Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-02-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - RESO 92 45 MC 90 102 (2)AGENDA REPORT City ManagerApproval Item to be presented, CONSENT CALENDAR Lynn 9 Hag's " �' 4�� DATE: February 25, 1992 SUBJECT: Resolution 92-45 formally upholding the Planning Commission's denial, without prejudice, of Master Case No. 90-102, for a zone change, tentative tract map, conditional use permit, and oak tree permit. The project site is located fronting on the south side of Cross Street at the intersection of Wildwood Road (identified by Assessor's Parcel Numbers 2827-026-11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24,- and 2827-016-21, 22, 23, 24.) DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND On February 11, 1992, the City Council voted 5-0 to uphold the Planning Commission's decision denying Master Case No. 90-102, thereby. denying, without prejudice, the appeal of the Hemsminack Development Company (the applicant.) Pursuant to this action, staff has prepared a draft resolution upholding the denial of this project without prejudice. The applicant would be allowed to resubmit a revised project within one year without paying the City's required filing fee. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution 92-45, formally upholding the Planning Commission's denial of Master Case No. 90-102 (2C 90-006; TTM 47691; CUP 90-012; OTP 90-027). 1. Resolution 92-45 JC:562 Adopted: j as— qj- Agenda Item: RESOLUTION NO. 92-45 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING MASTER CASE NO. 90-102 (ZONE CHANGE 90-006; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 47691; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-012; OAK TREE PERMIT 90-027) FOR REZONING TO RPD 7500 (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, 7,500 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM); 114 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS; GRADING OF 1,020,000 CUBIC YARDS OF EARTH; REMOVAL OR ENCROACHMENT OF AN UNDETERMINED NUMBER OF OAK TREES FOR THE APPROXIMATELY 102 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CROSS STREET AT THE INTERSECTION OF WILDWOOD CANYON ROAD, CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS Italedlei^631 SECTION 1. ' The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. An application for a tentative tract map was filed on May. 7, 1990, by the Hemsminack Development Company ("the applicant"). The property for which this entitlement has been filed is located fronting on the south side of Cross Street at the intersection of Wildwood Road. The Assessor's Parcel Numbers for the site are 2827-026-11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, and 2827-016-21, 22, 23, 24. The project site is approximately 102 acres in total area, and consists of an undulating hillside with rugged mountain terrain. The average slope of the property is 39.52, and approximately 39 acres of the project site is occupied by slopes of 50Z or greater. The south, east, and west sides of the project site are bordered by "significant ridgelines". At least 550 oak trees exist on the site. Access to the site is taken from Cross Street, and on-site circulation is provided by dirt roads. The site. is currently vacant, but has been used as a livestock ranch in the past. The applicant's proposal includes the following: 1. Rezoning of 90 acres zoned "A-2-1" (Heavy Agricultural, one acre minimum lot size) and 12 acres zoned "A-1-7500" (Light Agricultural, 7500 square foot minimum lot size), to "RPD 7500-1.2 DU" (Residential Planned Development; 7500 square foot minimum lot size; 1.2 dwelling units per acre). 2. A tentative tract map to subdivide the project site into 114 single family lots with open space areas. 3. A conditional use permit to allow residential planned development .and on-site grading of 1,020,000 cubic yards of earth for proposed roads and building pads. 4. An oak tree permit for the removal or encroachment of 550 oak trees. Resolution 92-45 Page 2 b. The applicable zoning for this property is A-1-7500 (Light Agricultural, 7500 square foot minimum lot size zone). and A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural, one acre minimum lot size zone). Three of the City's General Plan land use designations have been applied to this property. Approximately two acres of the project site fronting on the south side of Cross Street is designated "ResidentialLow (1.1-3.3 dwelling units per acre)". Approximately 50 acres of the northern half of the project site is designated "Residential Very Low (0.5-1.0 dwelling units per acre)". Approximately 50 acres of the southern half of the project site with the steepest slopes is designated "Residential Estate (0.0-0.5 dwelling units per acre)". This project has also.been reviewed for compliance with the draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. C. The uses adjacent to the project site are residential. d. The application was circulated for City Department and agency review upon receipt. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee (DRC) met on June 14, 1990 to discuss the project and additional information and revisions needed from the applicant. City staff also provided the applicant with preliminary recommended conditions. e. This project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff prepared an Initial Environmental Assessment for this proposal and determined that specific issues (regarding primary and secondary access, grading, drainage, oak tree removal and encroachment, residential density, and hillside development) must be resolved prior to the adoption of any environmental document for this project. f. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 15, 1991 at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. A motion was made and the Planning Commission voted (5-0) to deny this project. At the meeting of November 5, 1991 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution' P91-53 formerly denying Master Case Number 90-102. g. On November 25, 1991 the City Clerk received an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Master Case Number 90-102,. The appellant was the Hemsminack Development Company, the applicant. h. A duly noticed public hearing of the City Council was held on the appeal on February 11, 1992, at the City Council chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, at 6:30 p.m. I 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 City Council and on its behalf, the City Council further finds as follows: a. At the public hearing of February- 11, 1992 the City Council considered the Hemsminack Development Company's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Master Case Number 90-102. Kesolution 92-45 Page 3 b. The City's General Plan Land Use designations. for the project site are RL "Residential .Low (1.1-3.3 dwelling units per acre)", RVL "Residential Very Low (0.5-1.0 dwelling units per acre)", and RE "Residential Estate (0.0-0.5 dwelling units per acre)". The proposed use of the property for residential development is consistent with this land use. designation. However, the proposed project.density of 1.2 dwelling units per acre is. not consistent with the prescribed densities and policies of the City's General Plan. This proposal is not consistent with the Land Use, Community Design, Open Space and Conservation, and Circulation elements of the City's General Plan. Specifically, this proposal is in conflict with the following General Plan components: Land Use Element Policies: 1.10 "Consider the establishment of additional Significant Ecological Areas where unique environmental or geological conditions exist.or may be created by future land uses." The undeveloped acreage of this project site is adjacent to existing open space areas, including La Salle Canyon to the south, which provides valuable habitat to biological communities, including oak trees on and adjacent to the project site. This proposal would eliminate approximately 100 undeveloped acres, through grading and placement of structures, which currently provide habitat area, high quality watershed, and physical buffering between existing open space and residential land uses. 2.12 "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." As proposed, this project and associated grading would encroach upon a primary significant ridgeline and two secondary significant ridgelines, as well as requiring the encroachment or removal of an undetermined number of the 550 existing oak trees at the project site. The proposed subdivision design and 1,020,00 cubic yards of grading is insensitive to the natural topography, and would require extreme modification to these major landforms, and removal or encroachment of oak trees on and adjacent to the project -site. The size, shape, and location of the proposed lots does not incorporate the natural topography into the project design. The. applicant has not incorporated contour grading into the plan, which.would minimize grading impacts by providing physical continuity- with the natural topography. The changes in the existing natural topography will create disruptions to drainage flow and direction on and off the project site due to the massive grading, excessive bench -cuts, and construction of artificial slopes for the proposed roads, driveways, and building pads of this project. 4.1 "Establish a land use pattern that is constructed around a framework of established greenbelts and a linear system of Resolution 92-45 Page 4 equestrian, pedestrian and bike trails tied to the primary network of the river corridor." The applicant has not included any equestrian trails or bike paths into the design of this project. Large developments such as this would be conditionally required to participate in implementing this network of trails and open space. 5.2 "Ensure that new development, grading, and landscaping are sensitive to the natural topography and major landforms in the planning area." As shown on the applicant's grading plan, several areas of the site would require excavation and emplacement of earth to accommodate the proposed building pads, driveways, and internal access roads. Landform grading has not been included in the design of this project to provide continuity with existing site topography. Proposed grading includes abrupt landform modification which would disrupt the natural topography across the entire site. Grading is proposed on slopes which exceed 50Z in grade, and upon the three significant ridgelines which border the west, east and south of the project site. The project grading plan shows earth work which would create abrupt broad and flat surfaces, truncated cuts and fills, bulky and obtrusive artificial slopes, and a profile of angular terraces on the hillsides and ridgelines. 5.6 "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 adequate information to determine the impacts that this .project may have 'on the 550 oak trees or existing botanical community present at the project site. It is anticipated that 1,020,000 cubic yards of grading on this property will have an adverse effect upon the biotic community, present at the project site. Without this information the character of the plant and animal community at the site, and the appropriate recommendations for project site design cannot be made. 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." The proposed project at this site exceeds the appropriate density for hillside and ridgeline development. The proposed 114 building sites is excessive for this property, given the topography and limited access to the site, and would be incompatible with the existing residential development in the immediate vicinity. This project would exceed the recommended midpoint dwelling density for the residential land use designations applicable to this project site, and for development within and upon hillsides and significant Resolution 92-45 Page 5 ridgelines. Calculating the number of total dwelling units using the midpoint density ratios indicates that 54 dwelling units would be the maximum allowable for this property. Because the average .slope of the project site is 39.52, and significant ridgelines with slopes greater than 5OX are present, the density reduction specified by the draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance would only allow a maximum. of 13 building sites to be placed upon the project site. As such, this project is inconsistent with the General Plan. 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." The community in which this property is located is characterized by the presence of significant ridgelines; hillsides, and oak woodland. This proposed project would not retain the existing topography, significant ridgelines, and the 550 oak trees present at the project site due to the size, shape and location of the proposed new lots. Grading for access roads, driveways,. and building pads would result in the abrupt modification of these major land forms and significant vegetation. A significant primary ridgeline traverses the southern portion of the property, and' significant secondary ridgelines traverse the eastern and western portions of the property. The existing significant ridgelines provide a visual and physical buffer, and aesthetic relief between the project site and adjacent residential properties. This proposed subdivision would impact the adjacent neighborhood by diminishing its rural character through increasing traffic flow volumes, grading natural landforms, oak tree removal, alteration of natural drainage patterns, disrupting open space and eliminating natural habitat areas, and encroachment onto significant ridgelines. 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." The applicant's proposal does not incorporate any of the natural amenities of the project site into its design. The' design of the proposed subdivision and associated grading requires the removal of these natural amenities. Excavation and emplacement of earth will remove vegetation and landforms,. including 550 oak trees and the significant ridgelines at the project site. Grading activities will also alter the site drainage pattern. A drainage concept has not been approved for this.project. 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." Resolution 92-45 Page 6 The proposed development would result in the encroachment upon the significant ridgelines present at the project site, thereby eliminating existing visual and physical buffers. The existing ridgelines on the east and west portions of the project site provide a visual and physical buffer between the project site and adjacent residential development. The significant ridgeline on the southern portion of the project site provides a visual and physical buffer between La Salle Canyon and the project site. This major feature must be utilized as open space to preserve the rural character of this planning area, and to provide a transition between the existing residential areas and undeveloped open space areas. Preservation of the available existing open space would also help maintain existing viable natural ecosystems. 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 open space within the planning area." The project, as designed, does not utilize the existing natural features at the site as open space. The proposed internal access roads do not follow any natural contour line of the existing hillside. The proposed roads, driveways, and building pads are located in such a way that bench cuts into the hillsides would be needed to implement this development. This would require the manufacturing of artificial slopes which do not conform to the size, shape, and continuity of the site topography. Lots and roads on the periphery. of the development encroach upon significant ridgelines with substantial vegetation, and would require profile modification of these significant ridgelines in order to allow the proposed residential development. The project design does not preserve these features or utilize hillsides or ridgelines as physical or aesthetic amenities of this project. 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." The open space areas designed into this project provide buffer areas between the residential lots within the project development, along an identified earthquake fault zone, and between the residential area and the unstable hillside along the southern portion of the project site. These open spaces would be graded areas used to control Resolution 92-45 Page 7 on-site drainage, but would not preserve or maintain the viability of existing oak woodland habitat or related ecosystems. 1.10 "Establish and implement landform grading standards which minimize the impact of grading operations and foster replication of naturally recurring landforms." The applicant's proposed grading concept does not provide any continuity to the existing topography at the project site. The project grading plan indicates that 1,020,000cubic yards of earth shall be moved. As shown on the grading plan, the finished grading would result in abrupt, truncated and obtrusive artificial landforms disrupting the existing topography at the project site. 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." This proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with the City's draft. Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. This ordinance will implement the General Plan goals and policies regarding ridgeline and hillside development. To achieve this, density reductions are recommended for development on hillsides with average slopes ranging from 10X to 49X, precluding any development upon slopes of 50X or greater. The averageslope of the project site is 39.5X, and approximately 39 acres is occupied by slopes exceeding 50X. The strict application of this draft ordinance indicates that this property could only be developed with a maximum of 13 dwelling units. The project design would require ridgeline modification to accommodate several of the proposed lots and streets on the periphery of the development. As designed, this project does not comply with the recommended density reductions of the City's draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. 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." The grading required to accommodate the proposed nine residential lots, driveways, and site access, is not consistent with the General Plan policies regarding preservation of significant ridgelines, natural landforms, or significant vegetation. Even without a defined slope rating system, this project has not been designed with sensitivity to the existing natural landforms or oak trees at the project site, due to the volume and design of the grading proposed for the project. 2.4 "Protect and provide for scenic vista points, where consistent with other policies of this plan, for protection of ridgelines and sensitive development techniques." Resolution 92-45 Page 8 This proposal includes development upon significant ridgelines. Protection to these significant ridgelines would not be provided due to the size, shape, and location of roads, driveways, and building pads. Landform grading has been identified as a topography -sensitive development technique, but has not been incorporated into the design of this project. 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." The applicant is proposing to have access to the project site directly from Cross Street which currently does not meet the Subdivision Code design standards (specified in Chapter 21.24 LOCAL STREETS AND WAYS). This existing road. has a width of 40 feet and would need to be widened to 60 feet. Such widening would impact existing residences and oak trees existing along Cross Street. Currently, adequate access is not available to the project site. The project site shares a single means of access with approximately 161 other existing lots in the immediate vicinity (from the intersection of Maple and Cross Street south to the terminus of Wildwood Canyon Road). Subdivision Code Section 21.24.020 requires that if a street or street system is restricted to a single means of access, then the street or street system shall not serve more than 150 dwelling units. Therefore, the street system serving the project is currently over capacity. Circulation Element Policies: 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). The applicant has not acquired an adequate primary access, nor provided evidence to assure that adequate accesses will be available to serve the project site. Furthermore, this project would require a secondary access which has not been demonstrated. Therefore the access to this property is such that development of new residential lots is inappropriate at the present time. C. 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. Resolution 92-45 Page 9 d. This project will have a significant effect on the environment, due to drainage pattern disruption, oak tree encroachment and removal, grading upon hillsides and ridgelines, and inadequate access. e. 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, due to substantial loss of oak woodland habitat and erosion associated with proposed grading. f. 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. h. 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, has no viable primary and secondary access available, does not preserve oak trees, hillsides, or ridgelines, and is inconsistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City General Pian. SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby determines as follows: a. The design of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City General Plan and does not comply with the draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. The density exceeds that allowed per the General Plan Land Use designations applicable to the project site. Adequate primary. and secondary access does not exist and has not been obtained. Project grading of 1,020,00 Cubic yards of earth is not sensitive to the hillsides, significant ridgelines, drainage patterns, and other natural landforms present at the site. A significant number of the 550 oak trees present would be severely impacted by soil and drainage disruptions; the applicant has not indicated how many oak trees would be removed to implement this project. b. The site is not physically suitable for the type and density of development due to the rugged terrain. The average slope of the project site is 39.5%. The draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance specifies dwelling density reductions for slopes equal to or greater. than 10$; dwelling densities are reduced to zero for slopes at or greater than 50%, and development on significant ridgelines is prohibited. Resolution 92-45 Page 10 For this project, approximately 39 acresis occupied by slopes of 50% or greater and significant ridgelines, and must be preserved as open space. Eliminating this area will leave 63 acres (102 acres minus 39 acres) available for residential development. The density reduction required for the average slope of 39.5% for this project is as follows:- 0.5 dwelling units per acre for the "Residential Low" land use designation; 0.2 dwelling units per acre for the "Residential Very Low" land use designation; 0.05 dwelling units per acre for the "Residential Estate" land use designation. Per these reduced densities, the maximum residential development for this property is as follows: 2 acres at 0.5 units per acre, plus 50 acres at 0.20 units per acre, plus 50 acres at 0.05 units per acre, equals 13.5 total units. C. That the design of the proposed project is likely to cause substantial environmental damage, and substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat due to the excessive grading, and resulting erosion and surface runoff. d. That the design of the project is likely to cause serious public health problems due to an increased demand on the local water system, and potential disruption to slope stability and geological safety. e. Adverse environmental impacts associated with this proposed project are expected due to the increase in overall dwelling density for the area, and due to project grading. Anticipated impacts include: Increased erosion; alteration of the existing natural drainage pattern; abrupt cuts and fills disrupting the natural topography; adverse aesthetic impacts; oak tree removal. f. Adequate access has not been established or assured for this project. THEREFORE, THE City Council OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA does resolve as follows: The City Council hereby denies, without prejudice, the Hemsminack Development Company's appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denying Master Case Number 90-102, and waives filing fees if the applicant files a new proposal within one year from the effective date of this action. This request included a Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, and an Oak Tree Permit to allow a subdivision for 114 lots, grading, and oak tree removal or encroachment for residential development. This project was proposed for the 102 acre property located on the south side of Cross Street at the intersection of wildwood Canyon Road (identified by Assessor's Parcel Numbers 2827-026-11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, and 2827-016-21, 22, 23, 24) in the City of Santa Clarita. Resolution 92-45 Page 11 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