The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992-01-28 - AGENDA REPORTS - APPEAL RESO P91 42 (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Appro a Item to be presented. by: PUBLIC HEARING L M. Harris T DATE: January 28, 1992 SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission decision (Resolution No. P91-42) denying Tentative Parcel Map 12387; approximately. 300 feet south-east of the intersection of Choke Cherry ."Lane and Placerita Canyon Road. DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND The City Clerk's office received an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative.Parcel Map" 12387. This application included a request to create four lots from a 5.23 acre parcel. The appellant is Steve Minke, the applicant. The applicant feels that staff did not give a fair analysis of the project. The Planning Commission voted (4-1) to deny this application at its September 17, 1991 meeting. Staff returned with a formal resolution for denial of the proposal at the October 1, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. This appeal was previously scheduled on the City Council's November 26, 1991 agenda, but was postponed at the appellant's request. ANALYSIS The Planning Commission reviewed this application and determined that the primary areas of concern are the _potential impacts on oak trees, utilities, circulation, and access. Of these issues, the question of adequate legal access is the most crucial. The Los Angeles Department of Water. and Power owns a strip of land for its Second Los Angeles Aqueduct (Saugus Pipeline) contiguous to the western boundary of the project site. This strip of land must be crossed twice to reach the project site from Placerita Canyon Road. In their January'30, 1991 letter to the Community Development Department, the Department of Water and Power indicated that this land is their "fee property and is not available for site access." (see attached letter from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power dated January 30, 1991.) APPROVE1genda Item: Testimony from adjacent property owners indicated that the proposed subdivision design may also adversely affect the existing access to adjacent properties to the west and south by eliminating access and land -locking these properties. The design of the proposed lots may also conflict with the alignment alternatives for the possible future construction of Rio Vista Road, a proposed major highway. The Planning Commission is concerned that the approval of any subdivision of this property will compound the existing problems of adequate legal access and future road development. The Planning Commission found that the questionable access to this property indicates that no subdivision should take place at this time. Even if the access issue is resolved, the Planning Commission still has reservations. about the subdivision due to the site constraints imposed by a significant ridgeline and oak trees. RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive the staff presentation; 2. Open the public hearing and receive testimony; 3. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision for denial of Tentative Parcel Map 12387. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. P91-42. 2. Project site plan. 3. Planning Commission staff report dated September 17, 1991. 4. Appeal request from Steve Minke, the,applicant. 5. Initial Environmental Assessment. 6. Minutes of the September 17, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. 7. Letter from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power dated January 30, 1991. JC/480 -2- PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE 1. Mayor Opens Hearing a. States Purpose of Hearing 2. City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice 3. Staff Report (City Manager) or (City Attorney) or (RP Staff) 4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes) 5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes) 6. Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent) a. Proponent 7. Mayor Closes.Public Testimony 8. Discussion by Council 9. Council Decision 10. Mayor Announces Decision CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEALING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12387 TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.23 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR NEW LOTS OF 40,370 SQUARE FEET, 75,200 SQUARE FEET, 49,660.SQUARE FEET, AND 59,780 SQUARE FEET. THE LOCATION IS APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET SOUTH-EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CHOKE CHERRY LANE AND PLACERITA CANYON ROAD IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENS A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita to consider an appeal from applicant, Steve Minks, regarding the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Parcel Map 12387. The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 5.23 acre parcel into four new lots of 40,370 square feet, 75,200 square feet, 49,660 square feet, and 59,780 square feet. The -location is approximately 300 feet south-east of the intersection of Choke Cherry Lane and Placerita Canyon road in the City of Santa Clarita. , The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 26th day of November, 1991, at or.after 6:30 p.m. Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's Office, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita. If you wish to challenge this order in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else' raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council; at, or prior to, the public hearing. Date: October 30, 1991 Donna M. Grindey City Clerk Publish Date: November 4, 1991 Y Fr HALE ASSOCIATES, Inc. E Consulting Engineers 26017 Huntington Lane, Suite B October 10, 1?91 Valencia, California 91355 Telephone: (805) 295-0400 Fax: (805) 2951602 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Ste. 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Attn: Donna Grindey City Clerk Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Tentative Parcel Map 1238; Dear Ms. Grindey; Tentative Parcel Map 12387, a request for approval of a 5.23 acre parcel into 4 lots, was denied by the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission at its September 17, 1991 Public Hearing, and a resolution to deny the project (91-042) was adopted at the October 1, 1991 Public Hearing. On behalf of our client, Mr. Steve Minke, we would like to appeal this denial before City Council. Our ground for appealing this denial is -that the project was not given a fair analysis by staff. The staff report is riddled with inaccuracies which are detailed in our September 12, 1991 letter to Chairman Jerry Cherrington. At the Planning Commission hearing, we asked for a continuance of the project to allow staff to review their own files (inasmuch as most of the inaccuracies had to do with poorly kept files). Staff admitted to the Commission that the project is not, inconsistent with the City's present policies regarding density, hillsides and other General Plan issues. We were given a total of ten minutes of testimony to refute a dozen inaccuracies in the staff report. This time was insufficient to adequately cover all of the issues. We request that Council rehear this case with the appropriate staff personnel present. Wewouldappreciate having a member of the City Engineer's Office present. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. ^/S'incerer D: E. HALE R. C. E. DH/amd RESOLUTION NO. P91-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12387 TO CREATE FOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF 21090 PLACERITA CANYON ROAD THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does. hereby make the following findings of fact: a. An application for a tentative parcel map was filed on October 31, 1989, by Steve Minke ("the .applicant'). The property is located in the vicinity of 21090 Placerita Canyon Road, approximately 270 feet south of the intersection of Placerita Canyon Road and Choke Cherry Lane. The Assessor's Parcel Number for the site is 2833-003-075. The project site is 5.23 acres in size, with 55 oak trees. The applicant proposed to subdivide this property into .four new single family residential lots of 40,370 square feet, 75,200 square feet, 49,660 square feet, and 59,780 square feet, respectively. b. The applicable zoning for this property is A-2-1 Heavy Agricultural, one -acre minimum zone. The City of Santa Clarita General Plan' land use designation is RL (Residential Low) 1.1-3.3 dwelling units per acre, combined with Mineral/Oil Conservation Area overlay designation. Approximately 3.50 acres of the site is occupied by a significant ridgeline with slopes in excess of 25Z. This project has also been reviewed for compliance with the draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. The average slope of the property is 33Z, and when applied to the Hillside regulations yields a maximum density of 0.7 dwelling units per acre. This would allow a maximum of three dwelling units for this property. C. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee (DRC) met on December 14, 1989 to discuss the project and additional information and revisions needed from the applicant. d. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning. Commission on .September 17, 1991 at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. e. The surrounding uses are low density equestrian -oriented residential. f. This project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff.prepared an Initial Environmental Assessment for this project. Staff has determined that specific issues must be resolved before a Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect could he adopted for this project. Reso P91-42 Page 2 of 7 SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, oral and written testimony. and other evidence received at the public hearing held for the project, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Planning Commission further finds 'as follows: a. At the public hearing held for this project, the Planning Commission considered the staff report prepared for this project and received testimony on this proposal. b. The City's draft General Plan designation for the project site is RL (Residential Low) 1.1-3.3 dwelling units per acre. The proposed use of the property for residential development. is consistent with this land use designation. However, this proposal is not consistent with the Land Use, Community Design, and Open Space policies of the City's General Plan. Specifically, this proposal is in conflict with the following draft General Plan components: Land Use Element Goal No. 1: To achieve the development of a well balanced, financially sound, and functional mix of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, recreational, institutional, and educational land uses. Land Use Element Policies: 1.10 Encourage the development of equestrian -oriented housing in areas that are presently equestrian -oriented, and ensure that other surrounding land uses are compatible with the adjacent equestrian zones. 1.13 Promote retention of open space to preserve significant ridgelines, to provide land use buffers, and to provide for both public safety and oak tree preservation. 3.12 Maintain and enhance the desirable rural qualities found in the certain existing. neighborhoods which are rural in character, such as Placerita, Sand, and Hasley Canyons. 4.1 Allow only responsible and sensitive development of hillside areas and prohibit development. on ridgelines designated as "Significant Ridgelines." 4.2 Ensure that new development, grading, and landscaping are sensitive to the natural topography and major landforms in the planning area. 4.6 Preserve and protect oak and mature specimen size trees and other endangered indigenous plant and animal communities, from excessive and incompatible development. 5.3 Provide for the retention and maintenance of existing residential neighborhoods which are primarily developed with single-family homes and ensure that new development is compatible with and complementary to existing development in terms of scale, architecture, and density. Reso P91-42 Page 3 of 7 Community Design Element Policies: 5.1 Retain designated major landforms, such as ridgelines, natural drainage ways, streams, rivers, valleys, and significant vegetation, especially where these features contribute to the overall community identity. 5.3 Where possible, incorporate attractive natural amenities, such as rock outcroppings, vegetation, streams and drainage areas, into the development of future projects to protect the environment and provide landscape opportunities, visual interest, scale and/or recreational opportunities. 6.7 Promote visual and physical buffers, where appropriate, by use of easements, roadways, trails, ridgelines, and other features, to delineate various communities in the valley. Open Space Element policies: 1.1 Utilize major environmental features (significant landforms, significant ridgelines, significant vegetation, ecologically significant areas, other natural resources) as openspace within the planning area. 1.5 Investigate, develop and prepare a long-term plan to consolidate and acquire open space using one or more of the following options to maintain viable natural ecosystems in conjunction with the orderly development of the planning area: open space easements; dedication of development rights; joint powers authority; open space district; City ownership and management by the Parks and Recreation Department; Homeowners Associations; and/or Landscape Maintenance Districts. 2.1 Adopt a ridgeline preservation ordinance that identifies prominent primary and secondary ridgelines, which shall be preserved as open space and which should not be modified, incorporating sensitive slope and grading regulations to interface with such primary and secondary ridgelines, including identification and standards for other significant physiographic features. 2.2 Establish and require a slope rating system (steep, moderate, low) to identify development suitability and to establish guidelines for grading and development practices. Circulation Element Issue Statement (page C-30, City of Santa Clarita General Plan): Make sure that the pace of development matches the pace of required roadway infrastructure improvements. Circulation Element Policies: 1.27 Where alignments are known, the preservation of corridor rights-of-way should be immediately established. 2.6 Require right-of-way dedication and/or construction of appropriate facilities in support of a public transportation system in new and redeveloped projects. Reso P91-42 Page 4 of 7 "In the event that adequate access and circulation cannot be provided or properly mitigated due to constraints, impediments or timing delays, proposed development as designated in this Plan may need to be correspondingly impeded, delayed, or modified." (Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element, page C-2). This proposed subdivisionwould impact .the adjacent neighborhood by diminishing its rural character through increasing traffic flow. volumes. Proposed lot configurations are insensitive to the natural topography, major landforms, and oak trees on and adjacent to the project site. As proposed, this project would create three new building sites in addition to the existing single family dwelling at the site. This would exceed the appropriate residential density for this area, given the topography and natural vegetation. Definitive information on pad locations and possible encroachment -into the protected zones of oak trees has not be submitted. C. Access to the project site has not been established, and is in conflict with the Los Angeles Department of Vater and Power's Saugus Pipeline easement. The limitations on the existing DVP easement and the proposed subdivision design may also adversely affect access to adjacent properties to the west and south by eliminating access and land -locking these properties. As noted on the tentative parcel map, a 15 foot access and utility easement was granted to the adjacent. property owners. The proposed. tentative parcel map design is also in conflict with the proposed alignment routes for Rio Vista Road. Further development of this property should be delayed until adequate access has been provided. d. This project as designed would adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing. in the surrounding area; be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the subject property; jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare because this project does not conform to the development standards of the subdivision and zoning ordinance, is incompatible with the surrounding land uses, and is inconsistent with the draft City General Plan. e. Based upon a review. of the submitted plan, the subject property is not adequate in size, shape, and topography to accommodate the -development features prescribed in the City's Municipal Code and draft General Plan, and otherwise required in order to integrate the proposed use of the subject property with the uses in the surrounding area, Reso P91-42 Page 5 of 7 f. This proposal is defined as a "project' according to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) As such,, staff prepared an Initial Environmental Assessment to determine the potential environmental impacts associated with this project. g. This project will have a significant effect on the environment. As indicated by the Initial Study prepared by staff (pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). h. Implementation of this proposal will cause adverse effects on the environment which cannot be adequately mitigated through the application of available controls. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will cause substantial environmental damage and substantial and avoidable injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat. i. The design of the subdivision does not provide for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities given the size, shape, and topography of the .lots and their intended use. j. The housing needs of the region were considered and balanced against the public service needs of local.residents. SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission hereby determines as follows: a. That the proposed map is not consistent with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan because necessary roadway infrastructure is not yet in place; corridor rights-of-way may be impacted; the dedication or construction of the appropriate public transportation facilities have not been completed. The General Plan requires that proposed development be delayed where adequate access and circulation cannot be provided or properly mitigated. b. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development because the proposed lot configurations do not comply with the requirements of the City's adopted subdivision and zoning codes (lot lines must be at right angles to the street upon which the lot fronts; the proposed flag lots are not justified by the existing topographic conditions; The proposed building sites cannot maintain the required 20 foot front yard setback distance. C. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development because it does not comply with the density reduction requirements of the City's draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance (in accordance with policy 2.1 of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City's General Plan). This density reduction is a maximum of 0.70 dwelling units per acre, based on the average slope of the site Reso P91-42 Page 6 of 7 d. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage because the impacts to the existing oak trees have not been fully addressed or mitigated. Land Use Element policy 4.6 states: "Preserve and protect oak and mature specimen size trees and other endangered indigenous plant and animal communities, from excessive and incompatible development." The applicant has not provided staff with the necessary information to make this determination. e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed .improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or the use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has an easement for its Second Los Angeles Aqueduct (Saugus Pipeline) contiguous to the western boundary of the project site. This easement is identified.as lot 4J.", and "Choke Cherry Lane" on the tentative parcel map. The applicant has incorrectly portrayed this easement as an available lot and private roadway. It is actually the private property of the Department of Vater and Power, and is not available for public use. THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA does resolve as follows: The Planning Commission hereby denies Tentative Parcel Map No. 12387 to allow the subdivision of the subject property into four new lots for residential development at the 5.23 acre property identified by Assessor's Parcel Number 2833-003-075, located approximately 270 feet south of. the intersection of Placerita Canyon Road and Choke Cherry Lane. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ]st day of toper, 1991. 7 Jerry Cherrington, Chai man Planning Commission ATTEST: r Lynh M. Harr" DiYector of Community Development Reso P91-42 Page 7 of 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS CITY OF SANTA CLARITA) I, Donna M. Grindey hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 1st day of October, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: Commissioners: AYES: Cherrington, Woodrow, Modugno, Brathwaite, Doughman NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None CITY CLERK JC/318 r l Dement of War and Power a.` � the Ot y of IIs Mlles TOM BRADLEY Commission Mayor . MICHAEL J. GAGE, President RICK J. CARUSO. Vire President DANIEL W. WATERS. General Manager and Chief Engineer ANGEL M. ECHEVARRIA ELDON A. COTTON, Assotans General Manager- Power DOROTHY GREEN JAMES F. WICKSER, Assistant General Manager- Water MARY D. NICHOLS NORMAN L. BU EH RING, Auisrans General Marmger- Exreoal Affairs JUDITH K. DAVISON. Secretary NORMAN J. POWERS- Chwf Firrorsnal ofTicer January 30, 1991 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Attention Mr. Jeff Chafen Gentlemen: Parcel Map 12387 Second Los Angeles Aqueduct Saugus Pipeline Vicinity of.Choke Cherry Lane and South of Placerita Canyon Road, Newhall DWP File W-62189 This is in response to your letter requesting the Department's review of Mr. Steve L. Minks's Parcel Map 12387 affecting a.portion of our Second Los Angeles Aqueduct (SLAA) property. ' The Department has completed a review and must object to Parcel Map 12387 due to the proposed longitudinal use of our Aqueduct right of way for access purposes. For your information, the Department has not approved of any use of our fee property by private parties. However, as Mr. Minke has been previously advised, this Department would consider the following alternatives for access to the proposed development: 1. The Department would recommend the grant of an easement to the City of Santa Clarita, with conditions, on that portion of .Lot J contained within the Department's SLAA fee property south of Placerita Canyon Road, for roadway access. The easement will be subject to the approval of the Board of - Water,and Power Commissioners and the Los Angeles City Council. 2. The Department would consider, with conditions, authorizing crossings of SLAA fee property through either Lot D or Lot E. I I I North Hope Street. Lo+ Ancelrs. Caldornia C Jladsng addres. Hoa I11. Lns Angcle% 410514I110 Telephone 12131 I.S 14211 Cable addrrcrIn 1 ",,1 a FA 1` 1:111 481-87111 � .... � .. City of Santa Clarita -2- January 30, 1991 The Department requests that the following revisions be made to correct the inaccuracies shown in Parcel Map 12387: A. The Department's 50 -foot -wide SLAA fee property south of Placerita Canyon Road is designated Lot J and "Choke Cherry Lane (private, unpaved)." It is incorrectly portrayed as an available lot and private roadway. This should be changed to accurately reflect the Department's private property. B. Access to the. site is shown through Lot J at its intersection with Placerita Canyon Road. As stated in Item A, Lot J at Placerita Canyon Road is the Department's SLAA fee property and isnot available for site access. C. A notation states "Access to all parcels will be from Lot D." Lot D is accessed by Lot J which, as stated Previously, is through the Department's SLAA fee property. Therefore, access is restricted to all parcels and cannot be provided across Lot D. The Department requests that after completion of the corrections, the revised Parcel Map 12387 be submitted for our review and approval. In addition, we wish to advise that this Department has repeatedly attempted to reach a compromise to allow access to Mr. Minks's property. The Department will not consider any future proposals involving unauthorized use of our property for access except those solutions previously mentioned in Items 1 and 2 of this letter. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Craig Luna at (213) 481-5964. CL:emh c: Mr. Steve L. Minks Sincerely, L� MOUSSAFIR � Chief Real Estate Officer 1: STEVE MINKE PROJECT MINUTES FOR PLANNING COMMISSION OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 ITEM 5: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12387 - located approximately 300 feet ,south-east of the intersection of Choke Cherry Lane and.Placerita Canyon.Road Director Harris introduced Item 5 stating that the project has been noticed as required by law; and that Hale and Associates has submitted a letter, signed by Don Hale regarding the project. Principal Planner Henderson presented the staff.report, which included a brief slide presentation. There was discussion among the Commission. At 8:28 p.m., Chairman Cherrington opened the public hearing. Those speaking in favor were the applicant, Steve Minke, 25148 Vermont Drive, Newhall, who spoke on the history of this property, the fire access problem, and legal access to the property. Mr. Keith Uselding of Hale and Associates, 26017 Huntington Lane, Santa Clarita, engineer for the applicant, who stated his displeasure with the staff report. Mr. Uselding referenced the letter from Hale. and Associates, discussing various discrepancies in the staff report, and items in the letter. Mr. Don Hale, 26017 Huntington Lane, Santa Clarita, engineer for the applicant, discussed the miscommunication between staff and the applicant, and made comments on the Department of Water and Power easements. There was a brief discussion among the Commission. Mr. Lee Schramling, 19851 V. Sandpiper Place, Santa Clarita, spoke on the proposed Rio Vista alignment, the oak trees, and hillside preservation. Speaking in opposition were: Terry Kleban, 21090 Placerita Canyon Road, Newhall, addressing the fire department access to his property, the purchase of this property from Mr. Minks, and the discussions he has had with Mr. Minks regarding the access. Ms. Jeanne Hammons, 16326 Cambria Estates Lane, Santa Clarita, whose concern was her easement. Mr. Don Hale then made a rebuttal, discussing the problems with the Fire Department and the Department of Water and Power, and their request that any proposed road be maintained by the City. Page 2 Minke PC Minutes 9/17/91 At 8:55 p.m., the public hearing was closed. Discussion ensued among the Commission. Commissioner Modugno motioned for denial of Tentative Tract Map 12387. Commissioner Doughman seconded the motion. The motion was passed with a vote of 4-1 (Brathwaite). RECESS At 9:04 p.m., Chairman Cherrington called.for a recess. RECONVENE Chairman Cherrington reconvened the meeting at 9:17 p.m. JC/410 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT Tentative Parcel Map 12387 DATE: September 17, 1991 TO: Chairman Cherrington and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development/ M7 APPLICANT: Steve Minke CASE PLANNER: Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner II LOCATION: Approximately 300 feet south-east of the intersection of Choke Cherry Lane and Placerita Canyon Road; Assessor's Parcel Number 2833-003-075. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of the. subdivision of a 5.23 acre parcel into four lots. PROJECT.DESCRIPTION: The applicant. is proposing to subdivide a 5.23 acre parcel into four new residential lots of 40,370 square feet, .75,200 square feet, 49,660 square feet, and 59,780 square feet. The project site consists of hillside terrain with slopes in excess of.25I, and a "significant ridgeline" traversing. the eastern half of the project site. The average slope of the property is 332. The site is occupied by approximately fifty-four oak trees, and one single family dwelling. The project site is located approximately 300 feet south-east of the intersection of Choke Cherry Lane and Placerita Canyon Road, within an area of low.density and equestrian -oriented residential development. Existing access to the site is through private, unpaved access easements within Tract No. 1274 (via lot "J" and lot "D"). An existing single family dwelling is present on the western portion of the property. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION; ZONING; LAND USE: The City General Plan, Zoning, and existing land use of the project site and adjacent properties: AGENDA ITEM 5 Page 2 TPM 12387 City General Zone Existing Plan Land Use Project RL 1.1-3.3 (MOCA) A-2-1 Single family residential. North RL 1.1-3.3 (MOCA) A-2-1 Single family residential, vacant. South RL 1.1-3.3 (MOCA) A-2-1 Single family residential, vacant. East RL 1.1-3.3 (MOCA) A-2-1 Single family residential, vacant. West RL 1.1-3.3 (MOCA) A-1-1 Single family residential. KEY: RL Residential Low, 1.1-3.3 units per acre. MOCA Mineral/Oil Conservation Area A-2-1 Heavy Agricultural, one.acre minimum. A-1-1 Light Agricultural, one acre minimum. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The environmental evaluation of this project included an Initial Study, which indicated that additional information and project revisions are needed from the applicant to adequately address the environmental impacts associated with this project. Staff is concerned that the project may be found to be inconsistent with the City's General Plan and the Subdivision Map Act. Should the Commission find otherwise, it will be necessary to complete further environmental.analysis.for this project. INTERDEPARTMENT/INTERAGENCY REVIEW: Comments and recommendations were requested from departments and agencies addressing the development concerns of this project. Comments received were considered by the Community Development Department as part of the project review. ANALYSIS: At the time application was made, the initial proposal of four single family lots complied with the City's adopted Zoning Code. The application was deemed complete on 30 October 1990. However, several outstanding issues needed to be addressed in order to complete the review of the application. The additional information needed included the following: Hillside and ridgeline Page 3 TPM 12387 development; off-site road improvements (Rio Vista Road alignment); school mitigation agreements; up -dated oak tree report; preliminary geology and soils report; drainage concept; Health Department clearance; grading information; proof of legal and adequate access. These items are still outstanding. The City's General Plan land use designation for this property is Residential Low, 1.1-3.3 dwelling units per acre. This designation is also combined with the Mineral/Oil. Conservation Area overlay designation. The Santa..Clarita General Plan establishes average mid -point density as the criteria for future development. The mid -point density for the Residential Low (1.1-3.3 dwelling units per acre) land use designation is 2.2 dwelling units per acre. Without considering hillside development density reductions, the land use designation would allow 11.5 dwelling units (2.2 dwelling units per acre times 5.23 acres). The proposed project has a density of 0.76 dwelling units per acre. The applicable City zoning for the project site is A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural, one acre minimum). Residential uses are an allowable use in this zone per City zoning. Single family residences would be a compatible use in this area of Placerita Canyon; many adjacent properties have been developed for residential land use. However, this proposal is inconsistent with the Land Use, Community Design, Open Space, and Circulation Elements of the City's General Plan. The proposed subdivision design is in conflict with existing access easements and utility easements. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has an easement for its Second Los Angeles Aqueduct (Saugus Pipeline) contiguous to the western boundary of the project site. This easement traverses access lot "J" and access lot "D", and must be crossed twice to reach the project site from Placerita Canyon Road. However, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has indicated that this easement is not available for public use. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has indicated (in their letter dated January 30, 1991) that their aqueduct right-of-way "Is incorrectly portrayed as an available lot and private roadway.", "...Lot J at Placerita Canyon Road is the Department's (Second Los.Angeles Aqueduct) fee property and is not available for site access." The limitations on the existing DWP easement and the proposed subdivision design may also adversely affect access to adjacent properties to the west and south by eliminating access and land -locking these properties. A 15 foot access and utility easement, which was granted to the adjacent property owners, is proposed by the applicant to be vacated. Government Code Section 66474 (g) requires the City to deny a tentative map if the design of the subdivision will conflict with access or utility easements within the proposed subdivision. The design of the proposed lots may conflict with the alignment alternatives for the future construction of Rio Vista Road, a proposed major highway. "In the event that adequate access and circulation' cannot be provided or properly mitigated due to constraints, impediments or timing- delays, proposed development as designated in this Plan may need to be correspondingly -impeded, delayed, or modified." (Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element, page C-2). J Page 4 TPM 12387 Equestrian oriented residential development is encouraged in rural areas of the City, including Placerita Canyon. To achieve well-balanced development with a functional mix of land uses, policies in the General Plan "Promote the retention of open space to preserve significant ridgelines, to provide land use buffers, and to provide for both public safety and oak tree preservation.", and "Preserve and protect oak and mature specimen size trees and other endangered indigenous plant and animal communities, from excessive and incompatible development." The proposed subdivision designwill impact existing oak trees at the project site due to encroachment of drive ways and building pads. Ridgelines and hillsides have been identified as significant land use and open space resources which should be treated as design -sensitive issues. In correlation to the General Plan, the City is also preparing a Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. As proposed, this project is not consistent with the policies and requirements of the General Plan and'the proposed Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. Project grading for the construction of building pads, road improvements, and drainage may impact the existing hillside. A significant ridgeline traverses the eastern half of the project site (per the General Plan Significant Ridgeline map). Significant ridgelines are primarily those that are silhouetted by the open sky from behind when viewed from key vantage points, such as nearby roads. Only responsible and sensitive development may be allowed on hillsides, and development on ridgelines designated as "Significant Ridgelines" is prohibited (Land Use Element Policy 4.1). The applicant has not proposed any building sites upon the significant ridgeline. However, the proposed project lot boundaries should be revised with sensitivity to slope protection and preservation. The significant ridgeline could be preserved by designating all of the project area above the 1360 foot contour elevation as open space. This boundary may also be adjusted to provide additional oak tree preservation. This open space can be designated as an easement prohibiting any future development upon it. Applying the mid -paint density to the acreage of the entire project site would allow a maximum of 11.51 dwelling units (5.23 acres times 2.2 units per acre). One dwelling currently exists on the project site. The average slope of the project site is 33Z.. The recommended density reduction per the draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance (Item "I" Maximum Density Residential), is a maximum density of 0.70 dwelling units per acre. This reduces the allowable number of dwelling units to 3.66 (5.23 acres times 0.70 units per acre). As shown, the proposed project with four residential lots appears to have an excessive density, would avoidably. encroach into the protected zone of several oak trees, and could not provide the required front yard setback distance of 20 feet. Combined with the hillside development density reduction, the oak trees existing on-site further reduce the area available for residential Page 5 TPM 12387 development. A total of two residential building sites could be accommodated without violating the intent or purpose of the draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance, or the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. This would allow the development of one single family dwelling and accessory uses in addition to the existing residence. staff conducted field inspections of the site (on 21 February and 26 July 1991) and observed an additional area which was relatively flat and could accommodate one more building site without excessive grading, substantial alteration of landforms, or adverse impacts to oak trees. However, the questionable access to this property indicates that no subdivision should take place at this time. A• revised oak tree .report is needed to fully assess project impacts on the existing oak trees. Building envelopes should be .defined and identified on the tentative parcel map. Building envelopes should be designed to avoid encroachment within the protected zone of any oak tree, and show compliance with Zoning Cade setback requirements.. Individual building plans for each new lot will be evaluated for oak tree impacts at the time applications are received for building permits. RECOMMENDATION Deny Tentative Parcel Map 12387 requesting approval of four residential lots on the property located approximately 300 feet south-east of ,the intersection of Choke Cherry Lane and Placerita Canyon Road; Assessor's Parcel Number 2833-003-075. JC/317 U5 PROJ OR ECTI T tOXINsITY 11.2387 �I■ TPM 12387 !!r ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA MASTER CASE NO: TPM 12387 Case Planner: Jeff Chaffin Project Location: Approximately 270 feet south of Placerita Canyon Road on Choke Cherry Lane, Santa Clarita, California. Project Description and Setting: 5.23 acre parcel proposed for subdivision into four new lots of 0.93 acres (40,370 square feet), 1.73 acres (75,200 square feet), 1.14 acres (49,660 square feet), and 1.37 acres (59,780 square feet) respectively, for future residential development. General Plan Designation: Residential Low (1.1-3.3 dwelling units per acre), with Mineral/Oil Conservation Area overlay designation. Zoning: 'A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural, one acre minimum lot size) Applicant: Steve Minke, Owner. Environmental Constraint Areas: Hillside development, ridgeline preservation, oak tree conservation, traffic circulation, wastewater disposal, school impacts, access, and public right-of-way conflicts. A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Vill the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? .................. [ J [ J [X] b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? ............... [X] [ ] [ ] C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ........................... [X] [ ] [ ] d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? .................................. [ ] [ ] [X] e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? .......... [X] [ ] [ J f. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ................................... [ ] [ ] [X] -2- YES MAYBE NO g. Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ................................. [ ] I I IXI h. Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? ........................... [ ] [ ] [X] i. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? ....................... [ ] [ ] [X] j. Development and/or grading on a slope greater -than 25Z natural grade? ............ I ] [X] [ ] k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ] [ I [X] 1. Other? [ I [ ] [X] 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? .................... [ ] I ] IX] b. The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [ ] [ I [X] C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? .............. [ I [ ] [X] d. Other? [ I I I [X] 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ............................ [X] I ] I I b. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? .............................. I 1 I ] [X] C. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ......................... [ ] [ I [XI d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? .............. [ ] [ ] [XI e. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ..................... [ ] [XI I I -2- L9 5. YES MAYBE NO f. Change in the quantity of ground waters. . either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ............ [ ] [ ] [XJ g. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ............................ ( ] [ ] [Xl h. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? .......... ( j [ j [X] i. Other? [ ] [ ] [X] Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grasses, crop's, and microflora)? ... [ ] [_] [X] b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? ...... [ ] [ ] [X] C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier.to the normal re- plenishment of existing species? ........... [X] [ ] [ ] d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop7...................................... [ l [ ] [Xl Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of.any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and insects or microfauna)7 .................... [ ] [ ] [X] b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ] [ ] [X] C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ...... [ ] [ ] [X] d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat and/or migratory routes? ........... [ J [ J [XJ -3- 1v YES MAYBE NO 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [ ] -[ l [X] b. Exposure of people to severe or unacceptable noise levels? ..... :........... [ ] [ ] [X] C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [ ] [ ] [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? ....................... .[ ] [ ] [X] b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of an area? ............... [ ] [ ] [X] C. A use that does not adhere to existing zoning laws? ............................... [ ] [ ] [XI d. A use that does not adhere to established development criteria? ...................... [ ] [X] [ ] 9. Natural Resources.. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ................................. [ ] [ ] [Xl b. Substantial depletion of.any nonrenewable natural resources? .......................... [ ] [ ] [XJ 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? .......................... [ ] [ ] [X] b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard- ous or toxic.materials (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ................................ [ ] [ l [X] C. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ...................................... [ I [ l [X] YES MAYBE NO d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety hazards? ................................... I l [ l IXl 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? ..................... [X] [ ] [ ] b. Other? [ I [ ] [X] 12. Housing.. Will the proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing7 ........................ [ ] I ] [X] b. Other? [ ] I ] [X] 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ........................ [ ] [ ] [X] b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ................. [ ] [ ] [X] C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? ............................ [X] I l I ] d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? .............................. I l [ l [Xl e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [ J [ l [X] f. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? .............................. [XJ [ ] I l 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 IXl b. Police protection? ......................... [ ] [ ] [X] -5- 1Z YES MAYBE NO C. Schools? ................................... [X] [ ] [ ] d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .... [ ] [ ] [X] IE 13 I l (XI I I [XI e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ........................... [ ] f. Other governmental services? ............... [ ] 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in? a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy . .................................... I I b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? [ I 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ...................... [ ] b. Communications systems? .................... [ ] C. Water systems? ............................. [ J d. Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ ] e. Storm drainage systems? .................... [ ] f. Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [ ] g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of delivery system improvements for any of the above? ......... [ ] 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? ... [ J b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ................................... ( I 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? ................... [ ] IE 13 I l (XI I I [XI -7- 1� YES MAYBE NO 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 adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? ... [ ] [ ] [X] C. Does the proposal have.the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ] [ ] [X] d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X] -7- 1� Discussion of Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Section Evaluation of Impact 1. Grading shall be required for future single family homesites, including building pads and driveways. A grading plan has not been submitted at this time for residential development. The site plan shows that future dvelopment is to be located upon the flattest portions of the site which are less than 4Z natural grade. Field inspection by staff has confirmed this. These flat areas are limited by the location of right-of-way easements and oak trees, as well as existing steep hillsides. Development standards for yard setback distances (required under the Zoning Code) will further reduce the developable area of the proposed lots. The extent of any future grading will influence changes in topography needed to accommodate development. Confining future building sites to these flat areas, and reducing the number of building sites, would require less grading thereby reducing topographical impacts. Increases in deposition, erosion, and siltation rates may be expected due to residential construction (increased lot coverage from future buildings and driveways). Building pads on the - flatter portions of the property, along with revegetation and landscaping, would minimize potential erosion impacts. As such, these increases would be considered temporary and insignificant. The existence of any geological hazards at the project site is unknown at this time. A geology report is needed to assess any existing or potential hazards which may affect this project. Recommendations of such report would be included as project conditions should the application be approved. Improvements would be required to assure that -all development is in conformance with the Uniform Building Code, and all other applicable safety codes. The project site is not located within any.Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone area. No significant geological impacts are anticipated. 2. Existing air quality will not be affected by the implementation of this proposal. Residential use is not considered to be the type of use which substantially contributes to the degradation'of air quality. The use of fireplaces and barbecues are accessory residential uses which result in air emissions. These uses are intermittent and should not have long=term effects. No significant impact to air quality is expected. 3. Lot coverage by impermeable surfaces, such as buildings and driveways, may increase runoff and decrease absorption. However, no significant impact is anticipated due to the size and location of potential building pads and driveways. The subdivision design shall minimize lot coverage and confine building pads to flat areas so that disruptions to.the natural drainage patterns will be kept to a minimum. The project site is not located within a 100 year floodplain (per FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map; Community J -8 Panel Number 060729 0480 C). This proposed project will not result in significant impacts to.the quantity and quality of surface waters or ground waters. 4. A revised oak tree report is needed to fully assess project impacts on the existing oak trees. Building envelopes should be' defined and identified on the tentative parcel map showing potential development without encroachment into any oak tree's' protected zone (the protected zone of an oak tree is a minimum radius of fifteen feet from the trunkofthe tree or five feet outward from the dripline of the tree, whichever is the greater distance). Building envelopes must also show compliance with Zoning Code setback requirements (the minimum setback distance for a single family residence is at least 20 feet from the edge of the right-of-way). The location of future construction may impact existing oak trees on the property. Evaluation of oak tree impacts for individual building plans of each new lot would be needed at the time applications are received for building permits. At least ten oak trees on-site would be impacted under the current project design. Land Use Element policy 1.13 "Promote(s) the retention of open space to preserve significant ridgelines, to provide land use buffers, and to provide for both public safety and oak.tree preservation." The design of this proposed subdivision, and potential residential development, is likely to cause substantial damage to the oak trees present at the project site. Significant impacts to oak tree resources is anticipated due to soil and water disruptions, root and trunk damage, and encroachment within driplines, which may kill or degrade the health of oak trees on-site. 5. The project site has not been identified as a Significant Ecological Area (per the City of Santa Clarita General Plan.) Devegetation for roads and building pads will destroy habitat and create a barrier to migration and movements. An updated comprehensive oak tree report is needed so that staff may assess the potential oak tree impacts resulting from this, proposal. The loss of any oak trees may result in habitat degradation or destruction thereby affecting wildlife populations which may be using the project site. Recommendations of this report will be included as conditions of approval., As the project site has been previously disturbed by adjacent residential development, no significant impacts to animal populations are anticipated. 6. Increased noise levels and severe vibrations are expected on a temporary basis due to construction activities, and existing residential communities adjacent.to the project site may be exposed to these.effects at that time. The.project will not result in long-term noise or vibration. Ambient noise levels will not increase from this proposed residential development. No significant noise or vibration impacts are anticipated due to the -9- /to short-term, localized intermittent nature of construction activity. Municipal Code Section 11.44.070 limits the time, days, and intensity of noise associated with construction activities. 7. Exterior lighting for future residential development shall comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Residential uses are not considered to result in substantial new light or glare. Exterior lighting shall be reviewed at the time application is made for building permits. No significant adverse impacts are expected from future lighting. 8. The City's General Plan land use designation for this property is Residential Low, 1.1-3.3 dwelling units per acre. This designation is also combined with the Mineral/Oil Conservation Area overlay designation. Currently, no mineral.or oil .extraction activities are occurring at the project site. The site does not contain any mineral or aggregate resources (per SMARA Designation Map No. 85-3, State Division of Mines and Geology). The applicable City zoning for the project site is A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural, one acre minimum). Residential uses are an allowable use in this zone per Title 22 (the Los Angeles County Planning and Zoning Code as adopted). The General Plan encourages equestrian oriented residential development in rural areas of the City, including Placerita Canyon (Policy 1.10 of the Land Use Element). To achieve well-balanced development with a functional mix of land uses, General Plan Land Use Element Policy 1.13 and 4.6 seek to "Promote the retention of open space to preserve significant ridgelines, to provide land use buffers, and to provide for both public safety and oak tree preservation.", and to "Preserve and protectoakand mature specimen size trees and other endangered indigenous plant and animal communities, from excessive and incompatible development." - The shapes of the proposed lots do not comply with the requirements of Subdivision Code Section 21.24.310 which requires that side lot lines be at right angles to the street upon which the lot fronts (where practical). Additionally, the design does not comply with Subdivision Code Section 21.24 320, which requires that "flag lots be.denied where such design is not justified by topographic conditions or the size and shape of the division of land, or where such design is in conflict with the pattern of neighborhood development." Generally, reverse flag lots and hour -glass shaped lots are not good subdivision design features. Adequate building setback distances cannot be achieved given the proposed size and shape of the lots, and the existing topography. The City's General Plan has identified ridgelines and hillsides as significant land use and open space resources which should be treated as design -sensitive issues (per Land Use Element policies 4.1 and 4.2, and Community.Design Element policy 5.1). In correlation to the General Plan, the City is also preparing a Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance (per Open Space and Conservation Element policy 2.1 and 2.2). As r -10- proposed, this project is not consistent with the policies and requirements of the General Plan and the proposed Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. Project grading for the construction of building pads, road improvements, and drainage may impact the existing hillside. The average slope of the property is thirty-three percent (33I). The draft ordinance provides density reductions and open space requirements for hillsides and ridges. According to the Density Reduction/Open Space Requirement table (page 5, Draft Ridgeline.Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance) 4.18 acres -is required for open space at this project site. Deducting this.open space requirement from the 5.23 acre.project site leaves 1.05 acres available for single family development. The Santa Clarita General Plan establishes average mid -point density as the criteria for future development (pages I-5, C-3, L-32, L-33). The mid -point density for the Residential Law (1.1-3.3 dwelling units per acre)'land use designation is 2.2 dwelling units per acre. This would allow 2.31 dwelling units on the remaining 1.05 acres available for single family development (2.2 times 1.05). This indicates that the most appropriate development of the property would be for a total of two dwelling units. As such, the project site is not physically suitable for the four single family lots (and density) of this proposed development. A ridge, which has been identified as a significant ridgeline under the City General Plan, traverses the eastern half of the project site. The proposed project lot boundaries should be revised with sensitivity to slope protection and preservation, in accordance with the General Plan and proposed Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. Land Use Element Policy 4.1 promotes preservation of natural resources and "Allow(s) only responsible and sensitive development on hillsides and prohibit(s) development on ridgelines designated as 'Significant Ridgelines'.• The significant ridgeline could be preserved by designating all of the project area above the 1360 foot contour elevation as open space, plus any additional area needed to provide the 4.18 acres of required open space. This open space can be designated as an easement prohibiting any future development upon it. All design revisions.should be consistent with the findings and recommendations of the required geological report for this project. As proposed, this project will have an adverse impact upon ridgeline and hillside resources by exceeding the recommended dwelling unit density for this property, and conflicting with the General Plan policies regarding ridgeline preservation, hillside development, and oak tree conservation. The proposed subdivision design is in conflict with existing access easements and utility easements. The Los Angeles Department of Vater and Power has an easement for its Second Los Angeles Aqueduct (Saugus Pipeline) contiguous to the western -11- boundary of the project site. This easement is identified as lot "J", and "Choke Cherry Lane" on the tentative parcel map. The applicant has incorrectly portrayed this easement as an available lot and private roadway. It is actually the private property of the Department of Water and Power, and is not available for public use. Government Code Section 66474 (g) requires the City to deny a tentative map if the design of the subdivision will conflict with access or utility easements within the proposed subdivision. The Department of Water and Power addressed this proposed project and its anticipated impacts on their aqueduct right-of-way (per correspondence dated January 30, 1991). The Department of Water and Power has not approved any use of their aqueduct right -of -wap for access to the project site, but has indicated that they could recommend the grant of an access easement (to the City ofSanta Clarita) subject to specific conditions. This would be contingent upon compliance with these specified conditions. The applicant was provided a copy of the January 30, 1991 correspondence by the Department of Water and Power. The applicant has not complied with these specified conditions by the Department of Water and Power. Access to the project site has not been approved by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The proposed project is also in conflict with the proposed alignment for Rio Vista Road. The applicant must revise the tentative parcel map to accommodate the future.road alignment, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. As proposed, this project will result in significant adverse impacts upon the existing access facilities serving the site. 11. As proposed, this project would create new lots for four single family dwellings,.or approximately 12 people. The City General Plan Land Use designation for this property is Low Density Residential, with a density range of 1.1 to 3.3 units per acre. This proposed project has a density less than 1.1 units. per acre. However, a density reduction is applied to the proposal in accordance with the General Plan policies regarding Hillside development and Open Space requirements (per the draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance). This reduction results in 2.31 as the maximum number of allowable dwelling units for this project. Reduction of the total number of proposed lots from four to two could bring the project into complicance with the General Plan and draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. 13. Approximately 40 vehicle trips per day are expected from the ultimate development of the proposed lots. An increased demand on public transportation systems may result from this proposal. City traffic engineering staff has indicated that additional vehicle traffic generated by this project can be accommodated by existing roadways. However, bridge and thoroughfare fees may be required as a condition of approval. Transit_ development fees shall be required to improve public.transportation systems. f -12- The design of the proposed lots may conflict with the alignment alternatives for the future construction of Rio Vista Road, a proposed major highway. This would result in a disjointed pattern of roadway improvements. The General Plan provides direction to "Make sure that the pace of development matches the pace of required roadway infrastructure improvements." (Issue Statement, page C-30). Policy 1.27 (Circulation Element) states, "Where alignments are known, the preservation of corridor right-of-ways should be immediately established." and Policy 2.6 (Circulation Element) "Require(s) right-of-way dedication and/or construction of appropriate facilities in support of a public transportation system in new and redeveloped projects." The "Alternative A" alignment for Rio Vista Road is contiguouswithPlacerita Canyon Road, and would affect the proposed new lots and building sites. The "Alternative B• alignment for Rio Vista Road traverses the southern portion of the project site and may not affect the building sites as shown of the Tentative Parcel.Map. Should "Alternative A" be adopted for the Rio Vista Road alignment, this project will have an adverse impact upon transportation systems. Until the Rio Vista Road alignment is adopted, staff is unable to adequately access the potential impacts that this project may have on transportation systems within the City. "In the event that adequate access and circulation cannot be provided or properly mitigated due to constraints, impedements or timing delays, proposed development as designated in this Plan may need to be correspondingly impeded, delayed, or modified.' (Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element, page C-2). 14. The project site is within a residentially developed area currently serviced by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and Sheriff's Department; the need for additional property, personnel, and equipment shall increase proportionately as the population grows. Local school districts are currently experiencing classroom overcrowding and a lack of instructional personnel. Impacts are expected due to the additional students which will be generated by this project. School mitigation agreements shall be required prior to approval of this project. This agreement will provide the means to reduce this impact to a less thansignificant level. Provision of additional park/recreational facilities shall be determined by the City Parks and Recreation Department upon review of the revised tentative map. Park land or in -lieu fees shall be required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 18. The project site is located at the base of a significant ridgeline (as identified by the City's General Plan.) Subdivision design, grading, and architectural compatibility are critical elements in determining the visual impacts associated with this project. As proposed, this project will have a significant impact on hillside/ridgeline, and oak tree resources. A visual impact -13- Q�V analysis should be conducted, and exhibits submitted, to evaluate these impacts and to formulate the appropriate mitigation measures as needed. Should all other adverse impacts be resolved, the mitigation measures from this study shall be addressed as a condition of project approval. No significant impact is anticipated with the addition of such mitigation measures. (See Section 8 d.) 19. Provision of additional park/recreational facilities, such as trail dedication or open space, shall be determined by the City Parks and Recreation Department upon review of the revised tentative map. Park land or in-lieu.fees shall be required. No significant impact is anticipated on parks or recreational facilities. 20. The project site has not been identified as a sensitive archaeological or cultural resources area (according to the City's most recent data.) Disturbances, on and adjacent to the site, have most likely destroyed any resources which may have been present in the past. No significant impact upon archaeological or cultural resources is anticipated. -14- C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act states, in part, that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. YES MAYBE NO 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ................. 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the.future.) ........... 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the.effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ......... [ ] [ J [ ] -15- D. DETERMINATION On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ... [ ] Although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in this. Initial Study have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED . .................................... [ ] The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required . ......................................... I ] LYNN M. HARRIS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA Prepared By: �7 �_ad 1.n_ Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner4fD / (Si a e�v (Name/Title) ) App ve By - Richard Henderson, Principal Planner / (Signature) (Name/Title) (D te) Rev d by: nald M. Williams. Senior Planner ignat e) (Name/Title) (Date) JC/147 -16- l CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I N T E R O F F I C E M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: Rich Henderson, Principal Planner FROM: Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner DATE: January 28, 1992 SUBJECT: Letters to Minks file. The following letters were not included in the Minke Council packet: DATE: SUMMARY: 1/27/92 Letter from the Placerita Canyon Property Owner's Association to clarify their position on this proposed project. This Association is neither for or against the project. They do express concern about the need for legal access to the project site and adjacent properties. The Association indicates that "The legal easements are drawn on a straight grid and have no bearing on the reality of topography and obstructions such as oak trees, mountains or underground. pipe routes." They also ask that the City give consideration to trail connections. No date Letter from Gilbert Albrecq of 30758 Sloan Canyon Road in support of the project. Mr. Albrecq lives in Castaic and owns property.in Placerita Canyon. He believes that this proposal is appropriate for the subject property and that the custom homes which Mr. Minks builds would be compatible with other homes in Placerita Canyon. 1/8/92 Letter from Patricia Basset of 30758 Sloan Canyon Road is in favor of the proposed project. Ms. Basset lives in Castaic and owns_ property in Placerita Canyon. She asks that the Council allow him to proceed with this development because she feels that this Parcel Map is consistent with existing residential development in Placerita Canyon, and that the map is designed to preserve existing.oak trees. 1/7/92 Letter from the Placerita Canyon Property Owner's Association indicates that they have no problem with this proposal but ask that the access road to the property be limited to a maximum width of 24 .feet without any sidewalks and minimal street lighting. They also ask that trail access be provided should this project be approved. JC/544 PLACERITA CANYON P PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION • P. O. Boz las hlewMl, CA 91322 January 27, 1992 Re: Parcel Map No. 12367 Placerita Canyon, City of Santa Clarita Proposed by Mr. Steve Minke City of Santa Clar.ita: Several weeks ago we sent you a letter addressing our position on the above referenced lot split. To clarify our position: We neither support nor oppose the proposed subdivision. We have no problem with the proposal on the basis of density, grading, impact on rideglines or oak tree removal. We remain concerned about the proposed 36 -ft. access road and would like to reiterate our request for trail connections in conjunction with our proposed Special Standards District. Since that time, we also have been contacted by members of our association who own adjacent property and are concerned about the effect of this lot split on legal access to their property. As the association serving property owners in Placerita Canyon, we urge you to become familiar with the unique access problems that Placerita Canyon represents. The legal easements are drawn on a straight grid and have no bearing on the reality of topography and obstructions such as oak trees, mountains or underground pipe routes. We ask that you take into account the need for legal access to serve adjacent properties when you consider access requirements for the Proposed split. Thank you again for considering our input. Sincerely, Gay -O.— Pat Willett, President cc: Chris Trinkley/Rich Henderson, City of Santa Clarita Mayor Jill Klajic and City Council Members Terry Klebah, Placerita Canyon Office of the City of Santa 23920 Valencia Santa Clarita, Re: P.M. 12387 Mayor Clarita Blvd. Suite 300 CA 91384 Dear Mayor and City Council Members. I have owned property and lived in the Placerita Canyon area for the last twenty years. Over these years, the nature of the area has changed from completely rural to a semi -rural custom home neighborhood. Consequently, it is my opinion that the parcel map that Steve Minke has proposed is appropriate for his property off Placerita Canyon Road and Choke Cherry Lane. I have known Steve for eighteen years and have seen many of his building projects. He builds beautiful custom homes that would enhance this property and would conform to already existing homes in the area. Therefore, I support your approval of his parcel map. S1ncerolyl V Gilbert N.N. Albrecq 30758 Sloan Cyn. Rd. Saugus, Ca. 91384 e'crr E x.67 1991 i January 8, 1x92 Office of the Mayor City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita,_ CA 91384 Re: P,M. 12387 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, I lived in Placerita Canyon for many years and sti11 own seven acres just above this subject property, so, even though I have since moved to Castaic, I am still interested in what happens in the Placerita Canyon area. I am in favor of you granting this parcel map to Steve Minke. His map is in conformance with all the other Parcels in the immediate area, and his custom homes would no-- only o-only blend in, but add to the ambiance of this lovely canyon. i have known Steve for a long time, and I also know he .has tried to obtain this parcel mao'for many years. I feel it is a good project and that approval for the map should be granted. His custom houses can only improve this basically -ignored area of the canyon. I also appreciate the fact that Steve will build to conform to the environment and that he will not remove or damage any of the existing oak trees. Please do not deny him the right to use his property to its fullest capacity. Yours, in support of Parcel Map 012387, PATRICIA J. B ET 805.257-4300 3 v -?J "'� 5L,D4di-la ;?,p S ^v-1--3 :r 1 1991 COPiES TO CITY COUNCU, CITY ,MANAGER, CITY C. �b Date r PLACERITA .CANYON PC ' PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION P. O. Box 245 Nmhall, CA 91322 e F: .0 IE I V 7.0 am 0 8 1992 January 7, 1992 Re: Parcel Map No. 12387 Placerita Canyon, City of Santa Clarita Proposed by Mr. Steve Minks To Whom It May Concern: Mr. Minke has presented his proposed lot split to the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association for comment, and this is to confirm that.this association has no problem with the project as Presented. *- According to the information available to us, the request for three homes on a little more than 5 acres is acceptable density. * It appears that no oak trees will be removed. * Proposed grading is minimal and there appears to be no impact on the canyon's ridgelines. We do -have a concern with the City's requirements for a 36 -foot access road. We consider this to be excessive according to standards in the canyon for residential side streets, especially given the limited number of homes the road will serve due to extreme topography in that particular canyon. We would.prefer that our proposed Special Standards District requirements be implemented, limiting residential streets -to 24 - foot maximum width where paving is required, with no sidewalks and no curbs. Rolled berms are acceptable. Street lighting should be the minimum required for safety. We also would like to see a condition imposed for an equestrian/ jogging/hiking trail along the perimeter of the property where appropriate toprovide access to the canyon's overall trail system. Our proposed Special Standards call for trail fencing in rustic wood. Thank you for considering this input. With the exception of road width and a trail requirement, the Association's Board of Directors has no objection to this proposed lot split. S'ncerely, Pat Willett, President cc: Lynn Harris, City of Santa Clarita • n ( • oil V NOME r ♦ . y jj L• 1.a ♦ orf / .. .. .. I .... ., ....�... ...,. ._.....Y.;•..� �w. _ .,.a ...... a♦ .o_a_ _ _w ... .. -:y ,- ... _. ,. r ... .. ., ... 7 _ .T �`• i. ,.. .••: _... .. .': .. ..� 1. + ... _.... _,..u. _.a.... _...... ,:. .. .. ..... ._A.�...__. i .. .... .att -w� w. ,.. .a .. .a... ../a,. _.. ... ...., ! •s .. ,u•+ W.' N- ddr_1>, •. �. .d:S. .. aw.....ri-•:.f•i'* .......... _.... ,.-w.."a�1 w. ...., r�1 1..w>. a. ,.A'�.-...� , .. �� .. .:.. � .. ... ,. .. ,. .. .. - ... .'. • �� . _ .. .. ..., e... ,.. :� . 1. "� ,'.� r .. � .. � a' -) - . ... .. '.. -• r.' � t . ,'. �r -i • 1.� �1 .. � .. n ..r .. � i i I �n �. .'. • .- ��-• ., '• ... w' ... _ 1r •:' � . -�. . ^' l._ ."� a ..- .... ... . ' �, ` .: .. �. �" . .. .. .. .- .' �.. ..... •.. \•... .-. n .. . .I- .w J ... v .. ... ... ...� .. .. -'. .. 1' .. . . i r. 1. Y .. .. "`v. .. .. .. .: ." . I • a ... -:. .:' � t .. . 1 / .. .. .. -. � \. • �.".. .. .. a f �.. �• :. 1 ,. .� . .� .. .. ...� .... .._.s .. ....-. .a. .. _. ._.... r --.. v..�:...z _ -. �. .t ,. 1 . r '. -.�-....:. .' .-. ... .. „.. R . 'x. .... .. _.. _ .. ... :.....a... .:..... _.. ../..,. ,. ... '.......t. .a :._. .'. .:. ....w ...+a •....D .uli:. r. ."a,.l.-..a ... ....... �.. :. ...-..; J.=s ..... ..... ...... .. _ .� '_7' ... _. D r i r