Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-06-23 - AGENDA REPORTS - CUP SINGLE FAMILY RESID (2)' AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented PUBLIC HEARING Lynn M. Harris 7CTRhJv ii DATE: June 23, 1992 SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Master Case .91-107 (Zone Change 91-004, .Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50488, Conditional Use Permit.91-016 and Oak Tree Permit 91-037) to allow for the development of a 31.8 acre parcel' with 45 single family residential lots and two open space lots located southeasterly of the intersection of Santa Clarita Drive and La Rochelle Drive in the Saugus area. Applicant: KKR Construction, Inc. . DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND On April 22, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P92-17 formally denying the above referenced project. The project site is an irregularly shaped parcel consisting of 31.8 acres. The site presently has three zoning designations - approximately 25 acres of the site are zoned R -A-7,500 (Residential Agriculture, 7,500 square foot .minimum lot size), six acres are A-2-2 (Heavy Agriculture, two acre minimum lot size),.and .5 acres are R-1-11,000 .(Single Family Residential, 11,000 square foot minimum lot size). The applicant is proposing to zone the entire "parcel RPD -1-5U (Residential Planned Development Zone, density of five units per acre). A conditional use permit is requested to cluster 45 residential lots and create two open space lots. As a part of the project, the applicant is requesting to remove four non -heritage size oak trees. Two significant ridgelines exist on the site with development proposed on both. The applicant has proposed grading of 295,000 cubic yards, which would be balanced on-site. The project site was previously included as a part of a 1987 subdivision request exceeding 500 units. Prior to the approval of that map, the County Regional Planning Commission omitted the area that comprises the subject site from the project. This portion was excluded because of geologic concerns associated with the previous design of the project. The applicant has since redesigned the project and has submitted a soils report indicating that the project -is feasible. The project site is designated RS (Residential Suburban, 3.4-6.6 dwelling units per acre, midpoint of five dwelling units per acre) by the City's General Plan. The project's density is 1.4 dwelling units per'acre. appi�Od�D .�� Agee altem. _ Page 2 The residential lots are proposed along the primary ridgeline at the eastern end of the site and along a portion of an identified secondary ridgeline at the western edge of the site. Approximately 11 acres along the secondary ridgeline, located between the two areas of the project site being. developed, would remain as open space. Cataro Drive would be extended from its present terminus to Pamplico Drive to provide access to the eastern portion of the project site and an existing house on .Santa Clarita Road would be removed to create a new road to access the western portion of the development. The project was reviewed by staff pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An initial study was prepared for this project. Based upon this initial study, staff determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and required that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared. Rather than prepare 'an EIR, the applicant requested that the project be scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The project was heard by the Planning Commission on April 7, 1992. During the Planning Commission's public hearing on the project, issues were raised regarding the project's consistency with the goals and policies of the General Plan relating to: 1) limiting development on ridgelines, and 2) promoting development which is consistent with topography, and 3) the compatibility of the project with the surrounding neighborhood. Seven persons spoke in opposition to the project. The concerns of the residents focused on the project's negative effects related to circulation, public safety, ridgeline development, and geologic hazards. Staff has received a total of 46 letters and one petition (containing 223 signatures) in opposition to the project. The applicant's attorney spoke in favor of the project requesting that the .Planning Commission grant a two month continuance to allow the project to be redesigned and to meet with surrounding residents. Following the public hearing, 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 the granting of a conditional use permit. Additionally, the Commission cited the failure by the applicant to proceed with the preparation of an EIR as another reason for denial. OPTIONS The City Council may: 1) Deny the project with or without prejudice, or; 2) Refer the project back to the Planning Commission for further review or possible re -design, or; 3) Conceptually approve the project for a given number of units, contingent upon the findings of the EIR, or; Page 3 4) Continue the item, determine that an EIR is, or is not, necessary, and direct staff and the' applicant to work with the local community, and return to the Planning Commission. Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Deny Master Case 91-107 (Zone Change 91-004, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50488, Conditional Use Permit 91-016; and Oak Tree Permit 91-037) and, 2) Direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the Council's consideration at the July 14, 1992 meeting. ATTACHMENTS Resolution P92-17 Planning Commission Staff Report Minutes April 7, 1992 Commission meeting Correspondence GEA:550 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 TO APPEAL PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF MASTER CASE NO. 91-107 (ZONE CHANGE 91-004, VESTING TENTATIVE•TRACT MAP 50488, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-016, AND OAK TREE PERMIT 91-037). THE LOCATION IS SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE INTERSECTION OF SANTA CLARITA ROAD AND LA ROCHELLE DRIVE AND THE APPLICANT IS KMR CONSTRUCTION PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita to appeal the Planning Commission denial of Master Case No. 91-107 (Zone change 91-004, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50488, Conditional Use Permit 91-016, and Oak Tree Permit 91-037).' The location is southeasterly of the intersection of Santa Clarita Road and La Rochelle Drive. The applicant is requesting to subdivide 31.8 acres into 45 -lots for single family residences and two open space lots. The site is presently vacant, is located on a significant primary and secondary ridgeline, and has 4 non -heritage size oak trees. The site presently, has three zoning designations, R -A-7,500 (Residential -Agricultural Zone, 11,000 square foot minimum lots size) and A-2-2 (Heavy Agricultural Zone, 2 acre minimum.lot size). A Zone Change has been requested to change the entire site. to RPD -1-5U (Residential Planned Development, density of 5 units per acre). This project would include the extension of Catero Drive to Pamplico Drive opposite Taryn Drive to serve 20 lots. A home at 27362 Santa Clarita Road would be removed. and a roadway constructed to provide access to 25 residential lots. A pedestrian walkway and child play area would be constructed on one of the open space lots. The density of this project is 1.45 dwelling units per acre. The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 23920 Valencia blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the .23rd day of June, 1992, 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, California. 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. DATED: May 28, 1992 Donna M.,Grindey, CMC City Clerk PUBLISH DATE: June 1, 1992 TARYN vkr VE Nay 6 1 52 f}1 `9Y May 6, 1992 Ms. Donna Grindy City Clerk City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Master Case No. 91-107; Zone Change No. 91-004; Vesting Tract Map No. 50488; Conditional Use Permit No. 91-016; Oak Tree Permit No. 91-037 Dear Ms. Grindy: The purpose of this letter is to appeal the Planning Commission's denial on April 22,` 1992 of the above -listed cases. At the time of the hearing we presented testimony that it was our desire to postpone the hearing in order to give us an opportunity to redesign the project (1) to comply with the General Plan's hillside policies, (2) to voluntarily comply with the City's; new hillside management ordinance, and (3) to work with the neighboring residents in an attempt to meet their concerns. This request for postponement was denied. Very truly yours, KMR CONSTRUCTION, INC., a California Corporation By: SCOTT CRAWFORD Vice President of Development JSC/ko C: Sandler & Breier #2 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 250 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660-5915 714/759-7770 misc.sc136 m CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 1 23920 VALENCIA BLVD., SUITE 300 • SANTA Cl- RITA 91355 (805) 259.2489 `CASk`RECEIPT:"°' _" .. DATE: RECEIVED OF: 1a Lf i tr `ti.[`7' ADDRESS: 7 CrrvaZIP: c � PHONE NO: () DRIVERS LICENSE NO.: O �i CASH CHECK N0. �'2' . �%�S ILC M I ARS I CENiS CASH RECEIPT N0. 314$0``J ECEIVED HY DEPARTMENT COPY t _ I I _ _ I c l - I 1 I I I I - I I ' I I I I O �i CASH CHECK N0. �'2' . �%�S ILC M I ARS I CENiS CASH RECEIPT N0. 314$0``J ECEIVED HY DEPARTMENT COPY City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 City of Santa Clarita California 91355 May 7, 1992 Phone (805) 259.2489 Fax (805) 259.8125 KMR Construction, Inc. 12 -Civic Plaza 1250 Newport -Beach, CA 92660 ATTN: Mr. Doug Wilson RE: MASTER CASE NUMBER 91-107 ZC 91-004, VTTM 50488, CUP 91-016, DTP 91-037 Southeasterly of the intersection of Santa- Clarita Road and La Rochell Drive Dear Applicant: At its meeting of April 22, 1992, the Planning commission denied the above item. Enclosed is a signed copy. of Resolution No. P92-17 for denial. This is a formal document stating the Commission's action. The City Clerk has received your request for an appeal of this decision. In a conversation between David Breier. and Richard Henderson this afternoon, Mr. Breier chose to have a Council hearing on June 23, 1992, rather than on May 24, 1992 or June 9, 1992, in order to allow staff more time to advertise this public hearing and prepare a staff report. Your appeal will be scheduled to be heard by the City Council at their regular meeting on June 23, 1992, at 6:30pm in the Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard. Applicants are requested to be in attendance at this hearing. Please be advised that the City Council may take action on your project even if you or your representatives are not present. Prior to your hearing, the following items are needed: 1. Fifteen copies of your tentative tract map must be submitted to the Community Development Department to my attention on or before June 10, 1992. These will be distributed to the City Council for their review. 2. The three public notice signs on the subject site must be changed to reflect the. new hearing .date and time. Letter to Doug Wilson May 7, 1992 Page 2 The wording on the sign must also state that this City Council public hearing .is for the purpose of appealing the Planning Commission decision. The signs must be corrected and in place on or before lune 8, 1992. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (805) 255-4330. Sincerely, LYNN M. HARRIS DIRECTOR OF C OM MUNITY DEVELOPMENT Laura Stotler Assistant Planner II LMH:LHS:508 Enclosure: Signed Copy of Resolution P92-17 CC: David Sreier Donna Grindey, City Clerky RESOLUTION NO. P92-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, DENYING PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE 91-004, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 50488, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-016, AND OAK TREE PERMIT 91-037 FOR THE 31.8 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE INTERSECTION OF SANTA CLARITA DRIVE AND LA ROCHELLE DRIVE IN THE SAUGUS AREA. (MASTER CASE NO. 91-107) 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 vesting tentative tract map (VTTM 50488) and Environmental Review was filed with the City of Santa Clarita by KMR.Construction, Inc. (the "applicant") on July 18, 1991. The property for which this application has been filed is located southeasterly of the intersection of Santa Clarita Drive and La Rochelle Drive in the Saugus area. (Assessor Parcel Numbers 2807-023-037 and 2807-023-038, a legal description of which is on file in the Department of Community Development.) b. Following review of the application for VTTM 50488, the applicant subsequently filed -an application for a zone change (ZC 91-004) and for a conditional -use permit (CUP 91-016) on November 5, 1991. On December 16, 1991, the applicant filed an application for an oak tree permit (OTP 91-037). C. ZC 91-004 is a request to change the zoning on the subject property to RPD -1-5U (Residential Planned Development Zone, density of 5 units per acre). The site presently has three zoning designations- approximately 25 acres are R -A-7,500 (Residential -Agricultural Zone, 7,500 square foot minimum lot size), 6 acres are A-2-2 (Heavy Agricultural Zone, 2 acre minimum lot size), and 0.5 acres are R-1-11,000 (Single Family Residential Zone, 11,000 square foot minimum lot size). d. VTTM 50488 requests subdivision of an irregularly-shaped 31.8 acre parcel into forty-five single family residential lots and two open space'lots. CUP 91-016 has been requested to allow clustering of the residential units to 'preserve open space as provided for -in the RPD -1-5U Zone. e. An OTP 91-037 has been requested to allow the removal of four oak trees. Three of these trees are on the subject property. The other • is to the east of the site in an area proposed for } off-site grading. The area where off-site grading is to occur is owned by the applicant. None of these oak trees are heritage size. An Oak Tree Report dated December 23, 1991 was prepared by McMullen Landscaping to evaluate this proposal. ISA (International Society of Arborists) values for the trees were provided totaling $36,304. f. The subject parcel is designated as 'RS (Residential Suburban, 3.4-6.6 dwelling units per acre, midpoint of 5 du/ac) by the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. The proposed density for the project is 1.4 du/ac. g. The subject site is a vacant hillside property. Two significant ridgelines exist on the site. and development is proposed on them. The average cross slope of the site is 44.5X. The applicant has proposed grading of 295,000 cubic yards of earth to be balanced on site. h. All surrounding uses are single family residential and have the same RS General Plan designation as the subject parcel. The proposal is an infill project. Surrounding single family lots in the R -A-7,500 Zone average 8,400 square feet in size. The smallest lot proposed is 5,600 square feet and ten of the proposed lots would be below 7,500 square feet. Eight' of the proposed lots would not be buildable, without a variance, under existing Municipal Code yard requirements. i. Access is proposed to the site from Catero Drive, Pamplico Drive and Santa Clarita Drive. To gain access from Santa Clarita Drive, an existing. residence at 27362 Santa Clarita Drive would be removed. Catero-presentlyends in a stub -out and would be extended to join Pamplico in a four-way intersection with Taryn Drive. J. The project applications were found to be incomplete on August 15, 1991, because a Zone Change and Conditional Use Permit were needed to process this proposal. A second incomplete letter, dated November 26, 1991, was sent requiring an oak tree permit application because oak tree removals would be required. The presence of oak trees was not disclosed on previous submittals. The application was deemed complete on December 31, 1991, and circulated for City Department and agency review. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee (DRC) met on January 30, 1992, to review this project. k. Thisproject was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study was prepared for this project dated January 29, 1992. Based upon this Initial Study, staff determined that this project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and required an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) be. prepared. Rather than prepare an EIR, the applicant requested that this project be scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing. Reso. P92-17 - 2 - 1. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 7, 1992, at 7:00 pm in 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 hearing of April 7, 1992, the Planning Commission considered the staff report prepared for this .project and received testimony on this proposal. b. The City's General Plan designation for the project site is Residential Suburban (RS), 3.4 - 6.6 dwellingunitsper acre, midpoint of 5. The project density of 1.4 unit per acre is below the range of densities for the RS designation. C. Based upon a review of the submitted.plan, the staff report and testimony at the public hearing on April 7, 1992, the subject property is not suitable for the type of development proposed because the project is not consistent with the City's General Plan policies limiting development on ,ridgelines, promoting development consistent the existing topography, requiring new development to be compatible with existing residential neighborhoods and preserving oak trees. Eight of the proposed lots would not be buildable, without a variance, under the existing Municipal Code yard requirements. d. The subject property contains two significant ridgelines as defined by the City's General Plan (p. CD -13,14). The ridgelines on this parcel are visible to a large number of people and from a large number of residences throughout the North Valencia/Seco Canyon area. The ridgelines on this parcel are visible from the major corridors of Seco Canyon Road and Copperhill Drive. This project is subject to review under the hillside policies of the General Plan. e. The General Plan states that '•hillside development should be designed to preserve or follow the natural contour of the land and reduce the amount of land alteration." (p. L-54). Land Uses Element policy 5.1 of the Land Use Element requires only "responsible and sensitive development of hillside area" is allowable. Land Use Element. policy 5.2 states that it is the City's duty to "ensure that` new development, grading, and landscaping are sensitive to the natural topography and major landforms in the planning area." Other General Plan policies relating to ridgeline preservation and hillside development include, but are not limited to, Land Use Element policy 2.2, Community Design Element policies 5.1 and 7.4, Open Space and Conservation Element policies 1.1, 1.3, 1.10, 2.1, 2.2, and' 2.4, and Housing Element policies 7.1, 7.4, and 7.5. General Plan policies calling for new development to be compatible with the Reso. P92-17 - 3 - surrounding neighborhood include, but are not limited -to, Land Use Element policy 6.2 which states that the City must "continue to provide for the development of new housing while ensuring that the character, scale, and density of new residential development, is sensitive, compatible and complementary to existing residential neighborhoods." The General Plan also contains numerous policies encouraging preservation of oak trees which include, but are not limited to, Land Use policies 2.2 and 5.6, Housing Element policies 7.2 and 7.5, Community Design Element policy 5.1, and Open Space and Conservation Element policies 1.1 and 3.2. f. A preliminary geology report. was submitted for this project which indicates that there are no known landslides on the site. A previous geologic report on the site indicated that there were landslides on the site. An Environmental Impact Report, which has yet to be prepared, would provide clarification of geologic issues. g. Because of potential impacts to soils; changes in topography and ground surface relief features, destruction, covering.• and modification of unique geographic features (ridgelines), water and wind erosion of soils, exposure to people and property to geologic hazards such as landslides, modifications of existing drainage, earth movement in excess of 10,000 cubic yards, development and grading on slopes greater than 25Z natural grade, increases in air emissions and deterioration of ambient air quality, change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants, reduction in the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants (oak trees), introduction of new species of plants into an area, change in the diversity and numbers of any species of animals, increases in existing noise levels, substantial alteration of the planned land use of the area which does not adhere to established development criteria, generation of additional vehicular movement, impacts upon existing -transportation systems, impacts to public services and solid waste and disposal systems, creation of a potential health hazards, obstruction of a scenic vista and view open to the public,_ creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view, detrimental visual impacts to the.surrounding area, an EIR is required for this project under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). An EIR has not been prepared for this project. SECTION 3. Based- upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission hereby -determines as follows; a. The' design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's General Plan because it is not in accordance with ridgeline development policies; neighborhood compatibility policies, and oak tree preservation policies. The project is also not consistent with policies requiring development to complement existing topography. Reso. P92-17 4 - b. The requested use may adversely affect the health, peace, comfort .or welfare of persons residing in the surrounding area; may be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site; and, may jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare because of potential soil and geology hazatds, visual impacts to the surrounding community, potential traffic, circulation, and transportation impacts, neighborhood compatibility, potential destruction of significant ridgelines, and removal of oak trees. C. The proposed lots are not consistent with the size of surrounding lots. Eight of the proposed lots would not be buildable, without a variance, under. existing Municipal Code yard requirements. d. An EIR is required for project approval and one was never prepared. SECTION 4: The Planning Commission hereby denies 2one.Change 91-004, to change the zoning of the site to RPD -1-5U, denies Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50488, a major land division to create 47 lots, denies - Conditional Use Permit 91-016 to allow for clustering of lots, and denies Oak Tree Permit 91-037. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of 1992. / G `r,Mrry . Chertingtcn,:Chairman Planning Commission ATTEST: t 0 Ly M. Harris( D ea ctor of Community Development Reso. P92-17 5 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 22nd day of April , 1992 by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Brathwaite, Modugno, Cherrington and.Woodrow NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ooughman LHS:494 Reso. P92-17 Donna M. Grindey City Clerk EW -10 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT Zone Change 91-004 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50488 Conditional Use Permit 91-016 Oak Tree Permit 91-037 MASTER CASE 91-107 DATE: April 7, 1992 TO: Chairman Cherrington and Members of the Planning Commission a'7i ti4� 1 FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development PROJECT PLANNERS: Laura Stotler, Assistant Planner Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner APPLICANT: KMR Construction LOCATION: Southeasterly of the intersection of Santa Clarita Road and La Rochelle Drive (Assessor Parcel Numbers 2807-023-037, 038). REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a zone change to RPD -1-5U (Residential Planned Development, density 5 units per acre), a Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit to subdivide 31.8 acres into 45 single family lots and 2 open space lots, and an Oak Tree Permit to allow the removal of 4 .non -heritage size oak trees. BACKGROUND: The project site was previously included as part of a 1987 subdivision request exceeding 500 units (Tentative Tract No. 34430 under the County). Prior to approval of that map, the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission omitted the area which is the subject of this map from the subdivision request. This portion was excluded because of concerns that lots were included in an area which was not geologically safe. The present proposal has a different lay -out and open space is proposed on the area where issues of geologic safety were previously raised. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project site has 31.8 acres with three zones: R -A-7,500 (Residential -Agricultural, 7,500 square foot minimum lot size), approximately 25 acres; A-2-2 (Heavy Agricultural Zone, 2 acre minimum lot size), approximately 7 acres; and, R-1-11,000 (Single -Family Residence Zone, 11,000 square foot minimum lot size), approximately 0.5 acres.. The requested zone change would make the entire site RPD -1-5U (Residential Planned Development, density of 5 units per acre). A Conditional Use Permit is requested to cluster 45 residential lots in the RPD zone.' The proposed density is 1.41 units per acre. The site is vacant with four non -heritage size oak trees and is surrounded by single family residences and planned Pamplico Park, adjacent to Foster Agenda Item: 0 Elementary School. An oak tree permit has been requested for removal of the four oaks. The hillside site does encompass a developed primary and undeveloped secondary ridgeline. The site has an average cross slope of 44.5%. The applicant is proposing to grade and balance 295,000 cubic yards of cut and fill on the site. The residential lots are proposed along the primary ridgeline at the eastern end of the site and along a portion of the secondary ridgeline at the western end of the site. The central section, comprising 11.1 acres along the secondary ridgeline, would remain as common open space. Cataro Drive would be extended to Pamplico Drive and an existing house on Santa Clarita Road would be removed to create a new road to the site. A pedestrian trail over the open space lots would link both sides of this project and a common play area for children would also be provided. All services and utilites are available and would be extended by the applicant to serve this project. Four public fire hydrants would be provided. Quimby fees would be required for park development. GENERAL PLAN/LAND USE/ZONING: The City's General Plan designation, existing zoning, and existing land use of the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: GENERAL PLAN ZONING PROJECT SITE RS R -A-7,500, A-2-2, R-1-11,000 North RS,OS R -A-7,500, R-1-8,000 East RS A-2-2, R-1-11,000 South RS R -A-7,500, R-1-11,000 West RS R -A-7,500 R-1-6,000 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: LAND USE Vacant Single Family, Planned Pamplico Park Single Family Single Family Single Family An Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project. It was determined in the Initial Study that this proposal may have significant impacts upon grading, and visual impacts. An EIR was required and no EIR has been prepared at this time. Should the Commission wish to approve this project, additional environmental documentation would be needed. A reduction of units and project redesign in accordance with hillside guidelines would probably result in no need for an EIR. INTERDEPARTMENT/INTERAGENCY REVIEW: Comments and recommendations were solicited from departments and agencies which would be affected by this project. Comments received were considered by the Community Development Department as part of the project review. As of the date this staff report was prepared, three inquiries were received from the public. -2- ANALYSIS: The proposed zone change from R -A-7,500, R-1-11,000 and A-2-2 to RPD -1-5U could be found to be consistent with the General Plan because the RS midpoint density of 5 units per acre is the same as the allowable density in the RPD -1-5U zone with approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed residential lots range in size from a minimum of 5,500 square feet for Lot 10 to a maximum of 24,000 square feet for Lot 5. Lots 3, 4, 10, 11, 37, 38, 39, and 42 are shallow and may not be usable without a variance in setback standards. The proposed density and lot sizes are consistent with the neighborhood; however, the existing residential lots were not developed as infill projects. Additional information is necessary to prove that all the proposed lots could be developed in accordance with all City standards. HILLSIDES and RIDGELINES The hillside property has steep terrain with an average cross slope of 44.7%. The applicant has submitted a slope analysis which states that 8 acres have less than 25Z slope, 4.4 acres have between 25X and 50% slope and 19.4 acres are greater than 50% slope.. Under the draft Hillside Ordinance, up to 24 units may be placed on this site. Under the County hillside density formula, a maximum of 62 units would be allowed. Portions of a primary north -south ridgeline and an east -west secondary ridgeline would be disturbed to accommodate Lots 26 through 45 and the extension of Cataro Drive. The primary ridgeline is developed and the secondary ridgeline is undisturbed. The residences along the Cataro extension would lie, on average, 40 feet to 50 feet below existing homes on the primary ridge. The secondary ridgeline would be significantly altered for the development of Lots 1 through 25. A pedestrian walkway and common play area are proposed on open space Lot 47. The walkway would be located below the highest points of the ridgeline so the ridgeline silhouette would not change. Walkway access would be through 30 to 45 -foot wide ingress/egress easements on Lots 16 and 17 and a 30 -foot wide ingress/egress easement on Lots 39 and 40. The open space lots and common recreational amenities would be maintained by a homeowners association. GRADING and DRAINAGE Grading of 295,000 cubic yards is proposed and would be balanced on-site. Earth would be transported from the western to the eastern portions of the site along the secondary ridgeline. Cut slopes are designed at slope ratios of 1.5.:1 to 3.5:1. Fill slopes are planned with gradients from 1.75:1 to 5:1; however, the site plan shows fill slopes at 1.5:1 east of Lots 34 through 38. Under the draft hillside ordinance, slopes are not to exceed 2:1. The highest proposed fill slope is 107 feet which is equivalent in height to slopes in the Shangri-La development which are above Soledad Canyon Road by Sierra Highway. Construction stabilization fills or shear keys may encroach into the pad areas of Lots 23 and 24, resulting in insufficient building area on both lots. An existing 1.5:1 fill slope descending from Lots 42 through 44, behind several homes on Guadilamar Drive and Los Rogues Drive, would be regraded at a 2:1 slope and the drainage would be improved. Some of the drainage devices on that slope have deteriorated due to lack of maintenance and would be rebuilt under this proposal. The Engineering Section has reviewed and accepted a soils and geotechnical report and a hydrology study for this project. -3- 3 1861TO Yfrl:NO{IRI The applicant is proposing to extend. Cataro Drive, which ends in a stub -out, to Taryn Drive at the intersection of Pamplico Drive. The extension of Cataro Drive would create loop circulation, improve access to schools and planned Pamplico Park and provide alternative access in emergencies. "Natalie Lane" would be constructed to serve the western portion of the site, necessitating the removal of a mid -block residence on Santa Clarita Road. A 5 -foot sideyard setback would be retained for homes on either side of Natalie Lane. All proposed streets would, meet public street standards and street grades would not exceed 12.4%. Approximately 450 vehicle trips would be generated by this project and roadway capacity is sufficient to handle this increase. OAK TREES Four non -heritage size oak trees have been identified within the project area and are proposed for removal. Three of these oaks may be saved if there were no grading on the western portion of the site. However, since development on the eastern portion of the site would require dirt from the western portion in order to balance the grading on-site, the trees may have to be removed for any development on the site. An Oak Tree Report which has been accepted by the City's Oak Tree Consultant places the ISA value of the oaks at $36;304. Oak trees are proposed to be planted on slopes throughout the project in an amount equal to the ISA value. VISUAL IMPACTS Staff has concerns that the visual impacts of this project would be significant. Grading would occur to the rear of approximately 75 homes on La Rochelle, Santa Clarita Road, Aguadero Place, Denoya Drive, Los Rogues Drive, Guadilamar Drive, Cataro Drive, Garza Drive and Catala Avenue. Since this site is along significant ridgelines, this project would be visible to a large number of residents in the North Valencia/Seco Canyon area. Staff feels that additional visual analysis is necessary to adequately assess the visual impacts of this project. GENERAL PLAN POLICIES Although the project meets the density requirements of the General Plan RS designation, staff is concerned that the proposed hillside grading, impacts to the surrounding single-family neighborhood, disturbance of the significant ridgelines, and visual impacts may be found to be inconsistent with other General Plan policies. Land Use Element policy 5.1 states that only "responsible and sensitive development of hillside areas" is allowable. Land Use Element policy 5.2 states that it is the City's responsibility to "ensure that new development, grading, and landscaping are sensitive to the natural topography and major landforms in the planning area." And, Land Use Element policy 6.2 states that the City must "continue to provide for the development of new housing while ensuring that the character, scale, and density of new residential development is sensitive, compatible and complimentary to existing residential neighborhoods." This project may be found to be inconsistent with text in the General Plan which states that "hillside developments should be designed to preserve or follow the natural contour of the land and reduce the amount of land alteration." (p. L-54). -4- a STAFF CONCERNS The maximum density of 24 units under the proposed Hillside Ordinance may be unrealistic for this site due to other environmental constraints. Development of residences on the western portion of the site would disturb the character of the existing neighborhood through grading to the rear of their property. To encourage neighborhood compatibility, staff would favor a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet, the size of lots immediately surrounding most of the project site. The addition of a roadway off Santa Clarita Road would change the character of that street. The extension of Catero Road would necessitates substantial grading in order to build a base for the roadway over what is presently two valleys and a ridge. This roadway extension would also bisect a portion of a secondary ridgeline. A relatively flat area exists at the terminus of Catero Drive which may allow for some development with limited impacts to the ridgelines. Given the steep terrain, it is likely that any development of it will require extensive grading. The geology report indicates that grading is necessary to ensure stability. A redesign of this project for fewer lots may not necessarily significantly reduce the amount of grading needed to make this site buildable. Because of this, a redesign of the project may not allow for preservation of all of the oak trees. Presently, the applicant is proposing to balance grading on-site as provided for in the draft Hillside Ordinance. Staff is concerned that any redesign should also balance grading on site. The applicant may wish to explore an alternative design which would extend Catero Drive as a cul-de-sac, provided that grading would remain balanced, the minimum lot size would be 7,500 square feet and the number of lots would be reduced to conform to the number of lots permitted under the draft Hillside Ordinance. Staff would also recommend that the applicant follow all the design recommendations of the draft Hillside Ordinance. Staff has recommended that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared for this project because this project is anticipated to have significant impacts. The applicant has requested this hearing, although he is aware that staff does not support this project as proposed. Staff has scheduled this hearing at the applicant's request. The applicant has indicated a willingness to redesign the project as directed by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: Deny Zone Change 91-004, VTTM 50488, CUP 91-016, and OTP 91-037. OR Direct the applicant to redesign the project to reduce grading, keep all lots a minimum of 7,500 square feet, and reduce the number of lots to a maximum of twenty-four residential lots. LHS:468 -5- S EXCERPT FROM THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Tuesday April 7, 1992 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 6: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 50488, ZONE CHANGE 91-004, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-016 and OAR TREE PERMIT 91-037 (MASTER CASE 91-107) - Southeasterly of the intersection of Santa Clarita Road and La Rochelle Drive. Acting Director Henderson introduced the project, a subdivision of 31.8 acres into 45 lots for single-family residences, and 2 open space lots. A Zone Change is requested to RPD -1-5U from R -A-7,500, R-1-11,000 and A-2-2. A Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow clustering, and an Oak Tree Permit is requested to remove 4 non -Heritage size oak trees. Assistant Planner Laura Stotler gave the staff report and slide presentation.. Chairman Cherrington opened the public hearing at 8:02.p.m.. The following persons gave testimony. Mr. David H. Breier, 10850 Wilshire Boulevard #1075, Los Angeles, CA. Mr. Breier, applicant, asked that the Planning Commission give him a two month period to redesign the project. Mr. R. W. Mackey, 27411 Santa Clarita Road, Santa Clarita, CA. Mr. Mackey, representing the homeowners, spoke in opposition to the project, and asked the Commission to deny the project based on the stability, drainage and traffic impacts. Mr. Richard Callison, 27445 Santa Clarita Road, Saugus, CA. Mr. Callison spoke in opposition to the project due to the impacts on the ridgelines. Mr. Clifford Terry, 27539 Catala, Saugus, CA. Mr. Terry, representing the homeowners of Catala Ridge, spoke in opposition to the project due to the negative environmental impacts. Mr. Mike Lyons, 27363 Garza Drive, Saugus,. CA. Mr. Lyons spoke in opposition to the project, and asked the Commission to deny the project. Mr. Benjie Osmanson, 27332 Santa Clarita Road, Saugus, CA. Mr. Osmanson spoke in opposition to the project, and stated that the construction•of this project would take away his play areas and create a safety problem. Mrs. Donna Osmanson, 27332 Santa Clarita Road, Saugus, CA. .Mrs. Osmanson spoke in opposition to the project as it would compromise child safety. - 1 - Ms. Donna Nuzzi, 22568 Fenwall, Saugus, CA. Ms. Nuzzi spoke in opposition to the project due to the negative traffic impacts. Mr. Breier gave a rebuttal to the previous comments. Chairman Cherrington closed the public hearing at 8:52 p.m.. Comments from the Planning Commission followed. Vice -Chairman Woodrow motioned for the denial of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50488, Zone Change 91-004, Conditional Use Permit 91-016 and Oak Tree Permit 91-037, Commissioner Modugno seconded the motion, and the project was denied by a vote of 5-0. ADJOUBNIEW At 10:47 p.m., Commissioner Modugno motioned, Commissioner Brathwaite seconded, and it was carried by a vote of 5-0 to adjourn the meeting to the special adjourned meeting of April 22, 1992. e Jerr�?Cherrington, Chairman Planning Commission ATTEST: Lynn M. Harrit, Director Community Development Department CD:lf:143 - 2 - -4 - �=CAA' scc U [< Y / i, t,- 0 LL I s1.Y'1H c, i 9 R x PEARsoN C, L wGE 111Annao Da PL ON-C. E, 6 S.NA�S CI MI Op I J 5 I 3 6 1 'I \ 4 I P I `,'";;' DN r / I I h -I II I I —, I -I_ HAZEL T I Eder I I so"CLIN " DN DR v I BLa C..FP nOVS( CL `AI �UPEv.ICI —��- 0.pCKPIOOE CI I r(', 1E'c HANDOq LL 1 I J ( ,n rELELq.PH HILL a ; _ , I lr B N U c C]r L{` Cl G<MBLf rIOVSE CL D<e.LAND CT I °LxLm- I BAR HAABOA n! 1 1 }. I, APNM1EV ..0115CI i,(Eob EA RG I - - -�,:- - - - - - - - ° SV`'M9 �W - i ° I-S[E-v1�+ _ V 1aD °P It I- ASPEN^5 g`°APE Q' C DR__ I I OIwLLTOP \ PW ^ Ot i `10PPCC44 Cl�'l I , MODE']IM. OR� t- T AIDED LLFX Clfl P f (i m J LfY CASION i'L_T I I ] PINf BINK ON 'ytL 2 PINE COVE CIN f 1 ci " Qz I I:I a e Eu5^*pN OP fPAqW000 F u ESI / ] LAUREL CREEK Gfl •S >t yip BP1 GT �O FA t1^ \ 1 6 LAPRM4N °fl NSI- GP I �] . BEECHNUT CIP C9' 'I RDG 9 q] 4 O NF =J II rV ICALw U Si \ : 5 BNADwM1 O Py� r A9 W tl l ] DANDELt.IN DA °Ar. OR MVELLfI' 2 ] T a W �7 co �- PL( 1 NDLENO c R s I u=I w-V In x rrEP a <I 1/j i p =1F nwuer c..+i o I% (\ I BIRCH GLEN °N // (♦ I 1 xvnuaM vlEwa �By I 9 y Je- .W°IDI s' J o Irn/ 1 0"` .�"._�.! ° yo r r' j0. I -♦ AE080d EYJ x , R G 3I� 00 ce V �t of f 'I G1'I''.COn(m =S \ 0 1 I OeQ o/ C ICI i z ~ 1 A RaHfR( SCEP t, 9�T ° 0.51 O r NOL C. . S QQa GI Q vz ruME I r z� fy yG �. ``� t ° tA" :-._'; o a z � NUTM LN .. fH A otic N FF PL ♦ L RIDGE F ° aJ Rr:::�-: o UR _ni I. x' f ,cu. 4EP K fllOnt of ♦,R\��PO EOP 0 y `PK v �I " OZ I f'90 I UY I Oq ; coNN o u y cI 'I\ 1.109u CT wV od N' DR of mph c'"Ais. �< ° "A Lr• m V2 RE)T U) ALApnOT.f' p•" ..l \SAUGUS. fC t SEE B B9_ xPIOP _ EVE -Ll� 2 SIVAL Clp- - ` !�7- T - TAIQLU '10 GRAZP ry EC 0-bR»a p y 9L (Q \ t 2 q HC,E U` ` .r O/ \ l VIA TURINA DR s D N AR RO a p O,PyP '.t .: 1 4N LN- R .. / I {{ MONT lLA LN ARP �°�D iP h \ f I P L UE - ffA \ dP.. "{' Cq E0.1 o r O0. BVI„ PP INIOJe 9 \ x ° GELAAMINN 6. !C ":f.HN)o EL<q r .% l TIERRAHHDPZ�.•' 2r , I —1 '1 SQQMPRA$ Ci EP>P 1l I I —� 5 Vf� CATALINA p I i "1 e l�1 `\ (rO J� U�\i 11 4y IN SPIT, DA 1°e-a� P a °P S G ' - `� 0� 61.eEAMNI GE. -"`<O q 2f 'y. COA - - �r m BABER ERIA CT lq xl AfABLE CT 4 C/.PISTPANO RT r nfs� p V) 1 I I 92♦ I 1 I 1 IIrT .1. YIV POSAOCT OO--.PJ. ; W \ C' ..L`,YL ,Y N GINOA UNA CT (((m<QJ y.9 m p sau RC' N N � tP FFIE U m W i �C SEE ©E[ <� 27 A ERICAN AV u \. ° v' a I / , o I. ESNAnA DR RANCH I ! t 1 2. ALCDN DR I ♦\\ : GAEE.SLEF 6. ^••• ^0 ,\ 2 DIANE MA' I eo '♦J i 9 - - AMA CIA PA q AN' RE; ° >q� F�wo,,... PROXIMITY MAP Es4L ono T re 'ti �4p I 13100 \ A = o i/v Mj Ro I oP ° 04 / I ' P P t _ Z Q' SAUGUS C1VIC UB \P() • 1'1".,1 SPFE°WAtO v I' 1\l� v r y CENTER \9 r 1 p I �� ' a 126 I 0 E"LE "o ;x%10 \\ I 2 \ R ' Ix N LI tR\I"0 I sp 9 B� E 2 ° .A�1. _ .A II L!BC a