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate I PER WEEt� h. Estimated range of service area (miles) and basis of estimate XO Mit_ES i. Type/Extent of operations not in enclosed buildings NOtJE j. Hours of operation 8am �o 5 P.M. k. Type of exterior lighting BUIUDiNG MOWTEO FIXTURES. 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.), identify them, provide the quantities to be emitted, applicable EPA/ARB regulations and data, or evidence to show compliance with regulations. N/A 4. If project is OTHER THAN residential, commercial or industrial fill in this section. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities to be•provided C. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Height of structures? Maximum: e. ultimate occupance load of project minimum: f. Plumber of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces h. Average trip 'length C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated? NO a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards -of--earth will -be -excavated? Cut: NZA Fill: N/A b. How many cubic yards of fill as embankment will be placed? �l�A C. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? WA d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut Average depth of cut Maximum depth of fill Average depth of fill 2. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the propose( project and the type of.energy used. (Air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) AIR C0ND1-T10K1 lG AND HEA7i►3G- ELECZRIC . H0T WATER HEA -TER - GA5. 3. Indicate the amount of landscaping and natural open space that are part of the project (sq. ft. or acres). I-7GO S.F. 4. If the project will result in any new employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. NotJE 5. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive material or substancE be used or stored within the project site? NO 6. How many trips per day will be generated by the project? 14 D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. Geology Has a Geology Study been conducted on the property? NO (If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? NO (If yes, please attach) 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? (If yes, please explain in detail) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? NO b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? NO C. If a Hydrological Study has been prepared, please attach. 3. Mineral Resources Are there any mineral resources on the project site? (If so, identify and rate scarcity) NO -4- r 4. Land Form 11 Does the project site contain any distinctive natural land forms? Specify: NO 5. Air Quality Is the project .site near any air pollution source such as a freeway or uncontrolled stationary source? (If yes, describe) NO '� 6. Noise Are there any generators of prominent noise levels (railroad, industries, etc.) in the area of the project which could impact the site? (If so, please discuss) NO 7. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? NO b. What are the predominant plant species found on the project site? RESIDENTIAL LAWNS � GROUND COVERING C. Are any rare or endangered plant species found on the project site? ('Give basis for determination, and if so, list) NO BY VISUAL OE7ERMINA7ION . d. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. 2 ELAA TREES NONE ARE TO Bt REMOVED. e. what are the predominant animal and bird species found on or near the project site?...BLUE JAYS OR SCRUB JAYS, CROWS F_ -TC. GOPHERS, CAIS ETC. f. Are any rare, endangered, or unique animal or bird species found on or near the site? (Give basis for determination, and if so, list) NO SURROUND%NG PROPERMES ARE 'TO-TALITY DEVELOPED g. If a Biological Survey has been conducted, please attach. h. .If­signi-flcant--species--exist""on -property, please attach an 8%2" x 11" map showing location on site. i. Do oak trees exist on the site? If so, map their locations and key --the map t,o a---complete-arborist's---report. -5- 8. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any }mown historical, archaelogical or paleontolo- gical resources located on the project site? (If so, describe the resources, show location on 82" x 11" map, and discuss proposed measures to conserve the resources) NO b. Are there any known historical, archaelogical or paleontolo- gical resources within 2,000 ft. of the project site? (If so, describe the resource and provide a map showing the location in relationship to the project -site.) Nb C. If any surveys have been conducted, please attach. 9. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. RESIDENTIAL HOME USED FOR AA OFFICE b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North ELEMEN?ARY SCHOOL South OW ME East APD AL OFFICES am Q THE REST IS COMMEF D RESTAURANT )FES5I0NAL OFFICES. West �ROFES510NA.L OFFICE5OFFICE5 . 10. Aesthetics Are there any features of substantial aesthetic importance on or within 1,000 feet of the site? (If so, describe) NO 11. Social a. Are there any._..re.s.idents on .the site? (If so, how many?) NO b. Are there any employment opportunities on the site? (If so, how many and what type) Wo 12. Public Facilities Sewer Indicatethe size and location of all new public sewer lines to be provided by the project and their proposed point of -connection to the -existing----system. NONE -6- Water Indicate the size and location of all new public water- lines to be provided by the project and their proposed point of connection to the existing system. NOtJE Drainage a. Describe. all. on -..and off -.site.. drainage facilities to be provide( and their location. NODE :a b. How will drainage improvements be maintained? NIA C. Estimated annual cost for maintenance of drainage improvements. NIA Circulation/Transportation a. What is the current width of improved public streets adjacent to the project site (indicate from centerline or total width). 'TOTAL WIDTH IS GO FEET b. Indicate number of curb miles of publicly dedicated streets to be included in the completed project_ N/A 5 -TREE? IS ALREADY DEDICA-TED. C. Identify cost per lineal foot and total cost of publicly dedicated right-of-way improvement necessary to serve the project. N/A d. Is public transportation available adjacent to the project? If so, identify system. NO e. If public transportation is not available, what is the nearest pick-up point? APPROx. 500 FEET. LOCATION IS NEWHALL AVENUE bt4D L`iON S AVENUE . f. Can transit system maintain an acceptable level of service while providing new service to project? ,i Yes No 13. Health and Safetv .-Will- the -proposed project represent increased health -and safety risks to the public due to any of the following': a. Project produces significant increases in noise levels, dust, odors, fumes, vibration, or radiation? '(If yes, please explain. NONE -7- b. Project proposes human habitation or activity in an area identified as having the potential for natural or man-made hazards? (If yes, please explain.) No C. Project uses, produces, or otherwise creates a need to transport or store hazardous materials (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals)? (If yes, please explain.) E. CERTIFICATION I, Owner Consultant or Agent* HEP.EBY...AFFIRM, that to the best of myknowledge and belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this Environmental Question- naire for determination of possible environmental impact. DATE *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. ATTACHMENTS Please see February 2'7, 1990 City Council Agenda Packet for: Parking Detail Plan 9 Map