Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-07-09 - AGENDA REPORTS - RESO P90 18 TENATIVE PM 21435 (2)a. AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented c/y PUBLIC HEARING Lynn M. Harris DATE: July 9, 1991 SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission decision (Resolution No. P90-18) on Tentative Parcel Map 21435. The project site is located at 27548 Clear Lake Drive; 940 feet east of Cedarfort Drive. 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 Tentative Parcel Map 21435. The appellant is George Thomas, the applicant. This case was originally before the Planning Commission on April 2, 1991. The Planning Commission continued this Public Hearing, and directed staff to research and clarify the reasons for the development restriction placed on the subject parcel. This case was continued (as an open public hearing) to the May 7, 1991 meeting, and again to the May 21, 1991 meeting. At the May -21st hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny Tentative Parcel Map 21435, thereby upholding the previous density granted for the Crystal Springs area by the County of Los Angeles, at 201 homes on the 460 acres. The Planning Commission directed staff to return with a .formal resolution for denial of the proposal at the June 4, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. ANALYSIS The City's General Plan designation for the project site is RVL (Residential Very Low) 0.5-1.0 dwelling units per 'acre. The project is within an established residential area in which compatible equestrian -oriented development is encouraged. A significant ridgeline traverses the property; the General Plan promotes the retention of open space to preserve significant ridgelines and provide land use buffers. This proposal is inconsistent with the City General Plan in the area of ridgeline preservation and hillside development. This proposed subdivision would have an. adverse environmental impact on the adjacent neighborhood and diminish its rural character. The approved overall dwelling density for the area would be increased, thereby increasing traffic. To accommodate this development, excessive grading (on- slopes exceeding 252 and on a significant ridgeline) would create abrupt cuts and Continued To: Agenda Item: r 11 . Page 2 fills disrupting the topography and increasing erosion. General Plan policies prohibit development upon a significant ridgeline. Proposed project. grading is insensitive to the natural topography and the major landforms on' and adjacent to the project site. The natural topographic features existing at the site have-not been incorporated into the design of the project. The right to restrict development granted on this property (as shown on Tract Map 37573 on file with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office) limits the development of this property to the existing single family residence and accessory buildings currently on-site.' As proposed, this project would create three new building sites in addition to the existing single family dwelling on the site. Because the project would 'exceed the approved density (dwelling units per acre) for the subdivision in which this lot was created, a functional mix of residential use to open space would not be maintained. The subject parcel was a part of Tract 37573; which was a part of the larger 460 acre Tract 33893 (see Attachments - "A" and "B"). Initially, the appropriate number of lots was determined by Los Angeles County to be 229, and 136 of those lots were recorded. The bank involved in the project -took the remaining property back and filed a new map. The County's Hillside Management procedure was applied, and a Hillside Development permit was required for the subdivision. .The County Regional Planning. Commission determined that 201 was the appropriate number of single family lots for the 460 acre *parcel. This included all lots which were originally recorded and all newly approved lots. Throughout this procedure, of the various lots which were recorded under the original approval and later approvals, the larger lots (at greater than twice the required area) were restricted to being developed with no more than one single family dwelling in order to maintain the overall density. The underlying tract map included a dedication of the right to restrict the construction of more than one residence and accessory buildings on the subject parcel. The intent was to avoid the re -subdivision of these lots which would increase the total number of lots allowed for this 460 acre area. The application for this parcel map was received on October 10, 1989. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-77 on May 14, 1991 requiring staff to review subdivision applications in light of any and all notations on maps regardingfuturesubdivisions or development, or similar notations which imply the intent of the County of Los Angeles or the City of Santa:. Clarita that future subdivision or development is to be discouraged. Staff has been directed to require a certification from developers 'prior '..to accepting applications, that the property is free from all encumbrances, including dedications of the right to further subdivide or :develop to the County of Los Angeles or the City of Santa Clarita. This is an important consideration because lot averaging for overall density has occurred on other previously approved subdivisions. This certification was not required of the applicant because this direction was given to staff after the first public hearing was held for this application. Nonetheless, a dedication of the right to prohibit the construction of more than one residential building and related accessory buildings on this property was made to the County of Los Angeles. The applicant and the staff were aware of the restriction, early in the processing of this case, and the applicant was advised that the project would not necessarily receive a favorable staff report recommendation. t w Page 3 - RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive the staff presentation; 2. Open the public hearing and receive testimony; 3. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision for denial of Tentative Parcel Map 21435. ATTACHMENTS 1. Appeal request from George Thomas, the applicant. Z. Staff reports dated April 2, 1991; May 7, 1991; May 21, 1991. 3. Negative Declaration and Initial Environmental Assessment. 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. P91-18. 5. Project site plan. 6. Minutes of Planning Commission meetings LMH;JC/310 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). 5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes) 6. Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent) a. Proponent 7. Mayor Closes Public Testimony - 8. Discussion by Council 9. Council Decision 10. Mayor Announces Decision CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEALING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21435 TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.54 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR NEW LOTS OF 62,400 SQUARE FEET, 67,840 SQUARE FEET, 53,120 SQUARE FEET, AND 43,840 SQUARE FEET. LOCATION: 27548 CLEAR LAKE DRIVE, PROJECT SITE IS AT THE EASTERN TERMINUS OF CLEAR LAKE DRIVE, 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 applicant, George Thomas, regarding the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Parcel Map 21435. The applicant is proposing to d'ubdivide a 5.54 acre parcel into four new lots of 62,400 square feet, 67,840 square feet, 53,120 square feet, and 43,840 square feet. The location is at 27548 Clear Lake Drive, Project site is at the eastern terminus of Clear Lake Drive, 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 9th day of July, 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: June 12, 1991 Donna M. Grindey City Clerk Publish Date: June 14, 1991 off' 10 D 2500' RADIUS. MAP --,J TPM 21435 /O �zuj o ti o g6LUFF 0O/ D SANTA H R D O4 r �� 4\ v j •` Q a;;, C`�p � p� J ' Q 2 h y0N p C O f v QQ Z W P� V AJ( e RDIL FAL DR RIDGE CONDOR o J �� RIO'. J g 2 Q T a C) a VICINITY MAP TPM 21435 �y EpEpDD. SOt TEtOp� VALLEY FWY' pN } �p� PROJECT V G� SITE I d 0q CEDARFORT ST. N � SpRI NOS CYN, RD, A�gCERITq- N -- 9 To MM h Q N N To ch r EXHIBIT "B" r EXHIBIT A-2 CONCEPTUAL GRADING MAP 7 X fP P, Rd VICINITY MAP NO SCALE LXHIBIT A-1 P11 SLOPE = 0 - 25% EXHIBIT A-3 RESOLUTION NO. P91-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21435 -LOCATED AT 27548 CLEAR LASE DRIVE 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 was filed on October 10, 1989, by George Thomas ("the applicant'). The property for which this entitlement has been filed is located at 27548 Clear Lake Drive, 940 feet east of the Cedarfort Drive intersection approximately ane -half mile east of Sand Canyon Road. The Assessor's Parcel Number for the site is 2841-020-051. The project site consists of 5.54 acres of hillside terrain, 3.58 acres of which are on slopes in excess of 252. The average slope of the property is 32Z. The applicant proposed to subdivide this property into four new single family residential lots of 62,400 square feet, 67,840 square feet, 53,120 square feet, and 43,840 square feet. b. The applicable zoning for this property is A-1-1 Light Agricultural, one -acre minimum zone, and is designated as RVL (Residential Very Low) 0.5-1.0 dwelling units per acre according to the City of Santa Clarita draft General Plan. This project has also been reviewed for compliance with the draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. C. The application was circulated for City Department and agency review upon receipt. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee (DRC) met on November 30,. 1989 and again on February 22, 1991 to discuss the project and additional information and revisions needed from the applicant. City staff also supplied the applicant- with preliminary ..recommended conditions. d. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 2, 1991 and subsequently continued to May 7, 1991 and again to May 21, 1991 at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. e. The surrounding uses are low density residential. f. This project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff prepared an Initial Environmental Assessment for this project. Staff determined that, with specific design changes and mitigation measures, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect could be adopted for this project. Reso P91-18 Page 1 of 5 I 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 public. hearing held for this project, 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 RVL (Residential Very Low) 0.5-1.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposed use of the property for residential development is consistent with this land use designation. However, this proposal is not consistent with the policies of the City's draft General Plan. Specifically, this proposal is in conflict with the following draft General Plan components: Land Use Element Goal No. 1; policies 1.10, 1.13, 3.12, 4.1, 4.2, and 5.3; Hillside and Ridgeline Criteria. Community Design Element policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 6.7. Open Space Element 'policies 1.1, 1.4, 1.5; 1.6, 1.10, 1.13, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4. Because the project would exceed the approved density (dwelling units per acre) for the subdivision in which this lot was created, a functional mix of residential use to open space would not be maintained. The project is within an established equestrian area in which compatible equestrian -oriented development is encouraged. A significant ridgeline transverses } the property; the draft General. Plan promotes the retention of open space to preserve significant ridgelines and provide land use buffers. This proposed subdivision would impact the adjacent neighborhood by diminishing its rural character through increasing traffic flow volumes, grading natural landforms, and encroaching onto a significant ridgeline. Development upon a significant ridgeline is prohibited. Proposed project grading is insensitive to natural topography and the major landforms on and adjacent to the project site. As proposed, this project would create three new building sites in addition to the existing single family dwelling at the site. This would exceed the established dwelling density for residential development within the -approved subdivision for this site. This would be incompatible with the adjacent existing residential neighborhood. To accommodate this development, driveways and building pads would be required and would result in excessive grading on steep hillsides, disrupt major landforms, alter natural drainage patterns at the project site and on adjacent property, and would disrupt the silhouette of the ,natural ridgeline across the property. The natural topographic amenities existing at the site have not been incorporated into the design of the project. Reso P91-18 Page 2 of 5 The existing ridgeline provides a visual and physical buffer which provides aesthetic relief and separation of adjacent properties. This major feature must be utilized as:openspace to preserve the rural character of this planning area, and to provide a transition between the residential area of the project site and the Angeles National Forest boundary. Preservation of the available existing open space would help maintain existing viable natural ecosystems. The proposed project does not comply with the provisions of the City's draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance C. A specific building restriction exists on this property which prohibits the construction of .more than one residence and accessory buildings. The project site has been previously developed with an existing single family dwelling. d. This. project as designed would adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the surrounding area; be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the subject property; jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare because this project does not conform to the development standards of the subdivision and zoning ordinance, is incompatible with the surrounding land uses, and is inconsistent with the draft City General Plan. e. Based upon a review of the submitted plan, the subject property is not adequate in size, shape, and topography to accommodate the development features prescribed in the City's Municipal Code and draft General Plan, and otherwise required. in order to integrate the proposed use of the subject property with the uses in the surrounding area. f. This proposal is defined as a •project' according to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) As such, staff prepared an Initial Environmental Assessment to determine. the potential environmental impacts associated with -this project. g., This project will have a significant effect on the environment. As indicated by the Initial Study prepared by staff (pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; Public Resources, Code Section 21000 et seq.), ,the project as proposed would create a significant impact. h. -Implementation of this proposal will cause adverse effects on the environment which cannot be adequately mitigated through the application of available controls. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will cause substantial environmental damage and' substantial and avoidable injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat. Reso P91-18 Page 3 of 5 i. The design of the subdivision does not provide for :future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities given the size, shape, and topography of the lots and their intended use. j. The housing needs of the region. were considered and balanced against the public service needs of local residents. SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission hereby determines as follows: a. This project would have an adverse environmental impact due to the increase in overall dwelling density for the area, due to the excessive grading an slopes exceeding 252 in grade and on a significant ridgeline, for building pads and roads causing increased erosion, drainage, abrupt cuts and fills disrupting the topography thereby creating adverse.aesthetic impacts. b. The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the draft •City General Plan and does not comply with the draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. C. The development restriction placed upon this property (as shown on Tract Map 37573 on file with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office) limits the development of.this property to the existing single family residence and accessory buildings currently on-site. U Reso P91-18 Page 4 of 5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita, California, as follows: The Planning Commission hereby denies Tentative Parcel Map No. 21435 to allow the subdivision of the subject property into four new lots for residential development at 27548 Clear Lake Drive (Assessor's Parcel No. 2841-020-051). ' PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 4 th day of June, 1991. c — ouis Brathwaite Chairma 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. 4th day of June, 1991, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: RESO:P91-18 Page 5 of 5 Garasi, Woodrow, Brathwaite. None None None Cherrington, Modugno, M. Ha:lris, Director Community Development x9c9lyl i.AYUbIC Crystal Springs Ranch Homeowners Association tp , 23236 Lyons Avenue, Suite 204 Sonto Cku to CA 91321 May 6, 1991 City of Santa Clorita Planning Commission City Hall 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Ciarita, Ca 91355 Dear Members of the Santa Clorita Planning Commission, On behalf of the Board of the Crystal Springs Ranch Homeowners Association, we wish to declare that we are completely against any petition that would after the original development plan which was approved by the County of Los Angeles in the 1980 - 81 time period for the Crystal Springs Ranch area. The approved Tract Map designated certain lots as 'open' space areas and placed restrictions on future development of these lots. It further designated that the overall development would average one acre in size. These designated 'open areas' and larger lots all accounted for the overall one acre average requirement for the area. We are opposed to any new requests in the form of lot splits that would increase the density of our area beyond what was originally approved. Most homeowners moved into this area because of the openness that the San Canyon Area provided, and would not look favorably upon any decision by this Commission to after what was set down and understood when we each made our investments in this area. Thank you for hearing our objection to this lot split proposed by George Thomas. Sincerely, Richard D. Sathre, President Board of Directors Crystal Springs Ranch Homeowners' Association RJ L,drry & Shirley Barthelemy 27541 Clearlake Dr. Canyon Country: CA 91351 April 29, 1991 City of Santa Clarita City Council Chambers. 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California Re: Tentative Parcel Map 2143 George Thomas 27548 Clear Lake Drive !RECEIVED COPIES TO CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, CITY CLERK Date 144Y 10 1991 Dear Council: we are the neighbors Mrs. Thomas referred to as the neighbors they do not talk to. we were the only neighbors present at the meeting, April 2, 1991. I would like you to know the consideration they have for their neighbors. They have graded off the top of the hill very close to our house and installed a batting cage on top. It is.near and overlooks our back yard and pool area. That is not bad enough, at times a group of children, adults and coach, gather for practice and coaching. with the grading of this hill they pushed a great deal of loose dirt towards our property and during the rains a good part of this dirt has washed down in our R.V. access and entrance to. our barn yard, also under the gate to our pool deck and kitchen door, not once but twice. The first time they hair it cleaned up, from the second time, it is still there, in the amount of about 2 to 3 inches of Powder dirt. we had to shovel the dirt away to get our gate open. This activity greatly concerns us in regards to their development`. we would appreciate the councils consideration to this matter in your decision of the Thomas request. L Re5Pectfull 74� enc 4 pictuTes 0 ' cc: Mr.l Jeff Chaffin American Pacific Plumbing 27541 Clearlake Drive, Canyon Country, CA 91351 (213) 849-2904 1,805) 251-5533 (818) 848-2901 hlr=mbr;:+r s of the Flann:i.na Commission Hav 6. ii -41 L''ity of Santa Clarita Dear` I'•ieri:ber=_: 'fhi.s letter, is bvino written to oppose the proposed spli.tt:ina or. subdivision of Lot: No. 23 in Tract No. 3757.= in the Cr•vst.aI cr.ar`:inas dvvcalopmen't that is bei rig appIi.ed for• by George 7hor7las. If Mr. i"hoatas is allowed to split the lot he bought in the Cr:•st:::al Spr-ir"rgs Development, a precedent will be =_et in the San(:! C'anvon area that will allow for higher- density rir2veloprccni than h::+s been pre -approved. When the Crystal Springs subdivision was started, the Sand Canyon I-{umeowne,rs' Association met with the Los Angeles County Hoard of Supervisors and requested that they not allow the density first askki?d for by the developer. Crystal Springs was then cut back. -to the caarrent number of lots. The San Clemente GroUp Development Corporation sigrrc=ci the following statement: "We hereby dedicate to the County of Los Angeles the right to prohibit the construction of more than one residential and related accessory building within lots .3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 1.3, and 23." Lot No. '23 belongs to George Thomas. Since there are other tracts being developed in this area that have 4, 5. and -6 -acre. parcels designated for one residence only, we are extremely concerned, that the granting of a split to Mr. Thomas will set a precedent for others in the area to do the same, thus allowing a higher density of homes in our area. We urge yogi to deny Mr. Thomas' petition for a split of Lot No. 2: iry. Tact No. 37573. /� Thagk �You,l(o013 L�v�ma�'s %T 91&10 y 13.'0 s HALE & ASSOCIATES, Inc. C"y OF 1=, A CU''it;A Consulting Engineers y ^� 1-�2 1 l %7'Huntington Lane, Suite B a Valencia, California 91355 May 28, 1991 Telephone: (805) 295.0400 Fax: (805) 295-1602 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Attn: Donna Grindey City Clerk APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21435 Dear Ms. Grindey: Tentative Parcel Map 21435 was denied by the Planning Commission at the May 21, 1991 Public Hearing. Tentative Parcel Map 21435 is a request to subdivide 5.54 acres, located at 27548 Clearlake Drive, into 4 lots for single family residences. The owners of the property, George & Marla Thomas, have been residents in the Santa Clarita Valley for approximately 20 years. As the project complies with the current zoning, was recommended for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect by the City's staff, and has a significant amount of community support, we are appealing the Planning Commission's decision. Enclosed is a check in the amount of $335.00 for the processing fee. The project went through extensive review at staff level and the City's staff recommended it for approval with a three lot design. The projectwasdenied-by the Planning Commission largely due to an interpretation of a note that was placed on the title page.of the original Tract Map (No. 37573). The presence of this note was disclosed and researched with the City staff during 1989 and 1990. The conclusion by the City staff was that any new subdivision on this property would have to conform to the requirements of the State's Subdivision Map Act (Sections 66410 to 66499.58 of the Government Code, State of California) and the City's Zoning Ordinance (Title 22). Parcel Map 21435 conforms to all of these requirements. The note reads "WE HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES THE RIGHT TO PROHIBIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL AND RELATED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS WITHIN LOTS 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, AND 23." The City's. project planner for this map forgot to include a systematic explanation of this dedication note in the staff report to the Planning Commission and the result was a chaotic and biased approach to its explanation. We believe that the Commission's interpretation of this note was influenced greatly by the confused And biased approach to. the issue which occurred at the first Planning. Commission hearing on April 2nd. - The general consensus among Community Development Staff and the City Attorney's office is that the statement does not Drohibit the further subdivision of the lot. 0 We are asking that the City Council hear the project and review it. on its own merits. Mr. & Mrs. Thomas have expended an extensive amount of time, money and energy to eliminate the engineering and design concerns which were brought out by the Community Development and Public Works Departments during the 16 months it was being reviewed by City staff prior to the initial hearing. Enclosed is a -copy of the Tentative Parcel Map and other pertinent materials for your review. Thank you in advance for your consideration to this project. DONALD E. HALE, R. C. E. (AGENT) GEORGE TH AS (APPLICANT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT Tentative Parcel Map 21435 DATE: TO: Chairman Brat waste and Members of the Planning Commission R4� FROM: 1-0h ;Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development APPLICANT: George Thomas CASE PLANNER: Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner II LOCATION: . 27548 Clear Lake Drive REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of the subdivision of a 5.54 acre parcel into four new lots. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 5.54 acre parcel into four new residential lots of '62,400 square feet, 67,840 square feet, 53,120 square feet, and 43,840 square feet. The project site consists of hillside terrain with many slopes in excess of 25Z. The average slope of the property is 325. The project site is located at the terminus of Clear Lake Drive (approximately one-half mile east of Sand Canyon Road via Live.Oak Springs Canyon Road) within an area of low density residential development. Access exists to the site via Clear Lake Drive, a 940 foot long cul-de-sac. An existing single family dwelling is present on the northwest portion of the property. The project was deemed complete on February 15, 1991. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION; ZONING; LAND USE: The Santa Clarita Areawide General Plan, draft City General Plan, Zoning, and existing land use of the project site and adjacent properties: Agenda Item: LA CO SCV Draft City Zone Existing General Plan General Plan Land Use Project HM RVL 0.5 -•1.0 A-1-1 Single Family Residential North HM, N1 RVL 0.5 - 1.0 A-1-1 Single Family Residential South N2 RVL 0.5 - 1.0 A-1-1 Single Family Residential East HM, N1 RE 0.0 - 0.5 A-1-1 Single Family Residential, Vacant West N1, N2 RVL 0.5 - 1.0 A-1-1, Single Family A-1-2 Residential KEY: A-1-1 Light Agricultural, one acre minimum A-1-2 Light Agricultural, two acre minimum HM Hillside Management N1 Non -urban 1, 0.5 units per acre N2 Non -urban 2, 1.0 unit per acre RE Residential Estate, 0 - .5 units per acre RVL Residential Very Low, .5 - 1 unit per acre ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The environmental review of this project included an Initial Study to evaluate the impacts of this proposal. The environmental concerns included: hillside. development, hydrology, geology, erasion, and adequate school facilities. The environmental review.indicated that the proposed project will not have any adverse environmental impacts which cannot be addressed throughmitigation measures, which are included in the project design and conditions of approval. Subsequently, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect was prepared for this project. INTERDEPARTMENT/INTERAGENCY REVIEW: Comments and recommendations wererequested from departments and agencies addressing the development concerns of this project. Comments received were considered by the Community Development Department as part of the project review, and recommendations are included in the conditions of approval. No. comments or inquiries have been received from the public. P� H ANALYSIS: The project application was submitted to the City on October 10, 1989. The City's Development Review Committee met to discuss this project on November 30, 1989. At the time application was made, the initial proposal of four single family lots complied with the City's adopted Zoning and Subdivision Codes. However, the application -was incomplete and more information was requested. Several outstanding issues needed to be addressed in order to deem the application complete. The information needed to complete the.application and aid the staff review included: preliminary geology and soils report; drainage concept; Health Department clearance; school mitigation -agreements, grading information and driveway relocation. The applicant was informed at the November 30, 1989, Development Review Committee meeting that the project site was designated as a Hillside Management area under the Los Angeles County Santa Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan. The applicant was also informed that the City of Santa Clarita was using the County's Hillside design guidelines -as a guide in reviewing applications for hillside development. An analysis of the project under these guidelines showed that 0.7 to 2.42 single family lots would be allowed for the project site. The applicant chose to pursue the project with four lots for residential development. While the applicant was revising the tentative map and providing supplemental information to meet the requirements of the reviewing agencies, the City's General Plan Advisory Committee was completing work on the draft General Plan. Concurrently, the City was preparing a draft ordinance to accomplish the hillside conservation objectives of the draft General Plan. on December 14, 1990 a draft of the "City of Santa Clarita Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance" was made available to the City. The purpose of the draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance is to: 1) Provide standards and guidelines for development on hillside areas with slopes over 1OZ; 2) Provide a positive visual setting for the hillsides within the City; 3) Maintain prominent vista features, ridgelines, habitat and landforms; 4) Require minimal earthwork with sensitivity.to natural features and the on-site balancing of earthwork. The consultant also has offered a matrix formula to determine maximum densities for given slope ranges. Applying the formula as proposed by the consultant would result in only one dwelling unit an the subject site. Staff has looked at the site and feels that three sites could be accommodated without violating any of the intent or purpose of the draft Ordinance. 3 The project site is encroaching upon a ridge which has been identified as being significant. Significant ridgelines are primarily those that are silhouetted by the open sky from behind when viewed from key vantage points, such as nearby roads. Portions of the ridgeline through the eastern and northern part of the site are silhouetted by the sky. Any structures placed upon them would become part of the silhouette thereby disrupting the continuity of the natural ridgeline. Staff feels that the current proposal (Exhibit A-2) with four lots, two of which would be located with houses upon on a visually prominent ridgeline, would substantially alter the natural landform and the visual quality of the hillside for surrounding residents. The current project also proposes to create two building pads by cutting off the top of one hill and substantially cutting into the top of another (as shown on Exhibit A-2.) Staff feels that the excess grading required, with the corresponding alteration of landforms to construct building pads and proposed structures on a highly visible ridgeline as proposed, is not in conformance with the Hillside Ordinance. As an alternative, staff feels that the approval of two additional lots would be appropriate (Exhibit A-3). This would allow the development -of two single family dwellings and accessory uses in addition to the existing residence. During a field inspection ofthe site (on February 21, 1991), staff observed two additional areas of the site which were relatively flat, and could accommodate houses without excessive grading or substantial alteration of landforms (Exhibit A-1). All future development (including building, grading, and accessory uses,) shall be subject to all current development requirements at the time that such development requests are submitted for City review. The applicant has shown a grading plan on the proposed parcel map which is only conceptual at this time. A detailed grading plan must be submitted, reviewed and approved by the City prior to the construction of any buildings on any lot. Additional environmental analysis shall be required at that time. This will allow staff the opportunity to ensure that development of the site will be in conformance with the draft Ridgeline Preservation and -Hillside Development Ordinance. The City's engineering staff has indicated that the project geotechnical report and.drainage concept adequately address staff concerns and are approved for this project as submitted. All recommended conditions and improvements of the geotechnical report and drainage concept shall be required for the future development of this property. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect prepared for this project with the -finding that this proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment as modified by staff. 2. Continue this public hearing to a date certain to allow the applicant to revise the proposed tentative parcel map. The revised map must show -only three single family lots depicting no encroachment of driveways, building pads, or any landform alteration above the 1714 foot elevation contour (as shown on Exhibits A-1 and A-3). JC/230 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N CERTIFICATION DATE: April 2. 1991 APPLICANT: George Thomas TYPE OF PERMIT: Tentative Parcel Map FILE NO.: TPM 21435 LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: 27548 Clear Lake Drive (project site is approximately 940 feet east of the intersection of Cedarfort Drive and Clear Lake Drive.) DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 5.54 acre parcel into four new lots. The project site consists of hillside terrain with slopes exceeding 50Z, the average cross slope of this property is 32X. Adjacent properties are developed with single-family dwellings. This proposed subdivision would create four new lots of 62,400 square feet, 67,840 square feet, 53,120 square feet, and 43,840 square feet. [ ] City Council It is the opinion of the [x] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Community Development upon review that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. Mitigation measures Form completed by: [x] are attached [ ] are not attached (Name and Title) Date of Public Notice: [x] Legal advertisement. [x] Posting of properties. [x] written notice. 10 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21435 April 2, 1991 NEW BUSINESS - PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM M0. 6, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21435 Cherrington moved to hear Item 6 before Items 2 - 5. Commissioner Modugno seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0 to hear Item 6. Director Harris opened Item 6, Tentative Parcel Map 21435, by introducing Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner. Mr. Chaffin proceeded to make a slide presentation. Director Harris: presented letters from residents as follows: a letter from the applicant, 74 signed letters in favor of the application, a letter from Thomas W. Looney, resident in Macmillan Ranch in favor, letter from Leo Anselm on Clear Lake Drive in favor, letter from Russell and Barbara Tolle, Bronco Drive in opposition, form letter signed by 6 residents on Bronco Drive against the project, recommending a site inspection by the Commission, a letter from another resident on Bronco Drive in opposition to the project. At 7:47 p.m., the Public Hearing was opened. The applicant, Mr. George Thomas, 27561 Clear Lake Drive spoke about his desire to subdivide this property in order to build homes for his family members, and his frustration in the length of time -it has taken to get this project approved. Some items Mr. Thomas brought to the attention of the Commission were the new City Center site, atop a ridgeline, the Bermite plateau, the $943 million dollar infrastructure deficit, and developers paying fees to provide the infrastructure. Mr. Thomas then requested that the Commission approve his minor subdivision. Commissioner Garasi clarified that the letters showed broad support from the entire community, not just the Sand Canyon area. Marla Thomas spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Don Hale, Civil Engineer and Agent for the applicant spoke in favor of the project. He discussed paperwork being lost in the cracks, ridgelines, amount of time it has taken the project to be approved, and the size of the lots in question, those speaking in opposition of this project who live on a different street, the County restriction on subdivision of this property, and the wording on the map regarding subdivision. He stated his desire to work with the Commission in approving some sort of project acceptable to both parties. Mr. McOsker was asked to comment on the stamp the County puts on the maps to specify the ability to subdivide property. He stated that the City Attorney's office has not reviewed this with the County Counsel's office. It is the City's position that the Commission has the right to subdivide this property, and not be bound by the County procedures. They advise the Commission that they can subdivide this property. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:06 p.m. by Chairman Brathwaite. Commissioner Modugno made the statement that his problem with this project is the County's intent and the other projects that have come before the Commission with the same question. one of his concerns was the County's intent in regards to open space, and the possibility of setting precedent in this situation. Growth management and the need for a community to improve itself through infrastructure was also brought up. Commissioner Modugno stated that he is not prepared to move forward on this issue at this time. Discussion continued among the Commissioners on the issues brought up by Commissioner Modugno. Commissioner Voodrow requested staff or Counsel to comment on the stamps. What is the purpose? Is it to -maintain -open space, or an administrative action that has lost its meaning. Director Harris read the language from .the statement on the recorded tract which is,the underlying tract in question. Direct contact has not been made with the County, relative to the intent of these conditions, nor has staff tried to review the records for the underlying tract, or when the condition was put on. Therefore, it was a staff decision to approach it from the standpoint of how it affects the City -of Santa Clarita's reviewofthis project. Mr. McOsker commented that the City Attorney has no additional insight into the stamp's meaning or intent. What the City Attorney's office is looking at is the legal aspects involved. Is this project consistent with the General Plan, and is the specific plan and the parcelization consistent with surrounding parcels. This language empowers the City to enforce or not enforce the police power to subdivide or not subdivide. Commissioner Modugno commented on the prospect of looking back at the County's record of other parcels recorded in the area. He asked staff if they have knowledge of the prior subdivisions. Director Harris stated that staff has no knowledge. However, information could be found. Director Harris commented that staff considers this an infill subdivision: density, zoning and the fact that there is enough land there to create the four lots originally requested. She then asked for discussion on the staff's approach to the project. Questions she asked are: Should staff first look at the County's records and intent prior to analysis of a project? To what extent does the Commission wish to make their present day decisions based on the County's intent? Discussion continued on this matter. Z Vice -Chairman Cherrington stated he would be interested in hearing the County's history on these areas. Commissioner Garasi stated that as a., decision making body, the Commission is faced with legal documents, and that decisions are driving policy instead of policy driving decisions. She commented on the continued use of the term "half acre lots". She stated there are no half acre lot zonings in Sand Canyon. But, there are half acre lots. Her question was how do you get half acre lots from one acre zoning unless there is density lot averaging? She stated -she is prepared to challenge the environmental review on this project, due to the fact that there has not been adequate discussion relative to flood water course, etc. She stated she is not prepared to proceed. Commissioner Modugno stated that the Commission could be de facto rezoning. What has been done is the rezoning of the area without having gone though a zoning request. This all relates to the Growth Management issue. He is concerned with the precedent being set. Director.Harris stated that she was unaware that the County did wholesale averaging of densities when they created subdivisions in the Santa Clarita Valley. Commissioner Garasi stated that this should be researched. She also stated that she does not feel that the'item before the Commission warrants the subdivision. ' Commissioner Woodrow asked staff to check on the status of the other lots on the same stamp, and the lot size. He expressed concern over the possibility of setting precedent on the other lots; as yell. Commissioner Modugno requested a continuance in order for staff to further research this item, including drainage, hillside and ridgeline, and zoning. Commissioner Modugno moved to continue Item,6 to the regular meeting of May 7. 1991 to allow staff the opportunity to research this. Commissioner Woodrow seconded motion. At 8:34 p.m., the motion to continue Item 6 to May 7, 1991 was approved 5-0. Vice -Chairman Cherrington questioned if there would be a revised map presented at the May 7 meeting. Director Harris stated no. She also felt that the Public Hearing should be left open, although the Commission had the option of closing it. Chairman Brathwaite informed Mr. Thomas that the Public Hearing would remain open, and explained the need for clarification on the County's statements and stamps. Chairman Brathwaite closed Item 6 at 8:35 p.m. , MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21435 May 7, 1991 UNFINISHED BUSINESS -ITEM 4 - Tentative Parcel Map No. 21435 Director Harris introduced Item 4, stating that the Commission had directed staff to research the County's conditions on this particular map, as well as the overall density in this area that was first allocated on the original map. Principal Planner Richard Henderson made a brief presentation on the history of this property. He then.presented several slides showing the location of the property. Discussion of the slides and the number of lots ensued. The Public. Hearing was opened at 10:30 p.m. Mr. Don Hale, agent for the applicant, made a brief statement. Speaking in favor of the project was George Thomas, the applicant. Speaking in opposition were Dennis Ostrom, 16430 Sultus Street, Santa Clarita, representing the Sand Canyon Homeowners' Association; Margi Coletti, 15921 Live Oak Springs, Canyon Country; and Richard Sathre, representing the Crystal Springs Ranch Association. Some concerns were drainage, and the number of lots to be approved. The Public Hearing was closed at 10:50 p.m. There was discussion among the Commission. Commissioner Modugno made a motion to continue the item to the regular meeting of May 21, 1991. Vice -Chairman Cherrington seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. 9 t MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21435 May 21, 1991 ITEM 2 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21435 Director Harris opened the item and stated that there was a staff presentation scheduled which was the same one the Commission had heard at the previous meeting. The Commission elected not to hear the presentation again. Mr. Henderson gave an update on the County recorded lots with relation to this parcel. A brief discussion by the Commission followed relating to the Subdivision Map Act and this request. Chairman Brathwaite opened the public hearing at 10:12 p.m. Mr. George Thomas, applicant, 25571 Clearlake Drive, Santa Clarita. Mr. Thomas gave his testimony with a slide show. Mr. Don Hale, engineer for the applicant, Hale and Associates, 26017 Huntington Lane, Valencia. Mr. Hale made a brief statement. Chairman Brathwaite closed the public hearing at 10:32 p.m. Following a discussion by the Commission, Commissioner, Garasi motioned and Vice -Chairman Cherrington seconded 'for denial. Denial of the project was carried by a vote of 5-0. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21435 June 4, 1991 UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ITEM 1 - RESOLUTION FOR THE DENIAL. OF TENTATIVE PARCEL HAP 21435 Director Harris introduced Item 1. Commissioner Modugno motioned for approval of the Resolution for Denial. Commissioner. Woodrow seconded the .motion. With a vote of 5-0, the motion passed.