HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-02-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21435 (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented
�jyy) i
PUBLIC HEARING Lynn M Harris
DATE: February 25, 1992
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 21435 to allow for the subdivision of
a 5.32 acre parcel into two single family lots containing
3.32 acres and 2.00 acres respectively. The project which
is located at 27548 Clear Lake Drive has been revised from
a previous proposal which included four single family
lots. Applicant: George and Marla Thomas.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
On February 4, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P92-06
denying revised Tentative Parcel Map 21435 which includes the subdivision
of a 5.32 acre parcel into two new single family lots consisting of a
3.32 acre parcel and a 2.00 acre parcel at 27548 Clear Lake.Drive. The
applicant had previously proposed a four lot subdivision that was denied
by the Planning Commission (through Resolution P91-18, attached) on June
4, 1991. On November 12, 1991, the case was brought to the City Council
on appeal and was referred back to the Commission for further
consideration. Also, the Council requested that the item be brought back
to them on February 25, 1992. The Council referred the matter back to
the Commission to study possible alternative designs.
On December 19, 1991, the applicant submitted a revised map which
includes a two lot subdivision consisting of 3.32 acres and 2.00 acres,
respectively. This site is designated RVL (Residential Very Low - 0.5 to
1.0 units per acre) on the General Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
At the meeting of February 4, 1992, the Commission focused on the
restriction placed on the subject parcel by the County, which restricts
the development of this property to one single family residence and
accessory structures. As proposed, this project would create one new
building site in addition to the existing single family dwelling on-site.
WHIMD I ! •
/ Agenda
'ed
At this meeting, four persons spoke in opposition, and four persons spoke
in favor of -the project. Staff has received three letters (containing 56
signatures) opposing the project. The applicant's agent stated that the
density of the "Crystal Springs" area would not be affected by the
proposed project, while those who spoke in opposition indicated that the
project would violate the purpose of the restriction by exceeding the
density allocated for the "Crystal Springs" subdivision. Also, the
applicant's agent indicated that the project would not establish a
precedent should the map be approved with the restriction placed on the
subject parcel. However, those in opposition believe that a precedent
would be established.
ANALYSIS
The density of the revised map is 0.37 units an acre which is below the
the low point density of -the RVL category (0.5 to 1.0 .units per acre).
The project could be found to be consistent with this designation. No
grading is proposed by the revised map. The revised map proposes a
building pad at the terminus of Clear Lake Drive. This area is presently
flat and contains an accessory structure.
The Planning Commission denied this proposal because of the development
restriction placed on the property (as shown on Tract Map 37573 on file
with the Los Angeles County's Recorder's Office), which restricts the
development of this property to the one single family residence and
accessory buildings. The Commission indicated that the approval of an
additional lot would be in direct conflict with the note placed on the
property. Also, the Commission indicated that the project (the addition
of one lot) did not conform with the density requirements specified by
Tract 37573.
Adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation and:
1. Deny Tentative Parcel Map 21435 based on the required
findings; and
2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for
consideration at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
City Council Agenda Report dated November 12, 1991
Planning Commission -Staff Reports
City Council Minutes
Planning Commission Minutes
Resolution P92-06
Resolution P91-18
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
THE CITY COUNCIL IS SCHEDULED TO CONSIDER THE
APPLICANT'S REQUEST (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21435 -AS REVISED)
TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.32 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO NEV LOTS OF
3.32 ACRES AND 2 ACRES.
LOCATION: 27548 CLEAR LAKE DRIVE,
IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA.
THE APPLICANT IS GEORGE THOMAS.
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City
of Santa Clarita to consider the applicant's request (Tentative
Parcel Map 21435- as revised) to subdivide a 5.32 acre parcel into
' two new lots of 3.32 acres and 2 acres. The location is at 27548.
Clear Lake Drive, project site is at the eastern terminus of Clear
Lake Drive, in the City_ of. Santa Clarita, CA. The .applicant is
George Thomas.
The City Council previously heard the item as an appeal of: the
Planning commission denial, directing .the item back to the
Planning Commission for reconsideration and that the item be
brought back befare .the City Council on February 25, 1992: in the
City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor,, Santa
Clarita, CA. at or after 6:30 p.m. The applicant has since
revised the project from a four lot to a two lot proposal.
Proposal, 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, CA.
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: January 31, 1992
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk
Publish Date: February 4, 1992
Land Use Construction and Governmental Affairs Consultants
January 07, 1992
City Clerk
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
RE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21435
Dear Madam Clerk:
This firm continues in its representation of Mr. and Mrs.
George Thomas, applicants to the above referenced matter.
We have recently been advised by the. Applicants that
consideration of the matter has been calendared for hearing before
the City Council on February 25, 1992.
Our client has informed us of the fact that he had, prior
to the establishment of the articulated dates, indicated to the
Planning Department his unavailability during the week of February
23-29, 1992. The department, however, has calendared the matter for
hearing during that week with apparent disregard for his
circumstance.
As the applicants will be out of the state during the
indicated date, petition is herewith respectfully made by this firm
for the re -calendaring of the matter before the City Council to a
date without.the indicated week.
Please advise this firm of the new date at your earliest
possible convenience.
Very truly yours,
Jonathan L. Ames
President, THE AMES GROUP
JLA/dmp
cc: Mr. George.Thomas
Mr. Don Hale
file
313 E. Palmdale Blvd., Suite C • Palmdale, CA 93550
805-265-0425 • 818-780-0998 • FAX 805-265-0443
AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: July 9, 1991
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented by:
Lynn M. Harris
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission decision (Resolution No.
P90-18) on Tentative Parcel Map 21435. The project site is
located at 27548 Clear Lake Drive; 940 feet east of
Cedarfort Drive.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
The City Clerk's office has received an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision of June 4, 1991 to deny Tentative Parcel Map
21435. The appellant is George Thomas, the applicant.
This case vas originally before the Planning Commission on April 2,
1991. The Planning Commission continued this Public Hearing, and
directed staff to research and clarify the reasons for the development
restriction placed on the subject parcel. This case was continued (as an
open public hearing) to the May 7, 1991 meeting, and again to the May 21,
1991 meeting. At the May 21st hearing, the Planning Commission voted
unanimously to deny Tentative Parcel Map 21435, thereby upholding the
previous density granted for the Crystal Springs area by the County of
Los Angeles, at 201 homes on the 460 acres. The Planning Commission
directed staff to return with a formal resolution for denial of the
proposal at the June 4y 1991 Planning Commission meeting.
ANALYSIS
The City's General Plan designation for the project site is RVL (Residential
Very Low) 0.5-1.0 Qwelling units per acre. The project is within an
established residential area in which compatible equestrian -oriented
development is. encouraged. A significant ridgeline traverses the property;
the General Plan promotes the retention of open space to preserve significant
ridgelines and provide land use buffers. This proposal is inconsistent with
the City General Plan in the area of ridgeline preservation and hillside
development.
This proposed subdivision would have an adverse environmental 'impact on the
adjacent neighborhood and diminish its rural character. The approved overall
dwelling density for the area would be increased; .thereby increasing
traffic. To accommodate this development, excessive grading (on slopes
exceeding 25Z and on a significant ridgeline) would create abrupt cuts and
Page 2
fills disrupting the topography and increasing erosion. General Plan policies
prohibit development upon a significant ridgeline. Proposed project, grading
is insensitive to the natural topography and the major landforms on and
adjacent to the project site. The natural topographic features existing at
the site have not been incorporated into the design of the project.
The right to restrict development granted on this property (as shown on Tract
Map 37573 on file with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office) limits the
development of this property to the existing single family residence and
accessory buildings currently on-site. As proposed, this project would create
three new building sites in addition to the existing single family dwelling on
the site. Because the project would exceed the approved density (dwelling
units per acre) for the subdivision in which this lot was created, a
functional mix of residential use to open space would not be maintained.
The subject parcel was a part of Tract 37573, which was a part of the larger
460 acre Tract 33893 (see Attachments "A" and "B"). Initially, the
appropriate number of lots was determined by Los Angeles County to be 229, and
136 of those lots were recorded. The bank involved in the project took the
remaining property back and filed a new map. The County's Hillside Management
procedure was applied, and a Hillside Development permitwas required for the
subdivision: The County Regional Planning Commission determined that 201 was
the appropriate number of single family lots for the 460 acre parcel. This
included all .lots which were originally recorded and all newly approved lots.
Throughout this procedure, of the various lots which were recorded under the
original approval and later approvals, the larger lots (at greater than twice
the required area) were restricted to .being developed with no more than one
single family dwelling in order to maintain the overall density. The
underlying tract map included a dedication of the right to restrict the
construction of more than one residence and accessory buildings on the subject
parcel.. The intent was to avoid the re -subdivision of these lots which would
increase the total number of lots allowed for this 460 acre area.
The .application for this parcel map was received. on October 10, 1989. The
City Council adopted Resolution No. .91-77 on May 14, 1991 requiring staff to
review subdivision applications in light of any and all notations on maps
regarding future subdivisions or development, or similar notations which imply
the intent 'of the County of Los Angeles or the City of Santa, Clarita that
future subdivision or development is to be discouraged. Staff has been
directed to require a certification from developers prior to accepting
applications, that the property is free from all encumbrances, including
dedications of the right to further subdivide or develop to the County of Los
Angeles or the City of Santa Clarita. This is an important consideration
because lot averaging for overall density has occurred on other previously
approved subdivisions.
This certification was not required of the applicant because this direction
was given to staff after the first public hearing was held for this
application. Nonetheless, a dedication of the right to prohibit the
construction of more than one residential building and related accessory
buildings on this property was made to the County of Los Angeles. The
applicant and the staff were aware of the restriction, early in the -processing
of .this case, and the applicant was advised that the project would not
necessarily receive a favorable.staff report recommendation.
Page'3
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 21435.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Appeal request from George Thomas, the applicant. .
2. Staff reports dated April 2. 1991; May 7, 1991; May 21, 1991.
3. Negative Declaration and Initial Environmental Assessment.
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. P91-18.
5. Project site plan.
6. Minutes of Planning Commission meetings
LMH:JC/310
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21435
DATE: February 4, 1992
T0: Chairman Cherrington and Members of the Planning Commission �/
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development V - P- �" -
PROSECT PLANNER: Richard Henderson, Principal Planner
Alex Vasquez, Assistant Planner I
APPLICANT: George and Marla Thomas
LOCATION: 27548 Clear Lake Drive
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of the subdivision of
a 5.32 acre parcel into two lots.
BACKGROUND:
April 2. 1991
The case was originally before the Planning Commission and
was continued to May -,7, 1991 to allow staff to clarify the
reasons for the development restriction placed on the
subject parcel.
May 7. 1991
The case was continued to May 21, 1991.
Hay 14, 1991
City adopted Resolution 91-77 which requires that an
applicant submit proof that there are no restrictions or
notations on the subject property which discourages further
development or subdivision. This certification was not
required of the applicant because this direction .was given
to staff after the first public hearing was held for this
application.
May 21, 1991
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny Tentative
Parcel Map 21435.
June 4. 1991
The Planning Commission approves Resolution. P91-18 denying
Tentative Parcel Map 21435.
November 12, 1991
The case was brought before the City Council on appeal.
The Council closed the public hearing and asked that this
item be brought back to the Planning Commission for further
consideration- and returned to the Council on February 25,
1992. The Council referred .the matter back to the
Commission based on testimony by the applicant to the
3
J
Staff Report TPM 21435
February 4, 1992
Page 3
November 12.1991 effect that the Commission did not understand all the facts
(cont.) at their previous hearing and that possibly no alternative
layouts were considered. With this in mind, the City
Council asked that no specific directions be given to the
Commission other than to reconsider the matter and make a
recommendation for Council consideration on February 25,
1992.
ANALYSIS:
On December 19, 1991, the applicant's agent submitted a revised map which
includes a two lot subdivision consisting of 3.32 acres and 2.00 acres,
respectively. A reduction of physical impacts to the site would be.
accomplished through this.revised map. The new map proposes a building pad at
the terminus of Clear Lake Drive that would significantly reduce the extent
and type of grading that the original proposal necessitated to accomplish
access and building pads.
The new design would considerably avoid the significant ridgeline that
traverses the site as recommended in the General Plan. The original four lot
proposal included. approximately 9,000 cubic yards of earth to be involved in
cut and fill operations which would have disrupted the significant ridgeline.
By utilizing the existing flat portion of proposed lot 2, no grading is
conceptually proposed by the applicant and the ridgeline would remain
undisturbed. In addition, the original proposal proposed a maximum cut of 28
feet and a maximum fill height of 50 feet. The new proposal would eliminate
this necessity due to the reduction in density and design. -
As indicated in the May 21, 1991 memorandum from staff to the Planning
commission (attached), the right to restrict development granted on this
property (as shown on Tract Map 37573 on file with the Los Angeles County
Recorder's Office) allows the City to limit development of this property to
the existing single family residence and accessory buildings currently
on-site. As proposed, this project would create one new building site in
addition to the existing single family dwelling on the -site.
Should this restriction on the property be waived, precedent would be
established by the City of Santa Clarita that could allow the subdivision of
other parcels within the above-mentioned 460 acre area. Staff has recognized
that there are 29 other parcels (excluding the subject parcel) within this
area which contain the same restriction. Presently, there is a remainder
parcel in this area that has not been recorded but is considered in the
overall density of the 201 lots. This remainder parcel area totals 104.acres
and was denied by the City for a 45 single-family lot subdivision (Tract
49185) under a request by Griffin Homes.
In addition, staff believes that removal of such restriction may negatively.
affect the concept of clustering for future developments by diminishing the
integrity of this concept which is to minimize the impacts to natural
resources such as hillsides and allow for open space buffers.
�!lx
Staff Report TPM 21435
February 4, 1992
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
Deny the Tentative Parcel Map 21435 based on the findings established on June
4, 1991 in Resolution P91-18.
attachments: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 2, 1991
2. Memorandum dated May 7, 1991
3. Memorandum dated May 21, 1991
4. Resolution P91-18
5. Planning Commission Minutes dated April 2, 1991,
May 7, 1991, May 21, 1991, June 4, 1991
6. City Council Minutes dated November 12, 1991
LMH:RH:APV:321
RESOLUTION NO. P92-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING
REVISED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP.21435 TO ALLOW THE MINOR LAND DIVISION
OF 5.32 ACRES.INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 27548 CLEAR LAKE DRIVE
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and determine as
follows:
a. An application for a tentative parcel map was filed on October 10,
1989, by George Thomas ("the applicant"). The property for which
this entitlement has been filed is located at 27548 Clear Lake Drive,
940 feet east of the Cedarfort Drive intersection approximately
one-half mile east of Sand Canyon Road. The project site is 5.32
acres in gross area. The subject parcel is lot 23 of Tract 37573.
The Assessor's Parcel Numbers for the site are 2841-020-051. The
applicant proposes to subdivide this property into four new single
family residential lots of 62,400, 67,840, 53,120, and 43,840 square
feet, respectively.
b. The applicable zoning for this property is A-1-1 Light Agricultural,
one acre minimum lot size, and is designated as RVL (Residential Very
Low) 0.5-1.0 dwelling units per acre according to the City of Santa
Clarita General Plan. The proposed density of the four lot proposal
is 0.75 dwelling units per acre.
C. The property contains a single family residence and the majority of
the site is in a predominantly natural state. The property contains
a significant ridgeline which traverses the site.
d. The surrounding uses are low density residential.
e. The application was circulated for City Department and agency review
upon receipt. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee
(DRC) met on November 30, 1989 and again on February 22, 1991 to
discuss the project and additional information and revisions needed
from the applicant. City staff also supplied the applicant with
preliminary recommended conditions.
f. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on
April 2, 1991 and subsequently continued to May 7, 1991 and again to
May 21, 1991 at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard,
Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m.
g. At the Planning Commission meeting of June 4, 1991, the Planning
Commission voted to adopt Resolution P91-18 denying Tentative Parcel
Map 21435.
Reso P92-06
Page 2
h. An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the project was
submitted by the applicant on June 5, 1991 and was scheduled to be
heard by the City Council on July 9, 1991. The project was continued
to September 24, 1991 and again to November 12, 1991.
i. At the City Council meeting of November 12, 1991, the project was
brought before the City Council on appeal and was referred back to
the Planning Commission with no specific directions given other than
to reconsider the matter and make a recommendation for City Council
consideration on February 25, 1992.
j. On December 19, 1991, the applicant submitted a revised map
indicating a two lot subdivision rather than the previous four lot
subdivision request.
k. The proposed density of the revised tentative map is 0.37 dwelling
units per acre.
1. This revised project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff prepared an
Initial Environmental Assessment for this project. Staff determined
that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect could be adopted
for this project.
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 of February 4, 1992, the Planning Commission
considered the staff reports prepared for this project (Revised
Tentative Parcel Map 21435) and received testimony on this proposal.
b. The City's General Plan designation for the project site is RVL
(Residential Very Low) 0.5-1.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposed
use of the property for residential development is consistent with
this land use designation.
C. Although it is not considered a physical constraint, a specific
building restriction exists on this property which prohibits the
construction of more than one residence and accessory buildings. The
project site has been previously developed with an existing single
family dwelling. This project, as revised, would create one more
building site in addition to the existing single family residence.
d. The project contains a significant ridgeline which traverses the
site; the GeneralPlan encourages the retention of open space to
preserve significant ridgelines and provide land use buffers.
RESO P92-06
Page 3
The previous four lot proposal would have impacted the existing
ridgeline and open space features that are contained within the
property and was contrary to the draft Hillside and Ridgeline
criteria and goals and policies of the General Plan's Land Use
Element, Community Design Element and Open Space Element. Due to the
existence of a previously graded building pad at the terminus of
Clear Lake Drive along with an already constructed single family
dwelling, the current two lot request would not impact the site's
topography or open space features.
SECTION .3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning
Commission hereby determines as follows:
a. The proposed minor land division will not have a significant effect
upon the environment under the California Environmental Quality Act.
b. The development restriction placed upon the property (as shown on
Tract Map 37573 on file with the Los Angeles County Recorder's
Office) limits the development of this property to the existing
single family residence and accessory buildings currently on site.
C. The approval of this land division would not be in conformance with
the density approved for Tract Map 37573.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Santa Clarita, California, as follows:
a. The Planning Commission hereby denies Tentative Parcel Map 21435 to
allow the subdivision of the subject property into two new lots for
residential development at 27548 Clear Lake Drive (Assessor's Parcel
No. 2641-020-051).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of 1992.
i
D' L
Jerry 6. Cherrington, Chairman
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
L M. Harris
rector of Community.Development
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
0
RESO P92-06
Page 4
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 4th day of February 1992 by the
following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Modugno, Brathwaite, Doughman, Vice -Chairman Woodrow
and Chairman Cherrington.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7
fl—qnna M. Grindey
City Clerk
lWYL.v! AJ! 1 G -
rgvrAA5 %P14 21435-
s
04
-0 N0. = 430,
NOT TO sc.,4
L rc. 11Rr( 1, /919
•
4OICATE PHASES
4TATIVE TR. 82571
:OROEO TRACTS
•
V 8 V DESIGN
BEING PREPARED
uan Ra.num a Ase... en
Ftnp„. w sa.n:ya,..
4w
H
!D
H
E
TRACT MAP 37573
-40001" 10
3 12
DR. 4 6 7 a 9
2 13
19
20 15
16
21
00 V
22
ril
tcl
I
0
N
-rgvMA5 TPIn 21435
N O NO 430,
NO! l'O $C4LG
p le. All l 1, /VM
VDICATE PHASES
4TATIVE TR. 32511
:ORDED TRACTS
%l
V d V DESIGN
BEING PREPARED
"'nJ IMnwn • AatV.....
............ r \e)rrr♦
TRACT MAP 37573
rimT
23
\ 5
\
10
3 12
CED DR• 4 6 7 g 9
2 _ 13
19
.l
1 20 15
16
21 j
22
� moi:• H
tu
RESOLUTION NO. P91-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING _
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21435
LOCATED AT 27548 CLEAR LAKE DRIVE
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
10, 1989, by George Thomas ("the applicant"). The property for
which this entitlement has been filed is located at 27548.Clear
Lake Drive, 940. feet east of the Cedarfort Drive intersection
approximately one-half mile east .of Sand Canyon Road. The
Assessor's Parcel Number for the site is 2841-020-051. The
project site consists of 5.54 acres of hillside terrain, 3.58
acres of which are on slopes in excess of 25Z. The average
slope of the property is 32Z. The applicant proposed to
subdivide this property into four new single family residential
lots of 62,400 square feet, 67,840 square feet, 53,120 square
feet, and 43,840 square feet.
b. The applicable zoning for this property is A-1-1 Light
Agricultural, one -acre minimum zone, and is designated as RVL
(Residential Very Low) 0.5-1.0 dwelling units per acre according i
to the City of Santa Clarita draft General Plan. This project
has also been reviewed for compliance with the draft Ridgeline
Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance.
C. The application was circulated for City Department and agency
review upon receipt. The City of Santa Clarita Development
Review Committee (DRC) met on November 30, 1989: and again on
February 22, 1991 to discuss the. project and additional
information and revisions needed from the applicant. City staff
also supplied the applicant with preliminary recommended
conditions.
d. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning
Commission on April 2, 1991 and subsequently continued to May 7,
1991 and again to May 21, 1991 at the City Council Chambers,
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m.
e. The surrounding uses.are low density residential.
f. This project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions. of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff prepared an
Initial EnvironmentalAssessment for this project.Staff
determined that, with specific design changes and mitigation
measures, a _Negative Declaration of. Environmental Effect could
be adopted for this project.
Rego 191-18
Page 1 of 5 /�A/
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 RVL (Residential Very Low) 0.5-1.0 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 policies of the City's draft
General Plan. Specifically, this proposal .is. in conflict with
the following draft General Plan components: Land. Use Element
Goal No, 1; policies 1.10, 1.13, 3.12, 4.1, 4.2, and 5.3;
Hillside and Ridgeline Criteria. Community Design Element
policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 6.7. ' Open Space Element policies
1.1, 1.4, 1.5; 1.6, 1.10, 1.13, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4.
Because the project would exceed the approved density (dwelling
units per acre) for the subdivision in which this lot was
created, a functional mix of residential use to open space would
not be maintained. The project is within an established
equestrian area in which compatible equestrian -oriented
development is encouraged. A significant ridgeline transverses
the property; the draft General Plan promotes the retention of
open space to preserve significant ridgelines and provide land
use buffers. This proposed subdivision would impact the
adjacent neighborhood by diminishing its rural character through
increasing traffic flow volumes, grading natural landforms, and
encroaching onto a significant ridgeline. Development upon a
significant ridgeline is prohibited. Proposed project grading
is insensitive to natural topography and the major landforms 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 established dwelling density for
residential development within the approved subdivision for this
site. This would be incompatible with the adjacent existing
residential neighborhood. To accommodate this development,
driveways and building pads would be required and would result
in excessive grading .on steep hillsides, disrupt major
landforms, alter natural drainage patterns at the project site
and on adjacent property, and would disrupt the silhouette of
the natural ridgeline across the property. The natural
topographic amenities existing at the site have not been
incorporated into the design of the project.
s'. so P91-18
Page 2 of 5
The existing ridgeline provides a visual and physical buffer
which provides aesthetic relief and separation of adjacent
properties. This major feature must be utilized as openspace to
preserve the rural character of this planning area, and to
provide a transition between the residential area of the project
site and the Angeles National Forest boundary. Preservation of
the available existing open space would help maintain existing
viable natural ecosystems. The proposed project does 'not comply
with the provisions of the City's draft Ridgeline Preservation
and Hillside Development Ordinance
C. A specific building restriction exists on this property which
prohibits the construction of more than one residence and
accessory buildings. The project site has been previously
developed with an existing single family dwelling.
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.
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 at seq.), the project as, proposed would create a significant'
impact.
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.
Rego 391-18
Page 3 of 5
MJ0
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. This project would have an. adverse environmental impact due to
the increase in overall dwelling density for the area, due to
the excessive grading on slopes exceeding 25Z in grade and on a
significant ridgeline, for building pads and roads causing
increased erosion, drainage, abrupt -cuts and fills disrupting
the topography thereby creating adverse aesthetic impacts.
b. The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the draft City
General Plan and does not comply with the draft- Ridgeline
Preservation and.Hillside Development Ordinance.
C. The development restriction placed upon this property (as shown
on Tract Map 37573 on file with the Los Angeles County
Recorder's Office) limits the development of this- property to
the existing single family 'residence and accessory buildings
currently on-site.
Reso P91-18
Page 4 of 5
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Santa Clarita. California, as follows:
The Planning Commission hereby denies Tentative Parcel Map No. 21435
to allow the subdivision of the subject property into four new lots
for residential development at 27548 Clear Lake Drive (Assessor's
Parcel No. 2841-020-051). '
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 4 th day of June, 1991.
outs Brathwaite Chairma
Planning Commission
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of June, 1991, by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES: Commissioners: Garasi, Woodrow, Cherrington, Modugno,
Brathwaite.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
M. Harris, Director
nity Development
9
RESO:P91-18
Page 5 of 5
Addressing the Council with a rebuttal on this item was
Jonathan Ames, 313 E. Palmdale Blvd., Palmdale.'
Mayor Boyer closed the public hearing.
Following discussion regarding split lots, preserving open
space, a 4 -lot subdivision, it was moved by Heidt and
seconded by Klajic to uphold the Planning Commission's
denial of Tentative Parcel Map 21435.
On roll call vote:
Ayes: Heidt
Noes: Darcy, Klajic, McKeon, Boyer
Motion denied.
Following further discussion regarding staff's
recommendation, open space, density specifications, and
average density for the surrounding area, it was moved by
Darcy and seconded by Klajic to return this item to the
Planning staff for consideration of subdividing the property
into two lots.
On roll call vote:
Ayes: Darcy, Klajic, McKeon, Boyer
Noes: Heidt
Motion carried.
RECESS Mayor Boyer recessed the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
RECONVENE Mayor Boyer reconvened the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
ITEM 2 (contd) It was moved by Darcy and seconded by Klajic to reconsider
Item No. 2.
CC MINUTES (11-12-91)
ITEM 2
Mayor Boyer opened the public hearing. City Clerk, Donna
PUBLIC HEARING
Grindey stated that all notices required by law have been
APPEAL BY APPLICANT
provided, therefore, the public hearing. was in order.
OF.PLANNING
Director of Community Development, Lynn Harris and Principle
COMMISSION'S DENIAL
Planner, Rich Henderson exhibited a slide presentation and
OF TENTATIVE PARCEL _
.reported that this is an appeal of the Planning Commission's
MAP 21435 AT 27548
denial of proposed subdivision of 5.54 acres into four
CLEARLAKE DRIVE,
residential lots. located at 27548 Clear Lake Drive by the.
APPROXIMATELY
applicant George Thomas.
ONE-HALF MILE EAST OF
SAND CANYON ROAD
Addressing the Council in favor of this item were: -George
Thomas, 27548'C1earlake Drive, Sand Canyon; Don Hale,26017
Huntington Lane, Valencia, 91355; Jonathan Ames, 313 E.
Palmdale Bvld'., Palmdale, 93550; Tom Luni, 26359 Macmillian
Ranch Rd., Nola Thomas, 5432 Dune Dr., Santa Clarita; Don
Cruikshank, 23221 Haskell Vista Ln., Newhall, 91321.
Addressing the Council in opposition to this item were:
Steve Kraeger, 16035 Live Oak Springs Canyon Rd., Canyon
Country, 91351; Susan Ostrom, 16430 Sultus St., Canyon
Country, 91351.
Addressing the Council with a rebuttal on this item was
Jonathan Ames, 313 E. Palmdale Blvd., Palmdale.'
Mayor Boyer closed the public hearing.
Following discussion regarding split lots, preserving open
space, a 4 -lot subdivision, it was moved by Heidt and
seconded by Klajic to uphold the Planning Commission's
denial of Tentative Parcel Map 21435.
On roll call vote:
Ayes: Heidt
Noes: Darcy, Klajic, McKeon, Boyer
Motion denied.
Following further discussion regarding staff's
recommendation, open space, density specifications, and
average density for the surrounding area, it was moved by
Darcy and seconded by Klajic to return this item to the
Planning staff for consideration of subdividing the property
into two lots.
On roll call vote:
Ayes: Darcy, Klajic, McKeon, Boyer
Noes: Heidt
Motion carried.
RECESS Mayor Boyer recessed the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
RECONVENE Mayor Boyer reconvened the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
ITEM 2 (contd) It was moved by Darcy and seconded by Klajic to reconsider
Item No. 2.
CC MINUTES 01-12-91,) cont.
City council Minutes
November 12, 1991
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Darcy and seconded by McKeon to approve the
minutes of October 22, 1991 as amended.
Hearing no objections, it was so ordered.
ITEM 1
PUBLIC HEARING
Mayor Boyer opened the public hearing. City Clerk, Donna
TRANSIT MITIGATION IN
Grindey stated that all notices required by lav have been
LIEU FEE RESOLUTION
provided, therefore, the public hearing was in order.
Director
NOS. 91-179 AND 91-180
of Community Development, Lynn Harris reported that
at the meeting of October 8, 1991, Council adopted a pair of
resolutions (one urgency, one non -urgency) to establish a
$200.00 per, dwelling unit transit mitigation in lieu fee.
Due to the timing requirements for amendments to certain
fees, the City must adopt another urgency resolution at this
time so that the City may continue to collect this fee until
'the non -urgency resolution takes effect.
Mayor Boyer closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Darcy and seconded by McKeon to adopt
Resolution No. 91-179 and Resolution No. 91-180.
On roll call vote:
Ayes: Darcy, Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Boyer
Noes: None
Resolution No. 91-179 and Resolution No. 91-180 adopted.
PC MINUTES (4-2-91)
NEV BUSINESS - PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM N0. 6, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21435
Cherrington moved to hear Item 6 before Items 2 - 5. Commissioner Modugno
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0 to hear Item 6.
Director Harris opened Item 6, Tentative Parcel Map 21435, by introducing
Jeff Chaffing Assistant Planner. Mr. Chaffin proceeded to make a slide
presentation.
Director Harris presented letters from residents as follows: a letter from
the applicant, 74 signed letters in favor of the application, a letter from
Thomas W. Looney, resident in Macmillan Ranch in favor, letter from Leo Anselm
on Clear Lake Drive in favor, letter from Russell and Barbara Tolle, Bronco
Drive in opposition, form letter signed by 6 residents on Bronco Drive against
the project, recommending a site inspection by the Commission, a letter from
another resident on Bronco Drive in opposition to the project.
At 7:47 p.m., the Public Hearing was opened. The applicant, Mr. George
Thomas, 27561 Clear Lake Drive spoke about his desire to subdivide this
property in order to build homes for his family members, and his frustration
in the length of time it has taken to get this project approved. Some items
Mr. Thomas brought to the attention of the Commission were the new City Center
site, atop a ridgeline, the Bermite plateau, the $943 million dollar
infrastructure deficit, and developers paying fees to provide the
infrastructure. Mr. Thomas then requested that the Commission approve his
minor subdivision.
Commissioner Garasi clarified that the letters showed broad support from the
entire community, not just the Sand Canyon area.
Marla Thomas spoke in favor of the project.
Mr. Don Hale, Civil Engineer and Agent for the applicant spoke in.favor of the
project. He discussed paperwork being lost in'the cracks, ridgelines, amount
of time it has taken the project to be.approved, and the size of the lots -in
question, those speaking in opposition of this project who live on a different
street, the County restriction on subdivision of this property, and the
wording on the map regarding subdivision. He stated his desire to work with
the Commission in approving some sort of project acceptable to both parties.
Mr. McOsker was asked to comment on the stamp the County puts on the maps to
specify the ability to subdivide property. He stated that the City Attorney's
office has not reviewed this with the County Counsel's office. It is the
City's position that the Commission has the right to subdivide this property,
and not be bound by the County procedures. They advise the Commission that
they can subdivide this property.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:06 p.m. by Chairman Brathwaite.
Commissioner Modugno made the statement that his problem with this project is
the County's intent and the other projects that have come before the
Commission with the same question. One of his concerns was the County's
intent in regards to open space, and the.possibility of setting precedent in
this situation. Growth management and the need for a community to improve
itself through infrastructure was also brought up. Commissioner Modugno
stated that he is not prepared to move forward on this'issue at this time.
Discussion continued among the Commissioners on the issues brought up by
Commissioner Modugno.
PC MIIo1C1iWS; 14-2-9 1) cont.
Commissioner Woodrow requested staff or Counsel to comment on the stamps.
What is the purpose? Is it to maintain open space, or anadministrative
action that has lost its meaning. Director Harris read the language from the
statement on the recorded tract which is the underlying tract in question.
Direct contact has not been made with the County, relative to the intent of
these conditions, nor has staff tried to review the records for the underlying
tract, or when the condition was put on. Therefore, it was a staff decision
to approach it from the standpoint of how it affects the City of Santa
Clarita's review of this project.
Mr. McOsker commented that the City Attorney has no additional insight into
the stamp's meaning or intent. What the City Attorney's office is looking -at
is the legal aspects involved. Is this project consistent with the General
Plan, and is the specific plan and the parcelization consistent with
surrounding parcels. This language empowers the City to enforce or not
enforce the police power to subdivide or not subdivide.
Commissioner Modugno commented on the prospect of looking back at the County's
record of other parcels recorded in the area. He asked staff if they have
knowledge of the prior subdivisions. Director Harris stated that staff has no
knowledge. However, information could be found.
Director Harris commented that staff considers this an infill subdivision:
density, zoning and the fact that there is enough land there to create the
four lots originally requested.
She then asked for discussion on the staff's approach to the project.
Questions she asked are: Should staff.first look at the County's records and
intent prior to analysis of a project? To what extent does the Commission
wish to make their present day decisions based on the County's intent?
Discussion continued on this matter.
Vice -Chairman Cherrington stated he would be interested in hearing the
County's history on these areas. Commissioner Garasi stated that as a
decision making body, the Commission is faced with legal documents, and that
decisions are driving policy instead of policy driving decisions. She
commented on the continued use of the term 'half acre lots'. She stated there
are no half acre lot zonings in Sand.Canyon. But, there are half acre lots.
Her question was how do you get half acre lots from one acre zoning unless
there is density lot averaging? She stated she is prepared to challenge the
environmental review on this project, due to,the fact that there has not been
adequate discussion relative to flood water course, etc. She stated she is
not prepared to proceed.
Commissioner Modugno stated that the Commission could be de facto. rezoning.
What has been doneis the rezoning of the area without having gonethough a
zoning request. This all relates to the Growth Management issue. He is
concerned with the precedent being set.
Ci MUTES (4=2' cont.
Director Harris stated that she was unaware that the County did wholesale
averaging of densities when they created subdivisions in the Santa Clarita
Valley. Commissioner Garasi stated that this should be researched. She also
stated that she does not feel that the item before the Commission warrants the
subdivision.
Commissioner Woodrow asked staff to check on the status of the other lots on
the same stamp, and the lot size. He expressed concern over the possibility
of setting precedent on the other lots, as well.
Commissioner Modugno requested a continuance in order for staff to further
research this item, including drainage, hillside and ridgeline, and zoning.
Commissioner Modugno moved to continue Item 6 to the regular meeting of May 7,
1991 to allow staff -the opportunity to research this. Commissioner Woodrow
seconded motion. At 8:34 p.m., the motion to continue Item 6 to May 7, 1991
was approved 5-0.
Vice -Chairman Cherrington questioned if there would be a revised map presented
at the May 7 meeting. Director Harris stated no. She also felt that the
Public Hearing should be left open, although the Commission had the option of
closing it.
Chairman Brathwaite informed Mr. Thomas that the Public Hearing would remain
open, and explained the need for clarification on the County's statements and
stamrs.
Chairman Brathvaite closed Item 6 at 8:35 p.m.
-PC MJNUTE$ (5-7=91)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS -ITEM 4 - Tentative Parcel Map No. 21435
Director Harris introduced Item 4, stating that the Commission had directed
staff to research the. County's conditions on this particular map, as well as
the overall density in this area that was first allocated on the original map.
Principal Planner Richard Henderson made a brief presentation on the history
of this property. He then presented several slides showing the location of
the property.
Discussion of the slides and the number of lots ensued.
The. Public Hearing was opdned at 10:30 p.m. Mr. Don Hale, 'agent for the
applicant, made a brief statement.
Speaking in favor of the project was George Thomas, the applicant.
Speaking in opposition were Dennis Ostrom, 16430 Sultus Street, Santa Clarita,
representing the Sand Canyon Homeowners' Association; Margi Coletti, 15921
Live Oak Springs, Canyon Country; and Richard Sathre, 'representing the Crystal
Springs Ranch Association. Some concerns were drainage, and the number of
lots to be approved. 4
,P:C -111(I�elU10ES .t5-7-91 i cont.
The Public Hearing was closed at 10:50 p.m.
There was discussion among the Commission.
Commissioner Modugno made a motion to continue the item to the regular meeting
of May 21, 1991. Vice -Chairman Cherrington seconded the motion. The motion
was approved 5-0.
PC. -MINUTES. (5-21-91)
ITEM 2 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21435
Director Harris opened the item and stated that there was a staff presentation
scheduled which was the same one the Commission had heard at the previous
meeting. The Commission elected not to hear the presentation again.
Mr. Henderson gave an update on the County recorded lots with relation to this
parcel. A brief discussion by the. Commission followed relating to the
Subdivision Map Act and this request.
Chairman Brathwaite opened the public hearing.at 10:12 p.m.
Mr. George Thomas, applicant, 25571 Clearlake . Drive, Santa Clarita.
Mr. Thomas gave his testimony with a slide show.
Mr. Don Hale, engineer for the applicant, Hale and Associates, 26017
Huntington Lane, Valencia. Mr. Hale made a brief statement.
Chairman Brathwaite closed the -public hearing- at, 10:32 p.m.
Fgllowing a discussion by the Commission, Commissioner Garasi motioned and
Vice -Chairman Cherrington seconded 'for denial.Denial of the project was
carried by a vote of 5-0.
PC MINUTES (6-4-9-1).
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ITEM 1 - RESOLUTION FOR THE DENIAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP 21435
Director Harris introduced Item 1.
Commissioner Modugno motioned for approval of the Resolution for Denial.
Commissioner' Voodrow seconded the motion: With a vote of 5-0, the motion
passed.
PO-/T10A/ A�iRCDOC�
�12�t�t�s� SUf3DI Vlsf O1J
Y
s
o
1D
� -- _ _ _ _ T�/ �-wa��LG�taE �'L.CS. ✓L4-� E:...l-t. _ _.. �- _ ..- . _ . _. _ _ _ _
dine __ .__ _... - _ - dAl'yetss -
- l s6 07-_-i3. oti cop__--
/Name
--/O,)AcANSTCc06CTHOMAS
Ta.l�a_ govwTaut
7
rias � � iP�C
r(� �SYgz Gcv�� oftk fi N C%� A
Members of the Plannino Commission January 30, 1992
City of Santa Clarita
Dear Members:
This letter is again being written to oppose the proposed
splitting of Lot No. 23 in Tract No. 37573 in the Crystal Springs
development that is being applied for by George Thomas. Ii Mr.
Thomas is allowed to split the lot he bought, a precedent will be
set in the Sand Canyon area that will allow for higher density
development than has been pre -approved.
When the Crystal Springs subdivision was: started, the Sand
Canyon Homeowners' Association met with the Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors and requested that they not allow the
density first asked for by the developer. Crystal Springs was
then cut back to the current number of lots. The San Clemente
Group Development Corporation signed the following statement:
"We hereby dedicate to the County of.Los
Angeles the right to prohibit the construction
-
of more than one residential and.related
accessory building within lots 3, 5, 10, 117
12, 13+, and 23."
Lot No. 23 belongs to George Thomas. Since there are other
tracts being developed in this area that have 4, 5, and 6 acre
Ili parcels designated for one residence only, we are extremely
concerned that the granting of a split to Mr. Thomas will seta
precedent for others in the area to do.the same, thus allowing a
higher density of homes in the area.
We urge you to deny Mr. Thomas' petition for a split of Lot
No. 23 in Tract No. 37573.
Thant, you,
�ne,���vC��ll1e
C.C.-4n".
ovp/4.��-
November 25, 1991
Planning Commission
City of Santa Clarita
City Hall
23920 W. Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Commission Members:
RECEIVED
4100 2 6 1991
WMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY"W'A C� ARITA
On Monday, November 19, 1991, I attended the Sand Canyon
Homeowners Association meeting at which one of the topics was
William Thomas and his .request to subdivide his property.
I was angered to find at the end of the meeting that one of
the blue approval dots on his map was me.
Let me set the record straight. I do not approve of the
subdivision of his property. Mr. Thomas's lot is part of
Crystal Springs and like the rest us, he can not subdivide his
property.
Not only is he breaking the terms of his purchase but he is
attempting to set a very bad precedent with regard to clustering
in our Valley.
The answer is very clear, no, Mr. Thomas should not be
allowed to Subdivide, and my dot is not blue, it's red, very red.
Sincerely,
David L: Hauser
15555 Bronco Drive
Canyon Country, CA 91317
cow
�ZO
;Io
mak,
m
w
Q
0
o 0
v,
Q
� u
LO:
Z
oo,
SANTA
cr
♦f L.
CON
wo �
' c O
� H
V h
CAN
F�
IL EAGLF RD
fA� DR
a
RIDGE v O 7
p RD -.
R
a z J
I
VICINITY MIP
TPM 21435
�p� EpEpD CYN. RD•
5��� gOt Opp VALLEY FWY.
pNT�t
PROJECT
v G�' SITE
%I
A O CEDARFORT ST.
q
N � SpRrNOS CYN. RD.
P'ACERIT4. C'�N'
N
Crystal Springs Ranch Homeowners Association
23236 Lyons Avenue, Suite 204
Santa Clarito, CA 91321
May 6;1991
City of Santa Ciarita Planning Commission
City Hall
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, Ca 91355
PECEIVMD
Dear Members of the Santa Clarito Planning Commission,
FEB 2 5 1992
CCMVUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLA-TA
On behalf of the Board of the Crystal Springs Ranch Homeowners
Association, we wish to declare that we are completely against any
petition that would alter the original development plan which was
approved by the County of Los Angeles in the 1980 - 81 time period for
the Crystal Springs Ranch area. The approved Tract Map designated
certain lots as 'open' space areas and placed restrictions on future
development of these lots. It further designated that the overall
development would average one acre in size. These designated
'open areas" and larger lots all accounted for the overall one acre
average requirement for the area.
We are opposed to any new requests in the form of lot splits that
would increase the density of our area beyond what was originally
approved. Most homeowners moved into this area because of the
openness that the San Canyon Area provided, and would not look
favorably upon any decision by this Commission to alter what was set
down and understood when we each made our investments in this
area.
Thank you for hearing our ob,'ection to this lot siDlit proposed by
George Thomas.
Sincerely,
Richard D. Sathre; President
Board of Directors
Crystal Springs. Ranch
Homeowners' Association
Crystal Springs Ranch Homeowners Association
P.O. Box 2761
Santa Clarita, CA 91386
February 20, 1992
City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission E C
Santa Clarita City Hall FEB 2 5 1992
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Valencia Ca 91355 CITY CF SANTA CI ARITA
Dear Members of the Santa Clarita Planning Commission,
We are opposed to George Thomas' current subdivision plan, just as we
have maintained our opposition to his prior plans. Any plan to subdivide
his property violates the Crystal Springs Ranch C.C.& R's, deteriorates the
County adopted plan to have lots averaging one acre, and sets a
precedent for future lot splitting that will further erode the quality of life in
the entire Sand Canyon area.
We have attached copies of prior letters we have sent maintaining our
opposition to this action. As you can see, we are on record with letters
and personal appearances since early May, 1991. In addition, we
submitted a petition signed by 47 homeowners with our January 28, 1992
letter. Several of these homeowners said that in George Thomas'
petition drive late in 1991, they had been led to believe that the property
in question was north of Soledad Canyon Road.
Thank you for considering our interests as you decide on his proposed
subdivision request.
Sincerely,
Martin R. Bayless
President, Board of Directors
Crystal Springs Ranch
Homeowners Association
Crystal Springs Ranch Homeowners Association
23236 Lyons Avenue, Suite 204
Santa Clarita, CA 91321
January 28, 1992
City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302
Valencia, Ca 91355
RE: George Thomas Proposed Subdivision of Property
Dear City Planning Commission Members,
RE.Cc-IVLmr4
FEB 2 5 1992
CDMYUMTY DEVELOPMENT
CITY CF SAN-,% CIARITA
Thank you for the notification about the hearing on the George
Thomas proposal for subdivision of his property. We will make every
attempt to have as many homeowners present as possible.
In addition, attached is a petition signed by 47 homeowners within the
Crystal Springs Association. Some of these homeowners may have
signed the petition that George Thomas and his family had circulated
earlier. However, when the Board of Directors presented the issue ata
recent general meeting, several homeowners said that Mr. Thomas had
not addressed a number of issues related to potential precedents that
may be set. Therefore, signatories on this petition that signed his prior
petition have changed their minds.
Essentially, the petitioners are opposed to George Thomas' petition
to subdivide his lot in any manner because it:
a) violates the C.C. & R's for the Crystal Springs Ranch Homeowners
Association, which governs his property until he can provide proof
that he was indeed de -annexed.
b) reduces the overall average lot size to less than one acre, since
the 201 lots approved by the County of Los Angeles, included
several large lots designated as "buffer" lots.
c) would set a precedent for future lot splits both in Crystal Springs
and elsewhere in Sand Canyon.
Thank you for taking this into consideration as you decide on this issue.
Sincerely,
Board of Directors
Crystal Springs Ranch
Homeowners Association
( Crystal Springs Ranch Homeowners Association
23236 Lyons Avenue, Suite 204
Santa Cladta, CA 91321
July 8,1991
City Council, City of Santa.Clarita
City Hall
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, Ca 91355
Dear Council Members,
- F;tJ F°
FEB 2 5 1092
CC"h\UNITY U:�tG'?"n1[4i
On behalf of the Board of the Crystal Springs Ranch Homeowners
Association, we wish to state that we. are completely against any petition
that would alter the original development plan for the 460 acre Crystal
Springs Ranch project. This project was originally approved for a
maximum of 201 homes for the total acreage. Currently 122 developed
properties exist within Crystal Springs Ranch, including George Thomas'
single dwelling. An additional 77 lots have already been approved for
the next phase of development. The final phase, a 110 acre parcel,
consists of two lots, which totals 201, which the County originally approved
back in the 1980 - 81 time period.
Several large parcels exist within the development which were set-
aside by the County as 'buffer' areas to adjoining developments and
the Gildebrand mining operation. Mr. Thomas' property was restricted to
only one lot since his property was designated as one of the buffer
properties.
We are opposed to any new requests in the form of lot splits that
would increase the density of our area beyond what was originally
approved. Most homeowners moved into this area because of the
openness that the Sand Canyon Area provided, and would not look
favorably upon any decision by this Commission to alter what was set
down and understood when we each made our investments in this
area.
Sincerely,
Richard D. Sathre; President
Board of Directors
Crystal Springs Ranch
Homeowners' Association
Crystal Springs Ranch Homeowners Association
P.O. Box 2761
Santa Clarita, CA 91386
February 20,1992
City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission RECEIVED
Santa Clarita City Hall
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302 'FEB 2 5 1992
Valencia Ca 91355 CONVA
JNITY DEVELOPMENT
CIiYGr ^pHTq CL4p,TARRI7q'
Dear Members of the Santa Clarita Planning Commission,
We are opposed to George Thomas' current subdivision plan, just as we
have maintained our opposition to his prior plans. Any plan to subdivide
his property violates the Crystal Springs Ranch C.C.& R's, deteriorates the
County .adopted plan to have lots averaging one acre, and sets a
precedent for future lot splitting that will further erode the quality of life in
the entire Sand Canyon area.
We have attached copies of prior letters we have sent maintaining our
opposition to this action. As you can see, we are on record with letters
and personal appearances since early May, 1991. In addition, we
submitted a petition signed by 47 homeowners with our January 28, 1992
letter. Several of these homeowners said that in George Thomas'
petition drive late in 1991, they had been led to believe that the properly
in question was north of Soledad Canyon Road.
Thank you for considering our interests as you decide on his proposed
subdivision request.
Sincere 1�
7rtin R. Bayless
President, Board of Directors
Crystal Springs Ranch
Homeowners Association
City of
Santa Clarita
I23920 Valencia Blvd.
Suite 300
City of Santa Clarita
California 91355
February 21, 1992
Phone
(805)259-2489
Fax
(805) 259-8125
Mr. George Thomas
27561 Clear Lake Drive
Canyon Country, California 91351
IQ
LYNN M. HARRIS
DEPUTY.CITY MANAGER/
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AleVai
s u
q
Assistant Planner
LMH: APV:
cc: Mr. Donald Hale, Hale and Associates
Mr. Jonathan L. Ames, The Ames Group
LMH:APV:333
RE: Tentative Parcel Map 21435
February 25, 1992
6:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard
Jill Klalic
Mayor
Dear Applicant:
Howard "Buck" McKeon
Mayor aro-rem
Your project above.has been scheduled to be heard by the City
Carl Boyer, 3rd
of Santa Clarita City Council. Applicants are requested to be
Councilmember _
in attendance at this hearing. Please be advised that the City
Jo Anne Darcy
Council may take action on your project even if you or your
councilmember
representatives are not resent.
P
Jan Heidt
Please find enclosed the agenda report for your project.
councilmember
Should questions arise, please contact me at (805) 255-4330.
Sincerely,
LYNN M. HARRIS
DEPUTY.CITY MANAGER/
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AleVai
s u
q
Assistant Planner
LMH: APV:
cc: Mr. Donald Hale, Hale and Associates
Mr. Jonathan L. Ames, The Ames Group
LMH:APV:333
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented
PUBLIC HEARING Lynn M. Harris
DATE: February 25, 1992
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 21435 to allow for the subdivision of
a 5.32 acre parcel into two single family lots containing
3.32 acres and 2.00 acres respectively. The project which
is located at 27548 Clear Lake Drive has been revised from
a previous proposal which included four single family
lots. Applicant: George and Marla Thomas.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
On February 4, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P92-06
denying revised Tentative Parcel Map 21435 which includes the subdivision
of a 5.32 acre parcel into two new single family lots consisting of a,
3.32 acre parcel and a 2.00 acre parcel at 27548 Clear Lake Drive. The
applicant had previously proposed a four lot subdivision that was denied
by the Planning Commission (through Resolution P91-18, attached) on June
4, 1991. On November 12, 1991, the case was brought to the City Council
on appeal and was referred back 'to the Commission for further
consideration. Also, the Council requested that the item be broughtbackto-them on February 25, 1992. The Council referred the matter back to
the Commission to study possible alternative designs.
on December 19, 1991, the applicant submitted a revised map which
includes a two lot subdivision consisting of 3.32 acres and 2.00 acres,
respectively. This site is designated RVL (Residential Very Low - 0.5 to
1.0 units per acre) on the General Plan.
At the meeting of February 4, 1992, the Commission focused on the
restriction placed on the subject parcel by the County, which restricts
the development of this property to one single family residence and
accessory structures. As proposed, this project would create one new
building site in addition to the existing single family dwelling on-site.
Agenda Item:
City of
Santa Clarita
23920 Valeneo vd.
Phone`
Suite 300
(805) 259.2489
City of Santa Clarita
Fax
California 91355
(805) 259.8125
February 11, 1992
sent via certified
Mr. George Thomas
27561 Clear Lake Drive
Canyon Country, California 91351
RE: Tentative Parcel Map 21435
Located at 27548 Clear Lake Drive
Dear Mr. Thomas:
At its meeting of February 4, 1992 the Planning Commission
formally denied the above item. Enclosed is a copy of
Resolution No. P92-06. This is a formal document stating
the Commission's action. As you are aware, on November
12, 1991 the City Council referred this item back to
Planning Commission for consideration and for
recommendation to the Council on February 25, 1992. This
item has been scheduled for this date. Please be advised
that the City Council may take action on your project even
if you or your representatives are not present.
Please contact me at (805) 255-4330 if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
LYNN M. HARRIS
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/
Alex Vasquez
Assistant Planner I
cc: Mr. Donald Hale, Hale and Associates
Mr. Jonathan L. Ames, The Ames Group
LMH:APV:348
Enclosure
RESOLUTION NO. P92-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING
REVISED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21435 TO ALLOY THE MINOR LAND DIVISION
OF 5.32 ACRES INTO TVO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 27548 CLEAR LAKE DRIVE
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS.FOLLOVS:
follows: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and determine as
a. An application for a tentative parcel map was filed on October 10,
1989, by George Thomas ("the. applicant"). The property for which
this entitlement has been filed is located at 27548 Clear Lake Drive,
940 feet east of the Cedarfort Drive intersection approximately
one-half mile east of Sand Canyon Road. The project site is 5.32
acres in gross area. The subject parcel is lot 23 of Tract 37573.
The Assessor's Parcel Numbers for the site are 2841-020-051. The
applicant proposes to subdivide this property into four new single
family residential lots of 62,400, 67,840, 53,120, and 43,840 square
feet, respectively.
b. The applicable zoning for this property is A-1-1 Light Agricultural,
one acre minimum lot size, and is designated as RVL (Residential Very
Low) 0.5-1.0 dwelling units per acre according to the City of Santa
Clarita General Plan. The proposed density of the four lot proposal
is 0.75 dwelling units per acre.
C. The property contains a single family residence and the majority of
the site is in a'predominantly natural state. The property contains
a significant ridgeline which traverses the site.
d. The surrounding uses are low density residential.
e. The application was circulated for City Department and agency review
upon receipt. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee
(DRC) met on November 30, 1989 and again on February 22, 1991 to
discuss the project and additional information and revisions needed
from the applicant. City staff also supplied the applicant with
preliminary recommended conditions.
f. A duly noticed public.hearing was held by the Planning Commission on
April 2, 1991 and subsequently continued to May 7, 1991 and again to
May 21, 1991 at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard,
Santa Clarita,.at 7:00 p.m.
g. At the Planning Commission meeting of June 4, 1991, the Planning
Commission voted to adopt Resolution P91-18 denying Tentative Parcel
Map 21435.
Reso P92-06 U
Page 2
h. An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the project was
submitted by the applicant on June 5, 1991 and was scheduled to be
heard by the City Council on July 9, 1991. The project was continued
to September 24, 1991 and again to November 12, 1991.
i. At the City Council meeting of November 12, 1991,. the project was
brought before the City Council on appeal and was referred back to
the Planning Commission with no specific directions given other than
to reconsider the matter and make a recommendation for City Council
consideration on February 25, 1992.
j. On December 19, 1991, the applicant submitted a revised map
indicating a two lot subdivision rather than the previous four lot
subdivision request.
k. The proposed density of the revised tentative map is 0.37 dwelling
units per acre. I
,
1. This revised project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality- Act (CEQA). Staff prepared an
Initial Environmental Assessment for this project. Staff determined
that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Effect could be adopted
for this project.
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 of February 4, 1992, the Planning Commission
considered the staff reports prepared for this project (Revised
Tentative Parcel Map 21435) and received testimony on this proposal.
b. The City's General Plan designation for the -project site is RVL
(Residential Very Low) 0.5-1.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposed
use of the property for residential development is consistent with
this land use designation.
C. Although it is not considered a; physical constraint, a specific
building restriction exists. on this property which prohibits the
construction of more than one residence and accessory buildings. The
project site has been previously developed with an existing single
family dwelling. This project, as revised, would create one. more
building, site in addition to the_existing single family residence.
d. The project contains a significant ridgeline which traverses the
site; the .General Plan encourages the retention of open space to
preserve significant ridgelines and provide land use buffers.
,oft
RESD P92-06 �...�
Page 3
The previous four lot proposal would have impacted the existing
ridgeline and open space features that are contained within the
property and was contrary to the draft Hillside and Ridgeline
criteriaand goals and policies of the General Plan's Land Use
Element, Community Design Element and Open Space Element. Due to the
existence of a previously graded building pad at the terminus of
Clear Lake Drive along with an already constructed single family
dwelling, the current two lot request would not impact the site's
topography or open space features.
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning
Commission hereby determines as follows:
a. The proposed minor land division will not have a significant effect
upon the environment under the California Environmental Quality Act.
b. The development restriction placed upon the property (as shown on
Tract Map 37573 on file with the Los Angeles County Recorder's
Office) limits the development of this property to the existing
single family residence and accessory buildings currently on site.
C. The approval of this land division would not be in conformance with
the density approved for Tract Map 37573..
NOV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Santa Clarita, California, as follows:
a. The Planning Commission hereby denies Tentative Parcel Map 21435 to
allow the subdivision of the subject property into two new lots for
residential development at 27548 Clear Lake Drive (Assessor's Parcel
No. 2841-020-051).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th clay of 1992.
Jerry Cherrington, Chairman
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
L M. Harris
rector of Community Development
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) as
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
RESO P92-06
Page 4
N
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 4th day of February 1992 by the
following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Modugno, Brathwaite, Doughman, Vice -Chairman Woodrow
and Chairman Cherrington.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
fb�nna M. Grindey
City Clerk
UNITED STATES POSTAL
C•lA91-iL•1R1111. 11!1**4
Amp
P I II
S. Cq
Q PO .
SENDER INSTRUCTIONS
'Print your name, address and ZIP Cc
In the space below.
• Complete items 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the
reverse.
• Attach to front of article if space
permits, otherwise affix 10 back of
article.
• Endorse article "Return Receipt
Requested" adjacent to number.
20 FEB e
v 1L
FEB 21 1992
COC HUNtTY JEvE W PMENY
USO
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE
USE, 8300
RETURN Print Sender's name, address, avid ZIP Code in the space below.
TO » CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
.. ....... ... ..
Community Development Dept.
23920 Valencia Blvd.r Suite 300
ATTN: AlexCity of Santa Claritar.CA. 91355 I.
_} va�� rltrlL111t1LItt1lLtlltitrtliit,rLLlt111111 '
MESO I b (5
. .... ,.. ._. .� �.......+.�..�...,.....,++...�....s....•...�.........,�..-.......�....--.-�.._ �_,Cii�fifEr(wv.ti33t�rV:Rf<iicb�.ecvui`wiF;t?E,Wt>Za iScui:H.<;b.`.ENW�ft%t?c`?.3
f5r-0(Z-a661 'pd'.) -5'n
Ann6U1 agew naA p p luosaid Due Id!aow sr I. aneS 'S
11 7d!1lQe Waal In I wall w Sgaclq Blgea!Idde 841 Moa4a
a3w sN1'palsan6aa s! 101aaai wnlaa
10 luwt 9ql ua saaeds aleudoidde 2q, in pals9non 5a0WBS ayl sol 1610SaR18I1113 'S
'aas5aappe 041 Jo Iua6e pazuoUlne uei {0 lUaUBssalUS A83Afl30 0310191SaU aslopua
PP 41 al Palo!,Isar ku !lap luem BOA 11 'D
Mun13R ala!ue 10 lain, asaopu3 'alaipezaawnu ae 04101 1 0l luaoelpe 031S3n03111dl303U
Pawwnn 94110 sueaw Aq 8lagae ail, 10 Waal e 0 it X ue S!may,0 'sllwiad aseds jl spua
U no sswppe Due aweu moA pU2lagwnu pew p IISS wzul 'Paeo ld!aaw weal
Pa!!!Uaa Bill apun •Idla3al wnlaa a ,uem noA 11 .E
wnlw a oi3lue ayl Van PUB '!d!a3a1 aqj U!elw PUB yoelap'alsp'al0we Bill to Sswppe
41 !o ly6P ayl of qns paw116 ayl flaps 'paIRUJIsod Id!aaw S!4, ,uem lou op noA JI -Z
o, !l Duey a0. Wpu!m aawas aa!po lsod a Is alalPe a (alneo inlya on) iaweo lernl JMA
MOMwnlw sill in 146P a4i of gnls Paw;41 94I M? ISlupayaeWsotl IdlBdae sUB ayl luem4noA pAI
e L
E, 'flow{ Bas) 5331A03S 1yN011d0 03133135 ANY NO3 S30NYNO ONtl'333 )IYW 031311tl33
'30=0d SS"O 1SHU WA03 0131311NY m S1AYN3 1"33 d 313115
t
,i
1d13038 NHnl3H 3IlS3Wnri'
++ a
� 2d=
N d0
a c
ru m o
m�
C3 _ E
M>>d
0
1 (D
t0 N
ra w?��
FI c o¢
•2., lti � o o d
ciZOV'
O '�8
oem —V LL8E wod Sd
M
A,angap;o slap •z
X
iueOV — a,nleu -9
X
(p;nd aa,(pgo pa,ranbaa
h A7MO) ssa,ppy s,aassa,ppV -g
eassa,ppy — mi
'O3N3A1130 31V0 pue w -6e ,o
eassaippe ;o anleums welgo sAvmlV
aslpueymayy ,o;
ltltl!eoeg wniag� Re!nl ssaitlz3
-"
. „
O00 pe!i!lJoa
TSET6
pamsu!� pwe3sBa�
:ao!n,ag;o
'3?Te0 '�? ROO UO[iUEO
adQ
- an?,ra axle EaiO T9SLZ
LZO ZZ9 T9L d
seuiayy-.aba09f), aW
,agwn!y a!o!i,y .q,�..
(a8�o o,ug)
:01 PasSa1PPV ahp,V •£
a8, a oi
l
A,an!!ap palaplsag El •z •ssa,Ppe s,aassa, a ue 'Glop PP
p 'pa,anpap woym of ,aoyS p • i
a
sae ,o ,elsewlsotl 1 nsuo a a lens aye sabin,as 6mMo o le sl saa�a euogr n!ppe ,o; (sa)xoq yoays pue
pue of pa' I p uos�a ayl;o aweu a no a Pe 1Od an!12p�o slap a4i
,eosl l luana,d vm s 10 01 em ";l ' is
P 4 II. 4., P I. i p.
!na
es,ana, le 1 uo aoed a, wn1a, eyl •noA o1 paum3a, 6u!eq ww;
4 S ..O -L Nuni3u., ayi ul ssa,ppe,noA and
swap a39!tlwoa pus 'pa,!sap 019 sao!nias leuoii!ppe uayv, 3 Pus l swell alaldwoO :H3ON3S
++ a
� 2d=
N d0
a c
ru m o
m�
C3 _ E
M>>d
0
1 (D
t0 N
ra w?��
FI c o¢
•2., lti � o o d
ciZOV'
O '�8
066L sun! uu96
7
ih;;nnaisla!s,.;4a;3:�!�r+<2t��??3a�sEfiA,u:y, t,aLis4t< ,e,n,a.�Rwzatua,zH,cNc?s+MW�E
M
O
�
E
0
X
U
o
u
u
L4
s
4J
S
C
O
N
'J
a
o
N
C7
0
,
i�
°1
>
S
D
0
E
Ircq76
w
066L sun! uu96
7
ih;;nnaisla!s,.;4a;3:�!�r+<2t��??3a�sEfiA,u:y, t,aLis4t< ,e,n,a.�Rwzatua,zH,cNc?s+MW�E
1�
2�
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
251
1
26
27
281
"'y. CF SANTA CLARITA
FEB 25
�4
IN A MATTER BEFORE THE CITYC166UNCIL_rµl➢-1,:3t ICF
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
GEORGE THOMAS
and
MARLA THOMAS
Applicants,
and
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Agency,
CASE NUMBER: TPM 21435
REQUEST FOR 90 DAY
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTINUANCE
DATE: February 25, 1992
TIME: 6:30 PM
PLACE: City ,Hall Council Chambers
Santa Clarita, CA
The Applicants, GEORGE and MARLA THOMAS, hereinafter
"Applicants", hereby petition the City Council, hereinafter
"Council" for a continuance of the public hearing for Tentative
Parcel Map Number 21435, hereinafter "Map".
PETITION AND AUTHORITY
The Applicants, citing Government Code § 65095 which
states, in part, " Any public hearing conducted under this title
may be continued from time to time." hereby -petition the Council
for a continuance of the public hearing relative to their request
for approval of their revised map to a point in time on or about
May 25, 1992 or such other date as is amenable to the.Council.
111 As articulated within the City of Santa Clarita
N
211 Department of Planning Staff, hereinafter "Staff", report, this
N
311 matter was remanded by the Council back to the City of Santa
11
41 Clarita Planning Commission, hereinafter "Commission", for review
511 and recommendation. Prior to the Commission hearing on the matter,
611 the Applicants substantially revised their map which said revised
7ii
0 map was presented to the Commission for review and decision.
811
911 Within that Commission hearing, testimony was given
1011 by interested citizens who expressed concern that the revised map
1111 would contradict their, as well as the City's, best interest.in the
12fl development of the area specifically and -the City in general.
q
13 1
1
141 Subsequent to that specific hearing, the Applicants
15i indicated their desire to meet with the members of the public in an
1611 effort to ally their fears of the proposed development's alleged
170 adverse effects upon the City and directed their counsel to effect
1811 such meeting.
1911
2011 Due to severe meteorological events occurring within
2111 the interim time between the Commission hearing and the Council
2211 hearing rendering counsel's residence untenable, counsel was unable
23j to act upon the desires of the Applicants and no such meetings took
241i place.
25N
11
2611 The Applicants concede the fact that public
11
2711 sentiment is against them and that the adverse sentiment exists as
280 a direct result of the Applicant's previous actions which were
1 inattentive to the desires of the surrounding homeowners. The
2111 1 Applicants contend however, that there exist certain aspects of
311 their proposed development which, when fully explored with the
11
411 concerned citizens in community meeting, would ally their fears and
11
5result in substantial benefit to both the residents of the
611 immediate area as well as the community at large.
11
71
811 CONCLUSION
911 The Applicants recognize the fact that their past
1011 ambivalence towards the concerns of the immediate residents has
111 resulted in public opposition to their proposed subdivision. In
12� recognition of this ambivalence the Applicants substantially
13� revised their original map tospecificationswhich they believed
14 would not impact the surrounding community and, as -evidenced by the
151 Staff report attendant to this hearing, succeeded in those
16 endeavors.
171
181 While the Applicants exist as fully aware of the
1911 fact that the Council may deny the Applicants' proposed subdivision
20 based upon the existence of a restriction on the Los Angeles County
21 Subdivision Map, the Applicant is also aware of the fact that the
221 final decision on the proposed subdivision is ultimately at the
23 discretion of the Council and that if the.Applicants are able to
241 evidence factually that substantial benefit would accrue the
1
251 residents of the City and/or the City itself as a result of the
1
261 approval of the specific subdivision; if the Applicants are able to
27 secure the unqualified support of the residents of the city, then
I
2811 the Council may approve the subdivision citing overriding
1p considerations as the basis for their approval.
2�
n
3 It is the belief of the Applicants that the proposed
4 development, if due consideration is awarded the concerns of the
511 area residents, would result in substantial benefit to the City.
6111 The Applicants therefore respectfully request a continuance of the
7i matter at hand for a period of approximately ninety (90) days to
8� allow the Applicants and their counsel opportunity to meet with the
9 area residents. The Applicants agree to withdraw their project from
10l consideration in the event that they fail to; 1) factually evidence
11 a substantial benefit to the residents and the City as a result of
12 the proposed subdivision; and 2) gain unqualified public support
13 for the proposed subdivision.
14
15 Respectfully submitted this 24th day of February, 1992.
16
17
ONATHAN L. AMES
18 for
GEORGE and MARLA THOMAS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28