HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-09-08 - AGENDA REPORTS - APPEAL MC 90 172 (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approvaky2o-� Item be resented��
PUBLIC HEARING Lvnn M. Harris
DATE: September 8, 1992
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Master Case
90-172 (Tentative Parcel Map 22229 and Revised Oak Tree
Permit 89-005) to allow for the subdividing of a 1.1 acre
parcel into two single family residential lots for the
property located at 21543 Placerita Canyon Road.
Applicant: William and June Warwick
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
On July 7, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P92-25
formally denying the above referenced project.
The project site fronts on Placerita Road and contains an existing single
family residence. The site is zoned A-1-20,000 (Light Agriculture,
20,000 square foot minimum lot size). The applicant is requesting to
subdivide the 1.1 acre parcel into two lots. The applicant is requesting
an oak tree permit to allow for encroachment within the protected zone of
six trees with a paved driveway accessing proposed lot 1. The project
site is designated RL (Residential Low, 1.1 - 3.3 dwelling units per
acre, midpoint of 2.2 dwelling units per acre) by the City's General
Plan. The project density is consistent with this designation.
The northerly 40' of proposed lot 1 is located within the floodway
boundaries established for Placerita Creek. Placeritos Boulevard, which
is dedicated but unimproved adjacent to the project site, is also located
within the floodway. The project site is located approximately 300' east
of the present terminus of the paved portion of Placeritos Boulevard.
The project site is flat and contains a total of six oak trees, none of
which are proposed to be removed. The project site is bounded by a flag
lot to the west, Placeritos Boulevard to the north, a mobile home park to
the east and Placerita Canyon Road to the south. The applicant is
proposing to access the proposed lot in the rear through the use of a
flag strip, similarly to the existing flag lot directly to the west of
this property. Both lots would meet minimum zoning requirements for the
A-1-20,000 zone, provided dedication along Placerita Canyon Road is not
required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The project was heard by the Planning Commission on February 4, May 5,
and June 16, 1992. At the first hearing the Commission directed the
applicant to obtain an alternative access to proposed lot 1 in lieu of a
flag lot design, finding that the parcel did not justify the findings
associated with approving a flag lot. The Commission also cited a
Page 2
concern with staff requiring dedication along the project's frontage on
Placerita Canyon Road. The Commission then continued the item to the May 5,
1992 meeting, where at the applicant's request, it was continued to the June
16, 1992 Commission meeting to allow the applicant sufficient time to
research the alternative access. The Commission, at a later unrelated
hearing, approved a motion that Placerita Canyon never be widened by a vote.
of 5-0, and directed staff to inform the Council of this recommendation.
The applicant submitted a revised map prior to the June 16, 1992 Commission
meeting. The, applicant proposed to access lot 1 from Placeritos Boulevard...
To accomplish this the applicant indicated that possible bank stabilization
improvements may be necessary to construct the access. Additionally, staff;
indicated that the proposed access may not satisfy Fire Department'
requirements related to all-weather access. The Planning Commission
determined that this proposed access would be inconsistent with the Goals and
Policies of the City's General Plan, specifically those related to the,
preservation of natural drainage courses, due to encroachment within .the
floodway with the proposed access.
No persons spoke in opposition to the project. Five .persons spoke in
opposition to the requirement of roadway dedication along Placerita Canyon
Road. Staff received one letter from the Placerita Canyon Homeowners
Association against the requiring of this dedication.
Following the last hearing on the project, .the Commission found that the
project was inconsistent with the General Plan (as specifically cited within
the Commission's resolution) and did not satisfy the findings associated with
approving a tentative parcel map (due to access constraints)._
The applicant in the appeal letter is now proposing the flag lot design for
lot 1.
OPTIONS
The City Council may:
1) Uphold the Planning Commission's decision, denying the project;
2) Refer the project back to the Planning Commission for further review or
possible re -design, or;
3) Approve the project, directing staff to prepare a resolution and
conditions of approval for the Council's consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
1) Deny Master Case 90-172 (Tentative Parcel Map 22229 and Revised Oak Tree
Permit 89-005) and,
2) Direct staff to prepare a resolution of 'denial for the .Council's
consideration at the September 22, 1992 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution P92-25
Planning Commission Staff Reports
Minutes February 4, 1992 and June 16, 1992 Commission meetings
GEA:604
2UBL:C t=ARVIG ?ROCcCUR_r
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
G
CITY -OF SANTA CLARITA
AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DENIAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22229 AND
REVISED OAK TREE PERMIT 89-005.
APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A MINOR LAND DIVISION
OF A 1.1 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. SIX.OAK TREES EXIST
ON-SITE, NONE OF WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO BE
REMOVED BY THIS PROJECT. THE LOCATION IS
21543 PLACERITA CANYON ROAD IN THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA. THE APPLICANTS
ARE WILLIAM AND JUNE WARWICK
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City' Council of the .City of Santa
Clarita toconsideran appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative
Parcel Map 22229 and Revised Oak Tree Permit 89-005. The applicantis
proposing a minor land division of a 1.1 acre parcel into two single family (-
residential lots. Six oak trees exist on-site, none of which are proposed to
be removed by this project. The location is 21543 Placerita Canyon Road in
the City of Santa Clarita. The applicants are William and June Warwick.
The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 8th day. of.
September, 1992, at or after 6:30 p.m. j
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: August 14, 1992
Donna M. Grindey, CMC i -
City Clerk
Publish Date: August 17, 1992
RESOLUTION NO. P92-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, DENYING
MASTER CASE NUMBER 90-172
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22229,
AND REVISED OAR TREE PERMIT 89-005 TO ALLOW FOR
TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 21543 PLACERITA CANYON ROAD IN PLACERITA CANYON
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE .AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby make the following
findings of fact:
a. An application for Tentative. Parcel Map (TPM 22229) and an Oak Tree
Permit (Revised OTP 89-005) for two single-family lots was filed with
the City of Santa. Clarita by William and June Warwick (the
^applicants")on August 9, 1990. The property .for which this
application has been filed is located at 21543 Placerita Canyon Road
(Assessor Parcel Number 2833-002-042), a legal description of which
is on file in the Department of Community Development. The .project
originally included a flag strip access to Parcel 1. The applicant
revised the project on June 9, 1992 to provide access to Parcel 1
from Placeritos Boulevard (a dedicated but unimproved street).
b. This project is a request for a minor land division of a 1.1 acre
parcel into two single family residential parcels: Parcel 1
containing 20,130 square feet and Parcel 2 containing 28,009 square
feet. The applicant was requesting an oak tree permit to allow for
encroachment within the protected zone of six oak trees with a
driveway. This encroachment was necessary with the flag lot design. •
C. The property was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within
the previous two (2) years.
d. The subject parcel is zoned A-1-20,000 (Light Agriculture, 20,000
square foot minimum lot size) and is designated as RL (Residential
Low, 1.1 - 3.3 DU/acre, midpoint density of 2.2 DU/acre) by the City
of Santa Clarita General Plan. The proposed density for the project
is 1.8 dwelling units per acre.
e. The property contains an existing single-family residence and
appurtenant structures. The property is flat with portions of the
property located within the floodway for Placerita Creek.
f. All surrounding properties have an RL (Residential Low) General Plan
designation. Surrounding properties include vacant land to the
north, a mobile home park to the east, a single-family residence to
the south, and a single family residence to the west.
RESO P92-25
Page 2
g. As revised, access to proposed Parcel 1 would be from Placeritos
Boulevard. The subject property is located approximately 300' to the
east of the present terminusof the paved portion of Placeritos
Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to improve Placeritos
Boulevard to a minimum width extending from the present paved
terminus of the roadway to the project site. This portion of
Placeritos Boulevard is located within the floodway boundaries
established for Placerita Creek. Bank stabilization improvements may
be necessary, requiring approvals from the Army Corps of Engineers,
The Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the City's Engineering
Division.
h. The City of Santa Clarita General Plan .contains several goals and
policies related to the preservation of riparian habitats and
preservation of natural floodway courses. These policies include,
but are not limited to, Land Use Policies 5.2, 5.11, Open Space and
ConservationElementPolicies 3.7, 3.10, 7.8.
i. This project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
J. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on
February 4, 1992 at 7:00 P.M. at the City Council. Chambers, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this public hearing, the
Commission requested the applicant to re -design the project utilizing
an alternative access in lieu of the flag lot design. Additionally,
the Commission had concerns over the staff recommended requirement of
dedication along Placerita Canyon Road. Due to the issues, the
Commission continued the item to -the May 5, 1992 Planning Commission
meeting. A Planning Commission public hearing was held on May 5,
1992 at 7:00 P.M. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At that hearing the Commission, continued
the item, at the applicant's request to the June 16, 1992, Planning
Commission meeting. The applicant cited the need for additional time
to research issues associated with the project.
k. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on
June 16, 1992 at 7:00 P.M. at the City Council Chambers, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita.
SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, oral and written
testimony and other evidence .received at the public hearing held for the
project, and upon studies and investigations made by the. Planning Commission
and on its behalf, the Planning Commission further finds as follows:
a. At the hearings of February 4, 1992, May 5, 1992, and June 16, 1992,
the Planning Commission considered the staff reports prepared for
this project and.received testimony on this proposal.
t
RESO P92-25
Page 3
b. The City's General Plan designation for the project site is
Residential Low (RL), midpoint of 2.2 DU/acre. The site zoning is
A-1-20,000 (Light Agriculture, 20,000 square foot minimum lot size).
C. The 1.1 acre parcel is not suitable for division into two lots for
single-family residential uses due to site constraints associated
with access to lot 1. Furthermore, the parcel does not justify the
findings associated with approving a flag lot. Access to lot 1 from
Placeritos Boulevard would require encroachment within the floodway
area established for Placerita Creek. Encroachment within the
floodway with paved access would be in direct conflict with goals and
policies of the City's General Plan related to the preservation of
natural drainage courses.
d. Due to the proposed floodway encroachment, the project is not
consistent with'the City's General Plan.
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the
Planning Commission hereby determines as follows:
a. The project is not consistent with the City's General Plan.
b. The site is not physically suitable for the .type of development due
to access constraints.
NOV. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Santa Clarita, California, as follows:
The Planning Commission hereby denies Tentative Parcel Map 22229 and
Revised Oak Tree Permit 89-005, to .create two .single. family
residential lots on 1.1 acres.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of July, 1992.
Jerry D. Cherringto , Chairman
ID Planning Commission
ATTEST:
M.
Harris
rector of Community Development
0
RESO P92-25
Page 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I, Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution
was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of July, 1992 by the following
vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Cherrington, Woodrow, Modugno and Doughman.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Brathwaite
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Ionna M. Grind q
ity Clerk
GEA:574
MINUTES OF
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Tuesday
June 16, 1992
7:00 p.m.
CONTINUED PUBLIC BEARING
ITEM 2: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22229, REVISED OAK TREE PERMIT 89-005 (MASTER
CASE NO. 90-172) - located at 21543 Placerita Canyon Road
Principal Planner Henderson introduced. the item, a request for a minor land
division to allow for the subdivision of a 1.1 acre parcel into two lots
consisting of 22,636 and 24,424 gross square feet, respectively. (The item
was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of May 5, 1992.)
Assistant Planner Adamick gave a brief presentation and slide show.
Discussion ensued among Commission and staff.
Chairman Cherrington opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.
The following person spoke in favor of the project:
Don Hale, Agent for the applicant, 26017 Huntington Lane, Santa Clarita,
California spoke regarding.dedication from Placerita Canyon Road.
Discussion ensued among Commission, staff and Mr. Hale -regarding dedicated
right-of-way.
Chairman Cherrington closed the public hearing at 7:31 p.m.
Additional.discussion ensued among Commission and staff.
Commissioner Modugno motioned to deny Tentative Parcel Map 22229, Revised Oak
Tree Permit 89-005 and come back with a Resolution of Denial at the nest
regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting of July 7, 1992, Commissioner
Woodrow seconded the motion, and it was carried by a vote of 3-2, with
Commissioners Doughman and Brathwaite dissenting.
MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Tuesday
February 4, 1992
7:00 p.m.
ITEM 5: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22229 and REVISED OAK TREE PERMIT 89-005 -
Located at 21543 Placerita Canyon Road.
Director Harris introduced Assistant Planner Glenn Adamick who gave the staff
report and slide presentation. The applicant is proposing, a minor land
division of a 1.1 acre parcel into two lots consisting of 22,636 and 24,424
square feet, respectively. In addition, the applicant is requesting to
encroach within the protected zone. of an oak tree to allow for access to
proposed Lot 1. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the
Tentative Parcel Map and direct staff to return to the nest regularly
scheduled Commission, meeting with a resolution of denial as the proposed
project does not meet the minimum zoning requirements.
Questions from the Planning Commission followed with emphasis on the roadway
dedication requirement.
Chairman Cherrington opened the public hearing at 10:00 p.m..
The following persons gave testimony.
Mr. Keith Uselding; Hale and Associates, Inc., 26017 Huntington Lane, Suite B.
Santa,Clarita, CA. Mr. Uselding, agent for the applicants, spoke in relation
to the roadway dedication requirement, the access of Lot 1 off of Placeritos
Boulevard, and the encroachment of the oak tree.
Mr. William C. Warwick, 21543 Placerita Canyon Road, Newhall, CA. Mr.
Warwick, the applicant, stated that his neighbors are in support of the
enhancement to the area which the project would bring, and also added that he
feels the City's requirement for a 44 1/2 foot dedication for right-of-vay is
excessive.
Mrs. June Warwick, 21543 Placerita Canyon Road, Newhall, CA. Mrs. Warwick
asked the Commission to reconsider the recommendation and give them ,the
approval to subdivide their property.
Mr. Dennis Englin, 21515 Placerita Canyon Road, Newhall, CA. Mr. Englin spoke
on behalf of the Varwicks and in favor of the project, and also feels that the
amount of .land for dedication being required of the applicants is excessive.
Mr. Don Hale, Hale and Associates, Inc., 26017 Huntington Lane, Suite B. Santa
Clarita, CA. Mr. Hale asked that the Commission accept access off of
Placeritos Boulevard for Lot 1 as a workable solution.
Ms. Pat Willett, President of Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association,
24560 Desert Avenue, Newhall, CA. Ms. Willett, on behalf of the Association,
spoke with concern that the City is still requiring right-of-way dedication
which will 'never be used.
Ms. Dorothy Riley 21224 Placerita Canyon Road, Newhall, CA. Ms. Riley gave a
historical perspective of Placerita Canyon Road.
Mr. Bob Geiman, The Master's College, 24376 La Glorita, Santa Clarita, CA.'
Mr. Geiman, representing The Master's College, stated that they have a concern
for anything that would.encou,zage the widening of-Placerita Canyon Road.
Ms. Laurene Weste, 22216 Placerita Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, CA. Ms. Weste
is not in support of the proposal or consideration to widen Placerita Canyon.
Road.
Chairman Cherrington closed the public hearing at 10:25 p.m..
A discussion by the Planning Commission followed with relation to the
requirement of roadway dedication, the access issue, and the flag strip.
Chairman Cherrington asked the representative for the applicant, Mr. Hale,
whether access could be taken from Placeritos Boulevard without access from
Placerita Canyon Road. Mr. Hale asked that the Planning Commission grant a
continuance of the project so that cost estimates can be obtained on the
access off of Placeritos Boulevard.
Mr. Uselding, agent for the applicant,
applicants have already agreed, and
waiving any timelines on the project.
came forward and acknowledged that the
he will provide staff with a letter
Commissioner Brathwaite motioned to direct staff to work with the applicant to
re -design the project to have .the access for Lot 1 taken off of Placeritos
Boulevard, and continue the item to the meeting of May 5, 1992, Commissioner
Doughman seconded the motion,and it was passed by a vote of 5-0.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22229
REVISED OAK 'TREE PERMIT 89-005
DATE:. June 16, 1992
TO: Chairman Cherrington and Members of the Planning
Commission _ 1
FROM: Lynn.M. Harris, Director of Community Development /CJy
PROJECT PLANNER: Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II
APPLICANT: William and June Warwick .
LOCATION: 21543 Placerita Canyon Road-(Assessor.Parcel Number
2833=002-042)
REQUEST: A minor land division.to+allow'.for the "subdivision. of
a-1.1 acre parcel' into two lots consisting of 22,636
and 24,424 gross square,feet,„'respectively.
BACKGROUND:
The item was first brought before the ;`Commission on February.- 4,1992
The Commission continued .this item to-the'May 5,,1992 -meeting, based on
..the following.
1), .,`Concerns with the.staff recommended_ roadway dedication on Placerita
Canyon Road, which if required would:create a substandard lot.'' .
2)= Obtaining an alternative .access to' proposed lot 1”: (northerly lot) `
which fronts' on.. private and future' Placeritos Boulevard.
Placeritos is. presently '.unimproved 'sand -'within the floodway
boundaries established for Placerita ;Canyon -Wash. The`Commission
proposed alternative'access to discourage ,the 'applicant's proposal
to.utilize a flag,strip from Placer its -Can yon Road,to,access lot 1.
At the May 5, 1992 Commission meeting 'the applicant requested a
continuance to the June 16, 1992 meeting to allow: the ,applicant
additional time to resolve the above identified concerns.: The Commission
granted the continuance.
Agenda Item: s
Page 2
At the meeting of April 7,_1992,..the"'Commission discussed Placerita'
Canyon,.Road in relation.to future dedications, and ultimate. right-of-way
width. The Commission approved'''a motiori'that.Placerita'Canyon Road never
be widened from its existing 'width `by a vote of 5-0.
At the meeting of May 26, 1992, ,the City Council discussed the status of..
Placerita Canyon Road but did not reach:-a-consensuson"the requirement
for future roadway dedication.. The Council is again hearing this issue
at the June 23, 1992 meeting.
ANALYSIS
The applicant has since revised the project to include access from
Placeritos Boulevard, which is a dedicated public roadway but, not
improved or in use. The. property is located approximately '300' to the
east of the- present terminus of the .paved portion. of Placeritos
Boulevard. The proposed: driveway would extend from the paved end of
Placeritos eastward to the project site. This extension.would be .located
within the floodway boundaries'..depicted. for. Placerita Creek. To
accommodate the pavement -the applicant- would -have ..to construct bank
stabilization improvements to:: elevate: the( roadway above` the visible
drainage course. The bank 'stabilization improvements and driveway would'
require approvals from the'Army`,Corps of Engineers;• Fish and Wildlife,
and the City Engineering'Divi§ion :due to:' encroachment within the...
floodway. The City's Eng ineering';`Division would have to ensure that. the, -
driveway. and associated.. improvements would not alter ;existing .,.flow.
patterns which could` negatively impact property owners`: downstream from
the project. Additionally, the Fire Departmentrequires'a 26' wide
driveway (where :the. driveway '•length.' exceeds. 150')::.and 'appropriate
turnarounds to accommodate their trucks. This. access is required to be
all-weather access. Staff --"does have. concerns 'with this driveway
satisfying the Fire Department..requirement.
The General. Plan contains several goals and"policies: related to ':the,
.:preservation of.-,riparian`.habitatsland.,preservation,of,.natural floodway.
courses: :'::The .bank,,.stabils.zation'4improvements:land driveway. may not ''be
- •
•`within the'intent'of theseigoals`and policies. '
The-. applicanthas attempted to -provide. an: alternative. access per,': the
'Commission's:direction.:"'"Staff, feels.'_'that ' this -:"design may not be `
practical. due.: to the improvements and floodway ,encroachment. The
app
licant's"original proposal included a, flag strip access from Placerita;
Canyon -.Road'. .The project site, -is hounded by'a flaglot to the west and a
mobilehome:park,(utilizing private'` driveways). to the `east. In the 'past
the Commission has discouraged the use of flag lots.
RECOMMENDATION
..Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Re -open the public hearing; and,
2) Deny Tentative Parcel Map 22229 and Revised Oak Tree Permit 89-005;
and,
3) Direct staff to -prepare a resolution of denial for the Commission's -
^" consideration at the July 7, 1992 meeting.
GEA:560
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PROJECT PLANNER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF -REPORT
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22229
REVISED OAK TREE PERMIT 89-005
May 5, 1992
Chairman Cherrington and Members of the Planning
Commission
Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Developmenty
Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II
William and June Warwick
21543 Placerita Canyon Road (Assessor Parcel Number
2833-002-042)
REQUEST: A minor land division to allow for the subdivision of
a 1.1 acre parcel into two lots consisting of 22,636
and 24,424.gross square feet, respectively.
BACKGROUND:
At the meeting of February 4, 1992, the Planning Commission continued the
above item to the May 5, 1992 meeting, based on the followings
1) Concerns with the staff recommended roadway dedication on Placerita
Canyon Road, which if required would create a substandard lot.
2) Obtaining an alternative access to proposed lot 1 (northerly lot)
which fronts on private and future Placeritos Boulevard.
Placeritos is presently unimproved and within the floodway
boudaries established for Placerita. Canyon Wash. The Commission
proposed alternative access to discourage the applicant's proposal
to utilize a flag strip from Placerita Canyon Road to access lot 1.
At the meeting of April 7, 1992, the Commission discussed Placerita
Canyon Road in relation to future dedications and ultimate right-of-way
width. The Commission approved a motion that Placerita Canyon Road never
be widened from its existing width by a vote of 5-0. The Commission also
made a recommendation to the Council that there be a building moratorium
in the Placerita Canyon area until such time when a alternate traffic
route is constructed.
Page 2
The City Council addressed the Lyons Avenue extension (alternative
traffic route) at the April 21, 1992 meeting,*continuing the item to the
May 26, 1992 meeting. Part of this item included the elimination of
future dedications and the releasing of rights-of-way on Placerita Canyon
Road. The. continuance was established to allow sufficient time to notify .
residents in the Dockweiler area of Newhall.
The applicant has. submitted a letter to staff requesting a continuance.
Reasons cited for the continuance focused on the Council" establishing a
policy for Placerita Canyon Road. The applicant also indicated that the
alternative access issue, utilizing Placeritos Boulevard, has ' been
resolved. At this time staff has not received or reviewed information
confirming this statement.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
Continue the item to the June 16, 1992 Planning Commission meeting
with the understanding that the suspension of processing timelines
will remain in effect until that date.
P
Page 2
SURROUNDING LAND USE/ZONING/GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:
As proposed,this land division would result in a density of 1.8 units
per acre. This density appears to be consistent with the City's General
Plan designation of Residential Low (RL)' (1.1.to' 3.3 dwelling units per
acre, with a midpoint of 2.2 dwelling units per acre). The existing
zoning, the City's General Plan designations and the existing land uses
of the project site and adjacent properties are as follows:
City's
General Plan Zone Land Use
Project Site RL (Residential. A-1-20,000 Residential
Low)
North RL (Residential A-1=1 Vacant
Low)
East RL (Residential A-1-20,000 Mobile Home
Low) Park
South RL (Residential - A-1-20,000 Residential
Low)
West RL (Residential A-1-20,000 Residential
Low)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As part of. the project'review, an environmental., assessment was made to
evaluate the impacts of�the,'project.`: The renvironmentaI"area, ,-of concern for the project is land.:'use::;It.was:determinedrthat'this proposal-. shall,
Have no adverse.'engironmental impacts which could. not be .'avoided through
'project design' and mitigation measures '=Subsequently,_ -a -,draft'. mitigated ,
Negative Declaration was prepared_for'this.:project:
INTERDEPARTMENT/INTERAGENCY REVIEW:
The 'project has been distributed to the:'affected City departments` and
agencies, and the Community, Development `Department has received
requirements and comments from the following
The Engineering Division recommends that the applicant:
Offer, for dedication,- private and future right-of-way,,.32'' from
centerline on Placerita Canyon Road and'Placeritos'Boulevard.
The Parks and Recreation Department recommends that the applicant' provide
an irrevocable offer of dedication for a. 12' wide equestrian trail
located adjacent to Placerita Creek.
The Los Angeles County Department of Health Services has commented on the
application stating that' private. sewage disposal* 'is feasible for the
additional lot.
Page 3
ANALYSIS:
The proposed residential subdivision would not alter any present land
uses in the area, as the surrounding uses are residential. The
subdivision proposal would use a flag lot design to provide access to lot
1. Lot 1 would have frontage on Placeritos Boulevard (a private and
future street) though access would.be taken from Placerita Canyon Road
with the flag strip. The use of a flag strip is necessary because
Placeritos Boulevard is presently unimproved and is located within the
floodway boundaries of Placerita Creek. A flag lot design is utilized on
the parcel adjacent to the project on the west. This parcel also has,
frontage on Placeritos Boulevard. Directly to the east lies a mobilehome
park which utilizes private streets within its complex. Generally, the
Commission has discouraged the use'of flag lots. This flag strip would
encroach within the protected zone of an oak grove located on the subject
site. A driveway utilizing a permeable surface could be used to lessen
the impacts to the oak trees.
The City's. Engineering Division is recommending that the. 'Commission
require the applicant to offer, .for dedication,private and future
right-of-way 32' from centerline 'on. Placerita Canyon Road. Placerita•
Canyon Road is presently a private" street paved to a width of
approximately 251. The applicant is indicating ownership of this entire
roadway as it crosses through the - subject .property. This requirement
would result in the applicant dedicating an additional 19.5' along the
project's frontage on Placerita Canyon Road. Roadway dedication cannot
be counted towards the required net area. . The flag strip to lot l also
cannot be counted. The remaining net area will not provide for two lots`
of 20,000 square feet each. Therefore, approval of this land division
with the inclusion of the dedication would create a substandard parcel.
The applicant has indicated a willingness ,to dedicate' area for
right-of-way, provided that it. doe a not;.: reduce the net square footage of .
parcel 2,below'the required area.,,The..proposed project .does not appear
to be consistent with the following goals .and policies of the City's
General Plan:
1) Goal 7, Policy 7.1 of the Land Use Element states: Ensure demand
for public facilities and services does not exceed the ability to
provide and maintain such .facilities and services; necessary.
facility improvements should,precede.or be coordinated with future'
development. (Previous projects '.adjacent to Placerita Canyon Road
have been conditioned to -.:pro -vide right-of-way. dedication. In
addition, standards for futurepublic roadways necessitate a 64'
right-of-way.)
2) Goal 1, Policy 1.20 of the Circulation Element states: Develop
design standards for roadway and intersection improvements to
safely and efficiently accommodate existing and projected traffic
patterns and circulation. (The•Engineering Division believes that
the additional right -of -wap." is necessary to- accommodate both
existing and future traffic -volumes on Placerita Canyon Road.)
Page 4
The Commission in approving a tentative map must make certain findings as
required by the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66474. Staff believes the
project does not meet the fallowing required finding:
That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development. (Staff believes the present site density of one unit .
is suitable. The addition of another parcel with the required
dedications would create a substandard parcel that does not meet
minimum zoning requirements.)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Deny Tentative Parcel Map 22229 and Revised Oak Tree Permit 89-005;
and,
2) Direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the Commission's
-consideration at the February 18, 1992 Commission meeting. ,
GEA:372
r.
CITY OF SANTA CLARI
N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I N
(X] Proposed--[ ]-Final=== ----- --- ---_
PERMIT/PROJECT:_ Tentative Parcel Man 22229_ Revised Oak TTP, P,rm;t RQ -nn,,
APPLICANT: William and June Warwick MASTER CASE NO: 90-172
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: 21543 Placerita Canyon Road (Assessor Parcel Number
2833-002-042).
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The applicant is proposing a minor land division
of a 1.1 acre parcel into two lots consisting of 22,636 and 24,424 square
feet, respectively. One existing single family residence is located on-site.
Proposed lot 1 would be accessed through a flag strip of 15' in width. The
present zoning of the project site is A-1-20,000 (Light Agriculture, 20,000
square foot required area). Six oak trees exist on-site, none of which are
proposed to be removed" by this project. Encroachment will occur to allow
access to proposed lot 1. This access is presently being utilized to access
the rear portion of the existing lot.
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
[A Planning Commission
(.) Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect
Egon 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
DEPUTY CITY -MANAGER/
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Prepared by: Glenn Adam ick, Assistant Planner II
Reviewed
Approved
(Sigr)ature) (Name/Title)
(Name/Title)
Kevin Michel Senior Planner
(Name/Title)
----------------- -----
Public Review Period From -15-42To `�-Ll
Public Notice Given On �[�By:
[X] Legal advertisement. [X] Posting of properties. [X] Written notice.
CERTIFICATION DATE:
0
HALE & ASSOCIATES, Inc. CITY OF SANTA CLARiTA
Consuking Engineers
Donna Grindey, City Clerk
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Ms. Grindey;
July JUL mg; 20
nc-CE-lvEt)
CIT'! i
LYNN 1.1. HARRIS
Dlreotor of Community DeV.
26017 Huntington Lane, Suite B
Valencia. California 91355
Telephone: (805) 2950400
Fax: (805) 2951602
PM 22229
Hale & Associates, Inc. is representing Bill and June Warwick who
are the owners/ applicants ,for Parcel Map 22229 located at 21543
Placerita Canyon Road. On behalf of the Warwicks we hereby appeal
the City Planning Commission's denial of this project (Resolution
92-24). A check in the amount of $465.00 is enclosed herewith for
the appeal fee.
The reason for the appeal is that the denial was based on an
unjustifiably negative evaluation of the project. The proposed
project would create one additional lot resulting in two
residential lots on a 1.1 acre parcel. The Warwick's residence -
occupies the southerly portion of the site and is currently being
remodeled. Approval of this project would allow•.the construction
of one additional residence in the northerly portion and would
economically assist the Warwicks in completing the remodeling of
their own home.
The property is locatedinthe A-1-20,000 Light Agriculture.Zone
and each lot will have a net area inexcessof the 20,000 square
foot requirement. The proposed project is consistent with the
City's General Plan "RL" Residential Low land use designation and
is also consistent with the Placerita Canyon Homeowner's
Association's special development standards.
The project was originally designed to utilize a "flag lot"
configuration with both lots taking access from Placerita Canyon
Road. At the February 4, 1992 Planning Commission hearing, the
Commission directed the applicants to research the establishment of
access from Placeritos Boulevard for the northerly lot. Access
from Placeritos Boulevard would eliminate the need for a flag lot
configuration, but could require modifications to the Placerita
Canyon wash area.
At the June 16, 1992 hearing the potential modifications to the
wash were overstated by the City Staff. The Los Angeles County
Fire Department's access width requirements were said to be. 25'
rather than the actual requirement of 15' for this single lot. The
potential for an easement through the adjacent private property was
not addressed by staff or the commission at the June 16, 1992
hearing. One commissioner grossly overstate access construction
requirements without any objection or comment from City's legal
staff.
Contrary to the resolution (which stated denial by a vote of four
to one) the Planning Commission denied the project by a vote of
three to two. The close Planning Commission vote and the absence
of any public opposition indicates that this project has merit and
deserves to be reevaluated by the City Council.
We ask the City Council to approve the parcel map with a flag lot
configuration as originally proposed with the two homes sharing a
common driveway. The adjacent property on the west has a flag lot
configuration and this project would not be newly introducing flag
lots to the area. The property to the east is a mobile home park
which would not be disrupted by the additional home on the
Warwick's property.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need further
information.
ASiincerely,
W U11 -IL
D. E. HALE
R. C. E.
Enclosure
DEH/lm
cc: file (2)
11MCEIVED.
FED 1 H I: Z'2
LYNN M. HARRIS
0PLACERIT�►��A��`�1`" oew
P PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION
CP. O. Box 245
Newhall, CA 91322
February 8, 1992
Mayor Jill Kla,7ic
City of Santa Clarita
23920 W. Valencia Blvd.
Valencia, CA 91355
Dear Jill:
RECEIVED
FEB 1 11992
Cm COU"&UARA
CITY OF SANTA
The Planning Commission turned a deaf ear on the attached letter Tuesday.
night. They indicated 4-1 that staff was to continue requiring offer to
dedicate right-of-way along Placerita Canyon Road from anyone requesting
a lot split or other permissive use. Only Louis Braithwaite suggested
that the City should NOT be requiring right-of-way dedication pending
adoption of Placerita Canyon's Special Standards District, which deals
with road width and development in the canyon.
This is a familiar fight that we fought with the County for years. In
supporting cityhood for Santa Clarita, we hoped finally to have our
canyon's fate taken out of the hands of Downtown bureaucrats. Those
same bureaucrats, responsible to no one in the community, have continued
to see a straight line between two points --right down the. middle of
Placerita Canyon. With cityhood, we hoped to plead our case with local
people who see the canyon road for what it is --an oak -lined rural
thoroughfare which was never designed to serve regional traffic needs.
It would appear that the City's staff have the same point of view as
their bureaucratic County cousins --take all the right-of-way you can get
in case you need it someday. The County people were quite up -front
about it. They told us flatly that they would continue to take right-
of-way quietly with each lot split, and someday when we, the homeowners,
were not vigilant we would have a four -lane road through.our canyon.
It took direct intervention from a County supervisor to direct the
County staff to cease taking Placerita Canyon right-of-way. We would
ask for the same intervention from you, the City Council, who are
responsible to the people of this City. WE ASK THAT YOU FORMALLY REMOVE
PLACERITA CANYON ROAD AS A SECONDARY HIGHWAY IN YOUR CITY CIRCULATION
PATTERN AND DIRECT STAFF TO STOP REQUIRING DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
ALONG THE ROAD THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE SUCH WIDENING IN THE FUTURE.
We appreciate the direction you have already given to staff to conduct
center -line studies of the Lyons Avenue extension which could replace
Placerita Canyon Road as an east -west route across the southern part of
the valley. Our one hope of saving Placerita Canyon Road is having a
suitable alternate roadway in place some day.
At the risk of being redundant, I'd like to reiterate why Placerita
Canyon Road is unacceptable as a secondary highway:
* The road is privately owned by the.property owners along the
route.
* These property owners are being asked to accept the liability for
a road over which they have no control. A lawsuit already has been
filed because of an accident on the road and these homeowners must pay
the cost to defend themselves even if the suit proves groundless.
* There are more than 70 oaks directly in the right-of-way, many of
them heritage oaks.
* More than 100 homes have direct access onto Placerita Canyon Road-
-almost 200 driveways open directly onto the street.
* The Master's College has 800 students who cross the road daily at
two uncontrolled crosswalks.
* Widening and straightening Placerita Canyon Road would not make it
safer --just faster and more heavily traveled than the 10,000 cars a day
it currently serves.
Your own John Medina has said many times in public (and in print) that
the City does not want Placerita Canyon Road. Why, then, this
insistence on gobbling up right-of-way? The City staff and Planning
Commission need to hear from you that hoarding right-of-way along
Placerita Canyon Road is not in keeping with the responsive City
government we all hoped to achieve in promoting cityhood.
Thank you again for listening to our concerns.
Sincerely,
Pat Willett, President
Placerita Canyon Property Owners
cc: All Council Members
Community Development Dept. Staff
PLACERITA.CANYON
P PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION
C, A 0. Box 245
NcmhaR. CA 91322
February 4, 1992
Planning Commission
City of Santa Clarita
Re: Parcel Map #22229
Bill.and.June Warwick
In accordance with our traditional policy, the Placerita Canyon Property
owners Association neither formally opposes nor supports the above referenced
lot split. It appears that the proposal meets the minimum .5 -acre lot size
established for this part of the canyon, does not remove any oak trees and
does not require extensive grading..
We do, however, wish to pose a STRENUOUS OBJECTION to the City's requirement
that the property owners dedicate a 60 -foot right-of-way along Placerita
Canyon Road. This dedication requirement dates back to the County's stated
intention to widen Placerita Canyon Road as a major public thoroughfare, and
its insistance on quietly acquiring the necessary right-of-way every time a
lot split or other type of approval was required. Many property owners
simply gave up the right-of-way rather than jeopardize their projects.
The Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association has worked for years with
first the County and now the City to obtain assurance that Placerita Canyon
Road will not be widened to a major thoroughfare. This insidious taking of
right-of-way flies in the face -of all those assurances.
Widening of Placerita Canyon Road is NOT an answer to the city's east/west
access problems. At best, a wider and straighter Placerita Canyon Road will
only lead to more serious consequences as cars try to pull out into fast-
moving traffic from the more than 200 driveways that open directly onto the
street.
Widening of the road will remove more than 70 oak .trees and place traffic
virtually at the front door of more than 100 homes along the roadway.
But you have heard all of this before. And have agreed that.widening
Placerita Canyon Road is NOT the solution to the Santa Clarita Valley's
traffic woes. Why, then, the continued emphasis on taking right-of-way along
the road? Is staff not getting your message....or is there a more insidious
message here that WE are not getting?
We ask that this 60 -foot right-of-way dedication be eliminated as a
requirement from the proposed parcel map, and that City •staff be directed to
eliminate this provision from future parcel map provisions in Placerita
Canyon.
Si(tce��Mv rely, � r
o
Pat Willett; President
Placerita Canyon Property Owners
cc: All Council Member
VICINTY MAP
M C S 90-172
s
SUBJECT
SITE
i
PJB
Project Proximity flap
_ l , n,
5ffv6"1
17 VIA CASTANETQ, 'u
18 AVD. FDNADA Q�ll I � _J-iQTO
a D 04
ITVI6LOS — jr- (A
(J1 --- 1
20 VIA DACANO 4`<PO ,�Pp i
21 V1A E ISO ��
22 VIA EVANO O'�j-'GA h 1f
23 VIA CAROL y
24 VIA F14ENTE 1-k
,<. 25 VIA GALERA \S`
gNCN /
BARN I�L1 Rp Z
;)ARVIN C
LEAgDqLPik
yO4 c 1
K i7KC.9 _�D
\
t �pC`S� OAK
y _y _-C /'Ci Pl „ - i, ORCH qR
t
9
L JAM •.
S HART-:
PARK
.N0
<<osNK �i
THE •MQ STERS
C COLLEGE =
rb% /
I O
D RD
S'AfAV,
a ()AA
7 1 AIR
\O / I, HIMS•
i n2t7Rf
l�
QUIGLE
Y•-
--PQCAK'Ert,ER ! I
oT
1
1
� I V
,'`• o t
T el
I MOLOKAI L4
P/ " \G2 KAHOOLA%kE
y
JiONiAIA Cv4q
SP
1}
1`J
0
0
n
tr
0
�
1
U
j
)
,
r
\
--PQCAK'Ert,ER ! I
oT
1
1
� I V
,'`• o t
T el
I MOLOKAI L4
P/ " \G2 KAHOOLA%kE
y
JiONiAIA Cv4q
SP
1}
1`J
0
0
n