The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-11-12 - AGENDA REPORTS - RESO P90 18 TENTATIVE PM 21435 (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presente lv s PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 12, 1991 SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission decision (Resolution No. P90-18) denying 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 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 appeal was previously scheduled on the City Council's July 9, 1991 agenda, but was postponed at the appellant's request. The City Clerk subsequently rescheduled this request for the September 24, 1991 agenda. The applicant again requested that this appeal be postponed, so it was rescheduled again by the City Clerk to November 12, 1991. 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. Agenda item: Page 2 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 25Z and on a significant ridgeline) would create abrupt cuts and 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 accessary 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. Subsequently, the lots at greater than twice the required area were restricted to being developed with no more than one single family dwelling. This was done to maintain the overall density for the 460 acre parcel. 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 regarding future subdivisions 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. Page 3 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. 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. 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. P91-18. 3. Memo from City Engineering Staff. 4. Minutes of Planning Commission meetings. 5. Planning Commission staff reports dated April 2, 1991; May 7, 1991; May 21, 1991. 6. Negative Declaration and Initial Environmental Assessment. 7. Letter from John Schawrze to Lynn Harris. 8. Project site plan. LMH:JC/442 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 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. 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 12th day of November, 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: October 18, 1991 Donna M. Grindey City Clerk Publish Date: October 22, 1991 HALE ASSOCIATES, Inc. E Consulting Engineers 777 �7-IY35 01TY OF SANTA g4ft Tq ' 76017]Huhgd} Lane, Suite B September 19, 1991 Valencia, lifornia 91355 Telephone: (805) 2954" Fax: (805) 295.1602 CITY n '' " `� Carl Boyer, III jrL Mayor, City of Santa•Clarita 23920 Valencia•Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 PARCEL MAP 21435 Honorable Mayor Boyer, The City Council is scheduled to hear the appeal of George and Marla Thomas on September 24,•1991. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas are appealing the Planning Commission's denial of their project, Parcel Map 21435. The original proposal for this project was to create a total of four single family residential lots.on a 5.32.acre parcel in Sand Canyon. After working with the City staff for almost two years on this project the staff felt that a redesign of the project was necessary. Staff recommended that a total of three lots would be appropriate for the site. Mr. Thomas agreed to the staff's recommendation and was prepared to portray that position to the Planning Commission at the -April 2, 1991 hearing. A copy of the redesigned parcel map is enclosed for your review. Unfortunately, at the April 2nd Planning Commission hearing the primary issue of discussion was the presence of a dedication statement on the title page of the tract map which created the Thomas' lot7. The Tract.Map (No. 37573) was approved by:Los Angeles County and the final map was recorded on July 3, 1980. The title page of the firial.map has a dedication which states: 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 lot in question is Lot X23. The issue of this statement was discussed with the City's .first case planner during November 1989, shortly after the submittal of this application. At that time, research with the City's Community Development Department indicated that this dedication statement did not prohibit the further subdivision of the project site. Recent conversations with the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning have indicated that this dedication statement is utilized .for a variety of purposes. The County reviews subdivision requests for properties with this dedication statement on an individual basis. The County has recently approved Parcel Map 21479 which has the identical dedication statement. Their position is to reevaluate the area and the project when new subdivisions are proposed. When this issue was first introduced the City Planning Commission was not familiar with this type of dedication statement and they requested that the City staff prepare a presentation regarding this statement. The City staff gave a presentation on these types of dedications on April 16, 1991. At the April 16th City Planning Commission hearing, the discussion between the Community Development staff, the Assistant City Attorney and the Commissioners indicated that reviewing projects, and these dedication statements, on an individual basis was the optimal way to proceed.- Thh City Attorney's office has further stated that this dedication does not prohibit subdivision of the Thomas' property and that the Subdivision Map Act regulates this subdivision in'the same way that it regulates other. subdivisions. Hopefully, the City Council's policy will be to.review Mr. Thomas' project on its own merit. The presence of the dedication statement should not detract from the project's merit nor from the City's newly adopted General Plan. The City's General Plan dictates that three homes on this property would be an acceptable density. The potential impact of the four lot project, because of grading and ridgeline development, would be eliminated by the new design for a three lot project. Adequate open space could also be preserved under the new project design. The ridgeline issue has not been accurately presented during the hearings for this project. The project site does contain a very small portion of a ridgeline which would not be altered for a three lot project. The ridgeline in question continues offsite and on the north side of the Thomas' property the City has already approved a 70 lot tract which will develop the ridgeline with homes and roadways (Hunter's Green Tract). The attached line of. -sight exhibit illustrates that the development of the Thomas' property will not actually obstruct the view of .the ridgeline... . We;believe'that the newly designed project will be a benefit to the City. Approval of Parcel Map 21435 will provide needed funding for the City' infrastructure through the collection of Bridge and Thoroughfare District fees-, Park and Recreation'fees, and mass -transit fees. The City'stax base would also be increased through the construction of two new luxury homes on this property. Further development of this site will offer housing opportunities in an area where it is development of.an infill nature. This should be preferable over.the introduction Of housing developments into natural open space areas. The installation of drainage improvements will also be a benefit to the community. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas are committed to making their project a Positive development for the City. They have offered additional funding, beyond the City requirements, for infrastructure in the Sand Canyon area. They are also prepared to discuss creative ways in which this project can benefit their community. Please review our newly designed project and consider the Positive aspects of this project. I urge you to allow Mr. Hale and Mr. Thomas ample opportunity to present their information during the hearing. Please feel free to ask them for clarification on any issue which you feel may be helpful to you as you make this important decision. Sincerely, KEITH USEL� Director Land Planning Department Enclosures cc: Howard McKeon JoAnne Darcy Jan Heidt Jill Klajic CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor.Carl Boyer and City Council members. , - I -Intl FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development. DATE: November 12, 1991 SUBJECT: Resolution P91-18 for the denial of George Thomas' proposed Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 21435). Project site is located at 27548 Clear Lake Drive. Resolution P91-18 was adopted by the Planning Commission on June 4, 1991, denying Tentative Parcel Map 21435. Staff made findings that this proposed project was inconsistent with the City's draft General Plan, and would ultimately be inconsistent with the adopted General Plan. At the time Resolution P91-18 was prepared, the April 30, 1991 version of `the draft General Plan was cited to make this determination. This draft of the City's General Plan was subsequently revised and formally 'adopted by the City Council on June 25, 1991. Seven of the policies cited from the April 30, 1991 draft of the General Plan, were relocated in the text of the adopted General Plan and assigned new policy numbers. The following table indicates the revisions of policy numbers which were made to the April 30, 1991 draft General Plan as they correspond to the City's adopted.General Plan: 4/30/91 draft General Plan Land Use Element policy 1.10 Land Use Element policy 1.13 Land Use Element policy 3.12 Land Use Element policy 4.1 Land Use Element policy 4.2 Land Use Element policy 5.3 Open Space and Conservation Element policy 1.13 6/25/91 adopted General Plan, Land Use Element policy 2.9 Land Use Element policy 2.12 Land Use Element policy 4.12 Land Use Element policy 5.1 Land Use Element policy 5.2 Land Use Element policy 6.3 Open Space and Conservation Element policy 1.12 Please note these changes pertaining to Resolution P91-18.All other policy numbers cited in this resolution remain the same, and are consistent with those of the adopted General Plan. Thank you. LMH/JC/452 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 LAKE 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 one-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 25Z. 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 publichearing 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 . 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 becausethis 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 on slopes exceeding 25I 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. Reso P91-18 Page 4 of 5 NOV, 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. S - - 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 nity Development CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M TO: Dick FROM: Nancy , DATE: August 20, 1991 SUBJECT: 27561 Clearlake - George Thomas Per your request I have reviewed our files on the above mentioned project and I have the following information. 1. There are no permits in the permit file for any grading on site. 2. There is no listing on the plan check logs for any Checker having done review on this site. 3. There is no listing on the log -in sheets that any plans came in for that project. 4. There are no grading plan check files for that project. 5. I xeroxed copies of the approved plans for the original tract grading and had the inspector, Bob Trom check the site to see if it conformed to the approved plans. He indicated that there was an area, which is highlighted on the attached map, where quite a bit of grading was done which is not shown on the approved plans. Bob said that a sizeable amount of dirt was moved which created a five foot cut slope and that a permit should have been pulled for the project. Cut slopes greater than three feet or excavations moving more than 20 cubic yards do require a permit according to our code. He was also concerned about where the fill dirt was moved to. 6. There is also a small area which is also indicated on the map where there is a small shed. This area appears to have been cleared a little but it seems to be more for maintenance and esthetics. RECEIVED AUG [Y14 &f 1 iyyi Unftoommumty per, ,. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21435 June 4, 1991 UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ITEM 1 - RESOLUTION FOR THE DENIAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 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. 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 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. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21435 Apri1.2, 1991 NEV BUSINESS - PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM N0. 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 Barris 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 frcm.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 Woodrow 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 review of this 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 thereisenough 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. 721 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 open, and explained the need for clarification on stamps. Chairman Brathwaite closed Item 6 at 8:35 p.m. 3 Public Hearing would remain the County's statements and CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M TO: Chairman Brathwaite and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Developments DATE: June 4, 1991 7 /� SUBJECT: Resolution for denial of Tentative Parcel Map 21435 BACKGROUND: This case was continued from the April 2, .1991 Planning Commission meeting 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 in concept Tentative Parcel Map 21435. The Planning Commission directed staff to return with a formal resolution for denial of the proposal at the June 4, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Attached is Resolution No. P91-18 for the Commission Chair's signature. Thank you. . Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I N T E R 0 F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M T0: Chairman Brathwaite and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development /�/ ��V"C� DATE: May 21, 1991 SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing of Tentative Parcel Map 21435 BACKGROUND: This case was continued from the April 2, 1991 Planning Commission meeting to the May 7, 1991 meeting, and again to the May 21, 1991 meeting. The Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing, and directed staff to research and clarify the reasons for the development restriction placed on the subject parcel and to verify the total number of lots in the parent tract which were t approved by Los Angeles County. Also, the Commission asked for a clearer accounting -as to the number of approved and recorded lots in the area. Staff research indicates that determinations were made by the County of Los Angeles as to the appropriate number of lots on the original 460 acre parcel, which was subdivided as.Tract 33893. 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 the 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 decided that 65 was the appropriate number of additional single family lots, for a newly determined total of 136 (recorded) plus 65, equaling 201 total homesites. Throughout this procedure, of the various lots which were recorded under the original approval and later approvals, 27 of the larger lots (at greater than twice the required area) had a note placed on them conferring to the County the right to restrict against being developed with more than one single family dwelling in order to maintain the overall density. 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 two approved lots which faced the mining operation never were recorded. Of the other 199 approved lots, all 199 were recorded. Staff presented an exhibit at the last meeting, mistakenly showing 24 lots in an area where 23 lots were approved and 23 lots were recorded. Director Harris requested that the Commissioners retain all materials on this item for the continued hearing. JC:jcg:296 Agenda Item:. 3._ CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M TO: Chairman Brathwaite and Members of the Planning Commission &i _0CAJ-C_ FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development DATE: May 7, 1991 SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing of Tentative Parcel Map 21435 BACKGROUND: This case was previously before the Planning Commission on April 2, 1991. The Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing, and directed staff to research and clarify the reasons for the development restriction placed on the subject parcel. No new information or any redesign of. the project has been submitted by the applicant since the initial Public Hearing heldonApril 2, 1991. Staff research indicates that determinations were made by the County of Los. Angeles as. to the appropriate number of lots on the original 460 acre parcel. which was subdivided as Tract 33893. 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.the 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 decided that 202 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 intent was to avoid the re -subdivision of these lots which would increase the total number of lots allowed for this 460 acre area. JC:jcg:276 Attachments: Tentative Parcel Map 21435 Tract Map 37573 Staff Report dated April 2, 1991 °�.,nda ltelmLlft CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT Tentative Parcel Map 21435 DATE: April 2, 1991 TO: Chairman Brathwaite and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: 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 322. 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 Areavide General Plan, draft City General Plan, Zoning, and existing land use of the project site and adjacent properties: 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, Ni 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, erosion, and adequate school facilities. The environmental review indicated that the proposed project will not have.any adverse environmental impacts which cannot be addressed through mitigation measures, which are included inthe project design and conditions of approval. Subsequently, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect was prepared for this project. INTERDEPARTMENT/INTERAGENCY REVIEV: Comments and recommendations were requested 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. 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 Areavide 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. Yhile 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 10Z; 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 on 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. 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 of the 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•shov 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 coi 2500' RADIUS MAP -d TPM 21435 Zcr w,o i v LOS 0� -OUw_. 9,LUFF liVF S _ , D SAN ra r, HRD v O rCkf J w o � Z'poP" O VH d � ! V • 61 RD EAGiF RU w ' RIDGE v 0 7 J $ CONDOR O Rp •1 2¢ g �� q n I ,_ VICINITY MAP TPM 21435 tet• "v P D CYN. RD. SO`Ep�A _..�arG VALLEY FWD PROJECT V G� SITE I CEDARFORT ST. H •4� Sp1y0 S CYN. RD. PLACER/TA CSN. N 9 EXHIBIT A-1 10100%fir -;T SLOPE= 0 - 25% ter-, SLOPE= 0 - 25% EXHIBIT A-2 CONCEPTUAL GRADING MAP M, .f sj P. ... 1A • P ce IL bh, . . . . . . ..... VICINITY NIAP NO SCALE 7 ;j oll VICINITY NIAP NO SCALE 7 EXHIBIT A-3 110 I /WN L. v./ J/ 1 G rgv#IA5 rPM 2-1+3s MONO yG30� -S Z .or ro Mre -IR" q'A' IDICATE PHASES ITATIVE TR ]yg/I :ORDED TRACTS / 8 V DESIGN BEING PREPARIII nJ bream �.Aaa..� en 1 i�Nnirrra !:�.nq o�. [n X H b7 H H E TRACT" �� 49185 QY 47 44 /nN ♦oN 47 •�- �i065 o t SL 51 3 w 0 NO 43o : LOTS bQ 0 µ, Yy� � b° SA � ] s{} 37 g 31 4� ql \, C2Z- 3Y : *or ro sc�Le I� 0 33 MrE: wawi[ G, '9M eiqM`f t o n � V N T � 8 0 2i g 3Q• u 7A 2S' '1'V 2l - 1i y1 113- 17 Li] 19, ZD i -w TR CT 15 ylv 3, gD LOT p la > Ld ` 333 µ�° '■ opU 29 LOTSfM- 3 375 3 t +I { I j0 n u 2 3 sit 4i i ID 9 ��. iW_ 4<4.q 21 4 q N e\ 11 Iii Z jl /9 t1T_ 4V3L4 t); e D 9 TR -4 Y2Yr =� Io,. - 15 IY 17 tECD¢,ocd 199 l I p b 5 -ns:... ,. 'eaDr.N3bt. oiiec�cy z R�< nwaaw W% ZO1 a N a r /r N O va cl r r O O r t0 co r �...r� 17 , 1s d' N N N N r , EXHIBIT "B" r . 10 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 May 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 505, the average cross slope of this property is 32i. 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. .............a».tea.=a.......e_�=�a.s�__ [ ] 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: ✓ZZ [x] Legal advertisement. [x] Posting of properties. [x] Written notice, W. NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA MASTER CASE NO: TPM 21435 Case Planner: Jeff Chaffin Proiect Location: 27548 Clear Lake Drive (projectsiteis approximately 940 feet east of the intersection of Cedarfort Drive and Clear Lake Drive.) Proiect Description and Setting: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 5.54 acre parcel into four new residential lots. The project site consists of hillside terrain with slopes exceeding 50Z. the average slope of this property is 32Z. 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. General Plan Designation: RVL 0.5 -.1.0 (Residential Very Low, 0.5 to 1.0 dwelling units per acre.) Zoning: A-1-1 (Light Agricultural, 1 acre minimum lot size.) Applicant: George Thomas Environmental Constraint Areas: Hillside development; hydrological effects; geological stability; natural habitat; erosion; school impacts. 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? .................................. [ ] I ] 1X1 e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? .......... [ ] I ] [X] f. Exposure of people:or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ................................... [ ] I 1 IX] g. Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? .............. h. Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? ........................... [ 1 [ 1 [X] 1 - 2 - YES MAYBE NO i. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? ....................... [ ] [ ] [X] j. Development and/or grading on a.slope greater than 25Z natural grade? ............ [X] [ ] [ ] k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X] 1. Other? Development within a hillside conservation area . ................. [X] [ ] [ ] 2. 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. Other? [ ] [ ] [X] 3. Yater. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage. patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ............................ [X] [ l [ l b. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? .............................. L I L l [X] C. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ......................... [ ] [ ] [X] d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface -water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ ] [ ] [X] e. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ..................... [ ] [ ] [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? ............ [ ] L ] [X] g. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ............................ .[ l L l LXl - 3 - d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat and/or migratory routes7 ........... [ ] [ ] [X] 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [ ] YES MAYBE NO h.' Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ........... [ J [ ] [XJ i. Other? [ ] [ ] [X] 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: substantial new light or glare? ................. [ ] a. Change in the diversity of species or number Use. Will the proposal result in: of any species of plants (including trees, Substantial alteration of the present shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ... [ J [ ] [X] b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, A substantial alteration of the 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] [ ] [ J d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ...................................... [ ] [ I [X] 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? ...... [ ] [ ] [XJ d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat and/or migratory routes7 ........... [ ] [ ] [X] 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [ ] [ ] [XJ b. Exposure of people to severe or - unacceptable noise levels? ................. [ ] [ J [X) C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [ j [ I [X] 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? ................. [ ] [ ] [XJ 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial alteration of the present land use of an area? ....................... [ J [ ] IX] b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of an area? ............... [ ] [ ] [XJ - 4 - 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density; or growth rate of the human population of an area? ( ] [ ] (XI b. Other? [ ] [ 7 [X] 12. Housing. Will the proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? ........................ [ I I I [X] b. Other? [ ] I I [XI 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ........................ [ ] [ ] IX] _ 14 YES MAYBE NO C. A use that does not adhere to existing zoning laws? ............................... 17 I I IX] d. A use that does not adhere to established development criteria? ...................... [ ] [X] [ I 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of -any natural resources? ................................. [ 1 [ ] IXI b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources? ......................... [ ] [ I [X] 10. Risk of Upset/Han-Made Hazards. Will the proposal: a. Involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil; pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? .......................... [ ] [ ] [X] b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard- ous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ................................ I I 17 IXI C. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ...................................... I I IA IXI d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety hazards? ................................... [ ] [ I IXI 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density; or growth rate of the human population of an area? ( ] [ ] (XI b. Other? [ ] [ 7 [X] 12. Housing. Will the proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? ........................ [ I I I [X] b. Other? [ ] I I [XI 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ........................ [ ] [ ] IX] _ 14 - 5 - YES MAYBE NO b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking?. ................. [ ] [ I [X] C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? [ ] [ I IXI d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? .............................. [ l [ I [X] e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [ J ( I [X] f. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? .............................. [ I I I [X] 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? ........................... [ I I I [XI b. Police protection? ......................... [ I [ ] (XI C. Schools? ................................... (XI I ] 1.1 d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .... [ ] [ I [XI e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? .................6......... [ I I 1 [XI f. other governmental services? ............... [ ] [ ] [X] 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in? a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or ' energy . .................................... I I [ I 1X1 b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? [ ] [ I (XI 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ...................... [ ] [ 1 [X] b. Communications systems? ..................... [ ] [ ] [XI C. Water systems? ......6 ...................... ( ] I I [XI d. Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ ] ( I [X) e. Storm drainage systems? .................. I ] I 1 [XI - 6 - 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ] 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? .............. [ ] b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? ... [ ] C. Does the proposal.have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ] d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ..................... [ ] YES MAYBE NO f. Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [ ] [ I [X] g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of delivery system improvements for any of the above? ......... [ ] [ I [X] 17. Human Health. Will.the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? [ I [ I [X] b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ................................... [ I [ I [XI 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? ................... [ I [ I [X] b. Will the proposal.result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ....................... [ ] [ l [XI C. Will the visual impact of the proposal be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ ] [XI [ ] 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ] 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? .............. [ ] b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? ... [ ] C. Does the proposal.have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ] d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ..................... [ ] - 7 - Discussion of Impacts. Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact 1 b,c,i,j,l As proposed, the project would require grading to construct driveways and building pads. The project site consists of undulating topography with an average cross -slope of 32Z. Approximately 53Z of the site is occupied by slopes between 25Z and SOZ in grade, and approximately IOZ of the site is occupied by slopes which exceed 50Z in grade. The -maximum topographic relief of the project site is 90 feet according to the project plans. A detailed grading plan has not been submitted at -this time. The applicant has submitted a conceptual grading plan which indicates that the project will require movement of approximately 9,000 cubic yards of earth, and involve cut and fill slopes at a 2:1 ratio with the balancing of earthwork material on-site. A geotechnical report was prepared for this project by GeoSoils, Inc., May 29, 1990. This.report outlines specific recommendations and procedures for grading and earthwork in conjunction with an approved grading plan. City engineering staff has reviewed the report and recommendations, and has determined that they adequately address the geological concerns associated with this project. According to the report, '...cut and fill slopes are planned at gradients of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical.) The maximum proposed cut slope height is approximately 28 feet, and the maximum proposed fill slope height is approximately 50 feet.' Although this site is located within a seismically active region, no active or potentially active faults are known to exist on, or in close proximity to, the project site. The geotechnical report also indicates that the project "...is considered feasible from a geologic and soil engineering viewpoint. Provided that recommendations in the report are complied with, proposed building sites will be considered safe from landslide; settlement, or slippage. Grading will not adversely affect the stability of off-site development." A detailed grading plan for residential development at the site shall be submitted at the time application is made for building permits. Implementing the recommendations of the geotechnical report will result. in the creation of building pads and driveways which will not.have a significant environmental effect. 3 a The construction of building pads, driveways, and graded slopes may alter absorption rates and surface runoff. However, the approved drainage concept for this project indicates that this impact will be insignificant. 17 -8- a,c Residential development of the property could involve the establishment of horticultural ornamentals. Because the site is proposed for low density residential development, and that the site is not designated as an ecologically sensitive area, the project should have no significant impact. a -d Impacts within the immediate vicinity have lowered habitat value, so the proposed development of the site should not result in disruption of species diversity. The site has not been designated as an significant ecological area. The reduction of rare or endangered species, or deterioration of habitat and migratory routes should not occur. Domestic pets can be expected, but should not impede existing wildlife or habitat values. No significant impact is expected. d The City's draft General Plan, as well as the draft Hillside Conservation and Ridgeline Preservation Ordinance, has established preliminary development criteria for projects in hillside and ridgeline areas. These criteria are intended to preserve the physical and aesthetic quality of ridgelines and hillsides by establishing the following: Open space requirements, appropriate hillside densities, design requirements for grading and building construction, landscaping and revegetation, fire protection, erosion control and geological stability, and minimizing visual impacts by maintaining a natural appearance. As submitted, this project will have a significant impact on the existing hillside, and does not comply with draft General Plan hillside development criteria. As such, the proposed project would have a significant impact. Staff inspected the project site on February 21, 1991, and determined that, to reduce the hillside and ridgeline impacts to an insignificant level, the project proponent must redesign the project to.provide the following: 1) Building pads and driveways which do not disrupt the natural topography; 2) A lower overall dwelling density; 3) Less grading; 4) No disruption to the silhouette of the existing ridgeline. 13 IM 13 c An increased demand on public transportation systems may result from this proposal. The City's traffic engineering staff has determined that additional vehicle traffic generated by this project can be accommodated by existing roadways. No significant impact is anticipated. 14 c Local area schools will be impacted by the proposed residential development of this property. A mitigation agreement between the applicant and the school districts shall be required prior to the public hearing for this proposed project. These agreements shall be subject to the review andapproval of each affected school district, respectively. 18 c The applicant is proposing to grade future building pads on areas of highest elevation. This design feature will create an impact by disrupting the silhouette of the natural ridgeline. The reduction . and relocation of these proposed building pad(s) away from these high elevation points, along with a landform grading plan to maintain topographic continuity, may provide further development of this site while maintaining aesthetic quality. Redesigning the project to eliminate this encroachment will reduce this impact to an insignificant level. 1;l -10- 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 the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) .. [ ] [ ]' [X] 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly'or indirectly? ......... [ ] [ ] [X] 29 [PIP 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 WILLBE PREPARED . .................................... [ l 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 . ......................................... [ I LYNN M. HARRIS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA Prepared By: Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner II 2/20/91 ( g re) (Name/Title) (Date) yor R C JC/237 (Name/Title) 3/27/91 (Date) 2� It COs Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL PLANNING 320 WeSI Temple Street LOS Angeles CalrlOmia 90012 9]4-6411 James E HaM, AICP Plennmg Director March 11, 1991 Lynn Harris, Director of Community Development ®5: City of Santa Clarita Is ®I 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 WE SUBJECT: wT^E'NTATIVE TRACT NO. 49185 Dear M� p ris: It has come to our attention that you are currently processing Tentative Tract No. 49185. In reviewing our records, we have determined that the proposed subdivision is actually a re- subdivision of a portion of Tract No. 32571. The site in question consists of two oversized lots which were provided to help achieve consistency with the maximum allowable General Plan density for that tract. Further, the property in question is regulated by the provisions of Conditional Use Permit No. 2156. The construction of more than two homes on the site would violate the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL PLANNING James E. Hartl, AICP Director of Planning John R. Schwarze, AICD Administrator, Current Planning Branch JS: PH: hp m V Q a Q'L�w,w d F f mmw wy C m N 2 2 U �a 'fie u 8€h W N6 U ? � p U N Z Z Q f am o " cl N LO N cl m 96W 91"�A Land Use Construction and Governmental Affairs Consultants November 08, 1991 City Clerk City of Santa Clarita City Hall Santa Clarita, CA RE: APPEAL OF TENTATIVE_ PARCEL MAP NO, 21435 Dear Madam: Attached for your records is a copy of a brief prepared by this firm in its representation of the Petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. George Thomas. State law compels this firm to raise issue, in total, with the Planning Commission Findings supportive of their denial of the Petitioners request for approval which is the basis for this appeal at the public hearing on the appeal. A failure to do so would preclude certain introductions of evidence should judicial remedy be sought. You are respectfully requested to record the enclosed document as a matter of record for the. above referenced case prior to November 12, 1991. Very truly yours, Jonathan L. Ames President, THE AMES GROUP JLA/dmp cc: Mr. George Thomas Mr. Don Hale, HALE AND ASSOCIATES Mr. Charles J. Moore, Los Angeles County Counsel file 313 E. Palmdale Blvd., Suite C .• Palmdale, CA 93550 805-265-0425 • 818-780-0998 • FAX 805-265-0443 • 1 19. CITY OF SAFITA CLARITA 2. 3. 21. Iia J 02 s91 • the City of Santa Clarita Department of Planning Staff (hereinafter 22. 4. "Staff") for a Tentative Parcel Map, the City of Santa Clarita 5. Planning- Commission (hereinafter "Commission") acted to deny IN A MATTER BEFORE THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY COUNCIL • 6. approval of the map on certain-grounds'that the Petitioners contend 25. I• APPEAL OF CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION 7. petition 8. 27. • 9. Santa Clarita (hereinafter "City") for vacation of the Commission's 28. • 10. GEORGE THOMAS ) PETITION FOR APPROVAL.' li. and ) ON APPEAL FOR TENTATIVE MARLA THOMAS ) PARCEL MAP NO. 21435 12. ) • V. ) 13. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) DATE: November 12, 1991 14. and ) 6:30 P.M. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 15. CITY COUNCIL ) ) Cit of Santa Clarita PLACE: Y • 16. Council Chambers 17. 18. JcmtLae L. Lrs 09! 6vs 0817 - 1 717 Last Palatals sled. 0 L YeWe, CL 97770 WI MV5 11 1 19. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 20. After receiving a recommendation of approval from 21. -• the City of Santa Clarita Department of Planning Staff (hereinafter 22. "Staff") for a Tentative Parcel Map, the City of Santa Clarita 23. Planning- Commission (hereinafter "Commission") acted to deny 24. • approval of the map on certain-grounds'that the Petitioners contend 25. are erroneous. As a result of the denial,. .the Petitioners hereby 26. petition the City Council (hereinafter "Council") of the City of 27. • Santa Clarita (hereinafter "City") for vacation of the Commission's 28. JcmtLae L. Lrs 09! 6vs 0817 - 1 717 Last Palatals sled. 0 L YeWe, CL 97770 WI MV5 11 1 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. In MIS CW 2U lost hwe e Ed. 0Nee#, CL 130 C 1•) 3.-0125 ruling and a finding of approval of the project. In the Alternative, the Petitioners respectfully request the return of the revised map to the Commission for review and recommendation. CASE HISTORY The Petitioners, GEORGE and MARLA THOMAS, (hereinafter "Petitioners") submitted to the City a request for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map, numbered 21435 by the City for identification. On or about February 20, 1991, a City Planning Staff Report (hereinafter "Staff Report") was prepared by Mr. Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner II for the City's Department of Planning (hereinafter "Staff"). On or about March 27, 1991, the above referenced Staff Report was revised and approved by Mr. Donald M. Williams, Associate Planner for the City Is Department of Planning. As articulated-within.the above referenced document, the City, or more specifically, duly authorized agents thereof, acted to certify the validity of certain findings which said findings were resultant of their investigations as mandated by law. The findings , acted to certify that the Staff had found the following: K 1. 2. 3. • 4. 5. 6. • 7. 8. 9. • 10. 11. 12. • 13. 14. 15. • 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. In MIS CW 2U lost hwe e Ed. 0Nee#, CL 130 C 1•) 3.-0125 ruling and a finding of approval of the project. In the Alternative, the Petitioners respectfully request the return of the revised map to the Commission for review and recommendation. CASE HISTORY The Petitioners, GEORGE and MARLA THOMAS, (hereinafter "Petitioners") submitted to the City a request for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map, numbered 21435 by the City for identification. On or about February 20, 1991, a City Planning Staff Report (hereinafter "Staff Report") was prepared by Mr. Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner II for the City's Department of Planning (hereinafter "Staff"). On or about March 27, 1991, the above referenced Staff Report was revised and approved by Mr. Donald M. Williams, Associate Planner for the City Is Department of Planning. As articulated-within.the above referenced document, the City, or more specifically, duly authorized agents thereof, acted to certify the validity of certain findings which said findings were resultant of their investigations as mandated by law. The findings , acted to certify that the Staff had found the following: K s 1. 1) The "proposed project would not have a significant 2. effect on the environment as modified by staff"' 3.' • 2) modifications were to be limited to, "three single 4. family lots depicting no encroachment of driveways, 5. building pads, or any landform alteration above the 1714 6. • foot elevation contour (as shown on Exhibits A-1 and A- 7. 3)' 8.. On or about May 21, 1991, the Commission acted to deny) 9. • the Petitioners' request for approval of Tentative Parcel Map 21435 10. (hereinafter "Map"). The Commission based their decision of denial 11. on certain findings which the Petitioners', again, contend are 12. I• erroneous. 13. 14. I• 15. DISCUSSION The Commission acted to deny the Petitioners' proposed 16. Parcel Map for cause and directed Staff to return to it, at the 17. April 02, 1991 meeting, a ResolutionofDenial-articulating its 18. • findings supportive of the denial. As evidence by the attached 19. Resolution for Denial which is Marked EXHIBIT B, for 209 identification, and by reference, incorporated herein, Staff 21 executed this directive. It is here that the inconsistencies become 22.11 apparent. 23. 24. In the original Staff Report, a copy of which is 25. 26. • 28. SarafLan L. lrs fsl �ss csre► Ill�l'o°1st Paleiate 51s5. STf C P*1265-0115 f7550 'City of Santa Clarity Staff Report, RECOMMENDATIONS, at P.4 'City of Santa Clarita Staff report, RECOMMENDATIONS, at P.4 3 !• 14. 1. lid 2. 3. • 17. 4. 5. 6. • 20. 7. • 8. 9. 27. • 28. 214 '.0 Md4 am 'lll fast F"d o ltvl. S4 C MAWN, t7. lim A 365-0625 attached hereto, marked EXHIBIT A for identification and,, by reference, incorporated herein, the planners indicate certain problems associated with the conceptual design of the project which would be eliminated in the event that the Petitioners redesigned their map in conformity with recommendations made therein. The following is a list of those problem areas and their recommended solutions: 1. The Applicant submitted a plan for three (3) additional lots on the subject site.when the site was located in an area which existed as subject to Hillside design guidelines. Staff recommended that the Applicant modify his map to exhibit only two (2) additional lots thereby maintaining conformity with the intent and purpose of the draft Ordinance. 2. The Applicants, project site encroached upon a ridgeline. In the event that the Applicant constructed houses upon the lots, such structures would disrupted the continuity of the ridgeline silhouetted the sky. Staff recommended that the Applicant modify his map to exhibit only two (2) additional lots which said lots would be relocated per a map drawn by the City. The Staff indicated that these new areas were, "...relatively flat and could accommodate houses without excessive grading or substantial alteration of landforms."3 'City of Santa Clarita Staff Report for Tentative Parcel Map at P.4 4 14. 15. lid 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. • 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. • 28. 214 '.0 Md4 am 'lll fast F"d o ltvl. S4 C MAWN, t7. lim A 365-0625 attached hereto, marked EXHIBIT A for identification and,, by reference, incorporated herein, the planners indicate certain problems associated with the conceptual design of the project which would be eliminated in the event that the Petitioners redesigned their map in conformity with recommendations made therein. The following is a list of those problem areas and their recommended solutions: 1. The Applicant submitted a plan for three (3) additional lots on the subject site.when the site was located in an area which existed as subject to Hillside design guidelines. Staff recommended that the Applicant modify his map to exhibit only two (2) additional lots thereby maintaining conformity with the intent and purpose of the draft Ordinance. 2. The Applicants, project site encroached upon a ridgeline. In the event that the Applicant constructed houses upon the lots, such structures would disrupted the continuity of the ridgeline silhouetted the sky. Staff recommended that the Applicant modify his map to exhibit only two (2) additional lots which said lots would be relocated per a map drawn by the City. The Staff indicated that these new areas were, "...relatively flat and could accommodate houses without excessive grading or substantial alteration of landforms."3 'City of Santa Clarita Staff Report for Tentative Parcel Map at P.4 4 • 1. Also in the original Staff Report, the planners 2. indicate certain concerns associated with the conceptual design of 3. • the project and addressed their comments to those considerations. 4. The following is a list of those concerns and their corresponding 5. . comments: 6. • 7. 1. Concerns relative to building, grading and accessory uses of S. the property were evident. In response to these concerns, Staff • articulated the fact that the Applicants were requesting approval 10. of a parcel map only which existed as conceptual and further il. indicated that detailed plans would be required commensurate with 12. • additional environmental analysis at the time of further 13. development of the site allowing, "... Staff the opportunity to 14. ensure that development of the site will be in conformance with the, 15. • . draft Ridgeline preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance."' 16. 17. 2. Geotechnical and drainage concerns were evident. Staff 18. • addressed these issues by articulating the fact that, "...the 19. geotechnical report and drainage concept adequately address staff 20. concerns and are approved for this project as submitted." noting 21. • further that, "All recommended conditions and improvements of the 22. geotechnical report and drainage concept shall be required for the 23. future development.of this property."` 24. 25. In short, the Petitioners submitted a proposed 26. .3 27. 28.1 'City of Santa Clarita Staff Report for Tentative Parcel Map 2135 at P. 4 Joutdu t. lw ' J9! uas carr 5 Jn Jost eattlai� um. tJ c WWI, CL Luso M) BRUS I• I! LI I! 2.11 Parcel Map for consideration by the City pursuant to Federal and3. State law as well as local ordinance. The Petitioner then attended 4. a Development Review Board wherein concerns were articulated and 5. recommendations were made by. Staff to which the Petitioner 6. acquiesced. Evidence of this may be found in the fact that the 7. Petitioner subsequently provided to the City a revised Parcel Map 8. incorporating the modifications as recommended by Staff: 9. 10. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the 11. Staff articulating the fact that.although the project "COULD have 12. a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a 13. significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures) 14. described in the initial study have.been added to the project."' 15. 16. A recommendation was made by Staff to adopt the 17. Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect prepared for this 18. project with the finding that this proposed project will not have 19. a significant effect on the environment as modified by Staff and to 20. continue the public hearing to a date certain to allow the 21. Petitioners to revise the proposed Tentative Parcel Map with the stipulation that the revised map show only three (3) single family 22. 23. lots, the one (1) existing as well as two (2) additional, depicting 24. no encroachment of driveways, building pads or any landform alteration above the 1714 foot elevation contour as shown on 25. 26. specific maps prepared by the Staff. 27. 28. 6City of Santa Clarita Staff Report for Tentative Parcel Map 21 35 at P. 5 rautw L. &S M=On 6 113 Salt ?LUWI tlyd. SS3 L piles, M 37530 (NR 36HUS 11 • 23. 1. • 2. 3. • 26. 4. • 5. 6. 'osatdm L. fetT H MIS GOAL 7. 8. 14. 18. • • 19. 20. 21. 22. At the Planning Commission hearing of May 21, 1991, the Commission voted to deny the Tentative Parcel Map and in doing so, directed Staff to return to it a Resolution of Denial together with the Commission's Mandatory Findings supportive of their decision. On June 4, 1991, the Staff returned to the Commission its Resolution of Denial and attendant Findings and it is these documents which the Petitioners argue support their contention that the Commission erred in its denial of the Tentative Parcel Map. Contained within the Commission Findings are numerous erroneous statements which exist as incongruous with not only the facts as they exist, but with the findings of the City Staff and other agencies whose comments were petitioned by the City pursuant to Federal and State.law and local ordinance. The following is a list of those inaccurate statements and their corrections: 1. At Section 1(f), Staff is quoted as determining that, "...with specific design changes and mitigation measures, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect could be adopted for this project." In point of fact, as evidenced by City of Santa Clarita Staff Report for Tentative Parcel Map 21435 at P. 51 RECOMMENDATIONS, 1, Staff actually found that the Commission should, 11 Adopt the Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect 7 23. 24. • 25. 26. 27. • 28. 'osatdm L. fetT H MIS GOAL 11 fast Meet 9d. M C We, CL 1251 15T26s4es At the Planning Commission hearing of May 21, 1991, the Commission voted to deny the Tentative Parcel Map and in doing so, directed Staff to return to it a Resolution of Denial together with the Commission's Mandatory Findings supportive of their decision. On June 4, 1991, the Staff returned to the Commission its Resolution of Denial and attendant Findings and it is these documents which the Petitioners argue support their contention that the Commission erred in its denial of the Tentative Parcel Map. Contained within the Commission Findings are numerous erroneous statements which exist as incongruous with not only the facts as they exist, but with the findings of the City Staff and other agencies whose comments were petitioned by the City pursuant to Federal and State.law and local ordinance. The following is a list of those inaccurate statements and their corrections: 1. At Section 1(f), Staff is quoted as determining that, "...with specific design changes and mitigation measures, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect could be adopted for this project." In point of fact, as evidenced by City of Santa Clarita Staff Report for Tentative Parcel Map 21435 at P. 51 RECOMMENDATIONS, 1, Staff actually found that the Commission should, 11 Adopt the Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect 7 • 1. 2. 3. • 4. 5. 6. • 7. a. 9. • 10. 11.. 12. • 13:. 14. 17. 18. • 19. 20. 21. • 22. 23. 24. • I• 25. 26. 27. 28. Imeka L Ler ha naa gm III asst rdild s uta. srt c P&We, CL 1359 prepared for this project ... as modified by Staff." 2. At Section 2 (b), the Commission finds. that the proposal failed to exist as consistent with the specific policies of the City's draft General Plan. Of special notation here is the fact that. at the time of the June 4, 1991 Resolution, the City's updated General Plan had not been formally and lawfully adopted. As such, the references made to inconsistencies, contained within the Resolution, relate to the. City's April 30, 1991 draft version of the General Plan. A copy of the specific policies which the Petitioners' map violated, as articulated within the April 30, 1991 draft version, together with corresponding policies existing within the formally and lawfully adopted General Plan on June 26, 1991, is attached hereto, marked EXHIBIT C for identification and, by reference, incorporated herein. Parenthetically, the correlation was provided by Nr. Jeff Chaffin of the City Staff in a telephone call on November 4, 1991. The Commission found that the Petitioners' map was in conflict with Land Use Element Goal No. 1, Policy 1.10, revised to Goal No. 2, Policy 2.9, wherein the City's predisposition toward "equestrian -oriented housing in areas that are presently equestrian oriented" is articulated; "ensur[ing] that other surrounding land uses are compatible with the adjacent equestrian zones.!! When investigated, presented prominently for 8 • qualify them as "equestrian -oriented". 1. the 2. that 3. • dedicate to the 4. 5. 6. • 7. 8. 9. • qualify them as "equestrian -oriented". 16. the 17. that 18. • dedicate to the 19. 20. 21. • 22. 23. 24. • 25. 26. 27. • 28. TOWAU S. SW TSS = rw 715 Sant MAW@ Avd. STS C Mute, CL 55550 fie ZH42S consideration is the fact that the property in question exists in an established residential neighborhood comprised of lots, the average size of which is one (1) acre. In point of fact, the subject property exists at the end of a cul-de-sac street, encompassing the entire area of the cul-de-sac, and is the only lot, at 5.54 acres in size, on the street, or in the neighborhood, in excess of one (1) acre. With the Petitioners seeking the ability to subdivide their single lot into.three (3) total lots, the average size of each lot would exist as 80,440 square feet or 1.85 acres, over eighty percent (80%) larger than the average neighborhood lot. By City standards alone, the size of the individual lots qualify them as "equestrian -oriented". Add to that the fact that the Petitioners have made an offer to dedicate to the City land of sufficient size and adequate placement which would allow for the development of equestrian trails joining the Petitioners, neighborhood with the proposed equestrian -oriented development behind the subject property and there can be no question that the proposed parcel map is, in deed, and unquestionably, "equestrian - oriented" and that the approval of it, together with the equestrian trails offered the City, exemplifies the intent of General Plan Goal No. 1, Policy No. 1.10, revised to Goal No. 2;. Policy 2.9, in that it, "...ensure[s] that other surrounding land uses. are compatible with the adjacent equestrian zones". :7 28. ,man L. Ass UA!ffi M7 117W PIAI Bird. 5174 :, u. rsssd '1 15d-0515 'City of Santa Clarita Staff Report for Tentative Parcel Map at P.4, Paras. 1-3. 'City of Santa Clarita Staff Report for Tentative Parcel Map at P.4, Paras. 1-3. 10 1. The Commission found that the Petitioners' map was 2. in conflict with Land Use Element Goal No. 1, Policy 1.13, revised 3. • to Goal No. 2, Policy No. 2.12, wherein the Petitioners' proposal 4. was thought to violate the preservation of, "open space to preserve 5. significant ridgelines, to provide land use buffers, and to provide 6. • for both public safety and oak tree preservation." 7. 8. The Petitioners, as articulated earlier, originally • 9. • sought the ability to subdivide their property into four (4) total 10. parcels. This proposed subdivision was reviewed by Staff and il. determined to be contradictory to the Hillside Development and 12. • Ridgeline Preservation Ordinance.` Resultant was the Staff 13.' recommendation that the Petitioners revise the content and 14. configuration of their parcel to include only two (2) additional 15. i• parcels which would be located in such a manner that the rooflines 16. of the proposed homes built upon the lots would fail to intersect 17. with the ridgeline and its silhouette against. the sky.' 18. • Parenthetically, it was the City Staff which prepared the modified 19. map for the Petitioners indicating the number and placement of the 20. lots which the Petitioner used as his revised Tentative Parcel Map. 21. 22. As a direct result of 1) the map revision by the 23. Petitioners incorporating the precise direction of the Staff, 2) 24. 25. :7 28. ,man L. Ass UA!ffi M7 117W PIAI Bird. 5174 :, u. rsssd '1 15d-0515 'City of Santa Clarita Staff Report for Tentative Parcel Map at P.4, Paras. 1-3. 'City of Santa Clarita Staff Report for Tentative Parcel Map at P.4, Paras. 1-3. 10 • 1. 2. 3. • 4. 5. 6. • 7. 8. 9. • 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. • 28. Jomt5u L. Ira rlt&as=7 In last Po]a I tlr1, 521 C Neee, U. 93551 the fact that, again, the Petitioners are offering the dedication of equestrian trails to the City commensurately with their request for. approval 3) the fact that the lots proposed are of sufficient size, again, 80% larger than other lots in the neighborhood, as to allow for adequate open space surrounding dwelling units and 4), the site fails to exhibit the existence of any oak trees, the Petitioners' proposal wholly fails to violate Land Use Goal No. 1, Policy 1.13, revised to Goal No. 2, Policy No. 2.12. The Commission found that the Petitioners' map was in conflict with Land Use Element Goal No. 1, Policy 3.12, revised to Goal.No. 4, Policy No. 4.12, wherein the maintenance and enhancement, "... of desirable rural qualities found in the certain existing neighborhoods which are rural in character" was mandated. In point of fact, not only does the Petitioners' proposal fail to violate this policy, it exemplifies the maintenance and preservation of ruralism inasmuch as 1) it contributes nothing detrimental to the neighborhood as.existing streets, curbs, gutters and infrastructure already service the area and 2) the Petitioners' proposal serves to further the rural atmosphere of the.area by, (a) providing equestrian trails not currently available in the neighborhood, (b) replace the open and barren dirt areas with landscaping attendant to the two (2) proposed additional homes and (c) remove brush, shrubbery and fallen and dry vegetation which exists as a realistic natural fire hazard even though the fire department has not deemed it so. In the Resolution of Denial, the Commission contends 11 • 1. 2. 3. • 4. 5. 6. • 7. 8. 9. • 10.', ll.l 12.' • 13. 14.1 15.1 I• 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.j I 21. • 22. 23. 24. • 25. 26. 27. • 28. omtdaf L. does of d�tS csm n raft Polrule ft,a. m c tyle, [l. !3550 If df5-0f1f that, "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."a Taken singularly, the ridgeline encroachment allegation has, previously within this brief, been proven erroneous as - a result of. the fact that the- project was redesigned to standards articulated by the Staff which acted to alleviate any 5 such encroachment. Relative to the grading of natural land forms, limits have been established relative to excessive grading which the Petitioners' proposal fails to even approach. In point of fact, the City's own Staff, in their original report at Page 4, Paragraph 3, certifies that they made a, "field inspection of the site" and "observed two additional areas of the site which were relatively flat and could accommodate houses without excessive grading or substantial -alteration of land forms". Evidently, not only do the Petitioners' feel, albeit wholly biased, that the necessary grading would not be excessive, but the City's own paid experts, equally biased, feel the same. Finally, relative to the Commission's contention that the addition of two single family residences, at the i termination,point of a "dead-end" street, would contribute to the diminution of the area's rural character by increasing traffic 'Resolution of Denial at P.. 2 12 1. flow, firstly, one need only look to development elsewhere within 2. the "rural" areas of not only the City of Santa Clarita, but the 3. • State of California to find that the answer is a resounding no. 4. 5. Is a development to be denied simply because to 6. allow it. would mean more automobiles using an existing street? The 7. Supreme Court says no, and, in point of fact; the decisions within 8. the City and State to allow development to proceed by merely 9. • extending a street from an existing neighborhood into the new 10. development thereby adding to the vehicular traffic of that street i 11. acts to verify the answer in the negative. 12. • 13. The -Supreme Court has opined the following: 14. "Zoning is a tool in the hands of governmental 15. bodies which enables them to more effectively • meet the demands of evolving and growing 16. communities. It must not and can not be. used by those officials as an instrument by which 17. they may shirk their responsibilities. Zoning is .a means by which a governmental body can 18, plan for the future -it may not be used as a • means by which to deny the future. The 19, evidence on the record indicates that for the present. and the immediate future the road 20. system of.. is adequate to handle the traffic load.It is also quite convincing that 21, the roads will become increasingly inadequate • as time goes by and that improvements will 22, eventually have to be made. Zoning provisions may not be used, however, to avoid the 23, increased responsibilities and economic burdens which time and natural growth 24. invariably bring."' 25. Secondly, viewing the Court's holding that the possibility of 26. 27. •'NATIONAL. BP LAND AND INVESTMENT COMPANY v KOHN, Supreme Court of nnsylvania,.1965, 215 A2d 597 IamtEan t. lrs tdt MU cwt 13 dA asst taTWIA Md. Mc u' le, M liSSd 1 xfa0S '• 1. 2. 3. I• i• • 16.1 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.1 26.1 increased traffic may not be used to deny progress, as excessive in the case at hand, the mere contention that the addition of two (2) residences, at. the end of a street, to an already established neighborhood, would contribute to additional traffic to a degree anything but negligibly is, at best, fatuous, and at worst, violation of the Petitioners' civil rights. The ability of the City to enact and enforce development restrictions is based wholly in the City's Police Power which is accorded the City by the State. It is, however, regulated by the U.S Constitution, 14th Amendment of Due Process of Law as well as the State of California Constitution, Article 1, § 7 inasmuch as if the attempted exercise of police power is unreasonable or arbitrary, that is, not sufficiently justified.by public necessity, or too drastic in its methods, it can be held to be a violation of due process. TERMINAL PLAZA CORP. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, (1986) 177 CAM 892, 223 CR 379. In short, it is incumbent upon the regulating agency to establish the direct correlation between a land use restriction and that restriction's relationship to the preservation, promotion and protection of the health, safety and welfare of the 4 general Public". To attempt to drew this correlation between the Petitioners' proposal and its contribution of two (2) extra 1ODepartment of Commerce (1926 rev.) reprinted in full, C. Mz jer, Land Ownership and Use 762 (3d ed. 1983); 5 A. Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning 765 (4th ed. 1985) Jcrattae c. leg tat=cart 14 713 hat Pa awe J171, M C h1awl, M l75se W 2fRas 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. I• i• • 16.1 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.1 26.1 increased traffic may not be used to deny progress, as excessive in the case at hand, the mere contention that the addition of two (2) residences, at. the end of a street, to an already established neighborhood, would contribute to additional traffic to a degree anything but negligibly is, at best, fatuous, and at worst, violation of the Petitioners' civil rights. The ability of the City to enact and enforce development restrictions is based wholly in the City's Police Power which is accorded the City by the State. It is, however, regulated by the U.S Constitution, 14th Amendment of Due Process of Law as well as the State of California Constitution, Article 1, § 7 inasmuch as if the attempted exercise of police power is unreasonable or arbitrary, that is, not sufficiently justified.by public necessity, or too drastic in its methods, it can be held to be a violation of due process. TERMINAL PLAZA CORP. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, (1986) 177 CAM 892, 223 CR 379. In short, it is incumbent upon the regulating agency to establish the direct correlation between a land use restriction and that restriction's relationship to the preservation, promotion and protection of the health, safety and welfare of the 4 general Public". To attempt to drew this correlation between the Petitioners' proposal and its contribution of two (2) extra 1ODepartment of Commerce (1926 rev.) reprinted in full, C. Mz jer, Land Ownership and Use 762 (3d ed. 1983); 5 A. Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning 765 (4th ed. 1985) Jcrattae c. leg tat=cart 14 713 hat Pa awe J171, M C h1awl, M l75se W 2fRas • 1. 2. 3. • 4. :l 19. 20. 21. 22. vehicles to the neighborhood would most assuredly exist as judicially perilous. As a result of the Petitioners' compliance with the Staff recommended redesign of his proposal to specifications articulated by the Staff, which specifications act. to negate impacts upon either prominent ridgelines,or natural landforms and, as a result of the fact`that it can not be reasonably argued that the addition of two (2) residences to an already established neighborhood would adversely affect that neighborhood by the addition of two automobiles to the traffic flow of -the street, the allegation that the Petitioners' proposal violates Land Use Element Goal No. 1, Policy 3.12, revised to Goal No. 4, Policy No. 4.12 is erroneous. The Commission found that the Petitioners' map was in conflict with Land Use Element Goal No. 1, Policy 4.1, revised to Goal No. 5, Policy No. 5.1, wherein the City articulates its predisposition to allow hillside development only in a responsible and sensitive manner and to prohibit development on ridgelines designated as "Significant Ridgelines". 23. Inresponse to this finding, and at the risk of 24. repetition, the Petitioners respectfully re -cite -,City of Santa 25. Clarita Staff Report for Tentative Parcel Map 21435, where, at Page 26. 4, Paragraphs 1 through 4, inclusive, Staff not only finds that the 27. Petitioners' proposal is within a significant ridgeiine, it 28. lowtw L. Am 777 AW car? 15 717last 7e iWe llv0. 5:7 C .8 L2 77570 11 J 765-01 dtl hA 1111iW 11d. atD t CL 93550 in) Ji5-0425 - 1. • recommends modifications to the proposal which include the 2. - reduction in the number of lots to three (3) from four (4) and the 3. '• relocation of the additional lots to areas which, "...were 4. • relatively flat and could accommodate houses without excessive 5. grading or substantial alteration of land forms". 21 Homes placed', 6. • upon the two articulated lots would then fail to interrupt the, 7. • "continuity of the natural ridgeline" in that ridgeline's 8. silhouette against the sky. Therefore, by the Petitioners' 9. • incorporation of Staff recommendations into the Petitioners' 10. proposal, and the Petitioners' map's emulation of the Staff 11. prepared map, without exception, the Petitioners' proposal must 12. • 27. fail to violate Land Use Element Goal No. 1, Policy 4.1, revised to 13. 28. Goal No. 5, Policy No. 5.1. 14. at P. 4 dtl hA 1111iW 11d. atD t CL 93550 in) Ji5-0425 - 15. • The Commission found that the Petitioners' map was 16. - in conflict with Land Use Element Goal No. 1, Policy 4.2, revised 17. to Goal No. 5, Policy No. 5.2, wherein the City articulates its 18. • desire .that new development,. grading and landscaping are sensitive 19. to the natural topography and major landforms in the planning area, 20. the Petitioners, again, cite their full and complete compliance 21. • with measures, designed specifically for the Proposed development 22. by the City Staff which, by City Staff's own findings would provide 23. for a development of the land in such a manner that the property 24. 25. could, "...accommodate houses without excessive grading or 26. 27. 28. "City of Santa Clarita Staff Report for Tentative Parcel Map 21g35 at P. 4 Jamttan L. Lr.B MW=7 16 dtl hA 1111iW 11d. atD t CL 93550 in) Ji5-0425 - 2011 substantial alteration of landforms."13 26. • 27. 28. 214 Jaratdae Z. Les 111 BLS aw III IW Maud um. STT C ?AVX#, CL 13550 !XHO relative to two (2) additional lots being created to accommodate 32City of Santa Clarita Staff Report for Tentative Parcel Map at P. 4- 17 3. '• Again, the Petitioners' modification of their 4. proposal to include only two (2) additional building pads in areas 5. which are, by Staff definition, "relatively flat", acts only to 6. • demonstrate the fact that the Petitioners' proposal exemplifies 7. Land Use Element Goal No. 1, Policy 4.2, revised to Goal No. 5, 8. Policy No. 5.2. 9. 10. The Commission found that the Petitioners' map was 11. in conflict with Land Use Element Goal No. 1, Policy 5.3, revised 12. • to Goal No. 6, Policy No. 6.3 wherein the Commission alleged that 13. the Petitioners' proposal would violate the intent of the policy 14. which is articulated as follows: 15. • 16. "Provide for the retention and maintenance of 17. existing residential neighborhoods which are primarily developed with single-family homes 18. and ensure that development is compatible with • and complimentary to existing development in 19. terms of scale, architecture and density." 20. Aside from the fact that the Petitioners' proposal 21. • is, as articulated within the City of Santa Clarita Staff Report 22. for the map, at Page 4, Paragraph 4, "conceptual", and that final 23. plans, be they grading or otherwise still must be reviewed and 24. • approved by the City prior to permit approval, the case at hand is 25. . 26. • 27. 28. 214 Jaratdae Z. Les 111 BLS aw III IW Maud um. STT C ?AVX#, CL 13550 !XHO relative to two (2) additional lots being created to accommodate 32City of Santa Clarita Staff Report for Tentative Parcel Map at P. 4- 17 A 1. two (2) additional single family. residences in an already 2. established neighborhood. The case at hand does not deal with the 3. • development of a large project. 4. 5. Relative to scale, the fact that the Petitioner is 6. desirous of creating two additional lots divisitory of an existing 7. parcel of land which is 5.54 acres in size thereby creating lots in 8. excess of 80,000 square feet would assure that the scale of the 9. • proposed additional lots would be commensurate with, and larger lo. than, that which currently exists within the current and proposed 11. neighborhood. 12. • 13. The current neighborhood exhibits lots the average 14. size of which are one (1) acre in size accommodating homes in the 15'. Five. Hundred. Thousand dollar to One Million dollar range. The 16. proposed neighborhood, which will exist behind. the Petitioners' 17. property, will include 2 and 2+ acre lots with homes in the One (1) 18. • to Three (3) Million dollar range. With the Petitioners' proposed 19. acreage- at approximately 1.84 acres, exhibiting homes that, 20. although intended for occupancy by immediate family members of the 21. • Petitioners, would be priced at Seven Hundred Thousand dollars, 22. wholly evidenced is the fact that inappropriate scale fails to 23. exist as an issue in the case at hand. 24. 25. Relative to architecture, it is well established 26. that several systems insuring architectural consistency with a 27. • 28. surrounding neighborhood are in place within the community and to 'oratfa4 L. Oct u MIS QW 18 Ill tact h1awd lid. fr{ L 'e, CL !7554 '4 MS2S • 1. 2. 3. • 4. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. • 10. 11. 12. • 13. 14. 15. • 16. 17. 18. • 19. 20. 21. • 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. • 28. romtLe L. Lea IA hd Maws slid. STI t �il e, CI. !7550 4 16 us recite those measures herein to a City which drafted them would be redundant. Further, the neighborhood itself possesses measures which control the architectural design of proposed building within its vicinity thereby assuring structures compatibility with their surroundings. Bulk and height limitations are additionally in place within the City Ordinance, together with minimum yard sizes and setbacks, which control the aggregate mass of any proposed structure. As a result of the foregoing alone, the Petitioners are strictly regulated by the City as well as their neighbors in the architectural style of the proposed homes. There exists, however, one more factor which, from purely a personal point, exists as paramount in architectural control; the fact that the Petitioners themselves reside immediately adjacent to the proposed homes and to create structures which are incongruous with that of the Petitioners' residence, which, parenthetically, epitomizes rural country design both in structure, hardscape and landscape, would mean only reduced value in their own residence. Resultant is the fact that architectural consistency is assured not only through a purported concern for the value of the neighborhood, but additionally by a financially vested interest living within the Petitioners. Finally, addressing the allegation that the proposal would violate an established density, it should be noted that the minimum lot size for the. area is one (1) acre. There exists one 19 L n a • 1. single family residence on the 5.54 acre property currently. The 2. Petitioners propose to subdivide the 5.54 acres of land into three 3. (3) parcels, the average size of which would exist as .80,000 square 4. feet+ or 1.84 acres. Resultant is the fact that density fails to 5. exist as an issue. There does exist, however, an allegation, 6. relative to the density issue, which was raised referencing a 7. "note" reportedly limiting further subdivision of the subject S. property appearing on the subdivision map for the entire tract of 9. which the Petitioners' parcel exists as a part. This issue -will be 10. clarified in the final section of this portion of the. brief. 11. 12. The Commission found that the Petitioners' map was 13. in conflict with Community Design Element policy 5.1 which 14. indicated that the retention of "major landforms, ridgelines, 15. natural drainage ways, streams, rivers, valleys and significant 16. vegetation where these features contribute to the overall community 17. identity" was of prime importance. 18. 19. In response, learned. minds need only look tothe 20. subject property itself -to discover that natural drainage ways, 21. streams, rivers and valleys fails to exist. And, relative to 22. significant vegetation allegedly residing within the property, 23. virtually one hindered percent of the' vegetation exists as 24. Chaparral with fully eighty percent (80$) of that Chaparral 25. existing as dry brush with no trees of any species. In point of 26. fact, this issue was addressed within the Environmental Assessment 27. 28. compiled by the City pursuant to State law and, as evidenced Iowan L. Iw 20 M MU CKL7 7U last Pohle Urd. aTd C !, a. !7550 (AR 76HUS C 14. 15. • 16. 17. 1. • 2. 3. • 20. 4. Is 5. 6. • 23. 7. • 8. 9. ♦ 10. il. 12. 13. 14. 15. • 16. 17. I• 25. 26. 27. 28. j=tW S.1x 3s MU tart SIS Put P114le 911. 0 C P ale, C6 53550 ( MS -042S therein, specifically at Page 3, Section 4, Plant Life, the proposal would fail to "...result in a change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants [or a] reduction of the numbers -of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants." Relative to streams and rivers, the same environmental report evidences the fact, at Page 1, Section 1, that the proposal will fail to, It ... result.in other modification of al wash, channel, creek or stream." -And relative to natural drainage courses, the same environmental document evidences the fact that changes in natural drainage ways, where evident, .are mitigatable to the point where an Environmental Impact report was deemed by the City to be not required. Further, the same environmental document, at Page 1, Sections a and h. and Page 2, Sections b through i, inclusive indicates that natural drainage ways are unaffected by the Petitioners' proposal. As a result, violation of Community Design Element policy 5.1 can not be conscionably entertained nor realistically supported. The Commission found that the Petitioners' map was' in conflict with Community Design Element policy 5.2 which indicates guidelines should be created. to govern development, "located in view corridors or near prominent/unique land forms". Relative to the perceived allegation that the Petitioners' proposal is not so regulated, one need only digress to the points within this brief wherein it evidences the fact that, Staff, in reviewing the Petitioners' original proposal for three 21 18. • 19. 20. 21. Is 22. 23. 24. • I• 25. 26. 27. 28. j=tW S.1x 3s MU tart SIS Put P114le 911. 0 C P ale, C6 53550 ( MS -042S therein, specifically at Page 3, Section 4, Plant Life, the proposal would fail to "...result in a change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants [or a] reduction of the numbers -of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants." Relative to streams and rivers, the same environmental report evidences the fact, at Page 1, Section 1, that the proposal will fail to, It ... result.in other modification of al wash, channel, creek or stream." -And relative to natural drainage courses, the same environmental document evidences the fact that changes in natural drainage ways, where evident, .are mitigatable to the point where an Environmental Impact report was deemed by the City to be not required. Further, the same environmental document, at Page 1, Sections a and h. and Page 2, Sections b through i, inclusive indicates that natural drainage ways are unaffected by the Petitioners' proposal. As a result, violation of Community Design Element policy 5.1 can not be conscionably entertained nor realistically supported. The Commission found that the Petitioners' map was' in conflict with Community Design Element policy 5.2 which indicates guidelines should be created. to govern development, "located in view corridors or near prominent/unique land forms". Relative to the perceived allegation that the Petitioners' proposal is not so regulated, one need only digress to the points within this brief wherein it evidences the fact that, Staff, in reviewing the Petitioners' original proposal for three 21 27. • 28. As for the landscape, visual interest and raw.mf f. Epi m ucf faor 22 113 fast hIMIAU Elva. M C f u' 1e, CJ. 1731E XHUS 1. (3) additional lots, recommended the reduction of that number to 2. two (2) and further recommended their placement on other areas of 3. • the property. These Staff recommendations were made to eliminate 4. the potential of adverse development.within view corridors and near 5. prominent landforms. In response, the Petitioners' revised their 6. • proposal to conform, without exception to the Staff 7. recommendations. Resultant is the fact that a proposal currently 8. exists which fails to impact view corridors or prominent landforms 9. i• in the form of ridgelines and therefore upholds the intent of, and 10. fails to violate the purpose of, Community Design Element 5.2. 11. 12. The Commission found that the Petitioners' map was 13. in conflict with Community Design Element policy 5.3 which 14. recommends that developments incorporate attractive natural 15. • amenities such as rock outcroppings, vegetation, streams and 16. drainage areas to protect the environment and provide landscape 17. opportunities, visual interest and /or recreational opportunities. 18. • 19. Relative to the incorporation of, "rock out - 20. croppings, vegetation, streams and drainage areas" within the 21. project, it has been unquestioningly evidenced, both by 22. articulations and recitals within this brief as well as by a City 23. prepared Environmental Assessment document, that these instances 24. • fail to occur within the confines of the subject property and 25. therefore fails to exist as a concern in its minor development. 26. 27. • 28. As for the landscape, visual interest and raw.mf f. Epi m ucf faor 22 113 fast hIMIAU Elva. M C f u' 1e, CJ. 1731E XHUS ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. • 7. 8. 9. w 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. w 19. 20. 21. • 22. 23. 24. w 25. 26. 27. • 28. :OwtLa 1. Les IIUMCM Int amt hwab P e, CL !1550 �( P65 -0a15 recreational opportunities caveat, the mere fact that single family residences are proposed to replace dry brush and barren dirt areas, reserving a great deal of the uncovered area of the lots for live and vibrant landscaping replete with the dedication of ample equestrian trails, serves to evidence the fact that the approval of 1, the Petitioners' proposal only serves to enhance the aesthetics and recreational value of the property. As this is the case, trespass on the merits of Community Design Element policy 5.3 is realistically impossible. The Commission found that the Petitioners' map was in conflict with Community Design Element policy 6.7 wherein visual and physical buffers are promoted to delineate various communities within the valley. In response to the allegation that the Petitioners' proposal violates this, attention must be paid to the map of the area, both graphic and topographical. Presented prominently therein is the fact the subject property, as well as the neighborhood itself, is surrounded by ridgeline which, parenthetically, forms the rear property line of the Petitioners. As a result, a "community within the valley" can be naturally no better delineated than by the situation as it currently exists, and the addition of two (2) residences, within the physical and natural. boundary creating the "community within the valley", which conforms wholly to and compliments thoroughly by emulation,. residences already established within the immediate area, can only enhance and further 23 V, • 1. 2. 3. 18. 4. 5. 6. • 21. 7. 8. 9. • 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. • r 25. 26. 27. 28. Jom!L� L. lac sei LILS czar su Get ratdele etre. art c M9114, G. !7550 rs) Xmas the significance of this policy rather than violate it. The commission found that.the Petitioners' map was in conflict with Open Space Element Policy No. 1.1 which addresses the use of, "significant landforms, ridgelines, vegetation and ecologically sensitive areas as open space." The Petitioners' property exists as part of a previously approved, and substantially larger, tract map which was processed through the County of Los Angeles. Exhibited prominently upon that larger map is evidence that the County exhausted great energy while utilizing vast resources to confirm the existence of ecologically significant areas within the map's boundaries. In point of fact, the rule, again evidenced by the larger map, was that these sensitive areas existed on over ninety percent (90%) of the parcels depicted upon the map. The exception to this rule exists as the Petitioners' property which shows a void, a veritable abyss of ecologically sensitive area. Add to this fact that the property has been shown to void of "significant vegetation", again by the City's own experts, and the fact that the there exists, with the use of the City's own prepared map which, again, was adopted by the Petitioners for processing, no encroachment onto prominent landforms or ridgelines, and the fact that,.as evidenced by the City prepared Environmental Assessment form, no -other natural resources exist within the subject property, the result is the fact that a violation of Open 24 I• 1. 2. 3. • 4. 5. 6. I• 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.. 12. 13. 14. 15. • 16. 17. 18. • 19. 20. 21., 22. 23. 24. • 25. 26. 27. 28. Iosatdse L. IN$ da M CM 313last 191we blvd. 517 t P eh, Cl. 13556 ,X 26HUS Space Element Policy 1.1 fails to exist. The Commission found that the Petitioners' map was in conflict with Open Space Element Policy No. 1.4 which addresses the interfacing with forrest service lands. In response to this, the Petitioners respectfully direct your attention to the fact that the Petitioners' property is separated, by over 3200 feet, from the "forest line" of the Angeles National Forrest. while there .can exist certainly no dispute of the fact that transitional buffer zoning, compatible uses minimum parcel sizes and fire constraints must be employed in the proper and justified exercise of police power, the allegation that the Petitioners' proposal can exist as a substantive, tangible and intricate part of this control is senseless. When an overall development plan for the area is viewed, exhibited prominently for consideration is the fact.that not only is the Petitioners 5.54 acres of property separated from "forest service land" by over 3200 feet, but that two other large developments, comprised of components the number of which is in generous excess of two (2) single family residences, are proposed within that 3200 feet. Further, approximately One hundred (100) acres, previously proposed for development by Griffin Homes, which was summarily denied by the City for the specific reasons articulated within this policy, namely, the need for forest buffer, 25 • 1. 2. 3. • 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. • 10. 11. 12. • 13. 14. 15. • 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. • 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.' 28. ! M=M;7 ! Itl last MAW* 971. STT c Wt two exists within the 3200+ feet of separation. With these facts in evidence, it is unconscionable to consider that the Petitioners' property, over three quarters (3/4) of a mile from the Angeles National Forest, at 5.54 acres in total size, with a residential structure already residing thereon to which two (2) substantially similar residences would be added, the minimum lot size of which would exist as 1.84 acres, could be considered as "urbanized fringe" transitioning to "forest service lands" whose specification would fail to exist as "compatible" with surrounding land uses and lot size established and accepted "Fire Constraints". The Petitioners therefore respectfully submit that their proposal's contradiction to Open Space Element Policy No. 1.4 failsto exist. The Commission found that the Petitioners' map was in conflict with open Space Element Policy No. 1.5. Without reciting the entire policy herein and in the interest of time, the Petitioners respectfully argue that this policy fails, wholly and without exception, to apply to not only their particular parcel of land and proposed development thereof, but to any individual or parcel that exists as diminutive as the Petitioners'. The issue at hand is the parcelization of 5.54 acres of property for two (2) additional lots, and to allege that this policy, addressing open space easements, dedication•of development rights, joint powers authority, open space districts, City ownership and management by Parks and Recreation Department and assessment districts applies to this, in the overall -view of the 26 C 8. 9. • 10. 11. 1. • 2. 3. • 14. 4. • 5. 6. I• 17. 7. 8. 9. • 10. 11. 20. 21. • 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. acaataaa L. W i9<asst cxs9 m asst ratdaA atm. st9 c 9 a, o. 93550 �rtsl 29si as City as a whole, insignificant parcel of land. owned by a common homeowner, is, at best, without question, unexcusable and, at worst, again, an arguable infringement of the Petitioners,' rights under both the U.S. Constitution and Article 14, as well as California under Article 1, § 7, rights. The Commission found that the Petitioners' map was in conflict with Open Space Element Policy No. 1. 6, wherein "buffer areas" are again discussed. The inarguable fact, as has been previously established within this brief, is that the Petitioners' property fails to exist within a "buffer area". Rather it exists within an area already established as a neighborhood with minimum lot sizes of one (1) acre providing for single-family residential structures exactly like those proposed by the Petitioner. If, in fact, the Petitioners' request violates the policy as articulated, the Petitioners' own residence must be found in violation thereof and must be ordered removed or, at the very least, determined to exist as a non -conforming use and treated as such. Again, the point of.this proposal is to construct two (2) additional single-family residences in an area so designated; nothing more. As a result, "link[ing] of -.buffer zones, although certainly advisable, would.be better served in an area where "buffer zones" exist or could be reasonable argued to exist in the future. The Petitioners respectfully submit, therefore, that 27 12. • 13. 14. 15. • 16. 17. 18. • 19. 20. 21. • 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. acaataaa L. W i9<asst cxs9 m asst ratdaA atm. st9 c 9 a, o. 93550 �rtsl 29si as City as a whole, insignificant parcel of land. owned by a common homeowner, is, at best, without question, unexcusable and, at worst, again, an arguable infringement of the Petitioners,' rights under both the U.S. Constitution and Article 14, as well as California under Article 1, § 7, rights. The Commission found that the Petitioners' map was in conflict with Open Space Element Policy No. 1. 6, wherein "buffer areas" are again discussed. The inarguable fact, as has been previously established within this brief, is that the Petitioners' property fails to exist within a "buffer area". Rather it exists within an area already established as a neighborhood with minimum lot sizes of one (1) acre providing for single-family residential structures exactly like those proposed by the Petitioner. If, in fact, the Petitioners' request violates the policy as articulated, the Petitioners' own residence must be found in violation thereof and must be ordered removed or, at the very least, determined to exist as a non -conforming use and treated as such. Again, the point of.this proposal is to construct two (2) additional single-family residences in an area so designated; nothing more. As a result, "link[ing] of -.buffer zones, although certainly advisable, would.be better served in an area where "buffer zones" exist or could be reasonable argued to exist in the future. The Petitioners respectfully submit, therefore, that 27 • 1: 2. linking of buffer areas can be effectively administered within the significant developments proposed for the City in the immediate, as 3. • 4. well as the removed, un -established neighborhoods. 5. 6. The Commission found that.the Petitioners' map was • in conflict with Open Space Element Policy No. 1.10. which 7. recommends. that, "landform grading standards which minimize the 8. impact of grading.operations and foster replication of naturally 9. • occurring landforms" be used. Again the Petitioners direct your 10. attention to articulations and recitals occurring previously within 11. this brief. 12. • 13. 26. 27. • 28. 70wou 5. Lea het AM M W Lst ratrlate j1 d. srt C raj UI, M 17550 ft MI 265-0151 l_ this policy. FI] City of Santa Clarita Staff Report for Tentative 14. Parcel Map 21435 at pages 3 and 4, inclusive, articulate Staff 15. • sentiment that a revision of the Petitioners' original map to 16. specification set forth by the Staff would result in appropriate 17. use of the land, "...without [the need for] excessive grading or 18. • substantial alteration of landforms." The Petitioners have modified 19. their original map and request to exactly emulate the map prepared 20. by staff; a map with recommendations which were specifically 21. • designed to maintain "landform grading standards which minimize the 22. impact of grading operations and foster replication of naturally 23. occurring landforms". As a result, prescriptively, it must follow 24. • that the Petitioners' revised map fails to violate.the intent of 25. 26. 27. • 28. 70wou 5. Lea het AM M W Lst ratrlate j1 d. srt C raj UI, M 17550 ft MI 265-0151 l_ this policy. FI] • 1. 2. 3. • 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. • 10. 11. 12. • 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. • 22. 23. 24. • 25. 26. 27. • 28. Jcutw L. alai M=UM mlad IaLW,JZ1J. =l l , li. 92sso ) XW42S The Commission found that the Petitioners' map was in conflict with Open Space Element Policy No. 1.13, revised to Open Space and Conservation Element Goal No. 1, Policy 1.12, wherein the encouragement of new roadways and new trails while incorporating unique and significant natural features in development is promoted. Again, the Petitioners' direct your attention to articulation made previously within this brief. The Petitioners have utilized a design scripted by the City itself in the development of the subject property which allows for almost two (2) acres of land for each residence. The fact that as such, estimating the construction of a home which creates a ground coverage of 5,000 square feet, the remaining 75,000 square feet would exist as open space incorporating what small amount of significant natural features exist upon the property into its design, the design of the Petitioners' proposal evidences thefactthat this policy is not only. complied with, but that the design is the quintessence of natural concern. Further,the petitioners have, again, offered for dedication to the City, substantial land for equestrian trails. In doing so,.it exists as objectionable that the Commission would conscionably accuse the Petitioners of violating a policy which specifically encourages the incorporation of,' "new trails" within a proposed development. As a result, the Petitioners submit that a violation -.of Open Space Element Policy No. 1.13, revised to Open Space and Conservation Element Goal No..1, Policy 1.12 is indecorous. 29 • 1. 2. 3. • 4. 5. 6. • 7. 8. 9. • 10. 11. 12. • 13. 14. 15. • 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. • 22. 23. 24. i• � 25. 26. 27. 28.I Joman C.]rs M HIS CW 711 lat h1ame IN. M C suso I tss-0�1s The Commission found that the Petitioners' map was in conflict with Open Space Element Policy No. 2.1 wherein an adoption of a ridgeline preservation ordinance is.articulated. The Petitioners, in response to a perceived allegation that their map violates that ordinance, directs attention, again, to City of Santa Clarita Staff Report for Tentative Parcel Map 21435 wherein the possibility of this occurring is addressed. Reference is again made herein to the. fact that the Petitioners have modified their proposal to include standards, without exception, which serve to l negate the threat of the proposal's impact on either primary or secondary ridgelines. The Commission found that the Petitioners' map'wasl in conflict with Open Space Element Policy No. 2.2 which.mandates the. establishment of a slope rating system, (steep, moderate or low) for development. -The Petitioner reminds -the Council that the, City Staff, in preparing the Staff report for the proposal, consulted not only the proposed Ordinance relating to the slope, but also the Los Angeles County Ordinance concurrent thereto. "The Applicant was informed at the November 30, 2989 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... 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 30 I• 1. 2. Advisory Committee was completing work on the draft General Plan. Concurrently the City was 3. preparing a draft ordinance to accomplish the hillside conservation objectives of the draft • General Plan ... The consultant has offered a 4. matrix formula to determine the maximum densities for given slope ranges...Staff has 5. looked at the site and has determined that three- sites could be accommodated without 6. violating the intent or purpose of the draft 7. Ordinance. p3' 8. when combined with the fact that the Petitioners have relocated the 9. proposed two lots to areas, "...relatively flat [area] [which] • 10. could accommodate houses without excessive grading or substantial 11alteration of landformsj14, contradiction to the intent of this . specific policy fails to endure. 12. 13. The Commission found that the Petitioners' map was 14. in conflict with Open Space Element Policy No. 2.4 which provides • 15. • for the protection of, "scenic vista points and protection of 16. ridgelines and sensitive development techniques". 17. 18. j• The Petitioners' response to -the alleged violation 19. � of this policy.exists in the foregoing text of this brief and, 20. rather than reprint it, the author refers the reader to it by 21. • reference. Briefly stated for the record.however is the fact that 22. the Petitioners' propertyexists in an already established 23. neighborhood which is in a valley below ridgelines thereby 24. I 25. 11City of Santa Clarita Staff Report for Tentative Parcel Map H415 at P.3' • 28. 14City of Santa Clarita Staff Report for Tentative Parcel Map 214$5 at P.4, Para. 3 ]aa:tae i. Jrt m e7as c�a 31 m fast hwe s BIT& Si t Pa &I' a. 97550 05) 7skm '• 1. 2. prohibiting the existence of a "scenic vista point" at the 3. Petitioners' property. Through the measures drafted by City Staff 4. and adopted by the Petitioners, the proposed residences fail to 5. encroach on existing ridgelines. As a result, the "sensitive 6. development techniques" referred to within this policy, have, 7. unquestionably been employed thereby evidencing the Petitioners', 8. as well as their proposal's, compliance with the stated Policy. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. I, u In addressing finally the Commission contention that the Petitioners are specifically precluded from further subdividing' their parcel to accommodate two additional residences because of the presence of a "Note" on the County Tentative Tract Map so, indicating, the Petitioners contend, as a direct result of investigations which included information received form Mr. Charles J. Moore, Deputy County Counsel for the County of Los Angeles and Mr. Jon Sanabria, Chief Deputy for Los Angeles County Regional Planning, that the specified note fails to exist as valid as, through annexation, the County relinquishes control over the enforcement of the parent map and, prescriptively, the individual tract maps and any notations appearing thereon. As the City fails to be bound by County standards, just as the City has deviated from County standards in the preparation and adoption of their General Plan, enforcement of any provisions of the original Tentative Tract Map are at the discretion of the City. In the event that the.City chooses to sustain the validity of the note, even though it crosses jurisdictional Taaath" Z. Aac M alta GW 32 m talc hil ah 1171. an C t' s, CL 55550 tv) MS -017S 11 • 17. 1. • 2. 3. • 20. 4. • 5. 6. • 23. 7. • 8. 9. • 26. 10. • 11. 12. • boundaries, the Petitioners contend that the original Parent Map, 33893, which allows for the -demarcation of Two Hundred and One (201) lots, fails at this time to be full as a direct result of the fact that Tentative Tract Map Number 49185, depicting two (2) lots, has, in fact, been lost to the owner as a result of legal proceedings thereby providing for a deficiency in the number of lots available under the County Map. As a result of conversation between the author and Mr. Fred Follstadt of the City, information has been gleaned indicating the fact that the current owner, Great Western savings, is petitioning the City for subdivision approval which approval will be denied as a result of the fact that the area exists as part of a parent map which indicates the entire area of 49185 to be dedicated to "Open Space". With 201 lots available and 199 recorded, there exist two lots available for recordation. With this fact established, the Petitioners therefore contend that their request for the approval of two (2) additional lots may be granted and that such a grant would fail to result in the excession of the number of allowable lots for the overall Tract. "Regard of the law for private property," wrote Blackstone, "is so great ... that it will not authorize the least violation of it, not even for the general good of the whole community"; and in the eighteenth century, the elder Pitt declaimed that, the poorest man in his cottage could defy the Ring -storms may enter, the rain may enter -but the Ring of England cannot enter." In 33 17. 18. • 19. 20. 21. • 22. 23. 24. • 25. 26. 27. • 28. ro":5" t. Bees M 7ua carr W rye rdswe IN. 0 c Pule, M 050 mjARUS boundaries, the Petitioners contend that the original Parent Map, 33893, which allows for the -demarcation of Two Hundred and One (201) lots, fails at this time to be full as a direct result of the fact that Tentative Tract Map Number 49185, depicting two (2) lots, has, in fact, been lost to the owner as a result of legal proceedings thereby providing for a deficiency in the number of lots available under the County Map. As a result of conversation between the author and Mr. Fred Follstadt of the City, information has been gleaned indicating the fact that the current owner, Great Western savings, is petitioning the City for subdivision approval which approval will be denied as a result of the fact that the area exists as part of a parent map which indicates the entire area of 49185 to be dedicated to "Open Space". With 201 lots available and 199 recorded, there exist two lots available for recordation. With this fact established, the Petitioners therefore contend that their request for the approval of two (2) additional lots may be granted and that such a grant would fail to result in the excession of the number of allowable lots for the overall Tract. "Regard of the law for private property," wrote Blackstone, "is so great ... that it will not authorize the least violation of it, not even for the general good of the whole community"; and in the eighteenth century, the elder Pitt declaimed that, the poorest man in his cottage could defy the Ring -storms may enter, the rain may enter -but the Ring of England cannot enter." In 33 I• 27. • 28. m Bus am 111 last Palwe Blvd. 0 d efale, G. BASd 1 ns-0us sharp contrast, the United States Supreme Court, by upholding, in sweeping terms, urban redevelopment legislation, has ruled, in effect, that the King may not only enter, but may remain, in the name of the general good, indeed for the very purpose of keeping the rain out. Such is the case at hand. The petitioners, George and Marla Thomas are individuals. They are homeowners in the City of Santa Clarita who wish nothing more that to subdivide their 5.54 acre property to accommodate two additional homes; homes that will be used as residences for family members and, quite frankly, will be sold in the future for the highest price possible. They are individuals; not developers. But because they wish to perform a development related action, they must be held accountable to the rules and regulations which apply to developers, namely law, statute, ordinance and code applicable to development. They must, in essence, play by the rules. George and Marla Thomas played by the rules. They played by the rules not -as they understood them, but as the City understood them; as. Engineers understood them; as Architects understood them. They played by the rules as understood by learned minds in the development field; and when the rules caused a burden upon their desires, they acquiesced; they acquiesced to directives given them by the learned minds within.the City who, in the performance of their duty and responsibility as protectors and preservationists of the Environment, the City and its people, 34 3. • 12. • 4. 5. 6. • 15. • 7. 8. 9. • 18. • 10. 27. • 28. m Bus am 111 last Palwe Blvd. 0 d efale, G. BASd 1 ns-0us sharp contrast, the United States Supreme Court, by upholding, in sweeping terms, urban redevelopment legislation, has ruled, in effect, that the King may not only enter, but may remain, in the name of the general good, indeed for the very purpose of keeping the rain out. Such is the case at hand. The petitioners, George and Marla Thomas are individuals. They are homeowners in the City of Santa Clarita who wish nothing more that to subdivide their 5.54 acre property to accommodate two additional homes; homes that will be used as residences for family members and, quite frankly, will be sold in the future for the highest price possible. They are individuals; not developers. But because they wish to perform a development related action, they must be held accountable to the rules and regulations which apply to developers, namely law, statute, ordinance and code applicable to development. They must, in essence, play by the rules. George and Marla Thomas played by the rules. They played by the rules not -as they understood them, but as the City understood them; as. Engineers understood them; as Architects understood them. They played by the rules as understood by learned minds in the development field; and when the rules caused a burden upon their desires, they acquiesced; they acquiesced to directives given them by the learned minds within.the City who, in the performance of their duty and responsibility as protectors and preservationists of the Environment, the City and its people, 34 11. 12. • 13. 14. 15. • 16. 17. 18. • 19. 20. 21. • 22. 23. 24. • 25. 26. 27. • 28. m Bus am 111 last Palwe Blvd. 0 d efale, G. BASd 1 ns-0us sharp contrast, the United States Supreme Court, by upholding, in sweeping terms, urban redevelopment legislation, has ruled, in effect, that the King may not only enter, but may remain, in the name of the general good, indeed for the very purpose of keeping the rain out. Such is the case at hand. The petitioners, George and Marla Thomas are individuals. They are homeowners in the City of Santa Clarita who wish nothing more that to subdivide their 5.54 acre property to accommodate two additional homes; homes that will be used as residences for family members and, quite frankly, will be sold in the future for the highest price possible. They are individuals; not developers. But because they wish to perform a development related action, they must be held accountable to the rules and regulations which apply to developers, namely law, statute, ordinance and code applicable to development. They must, in essence, play by the rules. George and Marla Thomas played by the rules. They played by the rules not -as they understood them, but as the City understood them; as. Engineers understood them; as Architects understood them. They played by the rules as understood by learned minds in the development field; and when the rules caused a burden upon their desires, they acquiesced; they acquiesced to directives given them by the learned minds within.the City who, in the performance of their duty and responsibility as protectors and preservationists of the Environment, the City and its people, 34 I• • '• L • '0 u 7ocatEao L. dvr ffi lMLS CRI? 7U last WWI tL (iAAH(25 essentially redesigned their proposedmapto conform to standards which were designed to promote, protect and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City said reduce the number of lots to two additional from three additional. George and Marla Thomas reduced. The City said relocate the two additional lots..to "here"..George and Marla Thomas relocated their two additional lots to "there". The City said, "We would like to see equestrian trails through here." George and Marla Thomas gave the City equestrian trails through "there". The.City said, "We need more information to meet the requirements of the reviewing agencies. while you are revising your map to put the two lots here and here." George and Marla Thomas gave them their additional information while they were revising .their map to the City's desires. And when the process was all through, the City said, "This works". In essence the City said, "Because your have produced a map which emulates our. desires; because you have drawn a map exactly as we have told you to; because we have made our studies and found you to be in compliance with all applicable statute, law, code and ordinance, we will recommend to the lay people that yours is a good idea." And they did. The problem came when the lay people, the Planning Commissioners disregarded the recommendations of the City's learned minds and asserted their right to deny -George and Marla Thomas the ability to divide their property for that which presumably they believed to be cause. This brief disputes their actions. It does not dispute their right to deny; rather it disputes the grounds for 35 • 1. 2. their denial. 25. 26. 27. M 28. hutW t. Ler In A"$aw 777 W pealdb 71vd. 517 C jWX8, CL 17550 (Us) 265.0/25 In short, the Petitioners have played by the rules as has the Commission. Unfortunately, the Petitioners' rights have 36 3. • In each and every instance where the Commission has 4. alleged, as evidenced by articulations within their "Findings", 5. that the Petitionerst proposal was in conflict with policy, this 0 6. brief has shown the error of their allegations. Where the 7. Commission has alleged encroachment into ridgelines, we have shown 8. no encroachment. Where the Commission has alleged insensitivity to . 9. 0 landforms and rural surroundings, we have shown redesign of the 10. proposal, incorporating without exception, the exact directives il. given the Petitioners- by the City to alleviate any such 12. insensitivity. Where the Commission has alleged negative effects to 13. fish, wildlife, streams, rivers, and special vegetation, we have 14. proven, with the aid of, the City itself, that no such entities 15. exist on the property. And finally, where the Commission alleged 16. that no other residences could be built upon the property as a 17. result of the. existence of a "note" on the County Subdivision Map, 18. we have shown that the City itself controls the validity, as well 19. as the interpretation of that "Note" and that further, as a direct 20. result of the loss of property and attendant Map within the area 21. I,f negating the existence of previously accounted for two smaller 22. parcels, the parcels are currently available which would bring the 23. total number of parcels within the County Subdivision Map to the 24* number allowed under that map, 201. 25. 26. 27. M 28. hutW t. Ler In A"$aw 777 W pealdb 71vd. 517 C jWX8, CL 17550 (Us) 265.0/25 In short, the Petitioners have played by the rules as has the Commission. Unfortunately, the Petitioners' rights have 36 20.11 Jonathan L. Ames 21. • 22. 23. 24. ! 25. 26. 27. • 28. JMtka L lass MMQM 37 713 Past P"ef Ilea. a C Palwo, CL 93550 IM) 265-0425 11 1. been violated in that the Commission, acting under the belief that 2. cause existed for their denial, erred in their decision as no cause 3. ! actually existed. As a result, the Petitioners have had withheld 4. from them their ability to divide their land for cause which this 5. brief has shown to be erroneous and it is this injustice which the 6. • Appeal seeks to correct. 7. 8. ' The Petitioners therefore pray the Council for 9. • relief by either Council approval of the Petitioners' proposal to 10. subdivide to the specifications setforth by the City or, in the 11. alternative, as it is the Petitioners' belief that the Commission 12. • failed to consider the map -as a three lot configuration rather than 13. a four lot configuration which, parenthetically, would allow for 14. their erroneous findings, a return of the matter to the Planning_ 15. • Commission for further consideration. 16. 17. Respectfully submitted this Eighth day of November, 1991. 18. • 19. 20.11 Jonathan L. Ames 21. • 22. 23. 24. ! 25. 26. 27. • 28. JMtka L lass MMQM 37 713 Past P"ef Ilea. a C Palwo, CL 93550 IM) 265-0425 11 �l EXHIBIT "A" ZQ_Ft')S u I♦ 0 0 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT Tentative Parcel.Map 21435 DATE: TO: hairmMembers of the Planning Commission FROM: Jpn;L/rynnn M. Harris, Director of Community Development APPLICANT: George Thomas CASE PLANNER: Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner II X r 54 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 25I. The average slope of the property is 32X. The project site is located at the terminus of Clear Lake Drive (approximately one-half mile east of Sand Canyon Roe.d 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. 0 L 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 n LJ 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, erosion, and adequate school facilities. The environmental review indicated that the proposed project will not have any adverse environmental impacts which cannot be addressed through mitigation measures, which are included in the project design and conditions of approval. Subsequently, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect was prepared for this project. INTERDEPARTMENTANTERAGENCY REVIEWS Comments and recommendations were requested 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. 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, Ni 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 S A-1-2 Light Agricultural, two acre minimum ' HM Hillside Management Nl 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, erosion, and adequate school facilities. The environmental review indicated that the proposed project will not have any adverse environmental impacts which cannot be addressed through mitigation measures, which are included in the project design and conditions of approval. Subsequently, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect was prepared for this project. INTERDEPARTMENTANTERAGENCY REVIEWS Comments and recommendations were requested 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. • ANALYSIS: The project application was submitted to the City an 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 101; 2) Provide a positive visual setting for the hillsides within the t 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 on 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. I• 1— 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 of the 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 Billside.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. • �• r•. • 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 0 • FJ 0 J • EXHIBIT A- I • SLOPE--ANAL-YTSllS7-., p 2,14-35. A� NN\ 71 :m 0 Do LO MAD. SLOPE = 0 - 25% • EXHIBIT A-2 CONCEPTUAL GRADING MAP )TPM- 9 4SYX ' �. jd K44'j P XHIBIT'A-3 A VICINITY h1AP NO SCALE P R OPOS-E D. WITS A Ix . . . . . . ..... of A VICINITY h1AP NO SCALE • VICINITY MAP TPM 21435 Q'►p `lit is � % Z V. • d N • 'tACeRl rA C"i' CYN, RD. L LED�AD - .,os VALLEY F� PROJECT Gv SITE O'4 CEDARFORT ST. 1' SAM'S CYN. RD. :7 0 • CA n U I• 0 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: _Georgie Thomas TYPE OF PERMIT: Tentative Parcel Man 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 50X, the average cross slope of this property is 32Z. 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.43,84O 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: 3 s [x] Legal advertisement. [x] Posting of properties. [x] Vritten notice. E • r] 0 J 0 iw ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA MASTER CASE NO: TPM 21435 Case Planner: Jeff Chaffin Proiect Location: 27548 Clear Lake Drive (project site is approximately 940 feet east of the intersection of Cedarfort Drive and Clear Lake Drive.) Project Description and Setting: The applicant is.proposing to subdivide a 5.54 acre parcel into four new residential lots. The project site consists of hillside terrain with slopes exceeding 501, the average slope of this property is 321. 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. General Plan Designation: RVL 0.5 - 1.0 (Residential Very Low, 0.5 to 1.0 dwelling units per acre.) Zoning: A-1-1 (Light Agricultural, 1 acre minimum lot size.) Applicant: George Thomas Environmental Constraint Areas: Hillside development; hydrological effects; geological stability; natural habitat; erosion; school impacts. A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Vill the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? .................. [ I [ I [XI b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? ............... [X] [ I I I C. Change in topography or ground surface' relief features? ........................... [XI [ I [ I d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? .................................. I I [ I IXI e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? .......... [ I [ I [XI f. Exposure of .people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ................................... [ I [ I [X] g. Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ................................. [ I I I [XI h. Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? ........................... [ I I I [XI c • - 2 - YES MAYBE NO i. Earth movement (cut. and/or fill) of 10,000 • cubic yardsormore? ....................... [ ] [ ] [X] J. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 25Z natural grade? ............ [X] [ ] [ ] k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo + Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ] [ I 1XI 1. Other? Development within a hillside conservation area . ................. [X] 1 I [ ] 2. 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. Other? [ ] [ I 1XI • 3. Water.- Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ............................ 1XI [ I 1 I • b. Alterations to.the course or flow of flood waters? ............................... [ l [ I 1XI C. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? .......................... [ ] ( ] [X] • d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ ] [ ] [XI e. Alteration of.the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ..................... [ ] ( ] [XI f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through inte=ception.of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ............. [ I [ I [X] • g. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ............................ 1 I [ I [XI 12 E - 3 - 13 YES MAYBE NO h. Exposureof people or property to water • related hazards such as flooding? .......... [ J [ ] [X] i. Other? [ ] [ ] [X] 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: I,• a. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ... [ ] [ j [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? ........... [XI [ ] [ ] d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural • crop? ...................................... [ ] [ ] [X] 5. Animal Life. ill 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? ...... [ ] [ j [X] d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat and/or migratory routes? ........... [ ] [ J [X] • 6. 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] 7. Light and Glare. Vill the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? ................. [ ] [ ] [Xj • 8. Land Use. Vill the.proposal result in: a. Substantial alteration of the present land use of an area? ....................... [ ] [ ] [XJ • b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of an area? ............... ( ] f 1 rxi 13 I• - 4 - YES MAYBE NO C. A use that does not adhere to existing zoning lams? ............ ..... .. [ 1 ( I [XI d. A use that does not adhere to established development criteria? ...................... [ J (X] ( J 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: • a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ................................. [ l [ ] [XI b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources? ......................... [ ] [ J [XI • 10. Risk of Upset/Man-Made Hazards. Will the proposal: a. Involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or • upset conditions? .......................... [ ] [ I [X] b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard- ous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? .................................. [ I [ l [XI A 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 [XI 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human • population of an area? ..................... [ I [ I 1X1 b. Other? [ J [ I [XI 12. Housing. Will the proposal: • a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? ........................ [ I [ I 1X1 b. Other? I [ I [X] 13. Transportation/C— Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ........................ [ ] ( ] [X] 14 . I• - 5 - 15 YES MAYBE NO b. Effects on existing parking facilities, ! or demand for new parking? ................. ( I ( ] IXI C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? ............................ [ l I I IXI • d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? .............................. I I I I [XI e. Increase in traffic hazards -to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [ ] [ ] [XJ f. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? .............................. I I I I [XI 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: s a. Fire protection? ........................... [ ] I I IX] b. Police protection? . ......................... [ ] [ ] [X] i C. Schools? ............................... :.... [XI I I I I d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .... [ l [ ] (XJ e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ........................... [ ] [ ] (X] f. Other governmental services? ............... [ ] ( ] [X] 15. Energy: Will the proposal result in? a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy . .................. [ 1 [ I IX] b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? [ ] [ J (X] I� 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 I IXI • b. Communications systems? .................... [ ] [ ] (X] C. Water systems? .............................. [ I [ I IXI d. Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ ] ( I [X] e. Storm drainage systems? .................... ( ] ( I [XI 15 a YES MAYBE NO f. Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [ ] ( ] [XJ 1! g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of delivery system improvements for any of the above? ......... ( J ( J [X] 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? ................................... [ ] ( ] IX] 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? ....................... ( ] ( ] IX] C. Will the visual impact of the proposal be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ ] [X] [ ] ♦ 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the'quality orquantity of existing recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ] [ J (X] 20. Cultural Resources. a. Vill the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? .............. ( ] [ ] [X] b. Vill the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic.effects to a prehistoric or if historic building, structure, or object? ... I ] [ ] [X] C9 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? ..................... [ ] I ] IX] • n u i t Discussion of Impacts. Section Subsection - 7 - Evaluation of Impact 1 b,c,i,j,l As proposed, the project would require grading to construct driveways and building pads. The project site consists of undulating topography with an average cross -slope of 32Z. Approximately 53Z of the site is occupied by slopes between 25Z and 502 in grade, and approximately lot of the site is occupied by slopes which exceed 502 in grade. The maximum topographic relief of the project site is 90 feet according to the project plans. A detailed grading plan has not been submitted at this time. .The applicant has submitted a conceptual grading plan which indicates that the project will require movement of.approximately 9,000 cubic yards of earth, and involve cut and fill slopes at a 2:1 ratio with the balancing of earthwork material on-site. A geotechnical report was prepared for this project by GeoSoils, Inc., May 29, 1990. This report outlines specific recommendations and procedures for grading and earthwork in conjuncticn.with an approved grading plan. City engineering.staff has reviewed the report and recommendations, and has determined that they adequately address the geological concerns associated with this project. According to the report, •... cut and fill slopes are planned at gradients of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical.) The maximum proposed cut slope height is approximately 28 feet, and the maximum proposed fill slope height is approximately 50 feet., Although this site is located within a seismically active region, no active or potentially active faults are known to exist on, or in close proximity to, the project site. The geotechnical report also indicates that the project -...is considered feasible from a geologic and soil engineering viewpoint. Provided that recommendations in the report are complied with, proposed building sites will be•considered safe from landslide, settlement, or slippage. Grading will not adversely affect the stability of off-site development." A detailed grading plan for residential development at the site shall be submitted at the time application is made for building permits. Implementing the recommendations of the geotechnical report will result in the creation of building pads and driveways which will not have a significant environmental effect. 3 a The construction of building pads, driveways, and graded slopes may alter absorption rates and surface runoff. However, the approved drainage concept for this project indicates that this impact will be insignificant. 17 Y M-15 4 a,c Residential development of the property could involve the establishment of horticultural ornamentals. Because the site is proposed for low density residential development, and that the site is not designated as an ecologically sensitive area, the project should.have no significant impact. C:5:a - d Impacts within the immediate vicinity have lowered habitat value, so the proposed development of tie site should --not in disruption of species diversity. The site has not been designated as an significant ecological area. The reduction of rare or endangered species, or deterioration of habitat and migratory routes should not occur. Domestic pets can be expected, but should not impede existing wildlife or habitat values. No significant impact is expected. B d The City's draft General Plan, as well as the draft Hillside Conservation and Ridgeline Preservation Ordinance, has established preliminary development criteria for projects in hillside and ridgeline areas. These criteria are intended to preserve the physical and aesthetic quality of ridgelines.and hillsides by establishing the following; Open space requirements, appropriate hillside densities, design requirements for grading and building construction, landscaping and revegetation, fire protection, erosion control and geological stability, and minimizing visual impacts by maintaining a natural appearance. e As submitted, this project will have a significant impact -on the existing hillside, and does not comply with draft General Plan hillside development criteria. As such, the proposed project would have a taff inspected the project site on February 21, 1991 and determined that, to reduce the hillside and ridgeline impacts to an insignificant level, the project proponent must redesign the project to provide the following; 1) Building pads and driveways which do not disrupt the natural topography; 2) A lower overall dwelling density; 3) Less grading; Ll 4) No disruption to the silhouette of the existing ridgeline. • 13 we • 13 c An increased demand on public transportation systems may result from this proposal. The City's traffic engineering staff has determined that additional vehicle traffic generated by this project can be accommodated by existing roadways. No significant impact is.anticipated. 14 c Local area schools will be impacted by the proposed residential development of this property. A mitigation agreement between the applicant and the school districts shall be required prior to the public hearing for this proposed project. These agreements f shall be subject to .the review and approval of each affected school district, respectively. 1s c The applicant is proposing to grade future building pads on areas of highest elevation. This design feature will create an impact by disrupting the silhouette of the .natural ridgeline. The reduction and relocation of these proposed building pad(s) away from these high elevation points, along with a landform grading plan to maintain topographic continuity, may provide.further development of this i• site while maintaining aesthetic quality. Redesigning the project to eliminate this encroachment will reduce this impact to an insignificant level. n Ia ri 0 19 • -10- 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 the effect of the total _of those impacts on the environment is significant.) .. [ ] [ ] [X] 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ......... ( ] [ ] [X] I• I♦ '• 0 20 END OF EXHIBIT "A" D. DETERMINATION r 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 ♦ VILL-BE PREPARED . .................................... ( J 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] I♦ n u The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required . ......................................... LYNN M. HARRIS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA Prepared By: C _Jeff_Chaffin. Assistant Planner II 2/20/91 (g re) (Name/Title) (Date) JC/237 3/27/91 (Date) 21 j EXHIBIT "B" TUC cG�:�)o em CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M TO: Chairman Brathwaite and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community. Development • DATE: June 4, 1991 SUBJECT: Resolution for.denial of Tentative Parcel Map 21435 BACKGROUND: This case was continued from the April 2, 1991 Planning Commission meeting 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 in concept Tentative Parcel Map 21435. The Planning Commission directed staff to return with a formal resolution for denial of the proposal at the June 4, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Attached is Resolution No. P91-18 for the Commission Chair's signature. Thank you. 4b s a . Agenda Item: J i• 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 LAKE 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 one-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 25Z. The average slope of the property is 321. 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. Reso P91-18 Page 1 of 5 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 3D, 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 0 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 landuse 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; �YY Hillside and Ridgeline Criteria. Community Design Element 19n 3 policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 6.7. Open. Space Element policies STx��n • 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 L� equestrian area in which compatible equestrian -oriented �AQ 'L4 n' H 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 a(�A Cflri�; volumes, grading natural landforms, and encroaching onto a siiiill-ciiFridgeline. Development upon a S—\,A ' ClPT significant ridgeline is prohibited. Proposed project grading {JA u S� is insensitive to natural topography and the major landforms on and adjacent to the project site. �v��• 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 cP Ge l{ SM residential neighborhood. To accommodate this development,(ttQOr�T 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 [] .V+UW (;- (gip. c_ J %5 Br T;, Q5 A -Pon<usr - As % s 6n% l-brva,. oa (3a v x: 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 wouldhelp maintain existing viable natural ecosystems. The proposed project does not comply r with the provisions of the City's draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance iwe_r-g t -+OW kJO C. A specific building restriction exists on this property which -Q ti is v-. prohibits the construction of more than one residence and _V, 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 PfiCe 3 surrounding area; be materially detrimental to the use, 51-12��-� citPz,,, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the subject property; jeopardize, endanger or PW �$•• 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 eAce• :Z environment which cannot be adequately mitigated through the 5"Y ( (la, - application of available controls. The design of thesubdivisionand P l3 • the proposed improvements will cause substantial environmental damage and substantial and avoidable injury to fish or wildlife or their STY2� habitat. (XI S PnC�e In.. PAGE 19, C46 Reso P91-18 Page 3 of 5 I• n I• 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 on slopes exceeding 25Z 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. Reso P91-18 Page 4 of 5 I• 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. 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 4th day of June, 1991, by the • following vote of the Commission: AYES: Commissionerst NOES: ABSENT: • ABSTAINED: n I• 0 . RESO:P91-18 Page 5 of 5 Garasi, Woodrow, Brathwaite. None None None Cherrington, Modugno, Lynn M. Harris, Director Community Development i0 END OF EXHIBIT -"3" Rim n PROPERTIES. WVREREBY DEDICATE TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, JJ TTII THE RIGHT TO RESTRICT THE ERECTION OF BUILDINGS':` OR -OTHER STRUCTURES WITHIN THOSE AREAS DESIGNAT= ^ / ED ON THE MAP AS RESTRICTED USE AND FLOOD HAZARD AREAS. WE FURTHER CERTIFY THAT WE KNOW OF NO EASEMENT OR STRUCTURE EXISTING WITHIN THE EASEMENTS HERE- IN OFFERED FOR DEDICATION TO THE PUBLIC; OTHER THAN PUBLICLY OWNED WATER LINES, SEWERS,. OR STORM DRAINS, THAT WEGRANT NO RIGHT OR IN'CF.R%ST WITHIN THE L'OUNDA.OI!NDARIF'S OF S1ID F,AR^MFNTc • OFFERED TO THE PUBLIC, EXCEPT WHERE SUCH RIGHT OR INTEREST IS EXPRESSLY MADE SUBJECT TO THE . uvvV' WE iEREBY, DEDICATE TO THE COUNTY OF LOS 4ELES,, THE RIGHT��O PROHIBIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF MIi BrJVI THAWONVRfSIDENTIAL AND RELATED ACCESSORY BUILD- INGS=WI*o LOTS 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, AND; • r1 U 0 n 10 • 0 • r' 0 DRAFTED GENERAL PLAN 1.10 1.13 3.12 4.1 4.2 5.3 Q:. EXHIBIT "C" LAND USE ELEMENT COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT ALL THE SAME. ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN 2.9 2.12' 4.12 5.1 5.2 6.3 ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE & CONSERVATION ELEMENT DRAFTED GENERAL PLAN ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN 1.13 1.12 REMAINDER ALL THE SAME. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA SUITE 300 SANTA CLARITA, CALIF. 91355 NOVEMBER 4, 1991 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: ctSl 4� SAit'tAGLARt'�A Q � �3 X11'91 WE WOULD AT THIS TIME LIKE TO FILE OUR WRITTEN PROTEST AGAINST ANNEXATION TO THE CITY, (ANNEXATION NO. 1990-03). WE ARE LAND OWNERS, AND REGISTERED VOTERS RESIDING IN THE AREA. OUR ADDRESS IS 28091 OAK SPRINGS CANYON ROAD, CANYON COUNTRY, 91351 SINCERELY; (JACK D. HIBBS CAROL M. HIBBS