Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-10-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - UDC ZONING MAP 92 200 92 18 (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approv Item to be presented PUBLIC HEARING DATE: October 27, 1992 SUBJECT: Unified Development Code and Official Zoning Map Resolution Number: 92-200 Ordinance Number: 92-18 DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND On August 18, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P92-32 recommending approval of the Unified Development Code, Officlal Zoning Map and Negative Declaration to the City Council. These Items were originally scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council at the September 30, 1992 Council Study Session. However, due to the full agenda on September 30, the Council continued the item to the regularly scheduled October 27 Council meeting. A complete agenda report was presented to the Council for the September 30 Study Session (Attachment #1). As discussed In that agenda report, four Issues remain outstanding and require resolution by the City Council. In particular, the land use designation in the area of the Lyons Avenue extension remains outstanding and Is Included In proposed General Plan Amendment 92-02 (also on this agenda). The Council voted 5-0 to designate the area Industrial Commercial (IC) at the January18, 1992 Council meeting. However,,at the July 21, 1992, Commission meeting, the Commission determined that, due to existing traffic congestion In the area, the area should be designated Residential Low (RL) until the Lyons extension was actually constructed. Also, the issue of Floor Area Ratios (FARs) In the Valley Center Overlay remains outstanding. The General Plan states that an office/financial corridor "is seen running along Valencia Boulevard and Soledad Canyon road" and that FAR's from 2:1 to 4:1 may be appropriate. However, this area is proposed to be zoned Commercial Town Center (CTC) and Community Commercial (CC), which allows for FAR's ranging from 0.25-.5:1. Staff feels that, In order to make the UDC consistent with the General Plan, the midpoint density in the CTC and CC zones within the Office/Financial Corridor of the Valley Center Overlay should be Increased from .375:1 to 2:1. The following changes have been recommended by the City Attorney: The City Attorney has determined that the City can not require a conditional use permit for affordable housing density bonuses (affordable housing projects are permitted density bonuses of up to 25% in excess of the midpoint density) and that, as density bonuses are not required by the state for moderate Income housing, that density bonuses should be limited to senior, very low, and low Income projects. Although a conditional use permit can not be required, these projects will still be subject to all standard requirements for residential development, Including environmental review and mitigation. Adopted: /o PaD - /cA a i on i•-,oa c>� Agenda Item: �_- 2. The City Attorney has also recommended that some wording changes be made In Title 16 (Subdivisions) to make the document consistent with the, Subdivision Map Act. (See Attachment #2). In addition, a graphic has been added which illustrates setback requirements In commercial and Industrial zones. (See Attachment #3). This graphic is similar to one already Included in the UDC for residential and agricultural zones. Some typographical and formatting errors have been Identified which will be corrected prior to printing of the final document. 4 Staff recommends that the Council: 1. Receive the staff presentation; 2. Receive testimony; 3. Consider and reach a consensus on the Unified Development Code and Zoning Map; 4. Direct staff to make the two changes recommended by the City Attorney and provide direction on the outstanding Issues; specifically: a. The Planning Commission recommends that the area of the Lyons Avenue extension be zoned RL. Staff recommends that, pursuant to previous Council direction, the area be zoned IC;. b. Staff recommends that the midpoint density in the CTC and CC zones within the Office/Financial Corridor of the Valley Center Overlay be Increased from .375:1 to 2:1; C. Provide direction to staff on the minimum lot size In the A Zone; and d. Provide direction to staff on how the value of parkland will be determined. 5. Adopt Resolution No. 92-200 certifying the Negative Declaration for the Unified Development Code and Official Zoning Map; and 6. Introduce Ordinance No. 92-18 for adoption of the Unified Development Code and Official Zoning Map, waive further reading, and pass to the second reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. September 30, 1992 Agenda Report 2. Proposed changes to Title 16 (Subdivisions) 3. Graphic (industrial/Commercial Setbacks) 4. Ordinance No. 92-62 5. Resolution No. 92-200 6. Letter from Bonnie Sir Kegian LMH:KMK coundl0gn10427.kmk PUBL_C 'HEARING ?ROCE--U?r 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) S. 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 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ZONING MAP PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY"GIVEN: The City Council will conduct a public hearing on the Unified Development. Code and. Zoning Map and associated environmental impacts, if any, on Tuesday, October 27, 1992 at or after 6:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA. 91355. In June, 1991, the City adopted its first General Plan. Following the adoption of the General Plan, the City began developing a Unified Development Code and citywide Zoning Map, the intent being to implement the General Plan, integrate citizen concerns, and "clean up" the existing code by putting it in a new format, eliminating inconsistencies, and deleting sections that do not apply to the City. The. new Code and Zoning Map will supersede the Santa Clarita Municipal Code and Map (adopted from Los Angeles County) which the City currently uses. The draft Unified Development Code first went to the Planning Commission on October 25, 1991. To date, 23 public hearings and 17 community meetings have been held. The Planning Commission completed its review and recommended approval of the Unified Development Code, Zoning Map and corresponding environmental assessment (a Negative Declaration) to the City Council on August 18, 1992. The proposed Unified Development Code, Zoning Map and environmental documentation will be available for review in the City Hall Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 twenty-one days prior to the public hearing. They will also be available for review twenty-one. days prior to the hearing at the Valencia Library, 23743 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting the Community Development Department at (805) 255-4330. If you wish to challenge this order in court, you may be limited to raising. only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council, at, or prior to the public hearing. Date: October 1, 1992 Donna M. Grindey, CMC City Clerk Publish Date: October 5, 1992 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROfFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klajic and Members of the City Council FROM: George Caravalho, City Manager DATE: September 30, 1992 SUBJECT: Unified Development Code and Zoning Map The draft Unified Development Code (UDC), as prepared by Michael Brandman and Associates (MBA), first went to the Planning Commission on October 25, 1991. A series of public hearings was held over a period of several months and, as a result of a great deal of controversy over the document and a general belief that City staff was more In touch with the needs of Santa Clarita than a consultant from outside the City, staff took over the Unified Development Code from MBA in March, 1992. The Planning Commission directed staff to conduct a series of community meetings to increase community involvement, reduce misunderstanding, and build consensus. A total of nine community meetings were held over the next month, covering specific subjects (i.e. Industrial/commercial Issues, permitted uses, animal keeping standards, subdivision standards, and special standards districts) as well as general community Issues. The meetings were conducted In an informal, question and answer format. Residents were asked to comment on what they would tike to see in the new zoning code and what they would like to change in the existing code adopted from Los Angeles County. The community meetings were well received by the community and generated a great deal of response. Based on the community meetings, staff made significant revisions to the UDC and presented a "red -line" copy to the Commission on May 19, 1992. Staff's intent was to implement the General Plan, integrate citizen concerns, and "clean-up" the Santa Clarita Municipal Code by putting it In a new format, eliminating inconsistencies, and deleting sections that did not apply to the City. The Subdivision Title and Grading Division of Title 17 remain almost entirely as they were In the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, with the exception of hillside development provisions and the replacement of County terms with City terms (i.e. "Road Commissioner" became "City Engineer"). The following Is a summary of the issues generating the most concern among residents and how these issues were resolved. (This is not a complete list but rather a general summary of the Issues generating the most concern and how they were addressed by the Planning Commission.) 1. Nonconforming structures and uses. The consensus was that structures and uses legal under the existing code should be allowed to remain in perpetuity, and that they should be permitted reasonable expansion and to rebuild if the structures were destroyed. It was.also asked that the word "nonconforming" be changed to "pre-existing legal", as "nonconforming" Is a negative term which can make it difficult to obtain loans on such property. The Planning Commission agreed (with the exception of unscreened outdoor storage and signage for which elimination schedules are Included in the UDC), and standards were drafted to Implement this (page 1-40+). Pre-existing legal structures are, 1) permitted to expand up to the FAR permitted for that zone if it Is determined by the Director that the expansion will not increase the degree of nonconformity or adversely affect adjacent uses or natural resources; and 2) permitted to be restored following damage If the restoration takes place within two years and complies with parking, setback and landscaping standards In effect at the time of reestablishment. 2. In addition, procedures for "zoning compliance review" were established which permits the owners of pre-existing legal structures and uses to obtain a "certificate of zoning compliance" If they are able to show that the structure or use In question Is In compliance with the original permit and/or codes in effect at the time the structure was constructed or the use was Initiated. This procedure will help the owners of such structures/uses to obtain loans and will encourage them to bring their structures/uses Into compliance with the original permit. Industrial zones. Under the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, there are no setbacks for buildings In commercial and Industrial buildings (although there is a five to ten foot setback required for parking areas adjacent to the right-of-way). The first draft of the UDC required up to 40 foot setbacks. The Commission determined that -the building setback should be consistent with the required parking setback (page 2-27). 3. Animal keeping. The original draft of the UDC prepared by the consultant proposed to increase the minimum lot sizes.for animal keeping and decrease the number of animals permitted to be kept per acre. This created a great deal of concern among residents. As a result of the community meetings, it was determined that animal keeping has not created a problem In the past and therefore should not be further regulated (page 2-74). Minimum lot sizes for horse keeping (and other similar animals) was reduced from 15,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet in Placerita and Sand Canyons due to the areas` rural and equestrian character (page 2.66+). Also, concern was expressed that more than three dogs, regardless of the size of the property, Is currently considered a "kennel" and that the number should be Increased. The Planning Commission determined that four dogs should be allowed on lots of one acre or more (page 2-75). 4. Zoning of the Honby area. The proposed rezoning of the Honby area (specifically, that area bordered on the north by the Santa Clara River, on the east by Honby Street, on the south by the alley north of Soledad Canyon Road, and on the west by Furnlvall Street) created a great deal of concern to homeowners In the area who did not want Industrial development adjacent to their homes. Although the Planning Commission ultimately determined that the area should be zoned Industrial Commercial (IC), provisions were made to buffer the existing residential uses from future Industrial development, Including the following: a. New commercial and Industrial development which Is typically permitted in the IC Zone will be subject to a minor use permff In the Honby area (page 2-12). b. Where new commercial and Industrial uses are located adjacent to or across an alley from a residential use, they shall provide a minimum six foot high masonry wall along all common lot lines with 15 gallon trees planted every 20 feet (page 2-28). Additional changes were made based on Council direction, Including the addition of regulations relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Specific examples of standards required to Implement the General Plan Include Floor Area Ratios (FARs) (page 2.27); density bonus provisions (page 2-103); development standards for the Mlnerat/Oil Conservation Area (MOCA) Overlay Zone (page 2-53), Open Space (OS) Zone (page 2.59), Private Education (PE) Zone (page 2-62), and Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) (page 2-31); and commercial and Industrial setbacks from single family residential zones (page 2-2-28). To date, 23 public hearings and 17 community meetings have been held on the UDC and Zoning Map. Based on response to this extensive public participation effort, staff feels that a general consensus has been reached and that the draft UDC, as approved by the Planning Commission, Is supported by the residents of the City. To the best of staff's knowledge, only the following Issues remain outstanding: 1. Park Fees or Dedication Requirements. Newhall Land and Farming Co. remains concerned with the appraisal method for the valuation of land for park dedications (page 2-97+). They prefer the current system of set values for each park district. (There are currently two districts In the City; the western district where property is valued at approximately $200,000 an acre and the eastern district where property Is valued at. approximately $100,000.) With the appraisal method, a developer could be obligated to pay a higher Quimby fee based on the acreage requirement being multiplied by a value greater than the present standard fee. 2. Floor Area Ratios (FARs) In the Valley Center Overlay. The General Plan states that an office/financial corridor "is seen running along Valencia Boulevard and Soledad Canyon Road" and FARs ranging from 2:1 to 4:1 may be appropriate" (page L-59). However, the area Is proposed to be zoned Commercial Town Center (CTC), which allows for FARs ranging between 0.25-.5:1 (page L-47). For this reason, the UDC Indicates the midpoint density to be .375:1. Newhall Land and Farming Co. maintains that this is Inconsistent with the General Plan and that the possible higher densities should be reflected In the midpoint FAR. The Council needs to make the following determinations: a. Whether this represents an inconsistency In the General Plan and, if so, direct staff to prepare a General Plan amendment; and b. If an FAR of up to 4:1 will be appropriate In this area in the near future and, if so, direct staff to change the midpoint FAR Indicated in the UDC to 2:1. 3. Zoning Map Issues. Several changes have not yet been made to the zoning map as they will require a General Plan amendment. This amendment is scheduled to go to the Planning Commission on October 6,1992 and anticipated to be heard by the Council on October 27,1992. Of the requests for map changes, only one request still remains an issue. The Planning Commission felt that, although the property east and south of the current terminus of Lyons Avenue possibly should ultimately be industrial, no higher zoning than Residential Low should apply since Placerita Canyon currently has unsolved traffic problems. The Council may wish to direct staff to change the draft zoning map to Business Park, as staff recommended to the Commission, prior to the October 27 City Council meeting. 4. Minimum lot size in the Agriculture (A) Zone. The General Plan states that lot sizes In the'A Zone "are intended to be in large acreages with minimum sizes of 80 acres". The Commission felt that this was excessive and that a minimum lot size of five or ten acres would be more appropriate; In this way the A Zone could be applied to more properties and still retain its very low density characteristic. The Council may determine that a smaller lot size would be appropriate and direct staff to prepare a General Plan amendment. It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Receive staff report; 2. Begin consideration and consensus on the draft Unified Development Code and Zoning Map; and 3. Direct staff to advertise the UDC and Zoning Map for the regularly scheduled October 27,1992, Council meeting. counc11\agn930.kmk ATTACHMENT #2 Section 16.05.060: Modify to read as follows: A. All boundary monuments shall be set prior to.filing of the final map or parcel map unless, before the map Is approved by the City Council: The engineer or surveyor responsible for setting the monuments certifies on the map that the monuments will be set on or before a reasonable, specified later date; and 2. The subdivider enters Into a written agreement with the City which contains, at a minimum, the terms set forth below and furnishes security in an amount and In a manner as set forth In the agreement. B. The written agreement by and between the City and subdivider shall contain, at a minimum, the following terms: That the engineer or surveyor has certified on the map that monuments will be set on or before a certain date specified In the agreement and that the notes required In Section 16.05.040 will be furnished to the City Engineer at the same time; 2. That concurrent with the execution by subdivider of the agreement, subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer security in a specified amount sufficient to guarantee payment of the cost of setting survey/boundary monuments and in the form of a cash deposit, performance bond, letter of credit, orother form of security acceptable to the City; 3. That the engineer and/or surveyor is a third party beneficiary to the terms of the agreement; 4. That the subdivider may agree, that upon receipt of written notice to the City Engineer and subdivider from the engineer or surveyor that the final setting of all monuments has been completed, the City Council may release the security to the engineer or surveyor; 5. Other terms governing the release of the security as provided under. Government Code Section 66497." Add Section 16.31.055 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: "Additional Information which does not affect record title Interests shall be placed on a separate document or additional map sheet which shall Indicate that it is for Informational purposes and Is not intended to affect record title interests. Such additional information may Include without limitation, building setback lines, flood hazard zones, seismic lines and setbacks, geologic mapping and archaeological sites. The final or parcel map shall contain a notation of reference to the separate document or additional map sheet:' Section 16.31.230: Modify the second line of Subsection (C) be deleting "the final map or parcel map by a prominent note on each sheet of such map whereon any such portion is shown" and replace with "a separate document or additional map sheet." Section 16.31.240: Modify the third line by deleting "the final map or parcel map" and replace with "a separate document or additional map sheet. ATTACHMENT #2 Section 16.05.060: Modify to read as follows: A. All boundary monuments shall be set prior to filing of the final map or parcel map unless, before the map is approved by the City Council: 1. The engineer or surveyor responsible for setting the monuments certifies on the map that the monuments will be set on or before a reasonable, specified later date; and 2. The subdivider enters into a written agreement with the City which contains, at a minimum, the terms set forth below and furnishes security in an amount and In a manner as set forth in the agreement. B. The written agreement by and between the City and subdivider shall contain, at a minimum, the following terms: 1. That the engineer or surveyor has certified on the map that.monuments will be set on or before a certain date specified in the agreement and that the notes required in Section 16.05.040 will be furnished to the City Engineer at the same time; 2. That concurrent with the execution by subdivider of the agreement, subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer security in a specified amount sufficient to guarantee payment of the cost of setting surveylboundary monuments and in the form of a cash deposit, performance bond, letter of credit, or other form of security acceptable to the City; 3. That the engineer and/or surveyor is a third party beneficiary to the terms of the agreement; 4. That the subdivider may agree, that upon receipt of written notice to the City Engineer and subdivider from the engineer or surveyor that the final setting of all monuments has been completed, the City Council may release the security to the engineer or surveyor; 5. Other terms governing the release of the security as provided under Government Code Section 66497." Add Section 16.31.055 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: "Additional information which does not affect record title interests shall be placed on a separate document or additional map sheet which shall Indicate that it is for informational purposes and is not intended to.affect record title interests. Such additional Information may include without limitation, building setback lines, flood hazard zones, seismic lines and setbacks, geologic mapping and archaeological sites. The final or parcel map shall contain a notation of reference to the separate document or additional map sheet." Section 16.31.230: Modify the second line of Subsection (C) be deleting 'the final map or parcel map by a prominent note on each sheet of such map whereon any such portion is shown" and replace with "a separate document or additional map sheet." A-T-fACf-I mF-K #2 6' HIGH —j MASONRY WALL t 5' WIDE LANDSCAPE PLANTER 20' MAX. BETWEEN TREES BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL & COMM ERC IAUIN DU STRIAL cc W OZ O -� N Q J cc UYQ M W �N O❑ 0 25`SETBACK FROM SINGLE FAMILY RES. ZONE RECIPROCAL ACCESS 5' LANDSCAPED SETBACK FROM RIGHT OF WAY DRIVEWAY LOCATED.MINIMUM OF 150' FROM CORNER COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE 10'LANDSCAPED SETBACK FROM MAJOR OR SECONDARY HIGHWAY STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY =3'HEIGH/TLIMrr E 25' NJ 01 is 0 10' 0 Q LL O (3 cc Q 0 2 Q ❑ Z, U Lu N cc O IC O N l z}• � F COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE z i; ,r. n r a`€ n\L� i\.11tri�N.•Lnr ..\-nic Vii. ,.y` 5' LANDSCAPED SETBACK FROM RIGHT OF WAY DRIVEWAY LOCATED.MINIMUM OF 150' FROM CORNER COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE 10'LANDSCAPED SETBACK FROM MAJOR OR SECONDARY HIGHWAY STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY =3'HEIGH/TLIMrr E 25' NJ 01 is 0 10' 0 Q LL O (3 cc Q 0 2 Q ❑ Z, U Lu N cc O IC O N ORDINANCE NO. 92-18 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE SANTA CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD 17, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, RELATING TO THE PROCESS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WITH LAND USE REGULATIONS AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare as follows: A. That the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita conducted public hearings pursuant to applicable law to consider a comprehensive amendment to the Santa Clarita Municipal Code ("SCMC'j to adopt Titles 16 and 17, the Unified Development Code ("UDC") and the Official Zoning Map for the City of Santa Clarita ('Zoning Map"). B. The applicant for these amendments to the SCMC and the Zoning Map is the City of Santa Clarita. C. The Planning Commission public hearings were noticed pursuant to applicable law, and testimony was invited and received. D. A Negative Declaration has been filed and reviewed In accordance with the California Environmental Ouality Act ("CEOA"), the State CEOA Guidelines, and the City of Santa Clarita CEOA Guidelines. E. Following public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P92-32, recommending approval of the Negative Declaration, the UDC and Zoning Map. F. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarlta conducted a public hearing pursuant to applicable law to consider the Negative Declaration Impact, the UDC and Zoning Map. G. The City Council public hearing was noticed pursuant to applicable law, and testimony was Invited, received and fully considered by the City Council. H. The City Council has adopted Resolution No. 92-200: approving the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact prepared for the UDC and Zoning Map. 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarlta passed, approved and adopted the Comprehensive General Plan for the City of Santa Clarlta on June 25, 1991. J. The UDC and Zoning Map adopted by this Ordinance Implements the goals, policies and actions of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and is, therefore, consistent with the General Pian. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarlta does hereby. amend the SCMC to add Titles 16 and 17 relating to the process and development standards associated with land use regulations of the City of Santa Clarita, by adopting the Unified Development Code, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita hereby adopts the Zoning Map, attached hereto and Incorporated herein by this reference as the Official Zoning Map for the City of Santa Clarita. SECTION 4. The adoption of the UDC by this Ordinance specifically supersedes Titles 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code, previously adopted by reference by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita as the Santa Clarlta Municipal Code, with the exception of the following provisions of the Los Angeles County Code which shall not be superseded and shall remain in effect and continue to operate as a portion of the SCMC: Los Angeles County Code Section 21.32.200, Maior Thoroughfare and Bridge Fees. Los Angeles County Code Chapter 22.48, Part 4, Parkways and Major and Secondary Highways. SECTIONS If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this Ordinance Is for any reason held to be Invalid by a court of competent Jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted this Ordinance and each and all of the provisions thereof, Irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions may be declared Invalid. SECTION 6. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 36933, the City Council • hereby directs the City Clerk to publish a summary of this Ordinance, or, if the City Clerk determines that it is not feasible to prepare a fair and adequate summary of this Ordinance, to publish a display advertisement of at least one-quarter of a page In a newspaper of general circulation In the City. The advertisement shall be published five days prior to the City Council meeting at which this Ordinance Is adopted. Within 15 days after adoption of the Ordinance, a . display advertisement of at least one-quarter of a page shall be published. The advertisement shall Indicate the general nature of, and provide Information about, the Ordinance, including information sufficient to enable the public to obtain copies of the complex text of the Ordinance and the names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance. 7992. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of Jill Klalic, Mayor ATTEST: Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and 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 1992 by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: couffi"d92-18.kmk • 11 Donna M. Grindey City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 92-200 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA WHEREAS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find, determine; and declare: A. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita conducted public hearings pursuant to applicable law to consider a comprehensive amendment to the Santa Clarita Municipal Code ("SCMC") to adopt Titles 16 and 17, the Unified Development Code ("UDC"), and the Official Zoning Map for the City of Santa Clarlta. ('Zoning Map"). B. A proposed Negative Declaration was prepared for the project based on the Initial Study findings and the determination that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, nor would it Impact resources protected by the California Department of Fish and Game and that a finding of de minimus impact on such resources Is appropriate. C. On August 18, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P92-32, • recommending approval of the Negative Declaration, the UDC and the Zoning Map to the City Council. D. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on October 27, 1992, in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. E. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and Investigation made by the City Council and on Its behalf, the Council further finds and determines that the proposed Negative Declaration Is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan, and that the Negative Declaration complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local guidelines. F. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby determines that the Negative Declaration Is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. SECTION 2. The Negative Declaration for the project, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and be this reference Incorporated herein, is hereby certified and approved. The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to file the Negative Declaration with the County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles. 0 1992. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of Jill Kla)Ic, Mayor ATTEST: Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and 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 1992 by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 9wrW1V*92 O k"* 0 Donna M. Grindey City Clerk BONNIE SIR KEGIAN CHARDENE SIR KEGIAN FAMILY TRUST 658 Alta Vista Way Laguna Beach, California 92651 (714)497-0860 (714)240-7852 FAX August 24. 1992 Ms. Lvrm Harris, Director of Community Development City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 RE: SirKegian Property at 20957 Placenta Canyon Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California. A request to re -zone the front acreas from RL/MOCA to I/C per GPAC committee person Richard How•e's request at the last GPAC meeting 1990 and per Planning Commissioner L. Braithwaite's request concerning Laurette West's property at Planning commission meeting 8/18/92 Dear Ms Harris: Planning for the city has been a long and arduous process. I sincerely appreciate the efforts of you and your staff. Thank you for taking the MOCA overlay off the back 25 acres of our property and leaving it RL. As I stated to Mr. Henderson's office, the front 10 acres are under oil lease and merit RL/MOCA. I believe you have been present at the many GPAC, Planning Commission and City Council meetings when SirKegian has requested an IC designation for the front 10 acres. Recently, at the August 18, 1992, Planning Commission meeting, other Placenta Canyon residents requested similar designations for similar reasons. Ms. Laurene Weste, Ms Katherine Becker and Mr. Michael McIntee were these speakers. The need for a buffer between developed industrial/commercial property and residential and the noise from existing IC property were used as reasons, much I had used in my pleas, in fact, Mr. McIntee said it would be illegal to build on RL lots under new General Plan standards due to noise levels coming from present commercial and industrial uses on surrounding properties. Commissioner Bmthwaite's request for zone changes might have been made for SirKegian, so closely are the properties in question alike. Commissioner Modugno told Ms Weste that infrastructure will have to preface a re -zoning from RL to IC. He suggested that when the Lyons Extension is in then she might see about an IC zone. Commissioner Woodrow wanted to tie rezoning for development to roads with conditional use permits. Commissioner Brathwaite seemed to believe this matter would continue to City Council. I am enclosing a copy of our letter to Mayor Boyer dated June 20, 1991. It sums up SirKegian's requests from the first GPAC meeting I attended in 1989. In conclusion, SirKegian asks to be included in the petition to City Council by Becker, McIntee and Weste for an IC designation. 3�I� (.. Bonnie Sir Kegian Chardene, Trustee Enclosure: 1 ��7 Z3 7 RESOLUTION NO. 92-200 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA WHEREAS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find, determine, and declare: A. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita conducted public. hearings pursuant to applicable law to consider a comprehensive amendment to the Santa Clarita Municipal Code ("SCMC") to adopt Titles 16 and 17, the Unified Development Code ("UDC"), and the Official Zoning Map for the City of Santa Clarita ('Zoning Map'J. B. A proposed Negative Declaration was prepared for the project based on the Initial Study findings and the determination that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, nor would It Impact resources protected by the California Department of Fish and Game and that a finding of de minimus impact on such resources Is appropriate. C. On August 16, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P92-32, recommending approval of the Negative Declaration, the UDC and the Zoning Map to the City Council. D. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on October 27, 1992, In the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. E. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and Investigation made by the City Council and on Its behalf, the Council further finds and determines that the proposed Negative Declaration is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Pian, and that the Negative Declaration complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local guidelines. F. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby determines that the Negative Declaration Is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and that the proposed project will not have a significant Impact on the environment. SECTION 2. The Negative Declaration for the project, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and be this reference Incorporated herein, Is hereby certified and approved. The Director of Community . Development Is hereby directed to file the Negative Declaration with the County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1992. JIII Kla)ic, Mayor ATTEST: Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) 1, Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and 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 . 1992 by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: coundAmV-2W kmk 0 Donna M. Grindey City Clerk ! V. BONNIE SIR KEGIAN CHARDENE SIR KEGIAN FAMILY TRUST Aug 2 j 1492 658 Alta Vista Way coaf:.,urr.rT o "c QHYCNT Laguna Beach, California 92651 arr OF SANTA anaiTA (714)497-0860 (714)240-7852 FAX August 24, 1992 Ms. Lynn Harris, Director of Community Development City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 RE: SirKegian Property at 20957 Placerita Canyon Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California. A request to re -zone the front acreas from RL/MOCA to I/C per GPAC committee person Richard Howe's request at the last GPAC meeting 1990 and per Planning Commissioner L. Braithwaite's request concerning Laurene West's property at Planning commission meeting 8/18/92. Dear Ms Harris: Planning for the city has been a long and arduous process. I sincerely appreciate the efforts of you and your staff. Thank you for taking the MOCA overlay off the back 25 acres of our property and leaving it RL. As I stated to Mr. Henderson's office, the front 10 acres are under oil lease and merit RL/MOCA. I believe you have been present at the many GPAC, Planning Commission and City Council meetings when SirKegian has requested an IC designation for the front 10 acres. Recently, at the August 18, 1992, Planning Commission meeting, other Placenta Canyon residents requested similar designations for similar reasons. Ms. Lauren Weste, Ms Katherine Becker and Mr. Michael McIntee were these speakers. The need for a buffer between developed industrial/commercial property and residential and the noise from existing IC property were used as reasons, much I had used in my pleas. In fact, Mr. McIntee said it would be illegal to build on RL lots under new General Plan standards due to noise levels coming from present commercial and industrial uses on surrounding properties. Commissioner Brathwaite's request for zone changes might have been made for SirKegian, so closely are the properties in question alike. Commissioner Modugno told Ms Weste that infrastructure will have to preface a re -zoning from RL to IC. He suggested that when the Lyons Extension is in then she might see about an IC zone. Commissioner Woodrow wanted to tie rezoning for development to roads with conditional use permits. Commissioner Bmthwaite seemed to believe this matter would continue to City Council. I am enclosing a copy of our letter to Mayor Boyer dated June 20, 1991. It sums up SirKegian's requests from the first GPAC meeting I attended in 1989. In conclusion, SirKegian asks to be included in the petition to City Council by Becker, McIntee and Weste for an IC designation. Most s� !N Bonnie Sir Kegian Chardene, Trustee Enclosure: 1 z June 20, 1991 Mr. Carl Boyer, Mayor Santa Clarita City Council 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 ®� , ///'''��� AM 2 5 1992 ��� C0Gtfi1JNIrY U�VELOPMENT OF SANTA CLARI T A r'"C�li/Ei� RE:SirKegian Family Property at 20957 Placerita Cyn. Road Dear Mr. Boyer: At several of the General Plan Hearings, I requested land use designations that were both harmonious with adjacent. properties and financially acceptable to make our land worth developing. At what I believe to be the last GPAC Meeting, Mr. Richard Howe made the motion that the Committee modify the land use map to reflect the requested changes by me; unfortunately, Mr. Howe made the request as members were attempting to leave. The reason for my letter is to advise you that a portion of the requested land use designations are not reflected on the Land Use Plan as it presently exists. I requested a designation of industrial or industrial/ commercial for our property from Placerita Canyon Road back to. the natural stream that runs through our property and RL residential behind the stream. The possibility of designating the property d behind the stream for a light industrial use was also mentioned. What was presented and voted on was to change all the property to RL. This does not provide for a buffer or transitional land use between the existing steam generation plant (AES) to the east and the low density residential to the west and northwest. I believe Mr. Howe, under pressure to end the meeting, did not complete his requested change to the map and at this time I request that the Santa Clarita City Council modify the Land Use Plan to reflect the Industrial designation back to the existing stream alignment (approximately 500 feet) with RL all the way to the north boundary. The above requested designation for industrial and/or neighborhood commercial has been reviewed by Steve Schafhausen and Laurene Weste, members of the Placerita Canyon Property Owners . Association and no objections have been voiced. Indeed, as recently as Tuesday, June 18, Laurene Weste presented a movie ranch project to the City Council with the hope the General Plan would allow the Commercial designation on the county plan to stand. This movie ranch is in the heart of the canyon and would generate much more traffic than would SirKegian's proposed land use. The SirKegian property is located to the east of the main body of Placerita, near the proposed junction of Rio Vista and Placerita. I believe an Office -Warehouse Complex designed to compliment the existing and proposed residential properties will page =•i,�orn-,e -n-m -r^ : r c ., a c us .•-,` a - M make an appropriate.transitional development at this location and maintain the integrity of the area. I am enclosing three different concept plans that will help you to better visualize the possibilities. GPAC had copies of these plans as well. Also, I have a 12 -minute slide show that I have offered to the planning staff and would like to offer to the city council. These slide show already -existing commercial, business and 'industrial uses in Placerita. I do hope the planning staff is working on their special study of Placerita as they were directed by.City Council in November 1990. Would you please ask for an update on the progress of this study? I would also request you keep the SP designation given SirKegian at the GPAC meeting. And a last comment and request having to do with the MOCA overlay. I believe it is restrictive without being realistic. No one can make an oil company abandon its wells until it wishes. In Kern County, Orange County, Los Angeles County and Santa Barbara County oil fields peacefully coexist with development. The city of Beverly Hills has more than one well pumping at this very moment. Before the city council passes the land -use designation map I would like to request a discussion of the MOCA overlay. It restricts growth on undeveloped land. Indeed, the Planning Commission's May 23, 1991, directive sounds as though there is a subtle movement to stop all commercial, business, and.industriai growth except at the city's core and to entail the property rights of many owner's of undeveloped land (of which I am one). As always, throughout this General Plan process, I express the desire to work closely and constructively with you -and the City Council on this matter. Most sincerely, Bonnie SirKegian 658 Alta Vista Way Laguna Beach; CA 92651 Enclosures: 3 for each city council member cc: Lynn Harris page 2 of 2 CI i Y OF SdtdTA CLARITA September 29, 1992 SEF 3N 12 i�l PH '92 City Council City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 300 Santa Clarita CA 91355 RE: 23519 San Fernando Road - formerly.known as Gaviota Square Dear City Council Members: The Santa Clarita Church of Christ is seeking to purchase and develop a site in Santa Clarita which will allow us to serve the community more effectively. In addition to serving spiritual needs, it is our intention to open a pre-school/day care facility. We are writing you to request your help in expediting the process by making an adjustment to the present zoning. The property we are seeking to purchase is at 23519 San Fernando Road, and is currently zoned CPD with the proposed zone CC -PD, according to the UDC and zoning map. While we recognize the CC zoning allows forour intended uses, the PD overlay would require the lengthy and costly CUP process. It is our understanding that the city council has the authority to remove the PD overlay, on this particular property, which would allow us to proceed with the development within zoning guidelines subject to the usual codes and regulations.. The advantages of our plans to the community include the following: 1. We would provide much needed pre-school/day care services in a location where they are currently lacking, which is also convenient for Park and Ride users. 2. Our plan for the development of the site would require very little disturbance of the present topography and trees, requiring no removal of oak trees (a plan for this site was previously approved which would have allowed the removal of nine of thirty-three- oak trees, as well as numerous other trees on the site). 3. Our use would be less intense in terms of traffic and square footage of facilities than the previously approved plan. Though the CUP under which that plan was approved has expired, the approval of that plan indicates that similarly intensive uses could be approved in the future, allowing up to 21,000 square feet of retail space with parking. Our plan will require.only 8,600 square feet for pre-school/day care and church facilities. The remainder of usable space would be used for parking and playground. City Council, continued September 29, 1992 page 2 of 2 4. The expedition of our plan would immediately replace what is now an eyesore with an attractive, unobtrusive community service facility. We sincerely appreciate your consideration in this matter, and we would welcome any questions you might have, at or before the meeting on October 27, 1992. Please feel free to call me at home (259-9962).or call Bert Arnold,.one of our church leaders at 259- 9493 or 259-2131. Sincerely, o`� Mark L. Bixler Minister Santa Clarita Church of Christ cc: Fred L. Follstad, City of Santa Clarita Tim Crissman, CRISSMAN COMMERCIAL SERVICES, INC. Bert Arnold, Santa Clarita Church of Christ MEMBERS OF THE'CITY COUNCIL: FROM: DORIS MEYER, 26211 VALLEY POINT LANE, NEWHALL, CA 91321.: GOOD EVENING! I THINK I"VE PLAYED THIS SONG BEFORE... According to the new bus schedules, and according -to the Signal bus routes 50 and 55 were being combined "into single Route:50., Increases frequency from 90 minutes to 60 minutes...". This ,mss NOT acceptable service for those -o-t us living along ier Highway between Soledad.Can on Road and San Fernando Road. particularly students at Canyon High and Sierra Vista Jr. High. Once again those of us living in the Friendly Valley area have been ignored. Once again residents of Val Verde and Castaic.have better service than Santa Clarita residents do. Places with easier access than g= Hallis tuy passes and get schedules need to ada ded. also. You provide bus and train service to downtown LA, but NOTHING to the north and west ends of the San Fernando Valley, where most Santa Clarita residents need to go for work, medical appointments, the Unemployment Office, the Family Courts, ETC. I am currently a student at North Valley Occupational Center in Granada Hills. There is no Public Transportation available for me to get to school. This marvelous inexpensive training school SHOULD be readily available for anyone in Santa Clarita that wants to attend it. It is ... if you have a dependable car to get you there. Metrolink, when the Sylmar station opens, will HELP, but is too expensive on a daily basis for students. A BUS between the Valleys is needed, PARTICULARLY ON WEEKENDS. For those that must work.Saturdays and Sundays in the San Fernando Valley, there is still no public transportation. Sunday and evening bus service WITHIN this valley is needed, 7 days a week. You have at your disposal a company by company survey done by the State of California that tells you WHERE employees in the San Fernando Valley reside. Please use it to find out HOW MANY SANTA CLARITA RESIDENTS WORK IN THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY, AND WHERE IN THE VALLEY THEY WORK. Statistics 1 was given last Spring show that well over half of those employed within Santa Clarita DRIVE here from NORTH of Santa Clarita. and well over halfat the papulation of Sata Clarita works SOUTH of the mountains. You have dealt with those who work in downtown LA or near LAX with buses, BUT DO NOT PROVIDE FOR THE 30 MILES OR SO BETWEEN. Metrolink to Burbank, then RTD to the Warner Center in Woodland Hills necessitates SEVERAL bus changes, and is NOT available on weekends. Jr. High and High School students must leave home at a dangerously early hour to use the city bus. You are asking for street and campus problems when students get there way too early for class, or stay too long after school. Students buying monthly passes are NOT guaranteed seats, or even standing room, on our city buses. Yes, I believe the school districts should be CONTRIBUTING to the City for what they have done to parents and the City with the high fees, not giving an option to buy monthly school bus passes. I firmly believe MOST parents would have their kids on school buses IF THEY COULD DIVIDE THE COST OUT BY THE MONTH INSTEAD OF A LUMP SUM OR NOTHING. As an alternative, I believe the city should discuss with the Districts -that instead of ANY school buses for regular students, the Districts pay the city to provide the extra service for -all non - special needs children, thereby increasing service for ALL citizens at the same time. Jr. and Sr. High buses in our area are running close to empty, even after combining them two weeks ago. THE CITIZENS.ALONG SIERRA HIGHWAY HAVE, WAITED 14 MONTHS FOR OUR EVERY HALF HOUR SERVICE THE REST OF SANTA CLARITA ENJOYS. ISN'T IT. TIME YOU AS A COUNCIL SEE THAT THIS IS PROVIDED FOR US.OHO? MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL: FROM: DORIS MEYER, 26211 VALLEY POINT LANE, NEWHALL, CA, 91321.-.; GOOD.EVENING! I THINK IOVE PLAYED THIS SONG BEFORE... According to the.new bus schedules, and according to the Signal, bus routes 50 and 55 were being combined "into single Route 50. Increases frequency from 90 minutes to 60 minutes...". This i—s NOT acceptable service for those of ua living along Sierra Highway between Soledad Canyon Road and San Fernando Road, particularly students at Canyon High and Sierra Vista Jr. High. Once again those of us living in the Friendly Valley area have been ignored. Once again residents of Val Verde and Castaic have better service than Santa Clarita residents do. Places with.easier access than City Hall to by ,passes and get schedules need to to added. also. You provide bus and train service to downtown LA, but NOTHING to the north and west ends of the San Fernando Valley, where most Santa Clarita residents need to go for work, medical appointments, the Unemployment Office, the Family Courts, ETC. I am currently a student at North Valley occupational Center in Granada Hills. There is no Public Transportation available for me to get to school. This marvelous inexpensive training school SHOULD be readily available for anyone in Santa Clarita that wants to attend it. It is ... if you have a dependable car to get vou there. Metrolink, when the Sylmar station opens, will HELP, but is too expensive on a daily basis for students. A BUS between the Valleys is needed, PARTICULARLY ON WEEKENDS. For those that must work Saturdays and Sundays in the San Fernando Valley, there is still no public transportation. Sunday and evening bus service WITHIN this valley is needed, 7 days a week. You have at your disposal a company by company survey done by the State of California.that tells you WHERE employees in the San Fernando Valley reside. Please use it to find out HOW MANY SANTA CLARITA RESIDENTS WORK IN THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY, AND WHERE IN THE VALLEY THEY WORK. Statistics J- was given last'Spring show .that well over half of those employed within Santa Clarita DRIVE here from NORTH of Santa Clarita, and well over half of the pgpulation of Santa Clarita works SOUTH ot.the mountains. You have dealt with those who work in downtown LA or near LAX with buses, BUT DO NOT PROVIDE FOR THE 30 MILES OR SO BETWEEN. Metrolink to Burbank, then RTD to the Warner Center in Woodland Hills necessitates SEVERAL bus changes, and is NOT available on weekends. Jr. High and High School students must leave home at a dangerously early hour to use the city bus. You are asking for street and campus problems when students get there way too early for class, or stay too long after school. Students buying monthly passes are NOT guaranteed seats, or even standing room, on our city buses. Yes, I believe the school districts should be CONTRIBUTING to the City for what they have done to parents and the City with the high fees, not giving an option to buy monthly school bus passes. I firmly believe MOST parents would have their kids on school buses IF THEY COULD DIVIDE THE COST OUT BY THE MONTH INSTEAD OF A.LUMP SUM OR NOTHING. As an alternative, I believe the city should discuss with the Districts that instead of ANY school buses for regular students, the Districts pay the city to provide the extra service for all:non-, special needs children, thereby increasing service for ALL citizens at the same time. Jr. and Sr. High buses ,in our area are running close to empty, even after combining them two weeks ago. THE CITIZENS ALONG SIERRA HIGHWAY HAVE WAITED JA MONTHS FOR OUR EVERY HALF SERVICE THE REST OF SANTA CLARITA-ENJOYS. ISN'T IT TIME YOU AS A COUNCIL SEE THAT THIS ja PROVIDED FOR US. TOO? L (f MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL: FROM: DORIS-MEYER, 26211 VALLEY POINT LANE, NEWHALL, CA 91321 GOOD EVENING! THINK I'VE PLAYED THIS SONG BEF According to the new bus-schedules,.and according to.the Signal,; bus routes 50 and 55 were being combined "into single Route 50. Increases frequency from 90 minutes to 60 minutes...". This is NOT acceptable service for those of us living along Sierra Highway between Soledad Canyon Road and San Fernando Road. particularly students at Canyon High and Sierra Vista Jr. High. Once again those of us living in the Friendly Valley area have been ignored. Once again residents of Val Verde and Castaic have better service than Santa Clarita residents do. Places with easier access than -City Hall.to buy passes and get schedules need to be added. also. You provide bus and train service to downtown LA, but NOTHING to the north and west ends of the San Fernando Valley, where most Santa Clarita residents need to go for work, medical appointments, the Unemployment Office, -the Family Courts, ETC. I am currently a student at North Valley Occupational Center in Granada Hills. There is no Public Transportation available for me to get to school. This marvelous inexpensive training school SHOULD be readily available for anyone in Santa Clarita that wants to attend it. It is...if you have _q dependable car to cLp vou there. Metrolink, when the Sylmar station opens. will HELP, but is too expensive on a daily basis for students. A BUS between the Valleys is needed, PARTICULARLY ON WEEKENDS. For those that must work Saturdays and Sundays in the San Fernando Valley, there is still no public transportation. Sunday and evening bus service WITHIN this valley is needed, 7 days a week. You have at your disposal a company by company survey done by the State of California that tells you WHERE employees in the San Fernando Valley reside. Please use it to find out HOW MANY SANTA CLARITA RESIDENTS WORK IN.THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY; AND WHERE IN THE VALLEY THEY WORK. Statistics 1 was given last Spring show that well over half of those employed within.Santa Clarita DRIVE here from NORTH o1 Santa Clarita, and well over half of the papulation of Santa Claritaow rks SOUTH gt the mountains. You have dealt with those who work in downtown LA or near LAX with buses, BUT DO NOT PROVIDE FOR THE 30 MILES OR SO BETWEEN. Metrolink to.Burbank, then RTD to the Warner Center in Woodland Hills necessitates SEVERAL bus changes, and is NOT available on weekends. Jr. High and High School students must leave home at a dangerously early hour to use the city bus. You are asking for street and campus problems when students get there way too early for class, or stay too long after school. Students buying monthly passes are NOT guaranteed seats, or even standing room, on our city buses. Yes, I believe the school districts should be CONTRIBUTING to the City for what they have done to parents and the City with the high fees, not giving an option to buy monthly school bus passes. I firmly believe MOST parents would have their kids on school buses IF THEY COULD DIVIDE THE COST OUT BY THE MONTH INSTEAD OF A LUMP SUM OR NOTHING. As an alternative, I believe the city should discuss with the Districts that instead of ANY school buses for regular students, the Districts pay the city to provide the extra service for all non special needs children, thereby increasing service for ALL citizens at the same time. Jr. and Sr. High buses in our area are running close to empty, even after combining them two weeks ago. THE CITIZENS ALONG SIERRA HIGHWAY HAVE WAITED I. -MONTHS. OR 0_Uri VERY HALF HOUR SERVICE THE REST P SANTA CLARITA ENJOYS., ISN"T.IT TIME YOU AS A COUNCIL SEEf�T THIS PROVIDED FOR US. TOO? MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL: FROM: DORIS MEYER, 26211 VALLEY POINT LANE, NEWHALL, CA .91321.,, GOOD EVENING! I THINK I'VE PLAYED THIS SONG BEFORE According to the new bus schedules, and according, to-the-Signal,- bus o the Signal,bus routes 50 and 55 were being combined "into single Route 50. Increases frequency from 90 minutes to 60 minutes...". This is NOT acceptable service for those _of us living along Sierra Highway between Soledad Canyon Road and San Fernando Road, particularly students at Canyon HighnRnd Sierra Vista Jr. High. Once again those of us living.in the Friendly Valley area have been ignored. Once again residents of Val Verde and Castaic have better service than Santa Clarita residents do. Places with easier access than City Hall to buy passes and get schedules need is be added. also. You provide bus and train service to downtown LA, but NOTHING to the north and west ends of the San Fernando Valley, where most Santa Clarita residents need to go for work, medical appointments, the Unemployment Office, the Family Courts, ETC. I am currently a student at North Valley.Occupational Center in Granada Hills. There is no Public Transportation available for me to get to school. This marvelous inexpensive training school SHOULD be readily available for anyone in Santa Clarita that wants to attend it. It is ... if you have A dependable car to get you there. Metrolink, when the Sylmar station opens. will HELP, but is too expensive on a daily basis for students. A BUS between the Valleys is needed, PARTICULARLY ON WEEKENDS. For those that must work Saturdays and Sundays in the San Fernando Valley, there is still no public transportation. Sunday and evening bus service WITHIN this valley is needed, 7 days a week. You have at your disposal a company by company survey done by the State of California that tells you WHERE employees in the San Fernando Valley reside. Please use it to find out HOW MANY SANTA CLARITA RESIDENTS WORK IN THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY, AND WHERE IN THE VALLEY THEY WORK. Statistics I was given last Spring show that well over half of those employed within Santa Clarita DRIVE here from NORTH of Santa Clarita. and well over half got #fie_ ppmlation of Santa Clarita works SOUTH pt tha mountains. You have dealt with those who work in downtown LA.or near LAX with buses, BUT DO NOT PROVIDE FOR THE 30 MILES OR SO BETWEEN. Metrolink to Burbank, then RTD to the Warner Center in Woodland. Hills necessitates SEVERAL bus changes, and is NOT available on weekends. Jr. High and High School students must leave home at a dangerously early hour to use the city bus. You are asking for street and campus problems when students get there way too early for class, or stay -too long after school. Students buying monthly -passes are NOT guaranteed seats, or even standing room, on our city buses. Yes, I believe the school districts should be CONTRIBUTING to the City for what.they have done to parents and the City with the high fees, not giving an option to.buy monthly school bus passes. I firmly believe MOST parents would have their kids on school buses IF THEY COULD DIVIDE THE COST OUT BY THE MONTH INSTEAD OF A LUMP SUM OR NOTHING. As an alternative, I believe the city should discuss with the Districts that instead of ANY school buses for regular students, the Districts-pay the city to provide the extra service for all non-. - special needs children, thereby increasing service for ALL citizens at the same time. Jr. and Sr. High buses in our area are running close to empty, even after combining them two weeks ago. THE CITIZENS ALONG SIERRA HIGHWAY HAVE WAITED !A MONTHS FOR OUR EVERY HALF HOUR SERVICE THE REST OF SANTA'CLARITA ENJOYS. ISN'T IT TIME YOU AS A COUNCILiTi AT THIS ja PROVIDED FOR USS TOO? MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL:' FROM: DORIS MEYER, 26211 VALLEY POINT, LANE, NEWHALL, CA 91321 GOOD EVENING! I THINK IIVE PLAYED THIS SONG BEFORE... According to the new bus schedules, and according to the Signal,; ,. bus routes 50 and 55 were being combined "into single Route. 50. . Increases frequency from 90 minutes to 60 minutes...". This j -s NOT acceptable service for those of jLs.livinq along Sierra Highway between Soledad Canyon Road and San Fernando Road. particularly students at Canyon High and Sierra Vista Jr. High. Once again those of us living in the Friendly Valley area have been ignored. Once again residents of Val Verde and Castaic have better service than Santa Clarita residents do. Places with easier access,than City Hall to buy passes and get schedules need to to added. also. You provide bus and train service to downtown LA, but NOTHING to the north and west ends of the San Fernando Valley, where most Santa Clarita residents need to go for work, medical appointments, the Unemployment Office, the Family Courts, ETC. I am currently a student at North Valley Occupational Center in Granada Hills. There is no Public Transportation available for me to get to school. This marvelous inexpensive training school SHOULD be readily available for anyone in Santa Clarita that wants to attend it. It is ... if you have a dependable car to get you there. Metrolink, when the Sylmar station opens. will HELP, but is too expensive on a daily basis for students. A BUS between the Valleys is needed, PARTICULARLY ON WEEKENDS. For those that must work Saturdays and Sundays in the San Fernando Valley, there is still no public transportation. Sunday and evening bus service WITHIN this valley is needed, 7 days a week. You have at your disposal a company by company survey done -by the State of California that tells you WHERE employees in the San Fernando Valley reside. Please use it to find out HOW MANY SANTA CLARITA RESIDENTS WORK IN THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY, AND WHERE IN THE VALLEY THEY WORK. Statistics I was criven lash Spring show that well over half of those employed within Santa Clarita DRIVE here from NORTH of Santa Clarita. Md well over half. of the gopulation of Santa Clarita works SOUTH got the mountains. You have dealt with those who work in downtown LA or near LAX with buses, BUT DO NOT PROVIDE.FOR THE 30 MILES OR SO BETWEEN. Metrolink to Burbank, then RTD to the Warner Center in Woodland Hills necessitates SEVERAL bus changes, and is NOT available on weekends. Jr. High and High School students must leave home at a dangerously early hour to use the city bus. You are asking for street and campus problems when students get there way too early for class, or stay too long after school. Students buying monthly passes are NOT guaranteed seats, or even standing room, on our city buses. Yes, I believe the school districts should be CONTRIBUTING to the City for what they have done to parents and the City with the high fees, not giving an option to buy monthly school bus passes. I firmly believe MOST parents would have their kids on school buses IF THEY COULD DIVIDE THE COST OUT BY THE MONTH INSTEAD OF A LUMP SUM OR NOTHING. As an alternative, I believe the city should discuss with the Districts that instead of ANY school buses for regular students, the Districts pay the city to provide the extra service for all non - special needs children, thereby increasing service for ALL citizens at the same time. Jr. and Sr. High buses in our area are running close to empty, even after combining them two weeks ago. THE CITIZENS ALONG SIERRA HIGHWAY HAVE. WAITED 14 MONTHS FOR 2 EVERY HALF HOUR SERVICE THE REST SANTA CLARITA ENJOYS: ISN'T IT TIME You E g COUNCIL SEE THAT—THIS ja PROVIDED FOR US.OHO?