HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-08-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - PLANNING CMSN RESO P91 38 (2)PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
August 27, 1991
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager
Item to be pr
Lynn M. Harri
SUBJECT:Appeal of Planning Commission decision (Resolution No. P91-38)
on Zone Change 90-013 and Tentative Parcel Map 22539. The
project 'site,is located at 27800 Sand Canyon Road.
DEPARTMENT:, Community Development
BACKGROUND
The City Clerk's office has received an appeal of the Planning Commission's'
decision of June 4, 1991 to deny Zone Change 90-013 and Tentative Parcel Map
22539. The appellant is Mr. Hal Good, the applicant.
This case was originally scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on
May 21, 1991 but was continued to June 4, 1991. At the June 4th Public
Hearing the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny Zone Change 90-013
and Tentative Parcel Map 22539, thereby upholding the City's draft General
Plan designation of Residential Estate (RE). The Planning Commission directed
staff to return with a formal resolution for denial of the proposal which was
adopted at the June 18, 1991 Planning Commission meeting.
ANALYSIS
The proposal is for a zone change from A-1-2 (Light Agriculture, 2 acre
minimum lot size) to A-1-1 (Light Agriculture, 1 acre minimum lot size) which
would allow for the subdivision of 2.68 acres into tvo single family
residential lots. Proposed lot 1, a flag lot, would consist of approximately
1.13 net acres and proposed lot 2 would consist of approximately .98 net
acres. The proposed subdivision would result in a density of 0.74 dwelling
units per acre. At the time the Planning Commission denied the proposal, it
was not consistent with the City's draft General Plan designation of
Residential Estate which allows for 0.0 to 0.5 dwelling units per acre.
However, following the decision of the Planning Commission and prior to the
adoption of the General Plan, the land use designation for the project site
was changed to Residential Very Low (RVL) which allows for 0.5 to 1.0 dwelling
units per acre. The proposed density of the project is now consistent with
the General Plan designation and is below the midpoint density.
1.
Receive
the staff presentation;
2.
Open the
public hearing and receive
testimony;
APPROVED
Agenda Item:
Page 2
3. Options of the City Council:
a. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision for denial of Zone Change
90-013 and Tentative Parcel Map 22539.
b. Approve Zone Change 90-013 and Tentative Parcel Map 22539 and direct
staff to return to the City Council with an ordinance and conditions
of approval.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Appeal request from Hal Good, the applicant.
2. Staff Report dated May 21, 1991
3. Negative Declaration and Initial Environmental Assessment
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. P91-38
5. Project site plan .
6. Minutes of May 21, 1991 Planning Commission meeting
LMH:KMK:233
a
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEALING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL
OF ZONE CHANGE 90-013 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22539
REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM A-1-2 TO A-1-1
TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF
2.68 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS.
LOCATION: 27800 SAND CANYON ROAD, IN THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
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 from the applicants,
Adrienne and Hal Good, regarding the Planning Commission's denial
of Zone Change w 90-013 and Tentative Parcel Map 22539. The
applicants are tequesting a zone change from A-1-2 to A-1-1 to
allow for the subdivision of 2.68 acres into two lots. The
property is located at 27800 Sand Canyon Road in the City of Santa
Clarita.
The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita,
the 27th day of August, 1991, 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, Santa Clarita City
Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita.
If you wish to challenge this order in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City Council, at,,or prior to the public hearing.
Date: July 30, 1991
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk
Publish Date: August 5, 1991
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE
1.
Mayor Opens Hearing
a. States Purpose of Hearing
2,
City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice
3.
Staff Report
(City Manager)
or
(City Attorney)
or
(RP Staff)
4.
Proponent Argument (30 minutes)
S.
Opponent Argument (30 minutes)
6.
Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent)
a. Proponent
7.
Mayor Closes Public Testimony
S.
Discussion by Council
9.
Council Decision
10. Mayor Announces Decision
T� (7;
as pss�
Mayor Carl Boyer III
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
RE: Appeal of Resolution P91-38
Dear Mayor Boyer:
Hal Good
27800 Sand Canyon Road
Santa Clarita, CA 91351
25 June 1991
This letter shall serve as my formal appeal of the Planning
Commission's Resolution P91-38 on June 18, 1991. Enclosed please
find the required fee of $465.00 for this appeal.
I feel the aforementioned resolution and my entire application for
Zone Change 90-013 and Tentative Parcel Map 22539 have not had a
fair and impartial review by staff nor the Planning Commission.
I respectfully ask the City Council to approve my original
application.
Sincerely,
Hal Good
HG:af
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
Tentative Parcel Map 22539
Zone Change 90-013
DATE: May 21, 1991
TO: Chairman Brathwaite and Members of the Planning
Commission
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development(QJ
PROJECT PLANNERS: Kevin Michel, Associate Planner and Kristi Kimbrough,
Planning Technician
APPLICANT. Mr. and Mrs. Hal Good
LOCATION: 27800 Sand Canyon Road, Sand Canyon area, (Assessor
Parcel Number 2840-013-012)
REQUEST: A zone change from A-1-2 (Light Agriculture Zone, 2
acre minimum lot size) to A-1-1 (Light Agriculture
Zone, 1 acre minimum lot size) to allow for a minor
land division involving the subdivision of a 2.68 acre
parcel into two single family residential lots.
Proposed lot 1, a flag lot, would consist of 1.43
acres and proposed lot 2 would consist of 1.25 acres.
The applicants are proposing to subdivide the' subject parcel into two
lots. Proposed lot 1, a flag lot, would consist of approximately .98 net
acres and proposed lot 2 would consist of approximately 1.13 net acres.
The project requires a change in the existing zoning of "Light
Agriculture, 2 acre minimum lot size" (A-1-2) to "Light Agriculture, 1
acre minimum lot size" (A-1-1). There is an existing single family
residence on proposed lot 1, as well as three accessory structures.
Proposed lot 2 is currently vacant and no construction is proposed at
this time. The project site fronts on Sand Canyon Road and is surrounded
on the north, east, and southeast by vacant 'properties and on the south
and west by residential uses. The site is relatively flat.
Agenda Item:
The applicants are not proposing to remove any of the forty-two (42) oak
trees on the project site. The existing residence is presently serviced
by a private septic system and the Santa Clarita Water Company. The
project will need to be annexed into. the sewer line located in Sand
Canyon Road.
SURROUNDING -LAND USE/ZONING/GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:
As proposed, this zone change and subdivision for residential development
would result in a density of 0.74 dwelling units per acre. This is not
consistent with the City's draft General Plan designation of Residential
Estate (0.0 to 0.5 dwelling.units per acre). The existing zoning, the
City's draft General Plan designations and the existing land uses of the
project site and adjacent properties are as follows:
City's draft
General Plan Zone Land Use
Project Site RE (Residential A-1-2 Residential
Estate)
North RE (Residential A-1-1 Vacant
Estate)
East RE (Residential A-1-2 Residential
Estate)
South RE (Residential A-1-2 Residential
Estate)
West RE (Residential A-1-1 Vacant
Estate)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to
evaluate the impacts of the project. The environmental areas of concern
for the project included inconsistancy with the City's draft General Plan
and drainage. It was determined that this proposal shall have no adverse
environmental impacts which could not be avoided through project design
and mitigation measures. Subsequently, a draft Negative Declaration was
prepared for this project.
INTERDEPARTMENT/INTERAGENCY REVIEW:
The project has been distributed to the affected City departments and
agencies, and the Community Development Department has received
requirements and comments from the following:
The Public Works Department/Traffic Division is requiring that the
applicant be restricted to a single point of access/egress for the two
proposed lots. Sand Canyon Road is indicated on the City's draft General
Plan as being a major highway.
The Parks and Recreation Department is requiring the applicant to provide
a 15' wide multi -use trail easement to be located adjacent to Sand Canyon
Road.
The Public Works Department is requiring both parcels to connect 'to the
existing sewer and water lines in Sand Canyon Road. In addition, the
project site is located within Flood Zone A0, necessitating all future
construction to comply with construction procedures required in a flood
hazard area.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed subdivision would not alter any present land uses in the
area, as the surrounding uses are residential and this subdivision is to
allow for future residential construction. This subdivision would
require a zone change from A-1-2 (Light Agriculture, 2 acre minimum lot
size) to A-1-1 (Light Agriculture, 1 acre minimum lot size). As
proposed, lot 1 (a flag lot) would consist of 1.43 gross acres and 1.13
net acres and lot 2 would consist_ of 1.25 gross acres and 0.98 net
acres. These lot sizes would conform to subdivision standards for one
acre lots. However, the proposed zone change is inconsistent with the
City's draft General Plan designation of Residential Estate (0.0 to 0.5
dwelling units per acre), as the proposed project density is 0.74
dwelling units per acre. According to Government Code Section 65360,*a
City may not approve a project if a finding can not be made that the
proposed land use will be in conformance with the general plan.
The applicant has requested that this project be expedited to public
hearing, despite the fact that'the Public Works Department has requested
that a public hearing not be scheduled until the drainage concerns have
been resolved. The main concern is the location of the Live Oak Springs
Canyon drain that runs across proposed lot 2. The Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works has indicated that it will begin final design
on a project concept for the installation of the subject drain within the
1991-92 fiscal year.
The Public Works Department has granted the applicant permission to
vacate the -offer for private and future street for Boulder Creek Road.
This will make it necessary for both of the proposed lots to take access
off of Sand,Canyon Road. The Public Works Department/Traffic Division is
requiring that the two proposed lots utilize a single point of
access/egress. This would require a common driveway over the flagstrip
for both lots 1 and 2.
Pursuant to Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 22.16.150, in making its
recommendation relative to a proposed change of zone, the. Commission
shall consider five principles and standards. Staff believes that
information- submitted by the applicant fails to substantiate two of the
five findings as follows:
(1) Finding 14 requires that the proposed zone at such location
will be in the interest of public health, safety and general
welfare, and in conformity with good zoning practice. Due to
the unresolved drainage concerns associated with the Live Oak
Springs Canyon drain, staff does not believe that this
finding can be made.
.'5�
(2) Finding 15 requires that the proposed zone change be
consistant with the adopted General Plan for the area.
Although the General Plan has not yet been adopted, the
City's draft General Plan is designating the property as
Residential Estate (0.0 to 0.5 dwelling units per acre). The
proposed density of 0.74 units per acre is not consistant
with this proposed designation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Deny Tentative Parcel Map 22539 and Zone Change 90 -013 -(Exhibit A).
m
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:
APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Hal Good
TYPE OF PERMIT: Zone Change and Tentative Parcel Maw
FILE NO.: 90-177: ZC 90-013, TPM 22539
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: 27800 Sand Canyon Road, south of Comet Way.,
in the Sand Canyon area of the City of Santa Clarita.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Minor land division of 2.68 acres gross -
into two (2) single family residential lots.
It is the determination of the
[ ] City Council
[ ] Planning Commission
[X] Director of Community Development
upon review that the project will not have a significant
effect upon.the environment.
Mitigation measures
Form completed by:
[ ] are attached
[X] are not attached
(Signature)
Key ;n t P/'aAne
Daniel D. Powers, Assistant Planner
(Name and Title)
Date of Public Notice: S—r
[X] Legal advertisement.
[X] Posting of properties.
[X] Written notice..
4
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT,
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
CASE NO. 90-177 Prepared by: Daniel D. Powers
Project Location: 27800 Sand Canyon Road, south of Comet Way
Project Description and.Setting: Minor land division of 2.68 acres
gross into two (2) single family residential lots. The project is
located in the Sand Canyon area of the City of Santa Clarita.
General Plan Designation W (Floodway/Floodplain) and Nl (Non -urban 1)
Zoning: A-1-2 (Light Agriculture Zone, minimum 2 acre lot size)
Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Hal Good
Environmental Constraint Areas: Flood Hazard area. Fire Zone 4
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
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? ............... [ ) [ ] [X]
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ........................... ( ] [ ] [X]
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features? .................................. [ l [ ] [X]
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? .......... [ ] [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? .[ ] [ ] [X]
60
rs
:4FTn
5.4.3 Tu'yl..4�y
YES MAYBE NO
Earth movement (cut,and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? ....................... [ ] [ I [X]
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25% natural grade? .....-....... [ ]
Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ]
1. Other?
Identified Environmental Impacts
1.a. Proposed parcel 2 of the project area is relatively
flat and will require minimal grading. There is an existing
single family residence on proposed parcel 1. No changes in
geologic substructures are anticipated as a result of this
project (Community Development).
l.b. Although the project is a minor land division request
creating two single family residential lots, there is no
proposed construction at this time. However, it is assumed
that construction of a new single family residence will be
initiated in the. future. No significant impacts related to
soils are expected to result from this project (Community
Development).
l.c. The proposed building areas is generally flat and
therefore no changes to the topography are planned as a
result of the appYicant's proposal (Community Development).
l.d. Per the applicant's initial study submitted to the
Department of Community Development on August 9, 1990, there
are no.unique geologic features found on the project .site
(Community Development).
1.e. Although no construction is proposed, short term water
and wind erosion is - expected to result from future
construction. The applicant shall follow the regulations of
all City codes regarding soil erosion during all
construction; therefore, no significant effects are foreseen.
l.f. According to Seismic Safety section of the North Los
Angeles County General Plan, the project site is located
within Seismic Shaking Zone I (severe shaking). The
Department of Public Works in the City of. Santa Clarita
requires that any structure shall be set back 50 feet from a
potentially active fault trace, and that all construction
comply with applicable building codes related to earthquake
safety standards. The above mentioned conditions are
considered sufficient to reduce any potential impact to below
a level of significance (Community Development and Public
Works).
2
3�4u 2k,�i; 1.ya fy j
l.g. Although no construction isY proposed at the time of
project approval, short term construction impacts have the
potential to create erosion on site. As a condition of
approval for this project, the Department of Public Works
requires that long term erosion and drainage problems are
corrected, and therefore no significant impacts are
anticipated.
1.h. No modifications of a wash, channel, creek, or river
are proposed by this .project.
1.i.,j. Per the initial study submitted by the applicant's
agent on August 9, 1990, no grading is anticipated as a
result of this project (Community Development).
1.k. The site is not within the San Gabriel Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone.
YES MAYBE NO
Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? .................... [ ) [X] [ )
b. The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [ ] [X) [ )
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? .............. [ ) [ ] [X)
d. Development within'a high wind hazard
area? ...................................... [ ] [ ) [X)
e. Other? [ ) [ ) [X)
Identified Environmental Impacts
2.a. Short term impacts to air quality are expected to occur
as a result of this project, primarily from construction
impacts and vehicle construction trips to the site.
According to the Air Quality Management District, vehicles
related to site construction are a major source of air
pollutants. As a condition of approval, the applicant will
be required to follow all City and AQMD regulations
(Community Development).
2.b. Short term, construction related impacts may result
from this project; however the scope of the project is not
significant enough to warrant concern. No long term impacts
are anticipated as a result of this minor land division
(Community Development).
2.c. Changes in air movement, moisture, climate, or
temperature are not anticipated to be a significant impact to
the surrounding environment or to the Santa Clarita Valley
region (Community Development).
DRA.FT
2.d. The project is not located within a high wind hazard
area (Community Development).
YES MAYBE NO
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................ [ I [XI [ I
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood -waters? .............................. L I LXI [ I
C. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? L ] [ I [XI
d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, including
but not limited to temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity? ........................ ( ] [ ] [X]
e. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of.ground waters? [ I [X] [ ]
f. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? ............ [ ] [ ] [XI
g. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? [ I [ I [XI
h. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? .......... [ ] [X] [ I
i. Other? [ ] [ I 1x3
Identified Environmental Impacts
3.a.,d.,e.,f Although changes in surface runoff and
groundwater flows could result from the project, mitigation
measures in the conditions of approval required by the
Department of Public Works will address any standard
requirements related to hydrology. The project is proposing
to create one (1) single family residence in -the Sand Canyon
area and no significant impacts to groundwater and hydrology
are foreseen (Community Development).
3.b.to. 'h. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps
published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the
site is -located within Zones A (area of 100 -year flood; base
flood elevations and flood hazard factors are not determined)
and AO (areas of 100 year shallow flooding where depths are
between one (1) and three (3) feet).
YY'F3y
r S { e
_ 5 _
ityt.�"4.4i' l� Ff k'i" �La,} lvsi
3.g. The Santa Clarita Water Company has stated that there
are adequate water services to accommodate the proposed
project (Community Development).
YES MAYBE NO
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)? ... [ ] _ [X] [ ]
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ...... [ ] ( ] [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]
Identified Environmental Impacts
4.a.1c.,d. Although there are no construction plans for the
site at this time, plant species could be introduced to the
site as landscaping, according to Christine Kudija, Assistant
Planner, City of Santa Clarita. This is not considered
significant as the introduction of non-native plants to the
property will not lead to the displacement ofnative species
(Community Development).
4.b. The applicants are not proposing to .remove any of the
oak trees on site. An oak, tree report is required for all
oaks directly related to proposed parcel 2. Furthermore, at
the time of any construction on the site, the applicants
shall be required to complete any necessary oak tree permits
needed, per Ordinance 89-10 (Oak Tree Ordinance).
YES MAYBE NO
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)? .................... [ ] [ ] [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? ........... [ ] [ ] [X]
Ib
N.
7.
up
Jv 7?AFT
Identified Environmental Impacts
5.a.,b.,c.,d. Per the applicant's initial study, there are
no rare, endangered, or unique animal species found on or
near the site. The site is located in a area developed for
single family residential buildings. Moreover, the proposed
project is not expected to create a barrier to migratory
routes for species (Community Development).
YES MAYBE NO
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] [ ]
Identified Environmental Impacts
6.a.,b.,c. Although there is no proposed construction at
this time, short term construction impacts may occur as a
result of this project, according to Bruce - Walker, a noise
impact specialist. Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section
12.12.030 prohibits construction noise between the hours of
8:00 P.M. and 6:30 A.M., Monday through Saturday
(Construction related noise on Sundays is prohibited.) The
Sheriff's Department and City Code Enforcement are
responsible for compliance- with the Municipal Code. Long
term impacts are primarily created by vehicular trips to and
from the project site.- A single family residential unit is
anticipated to create 10 trips per day; however, this
generation factor will not be a significant impact (Community
Development and Public Works).
YES MAYBE NO
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? ............... [ ] [ ] [X]
Identified Environmental Impacts
7. Although this project will create new light sources in
the vicinity, future construction will consist of one single
family residential unit; therefore, this will not be a
significant impact. All associated light and, glare. will be
typical of a single family residence (Community Development).
YES MAYBE NO
Land.Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial alteration of the present
land use of an area? ......... [ ] [ ] [X]
b. A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? ............... [ ] [X] [ ]
- 7 - DRA-FT
C. A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? ............................... IXl I I [ I
d. A use that does not adhere. to established.
development criteria? ......................
Identified Environmental Impacts
YES MAYBE NO
I I [ l [Xl
8.a. The proposed project is a request for a minor land
division. This subdivision of land will create two single
family lots from one existing single family lot within an
existing residential area (Community Development).
8.b. The proposed future General Plan designation for the
project site is Residential Estate (0.0 - 0.5 DU/ac). The
proposed project density is 0.74 DU/ac. If the land use
designation of Residential Estate is adopted for this area,
the project will not be. in conformance with the City's future
general plan.. According to Government Code Section 65360, a
City may not approved the project or issue building permits
if a finding can not be made that the proposed land use will
be in conformance to the general plan (Community Development).
8.c. The property is currently zoned A-1-2 (Light
Agriculture, minimum lot size 2 acres net). The applicants
are proposing a zone change to A-1-1 (Light Agriculture,
minimum lot size 1 acre net) -
8. d.
et).
8.d. If the proposed project is approved, the development of
one (1) single Family residence will occur. At the time
building permits are issued for the single family residence,
the applicants will be. required to meet all applicable
municipal codes (Community Development).
YES MAYBE NO
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
Q. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? ........ [ ] [ l [XI
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? ......................... [ I [ I [XI
Identified Environmental Impacts
9.a.,b. This residential subdivision is not anticipated to
reduce the rate of natural resources significantly (Community
Development).
10. Risk of Upset/Man-Made Hazards. Will the proposal:
a. Involve a risk of an explosion or the release
iIq
YES MAYBE NO
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)? ................................ [ ] [ l [XI
C. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ...................................... [ I [ I [XI
d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? ................................... [ I [ l [XI
Identified Environmental Impacts
10.a.,b.,c.,d. Typical hazardous materials associated with.a
single family residence are anticipated to be stored
on-site. The project is not anticipated to create hazardous
conditions in the project area and therefore, is not
co nsidered a significant effect (Community Development).
1.
YES MAYBE NO
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ..................... [ ] [ ] [XJ
b. Other? [ ] [ I [XI
Identified Environmental.Imnacts
11.a. Per the applicant's initial study, the project as
proposed is expected to generate six (6) persons to the
area. A growth rate of six (6) persons to the Sand Canyon
area is not considered a significant effect (Community
Development).
YES MAYBE NO
12. Housing. .Will the proposal:
a. Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................ [ ] [ ] [XJ
b. Other?
Identified Environmental Impacts
12.a. The proposed project is expected to create one new
housing unit to the area. The project is not anticipated to
create a demand for new housing in the project area
(Community Development).
DRAFT
YES MAYBE NO
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................ [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? ................. [ ] [ ] [X]
C. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? [ ] [X] [ ]
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? .............................. [ l [ ] [X]
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [ ] [ ] [X]
f. A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? .............................. [ ] [ ] [X]
Identified Environmental Impacts
13.a. The project is expected to generate 10 vehicular trips
per day according to Michael Murphy, Assistant Traffic
Engineer for the City of. Santa Clarita. This amount of
vehicular trips is not considered significant (Public Works).
13.b.,d.,e.,f. The introduction of one new single family
unit within the Santa Clarita Valley is not expected to
create a demand for new parking nor alter the present
circulation patterns for commerce or human activity
(Community -Development).
13.c. There has been concern over the need for future
transportation within the City of Santa Clarita. Any
associated impacts may be alleviated by the payment of a
contribution towards a fund for meeting future transit needs
(Public Works). The applicant shall be required to pay a
Transit Impact Fee of $ 200.00 per residential unit within
one (1) year of. the approval of this project; provided that
the City has its Transit Impact Program in effect. These
fees shall be paid to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director.
YES MAYBE NO
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? ........................... [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Police protection? [ ] [ ] [X]
- l o - D .
c. Schools? ................................... [ I [X] [ I
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .... [ ] [XI [ I
e. Maintenance'of public facilities,
including roads? ........................... [ I [XI [ I
f. Other.governmental services? [ I [ I [XI
Identified Environmental Impacts
14.a. The site is located within Fire Zone 4. Standard
requirements have been recommended and will be implemented
into the conditions of approval .to mitigate any associated
negative impacts to.the public health and safety.
14.b. The Sheriff's Department has stated that there are no
concerns involving the project. Therefore, it is anticipated
that police services can be provided to serve this project.
14.c. Although no new construction is proposed at this time,
the applicant is required to enter into a mitigation
agreement with the associated school districts as a way of
reducing any negative impacts upon services.
14.d.,e. Appropriate in -lieu fees for the bridge and
thoroughfare districts are required prior to the issuance of
building permits. This is considered an acceptable
mitigation measure for the project.
YES MAYBE NO
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy. .................................... [ ] [ I [XI
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? [ ] [ I [XI
Identified Environmental Impacts
15.a.,b. The utility companies serving this project have not
commented on the proposed project as of today's date.
However, no significant impacts are expected
to
occur
(Community Development).
YES
MAYBE
NO
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for
new systems, or substantial alterations to
the
following utilities:
a.
Power or natural gas? ...................... [ ]
[ I
[XI
b.
Communications systems? .................... [ I
[ I
[XI
C.
Water systems? ............................. [ ]
[ I
[XI
d. Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ ] [X] [ ]
e. Storm drainage systems? .................... [ l [ ] [X]
f. Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [ ] [ ] [X]
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? ......... [ ] [ ] [X]
Identified Environmental Impacts
16.a.,b.,c.,d.,e.,f.,g. No impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project (Community Development).
16.d. The project will need to be annexed into the district
if service is desired (Community Development).
YES MAYBE NO
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ... [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ................................... [ 7 [ ] [Xl
Identified Environmental Impacts
17.a.,b. This proposed residential subdivision is not
anticipated to :create human health hazards (Community
Development).
YES MAYBE NO
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Will the proposal result in the _creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? ....................... [ ] [ ] [X]
C. Will the visual impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ ] [ ] [X]
Identified Environmental Impacts
18.a.,b.,c. The project will result in one (1) single family
residence. Visual impacts are not considered a significant
impact (Community Development).
YES MAYBE NO
19. Recreation. Will the.proposal result in an
impact upon the quality.or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? [ ] [ ] [X]
- 12 _ ,3
Identified Environmental Impacts �
19. Although no new construction is proposed at this time,
future construction is not anticipated to create an adverse
impact on recreational services within the Santa Clarita
Valley (Parks and Recreation and Community Development).
YES MAYBE NO
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? .............. [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? ... [ ] [ ] [X]
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ] [ ] [X]
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X]
Identified Environmental Impacts
20.a.,b.,c.,d. To mitigate any significant impacts related
to cultural resources, the Community Development Department
requires that axf archaeological "hold" be placed on the
project, should archaeological remains be found on the site,
until a qualified archaeologist has inspected the site.
17
- 13 -ni E Tb
f 1 ' «
S •::S moi' i .' d yY `L
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'
effect of the total
of those impacts on the environmdnt is significant.) .. [ ] [ ] [X]
4. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly .......... [ J [ ] [X]
0
TION
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 because the
mitigation measures described in this Initial Study
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED ..................................... [X]
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required . ......................................... [ ]
09
- 14 -
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
October 12, 1990
(updated 1990)
Date j-
Signature
Daniel D. Powers, Assistant Planner
Name and Title
IQ
SIZE COMPARISON MA`
"'�\
>, TPM 22539
1, ZC 90m=0 13
1 � \
I -
121 L:iG I / /SII
J /
_ o _
I`
_
a.am.Ya � •�______ - N
X r. I ¢ — I 1 �::::::::: • i' \
v • �I f
n -__.• a. -iy. .iiL_� .fah -rf., �, �.:..... /\\\ \ ..
I
SE[ ly \ \ n •\�\` '\) �r
/ y
. I 1 1 I e . I,,. � !j mt I r. uCn alu' \`� _—'st•T'� \ \ s�M. ' � /
TPM 22539
ZC 90--013
RESOLUTION NO. P91-38
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, DENYING
ZONE CHANGE 90-013 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22539
LOCATION: 27800 SAND CANYON ROAD
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby make the
following findings of fact:
a. An application for a tentative parcel map and zone change was
filed with the City of Santa Clarita by Hal and Adrienne Good
(the "applicants") on August 9, 1990. The property for which
this application has been filed is located at 27800 Sand Canyon
Road. (Assessor Parcel Number 2840-013-012, a legal description
of which is on file in the Department of Community Development.)
b. Tentative Parcel Map 22539 requests the subdivision of a 2.68
acre parcel into two single family residential lots. Proposed
lot 1, a flag lot, would consist of 1.43 acres and proposed lot
2 would consist'of 1.25 acres.
C. This subdivision' requires a zone change from its present zoning
of A-1-2 (Light Agriculture Zone, two. acre minimum lot size) to
A-1-1 (Light Agriculture Zone, one acre.minimum lot size).
d. The property is ,designated Residential Estate (0.0 to 0.5
dwelling units per acre, midpoint of 0.25) on the City's draft
General Plan. The proposed subdivision would result in a
density of 0.74 dwelling units per acre.
e. The property was not involved in a division of a larger parcel
within the previous two (2) years.
f. Proposed lot 1 is developed with a single family residence and
three accessory structures. Proposed lot 2 is presently
vacant. The property does not have an average. slopegreater
than 20 percent.
g. The property is surrounded on the north, east, and southeast by
vacant properties and on the south and west by single family
residential uses.
h. The property fronts on Sand Canyon Road. Proposed lot 1 would
take access along a flagstrip which is presently' known as
Boulder Creek Road. The Public Works Department has granted the
applicant permission to .vacate the offer for private and future
street for Boulder Creek Road.
Page 1 of 3
i. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee (DRC) met
on November 29, 1990, and supplied the applicant with
recommended Conditions of Approval. The applicant was informed
at this time that the proposed density of the project was
inconsistent with the current draft of the City's General Plan.
j. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning
Commission on May 21, 1991, at 7:00 pm in the City Council
Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The Planning
Commission continued this case, without opening. the public
hearing, to the regular Planning Commission meeting on June 4,
1991. This case was heard by the Planning Commission on June 4,
1991.
SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, oral and
written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing held
for the project, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning
Commission and on its behalf, the Planning Commission further finds as
follows:
a. At the hearing of June 4, 1991, the Planning Commission
considered the staff report prepared for this project and
received testimony on this proposal.
b. The City's draft General Plan designation for the project site
is Residential Estate (RE), 0.0 to 0.5 dwelling units per acre,
midpoint of 0.25. The project density of 0.74 dwelling units
per acre is not consistent with the range of densities for the
RE designation.
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the
Planning.Commission hereby determines as follows:
a. The proposed land division and zone change are not consistent
with the City's draft General Plan designation of Residential
Estate (0.0 to 0.5 dwelling units per acre). Pursuant to the
conditions established by the State Office of Planning and
Research, in conjunction with the granting of a time extension
for the adoption of the City's General Plan, the City may not
approve a project that is inconsistent with the draft General
Plan after adoption by the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission took formal action recommending adoption of the draft
General Plan to the City Council on May 21, 1991.
Page 2 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Santa Clarita, California, as follows:
a. The Planning Commission hereby denies Zone Change 90-013 and
Tentative Parcel Map 22539, a minor land division to create two
(2) parcels. —
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 18th day of June, 1991.
��J�-w ✓�-�3.(/_ �..--ate �)
,/Louis Brathwaite, Chairman
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 18th day of June,. 1991, by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES: Commissioners: Cherrington, Modugno, Garasi and 4Ioodrow
NOES: Commissioner: Brathwaite
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
A�7 vnn MM. arris; Director
G' Community Development
14TV nI46i TV&i
Page 3 of 3
MINUTES OF THE
SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION
June 4, 1991
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ITEM 4 - ZONE CHANGE 90-013, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL. MAP
22539
Director Harris then introduced Item 4, stating that correspondence has been
received by staff since the agenda had been prepared. Mr. Henderson made a
brief slide presentation.
At 8:46 p.m., Chairman Brathwaite opened the Public Hearing.
Thosespeaking in favor were the applicant, Mr. Hal Good, 27800 Sand Canyon,
Santa Clarita, speaking on his proposed zone .change; Lee Shramling, 19051 W.
Sandpiper Dr., Santa Clarita, speaking on flood problems; Mr. Mike Masoodnia,
2335 Honolulu, Montrose, speaking as the engineer for Mr. Good. Mr. Scott
Pease spoke neutrally, commenting on access over easements.
At .9:06 p.m., Chairman Brathwaite closed the Public Hearing, and discussion
ensued.
Commissioner Modugno motioned for denial_ of the project. Commissioner
Cherrington seconded the motion. The motion to deny was approved 5-0.
FUTURE IMPVT.
0.5'
T. PA
SAND CANYON ROAD
* • • INDICATES BOUNDARY OF THE
LAND BEING SUE'DIVIJE:: 3Y
THIS MAP,
I /
It ! �� / 6' WIDE EASEMENT. OF SO. CAL. EDISON CO.
/ FOR POLE LINES PU'RPOSES PER O.R. 52019-419 /
50' \ \\ 1 i / /// 8 O.R. 50245-14 j
1 - \ 47,37' — — f -- N $'.4QA iV I
EXISTING 27L00
Tr , 1
_y a' BARN ,� 20 EXIST. I STORY 1
\ \ � \� ��— rl'\ , . •. ; GA Ax 56G N Neo q_e FI_00 He7ARC LINE r GUES HOUSE', : I
I \ PROP. R /W . k. %15 1 \ \ '. $\ �I • •� 1fj9 • • • 14.. OAK . • • ,",, 36.5 N 04'25'09" E ^09.19 – `y\ 21. 11
\\ \ v a\ REE 01590'1 S I
1e// • / .. m. 1 Ig _bPKTRE�' 1
+, y� �2 •13" • 14'OAdf w /y \ 22 \5 1
;\ \ \ \ Ne 1V� 33•SPRE rR o°�5 kTR
(9 1\ 1
No aN�3 I I"• \ �,. \O� 25' 1 p'/.: 1
�`o IB" f \ S� �a(' y t E p., I K 24 \ F OqK
N 25 \ \ ,she y / / 3 .6 2� 36PS PO 6 ut S '- ~: _
m' 1,
D
O DRY CREEK OF \ 4i 1
I \ LIVE OAK SPRING / GROSS= 1.43 AC':
2 DRAINAGE CHANNEL ! 2-04 REE 27
14 / rl NET= 1.13 AC...'*
a6„'-0 T I I �
I �., 'I • •'•GROSS= 1.25 AC. 2sPR i b \5e ,'
mM x
8B ry
• ~ NET= 0.98 AC. \ �- ' I j 0q �.
EXIST - R/” �
i
E9 / 3p• SPk
oj — — — — —� i i m { ONK T ReAp
e m 7
--FOTORE—
o PAD 41
o 1582
50'
a _ `
/
i'
N
•. � ` � I L ._ _ _ —J 2\
I > 1 1
I \ \ I 12" 14" 18" AK TRE S429 / , �O j
p q 45• SPRE D
O o
20, m )o / I
/ J I
2C'SLOPc 14" OAK TRE -/
I 4 i4 F_P.SEi/,cNT. 13 pqK F Ic/ .' ) l
I G � FS 33 ,• 1 1
I Ig' OAK TREE �� SEMENT
36' SPREAD 0 I OU TY OF LO E
R�p 3
ml o Z• COQ° q.. II PR AD ` I q•. rogK 3S
NEW t OF SAND CANYON ROAD
EST. AT RECORD ANGLES 8 DISTANCES
PER C.S.B. 3030-2
I
I
OLD (EXIST) t ESTABLISHED AT
RECORD ANGLES AND DISTANCES I
PER C.S.B. 3030-2
ACE CIVIL ENGINEERING
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
2335 HONOLULU AVE.
MONTROSE, CA. 91020
(818) 957 - 5015
7kl9EI s' s.. Jo; FFs .•i / i'�/ :.
z
13" _ 6 A R„, F �/ •�'-- :
" 51' SPREAD ,10
`' I m 1•""' / � P / d� ,.• •• OAK' ) —
F
BOULDE
I) 3' 1'6 -BE
B
11
EXISTING 15" SEWER LINE
PRPARED FOR:
- � ° � 152.9 • ' •' � � .� .' �.�
CREEK (PRIVATE AND FUTURE SJ$EETT 0AD,
N 09. 44' or E 33429 1,
�,8 � �•
w ) •� `6
I• i
(32- WIDE SANITARY SEWER,tASEMENI (6 cb ` '
w
1
.L
i
, f _
MRS. ADRIENNE GOOD
27800 SAND CANYON ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY CA, 91351
(805) 252-2028
REV. NO. DATE REVISION 0Y APP.
SCALE: CHKD BY: APPROVED BY: 0 R.C.E. N0. DATE DWG. NO SHEET OF
l
SCALE: 1"=30'
AL DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL I OF P.M. 10561 PER MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 109 PAGES 31 8 32
OF PARCEL MAP IN THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES.
s
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE:
EXISTING ZONE:
A-1-2
PROPOSED ZONE:
AI -1
GENERAL PLAN DESIGN:
NI
PRESENT USE; I
I S. F. RES
PROPOSED USE:
2 S. F. RES.
SCALE: 1"=30'
AL DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL I OF P.M. 10561 PER MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 109 PAGES 31 8 32
OF PARCEL MAP IN THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES.
s
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE:
EXISTING ZONE:
A-1-2
PROPOSED ZONE:
AI -1
GENERAL PLAN DESIGN:
NI
PRESENT USE; I
I S. F. RES
PROPOSED USE:
2 S. F. RES.
TOTAL AREA:
2.68 AC,
TOTAL NO. OF LOTS:
2
SEWER:
PUBLIC
WATER;-
PUBLIC
LEGEND.-
(E)
EGEND:2O INDICATES OAK TREE 8 I.D. NUMBER
EfECE1.V.ED
UAY 141 1991
Cp►1MUNRY DEMOPMENr
CRY 08 SwA cWtRA
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0. 22539
1N THE CITY OF .SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES..
I
i
I