HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-02-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - RESO 92 40 TTM 12387 (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval l�'T /+`'D
Item to be presented by:
A
CONSENT CALENDAR Lynn M. Harris c
DATE: February 11, 1992
SUBJECT: Resolution 92-40 formally upholding the Planning
Commission's denial of Tentative Parcel Map 12387, to
create four new lots on the 5.23 acre parcel located in the
vicinity of 21090 Placerita Canyon Road,. approximately 270
feet south of the intersection of Placerita Canyon Road and
Choke -Cherry Lane (identified by Assessor's Parcel Number
for the site is 2833-003-075.)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
On January 28, 1992, the City Council voted 5-0 to uphold the Planning
Commission's decision denying Tentative Parcel Map 12387, thereby denying
the appeal of Steve Minks (the applicant.) Pursuantto this action,
staff has prepared a draft resolution upholding the denial of this
proj ect.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution 92-40, formally upholding the Planning Commission's
denial of Tentative Parcel Map 12387.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 92-40
MJC:546
Adopted: - ���
,93d" Item:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-40
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION P91-42, DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12387
TO CREATE FOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS
LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF 21090 PLACERITA CANYON ROAD
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council 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 applicantproposedto 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. This project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff prepared an
Initial Environmental Assessment for this project. Staff has
determined. that specific issues must be resolved before a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect could be. adopted
for this project.
C. 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 25%. This project has also been reviewed for
compliance with the draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside
Development Ordinance. The average slope of the property is
33X, and when applied to the Hillside regulations yields a
maximum density of 0.7 dwelling units per acre. This would
allow a maximum of three dwelling units for this property.
d. The surrounding uses are low density equestrian -oriented
residential.
e. 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.
Resolution 92-40
Page 2
f. 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. At that
hearing the Planning Commission voted (4-1) to deny this
proposal. On October 1, 1991 the Planning Commission formerly
adopted Resolution P91-42 denying Tentative Parcel Map 12387.
g. On October 11, 1991 the City Clerk received an appeal of .the
Planning Commission's denial of this of this project. The
appeal was made by Hale and Associates on behalf of Steve Minks,
the applicant.
h. A duly noticed public hearing of the City Council was held for
this appeal on January 28, 1992 at the City Council Chambers,
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, at 6:30 p.m.
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 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 General Plan
components:,
Land Use :Element Goal No. 2: 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:
2.9 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.
2.12 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.
4.12 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.
Resolution 92-40
Page 3
5.1 Allow only responsible and sensitive development of
hillside areas and prohibit development on ridgelines
designated as "Significant Ridgelines.°
5.2 Ensure that new development, grading, and landscaping
are sensitive to the natural topography and major landforms
in the planning area.
5.6 Preserve and protect oak and mature specimen size
trees and other endangered indigenous plant and animal
communities, from excessive and incompatible development.
6.3 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.
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 and Conservation 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.
Resolution 92-40
Page 4
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-28, 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.
•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-3).
This proposed subdivision would impact the adjacent neighborhood
by diminishing its rural character through increasing traffic
flow volumes. Proposed lot configurations are insensitive to
the natural topography, major landforms, and oak trees on and
adjacent to the project site.
As proposed, this project would create three new building sites
in addition to the existing single family dwelling at the site.
This would exceed the appropriate residential density for this
area, given the topography and natural vegetation. Definitive
information on pad locations and possible encroachment into ,the
protected zones of oak trees has not be submitted.
C. Access to the project site has not been established, and is in
conflict with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's
Saugus Pipeline easement. The limitations on the existing 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. 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
Resolution 92-40
Page 5
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 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 General Plan, and otherwise required in order to integrate
the proposed use of the subject property with the .uses in the
surrounding area.
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.
Resolution 92-40
Page 6
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). The density reduction for this
project is a maximum of 0.70 dwelling units per acre, based on
the average slope of the site
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 5.6 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 owns
property in fee for its Second Los Angeles Aqueduct (Saugus
Pipeline) contiguous to the western boundary of the project
site. This property is identified as lot "J", and "Choke Cherry
Lane" on the tentative parcel 'map. The applicant has
incorrectly portrayed this easement as an available lot and
private roadway. It is actually the private property of the
Department of Water and Power, and is not available for public
use.
THEREFORE, THE . City Council OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA does
resolve as follows:
The City Council hereby denies Steve Minke's appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision denying Tentative Parcel Map 12387 to create a
four lot subdivision located at the 5.23 acre property located
approximately 300 feet south-east of the intersection of Choke Cherry
Lane and Placerita Canyon Road (identified by Assessor's Parcel
Number 2833-003-075 )
Resolution 92-40
Page 7
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED.this day of
Jill Klajic, Mayor
ATTEST:
Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) as
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I, Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution
was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the day of by the
following vote of the City Council:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAINED: Councilmembers:
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk