HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-10-22 - AGENDA REPORTS - SAND CYN RD ADJACENT SCRIVER (2)-1�
AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: October 22, 1991
City Manager
Item to be p
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Plot Plan
89-146, located at 28352 Sand Canyon Road adjacent to the
Santa Clara River.
APPLICANT: Mr. Maurice Ungar
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
At the May 21, 1991 meeting, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
P91-31, formally denying Plot Plan 89-146 as revised. The applicant
proposes a 35 foot high, three story commercial office building totalling
30,712 square feet of floor area. The denied project also included 126
parking spaces, two loading stalls and 23,492 square feet of landscaping
on 56,570 square feet of land.
The plot plan was originally submitted on December 20, 1989. The
proposal at that time was a 46', three-story, 33,000 square foot
commercial office building. The project was denied -by staff and appealed
by the applicant to the Planning Commission. The Commission, upon review
of the appeal, instructed the applicant to submit a proposal that
satisfies the area homeowners and staff. The applicant, upon the
Planning Commission's recommendation, submitted the revised project to
staff. The item was again heard by the Commission May 21, 1991, where
the above referenced action was taken. .
During the review of this project,the Planning Commission received 26
signed form letters/petitions in favor of, 27 signed original letters in
favor of, seven petitions in opposition to, and one signed original
letter in opposition to this project.
ANALYSIS
The three story building would lie above and adjacent to the Santa Clara
River. The building would be located approximately 70' feet north of the
river. The project's existing grade sits approximately 30' above the
river, though if the project were approved this grade would be decreased
approximately 10' due to grading. This grading would be done to
accommodate the subterranean parking and to reduce the, appearance- and
d DOD Q D ,_��.-e�"c�p� �� � pg�nda ►tem:
I
height of the building. The applicant has submitted an exhibit
(attached) comparing the height of the proposed building (35') with the
height of the adjacent structures. This building height is shown after
the completion of the grading of the project site and .indicates the
building would generally be equal to, or lower in height (from finished
grade) than adjacent structures. This exhibit illustrates one elevation
only (street view, east only). The proposed building, viewed from the
south, would sit approximately. 55' above (inclusive of building height,
35', and the finished grade of project site) the grade of the existing
residences located on Lost Canyon Road. These residences are
predominantly rural' in nature, and can be expected to be negatively
impacted by such a visual urban use.
Staff is including other existing building heights to use in comparison
to this proposal. These are as follows:
1) Facey Medical - (17743 Soledad Canyon Road, 20,000 square feet) 35'
2) Security Pacific Bank (23929 Valencia Boulevard, 54,000 square
feet) 61'6"
3) City Ball - (23920 Valencia Boulevard, 75,000 square feet) 46'6"
from grade to parapet on Valencia Boulevard side
4) Realty Executives (63,000 square feet, 25111 Chiquella Road) 35'
5) Lyons Plaza (Four Story -65,000 square feet, 23500 Lyons Avenue) 52'
from grade to parapet on Lyons Boulevard side and approximately 40'
from the rear parking lot grade
6) Lost.Canyon-Soledad Canyon Buildings (Two Buildings, Building 1 -one
story, Building 2 -two stories, 27940 Lost Canyon Road, Total square
footage of both buildings is 5,320) Maximum height 26'
The above listed buildings do not utilize subterranean parking with their
design. A commercial -office project that utilizes subterranean parking
as part of its design can be viewed as being more urban in scale. This
design has been used in the City, but in areas such as Valencia
Boulevard, which is a more urban area.
The project site is located within an area designated Community
Commercial (CC) by the City's General Plan which is defined in part as
follows:
Community Commercial (CC) category designates those area of the
City and planning area that are for retailing uses of a
community -wide nature that attract people from beyond the immediate
neighborhood. The community commercial category typically will
include a least one to two major uses and shall not be construed to
be an allowance of a proliferation of small, multi -tenant
convenience shopping centers located on corners and in strip
commercial fashion along the City' commercial streets. Uses may
include a department store, movie theater, major hardware store,
supermarket, major clothing outlet, discount store and other
related uses. Development intensity for this category will be
governed by floor area ratios ranging between 0.25 to 0.5:1.
r
F�
Office uses are not specifically listed within this designation though
staff and the Commission believe the office use is appropriate for the
site because of the project's proximity to Highway 14. The appeal though
is de nova, which allows the City Council to consider any and all aspects
of the project including the appropriateness.of the office use within the
Community Commercial designation.
After review of the Community Design Element of the General Plan, staff
would like to bring forth specific policies that may impact this
proposal. These are as follows:
1) Goal 1, Policy 1.3 - Consider all design. elements, including
building size, height, mass, and architectural design, in the
design review process so that new development does not conflict
with the character of neighborhoods. (The Commission indicated the
project as proposed was out of character with the Sand Canyon area
and is not.in conformity with good zoning practice.)
2) Goal 2, Policy 2.4 - Encourage key gateway design themes to the
City's major communities consistent with the overall community
image. (The Commission indicated that due to its scale and
visibility, the project- is not consistent with the image of what
the gateway should be for the. Sand Canyon area. This proposal
could negatively influence the gateway theme of the area due to the
proposed project's visibility from the• east, south, and west
directions.)
The original building design was a modern building consisting of
materials such as brick and glass. Aesthetically, staff and the
Commission believed this architectural design would negatively impact the
surrounding area. The revised project is now a building that -is more
rural in flavor, utilizing earth -tone shades and an adobe style
exterior. Staff and the Commission believe the applicant, by
re -designing the project,. has mitigated the impact related to the
architectural design of the building. The height of the building and its
floor area ratio are not considered or discussed in the above paragraph
and are separate issues that are addressed in the following sections of
the staff report.
Ordinance 91-23 (approved May 28, 1991) established a 35' height limit in
the C-3 zone, unless modified by an approved conditional use permit. The
applicant's appeal request is a project which proposes a maximum 35'
high, three-story building and thus would not require a conditional use
permitfor approval. However, the City's General Plan does not
implement, nor allow, a specific height limit within the Land Use Element
of the Plan. Based on. that, staff believes that it is within the
authority of the City Council and Planning Commission to consider the
height of a proposal in their deliberations. The Planning Commission, in
denying the applicant's appeal request, approved in concept a two-story,
28' high building.
The Commission, in making a determination of denial on the project,
focused on three impacts that were not resolved with the submittal of the
revised plot plan. These impacts are as follows:
1) Prior to the latest revision, the project's floor area ratio
(.54:1) exceeded the floor area ratio interval (.25 to .5:1)
indicated for the Community Commercial category. A floor area
ratio is calculated by dividing the above -ground gross floor area
of a building by the total area of such lot or parcel of land. The
floor area ratio indicates whether a building is suitable or too
ambitious for a site. The ratio is implemented as a measure to
control the scale and height of a building. The applicant, in a
letter dated July 29, 1991, has offered toreducethe floor area
ratio to .49:1 by reducing the gross square footage of the building
from 30,712 square feet to 28,280 square feet, thereby bringing.the
project's floor area ratio to within the interval indicated for the
Community Commercial designation. To accomplish this, the
building's footprint would have to be decreased. This reduction
though, does not remove the Commission's concerns related to the
bulk and density of the project as associated with height. An
office building design implementing a smaller building, in height,
and at -grade parking could be accomplished on-site. The
applicant's offer to reduce the floor area to under .50 times lot
area still leaves the project at the top of the allowable range,
and disregards the fact that approximately 10% of the project site
is behind a cliff, 30' below the rest of the site, in the river.
2) The Commission determined that circulation mitigation measures must
be implemented to ensure the project does not negatively impact
public safety and circulation in the area. This project would
contribute approximately 566 trips per day to the.immediate area's
existing traffic volumes. Pursuant to the applicant's submitted
traffic study, the existing P.M. peak hour volume/capacity ratio at
the Soledad Canyon/SR 14 ramps is .91 or classified at a level of
poor. The P.M. peak hour volume/capacity at .the Sand-Canyon/SR 14
ramps is 1.12 or at a failure level. This proposal, included with
others in the area, is expected to negatively impact the entire
Sand Canyon Road circulation system. The accommodation of these
proposals is dependent upon all of the applicable projects
participating in the necessary improvements to ensure that the
circulation system becomes adequate. Additional roadway
improvements are needed on the linking roadway segments between the
study intersections in order to achieve a functional circulation
system. The Commission believed if approval were granted, the
applicant would have to participate on a "fair share basis" into
appropriate mitigation measures.
3) The Commission determined that the project, as proposed, was not
compatible with the surrounding. area. This has been further
explained previously in this report through the Goals and Policies
of the Community Design Element.
COUNCIL OPTIONS FOR ACTION
1) Uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the appeal request, and
approve in concept a two-story, 28' building and return to the
Council with revised elevations and conditions of approval.
2) Approve the project as proposed, and direct staff to appropriately
condition the project. This could include a reduction in floor
area, height, or withholding occupancy until certain traffic
improvements are in place.
RECOMMENDATION
Uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Plot Plan 89-146 (Revised),
and approve in concept a two-story, 28' building and return to the
Planning Commission with revised elevations and conditions of approval.
ATTACHMENTS
A)
Planning Commission Resolution P91-31
B)
Minutes from Planning Commission Meetings
(May 21, 1991; May 7,
1991; February 19, 1991; June 19, 1990)
C)
Staff Report (May 7, 1991)
D)
Draft Negative Declaration
E)
Denial Letter from Assistant City Manager Ren Pulskamp
F)
Mark Scott's letter dated March 27, 1990
G)
Letter from Mr..Maurice Ungar (Received July
29, 1991)
H)
Memo from Lynn M. Harris to George Caravalho
I)
Letter from Mr. Allan Cameron (Received July
29, 1991)
J)
Height Exhibit
R)
Vicinity Map
L)
Project Proximity Map
M)
Correspondence
LMH:GEA:303
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 PLOT PLAN 89-146 TO
CONSTRUCT A THREE-STORY, 35 FOOT,
30,712 GROSS SQUARE FOOT (28,250 SQUARE FOOT NET)
OFFICE BUILDING AND A SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE ON A 56,570
SQUARE FOOT PARCEL.
LOCATION:
28352 SAND CANYON ROAD, IN THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before theCityCouncil of the City
of Santa Clarita to consider an appeal from the applicant, Maurice
Ungar, regarding the Planning Commission's denial of Plot Plan
89-146 to construct a three-story, 35 foot tall, 30,712 square foot
office building and a subterranean garage on a 56,570 square foot
parcel. The location is at 28352 Sand Canyon Rd. 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 13th day of August, 1991, at or after 6:30 p.m.
Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be
heard on this matter at that time. Further information may be
obtained by contacting the City Clerk's Office, Santa Clarita City
Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita.
If you wish to challenge this order in court, you,may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered, to the City Council, at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Date: July 17, 1991
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk
Publish Date: July 22, 1991
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEALING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF PLOT PLAN 89-146 TO
CONSTRUCT A THREE-STORY, 35 FOOT,
30,712 GROSS SQUARE FOOT (28,250 SQUARE FOOT NET)
OFFICE BUILDING AND A SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE ON A 56,570
SQUARE FOOT PARCEL.
LOCATION:
28352 SAND CANYON ROAD, IN THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PUBLIC NOTICE -IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City
of Santa Clarita to consider an appeal from the applicant, Maurice
Ungar, regarding the Planning Commission's denial of Plot Plan
89-146 to construct a three-story, 35 foot tall, 30,712 square foot
office building and a .subterranean garage on a 56,570 square foot
parcel. The location is at 28352 Sand Canyon Rd. 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 22nd day of October, 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: September 26, 1991
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk
Publish Date: October 1, 1991
RESOLUTION NO. P91-31
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
DENYING PLOT PLAN 89-146
28352 SAND CANYON ROAD
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby make the
following findings:
0
a. An application for a plot plan was filed on December 20, 1989, by
Mr. Maurice Ungar (the "applicant"). The property for which this
entitlement has been filed is located at 28352 Sand Canyon Road
(Assessor Parcel Number 2840-008-031) (the "site"). The existing
zoning for the project is C-3 Unlimited Commercial.
b. Plot Plan 89-146, when first submitted, proposed a 46' high,
threestory, office building with a total square footage of
33,000 on a parcel consisting of 56,570 square feet.
C. The site is relatively flat with a vacant single family residence
on, the property. The site lies adjacent to and above the Santa
Clara River. Vegetation on-site consists of native shrubbery,
trees, and grasses.
d. The plot plan application (46' high, three story) was denied by
the Director of Community Development on May 10, 1990. The
denial was based upon the following factors:
1) Circulation/Traffic - The applicant's submitted traffic
study indicated 566 trips per day, a.number confirmed by the
City's Traffic Division. The Traffic Division indicated
four circulation improvements in the immediate area were
necessary to achieve a functional circulation system. These
improvements would require phased implementation in a timely
manner to avoid further deterioration of the area
circulation system. The Traffic Division required that
these considerable improvements be implemented to
significantly reduce the public safety hazards caused by an
inadequate circulation system.
2) Aesthetics - The proposed project is likely . to have a
significant adverse effect on neighboring residential
properties. The further intrusion of commercial development
within a predominantly residentialarea may set precedent.
In addition -to the above, -the building was modern in design
and incompatible with the surrounding area.
3) Good Zoning Practice - The project's height, bulk, and
visibility are intrusive and out of character with the area,
and therefore not in conformance with good zoning practices.
e. The appeal of the Director's denial was heard by the Planning
Commission on June 19, 1990, at the City Council Chambers, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m.
f. The Commission, at the June. 19, 1990 meeting, directed the
applicant meet with the Sand Canyon area homeowners to find an
acceptable building design and for staff to review the design and
project for consistency with the City's draft General Plan.
g. On December 10, 1990, the applicant submitted revised Plot Plan
89-146 (39' high, three stories, 30,712 square feet) to the
Community Development Department. The Community Development
Department required the applicant to submit an initial study with
the appropriate fees.
h. The City's draft General Plan designation for the project area is
Community Commercial (CC), which is intended for retailing uses
of a community -vide nature with development governed by a floor
area ratio range of .25 to .5:1.
i. The Initial Study prepared by staff indicated environmental
impacts in the areas of land use, transportation/circulation, and
aesthetics with possible mitigation measures addressing the
impacts.
j. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission
on February 19, 1991, at the. City Council Chambers, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. The item was
continued to the March 5, 1991 Commission meeting. Prior to the
continuance, testimony was taken on the project from the
applicant's agent, a project proponent, and a project opponent.
k. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning 'Commission
on March 5, 1991, at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita. at 7:00 p.m. The applicant's agent
requested the continuance at the direction of the applicant. The
item was continued to a date uncertain, with the Commission
requesting staff review revisions in the project prior to
returning.
1. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission
on May 7, 1991, at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. Prior to this meeting the
applicant again revised the project (35' high, three story,
30,712 square feet). The item was continued to the May 21,- 1991
regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting.
m. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission
on May 21, 1991, at the, City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other -evidence received'
at the public ,hearing, and upon the study and investigation made by the
Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Commission further finds as follows:
a. The City's draft General Plan designation for the project site is
Community Commercial (CC). The project is not consistent with
the intent of the designation regarding land use, and the
project's floor area ratio of .54:1 is not consistent with the
floor area ratios of .25 to .5:1 governing the Community
Commercial designation.
b. The identified environmental impacts can be mitigated only
through project re -design (reduction of the density- and height)
and conditioning of the project.
d. The Commission finds that approving the project, as proposed,
does not satisfy the following principles and standards for
consideration of a plot plan:
That the use, development of. land and/or application of
development standards, when considered on the basis of the
suitability of the site for the particular use or
development intended, is so arranged as to avoid traffic
congestion, insure the protection of public health, safety
and general welfare, prevent adverse effects on neighboring
property and is conformity with good zoning practice.
e. The project site sits atop a bluff above the Santa Clara River
and is highly visible to the immediate residential areas and may
negatively affect neighboring residential uses.
f. According to Government Code Section 65360, a city may not
approve a project or issue building permits if a finding can not
be made that the proposed use will be in conformance with the
general plan, when adopted.
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the
Planning Commission hereby determines as follows:
a. The :project is not compatible with existing development in the
area and is not consistent with the City's draft General Plan.
SECTION 4. The Planning Commission hereby denies Plot Plan
89-146 (Revised -35 foot, three story, 30,712 square feet).
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of May, 1991.
Louis Brathwaite, Chairman
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
City Cler
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
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 .21st day of May, 1991, by the following vote of the
Commission:
AYES: Commissioners: Vice -Chairman Cherrington, Commissioners Garasi
and Modugno
NOES: Commissioners: Chairman Srathwaite and Commissioner Woodrow
Lynn M. Harris; Director
Community Development
PLOT PLAN 89-146
MINUTES OF MAY 21, 1991
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
ITEM 5 - PLOT PLAN 89-146
Director Harris gave a brief presentation on the item. Director Harris
indicated that additional written communication had been received in support
of the item late in -the day.
A brief discussion by the Commission followed regarding entertaining a motion
to reconsider the item, and allow further testimony. No motion was made to
reconsider the item.
Commissioner Modugno motioned that Resolution P91-31 be adopted upholding 1-hE
Director's denial, Vice -Chairman Cherrington seconded; and it was carried by a
vote of 3-2, with Chairman Brathwaite and Commissioner Woodrow voting no.
PLOT PLAN 89-146
M]WTES OF MAY 7, 1991
UNFINISHED BUSINESS -ITEM 3 - Plot Plan 89-146
Director Harris introduced Item 3. She stated that there .were 5 letters
handed out this evening in favor of'the project.
Director Harris made a brief presentation,. stating that the staff
recommendation on this project is that the Commission uphold the Director's
denial of the 3 -story office building, but approve the use, and conceptually
approve a two-story building not exceeding 28 feet in height.
Chairman Brathwaite opened the Public Hearing at 9:09 p.m.
The applicant, Mr. Maurice Ungar, P.O. Box 1755, Santa Clarita, speaking in
favor of the project made a brief presentation. Some of Mr. Ungar's comments
are as follows: the property has been zoned C-3; the project has been
completely redone, meeting all technical requirements; he has substantial
community support. He named several neighbors who are now in favor of the
project.
Representing the applicant, Mr. Allan Cameron, 27612 Ennismore Ave., Santa
Clarita, made the following statements. He stated that the community has
changed their minds and have accepted this project.
Mr. Jeff Kipp, 116 Broadway, Glendale, California stated that he is the
project architect. His statements included the new design, moving the
building away from the street, and that this project now reflects the needs of
the community.
Others speaking in favor of the project were Rolf Zimmerman, 16255 Raven Glen
Road, Canyon Country, California; Hal Good, 27800 Sand Canyon Road, Santa
Clarita; Ann Irvine, 24849 Alderbrook Drive, Newhall; Margi Colette, 15921
Live Oak Springs, Canyon. Country; Greg Adalian, 15770 Sandy Oak Lane, Santa
Clarita; and Ed Dunn, 15414 Rhododendron Drive, Canyon Country. The comments
made were that there was approval among the residents that the project would
be an asset to the community; there is no justification that the building is
too .high for the area; it beautifies the area; and the chance to bring jobs .to
the area.
Discussion among the Commission ensued.
Commissioner Garasi motioned to uphold the Director's recommendation for
denial, and approve in concept a two-story, 28 foot building. Commissioner
Cherrington seconded the motion. Discussion continued among the Commission
regarding the height of the building. Mr. Ungar then made a follow up
presentation before the vote was put before the Commission, stating his
building is being built to code, and that he has lowered the site height.
Discussion continued.
Commissioner Garasi vithdrev her motion. Vice -Chairman Cherrington withdrew
the second, in order to continue discussion.
Discussion continued among the Commission.
Commissioner Garasi motioned to uphold the Director's denial and to approve in
concept a two-story 28 foot in height building and ask that the projectbe
returned to the Planning Commission with revised elevations and conditions of
approval. Vice -Chairman Cherrington seconded the motion. The motion was
approved 3-2 with the vote as follows: AYES: Commissioner Modugno,
Commissioner Garasi, Vice -Chairman Cherrington; NOES: Chairman Brathwaite and
Commissioner Woodrow.
Mr. McOsker clarified that this item is not final until it comes back with the
resolution incorporating this discussion and attaching the conditions on the
28 foot building.
Item 3 was closed at 9:59 p.m.
PLOT PLA989-146
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 1991
CONTINUED PUBLIC
HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 Community Development Director Harris reported that
APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN the item was published and posted in accordance with
NO. 89-146 the law, and therefore the Public Hearing was in order.
28352 SAND CANYON ROAD
ITEM NO. 2 Community Development Director Harris presented the
•(Continued) report to the Commission stating that the appellant is
appealing the Director's denial of a plot plan to
allow for the construction of a 30,712 square foot,
three-story office building located at
28352 Sand Canyon Road, adjacent to the Santa Clara
River. Ms. Harris stated that staff received a letter
from Mr. Allan Cameron on behalf of the applicant,
dated February 14, 1991, asking for a continuance of
Item No. 2 due to an illness. in the family, his
consultant being unable to attend the meeting, and a
wish to garner additional support for the project in
the community.
It was the decision of the Commission, due to a
previous request of a continuance, to delay the staff
presentation but to hear testimony.
Chairman Brathwaite opened the Public Hearing at
8:44 p.m.
The following proponents addressing the Commission
were: Mr. Allan Cameron, 27612 Ennismore Avenue,
Santa Clarita. Mr. Cameron, as an agent for the
appellant, thanked the Commission for their
consideration of the letter submitted. Mr. Ed Dunn,
15414 Rhododendron Drive, Canyon Country. Mr. Dunn
had concerns regarding parking,. though he felt the
project would be aesthetically pleasing to the area.
The following opponents addressing the Commission
were: Mr. Dennis Ostrom, 16430 Sultus Street,
Canyon Country.' Mr. Ostrom had concerns regarding the
three-story building proposed, and potential traffic
problems.
In light of the previous letter submitted, it was
moved by .Modugno and' seconded by Cherrington to
continue Item No. 2 to the next scheduled meeting of
March 5, 1991 and that the hearing be left open.
Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
Community Development Director Harris then recommended
that the Commission ask the appellant to change the
sign -board to reflect the March 5, 1991 meeting date.
The recommendation was so ordered.
Due to a possible conflict of interest, Commissioner
Modugno abstained.from Hearing Item No: 3.
APPEAL OF PLOT
PLAN 89-146
(Ungar)
PLOT PLAN 89-146
MINUTES OF JUNE 19, 1990
Mr. Henderson presented the discussion item of
the Appeal of Plot Plan 89-146 (Ungar), Director
denial.
Speaking in favor of the item was Max Halfon,
attorney, 5850 Canoga Avenue #400, Woodland Hills;
Larry Greer, traffic consultant for the project,
2323 W. Lincoln Ave., Suite 1271 Anaheim; Maurice
Ungar, P.O. Box 1755; and Robert Carli, architect
of the project, 1608 W. Glenoaks Blvd., Glendale.
Speaking of his and the homeowners of Sand Canyon
concerns for the project impacts was Dennis Ostrom,
16430 Sultus Street. Those concerns included
traffic impacts, project not being consistent with
the area, and.this project is a gateway to Sand
Canyon; it .gives a statement.
Commission asks that the applicant consider
negotiations with homeowners in the area for a
design that.is acceptable and meets with staff
approval along with the General Plan.
Chairwoman Garasi declared no action taken by
Commission and that this item will be referred back
to staff with the intention that it be brought back
to Commission at date uncertain.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN 89-146
DATE: May 7, 1991
TO: Chairman Brathwaite and Members of the Planning
Commission n
�lU �FI�Ctcls�
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development
PROJECT PLANNER: Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II
APPLICANT: Maurice Ungar, Ungar Realty
LOCATION: 28352 Sand Canyon Road, adjacent to the -Santa Clara
River.
REQUEST: The applicant is appealing the Director's denial of a
plot plan to allow for the construction of a 30,712
square foot, 3 -story office building (39 feet tall).
The applicant has re -designed the building which again
consists of 30,712 square feet (28,250 net), with the
height being reduced to 35 feet.
BACKGROUND:
On December 20, 1989, Mr. Jeff Kipp (an agent for the owner) filed a'plot
plan with the Community Development Department requesting approval for
the construction of a 33,000 (3=story, 47 feet in height) square foot
office building. The zoning of the property is C-3 and a commercial
office building is a permitted use in this zone, subject to the approval
of a plot plan. On May 10, 1990 staff notified the applicant that the
application was denied. On May 17, 1990 the Community Development
Department received a letter from the applicant's attorney, stating his
desire to appeal the decision. The original gross square footage of the
property, as. indicated by the applicant, was 54,359. The applicant has
-§ubmitted (April 8, 1991) a corrected site square footage calculation of
56,570, which has been verified by staff.
The item was heard before the Planning Commission on June 19, 1990. At
that meeting, the Commission requested the applicant meet with the Sand
Canyon area homeowners to find an acceptable design for the project.. In
addition to this, the Commission required staff to evaluate the project
use and design for consistency with the City's draft General Plan and
continued the item back to a date uncertain. The applicant met with the
Homeowners Association on October 29, 1990. In a letter dated November
1, 1990,: Dr. Dennis Ostrom of the Sand Canyon Homeowners Association
summarized the meeting. At this meeting the Association addressed three
aspects of the project as follows:
1) USE - The Association concluded the use (office).was acceptable.
�:nda Item:
Plot Plan 89-146
Page 2
2) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - The Association concluded the design of the
building was acceptable.
3) SIZE - The Association indicated a concern with the height of the
building in relation to the surrounding area. The letter stated that'
Dr. Ostrom believes that 90I of the people present at the meeting
prefer a two story structure, though this alternative was not voted
on. Approximately 50Z of those who voted, indicated that the project
was acceptable as proposed (three story -39' in height).
On December 10, 1990, the applicant submitted the revised site plan to
the Community Development Department. Staff's initial study indicated
environmental impacts in the areas of land use, circulation, and
aesthetics. Possible mitigation measures were also indicated within the
initial study and included within the February 19, 1991 staff report.
Staff, within the referenced staff report, requested that the Commission
review the information, take testimony, approve the land use, and direct
the applicant to reduce the height and density of the building.
The item was again_ heard by the Planning Commission on February 19, 1991
and continued to the March 5, 1991 meeting. Prior to.the continuance,
the Commission did take testimony on the project from the applicant's
agent, a project opponent and a project proponent. The opponent's
concerns focused on circulation and aesthetic impacts. The proponent,
commented on the project being a benefit to the City if it complies with
City codes.
On March 5, 1991, the item came before the Commission again. The
applicant's agent, in a letter received March 4, 1991, requested that the
Commission again continue the item. At that meeting, staff recommended
that the Commission continue the. item to a date uncertain, and that
modifications to the project be submitted to staff for review with a
representative of the homeowners association prior to the re=scheduling
of a Commission meeting.
Staff has received additional correspondence from members of the Sand'
Canyon area. A majority of the correspondence regarding the project was
favorable with comments focusing on the positive visual appearance of
the project and the preference of the office use over a
retail -commercial use.
On March 7, 1991, staff received a second letter from Sand Canyon
Homeowners' Association President, Dr. Dennis Ostrom, clarifying concerns
raised in the first letter (referenced above) and focusing -on the desire
of the Homeowners' Association that the building be two stories. At the
time of this letter, Dr. Ostrom had not reviewed the 35' high redesigned
building.
ANALYSIS:
On April 8, 1991, staff received the modified project drawings, with the
maximum project height indicated as 35 feet. The applicant also
submitted a corrected site square footage of 56,570, slightly greater
than the 54,359 obtained from the original site plan. The applicant also
indicated the net square footage of the building as 28,250 square feet,
2
Plot Plan 89-146
Page 3
with the gross square footage. of the building remaining 30,712. The
floor area ratio (F.A.R.), pursuant to.the Santa Clarita Municipal Code,
is .54:1. As indicated in a previous staff report, the property is
designated'Community Commercial (CC) by the City's Draft General Plan.The
development intensity for this category will be governed by floor area
ratios between .25 to .5:1. The project F.A.R. slightly exceeds this,
though it does not exceed the 13:1 F.A.R. allowed in the C-3 zone.
The applicant has received a letter of support for the project from John
Higby, a member of the Oak Springs Canyon Homeowners Association. Staff
did contact Dr. Ostrom concerning his comments regarding the redesigned
building. Dr. Ostrom indicated the Association believes the project as
designed would not impact the surrounding residential uses or the
existing rural flavor of Sand Canyon. However, he did indicate that the
Association did have concerns that the project would set precedent for
future commercial development within the Sand Canyon area.
As indicated previously in this report, staff's initial study indicated
impacts on circulation, land use, and aesthetics. The applicant's
submitted traffic study indicates approximately 566 trips per day will be
generated by the project. The Public Works Department/Traffic Division
indicates this number to be correct. This number indicates circulation
impacts on a presently inadequate road system, thereby creating a safety
concern. Staff believes the circulation impacts can be mitigated by
conditioning the applicant to participate in the appropriate funding
mechanisms on a "fair share" basis and by reducing the project density.
This would allow the Sand Canyon Road circulation system to remain at an
adequate level, while accommodating this project.
The impacts in land use ooncerned the project exceeding the F.A.R.
governing the Community Commercial designation. The applicant has
reduced this F.A.R. from .6:1 to .54:1.' The reduced ratio.is still above
the .25 to .5:1 F.A.R. in the City's Draft General Plan.
Aesthetically, the height and bulk of the project was deemed as an impact
to the surrounding area. The original building design was a modern
building consisting of brick and glass. The building as designed now is
rural in flavor, utilizing earth -tone shades and an adobe style exterior,
'which is more consistent with the, surrounding area. Staff 'believes the
applicant, by reducing the building height to 35', has made an attempt to
reduce this impact. However, the project site' sits approximately 30'
above the Santa Clara River and the three story buildings appearance is
still, in staff's opinion, out of scale with the immediate area. The
implementation of mature landscaping in the project areas, visible to
surrounding residential uses, will help to -mitigate this impact.
COMMISSIONS OPTIONS FOR ACTION
1) Uphold the Director's denial.
2) Approve the project as proposed, and direct staff to appropriately
condition the project.
3
Plot Plan 89-146
Page 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Uphold the original Director's denial and approve in concept a two
story, 28' in height, building and return to the Planning Commission
with revised elevations and conditions of approval.
ATTACHMENTS
Staff Report (February 19, 1991)
Denial Letter from Assistant City Manager Ken Pulskamp
Project Proximity Map
Letters from Dr. Dennis Ostrom, President, Sand Canyon Homeowners'. Assoc.
Letter from John Higby, Member, Oak.Springs Canyon Homeowners' Assoc.
Public Correspondence on the project
Staff Report (June 19, 1991)
GEA:jcg:257
City of
Santa Clarita
Carl Boyer, 3rd
Mayor
Jill Klajic
Mayor Pro -Tem
Jo Anne Darcy
Councilmember
Jan Heidt
Councilmember
Howard"Buck" McKeon
Councilmember
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Suite 300
City of Santa Clarita
California 91355
February 8, 1991
Phone
(805) 259-2489
Fax
(805) 259-8125
RE: PLOT PLAN 89-146
Amendment to the Draft Initial Study
Due to a clerical error, Item 8 (Land Use) Section a. was
checked as having no impact. The above Section should read to
indicate a check in the maybe category.
GA:229
C-))
C OF SANTA CLARITA
Ee
C
TI�- E DECLARATION
]!f [X] Proposed [ ] Final
PERMIT/PROJECT:" Plot Plan 89-146
APPLICANT: Mr. Maurice Ungar MASTER CASE NO: PP89-146
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: 23852 Sand Canyon Road, Canyon Country, City .of
Santa Clarita (Assessor Parcel Number 2840-008=031)
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: A plot plan involving the construction of a
32,000 square foot office building (3 -story) and a subterranean garage on.a
54,359 square foot parcel. The parcel lies adjacent to and directly: above
the Santa Clara River. The building envelope 'of the project site is
relatively flat.
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this
project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita
[ ] City Council
[X] Planning Commission
[ ] Director.of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will. have no significant
effect upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be
adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[ ] are not required. [X] are attached. [ ] are not attached.
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP M NT
Prepared by:"Q���Glenn Adamick Assistant Planner I
(Signature) 7 (Name/Title)
Approved by:
(Name/Title)
Public Review Period From 130-4 t To 2-14--91 .
Public Notice Given On :3 s F By:
[X] Legal advertisement. [X] Posting of properties. _ ('] Written notice.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARZTA
MASTER CASE NO: PP 89-146 Case Planner: Glenn Adamick
Project Location: 23852 -Sand -Canyon Road, Canyon Country. City of Santa
Clarita (Assessor Parcel Number 2840-008-031).
Project Description and Setting: A plot plan involving the construction
of a 32.000 (gross) square foot office building (3 -story) and
subterranean garage on a 54.359 square foot parcel.
General Plan Designation C (Regional and Community Commercial)
Zoning: C-3 (Unlimited Commercial)
Applicant: Mr. Maurice Ungar
Environmental Constraint Areas:
A. ENVIRONMENTAL'EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Vill 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] [ J [ ]
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ........................... [ ] [ 1 [Xl
d. The destruction, covering or modification
` of any unique geologic or physical
features? .................................. [ l I ] 1X1
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? ................................... [ ] [X1 [ ]
g. Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? ................................. [ ] [ ] [X]
h. Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ........................... [ ] [ ] [X]
- 2 -
YES
MAYBE NO
i.
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or morel .......................
[ j
[ ] [X]
j.
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25Z natural grade? .............
[ ]
[ ] [Xj
k.
Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ......................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
1.
Other?
[ ]
[ ] [ ]
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? .............
[ ]
[ ] [XI
d.
Other?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................
[X]
I ] [ l
b.
Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? ...........................
[ ]
[ ] IX]
C.
Change in the amount of surface water
in any, water body? .......................:.
[ ]
I ] IX]
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? .....................
[ ]
[ ] [Xj
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 ]
[ ] IX]
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? ..........
[ ]
[ ] [XJ
1..1
3 -
C.
YES MAYBE NO
i.
Other?
[ ] [ ] [ ]
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species or number
the migration or movement of animals? ...... ( ] [ ]
[XJ
of any species of plants (including trees,
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? :..
[ ] [ ] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
[X]
6.
rare or endangered species of plants7 ......
( ] [ ] [X]
c.
Introduction of new species of plants into
Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [X] [ ]
[ ]
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing specie s7 .........
[ ] [ ] [X]
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? ......................................
[ ] [ ] [X]
5. Animal
Life. Will the proposal result in:
C.
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
7.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
substantial new light or glare? ............. [ ] [ ]
land animals including reptiles, fish and
8.
Land
insects or microfauna)? ....................
( ] [ ] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
Substantial alteration of the present
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 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? ................. [ j [ J
[XJ
C.
Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [ j [ ]
[X]
7.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? ............. [ ] [ ]
[X]
8.
Land
Use. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial alteration of the present
land use of an area? ....................... [ ] [ J
[X]
b.
A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? ............... [ ] [ ]
[X]
j
- 4 -
YES MAYBE NO
C. A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? ............................... [ l [ I [XI
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? .................................. [ ]
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 hazardous
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? ....................................... [ l
d. otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? ................................... [ 7
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the location, distribution,
density, orgrowthrate 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:
[ I [X]
[I []
[ I [ I [XI
[l [] [I
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................ [XI [ I [ I
-5 -
YES MAYBE NO
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? ................. [ ] [ ] [X]
C. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ............................ [ ] f ] LX]
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? .............................. I 1 I l [Xl
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... ( ] [ ] [X]
f. A disjointedpattern of roadway
improvements? .............................. L ] [ l [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? ........................... ( ] L ] [X]
b. Police protection? .......................... ( ] [ ] [X]
C. Schools? ................................... L l L l [X]
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .... (X) [ ] [ J
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ........................... [ ] I ] [XJ
f. Other governmental services? ............... [ ] [ ] [X]
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy . .................................... L l [ l [X]
J
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? [ ] [ ] [X]
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? ...................... [ l [ l [Xl
b. Communications systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [X]
C. Water systems? ............................. [ ] [ ] [Xl
d. Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ ] [ ] (X]
6 -
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
YES
MAYBE NO
e.
Storm drainage systems? ....................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
f.
Solid waste and disposal systems? ..........
[ ]
[ ] [X]
g.
Will the proposal result in a disjointed
` b. Will the proposal result in'adveise physical
or, aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
or inefficient pattern of deliverysystem
historic building, structure, or object? [ ]
[ ] [X]
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
improvements for any of the above? .........
[ ]
[ ] [X]
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
[ ] [X]
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
a.
Creation of any health hazard or potential
potential impact area? ..................... [ ]
[ ] [X]
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ...
[ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ...................................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
la. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a.
The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ...................
[X]
[ ] [ ]
b.
Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? .......................
[X]
[ ] [ ]
C.
Will the visual impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area? ....
[ ]
[ ] [X]
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ]
[ ] [X]
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'adveise physical
or, aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? [ ]
[ ] [X]
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ]
[ ] [X]
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ..................... [ ]
[ ] [X]
r
- 7 -
1. EARTH
Discussion of Impacts
The development of the site will not result in unstable earth
conditions or changes in geologic substructure. A submitted soils
report indicated the soils on the subject property are capable of
supporting the proposed project. Presently the project site is
relatively flat. Minimal grading will occur on 45,891 square feet of
the property, this grading consisting of 7,500 cubic yards of cut, to
accommodate the proposed structure and subterranean garage. The site
is located within a severe intensity seismic hazard area (Seismic Zone
1 per the Los Angeles County Santa Clarita Areawide General Plan),
though not within a designated Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone.
This project will not cause any additional impacts in this category
(Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The applicant shall comply with all applicable Building and Safety
Department requirements.
Prior to construction the applicant shall submit a drainage concept and
grading plan to the satisfaction of the City's Public Works Department.
2. AIR
Discussion of Impacts
The project will not have a long-term significant impact on air
quality. There will be short-term impacts associated with the grading
and construction of the project .site. Any air pollution beyond that
would be associated with automobile traffic (Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Air quality
Management District and the applicable Building and Safety Codes. The
City's Code Enforcement Officers and Building and Safety Inspectors
will ensure compliance with these regulations.
3. WATER
Discussion of Impacts
The project will alter the existing absorption rates, drainage
patterns, and the amount of surface runoff. As indicated in Section 1,
grading will be utilized to accommodate the project, though the
topography and site area will not be altered considerably. The project
site is located within Flood Zone C (Flood Insurance Rate Map, produced
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency), which does not designate a
flood hazard area. There are no surface waters or water bodies near
the project site nor is any extraction of ground water proposed with
the project. No additional impacts are anticipated .with this
subdivision proposal (Community Development).
t�D
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The applicant shall submit a drainage concept to the satisfaction of
the Public Works Department, at the building permit stage.
The applicant shall .submit a grading plan, based on the submitted soils
and geology report, to the satisfaction of the City's Public Works
Department.
4. PLANT LIFE
Discussion of Impacts
The project site is relatively flat and the plant environment consists
of native shrubs and one elm tree. The applicant will be implementing
landscaping into the project in conjunction with the construction of
the buildings. No significant impacts are anticipated with this
proposal (Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a
landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Department.
5. ANIMAL LIFE
Discussion of Impacts
The site and the 'surrounding vicinity are not identified as within a `
significant wildlife use area. No animals were observed on an
inspection of the site (Community Development).
6. NOISE
Discussion of Impacts
The applicant is proposing an office building. The project site is
located approximately 250' south of Highway 14. Because of the
elevation of the site and existing development between the site and the
freeway, this impact is not anticipated to be significant. There will
be short-term impacts associated with the.grading and developing of the
site. At the completion of construction these impacts are anticipated
to cease.(Community Development)
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The applicant shall conform to the applicable City Codes that.regulate
hours of operation and permitted.noise levels during the development of
the property. The City's Code Enforcement and Building Inspector's
will insure'compliance with these codes.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE
Discussion of Impacts
This project will be a new source of light and glare to the immediate
area. Additional lighting will be implemented in the parking and
landscaped areas of the project site. The impacts associated with this
category are not anticipated to be significant (Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a
lighting plan to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Department.
8. LAND USE
Discussion of Impacts
The property presently contains an abandoned single family house. The
proposed project is an office building which is in conformance with the
site's zoning designation of C-3. This zone allows a maximum height of
13 times the buildable area, which the project conforms to. The City's
draft General Plan proposes a designation of Community Commercial for
the project site. The Community Commercial designation is intended to
accommodate retail uses of a community wide nature. The implementation
of a office building conflicts with the uses intended for this
designation. In addition to the above, development intensity for this
category will be governed by floor area ratios ranging between .25 to
.5:1. The building as proposed has an approximate *floor area ratio of
.6:1. No additional impacts are anticipated (Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
Decrease the building size to two stories. to conform to the proposed
floor area ratio of the City's draft General Plan.
Change the use of the proposal to a community wide retail type use to
conform to the City's draft General Plan.
9., NATURAL RESOURCES
Discussion of Impacts
The project will not increase the rate of use of any natural resource
or deplete any nonrenewable natural resources (Community Development).
10. RISK OF UPSET/MAN-MADE HAZARDS
Discussion of Impacts
There will be a short term, localized risk during the 'grading and
construction phase of the project. This proposal will not increase or
cause additional impacts.
-10 -
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The applicant shall comply with all applicable agencies requirements.
The City's Code Enforcement Division and applicable enforcement
agencies will ensure compliance with these applicable codes.
11. POPULATION
Discussion of Impacts
The applicant's Initial Study (Form A) indicated the addition of 60
jobs. This number is not anticipated to have a significant impact
(Community Development).
12. HOUSING
Discussion of Impacts
This proposal is for a commercial office building. No significant
impacts associated with housing are anticipated due to availability of
housing within the project vicinity (Community Development).
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Discussion of Impacts
The applicant's traffic study is indicating approximately 566 trips per
day to be generated by this project. The Public Works
Department/Traffic Division is indicating this number to be valid.
This proposal on a cumulative basis can be expected to impact the
existing Sand Canyon Road circulation system, The Public Works
Department/Traffic Division is indicating that four roadway
improvements are necessary to improve the Sand Canyon circulation
system to an adequate level. The areas needing improvement are as
follows: the improvement of Sand Canyon Road to its utltimate width
between Soledad Canyon Road and Lost Canyon Road, including associated
bridge construction over State Route 14 Freeway and the Santa Clara
River; improve Soledad Canyon Road to its utlimate width between Oak
Springs Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road,including an appropriate
transition east of Oak Springs Canyon Road; the installation of a
traffic signal system and asspciated roadway improvements at the
intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and the southbound State Route 14
ramps; modify the traffic signal system to provide left -turn phasing at
the intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. The
final three improvements have been conditioned upon tract maps within
the Sand Canyon area. No additional impacts are anticipated (Community
Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The applicant will be required to establish and/or participate in
funding mechanisms related to.the improvement of the above identified
areas of the Sand Canyon circulation system. The fourth identified
improvement shall be conditioned to be completed prior to occupancy.
The other identified improvements shall be completed in a timely manner
to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
�_J
The applicant, as a condition of approval, shall be granted one "in and
out" left turn access across the proposed median at the southern
driveway.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Discussion of Impacts
Fire service is provided for by the Los Angeles County Fire Department,
and the nearest station is located two miles from the project site. A
projected office population of 60 persons can be expected to create a
demand for passive recreational facilities. No additional impacts are
anticipated with this proposal (Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The applicant shall comply with, all applicable regulations and fees of
affected agencies at the building permit stage.
The applicant shall be required to provide benches, picnic tables, and
trash containers to the satisfaction of the Directors of -Community
Development and Parks and Recreation.
15. ENERGY
Discussion of Impacts
The project will not use substantial amounts of fuel or, energy
(Community Development).
16. UTILITIES
Discussion of Impacts
All utilities and applicable public facilities are provided for in Sand
Canyon Road. The applicant will connect to these existing services.
No impact is -anticipated (Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The applicant will be required to connect to the necessary water,
sewer, utility, and storm drain systems.
17. HUMAN HEALTH
Discussion of Impacts
The project may have short-term impacts on human health during the
construction phase of the project. Additional impact are not
anticipated with this proposal (Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The applicant shall comply with all applicable codes and conditions
imposed by the City's Building and Safety Department at the building
permit stage.
-12-
18. AESTHETICS
Discussion of Impacts
The project site is located on a bluff overlooking the northern
residential uses of the Sand Canyon area and the Santa Clara River.
The building is proposed to be approximately 39' in height. The Sand
Canyon area is predominately rural in nature, and the implementation of
an office building in the area can be expected to create an impact.
The project site is zoned C-3, and this designation allows for a
maximum height of 13 times the buildable area. The applicant is well
within this restriction. The applicant at a prior Planning Commission
meeting was advised to work with the Sand Canyon Homeowners Association
on both a design (including height) and use that would be to their
satisfaction. In the area of building design, the . Association
indicated the re -design of the building as illustrated on the submitted
plan is acceptable. In the area of height, only .half of the
Association accepted the proposal as shown (39' and three'stories).
The Homeowners Association indicated that the use (office type) is
acceptable. No additional impacts are anticipated (Community
Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The applicant shall be required to construct the project as shown on
the revised site.plan, implementing the requested changes made by the
Sand Canyon Homeowners Association.
Reduce the building to two stories to reduce the aesthetic impact to
the area.
19. RECREATION
Discussion of Impacts
See Section 14 (Community Development).
20. CULTURAL RESOURCES
J Discussion of Impacts
The project does not lie within an area with archaeological finds
(ESRI). No other historical, religious, and cultural sites or
activities are known (Community Development).
Discussion of Mitigation Measures
The. applicant shall stop work on the project site if there are any
archaeological finds made during the construction phase of the project.
- 13 -
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.
l*=:[h1_41WL
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 sustain-
ing 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.) .. [ J [ ] [X]
4. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects -on
human beings, either directly or,indirectly? ......... [ ] [ ] [X]
- 14 -
10
f.
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 . .................................... [ ]
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
WILLBE PREPARED . .................................... (X]
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 B`y-
Com-' Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner I 1-2Lf-`'(
(Signature) (Name/Title) (Date)
App o ed By:
` Kevin Michel, Associate Planner (-734cy
Signature) (Name/Title) (Date)
City of
Santa Clarita
Jo Anne Darcy
Mayor
Carl Boyer. 3rd
Mayor Pro -Tem
Jan Heidt
Councilmember
Jill Klapc
Councilmember
Howard "Buck" McKeon
Couricilmember
ra
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Suite 300
City of Santa Clarita
California 91355
May 10, 1990
Phone
(805) 259-2489
Fax
(805) 259-8125
Mr. Maurice Ungar
16507 Soledad Canyon Road
Canyon Country, CA .91351
Dear Maurice:
0
This letter is written as a follow up to the hearing which was
held on May 2 regarding Plot Plan 89-146. This hearing was
held as an opportunity for you to appeal my decision denying
your plot plan. As a result of the hearing, the initial
decision to deny Plot Plan 89-146 has been upheld. An appeal
of this -decision is possible by submitting a letter to the
Community Development Department requesting a discussion by the
Planning Commission.
The reason for my decision is as follows:
The first issue which was raised was whether or not the
Community Development Director has the authority to review this
project. I was persuaded by Section 22.56.1660 of the Planning
and Zoning Code which states that the •Director's review is
established to facilitate substantiation and corroboration of
facts and testimony vital to the -administration of Title.22 of
this Code.' This section seems to give the director authority
to some regard over the entire Title 22.
I was further convinced by Section 22.56.1670 which says that
'the Director may: a) require a site plan for any use,
development of lands, structure, building or modification of
standards that involves the approval of the Director;' Since a
site plan was required for this project, I then looked at
Section 22.56.1690 which says 'the Director, in acting upon any
site plan offered for review as provided in this title, shall
either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed
use, development or modification as requested in the
application and as indicated in the 'required site plan based on
the following principles and standards: a) that the use,
development of land and/or application of development standards
is in compliance with all applicable provisions of this Title
22; b) that the use, development of land and/or application of
development standards, when considered on the basis of the
suitability of the site for the particular use or development
intended, is so arranged as to avoid traffic congestion, and
10
�i
Mr. Maurice Ungar
May 10, 1990
Page 2
insure the protection of publichealth, safety and general
welfare, prevent adverse effects on neighboring property. and is
in conformity with good zoning practice; c) that the use,
development of land and/or application of development standards
are suitable from the standpoint of
design.- functional development"
The language in these sections convinced' me. that the Director
has the authority to decide on this project. Furthermore, I
was persuaded by the City Attorney's opinion whish
the code is based on said' that
minimum code requirements and the
department has the ability to require conditions in excess of
the code for planning and public health, safety, comfort,
convenience and general welfare purposes. I was further
persuaded by the City's past practice that the director has
been reviewing such projects since incorporation.
The second issue then deals with whether or not the project
should be approved. I felt that the project should not be
approved based on;
1) Good zoning practice. The project does not in my opinion
seem consistent with present development in the Sand
vicinity. It is my belief that many Canyon
residents. would find the
project .to not be asthetically pleasing and should be given an
opportunity to present their opinions
received recently in public. Input
from the.public and a representative of the
Sand Canyon Homeowners Association confirmed this belief. The
height, bulk, visibility and use would, in my opinion, be
intrusive' to the character and ambience of this neighborhood.
2) Aesthetics. The project is likely to have- an impact on
neighboring properties. The project has the ability
away the rural flavor of the gateway of Sand Canyon. to take
3) Public safety. The City's. traffic engineer has indicated
that there would be an immediate public safety issue for the
traffic with this` project. There has been a multimillion
dollar mitigation package developed for this area. Until
is implemented, this project would make a verythat
situation worse. The roads undesirable
in this area are already well
capacity at the cumulative levelover
. The traffic engineer has
expressed concern. over roadway capacity and circulation.
publicsafety with regard tothese
Clearly, it's the Cit
ole to ssuesconsiderable weight to
Mr. Maurice Ungar
May 10, 1990
Page 3
Maurice, I understand that this process has been frustrating
for you. I can certainly sympathize with your position._ I
know you bought a piece of property with certain zoning.and
have tried to put together a project in compliance with that
zoning. As the Acting Community Development Director I cannot,
however, in good conscience approve this project given the
issues which, appear to be outstanding. If this project is to
be approved, it will.have to be done in front of the Planning
Commission so there is ample opportunity for public input.
Yours truly,
,Z i I
Ken Pulskamp
Assistant City Manager
KP:hds
CC: Doug Holland
Lynn Harris'
Max Halfon
Glenn Adamick
Robert Carli
Y
City of
Santa Clarita
Z
l
l23920 Valencia
Suite 300
City of Santa Clarita
California 91355
March 27, 1990
Phone
(805) 259-2489
Fax
(805) 259-8125
Mr. Maurice Ungar
16507 Soledad Canyon Rd.
Canyon Country, CA 91351
Dear Mr. Ungar:
The following will summarize my understanding from our meeting on
February 21, 1990:
1) The meeting was originally planned to discuss review
requirements for your commercial plot plan review. The City had
considered introducing new traffic -related fees on new
developments in the Soledad Canyon and Sand Canyon areas to fund
anticipated improvements needed in that area as volumes grow.
Staff had talked about holding a workshop with the Planning
Commission on this subject, and there was some discussion as to
whether your plot plan would be reviewed before or after that
workshop.
2) After discussion, we felt that the Planning Commission workshop
will probably occur during the next couple of months, but that
there was no reason to change the review schedule for your
project. You indicated that your project could be ready for
building permit application in roughly three months and that you
will be happy to pay any fees or .exactions prior to permit
issuance that are applicable to other projects in the area at
that time.
3) As part of plot plan review, the Community Development and
Public Works Departments will review your plans and may ask for
design changes that affect streets, utilities, traffic, etc., if
the professional staff feels the design changes are needed for
'public health, safety or welfare' purposes or if the project is
not otherwise designed to code.
In answer to your question yesterday, a plot plan is not treated as
a "discretionary• review in the sense that Planning Commission and
City Council approvals are not needed for the project we have
preliminarily reviewed. As such, City staff will perform the review
itself and will require fees and exactions only to the extent that
codes and/or direct project impacts create the needfor the fees and
exactions. There are a number of routine fees charged on
development, including Bridge and Thoroughfare, School Facilities,
Quimby and other fees.
s � rayy
Mr. Maurice Ungar
Page 2
March 27, 1990
The current zoning on your site willallowthree-story construction
and the building density you are proposing. Unless the City Council
changes the zoning code before such time as you are "vested" in your
project, then this height and density would be allowable.
I hope that this information will help clarify the February 21
meeting. I am also attaching a copy of a letter from Glenn Adamick
to Jeff Kipp which further summarizes our understandings. My
understanding' is that staff expects your plot plan to be reviewed
within two weeks. However, Public Works review may require
additional time. If you have any questions after March 30, please
contact Glenn or Rich Henderson.
I have enjoyed working with you and wish you the best.
Sincerely,
Azovk i
Mark Scott, Director
Community Development
MS/lb
Attachment
cc: Rich Henderson
Glenn Adamick
HAND DELIVERED TO CITY HALL 7/29/91
7
Rea/ Estate Marketing
16507 Soledad Canyon Rd.
P.O. Box 1755 Canyon Country, California 91351
(805) 251-3344
July 29, 1991
LYNN HARRIS
SANTA CLARITA CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY -HALL
SANTA CLARITA, CALIF.
DEAR LYNN HARRIS;
ii
Per our meeting on last friday july 26th on my building discussion
as to the facts and specifications•on the project(28352 Sand Canyon road -
Plot Plan 89-146); my project plot plan NOW is consistent.in compliance
to the staff and planning commission concerns. .(Listed here -in as.per our
friday july 26th meeting in the city Manager's office).
1. Use; Planning commission approved.
2. Appearance & style; Planning commission approved.
3. Height; 35 feet -is allowable in all city zones for all types of buildings.
4. F. A. R.; Building now modified to gross square footage -size of 28280
it
ratio. - .4yyy an
an for community
5. Traffic; Project increase in the -present and after condition is 1%,
the city .has adopted the policy that below 2% increase -is
not significant -.(per city traffic engineering department).
Also, city traffic engineering analysis reports no significant
traffic impact from project,
Therefore, I expect a staff report for the council hearing on August 13, 1991
to reflect the facts that my project as NOW presented COMPLIES and CONFORIIS
to ranges of and within the rules that presently/ -govern the planning commis
decisions within the City of Santa
Sincereky yours,
I
t
ce D. Ungar (Project Applicant).
CC. George Carabalho(city manager) Richard Henderson(chief planner).
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: George Caravalho, City Manager
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development
DATE: August 2, 1991 -
SUBJECT: Response to the July 19, 1991 letter from Allan. Cameron
concerning the Ungar Sand Canyon Professional Center Office
Building
Below, staff hasincluded summarized responses to the concerns cited,
within the above 'referenced letter. .Numbers and line breaks have been
assigned to the sections of the letter to better reference'. staff's
responses to the 'comments by Mr. Cameron, relating. to Maurice'.Ungar's
project..
Section:
1) Attached with this memo, are copies of the zoning code that .pertain
to the C-3 zone, and. the chronology- is includedwithin a previous
Planning Commission staff report. The letter from Mr. Mark Scott to
Maurice Ungar will be attached to the Council agenda report.:.. Staff.
is aware that the General Plan is not intended to be parcel specific,
though project sites generally located within a designation have to
conform to the requirements.of the designation.,
2) Staff in, its evaluation of the project, indicated the site was.
relatively flat. By the site, staff was referring to the building
envelope of the site and excluding the cliff located in the rear
portion of the lot. This was based on the fact ,that the building
envelope of the site rises gently from southern end to the northern .
end of the property. The highest pointe of the site sits ,
approximately 18' above and approximately 160' back from Sand Canyon
Road. This rise is not considered by staff to be significant and was.
the reasoning in indicating that the site is relatively flat.
3) Staff admits that the citing of the trips generated by the project
(as indicated by the applicant's traffic study) in that section of
the resolutions was a chronological mistake. The traffic study was
submitted after thestaff denial of the project was issued.The
remaining areas of that section related to circulation are valid.
4) Staff's summarization in Section 1F, is valid.
5) Staff.indicated in Section 1G that the plot -plan was revised.
6) Staff indicated, within the draft initial study; impacts in both land
use and traffic/circulation. Staff does not agree with the
conclusions brought forth within this section of the letter by the
applicant's agent.
7) Within the draft initial study, staff drafted a mitigation measure
that required the applicant to design a structure that was consistent,`
with the area's homeowners' views. This document, along with the:
draft negative declaration, has not been adopted by the Planning'.
Commission. The Commission, in its denial of the project, cited the.
project's aesthetics as being intrusive in relation to height. The
additional areas of the resolution cited in this section are
considered by staff to be valid.
8) The office use is discussed within the agenda report. The resolution
Section as written is an accurate description. of the denied project's
inconsistency with the Community Commercial designation of the City's
General Plan.
9) The resolution section -as written is valid.
10) The Commission in their deliberations cited fact. These facts are,
illustrated within the resolution and the agenda report.
11) Again, facts have been cited by the Planning Commission and within
numerous documents prepared by staff.
12) Staff, within the agenda report, acknowledges the applicant's
revision of the project. The project, after the completion of the
grading, will still sit above, and be.highly visible, to residents on
Lost Canyon Road.
13) This resolution section as written is valid.
14) This resolution section as written is valid.
15) a) Items 1, 2, and 3 are generally discussed within the agenda
report.
b) Items 4, 5, and 6 are valid as written and acknowledged.
c) Items 7 and 8 cite an error committed by Commissioner
Cherrington. Indeed there was no directive issued by the
Commission directing the applicant :to specifically revise the .
building designtotwo stories. However, the Commission did
request that a more compatible building be proposed.
d) Item 9 as written is inaccurate. The referenced written
correspondence from Dr. Ostrom was received and included within
the packet. The Director of Community Development was copied a
letter from Dr. Ostrom. This letter was unsigned, while the
letter included within the packet was signed. This item was
corrected at the Commission meeting that evening. The
correspondence from Mr. Foster was a survey form. This form was
included with a packet that Mr. Cameron submitted on May 2,
1991. This packet could not be included with the Commission's
information for, the May 7, 1991 meeting, which had already been
-2-
e)
f)
g)
delivered. The Director, at the May 21, 1991 meeting, indicated
that a survey form from Mr. Foster had been received. This was
acknowledged by staff prior to the adoption of the resolution
formally denying the applicant's request.
Item 11 discusses the economic viability of the project in
relation to the height limit imposed on the building. Mr.
Cameron, on May 2, 1991, submitted information related to the
economics of the project. This information was received and
reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Item 12 cites a safety issue related to circulation 'in. the
previous staff report to the Planning Commission. Staff
determined that the applicant's participation in certain .
mechanisms and a reduction in project density would mitigate the
impacts associated with circulation. Staff, after further
research, believes the participation in these mechanisms could
mitigate the. circulation impacts without the necessity of
reducing the project density. The project density would still
remain an impact to the aesthetics of the area.
Item 13 is addressed within the agenda report. Item 14 cites
circulation/traffic impacts as being the primary reason for the
denial of the project by the Commission. This impact was but
one of the reasons for denial.
LMH:GEA:jcg:318
-3-
K
UNGAR SAND CANYON
PROFESSIONAL CENTER OFFICE BUILDING
16507 Soledad Canyon Road
Canyon Country, Santa Clarita, California 91351
805/251-3344�� _�
B �
4 ,gy1
July 19, 1991 �pMops►
Lynn M. Harris, Director
Community Development Department
City of Santa Clarita
Suite # 300
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, Calif. 91355
Dear Director Harris,
Thank you for this opportunity to submit facts, error
corrections and new issues to be included in the Staff
Report to be issued in connection with the Ungar project
hearing upcoming before the City Council.
This letter is divided into three sections.
Section I
Section I details the general background
areas pertinent to the case that we
hope you will explain to the Council in
your Staff Report.
Section II
Section II describes what we feel to be
the errors in Planning Commission
Resolution # P 91-31, which forms the
basis of our plot plan denial and
appeal, and includes the specific
correction requests that we feel are
appropriate—We hope that your staff
report will respond and explain (and
hopefully agree) with each of these.
Page two
Section III
Section III is a list of new aspects
of the project which were either
never submitted to the Planning
Commission and which will thus have
their first public hearing before
the Council, or which were submitted
to the Commission, but which were
never acknowledged or discussed by
the Commission during their deliber-
ations.
SECTION I
D1. We feel that the Council will benefit from a full
explanation of what the C-3 Zone means, including
a complete list of all the permitted uses in
this Zone.
2. The City Council would probably benefit from yet
another complete explanation of the fact that the
General Plan is not to be considered '.'parcel
specific" until a conforming Zoning Ordinance
is passed.
3. The Council should have an explanation of the fact
that the staff and the Planning Commission both
approved the use of the Ungar site for an office
building. The Council should understand that no
dispute thus exists as to the land use, but only
centers on what type of office building is to be
built.
We feel that a chronology of each important event
in the history of this project should be submitted
to the Council. ( This was done for the Planning
Commission) .
Page three
Unlike the Chronology that was submitted to the Planning
Commission, however, we would like as an acknowledgement
and summary of the letter to Maurice Ungar, dated
March 27, 1990, written.by the Director of the Department
at that time, Mr. Mark Scott. In addition, since
complete fills on projects that appear before the
Council are always submitted, we would like a copy of the
March 27, 1990 letter sent to the Council.
Most important, we feel that it would be appropriate for
a complete explanation to be provided to the Council for
the repudiation of the -clear meaning conveyed in Mr.
Mark Scott's letter.
SECTION II ( ERRORS IN RESOLUTION N P 91 - 31 )
1. Section I C states:
"The site is relatively flat with a
vacant single family residence on
the property. The site lies ad-
jacent to and above the Santa Clara
River. Vegetation on site consists
of native shrubbery, trees and grasses."
The misperception that the Ungar site is "relatively flat"
forms part of the gross misunderstanding about the visual
effect of the Ungar building on this site. The site is
not "relatively flat" The site is, in fact, "heavily
mounded", and the abandoned single family home on the
site sits on a bluff, some 12 to 18 feet higher than
Sand Canyon Road.
A substantial part of the fourth major revision to the
project involved a considerable increase in grading costs,
resulting in the complete removal of the very high
mound presently located on this. property.
The removal of the high mound on the site for the purpose
of creating a much lower building pad contributed 6 to 7
feet of the approximate 17 foot reduction in height
shown in the fourth revision compared to the first submission.
•
Page four
Section I C should state "The site consists of a high
mound and bluff with a single family residence located
some 14 to 18 feet above the gentle downgrade of ad-
jacent Sand Canyon Road". "The project, in its fourth
revision, proposes to remove the mound entirely to a
height one foot below street grade on the northern side
of the lot".
This correction is vital as -a first step in correcting.
the complete misunderstanding and the mischaracterization
of the apparent height and "visual impact" of this
project.
A more accurate chronology of"events requires that a new
Section D be inserted.
This new Section D would make note of and fully discuss
the contents of the letter, dated March 27, 1990, written
to the applicant on behalf of the City of Santa Clarita
by Mark Scott, the Director of the Department at that
time.
This letter indicated that the City of Santa Clarita did
not consider a plot plan a "discretionary review",
An explanation of how this position of the City was then
set aside, the basis for that "setting aside" in State
Law, City Code, County Code, Counsel Resolutions or
adopted City policy would be most, helpful to the appli-
cant and, we suspect, the City Council.
2. Section I D I states " the plot plan application
(46' high, 3 story ) was denied by the Director of
Community Development on May 10, 1990. The denial was
based on the following factors:
1. Circulation/traffic. The applicant's
submitted traffic study indicated
566 trips per day, a number confirmed
by the City's Traffic Division" plus
more.
Page five
In point of fact, the traffic study submitted by the
applicant was submitted AFTER the project was denied
by the acting Director of Community Development on
May 10, 1990.
This section in the resolution gives the impression that
a traffic study was submitted which revealed problems
so considerable that they caused the denial of the
project.
The important -correction that should be inserted here is
that Resolution;P 91 -31 is incorrect when it states
that the denial by the Director on May 10, 1990 was
based upon factors contained in the applicant's
traffic study.
The. entire section I D I should therefore be recommended
for deletion by the Council as error number 1.
3. Section I F states:
"The Commission, at the June 19, 1990
meeting directed the applicant meet
with the Sand Canyon Area. Homeowners
to find an acceptable building design,
and for staff to review.the design and
project for consistency with the City's
draft General Plan",
Section I F is inaccurate and in error. The error should
be fully explained to the City Council.
A more careful auditing of the precise direction given
to the applicant by the Planning Commission revealed
the following three specific directives:
1. The building was to be reduced
in height ( though not in number
of stories).
Page six
2. A much less modern, more
timeless, completely different
style of architecture was to
be created for the office
building.
3. Sand Canyon Area Homeowners were
to be consulted and their
opinions would be considered at
to whether objectives # 1 and 2
were successfully accomplished.
All three of these requirements were to be verified
by City Staff.
No mention by the Planning Commission regarding the
General Plan was included in the final list of direct-
ives given to the applicant at the June 19, 1990
meeting.
4. SECTION I G
Section I G presently reads "On December 10, 1990
the applicant submitted revised
plot plan 89-146 ( 39 foot mark
high, three stories, 30-712
square feet ) to the Community
Development Department. The
Community Development Department
53 required the applicant to submit
an initial study with the appro-
priate fees."
Section I G should indicate that the architectural style
submitted on that date amounted to a completely different
project. This new project was seven feet shorter off
the pad than Project # one, thus fulfilling two of the
three directives given to the applicant by the Planning
Commission on June 19, 1990_
5.
Page seven
Section I I
Section I I states
"The initial study prepared by
staff indicated environmental
impacts in the areas of land
use, transportation -circulation,
and the aesthetics with possible
mitigation measures addressing
the impacts".
This is erroneous. The Resolution should note at this point
that the project qualified for a Negative Declaration
as a result of its initial study. In the initial study
specification form, land use is Section 8. Under Section 8
four categories of potential impact are listed. The possible
responses available to determine the impact in each
category are "yes", "maybe" and "no". In all categories
in the initial study under land use, the section market
" no impact" was checked.
Despite the fact that each available section in the question-
naire showed no impact, the staff report does contain a
description of supposed impacts and ways to mitigate these
impacts. We thus are confronted with a discussion.of
"mitigations" for which there are no associated impacts
identified.
This section -of Resolution P 91 - 31 fails to note that the
staff.and the Planning Commission were both in agreement
that an office building was an appropriate use for the
applicant's property.
Section I also says there were impacts identified in the
area of transportation and circulation. Again in the
negative declaration and in the initial study, all sections
indicating impacts on transportation and circulation
were marked "no impact".
I
Page eight
In addition, a memorandum from the Public Works Depart-
ment of the City of Santa Clarita is forthcoming, offering
further confirmation of the fact that no safety, trans-
portation or circulation impacts are present in this
project.
The last part of Section I indicates that the aesthetic
impact was indicated in the initial study. In all of
the initial documents produced by the City in regard to
the project, the aesthetic perspective and the aesthetic
judgement of the project was. always deferred to the
Homeowners of Sand Canyon.
By the last hearing before the Planning Commission, there
was substantial support for the project and virtually
no opposition. The only appropriate mitigation for the
Ungar project in terms of aesthetic values would be the
approval of the project. No changes are necessary as
far as the majority of the homeowners in the Sand Canyon
area are concerned.
Section I K indicates that a further public hearing was
scheduled for March 5, 1991. Section I K then indicates
that a continuance was requested. Additional note should
be made in this chronical that during the course of the
March 5, 1991 continuance, a request to the applicant's
agent was made by Community Development Director, Lynn
Harris, that clarification of the views of Dennis Ostrom,
the current President of the Sand Canyon Homeowners
Association should be obtained prior to the re-agendizing:
of the item.
This shows a clear concern with the point of view of
Sand Canyon area homeowners and Dennis Ostrom.' Section
I - L should note at this point that the project presented
to the Planning Commission for its.consideration on
May 7 ( though the Item was continued to May 21 ) was the
fourth major revision of the project, and that the
height was now 35 FEET (down from 39 feet ).
Page nine
Section II A says "The City's draft general plan
designation for the project site is"Community
Commercial". "The project is not consistent with
the intent of the designation regarding land use,
and the project's floor ratio of .54:1 is not con-
sistent with the floor area ratios of .25 to .5:1
governing the Community Commercial designation".
This Section of the resolution completely ignores the .
fact that.the staff and the Planning Commision itself
indicated approval for office building land use on
this site.
The fact that the Planning Commission voted to approve
office building land use, should be noted in this
resolution if the resolution is to be considered
an accurate reflection of the sentiment and direction
of the Planning Commission.
Section 2 B reads as follows:
"The identified environmental impacts
can be mitigated only through project
redesign (reduction of the density and
height ) and conditioning of the
project".
As was noted earlier, since the project received a
complete environmental negative declaration, and all
the sections that have been criticized in the project
were in fact noted "no impact" in the initial study,
there are no environmental impacts to be mitigated
through any redesign of the project.
The mis-statement of Section 2 B is itself sufficient
grounds for the appeal to the City Council and the
overturn of this resolution of denial. The staff
report produced by the Community Development Depart-
ment for the City Council Hearing must deal with the
fact that environmental impacts are cited as cause
for denial of the project at the same time as a negative
declaration was approved by the staff.
Page ten
In law, the Planning Commission (at this stage of the
approval proceedings ) is the final authority on
environmental impacts and "negative declarations".
The Planning Commission does have the authority to
overturn and overrule the conclusions and recommen-
dations of the staff contained in the initial study
and environmental review documents.
However, should the Planning Commission choose to over-
rule the staff, they must make findings based upon
fact. In citing environmental impacts as.the basis
for denial of the Ungar proj.ect in this resolution,
no specific facts are cited.
The reason for this failure to cite facts is simple.
No facts are available to support such a denial. Unless
the Planning Commission resolution can cite specific
facts and specific findings as a basis for its denial,
the denial must be set aside and declared invalid.
This precise issue should be explained in detail to
the City Council.
Section 2 D
states as follows:
"The Commission finds that approving
the project as proposed does not
satisfy the following principles and
standards for consideration of aplot
plan: That the use, development of
land and/or application of development
standards; when considered on the basis
of the suitability of the site for the
particular use or development intended,
is so arranged as to avoid traffic
congestion, insure the protection of
the public health, safety and general
welfare, prevent adverse effects on
neighboring property and is in con-
formity with good zoning practices".
Page eleven
Section 2 D is completely invalid, because no findings
based on fact for any of the generalizations and vague
statements expressed in this part of the resolution
are contained anywhere within any of the staff reports
or in the testimony, either written or oral, presented
to the Planning Commission.
Therefore, this section of the resolution is invalid
and should be overturned by the City Council.
The lack of specific evidence to support any of the
statements in Section 2 D should be explained to the
City Council.
Section.II E reads as follows:
+0 ` "The project site sits atop a bluff
above the Santa Clara river that is
highly visible to the immediate
residential areas and may negatively
?000000)1 affect neighboring residential uses".
This language in Section II E indicates that neither the
staff nor the Planning Commision understood the substantial
nature of the revisions made to the Ungar Project the
fourth time it was completely revised.
The single family abandoned house that sits on the site
is 12 to 18 feet above Sand Canyon Road, depending upon
the point from which it is measured.
The fact that this bluff will be removed, and that the
building pad for the three story building will be one
foot below'street level on its northern end completely
eliminates the height concern. the immediate uses
surrounding this project.are indeed not residential
Page twelve
and the beautiful appearance of this building, contrary
to the language in Section II E will positively affect
the somewhat distant residential uses rather than
negatively affect them.
It is vitally important that the City Council be provided
a full description of the substantial reduction in
height that has taken place in the fourth revision of
the Ungar project, compared with its earlier versions.
Again, the language in Section II E indicates that
whoever wrote the language in this -resolution did not
understand the fourth revision to this project. Section
II F contains the following.language:
1 "According to Government Code Section
65360, a city may not approve a project
or issue.building permits if a finding
can not be made that the proposed use
will be in conformance with the
General Plan, when adopted".
Section.II F again fails to note that the Planning
Commission and the staff both have approved an office
building on the Ungar property. The only issue is
the size of the building.
When the General Plan is considered fully in all of its
sections, goals and policies, it is quite clear that
the Ungar project is fully -in conformance with the
new City General Plan.
Findings to support that conclusion are simple to make
based upon an examination of the goals and policies
in all the plan elements.
Section II F needs to be explained to the City Council
in this larger context and listed as one of the
erroneous parts of the resolution, thereby justifying
its being overturned by the City Council.
Page thirteen
Section III contains the following language:
"Based upon the foregoing facts
1 and findings, the Planning Commission
ot) hereby determines as follows:.
A. This project is not compatible
with existing development in the
area and is not consistent with
the city's draft General Plan".
All the facts contained in the staff reports, the testimony
and the exhibits presented to the Planning Commission
support a conclusion opposite from the one recommended
in this resolution. Section III A is completely erroneous
in that the Ungar project is completely compatible with
the existing development in the area, and is consistent
with all the goals and policies of the City's draft
General Plan.
Therefore, on its face value, Section III A alone, as it
is written and as it was adopted, provide ground for the
overturning of the resolution.
This fact should be explained in the staff 'report to.the
City Council.
SECTION THREE ( NEW ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT TO BE BROUGHT
TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, NOT'PREVIOUSLY
PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION_.)
1. The staff report should note that the project has been
completely revised and re -designed five times. Only
revisions 1 through 4 were made available to the Planning
Commission. The City Council should be appraised of the
fact that a new fifth revision is being presented in the
public hearings for the first time to the City Council.
Page fourteen
2. The staff report should contain a whole section on the
fact that the height of the building is now 35 feet above
pad grade. The staff report to the Council should contain
a discussion of all laws regarding the height of building
construction in the City of Santa Clarita. Any and all
regulations that determine how high a building must be, or
how high a building can be, should be included. A note
of building height restrictions and how they pertain to a
35 foot structure in all zones should be included.
a
Special mention of the fact that the Ungar building is now
LOWER than its immediate next door neighbor should be
included. Also, mention of the fact that the building at
its northern end is 34 feet above the street should be
noted.
In addition, the staff report might be very helpful to the
Council if it were to note that the Ungar building is 16
feet shorter above the street than is City Hall.
3. The staff report should contain a detailed explanation
of the substantial architectural changes that took place
in the new building proposal, versus the old building
proposal.
4. The staff report should contain a discussion of the
extra -ordinary wide spread community support from the
Sand Canyon area that the new Ungar building has earned,
plus the fact that there was no opposition, either in
writing or in person, at the Planning Commission.
5. The fact that 69% of the active membership of the Sand
Canyon Home Owners_ Association voted to endorse the Ungar
building in writing, when they had the option of staying
neutral or opposing it should be noted in the staff
report.
Page fifteen
6. The fact that officials from all three Home Owners
Associations, past and present, in the Sand Canyon
area haveendorsedthe building, in writing, should be
noted in the staff report.
7. The errors committed by the Planning Commission during
the course of the last hearing on the Ungar Project should
be listed and explained and corrected inthe staff report
to the City Council.
8. The first such error to be noted is that of Commissioner
Cherrington. The staff report should indicate that during
the course of the hearing prior to the vote being
taken, Commissioner Cherrington stated that Maurice
Ungar had been directed at the previous Planning Commission
hearing to return with a two story building design. In
point of fact, no such directive to Maurice Ungar at his
previous Planning Commission hearing ever took place.
None -the -less, this substantial error was allowed to stand
unrefuted. It is reasonable that this error contributed
to the very close denial of the Ungar project, reflected
in the 3 to 2 -vote against. Representatives of the Ungar
project attempted to speak to the Commission to offer
correction of this and of several other errors committed
during the course of the Commissioner's deliberations.
None of the Ungar representatives were allowed to speak
to correct Commissioner Cherrington's mistake.
For this reason alone, the outcome of'the Planning
Commission's hearing is legally tainted. This must be
explained to the City Council with an explanation of
the damage caused by this mistake.
9. One of the main directives given to Maurice Ungar at
his previous Planning Commission hearing was that he meet
with the home owners in Sand Canyon, resolve their
objections and if possible, obtain their support.
Page sixteen
Mr. Ungar was spectacularly successful in meeting this
objective.
There is a substantial difference between lack of opposition
and the presence of active support.
During the course of Mr. Ungar's final Planning Commission
hearing, he.had acquired written support, active support
submitted in verbal testimony, and virtually no opposition,
written or verbal, whatsoever. Contained in the written
packets submitted to the Planning Commission and to all
members of the staff were written endorsements of both
Dennis Ostrom, the current President of the Sand Canyon
Home Owners Association, and the written endorsement of
Greg Foster, the immediate past President of the Chrystal
Springs Home Owners Association.
During the course of the evening, Director Harris said she
had no recorded whatsoever of the written support of either
Dennis Ostrom or Greg Foster. Representatives of the
Ungar project were quickly able to present an additional
copy of Dennis Ostrom's endorsement letter so that a brief
discussion of the fact that Dennis Ostrom, as President
of the Sand Canyon Home Owners Association, has indeed
endorsed the prjoect, was able to take place.
Nonetheless,this mistake obviously placed in question the
strong degree of community support that the Ungar project
does in fact enjoy_
The fact that Greg Foster, the immediate past President of
the Crystal Springs Homeowners;Association had endorsed
the Ungar building at three stories and 35 feet, and had
done so in writing, wa never presented to the Planning
Commission.
This mistake obviously had an adverse effect onthe eventual
vote concerning the project for it placed in question the
thoroughness with whic the Ungar representatives had indeed
been able to generate community support and enthusiasm
for the project.
Page seventeen
This, despite the fact that Greg Foster's written
endorsement was contained inthe packets given to each
staff member and Commissioner. This should be fully
explained to the City Council in the staff report.
10. The fact that a written poll of the active members
of the Sand Canyon Homeowners Association showed 69%
support should be explained to the City Council in
the staff report.
11. At no time in any of Mr. Ungar's previous meetings
with the staff, or in any of the staff reports written
in conjunction with any of the several continuances that
he had received, was there ever a suggestion that his
project be 2 stories or 28 feet high. .
This concept completely destroys the economic viability
of the Ungar site. Economic viability of a project is
not considered to be a necessary criteria for Planning
Commission action.
It is within the discretion of the.Planning Commission
however, to consider economic viability as part of its
overall judgement of a proposal.
It obviously is in the best interests of the City of
Santa Clarita to avoid having abandoned structures
that have gone bankrupt, dominating its landscape.
During the course of the•same May hearing on which the
Ungar project appeared, Tandem builders, was presenting
a proposed shopping center in conjunction with the
Sulphur Springs Union School District.
The Planning Commission repeatedly asked the Tandem
representatives if alternatives to their project were
economically viable.
Page eighteen
The Tandem builders had the .luxury of responding to this
courteous inquiry and avidly assured the Planning
Commission that none of the alternatives that had been
proposed by the staff were indeed economically viable.
For this reason, the Tandem project as proposed was
denied, but there was.no suggestion that any of the
proposed alternatives be imposed or suggested to Tandem
as alternatives.
No question about the economic viability of the 28 foot
project was ever asked of Mr. Ungar. Had that couresty
been afforded him, he wouldhave been more than able to
prove that it would be economically unfeasable and would
render his land unusuable.
This courtesy was never extended to Mr. Ungar and since
the door to the economic viability question was opened
in other hearings, during the course of.the same
evening, this is an error in due -process that should
be noted in the report to the City Council.
12. Commissioner Garasi, at the very end of her extensive
discourse about why she thought the project should be
denied, indicated that there was a problem with safety
and read from a.staff report indicating that there was
indeed a safety consideration with the Ungar project.
This was the turning point in•the projected vote during
the course of the evening. Prior to the introduction
of an issue regarding safety, the project was going to
be approved by a minimum of 3 2 vote with Commissioners
Mogdugno, Woodrow and Braithwaite voting in favor, with
a possible fourth favorable vote from Commissioner
Cherrington
Reports showed that there is indeed not a safety problem
with the Ungar project, but an actual safety enhancement
because of the projects overall design and participation
in.area traffic mitigation measures. Since the mention
of safety was from an obsolte staff report; its intro
duction into the hearing without specific findings or
clarification constitutes a gross mistake.
Page Nineteen
13. Mr. Ungar has offered still yet another significant
change in his project which was not seen by the Planning
Commission. To considerable expense and innovative"
engineering, he has managed to reduce the square footage
of.his building even further.
Because of this additional size reduction, his floor area
ratio now stands at .499: 1. This eliminates the last
reason mentioned by.the staff and the planning commission
as an objection'to this project.
14. The planning commission has the final determination
on environmental review. All the findings and resolutions
passed by the City Council and Planning Commission to
date indicate a result 180 degrees in opposition to the
resolution of the denial of the Ungar project based on
traffic and/or safety considerations.
A resolution was passed by the City Council of Santa Clarita
stating that a project that contributes less than 1% to
existing traffic conditions would be considered insignifi-
cant and would not be denied because of traffic impact.
Thank you very -much for your consideration of this matter.
we look forward to reviewing a draft copy of the staff
report prior to its issuance in final form:
Best regards,
Allan Cameron for
Maurice Ungar
cc: City Staff
City Attorney
PIAR-12-51 TUE 14 p06 FECJLq /DEEN IHLiN `P 02
I
r[7
+ 1 - i•. .
I+
to tfi..
�N
I
TI
l i �
I i .
.9
r.
I c�
n"'"r'...^y'ON .PROF¢S61oNtct,;:$UiL01 �w�wm
v : caugoa Ro»a, r:E.NroHY TRY FEQLA
DEENIHAN
i6- 1.81 ARCHUI EfA
F?RE4Y i
•-_— I"+�'F V�'T KiPP Cb Wal A.1 I �'—•.. A R C H 1 i E C T $'L
I ao-v�.A+,o
VICINITY MAP
PP . 89-146
A
1 0.3
f
PROJECT PROXIMITY MAP
. 1
PP 89-146
li• try.
5Y° n
1
i
-C7R.1r._ m .
O
h
i Ja.
5' a
• t � r
��jCY" � 5 ♦ ��
•'S
y
or \ -
TR 13L
NB 1095.55• i