HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-11-26 - AGENDA REPORTS - RESO P90 42 TENATIVE PM 12387 (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented
y/��y:
PUBLIC HEARING Lynn M. Harris CV 4�,lC/�/-�
DATE: November 26, 1991
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission decision (Resolution No. P90-42)
denying Tentative Parcel Map 12387; approximately 300 feet
south-east of the intersection of Choke Cherry Lane and
Placerita Canyon Road.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
The City Clerk's office received an appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision of October 1, 1991 to deny Tentative Parcel Map 12387. The appellant
is Steve Minke, the applicant. The proposed map requests to create four lots.
from 5.23 acres.
This case was before the Planning Commission on September -17, 1991. The
Planning Commission voted (4-1) to deny Tentative Parcel Map 12387. The
Planning Commission directed staff to return with,a formal resolution for
denial of the proposal at the October 1, 1991 Planning Commission meeting.
ANALYSIS
The Planning Commission reviewed this application and determined that the
primary areas of concern are the potential impacts on oak trees, utilities,
circulation, and access. Of these issues, the question of adequate legal
access is the most crucial.
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power owns a strip of land for its
Second Los Angeles Aqueduct (Saugus Pipeline) contiguous to the western
boundary of the project site. This strip of land must be crossed twice to
reach the project site from Placerita Canyon Road. In their January 30, 1991
letter to the Community Development Department, the Department of Water and
Power indicated that this land is their "fee property and is not available for
site access." (see attachment 7)
Testimony from adjacent property owners indicated that the proposed
subdivision design may also adversely affect the existing access to adjacent
Continued To:%9a Agra Item:
properties to the'mest and south by eliminating access and land -locking these
properties. The design of the proposed lots may also conflict with the
alignment alternatives for the possible future construction of Rio Vista Road,
a proposed major highway. The Planning Commission is concerned that the
approval of any subdivision of this property will compound the existing
problems of adequate legal access and future road development.
The Planning Commission found that the questionable access to thisproperty
indicates that no subdivision should take place at this time. Even if the
access issue is resolved, the Planning Commission still has, reservations about
the subdivision due to the site constraints imposed by a significant ridgeline
and oak trees.
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 12387.
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. P91-42.
2. Project site plan.
3. Planning Commission staff report dated September 17, 1991.
4. Appeal request from Steve Minke, the applicant.
5. Initial Environmental Assessment.
6. Minutes of the September 17, 1991 Planning Commission meeting.
7. Letter from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power dated January
30, 1991.
LMH:JC/445
-2-
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE
1.
Mayor Opens Hearing
a. States Purpose of Hearing
2.
City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice
3.
Staff Report
(City Manager)
or
(City Attorney)
or
(RP Staff)
4.
Proponent Argument (30 minutes)
S.
Opponent -Argument (30 minutes)
6.
Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent)
a. Proponent
7.
Mayor Closes Public Testimony
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 12387
TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.23 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR NEV LOTS
OF 40,370 SQUARE FEET, 75,200 SQUARE FEET,
49,660 SQUARE FEET, AND 59,780 SQUARE FEET.
THE LOCATION IS APPROXIMATELY
300 FEET SOUTH-EAST OF THE INTERSECTION
OF CHORE CHERRY LANE AND
PLACERITA CANYON ROAD IN THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA
1;j"300(bW
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita to consider an appeal from applicant, Steve Minks,
regarding the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Parcel Map
12387. The. applicant is proposing to subdivide a 5.23 acre parcel
into four new lots of 40,370 square feet, 75,200 square feet, 49,660
square feet, and 59,780 square feet. The location is approximately
300 feet south-east of the intersection of Choke Cherry Lane and
Placerita Canyon road in the City of Santa Clarita.
The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 23920 .Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita,
the 26th 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 30, 1991
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk
Publish Date: November 4, 1991
RESOLUTION NO. P91-42
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE.CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12387
TO CREATE FOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS
LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF 21090.PLACERITA CANYON ROAD
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby make the
following findings of fact:
a. An application for a tentative parcel map was filed on October
31, 1989, by Steve Minke ("the applicant"). The property is
located in the vicinity of 21090 Placerita Canyon Road,
approximately 270 feet south of the intersection of Placerita
Canyon Road and Choke Cherry Lane. The Assessor's Parcel Number
for the site is 2833-003-075. The project site is,5.23 acres in
size, with 55 oak trees. The applicant proposed to subdivide
this property into four new single family residential lots of
40,370 square feet, 75,200 square feet, 49,660 square feet, and
59,780 square feet, respectively.
b. The applicable zoning for this property is A-2-1 Heavy
Agricultural, one -acre minimum zone. The City of Santa Clarita
General Plan' land use designation. is RL (Residential Low)
1.1-3.3 dwelling units per acre, combined with Mineral/Oil
Conservation Area overlay designation. Approximately 3.50 acres
of the site is occupied by a significant ridgeline with slopes
in excess of 251. This project has also been reviewed for
compliance with the draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside
Development Ordinance. The average slope of the property is
33X, and when applied to the Hillside regulations yields a
maximum density of 0.7 dwelling units per acre. This would
allow a maximum of three dwelling units for this property.
C. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee (DRC) met
on December 14, 1989 to discuss the project and additional
information and revisions needed from the applicant.
d. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning
Commission on September 17, 1991 at the City Council Chambers,
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m.
e. The surrounding uses are low density equestrian -oriented
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 has
determined that specific issues must be resolved before a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect could be adopted
for this project.
Reso P91-42
Page 2 of 7
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 RL (Residential Low) 1.1-3.3 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 Land Use, Community Design,
and Open Space policies of the City's General Plan.
Specifically, this proposal is in conflict with the following
draft General Plan components:
Land Use Element Goal No..l: To achieve the development of
a well. balanced, financially sound, and functional mix of
residential, commercial, industrial, open space,
recreational, institutional, and educational land uses.
Land Use Element Policies:
1.10 Encourage the development of equestrian -oriented
housing in areas that are presently equestrian -oriented,
and ensure that other surrounding land uses are compatible
with the adjacent equestrian zones.
1.13 Promote retention of open • space to preserve
significant ridgelines, to provide land use buffers, and to
provide for both public safety and oak tree preservation.
3.12 Maintain and enhance the desirable rural qualities
found in the certain existing neighborhoods which are rural
in character, such as Placerita, Sand, and Hasley Canyons.
4.1 Allow only responsible and sensitive development of
hillside areas and prohibit development on ridgelines
designated as "Significant Ridgelines.•
4.2 Ensure that new development, grading, and landscaping
are sensitive to the natural topography and major landforms
in the planning area.
4.6 Preserve and protect oak and mature specimen size
trees and other endangered indigenous plant and animal
communities, from excessive and incompatible development.
5.3 Provide for the retention and maintenance of existing
residential neighborhoods which are primarily developed
with single-family homes and ensure that new development is
compatible with and complementary to existing development
in terms of scale, architecture, and density.
Reso P91-42
Page 3 of 7
Community Design Element Policies:
5.1 Retain designated major landforms, such as ridgelines,
natural drainage ways, streams, rivers, valleys,. and
significant vegetation, especially where these features
contribute to the overall community identity.
5.3 Where possible, incorporate attractive natural
amenities, such as rock outcroppings, vegetation, streams
and drainage areas, into the development' of future projects
to protect the environment and provide landscape
opportunities, visual interest, scale and/or recreational
opportunities.
6.7 Promote visual and physical buffers, where
appropriate, by use of easements, roadways, trails,
ridgelines, and other features, to delineate various
communities in the valley.
Open Space Element policies:
1.1 Utilize major environmental features (significant
landforms, significant ridgelines, significant vegetation,
ecologically significant areas, other natural resources) as
openspace within.the planning area.
1.5 Investigate, develop and prepare a long-term plan to
consolidate and acquire open space using one or more of the
following options to maintain viable natural ecosystems in
conjunction with the orderly development of the planning
area: open space easements; dedication of development
rights; joint powers authority; open space district; City
ownership and management by the Parks and Recreation
Department; Homeowners Associations; and/or Landscape
Maintenance Districts.
2.1 Adopt a ridgeline preservation ordinance that
identifies prominent primary and secondary ridgelines,
which shall be preserved as open space and which should not
be modified, incorporating sensitive slope and grading
regulations to interface with such primary and secondary
ridgelines, including identification and standards for
other significant physiographic features.
2.2 Establish and require a slope rating system (steep,
moderate, low) to identify development. suitability and to
establish guidelines for grading and development
practices.
Circulation Element Issue Statement (page C-30, City of
Santa Clarita General Plan): Make sure that the pace of
development matches the pace of required roadway
infrastructure improvements.
Circulation Element Policies:
1.27 Where alignments are known, the preservation of
corridor rights-of-way should be immediately established.
2.6 Require right-of-way dedication and/or construction of
appropriate facilities in support of a public
transportation system in new and redeveloped projects.
Reso P91-42
Page 4 of 7
"In the event that adequate access and circulation cannot
be provided or properly mitigated due to constraints,
impediments or timing delays, proposed development as
designated in this Plan may need to be correspondingly
impeded, delayed, or modified." (Santa Clarita General Plan
Circulation Element, page C-2).
This proposed subdivision would impact the adjacent neighborhood
by diminishing its rural character through increasing traffic
flow volumes. Proposed lot configurations are insensitive to
the natural topography, major landforms, and oak trees 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 appropriate residential density for this
area, given the topography and natural vegetation. Definitive
information .on pad locations and possible encroachment into the
protected zones of oak trees has not be submitted.
C . Access to the project site has not been established, and is in
conflict with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's
Saugus Pipeline easement. The limitations on the existing UP
easement and the proposed subdivision design may also adversely
affect access to adjacent properties to the west and south by
eliminating access and land -locking these properties. As noted
on the tentative parcel map, a 15 foot access and utility
easement was granted to the adjacent property owners. The
proposed tentative parcel map design is also in conflict with
the, proposed alignment routes for Rio Vista Road. Further
development of this property should be delayed until adequate
access has been provided.
d. This project as designed would adversely affect the health,
peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the
surrounding area; be materially detrimental to the use,
enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in
the vicinity of the subject property; jeopardize,- endanger or
otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or
general welfare because this project does not conform to the
development standards of .the subdivision and zoning ordinance,
is 'incompatible with the surrounding land uses, and is
inconsistent with the draft City General Plan.
e. Based upon a review, of the submitted plan, the subject property
is not adequate in size, shape, and topography to accommodate
the development features prescribed in the City's Municipal Code
and draft General Plan, and otherwise required in order to
integrate the proposed -use of the subject property with the uses
in the surrounding area.
Reso P91-42
Page 5 of.7
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.).
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.
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. That the proposed map is not consistent with the City of Santa '
Clarita General Plan because necessary roadway infrastructure is
not yet in place;- corridor rights-of-way may be impacted; the
dedication or construction of the appropriate public
transportation facilities have not been completed. The General
Plan requires that proposed development be delayed where
adequate access and circulation cannot be provided or.properly
mitigated.
b. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of
development because the proposed lot configurations' do not
comply with the requirements of the City's adopted subdivision
and zoning codes (lot lines must be at right angles to the
street upon which the lot fronts; the proposed flag lots are not
justified by the existing topographic conditions; The proposed
building sites cannot maintain the required 20 foot.front yard
setback distance.
C. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed
density of the development because it does not comply with .the
density reduction requirements of the City's draft Ridgeline
Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance (in accordance
with policy 2.1 of the Open Space and Conservation Element of
the City's General Pian). This density reduction is a maximum
of 0.70 dwelling units per acre, based on the average slope of
the site
Reso P91-42
Page 6 of 7
d. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements
are likely to cause substantial environmental damage because the
impacts to the existing oak trees have not been fully addressed
or mitigated. Land Use Element policy 4.6 states: "Preserve and
protect oak and mature specimen size trees and other endangered
indigenous plant and animal communities, from excessive and
incompatible development.' The applicant has not provided staff
with the necessary information to make this determination.
e. That .the design of the subdivision or the proposed .improvements
will cpnflict with easements, acquired by the public at large,
for access through or the use of, property within the proposed
subdivision. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has
an easement for its Second Los Angeles Aqueduct (Saugus
Pipeline) contiguous to the western boundary of the project
site. This easement -is identified as lot "J", and "Choke Cherry
Lane" on the tentative parcel map. The. applicant has
incorrectly portrayed this easement as an available lot and
private roadway. It is actually the private property of the
Department of Water and Power, and is not available for public
use.
THEREFORE, -THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
does resolve as follows:
The Planning Commission hereby denies Tentative Parcel Map No. 12387
to allow the subdivision of the subject property into four new lots
for residential development at the 5.23 acre property identified by
Assessor's Parcel Number 2833-003-075, located approximately 270 feet
south of the intersection of Placerita Canyon Road and Choke Cherry
Lane.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ]st day of 9c to er, 1991.
Jerry Cherrington, Chai man
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
L M. Harrks
Difector of Community Development
Reso P91-42
Page 7 of 7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I, Donna M. Grindey hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was
duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita
at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 1st day of October, 1991 by
the following vote of the Commission:
Commissioners:
AYES: Cherrington, Woodrow, Modugno, Brathwaite, Doughman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
i L/ Js
'dITY CLERK
TC/318
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
Tentative Parcel Map 12387
DATE: September 17, 1991
TO: Chairman Cherrington and Members of the Planning Commission /�/).�/
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Developmenty�#ry""-
APPLICANT: Steve Minke
CASE PLANNER: Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner II
LOCATION: Approximately 300 feet south-east of the intersection of Choke
Cherry Lane and Placerita Canyon Road; Assessor's Parcel Number
2833-003-075.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of the subdivision of a
5.23 acre parcel into four lots.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant. is proposing to subdivide- a 5.23 -acre parcel into four new
residential lots of 40,370 square feet, 75,200 square feet, 49,660 square
feet, and 59,780 square feet. The project site consists of hillside terrain
with slopes in excess of 25X, and a "significant ridgeline" traversing the
eastern half of the project site. The average slope of the property is 332.
The site is occupied by approximately fifty-four oak .trees, and one single
family dwelling.
The project site is located approximately 300 feet south-east of the
intersection of Choke Cherry Lane and Placerita Canyon Road, within an area of
low density. and equestrian -oriented residential development. Existing access
to the site is through private, unpaved access easements within Tract No. 1274
(via lot "J" and -lot "D"). An existing single family dwelling is present on
the western portion of the property.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION; ZONING; LAND USE:
The City Geperal Plan, Zoning, and existing land.use of the project site and
adjacent properties:
AGENDA ITEM 5
Page 2
TPM 12387
F
City General Zone Existing
Plan Land Use
Project
RL
1.1-3.3-(MOCA)
A-2-1
Single
family residential.
North
RL
1.1-3.3
(MOCA)
A-2-1
Single
family residential,
vacant.
South
RL
1.1-3.3
(MOCA)
A-2-1
Single
family residential,
vacant.
East
RL
1.1-3.3
(MOCA)
A-2-1
Single
family residential,
vacant.
West
RL
1.1-3.3
(MUGA)
A-1-1
Single
family residential.
KEY:
RL Residential Low, 1.1-3.3 units per acre.
MOCA Mineral/Oil Conservation Area
A-2-1 Heavy Agricultural, one acre minimum.
A-1-1 Light Agricultural, one acre minimum.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The environmental evaluation of this project included an Initial Study, which
indicated that additional information and project revisions are needed from.
the applicant to adequately address the environmental impacts associated with
this project. Staff 'is concerned that the project may be found to be
inconsistent with the City's General Plan and the Subdivision Map Act. Should
the Commission find otherwise, it will be necessary to complete further
environmental analysis for this project.
/INTERAGENCY REVIEY:
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.
ANALYSIS:
At the time application was made, the initial proposal of four single family
lots complied with the City's adopted Zoning Code. The application was deemed
complete on 30 October 1990. However, several outstanding issues needed to be
addressed in order to complete the review of the application. The additional
information needed included the following: Hillside and ridgeline
Page 3
TPM 12387
development; off-site road improvements (Rio Vista Road alignment); school
mitigation agreements; up -dated oak tree report; preliminary geology and soils
report; drainage concept; Health Department clearance; grading information;
proof of legal and adequate access. These items are still outstanding.
The City's General Plan land use designation for this property is Residential
Low, 1.1-3.3 dwelling units per acre. This designation is also combined with
the Mineral/OilConservation Area overlay designation. The Santa Clarita
General Plan establishes average mid -point density as the criteria for future
development. The mid -point density for the Residential Low (1.1-3.3 dwelling
units per acre) land use designation is 2.2 dwelling units per acre. Without
considering hillside development density reductions, the land use designation
would allow 11.5 dwelling units (2.2 dwelling units per acre times 5.23
acres). The proposed project has a density of 0.76 dwelling units per acre.
The applicable City zoning for the project site is A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural,
one acre minimum). Residential uses are an allowable use in this zone per
City zoning. Single family residences would be a:compatible use in this area
of Placerita Canyon; many adjacent properties have been developed for
residential land use. However, this proposal is inconsistent with the Land
Use, Community Design, Open Space, and Circulation Elements of the City's
General Plan.
The proposed subdivision design is in conflict with existing access easements
and utility easements. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has an
easement for its Second Los Angeles Aqueduct (Saugus Pipeline) contiguous to
the western boundary of the project site. This easement traverses access lot
"J" and access lot "D", and must be crossed twice to reach the project site
from Placerita Canyon Road. However, the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power has indicated that this easement is not available for public use.
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has indicated (in their letter
dated January 30, 1991) that. their. aqueduct right-of-way "Is incorrectly
portrayed as an available lot and private roadway.", "...Lot J at Placerita
Canyon Road is the Department's (Second Los Angeles Aqueduct) fee property and
is not available for site access." The limitations on the existing DWP
easement and the proposed subdivision design may also adversely affect access
to adjacent properties to the west and south by eliminating access and
land -locking -these properties. A 15 foot access and utility easement, which
was granted to. the adjacent property owners, is proposed by the applicant to
be :vacated. Government Code Section 66474 (g) requires the City to deny a
tentative map if the design of the subdivision will conflict with access or
utility easements within the proposed subdivision.
The design of the proposed lots may conflict with the alignment alternatives
for the future construction of Rio Vista Road, a proposed major highway. "In
the event that adequate access and circulation cannot be provided or properly
mitigated due to constraints, impediments or timing delays, proposed
development as designated in this Plan may need to be correspondingly impeded,
delayed, or modified." (Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element, page
C-2).
Page 4
TPM 12387
Equestrian oriented residential development is encouraged in rural areas of
the City, including Placerita Canyon. To achieve well-balanced development
with a functional mix of land uses, .policies in the General Plan "Promote the
retention of open space to preserve significant ridgelines, to provide land
use buffers, and to provide for both public safety and oak tree
preservation.", and "Preserve and protect oak and mature specimen size trees
and other endangered indigenous plant and animal communities, from excessive
and incompatible development." The proposed subdivision design will impact
existing oak trees at the project site due to encroachment of drive ways and
building pads.
Ridgelines and hillsides have been identified as significant land use and open
space resources which should be treated as design -sensitive issues. In
correlation to the General Plan, the City is .also preparing a Ridgeline
Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. As proposed, this project is
not consistent with the policies and requirements of the General Plan and the
proposed Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. Project
grading for the construction of building pads, road improvements, and drainage
may impact the existing hillside.
A significant ridgeline traverses the eastern half of the project site (per
the General Plan Significant Ridgeline map). Significant ridgelines are
primarily those that are silhouetted by the open sky from behind when viewed
from key vantage points,: such as nearby roads. only responsible and sensitive
development may be allowed on hillsides, and development on ridgelines
designated as "Significant Ridgelines" is prohibited (Land Use Element Policy
4.1). The applicant has not proposed any building sites upon the significant
ridgeline. However, the proposed project lot boundaries should be revised
with sensitivity to slope protection and preservation. The significant
ridgeline could be preserved by designating all of the project area above the
1360 foot contour elevation as open space. This boundary may also be adjusted
to provide additional oak tree preservation. This open space can be
designated as an easement prohibiting any future development upon it.
Applying the mid -point density to the acreage of the entire project site would
allow a maximum of 11.51 dwelling units (5.23 acres times 2.2 units per
acre). One dwelling currently exists on the project site. The average slope
of the project site is 33Z. The recommended density reduction per the draft
Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance (Item "I" Maximum
Density Residential), is a maximum density of 0.70 dwelling units per acre.
This reduces the allowable number of dwelling units to 3.66 (5.23 acres times
0.70 units per acre).
As shown, the proposed project with four residential lots appears to have an
excessive density, would avoidably encroach into the protected zone of several
oak trees, and could not provide the required front yard setback distance of
20 feet. Combined with the hillside development density reduction, the oak
trees existing on-site further reduce the area. available for residential
Page 5
TPM 12387
development. A total of two residential building sites could be accommodated
without violating the intent or purpose of the draft Ridgeline Preservation
and Hillside Development Ordinance, or the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance.
This would allow the development of one single family dwelling and accessory
uses in addition to the existing residence. staff conducted field inspections
of the site (on 21 February and 26 July 1991) and observed an additional area
which.was relatively flat and could accommodate one more building site without
excessive grading, substantial alteration of landforms, or _adverse impacts to
oak trees. However, the questionable access to this property indicates that
no subdivision should take place at this time.
A revised oaktree report is needed to fully assess project impacts on the
existing oak trees. Building envelopes should be defined and identified on
the tentative parcel map. Building envelopes should be designed to avoid
encroachment within the protected zone of any oak tree, and show compliance
with Zoning Code setback requirements. Individual building plans for each new
lot will be evaluated for oak tree impacts at the time applications are
received for building permits.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny Tentative Parcel Map 12387 requesting approval of four residential lots
on the property located approximately 300 feet south-east of the intersection
of Choke Cherry Lane and Placerita Canyon Road; Assessor's Parcel Number
2833-003-075.
JC/317
5
1 i .
pp DR
T�
f'!o
F
p
RD RD
Ply
,4
fie CANYON rR PK
( oq
�rHE MASTERS COLLECEI T'mp
OF
V9rs 5�
LOCKED
GATE
k Y Zy W
A.2307
1
Qui
glcy
/ / I
/ L
• / l
/ ConyOn
�I+ur INZ � I
LOCKED,,, 4
LATE"O
PIIOO uU. PLAO, o
•Creek ROS Ro
va�
I
Whilne ,
n
Cony°-
RO
`
'Ilk
�e
J`
%TION
1
SCUM
` °ab
DV
PARK
_PGR
1
HART
'ARK
a MONEER
•-
f1L.
CPE,4
OIL RErwERY
s AR9 THEPOLYNESIANDELUXE
RIMr "L'.q� MOBILE HOME
JL
OQhe
AR
W I
D PnRK a RIDE
PARK A RIDE I
s
Dy
\
ti ETERNAL VALLEY
I I LOCKED GATE I
1 MEMORIAL PARK
`
y'
It I
Whilne ,
n
Cony°-
RO
�I •
.x\
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF -'SANTA CLARITA
MASTER CASE NO: TPM 12387 Case Planner: Jeff Chaffin
Project Location: Approximately 270 feet south of Placerita Canyon Road on
Choke Cherry Lane, Santa Clarita, California.
Project Description and Setting: 5.23 acre parcel proposed for subdivision
into four new lots of 0.93 acres (40,370 square feet), 1.73 acres (75,200
square feet), 1.14 acres (49,660 square feet), and 1.37 acres (59,780 square
feet) respectively, for future residential development.
General Plan Designation: Residential Low (1.1-3.3 dwelling units per acre),
with Mineral/Oil Conservation Area overlay designation.
Zoning: A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural, one acre minimum lot size)
Applicant: Steve Minke,.Owner.
Environmental Constraint Areas: Hillside development, ridgeline preservation,
oak tree conservation, traffic circulation, wastewater disposal, school
impacts, access, and public right-of-way conflicts.
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] [ l [ I
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features? ................................. [ 7 [ I [XI
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? .......... [X] [ ] [ ]
f. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards? ................................... [ ] [ I [XI
Do
9
-2-
YES MAYBE
NO
g.
Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? .... ....................... ..
[ ] [ l
[X]
h.
Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ...........................
I ] I ]
IXl
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 withintheAlquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ......................
[ ] [ ]
[X]
1.
Other?
[ ] [ ]
[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. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate,and amount of
surface runoff? ............................
[X] [ I
I l
b.
Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? ...............................
[ ] I l
[Xl
C.
Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? .........................
[ ] I ]
IXl
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]
I ]
-2-
4.
5.
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ] [ ] [X]
C. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? [ ] [ ] [X]
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? [ ] [ I [X]
10
YES
MAYBE NO
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? ............
[ ]
[ ] [X]
g.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ............................
[ I
[ ] [XI
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? ..........
[ ]
( ] [X]
i.
Other?
[ ]
[ ] [X]
Plant
Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species or number
of any.species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ...
[ I
[ ] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers.of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ......
[ ]
[ ] [X]
C.
Introduction of.new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal re-
plenishment of existing species? ...........
[X]
[ ] [ ]
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? ......................................
[ ]
[ I. [XI
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)? ....................
[ ]
[ I [X]
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ] [ ] [X]
C. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? [ ] [ ] [X]
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? [ ] [ I [X]
10
YES MAYBE NO
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [ ]
b. Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? .................. [ ]
C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [ ]
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? ................. [ ]
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial alteration of the present
.land use of an area? ....................... [ ]
b. A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? ............... [ ]
C. A use that does not adhere to.existing
zoning laws? ............................... .L l
d. A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria?, ...................... [ ]
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? ................................. [ l
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? ......................... [ ]
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? .......................... [ ]
b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil,, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?. ................................ L ]
C. Possible.interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ...................................... [ ]
-4-
d. Otherwise expose people.to potential safety
hazards? ...................................
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? .....................
b. Other?
12. Housing. Will the proposal:
a. Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................
b. Other?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
YES MAYBE NO
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................ [ ]
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? ................. [ ]
C. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? [X]
d. Alterations to present patterns of.
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? .............................. L l
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ..:.... [ ]
f. A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? ........:..................... .[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:
a. Fire protection? ........................... [ ]
b. Police protection? ......................... ( ]
-5-
YES MAYBE NO
C. Schools? ................................... [X] [ I [ I
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .... [ ] [ ] [X]
MM
[ ] [XI
[.] [X]
e.
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ...........................
L l
f.
Other governmental services? ...............
[ ]
15.
Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy . ....................................
L ]
b.
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy?
[ ]
16.
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a.need
for
new systems, or substantial alterations to
the
following utilities:
a.
Power or natural gas? ......................
[ ]
b.
Communications systems7 ....................
[ ]
C.
Water systems? .............................
L l
d.
Sanitary sewer systems? ................
[ J
e.
Storm drainage systems? .............. :.....
[ ]
f.
Solid waste and disposal systems? ..........
[ ]
g.
Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or inefficient -pattern of delivery system
improvements for any.of the above? ..........
[ ]
17.
Human Health. Will.the proposal result in:
a.
Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ...
[ ]
b.
Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ...................................
L l
18.
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a.
The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ...................'
[ ]
MM
[ ] [XI
[.] [X]
L'\
YES MAYBE NO
b. Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? ....................... [ J [ j [X]
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 or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? ..................... [ j [ ] [XJ
20. Cultural Resources.
a.
Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? .............. [ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? ... [ ]
[ ] (X]
C.
Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which wouldaffect
unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ]
[ ] [X]
d.
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the .
potential impact area? ..................... [ ]
[ ] [X]
-7-
n
Discussion of Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
Section Evaluation of Impact
1. Grading shall be required for future single family homesites.
including building pads and driveways. A grading plan has not
been submitted at this time for residential development. The site
plan shows that future dvelopment is to be located upon the
flattest portions of the site which are less than,41 natural
grade. Fieldinspectionby staff has confirmed this. These flat
areas are limited by the location of right-of-way easements and
oak trees, as well as existing steep hillsides. Development
standards for yard setback distances (required under the Zoning
Code) will further reduce the developable area of the proposed
lots. The extent of any future grading will influence changes in
topography needed to accommodate development. confining future
building sites to these flat areas, and reducing the number of
building sites, would require less grading thereby reducing
topographical impacts.
Increases in.deposition, erosion, and siltation rates may be
expected due to residential construction (increased lot coverage
from future buildings and driveways). Building pads on the
flatter portions of the property, along with revegetation.and
landscaping, would minimize potential erosion impacts. As such,
these increases would be considered temporary and insignificant.
The existence of any geological hazards at the project site is
unknown at this time. A geology report is needed to assess any
existing or potential hazards which may affect this project.
Recommendations of such report would be included as project
conditions should the application be approved. Improvements would
be required.to assure that -all development is in conformance with
the Uniform Building Code, and all other applicable safety codes.
The project site is not located within any Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone area. No significant geological -impacts are
anticipated.
2. Existing air quality will not be affected by the implementation of
this proposal. Residential.use is not considered to be the type
of use which substantially contributes to the degradation of air
quality. The use of fireplaces and barbecues are accessory
residential uses which result in air emissions. These uses are
intermittent and should not have long-term effects. No
significant impact to air quality is expected.
3. Lot coverage by impermeable surfaces, such as buildings and
driveways, may increase runoff and decrease absorption. However,
no significant impact is anticipated due to the size and location
of potential building pads and driveways.' The subdivision design
shall minimite lot coverage.and confine building pads to flat.
areas so that disruptions to the natural drainage patterns will be
kept to a minimum. The project site is not located within a 100
/ year floodplain (per FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map; Community
Panel Number 060729 0480 C). This proposed project will not
result in significant impacts to the quantity and quality of
surface waters or ground waters.
4. A revised oak tree report is needed to fully assess project
impacts on the existing oak trees. Building envelopes should be
defined and identified on the tentative parcel map showing
potential development without encroachment into any oak tree's
protected zone (the protected zone of an oak tree is a minimum
radius of fifteen feet from the trunk of the tree or five feet
outward from the dripline of the tree, whichever is the greater
distance).
Building envelopes must also show compliance with Zoning Code
setback requirements (the minimum setback distance for a single
family residence is at least 20 feet from the edge of the
right-of-way). The location of future construction may impact
existing oak trees on.the property. Evaluation of oak tree
impacts for individual building plans of each new lot would be
needed at the time applications are received for building
permits.
At least ten oak trees on-site would be impacted under the current
project design. Land Use Element policy 1.13 "Promote(s) the
retention of open space to preserve significant ridgelines, to
provide land use buffers, and to provide for both public safety
and oak.tree preservation." The design of this proposed
subdivision, and potential residential development, is likely to
cause substantial damage to the oak trees present at the project
site. Significant impacts to oak.tree resources is anticipated
due to soil and water disruptions,.rootand trunk damage, and
encroachment within driplines, which may kill or degrade the
health of oak trees on-site.
S. The project site has not been identified.as a Significant
Ecological Area (per the City of Santa Clarita General Plan.)
Devegetation for roads and building pads will destroy habitat and
create'a barrier to migration and movements. An updated
comprehensive oak tree report is needed so that staff may assess
the potential oak tree impacts resulting from this proposal. The
loss of any oak trees may result in habitat degradation or
destruction thereby affecting wildlife populations which may be
using the project site. Recommendations.of this report will be
included as conditions of approval. As the project site has been
previously disturbed by adjacent residential development, no
significant impacts to animal populations are anticipated.
6. Increased noise levels and severe vibrations are expected on a
temporary basis due to.construction activities, and existing
residential communities adjacent to the project site may be
exposed to these effects at that time. The project will not
result in long-term noise or vibration. Ambient noise levels will
not increase from this proposed residential development. No
significant noise or vibration impacts are anticipated due to the
10
short-term, localized intermittent nature of construction
activity. Municipal Code Section 11.44.070 limits the time, days,
and intensity of noise associated with construction activities.
7. Exterior lighting for future residential development shall comply
with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Residential
uses are not considered to result in substantial new light or
glare. Exterior lighting shall be reviewed at the time
application is made for building permits. No significant adverse
impacts are expected from future lighting.
8. The City's General Plan land use designation for this property is
Residential Low, 1.1-3.3 dwelling units per acre. This
designation is also combined with the Mineral/Oil Conservation
Area overlay designation. Currently, no mineral or oil extraction
activities are occurring at the project site. The site does not
contain any mineral or aggregate resources (per SMARA Designation
Map No. 85-3, State Division of Mines and Geology). The
applicable City zoning for the project site is A-2-1 (Heavy
Agricultural, one acre minimum). Residential uses are an
allowable use in this zone per Title 22 (the Los Angeles County
Planning and Zoning Code as adopted).
The General Plan encourages equestrian oriented residential
development in rural areas of the City, including Placerita Canyon
(Policy 1.10 of the Land Use Element). To achieve well-balanced
development with a:functional mix of land uses, General Plan Land
Use Element Policy 1.13 and 4.6 seek to "Promote the retention of
open space to preserve significant ridgelines, to provide land use
buffers, and to provide for both public safety and oak tree
preservation.% and to "Preserve and protect oak and mature
specimen size trees and other endangered indigenous plant and
animal communities, from excessive and incompatible development."
The shapes of the proposed lots do not comply with the
requirements of Subdivision Code Section 21.24.310 which requires
that side lot lines be.at right angles to the street upon which
the lot fronts (where practical). Additionally, the design does
not comply with Subdivision Code Section 21.24 320, which requires
that "flag lots be denied where such design is not justified by
topographic conditions or the size and shape of the division of
land, or where such design is in conflict with the pattern of
neighborhood development." Generally, reverse flag lots and
hour -glass shaped lots are not good subdivision design features.
Adequate building setback distances cannot be achieved given the
proposed size and shape of the lots, and the existing topography.
The City's General Plan has identified ridgelines and hillsides as
significant land use and open space resources which should be
treated as design -sensitive issues (per Land Use Element policies
4.1 and 4.2, and Community Design Element policy 5.1). In
correlation to the General Plan, the City is also preparing a
Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance (per
Open Space and.Conservation Element policy 2.1 and 2.2). As
proposed, this project is not consistent with the policies and
requirements of the General Plan and the proposed Ridgeline
Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. Project grading
for the construction of building pads, road improvements, and
drainage may impact the existing hillside. The average slope of
the property is thirty-three percent (332). The draft ordinance
provides density reductionsandopen space.requirements for
hillsides and ridges. According to the Density Reduction/Open
Space Requirement table (page 5, Draft Ridgeline Preservation and
Hillside Development Ordinance) 4.18 acres is required for open
space at this project site. Deducting this open space requirement
from the 5.23 acre project site leaves 1.05 acres available for
single family development.
The Santa Clarita General Plan establishes average mid -point
density as the criteria for future development (pages I-5, C-3,
L-32, L-33). The mid -point density for the Residential Low
(1.1-3.3 dwelling units per acre)'land use designation is 2.2
dwelling units per acre. This .would allow 2.31.dwelling units on
the remaining.1.05 acres available for single family development
(2.2 times 1.05). This indicates that the most appropriate
development of the,property would be for a total of two dwelling
units. As such, the project site is not physically suitable for
the four single family lots (and density) of this proposed
development.
A ridge, which has been identified as a significant ridgeline
under the City General•Plan; traverses the eastern half of the
project site. The proposed project lot boundaries should be
revised with sensitivity to slope protection and preservation, in
accordance with the General Plan and,proposed Ridgeline
Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. Land Use Element
Policy 4.1 promotes preservation of natural resources and
"Allow(s) only responsible and sensitive development on hillsides
and prohibit(s) development on ridgelines designated as
'Significant Ridgelines'."
The significant ridgeline could be preserved by designating all of
the project area above the 1360 foot contour elevation as open
space, plus any additional area needed to provide the 4.18 acres
of required open space. This open space can be designated as an
easement prohibiting any future development upon it. All design
revisions -should be consistent with the findings and
recommendations of the required geological report for this
project. As proposed, this project will have an adverse impact
upon ridgeline and hillside resources by exceeding the recommended
dwelling unit density for this property, and conflicting' with the
General Plan policies regarding ridgeline preservation, hillside
development, and oak tree conservation.
The proposed subdivision design is in conflict with existing
access easements and utility easements. The Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power has an easement for its Second Los
Angeles Aqueduct (Saugus Pipeline) contiguous to the western
boundary of the project site. This easement is identified as lot
"J", and "Choke Cherry Lane" on the tentative parcel map. The
applicant has incorrectly portrayed this easement as an available
lot and private roadway. It is actually the private property of
the Department of Water and Power, and is not available for public
use. Government Code Section 66474 (g) requires the City to deny
a tentative map if the design of the subdivision will conflict
with access or utility easements within the proposed subdivision.
The Department of Water and Power addressed this proposed project
and its anticipated impacts on their aqueduct right-of-way (per
correspondence dated January 30, 1991). The Department of Water
and Power has not approved any use of their aqueduct right-of-way
for access to the project site, but has indicated that -they could
recommend the grant of an access easement (to the City of Santa
Clarita) subject to specific conditions. This would be contingent
upon compliance with these specified conditions. The applicant
was provided a copy of the January 30, 1991 correspondence by the
Department.of Water and Power. The applicant has not complied
with.these specified conditions by the Department of Water and
Power.
Access to the project site has not been approved by the Los
Angeles County Fire Department. The proposed project is also in
conflict with the proposed alignment for Rio Vista Road. The
applicant must revise the tentative parcel map to accommodate the
future road alignment, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
As proposed, this project will result in significant adverse
impacts upon the existing access facilities serving the site.
11. As proposed, this project would create new lots for four single
family dwellings, or approximately 12 people.
The City General Plan Land Use designation for this property is
Low Density Residential, with a density range of 1.1 to 3.3 units
per acre. This proposed project has a density less than 1.1 units
per acre. However, a density reduction is applied to the proposal
in accordance with the General Plan policies regarding Hillside
development and Open Space requirements (per the draft Ridgeline
Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance). This reduction
results in 2.31 as the maximum number of allowable dwelling units
for this project. Reduction of the total number of proposed lots
from four to two could bring the project into complicance with the
General Plan and draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside
Development Ordinance.
13. Approximately 40 vehicle trips per day are expected from the
ultimate development of the proposed lots. An increased demand on
public transportation systems may result from this proposal. City
traffic engineering staff has indicated that additional vehicle
traffic generated by this project can be accommodated by existing
roadways. However, bridge and thoroughfare fees may be required
as a condition of approval. Transit development fees shall be
required.to improve public transportation systems.
The design of the proposed lots may conflict with the alignment
alternatives for the future construction of Rio Vista Road, a
proposed major highway. This would result in a disjointed pattern
of roadway improvements. The General Plan provides direction to
"Make sure -that the pace of development matches the pace of
required roadway infrastructure improvements." (Issue Statement,
page C-30). Policy 1.27 (Circulation Element) states, "Where
alignments are known, the preservation of corridor right-of-ways
should be immediately established." and Policy 2.6 (Circulation
Element) "Require(s) right -o£ -way dedication and/or construction
of appropriate facilities in support of a public transportation
system in new and redeveloped projects." The •Alternative A"
alignment for Rio Vista Road is contiguous with Placerita Canyon
Road, and would affect the proposed new lots and building sites.
The "Alternative S• alignment for Rio Vista Road traverses the
southern portion of the project site and may not affect the
building sites as shown of the Tentative Parcel Map.
Should "Alternative A" be adopted for the Rio Vista Road
alignment, this project will have an adverse impact upon
transportation systems. Until the Rio Vista Road alignment is
adopted, staff is unable to adequately access the potential
impacts that this project may have on transportation systems
within the City. "In the event that adequate access and
circulation cannot be provided or properly.mitigated due to
constraints, impedements or timing delays, proposed development as
designated in this Plan may need to be correspondingly impeded,
delayed, or modified." (Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation
Element, page C-2).
14. The project site is within a residentially developed area
currently serviced by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and
Sheriff's Department; the need for additional property, personnel,
and equipment shall increase proportionately as the population
grows.
Local school districts are currently experiencing classroom
overcrowding and a lack of instructional personnel. Impacts are
expected due to the additional students which will be generated by
this project. school mitigation agreements shall be required
prior to approval of this project. This agreement.will provide
the means to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Provision of additional park/recreational facilities shall be
determined by the City Parks and Recreation Department upon review
of the revised tentative map. Park land or in -lieu fees shall be
required to reduce this impact to a less.than significant level.
18. The project site is located at the base of a significant ridgeline
(as identified by the City's General Plan.) Subdivision design,
grading, and architectural compatibility are critical elements in
determining the visual impacts associated with this project. As
proposed, this project will have a significant impact on
hillside/ridgeline, and oak tree resources. A visual impact
-13-
�V
t
analysis should be conducted, and exhibits submitted, to evaluate
these impacts and to formulate the appropriate mitigation measures
as needed. Should all other adverse impacts be resolved, the
mitigation measures from this study shall be addressed as a
condition of project approval. No significant impact is
anticipated with the addition of such mitigation measures. (See
Section 8 d.)
19. Provision of additional park/recreational facilities, such as
trail dedication or open space, shall be determined by the City
Parks and Recreation Department upon review of the revised
tentative map. Park land or in -lieu fees shall be required. No
significant impact is anticipated on parks or recreational
facilities.
20. The project site has not been identified as a sensitive
archaeological or cultural resources area.(according to the City's
most recent data.) Disturbances, on and adjacent to the site,
have most likely destroyed any resources which may have been
present in the past. No significant impact upon archaeological or
cultural resources is anticipated.
-14-
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? ................. [ ] [ ] [ ]
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.) ........... [ ] [ ] [ ]
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.)
4. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? ......... [ ] [ J [ ]
-15-
D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE -DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED . ............................... [ )
Although the proposed project COULD have a significant
effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described in this Initial Study
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED ..................................... [ )
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: 4f,
� Qsd l A/L.i{�� �.✓� Jeff Chaffin. Assistant Planner(Si a e) (Name/Title) )
Ap ve 1 By•
/
Richard Henderson, Principal Planner %
(Signature) (Name/Title) (D te)
Reviey6d by:
JC/147
Donald M. Williams. Senior Planner J
. (Name/Title) (Date)
-16-
LSI
HALE & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
October 10
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Ste. 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Attn: Donna Grindey
City Clerk
26017 Huntington Lane, Suite 6
1 9 91 Valencia. California 91355
Telephone: (805) 295-0400
Fax: (805) 295-1602
Appeal.of Planning Commission's
Denial of Tentative Parcel Map 12387
Dear Ms. Grindey;
Tentative Parcel Map 12387, a request for approval of a 5.23 acre
parcel into 4 lots, was denied by the City of Santa Clarita
Planning Commission at its September 17, 1991 Public Hearing, and
a resolution to deny the project (91-042) was adopted at the
October 1, 1991 Public Hearing. On behalf of our client, Mr. Steve
Minke, we would like to appeal this denial before City Council.
Our• -ground for appealing this denial is that the project was not
given a fair analysis by staff. The staff report is riddled with
inaccuracies which are detailed in our September 12, 1991 letter to
Chairman Jerry Cherrington. At the Planning Commission hearing, we
asked for a continuance of the project to allow staff 'to review
-their own files (inasmuch as most of the inaccuracies 'had to do
with poorly kept files). Staff admitted to the Commission that the
project is not inconsistent with the City's present. policies
regarding density, hillsides and other General- Plan issues. We
were given a total of ten minutes, of testimony to refute a dozen
inaccuracies in the staff report. This time was insufficient to
adequately cover all of the issues.
We request that Council rehear this case with the appropriate staff
personnel present. We would appreciate having a member of the City
Engineer's Office present.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
^
Sincerely,
ce, v`
D. E. HALE
R. C. E.
DH/amd
STEVE MINKS PROJECT
MINUTES FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1991
ITEM 5: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12387 - located approximately 300 feet south-east
of the intersection of Choke Cherry Lane and Placerita Canyon Road
Director Harris introduced Item 5 stating 'that the project has been noticed as
required by law; and that Hale and Associates has submitted a letter, signed
by Don Hale regarding the project.
Principal Planner Henderson presented the staff report, which included a brief
slide presentation.
There was discussion among the Commission.
At 8:28 p.m., Chairman Cherrington opened the public hearing.
Those speaking in favor were the applicant, Steve Minke, 25148 Vermont Drive,
Newhall, who spoke on the history of this property, the fire access problem,
and legal access to the property.
Mr. Keith Uselding of Hale and Associates, 26017 Huntington Lane, Santa
Clarita, engineer for the applicant, who stated his displeasure with the staff
report. Mr. Uselding referenced the letter from Hale and Associates,
discussing various discrepancies in the staff report, and items in the
letter.
Mr. Don Hale, 26017 Huntington Lane, Santa Clarita, engineer for the
applicant, discussed the miscommunication between staff -and the applicant, and
made comments on the Department -of Water and Power easements.
There was a brief discussion among the Commission.
Mr. Lee Schramling, 19851 W. Sandpiper Place, Santa Clarita, spoke on the
proposed Rio Vista alignment, the oak trees, and hillside preservation.
Speaking in opposition were:
Terry Kleban, 21090 Placerita Canyon Road, Newhall, addressing the fire
department access to his property, the purchase of this property from Mr.
Minke, and the discussions he has had with Mr. Minke regarding the access.
Ms. Jeanne Hammons, 16326 Cambria Estates Lane, Santa Clarita, whose concern
was her easement.
Mr. Don Hale then made a rebuttal, discussing the problems with the Fire
Department and the Department of Water and Power, and their request that any
proposed road be maintained by the City.
Page 2
Minke PC Minutes 9/17/91
At 8:55 p.m., the public hearing was closed.
Discussion ensued among the Commission.
Commissioner Modugno motioned for denial of Tentative Tract Map 12387.
Commissioner Doughman seconded the motion. The motion was passed with a vote
of 4-1 (Brathwaite).
RECESS
At 9:04.p.m., Chairman Cherrington called for a recess.
RECONVENE
Chairman Cherrington reconvened the meeting at 9:17 p.m.
JC/410
C
<x
DePantment of Wat eT wd
Power ' " the Canty of IIS klgees
TOM BRADLEY Commission
Mayor MICHAEL J. GAGE, President
RICK J. CARUSO, Vice Presidera
DANIEL W. WATERS, General Managerard Chief Fngineer
ANGEL M. ECHEVARRIA
ELDON A. COTTON, Assistants General Mansger- Power
DOROTHY GREEN
JAMES F. WICKSER.Assismnt General Manager -Water
MARY D, NICHOLS
NORMAN L. BUEHRING, Assistant General Manger -External Affairs
JUDITH K. DAVISON. Secretary
NORMAN J. POWERS, Chief Financial Offtcer
-- ..�
t,l
January 30, 1991
1991
DWP File W-62189
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, California 91355
Attention Mr. Jeff Chafen
Gentlemen:
Parcel Map 12387
Second Los Angeles Aqueduct
Saugus Pipeline
Vicinity of Choke Cherry Lane and
South of Placerita Canyon Road, Newhall
This is in response to your letter.requesting the Department's review
of Mr. Steve L. Minks's Parcel Map 12387 affecting a portion of our Second
Los Angeles Aqueduct (SLAA) property.'
The Department has completed a review and must object to Parcel Map 12387
due to the proposed longitudinal use of our Aqueduct right of way for access
purposes. For your information, the Department has not approved of any use of
our fee property by private parties. However, as Mr. Minks has been previously
advised, this Department would consider the following alternatives for access to
the proposed -development: -
1. The Department would recommend the grant of an easement to
the City of Santa Clarita, with conditions, on that portion
of Lot J contained within the Department's SLAA fee property
south of Placerita Canyon Road, for roadway access. The
easement will be subject to the approval of the Board of
Water,and Power Commissioners and the Los Angeles City Council.
2. The Department would consider, with conditions, authorizing
crossings of SLAA fee property through either Lot D or Lot E.
111 Nonh Hope Street, Los Angeles. California O Mailing addreca Bos 111, Los Angeles 9(1051{1100 .�.
Telephane.(213) 4814211 Cable address tit -,rot, FAX! 12131181.8701
,a
r
City of Santa Clarita
-2-
January 30, 1991
The Department requests that the following revisions be made to correct
the inaccuracies shown in Parcel Map 12387:
A. The Department's 50 -foot -wide SLAA fee property south of
Placerita Canyon. Road is designated Lot J and "Choke Cherry
Lane (private, unpaved)." It is incorrectly portrayed as an
available lot and private roadway. This should be changed to
accurately reflect the Department's private property.
B. Access to the site is shown through Lot J at its intersection
with Placerita Canyon Road. As stated in Item A, Lot J at
Placerita Canyon Road is the Department's SLAA fee property
and is not available for site access.
C. A notation states "Access to all parcels. will be from
Lot D." Lot D is accessed by Lot J which, as stated
previously, is through the Department's SLAA fee property.
Therefore, access is restricted to all parcels -and cannot
be provided across Lot D.
The Department requests that after completion of the corrections, the
revised Parcel Map 12387 be submitted for our review and approval. In addition,
we wish to advise that this Department hasrepeatedly attempted to reach a
compromise to allow access to Mr. Minke's property. The Department will not
consider any future proposals involving unauthorized use of our property for
access except those solutions previously mentioned in Items 1 and 2 of this
letter.
Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Craig Luna at (213)
481-5964.
s'ncerely,
�n
L19MOUSSA
Chief Real Estate O
CL:emh
c: Mr. Steve L. Minke
STEVE L. MINKE
Post Office Box 479
Newhall, Cal. 91322
(805) 259-8106
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
23920 Valencia Boulevard ##300
Santa Clarita, California
CITY OF S"TA CLARITA
Noy 25 12 31 PH 191
November 25th, 1991=
RE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12987
Dear Councilmembers:
i
I have for the past 12 years been trying to split this property,
and now that I have a chance to appear before the City Council
of the City of Santa Clarita on November 26th, I end up in the
hospital and unable to attend.the meeting,
I would appreciate an extention of time, until I can recover from
my illness to be there to be heard. If it weren't.for the fact that
I am on I.V. treatment, I would leave the hospital to attend, but
my doctor advises against it.
I appreciate your help and understanding at this time. Thank you.
SQL.AINP KE
-- _
.. �. ITS... -.� -. _.. ,.. .. .,. ,,:.r .•., r .. � , -.� ..
r
Y '
•V ty, J.:
I
)
i SI
, � 1
T ,
r r u
1 ,
oate!�G,gb ��
1 A
J{
prawn'
'
Checked
Job No t !,
Signature- i
)a•. �... ; .)) ,. � is
1
Sheet
r. n
I y-
f 1 {
�I
'V
r ; 1
)
I
r
1
I
I
�
a
IT
IZ
t'
r
Y '
•V ty, J.:
I
)
i SI
, � 1
T ,
r r u
1 ,
oate!�G,gb ��
1 A
J{
prawn'
'
Checked
Job No t !,
Signature- i
)a•. �... ; .)) ,. � is
1
Sheet
r. n
I y-
f 1 {
�I