HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-05-28 - AGENDA REPORTS - RESO 91 90 TTM 46619 PERMIT (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented y:
Lynn M. Harris
CONSENT CALENDAR
DATE: May 28, 1991
SUBJECT: Resolution 91-90, A Resolution Upholding Planning Commission
Denial of Proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46619 and
Associated Permits, for the Property Located at the Southern
Terminus of La Salle Canyon Drive.
Applicant: Richard P. Howe, Gaviota, Inc.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND:
At its regularly scheduled public hearing of May 14, 1991, the City Council
heard the appeal of the applicant, Richard P. Howe of Gaviota, Inc., and took
action to uphold Planning Commission Resolution No. P91-15, denying Proposed
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46619, Conditional Use Permit 88-281, and Oak Tree
Permit 89-045. The attached Resolution 91-90 sets forth the facts, findings,
and determinations leading to the City Council's decision on the appeal.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution 91-90, upholding Planning Commission Resolution P91-15,
denying Proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46619, Conditional Use Permit
88-281, and Oak Tree Permit 89-045.
Resolution 91-90
Adopted: -sl -`y/
Agenda Item:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-90
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION P91-15, DENYING
PROPOSED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 46619,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-281, AND
OAK TREE PERMIT -89-045, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF LA SAM CANYON DRIVE,
AND CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 89-002
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the
following findings of fact:
a. Applications for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM
46619) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP 88-281) were filed
originally with the County of Los Angeles for the City of
Santa Clarita by Richard P. Howe of Gaviota,-Inc., (the
"applicant") on August 4, 1988.
b. The applications were transferred from Los Angeles County
Regional Planning.staff to City Community Development
staff at the end of December 1988. After submittal of
additional information and numerous changes.and revisions
by the applicant, the applications were determined to be
substantially complete for case processing on August 22,
1989, and were circulated for City department and agency
review on that date.
c. The applications relate to the proposed development of
49.4 acres of real property located at the southern
terminus of La Salle Canyon Drive, approximately 1800
feet south of Calgrove Boulevard. (Assessor Parcel
Number 2827-027-007, and portions of 2827-027-012, a
legal description of which are on file in the Department
of Community Development.)
d. The subject property is zoned Heavy Agricultural, 1 -acre
minimum lot size (A-2-1), and is designated as Very Low
Residential (RVL, 0.5 - 1.0 du/ac) by the City of Santa
Clarita draft General Plan. The site was previously
designated as Urban 2 (U2, 3.4 - 6.6 du/ac) and Hillside
Management (HM) by the County of Los Angeles Santa
Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan.
e. As originally filed, VTTM 46619 requests subdivision of
49.4 acres into 27 residential lots, and CUP 88-281
requests approximately 74,000 cubic yards of earth
grading in an area designated for hillside management.
An Oak Tree Permit (OTP 89-045), filed with the City in
August 1989, requests removal of 336 Coast Live Oak
trees, later revised to 419 oaks, of the approximately
900 - 1000 oak trees on site.
f. The subdivision of land proposed by applicant includes
the conversion of approximately 9.4 acres, later revised
to 6.5 acres, of previously dedicated open space to use
for residential development.
g. The project was reviewed by the Development Review
Committee on September 28, 1989.
h. The project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in
September, 1989. The Initial Study prepared for the
project on October 4, 1989, identified that an
Environmental Impact Report (project EIR) would be
required for the proposal. At the request of the
applicant, the Initial Study was reviewed and revised on
November 15, 1989, and again required that an EIR be
prepared for the project.
i. Preparation of the EIR by the City's consultant, The
Planning Consortium, began on February 12, 1990, and the
completed draft EIR (SCH# 90010315) was circulated for
public comment from October 16, 1990 to November 15,
1990. This shortened 30 day review period was requested
by the City on behalf of the applicant, and approved -by
the State of California.
j. A duly noticed public hearing of the Planning Commission
was held.on the proposed project and the EIR on November
20, 1990, at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, at 6:30 p.m., and
was continued to a date uncertain.
k. The applicant submitted a revised 18 lot subdivision map
on December 17, 1990, and the map was re -circulated to
City departments for review in January 1991. The
applicant also submitted a site access plan, and met with
members of the La Salle Canyon Homeowners Association on
November 27, 1990, and again on January 3, 1991. City
staff were present and facilitated the second meeting.
1. A second duly noticed public hearing of the Planning
Commission was held on the revised project on February
19, 1991, at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, at 6:30 p.m., and
was continued to a date uncertain.
m. On February 21 and 28, 1991, staff requested that the
applicant prepare VTTM 46619 as an 8 lot subdivision map
so that conditions of approval could be prepared per the
Commission's direction of February 19, 1991. The
applicant indicated that Gaviota, Inc., did not wish to
submit 'a revised map, did not believe such a map was
required by the Commission, and desired to appeal the
Commission's action to the City Council. In a letter of
March 1, 1991, staff again requested submittal of a
revised map and, at the applicant's request, outlined two
options which could be undertaken by Gaviota, Inc., if an
appeal to the City Council was desired.
n. On March 5, 1991, Gaviota, Inc., reached a decision not
to submit a revised map, and requested that the Planning
Commission deny VTTM 46619, both as originally requested
at 27 lots, and as later revised to 18 lots. The
applicant indicated his intent to appeal this requested
denial to the City Council.
o. A regularly scheduled public hearing of the Planning
Commission was held on March 19, 1991, at the City
Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa
Clarita, California, at 6:30 p.m. At that hearing, the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution P91-15, denying
VTTM 46619 and associated applications.
p. In a letter dated March 20, 1991, the applicant appealed
the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution P91-15
to the City Council.
q. A duly noticed public hearing of the City Council was
held on the appeal on May 14, 1991, at the City Council
Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita,
California, at 7:00 p.m.
SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, oral and written
testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held by
the Planning Commission for the project, the public .hearing held on
the appeal, and.upon studies and investigations made by the City
Council and on its behalf, the Council further finds as follows:
a. At the hearing of November 20, 1990, the Planning
Commission considered the staff report and EIR prepared
for the project and received public testimony for and
against the proposal. Upon close of the public hearing,
the Commission deliberated the salient issues of the
case, which included: the proposed density of
development, the use of previously established open space
land for residential development, opposition of area
residents, impacts on the existing community, site
access, construction of a detention basin, and the
significant adverse impacts to the environment posed by
the project as identified in the EIR. Impacts of the
project on oak trees, hillside slopes, and the existing
streamcourse.and riparian habitat were particularly noted.
b. The final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 89-002)
prepared.for VTTM 46619, CUP 88-281 and OTP 89-045 ("the
project") has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act, and was presented
to, and the information contained therein reviewed and
considered by, the Commission prior to.reaching a
decision on the project.
c. As identified in the EIR (Section 5.0, page 29), the
subject site contains valuable ecological and
environmental resources which include, but are not
limited to, oak tree woodland, riparian habitat,
geologically significant slopes, paleontological remains,
and natural aesthetic qualities.
d. The project, as originally proposed for 27 lots, would
cause significant adverse impacts to the environment and
the community that can not be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.. These impacts are presented in Section 8
of the project EIR (page 133) and are summarized in
Section 2.3 (pages 7-11) of that document. Areas of
impact include the loss of oak trees, degradation of oak
tree woodland and natural aesthetics, encroachment into a
,blue -line" streamcourse and substantial loss of riparian
habitat, and grading and loss of hillside slopes and
paleontological resources.
e. Per the alternatives presented in the EIR (Section 6.0,
page 119), these impacts can be lessened by reducing
project density and by requiring project design which
recognizes environmental constraint areas and limits
project encroachment into such areas. The Commission
reached consensus to review a 2 to 18 lot range of
subdivision scenarios with direction to the applicant
that such design limit environmental impacts to a level
of insignificance.
f. At the conclusion of deliberations, the Commission
directed the applicant to meet with area residents to
resolve outstanding areas of disagreement, to resolve
site access design concerns, and to explore a 2 to 18 lot
range of subdivision scenarios which would limit
environmental impacts to those projected for an eight lot
subdivision. At the request of the Commission, the
applicant agreed to waive pertinent processing time -lines
to allow these activities to occur. The Commission took
action to declare that EIR 89-002 was an adequate and
complete document for decision-making purposes.
g. At the hearing of February 19, 1991, the Planning
Commission considered the EIR and revised staff report
prepared for the project and received additional public
testimony for and against the.proposal. New testimony
indicated that meetings between the applicant and
residents on November 27 and January 3 to resolve
disagreements were unsuccessful, and included La Salle
0
Canyon Homeowner Association support for approval of an 8
lot subdivision map. Upon close of the public hearing,
the Commission continued its deliberations on the
concerns previously identified at the hearing of November
20, 1990, and focused more specifically on the open space
and environmental issues of the case.
h. Upon review of theapplicant's revision of the project to
18 lots, the Commission found that significant adverse
impacts to the environment and community would continue
to occur as a result of project approval and
implementation. By deliberation, the Commission
indicated its desire to reduce such impacts to a level of
insignificance by considering for approval a map of 8
lots, and passed a motion directing staff to prepare .
conditions of approval for a revised submittal of VTTM
46619 as an 8 lot subdivision map.
i. The Commission found that acquisition and preservation of
dedicated open space is desirable to the community as
reflected in the goals and policies of the draft General
Plan of the City of Santa Clarita, and past actions of
the Commission.
J. The Commission found that the applicant's proposal to
convert at least 6.5 acres of previously dedicated open
space to residential use was unacceptable. The
Commission was assisted in this finding based on
testimony received from the City Attorney at the hearing
of February 19, 1991.. The Commission further indicated
its belief that approving conversion of open space
acreage for residential use would be inconsistent with
community values, and would likely engender similar
requests in the future by other applicants.
k. The Commission found that, pursuant to subdivision (e) of
Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act, the design and
type of improvements proposed by VTTM 46619, either as a
27 lot or 18 lot subdivision, are likely to cause
substantial environmental impacts and loss of wildlife
habitat, based on information contained in the project
EIR and the facts and findings listed above.
1. The Commission found that, pursuant to subdivision (f) of
Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act, the design and
type of improvements proposed by VTTM 46619, either as a
27 lot or 18 lot subdivision, are likely to cause
significant risk to the health; safety and general
welfare of the public duetoincreases in ambient noise
levels, increases in traffic hazards and access
congestion, and exposure of a significant number of new
residential properties to high fire hazard conditions
currently present on the site.
m. The Commission found that associated applications CUP
88-281 and OTP 89-045 are an integral part of the
subdivision project proposed under VTTM 46619 and have
been considered herein as a part of the Commission's
deliberations.
n. At the conclusion of deliberations, the Commission
approved a. motion directing staff to prepare draft
conditions of approval for VTTM 46619 as a revised 8 lot
subdivision. The Commission indicated to the applicant
that it would entertain approval of VTTM 46619 with these
conditions at such time as the case returned to the
Commission for consideration, and the item was then
continued to a date uncertain.
o. Upon the decision of the applicant not to submit the
revised map, the Planning Commission took action at the
regularly scheduled public hearing on March 19, 1991, to
adopt Resolution P91-15, denying VTTM 46619 and
associated applications, both as originally proposed for
27 lots and as subsequently revised to 18 lots.
p. The City Council considered and deliberated upon the
foregoing at the duly noticed public hearing on May 14,
1991, and found that the Council concurred with the
facts, findings, and determinations adopted by the
Planning Commission under Resolution P91-15.
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings,
the City Council hereby.determines as follows:
a. As originally proposed as a 27 lot subdivision map, and
as subsequently revised as an 18 lot subdivision map, the
project (VTTM 46619, CUP 88-281, and OTP 89-045) is not
suitable for approval because:
1) Significant environmental impacts would occur which
can not be mitigated to a level of insignificance or
acceptability.
2) The proposed conversion of dedicated open space for
residential use is unacceptable and inconsistent with the
goals and policies of the draft General Plan.
b. The final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 89-002)
prepared for VTTM 46619, CUP 88-281 and OTP 89-045 ("the
project") has been prepared, completed and reviewed under
the the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
does resolve as follows:
a. The City Council hereby upholds the decision of the
Planning Commission to adopt Resolution P91-15, denying
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46619; as originally proposed
as a 27 lot subdivision map and as subsequently revised
as an 18 lot subdivision map, further denying Conditional
Use Permit 88-281 and Oak Tree Permit 89-045, associated
project applications, and further certifying that
Environmental Impact Report 89-002 has been completed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of , 1991.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
I, Donna M. Grindev, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at
a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 1991, by
the following vote of the Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT:
CITY CLERK
DMW:375