Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-10 - AGENDA REPORTS - UDC GATING ROADWAY DRIVEWAYS (2)City Manager Item to be pre; Laura Stotler PUBLIC HEARING DATE; SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 SUBJECT: AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATING THE GATING OF ROADWAYS AND DRIVEWAYS AND APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. (MASTER CASE NO. 96- 005, UDC AMENDMENT 96-001)- RESOLUTION NO. 96-114 AND ORDINANCE NO. 96-14. DEPARTMENT Community Development BACKGROUND On November 14, 1995, the City Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the General Plan to add a policy concerning gated roadways and an ordinance to amend the City's Unified Development Code to establish gate standards. On April 23, 1996, the Council held a public hearing to consider a gate ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. Several homeowner group representatives spoke in opposition to this gate ordinance. After considering the comments received, the Council clarified their intent for the gate ordinance to address only new gates, not existing ones. Council directed staff to meet with interested homeowners, and remanded the ordinance to the Planning Commission for further consideration. On May 20, 1996, approximately 20 residents and homeowner group representatives met with staff to discuss this ordinance. The results of that meeting and the Council's direction were presented to the Planning Commission at a public hearing on June 4, 1996. At that meeting the Commission directed staff to revise the ordinance; however, the Commission's recommendation differed from the Council's direction in the treatment of existing gates. To address the differences in direction, staff prepared two versions of the gate ordinance. Version A follows the direction of the Commission and version B follows the direction of Council. At a public hearing on July 16, 1996, the Planning Commission recommended approval of version A of the ordinance with a 4-1 vote. Section 2 of versions A and B of the ordinance impose identical development standards on new gates. They provide that gates shall not block area -wide through routes or block access for new development. Gating of public roadways would be prohibited consistent with existing case law. Gating of private driveways serving one single family residence would remain a permitted use. A minor use permit would be required to gate private roadways serving between two and five single family residences or fifteen multi -family units or less. A conditional use permit would be Adapted: �- required for gates on private roadways serving six or more single family residences or more than fifteen multi -family residences. To address safety issues, City traffic engineers have requested that gates serving single family residences be no less than 20 feet from the right-of-way for major and secondary highways and residential collectors. Gates must meet fire department standards for design and access must be provided for emergency and safety-related vehicles. Gate design is also addressed to ensure that gates will not pose a threat to safety and that they will be privately maintained. Version A and B differ in Section 3 which concerns existing gates. The Assistant City Attorney noted before the Commission that those gates legally existing at the time of adoption of the ordinance still have a right to exist after the adoption unless they are found to be an unlawful nuisance. The Commission expressed concern with a blanket exemption for approved, existing gates that do not meet the new standards and with existing gates that block area -wide through routes. Following the Commission's direction, version A, categorizes existing gates into three categories; pre-existing legal, non -conforming, and illegal. Non -conforming gates are those which have received an approval from either the City or the County and do not meet the new gate standard. Version A provides that existing non -conforming gates that pose an unlawful nuisance may not be exempt from this ordinance. Version B, Section 3 implements the Council direction and echos a majority of the public comments received on this issue. It simply exempts all legal, existing gates. A policy concerning gates on roadways will be added to the Circulation Element at the time that the Circulation Element Amendment, presently under preparation by staff, is considered by Council. As part of the project review, an environmental assessment and negative declaration were prepared for this project. RECOMMENDATION Open a public hearing; discuss the item and adopt Resolution 96-114, approving the negative declaration; identify the version of the ordinance supported by the Council and introduce that version of Ordinance No. 96-14 to amend the Unified Development Code to regulate the gating of roadways and driveways, waive further reading, and pass to a second reading. Resolution No. 96-114 Versions A and B of Ordinance No. 96-14 Negative Declaration Initial Study (In Reading file in the City Clerk's Office) Resolution No. P96-20 Planning Commission Staff Reports Dated June 4, 1996 and July 16, 1996 sAed\ advance\gatewr2.lhs CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DEPARTMENT OF COAMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A public hearing on this matter and associated potential environmental impacts, if any, will be conducted by the City of Santa Clarita City Council on: DATE: September 10, 1996 TIME: 6:30 p.m. LOCATION: City Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide APPLICATION: Master Case No. 96-005, Unified Development Code Amendment 96-001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project proposes amendments to the City's Unified Development Code to regulate the gating of private roadways and driveways. PROJECT PROPONENT: City of Santa Clarita A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed project and is available for public review beginning at 4:00 p.m. on August 20. 1996 at: City Hall Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Ste. 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter 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 Clerk, City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearing. For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Third Floor, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone: (805) 255-4330. Ken Pulskamp Jeff Lambert Assistant City Manager Planning Manager Public Hearing Procedure 1. Mayor opens hearing -States purpose of hearing 2. City Clerk reports on hearing notice 3. Staff report 4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes) 5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes) 6. Five-minute rebuttal (Proponent) *Proponent 7. Mayor closes public testimony 8. Discussion by Council 9. Council decision 10. Mayor announces decision ORDINANCE NO. 96-14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE SANTA CLARITA UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REGULATE GATING OF ROADWAYS AND DRIVEWAYS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission discussed establishment of a policy on gated communities at 'their regularly scheduled meeting of October 17, 1995, and made a recommendation for City Council consideration; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission recommendation at their regular meeting of November 14, 1995, and directed staff to prepare amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and Circulation Element to include specific policies regulating the establishment of gated communities and directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Unified Development Code to establish specific development criteria for establishment of gated communities; WHEREAS, the City's General Plan Circulation Element encourages improvement of circulation facilities to provide improved levels of service and standards of safety over current traffic operations with a priority to improve local traffic patterns (Circulation EIement policy 1.1) and seeks to maximize and improve the operating efficiency and safety of the existing roadway system wherever possible (Circulation Element policy 1.9); WHEREAS, the City's General Plan Land Use Element Goal Four ensures that development in the City is consistent with the overall community character and that it contributes in a positive way toward the City's image; WHEREAS, this ordinance amending the City's zoning and general procedures codes is consistent with the General Plan including the Land Use and Circulation Elements; WHEREAS, the City desires to meet its regional housing need as determined by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and has considered the effect of this ordinance upon regional housing opportunities as required by ,Government Code Section 65863.6; WHEREAS, the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") of 1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21774, require the evaluation of the Negative Declaration for projects such as amendments to the Unified Development Code; WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration for these Unified Development Code amendments was prepared, noticed, and circulated for public review in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the City's Environmental Guidelines; WHEREAS, following the City Council direction and in accordance with Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 5, DRAFT 7/25/96 VERSION A 1996. This public hearing was noticed in accordance with Government Code Section 65091. The Commission recommended the following UDC amendment to the City Council to establish development criteria for gated communities; WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 23, 1996 and directed staff to hold a public meeting to receive more public input on the ordinance and return to the Planning Commission for further consideration; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on June 4, 1996 and on July 16, 1996. The Commission considered two versions of the ordinance to establish development criteria for gated communities and recommended the City Council adopt Version A. WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 10, 1996. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Section 17.07.117 of the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code shall be amended to add Section 17.07.117.5 to read as follows: "117.5 GATE shall mean any barrier across a roadway that restricts the access of vehicles. For purposes of gating, a roadway shall also mean driveways." SECTION 2. That Section 17.17.040 of the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code shall be amended to add new Section 17.17.040(M) as follows: "M. Gating of Roadways. All proposed permanent gates in residential areas shall be subject to the following requirements. Temporary barriers erected for emergency response, repair or special event purposes are not subject to these requirements. Driveways are considered roadways for the purpose of these gating requirements. 1. Public roadways. Gating of public roadways is prohibited. L 2. Private roadways serygr one single family residence. Gating for this use is permitted subject to the criteria set forth in paragraph 6 of this section. 3. Private roadways serving two to five single family residential � nits. Gating for these uses is subject to a Minor Use Permit and the criteria set forth in paragraph 6 of this section.. 4. Private roadways serving fifteen multi -family units or less. Gating for these uses is subject to a Minor Use Permit and the criteria set forth in paragraph 5 of this section. DRAFT 7/25/96 VERSION A -2- 5. Private roadways serving more than five single family units or more than fifteen multi -family unita. Gating for these uses is subject to a Conditional Use Permit and the following criteria: a. The gate shall not block area -wide through routes or block access for roadways to serve future development. b. All property owners within the area to be gated shall agree to be part of the application unless all property owners within the area to be gated are members of an operative homeowners association (HOA), in which case the application shall be made by the HOA. C, Adequate stacking distance, turnaround areas, public safety elements and signing shall be included in the gate. design. All gates shall meet fire department requirements and provide passage with unobstructed vertical clearance. d. Access shall be provided at all times for police, fire, city inspection, dial -a -ride, utility, and other health and safety-related vehicles. e. A homeowners association and/or other appropriate entity shall provide for on-going, private maintenance of internal streets, gate equipment, walls and landscaping. No public resources shall be allocated for maintaining private property. f. The gate design and implementation shall be such that it does not, pose a threat to public health, safety or welfare. g. Where the gate is to serve only single family residences, the criteria of paragraph 6 of this section shall apply. 6. Gates serving sinel -fam' y r .widen .e(s). In no instance shall a gate be less than 20 feet from the public right-of-way for major and secondary highways and residential collectors." SECTION 3. That any gate as defined by this Ordinance existing at the time of adoption of this Ordinance shall be subject to gating standards as follows: 1. Pre-existing Legal Gate- A gate which has received an approval from either the City or the County and meets the standards of this Ordinance is considered to be pre-existing legal and is deemed to have satisfied the requirements set forth in this Ordinance and shall not be required: to obtain a minor or conditional use permit. 2. Non -conforming Gate- A gate which has received an approval from either the City or the County and does not meet the standards of this Ordinance DRAFT 7/25/96 VERSION A -3 is deemed to have satisfied the requirements set forth in this Ordinance provided the gate does not constitute an unlawful nuisance. 3. Illegal Gate- A gate which has not received an approval from either the City or the County and does not meet the standards of this Ordinance is deemed to be illegal. SECTION 4. Where commercial property maybe affected by a proposed gate subject to a Minor Use Permit or a Conditional Use Permit, the applicant(s) shall submit an economic analysis as part of the application submittal to address the economic impacts of the gate upon affected commercial properties. SECTION 5. That the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for this project have been prepared, reviewed, considered, and found complete in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the City's Environmental Guidelines and the City Council has adopted the Negative Declaration for this project. SECTION 6. That if any portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid that portion shall be stricken and severed, and the remaining portions shall be unaffected and remain in full force and effect. SECTION 7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause it to be published in the manner prescribed by law. DRAFT 7/25/96 VERSION A -4- PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,19_. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I, , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of 19_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEM 3ERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK s:\cd\council\gate rd2.lhs DRAFT 7(25/96 VERSION A -5 ORDINANCE NO. 96-14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE SANTA CLARITA UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REGULATE GATING OF ROADWAYS AND DRIVEWAYS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission discussed establishment of a policy on gated communities at their regularly scheduled meeting of October 17, 1995, and made a recommendation for City Council consideration; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission recommendation at their regular meeting of November 14, 1995, and directed staff to prepare amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and Circulation Element to include specific policies regulating the establishment of gated communities and directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Unified Development Code to establish specific development criteria for establishment of gated communities; WHEREAS, the City's General Plan Circulation Element encourages improvement of circulation facilities to provide improved levels of service and standards of safety over current traffic operations with a priority to improve local traffic patterns (Circulation Element policy 1.1) and seeks to maximize and improve the operating efficiency and safety of the existing roadway system wherever possible (Circulation Element policy 1.9); WHEREAS, the City's General Plan Land Use Element Goal Four ensures that development in the City is consistent with the overall community character and that it contributes in a positive way toward the City's image; WHEREAS, this ordinance amending the City's zoning and general procedures codes is consistent with the General Plan including the Land Use and Circulation Elements; WHEREAS, the City desires to meet its regional housing need as determined by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and has considered the effect of this ordinance upon regional housing opportuhities as required by Government Code Section 65863.6; WHEREAS, the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") of 1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21774, require the evaluation of the Negative Declaration for projects such as amendments to the Unified Development Code; WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration for these Unified Development Code amendments was prepared, noticed, and circulated for public review in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the City's Environmental Guidelines; WHEREAS, following the City Council direction and in accordance with Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 5, DRAFT 7/25/96 VERSION B 1996. This public hearing was noticed in accordance with Government Code Section 65091. The Commission recommended the following UDC amendment to the City Council to establish development criteria for gated communities; WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 23, 1996 and directed staff to hold a public meeting to receive more public input on the ordinance and return to the Planning Commission for further consideration; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on June 4, 1996 and on July 16, 1996. The Commission considered two versions of the ordinance to establish development criteria for gated communities and recommended the City Council adopt Version A. WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 10, 1996. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Section 17.07.117 of the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code shall be amended to add Section 17.07.117.5 to read as follows: "117.5 GATE shall mean any barrier across a roadway that restricts the access of vehicles. For purposes of gating, a roadway shall also mean driveways." SECTION 2. That Section 17.17.040 of the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code shall be amended to add new Section 17 17.040(M) as follows: "M. Gating of Roadways. All proposed permanent gates in residential areas shall be subject to the following requirements. Temporary barriers erected for emergency response, repair or special event purposes are not subject to these requirements. Driveways are considered roadways for the purpose of these gating requirements. 1. Public roadways: Gating of public roadways is prohibited.. 2. Private roadways serving one single family residence. Gating for this use is permitted subject to the criteria set forth in paragraph 6 of this section. 3. Private roadways serving two to five single fan—Lily residential units. Gating for these uses is subject to a Minor Use Permit and the criteria set forth in paragraph 6 of this section. 4. Private roadways serving fifteen multi -family units or 1 .ss, Gating for these uses is subject to a Minor Use Permit and the criteria set forth in paragraph 5 of this section. DRAFT 7/25/96 VERSION B —2— 5. Private roadways serving more than five single family units or more than fifteen multi -family units. Gating for these uses is subject to a Conditional Use Permit and the following criteria: a. The gate shall not block area -wide through routes or block access for roadways to serve future development. b. All property owners within the area to be gated shall agree to be part of the application unless all property owners within the area to be gated are members of an operative homeowners association (HOA), in which case the application shall be made by the HOA. C. Adequate stacking distance, turnaround areas, public safety elements and signing shall be included in the gate design. All gates shall meet fire department requirements and provide passage with unobstructed vertical clearance. d. Access shall be provided at all times for police, fire, city inspection, dial -a -ride, utility, and other health and safety-related vehicles. e. A homeowners association and/or other appropriate entity shall provide for on-going, private maintenance of internal streets, gate equipment, walls and landscaping. No public resources shall be allocated for maintaining private property. The gate design and implementation shall be such that it does not pose a threat to public health, safety or welfare. g. Where the gate is to serve only single family residences, the criteria of paragraph 6 of this section shall apply. 6. Gates serving single-family residence(s).. In no instance shall a gate be less than 20 feet from the public right-of-way for major and secondary highways and residential collectors." SECTION 3. That any gate as defined by this Ordinance existing at the time of adoption of this Ordinance which has received an approval from either the City or the County is deemed exempt from the requirements of this ordinance SECTION 4. Where commercial property may be affected by a proposed gate subject to a Minor Use Permit or a Conditional Use Permit, the applicant(s) shall submit an economic analysis as part of the application submittal to address the economic impacts of the gate upon affected commercial properties. SECTION 5. That the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for this project have been prepared, reviewed, considered, and found complete in accordance with the provisions of CEQA DRAFT 7/25/96 VERSION B -3- and the City's Environmental Guidelines and the City Council has adopted the Negative Declaration for this project. SECTION 6. That if any portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid that portion shall be stricken and severed, and the remaining portions shall be unaffected and remain in full force and effect. SECTION 7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause it to be published in the manner prescribed by law. DRAFT 7/25/96 VERSION B -4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 19_. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of 19_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEM 3ERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: sAcd\counci1\gateord3.1hs CITY CLERK I, DRAFT 7/25/96 VERSION B -5 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVE DECLARATION [X] Proposed [ ] Final MASTER CASE NO: 96-005 (UDC Amend 96-001) PERMIT/PROJECT: Gate Ordinance (Ord No. 96-14) APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Citywide, City of Santa Clarita DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Ordinance amending the Unified Development Code for the purpose of regulating the placement of gates on private streets and driveways. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita [ ] City Council [ ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Community Development finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA. Mitigation measures for this project [X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached ------------------------------------------------------------------------- KEN PULSKAMP ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Prepared by Laura Stotler. Associate Planner (Signature) (Name/Title) Approved by: Fred Follstad Associate Plann r ( ture) (Name/Title) Public Review Period Fr( Public Notice Given On [X] Legal Advertisement 6(25/96 rt `A FJ /201W, By: [ ] Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CERTIFICATION DATE: Pa9P 1S:%CD\ADVANCENG TWRDN-L S RESOLUTION NO. P96-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REGULATE GATING OF ROADWAYS AND DRIVEWAYS WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita General Plan requires the implementation of a City of Santa Clarita Unified Development Code to be in compliance with the Governmental Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita has determined that the public health and welfare requires that gating of roadways and driveways be regulated; and WHEREAS, the City's General Plan requires that gating design elements be considered, including location, number and types of units served, setback and stacking distance, height, emergency vehicle access, maintenance, and type of gate so that new gates do not conflict with the character of neighborhoods or pose a threat to public safety; and WHEREAS, this proposed ordinance to amend the City's zoning code provides that area -wide through routes and access to future development not be blocked consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element and the State Subdivision Map Act; WHEREAS, this proposed ordinance to amend the City's zoning code provides that adequate setback and stacking distance be provided from major and secondary arterials and residential collectors for traffic safety reasons; WHEREAS, this proposed ordinance to amend the City's Zoning Code and General Procedures Code is consistent with the City Council policy concerning gates as stated through minute action on November 14, 1995 and as directed by the Council at a public hearing on April 23, 1996; ' WHEREAS, this proposed ordinance to amend the City's zoning code is consistent with the City's General Plan including the Circulation and Land Use Elements; WHEREAS, the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") of 1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21774, require the evaluation of the Negative Declaration for projects such as amendments to the Unified Development Code; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration for these Unified Development Code amendments was prepared, noticed and circulated for public review in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the City's Environmental Guidelines; and WHEREAS, following City Council direction on June 27, 1995, November 14, 1995 and April 23, 1996, and in accordance with Government Code Section 65854, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on March 5, 1996, June 4, 1996 and July 16, 1996, receiving staff reports and public testimony on this project. The project was noticed in accordance with Government Code Section 65091. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, FIND, AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The proposed amendments to the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code are consistent with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and meet the requirements of the Government Code of the State of California. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared for this project and recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for the amendments to the Unified Development Code as complete and in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the City's Environmental Guidelines. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council act upon the amendments to the Unified Development Code to regulate the gating of roadways and driveways and adopt proposed Ordinance No. 96-14 version A. PASSED, APPROVED AND July '19 96 ,tel 1 en Pi camp, Secr Planning Commissi STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) ADOPTED this 16th day of Li4 Townsley, Chairperson Planning Commission I, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, 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 7 tirh day of Ju].Y 1996 by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BRATHWAITE, CHERRINGTON, DOUGHMAN AND MODUGNO NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOWNSLEY j ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE v �' /z r' QITY CLEMC— pWwmV %2 a.ihs CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 96-005 UDC AMENDMENT 96-001 DATE:June 4, 1996 TO: Chairperson Townsley and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager CASE PLANNER:. Laura Stotler, Associate Planner APPLICANT. City of Santa Clarita LOCATION: Citywide REQUEST: Discuss changes to the proposed amendment to the City's Unified Development Code to regulate the gating of roadways and driveways. The Planning Commission previously considered the proposed Gate Ordinance No. 96-15 on March 5, 1996. This ordinance originated as a result of Council direction on November 14, 1995 where staff was directed to prepare an ordinance amending the Unified Development Code (UDC) to establish specific standards for new gates on private roadways. At the March 5, 1996 meeting, the Planning Commission was concerned that the ordinance did not address existing gates. The Commission modified this ordinance to categorize existing gates into three categories: Pre-existing legal, legal non -conforming, and illegal. Non -conforming gates are those which have received an approval from either the City or the County and do not meet the new gate standards. When changes other than qiaintenance or minor repairs are proposed to non- conforming gates, they would be required to comply with the new standards to the greatest extent possible. The Commission also added that an economic analysis would be required where a gate would affect commercial property. Proposed gates would be subject to expanded public noticing for commercial properties. On April 23, 1996, the City Council considered the proposed Gate Ordinance, as modified by the Planning Commission, at their meeting and several homeowner association representatives spoke in opposition to this ordinance. The Council agreed with the ordinance proposed by the Commission with the exception of the issue of existing gates. A majority of Council members favored excluding existing gates from the scope of this ordinance.. Several Council members agreed with speakers opposed to the ordinance who noted that subjecting existing gates to the ordinance would deter gate owners from making any modifications to their gates, including safety upgrades. Additionally, including existing gates would not take into consideration existing entitlements such as Conditional Use Permits that originally permitted some of the gates. Staff was directed to meet with homeowner associations and the interested public to ascertain their concerns with the ordinance and to return to the Commission for further discussion. Council member Heidt clarified that the intent of this ordinance is to govern new gates. Council member Darcy added that it is not the intent of this ordinance to make existing illegal gates legal. The purpose of this meeting is for the Commission to consider Council's direction and comments from the public and direct staff on how the Gate Ordinance should be modified. On May 20, 1996, the City held a public meeting to take public comments on this ordinance. This meeting was attended by fifteen people, some of whom represented the Homeowner Associations of Hidden Valley, La Salle Canyon, and Happy Valley and the Placenta Canyon Corporation. Additionally, a representative of the Sand Canyon Homeowners Association commented on the ordinance although he was unable to attend the meeting. None'of the attendees favored the gate ordinance in its present form. The main concern of the residents centered on the effect of the ordinance on pre-existing gates. The comments received on each ordinance section are noted. SECTION 1- No Comments SECTION 2 This section contains the standards for new gates. Only subsections for which comments were received are included herein. Subsection 1. The issue was raised that the City should not be in the business of regulating gates on private roadways. There was a concern about the ability of homeowners to protect themselves from the liability of roadway ownership and crime if they are restricted from having a gate, particularly when the roadways are used as through routes. It was mentioned that the statement "blocking of through routes or the blocking of roadways to serve future development" was too vague. There was concern* that a general tone exists in this ordinance that discourages gates. The requirement for agreement among all property owners within the area to be gated was felt to be a major deterrent to having new gate applications. A simple majority of homeowners was felt to be adequate for the filing of an application for a gate. It was recommended that a distinction be made between completely gated communities, such as Circle J Ranch Estates and La Salle Canyon, and partially gated communities, such as Placenta Canyon and Hidden Valley. For those partially gated communities where there is alternate access open to the public, there is no need to provide special access to the community. There was also a question about "safe" gate design and who would make such a determination. It was noted that there is disagreement among experts about what is considered "safe" and that there should be a better definition of what type of devices are encouraged/discouraged. The largest complaint with the ordinance was Section 3 which defined pre-existing legal, legal non -conforming, and illegal gates and provided authority for the Community Development Director to determine if a change to an existing gate would be considered significant. It was the unanimous opinion at the meeting that this section needs to be rewritten in its entirety. The majority opinion was that the ordinance should exempt all existing gates and general gate locations from the ordinance. A suggestion was given for the following wording "Any traffic control devices presently existing or which may exist in the future within the real estate described within Attachment A are exempt from this ordinance." Attachment A would contain a legal description of the locations of the exempted gates as well as a map showing the general locations of exempted gates. Several attorneys in the meeting were concerned that the word "exempt" appear in the ordinance as well as the gate locations so that a possible relocation of a gate or change in its physical characteristics would not change the grandfathered status. The present wording of pre-existing legal and legal non -conforming gate definitions would discourage homeowners from making gate improvements, including safety improvements. It was noted that rewording Section 3 as suggested by the attendees would encourage those with pre-existing gates to maintain gates and provide safety upgrades because they would not fear being subject to the new standards. There was concern expressed that the pre-existing legal, non -conforming legal, and illegal wording in the ordinance is not consistent with other phrasing in the Unified Development Code. The description of what would be a "significant change" to an existing gate is too vague. It was noted that many of the gates within the City were approved through different development approvals such as Conditional Use Permits and Tract Maps and that those approvals should be honored, regardless of the new ordinance. SECTION 4- No Comments SECTION Several attendees felt that the environmental review for this project was insufficient. Some felt that the Negative Declaration was not an appropriate document for this project and that an environmental impact report (EIR) should be prepared. SECTION 6- No Comments SECTION 7- No Comments Staff has received six phone calls in opposition to this ordinance, all favor exempting existing gates. Four letters have been received concerning this ordinance and are attached. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive staffs presentation; 2) Take public testimony; 3) Discuss the changes proposed to the ordinance; 4) Give direction to staff on changes that should be made to the proposed Gate Ordinance No 96-14 and direct staff to return with modifications. pingcom�gee .lhe CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 96-005 UDC AMENDMENT 96-001 DATE: July 16, 1996 TO: Chairperson Townsley and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jeff Lambert, Acting Community Development Director CASE PLANNER: Laura Stotler, Associate Planner APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita LOCATION: Citywide REQUEST: Discuss changes to the proposed amendment to the City's Unified Development Code to regulate the gating of roadways and driveways. BACKGROi TND The Planning Commission first considered the proposed Gate Ordinance No. 96-14 on March 5, 1996 and recommended its approval to the Council. On April 23, 1996, the Council considered the ordinance and the Planning Commission's recommendation. The Council stated that the purpose of the ordinance was to regulate new, not existing, gates. They directed staff to meet with homeowner associations and the interested public to ascertain their concerns with the ordinance and to return to the Commission for further discussion. On June 4, 1996, the Planning Commission again discussed the gate ordinance and directed "staff to make several changes.: At the meeting of June 4, 1996, the Commissioners gave direction to staff to modify the proposed ordinance. The majority of Commissioners did not agree with the Council's direction to exclude all legally existing gates from the ordinance. For this reason, staff has prepared two versions of the proposed Gate Ordinance. Version A follows the majority of the Planning Commissioner's direction and version B follows the direction of Council. At the previous Commission meeting, the attorney clarified that where a right has been given to have a gate, then that right will remain even after adoption of this ordinance. The attorney noted that the exception to this is for gates that are determined to be a nuisance, which may be ordered removed. Version A, Section 3 of the ordinance follows the Commission direction to provide that existing gates that pose an unlawful nuisance may not be exempt from the ordinance. Version A, Section 3 retains the Commission's desired distinction between pre- existing legal, non -conforming and illegal gates. In compliance with the attorney recommendation, version A, Section 3 has been further modified to eliminate the discretion of the Community Development Director to determine the significance of a change in a gate. Version B is identical to version A with the exception of Section 3 which simply exempts all legal, existing gates. Section 2, M.6 of both versions include that agate setback beat least 20 feet from a residential collector in addition to setbacks from major and secondary arterials. A revised initial study and negative declaration have been completed for this revised ordinance. Information from the public submitted at the Council meeting of April 23, 1996 and not previously distributed to the Commission is included in the packet. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive staffs presentation on Version A and B of the ordinance; 2) Take public testimony; 3) Identify the version of the ordinance supported by the Commission and adopt version A or version B of Resolution P96-20 which recommends that the City Council A) adopt the negative declaration finding that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment and B) adopt version A or version B of Ordinance No. 96-14 to regulate the gating of roadways and driveways. p1n9e0mtpnax3.1h* RESOLUTION NO. 96-114 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATING THE GATING OF ROADWAYS AND DRIVEWAYS (MCN 96-005, UDC AMENDMENT 96-001). 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. That an Initial Study has been prepared for the project and that said study found that no adverse impact to the existing and future environmental resources of the area would result from the proposal; and B. That a proposed Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on June 25, 1996 and on August 20, 1996, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQrA); and C. That the Initial Study includes the determination that the proposed project would not impact resources protected by the California Department of Fish and Game, and that a finding of de miniU= impact on such resources was appropriate; and D. That the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a public hearing on March 5, 1996, pursuant to applicable law, to consider an ordinance to amend the City's Unified Development Code, and adopted Resolution No. P96- 07, with the finding that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommending that the City Council approve Orflinance No. 96-014 and the Negative Declaration prepared for the project; andi E. That the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 23, 1996, pursuant to applicable law, to consider this amendment and the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The City Council gave further direction to staff for revisions and remanded the project to the Commission for modification; and F. That on May 20, 1996, staff held a duly noticed public meeting with various homeowner association representatives,. On June 4, 1996 the Planning Commission considered the direction of the Council and the recommendations of the homeowners. The Commission recommended revisions to the ordinance to amend the City's Unified Development Code. In response, staff prepared two versions of the ordinance, revised the Initial Study and prepared a new Negative Declaration for the revised versions of the ordinance; and G. That a proposed Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on June 25, RESOLUTION NO, 96-114 Page 2 1996 and on August 20, 1996, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and H. That on July 16, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, pursuant to applicable law, to consider an ordinance to amend the Unified Development Code, and adopted Resolution No. P96-20 Version A, with the finding that the Negative Declaration was in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommending that the City Council approve Ordinance No. 96-14 and the Negative Declaration prepared for the project; and E. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, 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 CEQA and that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. SECTION 2. The Negative Declaration for the project is hereby approved. The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to file the Negative Declaration with the County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles. RASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 19 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, George A. Caravalho City Manager/City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 96-114 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of 1996 by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK THE OAKS AT SAND CANYON, LLC 16095-A LIVE OAKS SPRING CANYON ROAD SANTA CLARITA, CA., 91351-3624 TEL. (805) 251-9990 FAX. (805) 251-0293 0 City of Santa Clarita M Mayor Carl Boyer Councilwoman Jan Heidt Councilwoman JoAnne Darcy t� Councilwoman Jill Klajic r Councilman Clyde Smyth `y u> v Dear members of the City Council, On Sept. 10, 1996 the official sanctioning of our golf and residential development will take place following our August 27, 1996 hearing date that called for the resolution and conditions of approval and was voted and approved by the City Council by a four to one vote. We very much appreciate the support that the City Council has granted us and pledge that the trust they have shown will be rewarded with a recreation and residential development that will stand as a model of environmental sensitivity and a world class golf facility that will be available to all the citizens of the City of Santa Clarita. There is however one condition that was imposed by the planning commission that we would like to discuss on the September 10 meeting. That condition concerns the prohibiting of gates on the residential portion of the development. This condition is of great importance to us and concerns us for the following reasons: 1) From our fust visit with the City staff approximately three years ago we expressed our desire that we be allowed to gate the private streets within our project. 2) The Sand Canyon and Crystal Springs Home Owners Associations as one of their conditions of support insisted that we would agree to control vehicular traffic from our development to the heart of the Sand Canyon area. 3) It is of prime importance that we as the developers, owners and operation managers of the facility be able to control the over four hundred acres to assure the highest level of safety and security through proper management for our development and the surrounding neighborhood. 4) The neighborhood and we agree that there is no need and it makes no sense to encourage traffic to use the golf course road to access the Crystal Springs and Sand Canyon area or to those drivers on their way to the 14 Freeway as an alternate route. We are trying to limit traffic in general in the area and specifically on the golf courses. We do not want to provide an excuse for people who are not using the facilities to access the development day or night. 5) The main entry road to the club house has been specifically designed to a width of only 36 feet while the City standard for public streets is 64 feet. The intended purpose is to discourage any vehicles from parking or stopping along the approximately 415 of a mile of road to the clubhouse. Since we have no other ability to control the traffic such as barriers or walls to the golf courses, private streets in this special instance from every standpoint seems to make the most sense. 6) While we recognize that the City in general is opposed to gating its streets, we believe that in this unique case we be afforded the ability to do so, and it should also be noted that our project complies with the required criteria to allow for gating of the residential portion of our project in the new "Gated Streets Ordinance". 7) All streets within the project will be open at all times to pedestrian or bicycle traffic and all streets will remain open to vehicular traffic in any case of emergency such as fire, flooding, earthquake etc. Thanking you for your consideration. I remain, hI.I�G .I.II- ,CL 19 Jl._. LD - 'J.JL- . NEWHALL-1 RODEN VALLEY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION August 30, 1996 City Council CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 2392U West Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Gate Ordinance No. 96-14 Dear Council Members: VIA TELEP CSIRILE ANL1 FIRST CLASS 14ATL By separate letter from the Association's legal counsel, you will be apprised of the variuus legal problems associated with the proposed gate ordinance. The purpose of this latter is not to reiterate the long history of the legality and requirement that Hidden Valley HOA maintain a traffic control device on private property between the Calgrove terminus and Valley Street terminus; or the Maple Street gate which the City Council approved a number of years ago. These arc cattled issues. Rather, thin letter is to apprise you of certain significant events which have takenplace since you remanded the proposed Gate ordinance to the Planning Commission. Through the requirements of Council Members Klajic and Heidt, interested homeowners met. with Mr. Lambert and Ms. Stotler. There wag absolutely no support for Lhe Gate Ordinance as proposed and a number of critical issues were raised. Ms. Lambert and Ms. Stotler attempted to address these issues and present them to the Planning Commission on June 4, 1996. (See attached letters). At the June 4th meeting of the Planninq Commission, the Assistant City Attorney advised the Planning Commiceion members that: "if somebody hac a pre-existing right to establish a gate such as-- or to put np a gate such as they received it through a map or through a C.U.P., they have a right to keep that gate on their property". The Assistant City Attorney also advised the Planninq commission it was his opinion that he did "not believe that the city has the authority to make them, (owner of the gate) simply because they're making minor alterations --or even substantial alLerations-- move that gate or brinq it up to city code absent a finding of some sort of public nuisance." Thus, the Assistant City Attorney opined that the distinctions made in the ordinance (which continue) are not leqally susLainable. in fact, the City attorney stated that he did not think the City would be able to require removal of a pre- existing legal gate absent a very harrow determination, which would ultimately be required to be made by a court. After a series of qucctions by commissioners concerning these statements by the Assistant City Attorney, one camuissioner stated that she was "getting the feeling that wclre trying to word thin so that we could attack the existing gaten, which is totally contrary to what ASI to ASI KAMPE S KAMPE TEL: 18185018565 Aug 30,96 16135 No.001 P,03 city Councfl 1IALL-111DDLN VALLEY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION CITY OF SANTA CIARITA August 30, 1996 Page -2- the City Council has directed". Notwithstanding ctatemente by the other four commissioners that Foch was not their intent, each of the four then made statements which revealed their true intent, i.e., to be able to remove pre-existing legal gates. In particular, the Hidden Valley traffic control device was the main topic of attack. For example, one commissioner called the Hidden Valley traffic control device the "Vietnam version over here". Another commissioner stated hP wantad to discuss "the validity of a Hidden Valley qate, whether Lhe street should be open or not". Another specifically Stated he, notwithstanding the advice of the Assistant City Attorney, "would maintain that a distinction for the future leverage it may give the director to take action against gates" and "find whatever language will give the City the graatpst strength to take action... when it's in conjunction with repair or replacement" and "those blocked roads need to be opened." In addition, after acknowledging the City Council is made up of elected officials and that commissioners were appointed, two commissioners voiced their "disappointment in the city Council in situations like these". Four commissioners acknowledged that, notwithstanding the directive of the City Council, they were going to purpose as strong as languaye- as possible to have An ordinance which permits the City to remove pre-existing legal gates. Repeatedly the Hidden VallPy traffic control device was singled out for specific application or the ordinance to remove the gate. In fact, one commissioner even suggested that through amortization the device should he removed. Another commissioner stated that whenever a yate is repaired, then through the ordinance the City should have the power to go in and require gate removal; notwithstanding the Assistant City Attorney's counsel that such action would be unlawful. Mindful of the deep divergence between the City Council's directive and the Planning Commieeion's direction, and mindful of the input received from the community, the city planners purposed two versions or the gate ordinance on July 16th. One version, made in compliance with tha City Council's direr..tivAn, would exempt pre- existing legal gates. Needless to say, the aame four commissioners would have no part in such a proposal. The animus to some existing gates (Hidden Valley and Placerita Canyon) continued by the same four commissioners. In fact, one commissioner stated that "it is fair to say that on the part of at least one commissioner there .is some animus to some existing gates". When the Chairwomen of the Commission questioned the intent of the other four commissioners concerning tha removal at gates as to the Ad to 'Ad KAMPE & KAMPE TEL' 13185018565 Aug 30.96 16:x5 N0.001 P.04 N�WHALL•HIDDEN VALLEY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION City Council CITY OF SANTA CLARITA August 30, 1996 Page -3- original charge from the City Council, one council member stated that "that 'I am repeating, in clear English, that it is the intent, to provide the City with ability to remove gates that are,non- conforming, non -complying with the ordinances". The way to reach pre-existing gates then, under this commissioner's view (which was adopted by three other commissioners), is to keep the definitions of different types of gates (legal, legal non -conforming, etc.) and then whenever a repair or any change is effectuated, to have the City reach in through the ordinance and remove the gate. This is nnt. what the City Cnunnil ragvactP.d. One eommiecioner, the probable commissioner to whom Mr. Charrington referred to as having animus to same gates, "describe[d] my concerns with this as it relates to the traffic control device that Hidden Valley Homeowners' Association has". A number of inaccuracies were stated by this commissioner concerning the traffic control device,,itc operation and experience. When it became abundantly clear, and to a large degree admitted by two commissioners that a target of this ordinance .is the removal of the Hidden valley traffic control device, the question was posed concerning selective prosecution and selective enforcement of ordinance. Interestingly, no clear response was provided and attention was quickly diverted to another area. In the final statements mane by four commiacionnrR, each agreed that their 'intent was to have the ability, through the proposed ordinance, to remove pro -existing legal gates; particularly the Hidden Valley traffic control device. The commissions vote of a to 1 reflects that sentiment. A majority of the Planning Commissioners have left a clear record of an ordinance directed specifically again3t the Hidden Valley traffic control device. At timaa acknowledging that the traffic control device is leydl, legally situated and holds appropriate permits and authority for its existence and operation, (all of which are true) and also acknowledging that the Assistant city Attorney's statement of the law with regard to the inability of the City to take action as contemplated, four of the Planning Commissioners still approved an ordinance to set up the mechanism to have the device removed. This is not what the directive from the City Council was originally; or was in April, 1996. The idea for a gate ordinance, in large part, stemmed from the many appearances Hidden Valley has had'befnre the City; particularly in the aftermath of the 1994 earthquake. we agreed with the effort for a standardized approach to thc3c mattcre. From our understanding, there are a numhar of applications outstanding. W4 to A4 KHMPE 9 KRMPE TEL' 121S5019S6S Aug 30.96 16:35 No.001 P.OS NfWHALL-HIDDEN VALLEY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION City Coune 1 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA August 30, 1996 Page -4- Positive by-products of gates are increased security, lowering of crime rates and the positive affect that has on the reputation of Santa Clarita. We acknowledge the gates could have an exclusionary aspect, but as appropriately applied, this can be largely avoided. The City Council has a golden opportunity to finally resolve the pre-existing legal gates lfisua. Tf it exempts pre-existing legal qates and the areas 5urruuziainq these gates from the ordinance, then the Hidden Valley issue should be finally resolved and 'put to rest. We urge the Council that it it intends to approve one of the gate ordinances, approve the version whjch exempto pre-erjisting legal gates and the area on and surround, the gatev- Nowhail';Hidden Valls.° d KWK:ln cc! Rnard of Directors Robert D. Crockett, Esq, Please note: The quotations are taken frnm written transcripts of the proceedings obtained by the HOA. .480 HII t.n H42 KAMPE & KAMPE TEL= ISISS501SS65 Rug 30,96 16:35 No.001 P.06 NEWHALL•HIDDEN VALLEY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION May 21, 1996 Ms. Laura H. Stotler, Associate Planner 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196 Re: Gate Ordinance Dear Ms. Stotler: Thank you and Mr• Lambert for hncting yesterday's meeting on the proposed Gate Ordinance.. In light or the fact that Hidden Valley residents only had one, or at most two (2) days notice of the meeting, the number of Hidden Valley residents in attendance should indicate to you the significance of the issues to us. As we stated to you, it is our believe that a majority, if not all, the city council members are desirous of resolving the various issues raised by the proposed Gate Ordinance by granting exemptions. If the City desires to pass an ordinance, we strongly urge you, the Planning Commission and the City to exempt the Hidden Valley barriers, gates and traffic control devices and the real property areas in which they encompass. The barriers, gates and devices were built pursuant to traffic studies, an Environmental Impact Report and a Legal Conditional Used Permit. These must be considered and followed. The concerns for public input by Me. Klajic and Ms. Heidt have been addressed. We have proposed specific exemption language which, gleaned from the April city Council meeting, a majority, if not all, Council members will support. We have secured a traffic free area for our school children to traverse to and from school and school bus stops. Exempting the arca ao proposed would continue to secure the safety provisions we have long ago set in place. Again, thank you and Mr. LAmhert for your attention to these matters. We look forward to positive input at the June 4th Commission meeting. In the interim, if you have any questions, do n4 to n4 KAMPE & KAMPE TEL: lSIS501S565 Aug 30,96 16:35 No.001 P.07 Ms. Laura NHNHALtHIDDEsNVA4iLgtYe HPlaMnnOeWrNERS ASSOCIATION May 21, 1996 Page -2- not hesitate to contact me at (918) 907-51$'d' very r �Y r6 e t a - Y /0�'t '771 /Z ITT XWX; In cc: Board of Directors Robert U. Crockett, Esq. Jeffrey Lambert, City Planner Community De, .454 H4 to A4 KAMPE E KAMPE TEL: 13185014565 Au4 30,96 16 A A I -, L E Y NEWHALL•HIDDEN VALLEY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION May 14, 1996 Ms. Laura H. Stotler, Associate Planner 27920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196 Re: Meeting to Discuss the Changes to the Proposed Gate ordinance for the City of Santa Clarita Dear Ms. Stotler: Receipt of your letter dated May 9, 1996, and post -marked May 10, 1996 is acknowledged on May 11, 1996. P.08 My wife notified me of your telephone call on May 9th. Because you requested a meeting on the proposed gate ordinance, I endeavored to first contact Mr. Crockett for his attendance. once I contacted him and was able to ascertain his available dato_s, I received your letter before I was able to return your call. I am somewhat puzzled by your letter. My wife related to me your request for a meeting with me (as a Hidden valley representative) in which you would have no proposals, but wanted to, apparently, hear what we had tv say about the proposed ordinance. if you examine the comments of the Council, the Planning Commission was instructed to work with us specifically in regard to the issues we have raised. We expected to have a sit down discussion regarding the issues we have raised. It appears it is not your intention to do this, but rather hold a public meeting. The copy of the ordinance attached to your correspondence does not appear to contain any changes to the proposed gate ordinance. Through Mr. Crockett, the IIOA hay tendered both a letter and written comments specifying a number of deficiencies. We are unclear what response or consideration has been given to the prior comments. because several of the comments dramatically affect the legality of the proposed ordinance, we would like to know what changes are proposed and what the responses are to the issues ralsed. I an further puzzled by the scheduling of the public meeting. Aside from the CEQA questions, after carefully listening to the comments of the City Council, it appears the best approach, as recommended by at least two (2) Council members, is to exempt the Ail to ASI KRMPE & KRMPE TEL' 18195019565 Aug 30,96 16135 No.001 P.09 NEWHALL•HIDDEN VALLEY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Ks. Laura H. Stotler, Associate Planner May 14, 1996 Page -2- area in and around the Hidden Valley traffic control device and the gate located on Placerita Canyon. where are we on this issue? The public meeting also seems to provide another forum for those individuals who are specifically against. the Hidden Valley traffic control device, the Placerita Canyon gate or any other particular gate to raise their legality. While we firmly believe public input is vital (and legally required), for our traffic control device, we do not believe this is what the Council had in mind when it referred the proposed ordinance back to the Planning Commission. With regard to the Hidden Valley traffic_ control device, as has been repeatedly established, the device and the barricades are legal. The Council hds repeatedly had to put this issue to rest and have stated on the record it does not want to revisit this issue. Nonetheless, it appears you intend on using the formulae for the number Or people who appear, write, telephone or otherwise contact the City for some unspecified reason. In light of our history with some city staff on this issue, similar to the Council, we are disinclined to revisit is„uec which have long been resolved, We have raised specific legal (procedural and substantive) and factual issues. The Council directed the Planning Commission to address those issues with us and resolve therm. I do not know whether I can attend the May 20th meetinq Cecaus I have a prior commitment. Please contact me regardi)rg tfione mttara. Presi RWx:In cc: Board of Directors Robert D. Crockett, Esq. .4S] A4 to R4 �gIV EC cP � 51996 cm of snaNTAc gaTA The Honorable Carl Boyer, Mayor City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia BI. Santa Clarita, CA 91380 Subject: Proposed Street Gate Ordinance Dear Mayor Boyer: 23369 Alamos Ln. Newhall, CA 91321 September 3, 1996 I understand that a proposed Street Gate Ordinance will be presented at the City Council meeting of September 10, 1996. 1 also understand that this proposed ordinance contains a definition titled "Legal, Non -Conforming" which will be applied to all existing street gates within the City of Santa Clarity Please do not accept this ordinance as written. Passage of the ordinance may result in removal of previously approved street gates, And please direct that appropriate language be included in the proposed ordinance to specifically exempt all legally existing street gates and (if on private property) the property that such gates are built on. (I believe that this is the language that City Council members directed to be drafted into the ordinance at an earlier meeting). I live on the corner of Alamos and Valley Street, near the existing Hidden Valley Gate. I do not currently have access to the gate, nor do I wish to have access. Removal of this legally existing gate will result in severe degradation of safety and neighborhood integrity. Thank you, Mayor Boyer, for your past and future support in this matter. Sincerely, Lffdw rd L. Stuckey cc: Ms. Jo Anne Darcy, Councilwoman Ms. Jan Heidt, Councilwoman Ms. Jill Klajic, Councilwoman Mr, Clyde Smyth, Councilman tn1;^,I_LETTERS TO COUNCIL CITY CGi'irs"T'O: CITY MANAGER. GLER'' Mayor and City Council Members, City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA Dear Mayor and Council Members, LEIVEU Ep u 5 W96 CM COUNCIL CRy OF ,SANTA CI.WtA I am writing on behalf of the upcoming Gate Ordinance to be presented Tuesday September 10, 1996. I would ask that you not support this ordinance as written and am concerned that a definition of "LEGAL NON -CONFORMING" is STILL being considered, especially after the City Councils specific request to EXEMPT all legally approved existing gates. I would ask that you direct wording in the Gate Ordinance to specifically EXEMPT all legally existing gates AND THE PROPERTY that the gate is erected on. As a resident of Happy Valley, I do not have access to the Hidden Valley Gate, nor do I want to. But I fear that passing the ordinance as written wo'ld give the ability to have an already approved gate removed if passage of this ordinance, as presented, is given. I thank the Council for its past support to maintain the safety and integrity of our neighborhood, and hope for continued support in the future. Thank you for your concern, ��/�Sp moi `�3 ��y�� �� :tet-• `-41 �� � t I am writing on behalf of the upcoming Gate Ordinance to be presented Tuesday September 10, 1996. I would ask that you not support this ordinance as written and am concerned that a definition of "LEGAL NON -CONFORMING" is STILL being considered, especially after the City Councils specific request to EXEMPT all legally approved existing gates. I would ask that you direct wording in the Gate Ordinance to specifically EXEMPT all legally existing gates AND THE PROPERTY that the gate is erected on. As a resident of Happy Valley, I do not have access to the Hidden Valley Gate, nor do I want to. But I fear that passing the ordinance as written wo'ld give the ability to have an already approved gate removed if passage of this ordinance, as presented, is given. I thank the Council for its past support to maintain the safety and integrity of our neighborhood, and hope for continued support in the future. Thank you for your concern, ��/�Sp moi `�3 ��y�� �� :tet-• `-41 �� � Mayor and City Council Members, City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA Dear Mayor and Council Members, I am writing on behalf of the upcoming Gate Ordinance to be presented Tuesday September 10, 1996. I would ask that you not support this ordinance as written and am concerned that a definition of "LEGAL NON -CONFORMING" is STILL being considered, especially after the City Councils specific request to EXEMPT all legally approved existing gates. I would ask that you direct wording in the Gate Ordinance to specifically EXEMPT all legally existing gates AND THE PROPERTY that the gate is erected on. As a resident of Happy Valley, I do not have access to the Hidden Valley Gate, nor do I want to. But I fear that passing the ordinance as written wold give the ability to have an already approved gate removed if passage of this ordinance, as presented, is given. I thank the Council for its past support to maintain the safety and integrity of our neighborhood, and hope for continued support in the future. Thank you for your concern, .CE IVEr. .EP J S 1996 CITY COUNCIL CM OF SANTA CLAFtTA L,; L: je►v sic Mayor and City Council Members, rp ,� 199 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. psr�%CIL a Santa Clarita, CA crtvOF Dear Mayor and Council Members, I am writing on behalf of the upcoming Gate Ordinance to be presented Tuesday September 10, 1996. I would ask that you not support this ordinance as written and am concerned that a definition of "LEGAL NON -CONFORMING" is STILL being considered, especially after the City Councils specific request to EXEMPT all legally approved existing gates. I would ask that you direct wording in the Gate Ordinance to specifically EXEMPT all legally existing gates AND THE PROPERTY that the gate is erected on. As a resident of Happy Valley, I do not have access to the Hidden Valley Gate, nor do I want to. But I fear that passing the ordinance as written wold give the ability to have an already approved gate removed if passage of this ordinance, as presented, is given. I thank the Council for its past support to maintain the safety and integrity of our neighborhood, and hope for continued support in the future. Thank you for your concern, X 3 313 4e -A Mas c 4vr Michael J. Wilhelmi 27103 N. Teton Trail, Unit 92 Valencia, CA 91354 Members of the City Council and Mayor Santa Clarita 23920 West Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 31355 Dear City Council Members and Mayor, I am writing you in response to the public notice given about the meeting on Tuesday, September 10, 1996 concerning the increase of monthly bus passes for students. I am in class on Tuesday nights and therefore I am unable to attend your meeting. I am currently a full time student at College of the Canyons who uses the bus system to get to and from school. A rate increase at this time would cause a financial hardship on my wife and myself. Currently, she is the only one working while I attend C.O.C. full time. I have dyslexia and attention deficit disorder and need all the time I have to study. We are barely squeaking by now with the current price of $10.00 for a monthly bus pass. Instead of raising the cost of your monthly bus passes for students, may I suggest you make the running of your bus system more efficient. Currently you start all your buses from one point --the metro station. It would be more cost effective if you run 4 buses from that point out to each direction. These buses could then intersect with other buses that run in perpendicular to those 4 buses. People could then transfer to the bus or buses they would need to get home. This type of run would free up a number of buses which for now have to follow each other in and out of the metro link station. Currently, I know of 2 bus lines that follow the same route for 3 miles in each direction --a 6 mile total—the 35 and 40 lines. This is an awful waste of fuel and time of a bus that could cover a larger area than what is now being covered. Before you increase the monthly student fare, to help cover the increasing cost of service, how about making the most out of each bus. Not only would you be covering a larger area you would have the opportunity to service a larger population. Sincerely, 0, E1VEi- Michael Wilhelmi {o I U 199(; cc: copies enclosed for each city council member and the mayor CITY COUNCIL rlly OF SANT:%" , ­ 7. 09-03-96 01:12PM FROM LATHAM & WATKINS LA TO 6/9000000170/-180026 POO 1/007 LATHAM & WATKINS Attorneys At Law 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 .n Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 OUR FAX NUMBER: — (213) 891-8763 F A X COVER SHEET THIS IS A RUSH DOCUMENTN PLEASE DELIVER IMMEDIATELY TO PERSON NAMED BELOW. If there are any problems with this transmission, call (213) 891-7533. TOTAL PAGE COUNT: (Including Cover shPNfF TO: City Clerk; City of Santa Clarita FROM: Robert D. Crockett DATE: os/o3/96 MESSAGE: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT NAMED ABOVE, IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIrIED THAT ANY COPYING Of THIS COMMUNICAIIUN UR DISSEMINATION OR DISTRIBUTION Of IT TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS STRICTLY PFIOHIBITED, IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ASOVC ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, AMS JOB NO. ` 09-03-96101:12PM FROM LATHAM & WATKINS LA TO 6/9000000170/-18052.5 P002/007 L10SzQtL0. aGE I 1 ]/I LENIN51[T PROSPECT- SLR£ 0200 --3G N21. NU*UA TELEPHONE 603 056-S.$55 FAX 502 0560656 a"� Scptcttttx r 3, 1996 N6 ARK. NCW �EFSEY 0710F3174 TELEPHONE 1'.'Ol l 630 1234 PAx 120116]0-%20, City Clerk City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 Ke: Ordinance No. 96-14; Hearing September 30, 1996 Dear Sir or Madam: hZW'ay/35 OFF 'E uU•n THIRD AVENUE. SURE rcTOO NEN+UNI(• NR �HK 10021 ASO.* Tr. ro.vwF ,y�1 aoev:yp FAX 12121 JgbnOOa QRAdQLSftTY_4£EIGE 650 TOWN CENIEN ON,E. 3U., 2000 C05TA HLSA, CALIFORNIA 02020..025 TLLFAX f7N 17151 ,,go 1,3 FA% IJIA1 73S•b:oo a60-pCy!-aat = 701 ^G- STREET, SURE 2100 SAN DIED . CAGFORNIA 021Q TELEPHORE,dQ, J, J0123A 1'Ax (6NI OD67A14 SAy1RANCISC9SFEICE 505 NONIOONEI6' STRE . ;;u1tE 1000 SAN FRANOSOD, CALIFORNIA 04111.2066 rr^OPE 1a1m :601.0000 rzL 1'AX (9151300.6003 b'P5HItgTT4tl -C _0!15, K 01 PENSTLI.NIA If , N1 wo wgsrcw(TON. DFC. '000A 250i TELEP40NE120L Ol%-2200 fAz (;021 OJ T22(ry I represent the Newhall-l-lidden Vallcy Homeowners Association (•'NHVHOA"). This letter provides comments upon the pending gate ordinance, or Ordinance No. 96-14. 1 have comments upon both alternative ordinances, and we would like to have these comments addressed at the hearing September 30, 1996. It is very clear from comments made at the Planning Commission hearing that the real purpose for the ordinance is to eliminate the traffic control devices in Ifidden Valley, even though the gate was previously legally permitted. Comments in the record seen) to indicate an intent to draft an ordinance which could he later used to remove the traffic control devices as nuisances. Therefore, no matter how benign the ordinance is crafted, there is certain evidence in the record of the City's intent to take an action which would drastically alter traffic patterns in Newhall. Draft 6/7/96 Version B (City Council Direction) It is NHVHOA's position that the real estate confines of any existing gate ot- traffic control device should be exempt from the ordinance; merely exempting the physical gate itself is insufficient. LATHAM & WATKINS PAL&R.W,AT INS Ub00-ID%Ji ATTORNEYS AT LAW DANA LATNAH I I pup- J Q74c 631, wE9T FIF'TN E'fNEET •3U(TE <ODO EffiC. Q OFF1 & LOS ANGELES, CAL(FCIONi.. OnC.y1-;oOJ SEARS TO'.vt R, SURE Oa00 CHICAGO. ILLNOM ODOOO iELERNnuE ,=131 -Ib5•. TELEPHON[ 0121676'7700 FAX (,"J1 UOI-6703 FAX 131a, 00:197C% ,\ TLX 51,07.7.1 4QyyQ)N OFFS ELN G.••703266 ONE C AN0EL0 LWOON ED2R L C CNGLnnp r.CA&L' ADORE%5 LATHWAT TEUF ONE07P370<IA4 FAX 07F375.4A60 L10SzQtL0. aGE I 1 ]/I LENIN51[T PROSPECT- SLR£ 0200 --3G N21. NU*UA TELEPHONE 603 056-S.$55 FAX 502 0560656 a"� Scptcttttx r 3, 1996 N6 ARK. NCW �EFSEY 0710F3174 TELEPHONE 1'.'Ol l 630 1234 PAx 120116]0-%20, City Clerk City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 Ke: Ordinance No. 96-14; Hearing September 30, 1996 Dear Sir or Madam: hZW'ay/35 OFF 'E uU•n THIRD AVENUE. SURE rcTOO NEN+UNI(• NR �HK 10021 ASO.* Tr. ro.vwF ,y�1 aoev:yp FAX 12121 JgbnOOa QRAdQLSftTY_4£EIGE 650 TOWN CENIEN ON,E. 3U., 2000 C05TA HLSA, CALIFORNIA 02020..025 TLLFAX f7N 17151 ,,go 1,3 FA% IJIA1 73S•b:oo a60-pCy!-aat = 701 ^G- STREET, SURE 2100 SAN DIED . CAGFORNIA 021Q TELEPHORE,dQ, J, J0123A 1'Ax (6NI OD67A14 SAy1RANCISC9SFEICE 505 NONIOONEI6' STRE . ;;u1tE 1000 SAN FRANOSOD, CALIFORNIA 04111.2066 rr^OPE 1a1m :601.0000 rzL 1'AX (9151300.6003 b'P5HItgTT4tl -C _0!15, K 01 PENSTLI.NIA If , N1 wo wgsrcw(TON. DFC. '000A 250i TELEP40NE120L Ol%-2200 fAz (;021 OJ T22(ry I represent the Newhall-l-lidden Vallcy Homeowners Association (•'NHVHOA"). This letter provides comments upon the pending gate ordinance, or Ordinance No. 96-14. 1 have comments upon both alternative ordinances, and we would like to have these comments addressed at the hearing September 30, 1996. It is very clear from comments made at the Planning Commission hearing that the real purpose for the ordinance is to eliminate the traffic control devices in Ifidden Valley, even though the gate was previously legally permitted. Comments in the record seen) to indicate an intent to draft an ordinance which could he later used to remove the traffic control devices as nuisances. Therefore, no matter how benign the ordinance is crafted, there is certain evidence in the record of the City's intent to take an action which would drastically alter traffic patterns in Newhall. Draft 6/7/96 Version B (City Council Direction) It is NHVHOA's position that the real estate confines of any existing gate ot- traffic control device should be exempt from the ordinance; merely exempting the physical gate itself is insufficient. 09-03-96 01:12PM FROM LnTHnM & WATKINS Lk TO 6/9000000170/-180525 P003/007 Ln'rHnM & W,\ 1' It I N 8 September 3, 1996 Page 2 The Section 3 language only exempts the physical mechanical device. Such all ordinance would lead to the following difficulties: 1. The ordinance would discourage existing gate owners, such as Placerita Canyon or NHVHOA, from making any modifications whatsoever, for to make modifications would talc it out of the ordinance. This is so, even for gates such as NHVHOA's which has been previously legally permitted.. IfNHVHOA chose to make safety changes (if such were necessary, and we are not saying they are necessary), it would be forced to weigh the desire to make safety changes against submitting its traffic control devices to public control. In other words, the ordinance discourages safety modifications. 2. The language is too ambiguous. In the EIR process, there was substantial opposition to the traffic pattern down Calgrove as proposed by Urban West Communities. This resulted in a compromise whereby the conditional use permit would impose as a. condition a traffic control system which would permit only homeowners to move on private property from Calgrove to the terminus of Valley. The conditional use permit required Urban West Communities to build the traffic control device, but did not specify what it would he; rather, the conditional use permit in the City's files specifies where (the real estate) the device should be located. The conditional use permit also required Urban West Communities to build nt its own expense barriers at the end of Calgrovc and at the terminus of Valley. The traffic control device, the barriers, and the rights to the area then reverted to NHVHOA. 3. Because the language is deficient and ambiguous, it exposes the area to different traffic patterns, which arc described in greater detail in the Version A comments below. Draft 6/7196 Version A (Planning Commission Direction) This version deeply troubles us. We believe the ordinance proposed is an attempt to circumvent CEQA. "'The result could hardly be intended by the careful drafting of the Legislature, and is unmistakably opposed to the policy of construing CEQA to aflixd the maximum possible protection of the environment." Cactale Lake Water Agency v. Cily of'Santa Clarita, 41 Cal. App. 4'h 1257 (1995). Specifically, the following issues need to be addressed in an Environmental Impact Report or, at the very least, an Initial Study. Failure to consider these issues makes the negative declaration defective. 09-03-96 01 12FM FROM LATHAM & WATKINS LA LATH.AM & WATNINS September 3, 1996 Page 3 TO 6/9000000170/-180525 P004/007 I. The City has broken down pre-existing gates into "legal gates," "legal non- conforming gates" and "illegal gates." How would the ordinance affect existing traffic pattcrni and road usage if these definitions caused the City to close existing pre-existing barriers? ,2. If, for example, the traffic control device near Calgrove and Valley were construed to be illegal or non -conforming, what would the impact be upon the traffic on Calgrove, Valley, and Wiley Canyon if the City required Hidden Valley residents to cease using that device? What impact would that have upon the intersection at Wiley Canyon and Lyons Avenue'? 3. One of the most significant uses of the traffic control device occurs during times parents take their children to school, because no school buses run in Hidden Valley. Because no school buses ntn, parents often either drive their children, or their children walk, to a bus stop at Maple and Valley, or to the respective schools. If the traffic control device were ordered to be welded shut, what impact would that have upon the streets close to Peachland Elementary and between Wiley Canyon? What impact would that have upon the dangerous curve at Wiley Canyon'? 4. If the traffic control device were ordered to be welded open, this would result in a completely unsatisfactory use by the public of private property if they drive over the device, but what impact would that have upon the children walking to the bus stop? What impact would that have upon Valley and the intersection at Maple? 'file area would become a major arterial to the freeway, and children would be at extreme risk. S. If the City intends to remove the barricades (which NHVHOA owns) at the end of Calgrove, what impact would that have upon traffic down Valley Street, at the hus stop, at the intersection of Maplc and Valley, at the intersections between the barricades and the freeway, and at intersections between the barricades and Lyons? The City has failed to study these impacts. We believe it to be self -apparent that such impacts would be significant_ 6. What impacts would result from changing the traffic patterns on Maple if the City determined that the gate at Maple would be illegal or non -conforming`? We believe it to be self apparent that the impacts would be significant. 7. If the proposed ordinance required NI-1VN0A to weld shut its gate, what impact would that have upon emergency services through the south-western side to the City? We think the result would be significant. 09-03-96 01:12PM FROM LATHAM & WATKINS LA LATHAM $ WnTHINS September 3, 1996 Page 4 TO 6/9000000170/-180525 P005/007 S. What consideration have you given to the EIR issued for the conditional use permit issued for the development to Urban West Development? 9. You have not considered the growth -inducing impacts upon the City and the. valley if Valley and Calgrove were linked to I-5. 10. Your decision cannot be made without traffic studies based upon reasonable data. These studies must simulate some of these conditions above. In addition to the foregoing complaints, the ordinance appears to Threaten confiscation of private property. The traffic control device at the end of Calgrove is entirely on private property. It was built at my client's expense, and received appropriate approvals. Yet, proposed ordinance section M(5)(a) bars gates which block access to roadways to serve future development. It appears to us that if a developer attempted the construction of one single home in LaSalle Canyon, that developer could attempt to claim that the traffic control device should be removed. We request that the negative declaration not be adopted, and that the ordinance not be passed. We are prepared to assert the necessary challenges to the ordinance in the event it is passed without addressing our concerns. We believe we have the necessary support for such a challenge. Possible Exemption As a compromise, we suggest that you consider grandfathering and excepting existing traffic control devices and gates. This requires specific identification Of the properly confines, not the gates or devices. Generalized language would only be subject to attack. For that reason, we suggest that the language contained in the attachment be adopted. I invite you to contact me to discuss the legal issues of the errors of the ordinance. Very truly yours, 4T kw Robert D. Crockett of LATHAM & WATKINS Enclosure cc: Carl Buyer 09-03-96 01:12PM FROM LATHAM & WATKINS LA "TO 6/90000001701-180525 P006/007 I.A/HAM & WATKINS September 3, 1996 Page 5 Jan Heidt Jill Klajic Clyde Smyth Jo Anne Darcy Ken Pulskamp Kurt Kampe LAD(Cj\56569,3 NZ/9h 09`-03-96 01:12PM FROM LRTHnM R WATKINS LA TO 6/90000001W -t80525 ?000/007 EXEMPTION LANGUAGE FOR ORDINANCE NO. 96-14 Hidden Dalley: "There shall be exempt from this ordinance two areas of real property contained within the confines of -the approved development described in CUP No. 1358-(5), which are (1) that area more specifically described in the Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate, recorded October 18, 1989, at instrument number 89-1674872 (Maple Street), and (2) those areas described as the private road diversion and the dedicated right of way at the east end of the Calgrove Boulevard, as more specifically described in the plot plan attached as `Exhibit A' to CUP No. 1358-(5), a portion of which `Exhibit A' Showing both the road diversion and the right of way is attached hereto as Attachment 1. CUP No. 1358-(5) pertains to that real property more particularly described in Attachment hereto." Placerita Canyon: [Obtain a sufficient description from the homeowners' association). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARrfA (Revised June 1996) MASTER CASE NO: 96-005,UDC Amend 96-001 Case Planners:Laura Stotler/Jeff Hogan Project Location:Citywide Project Description and Setting:Ordinance Amending UDC for regulating the gating of roadways and driveways in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Designation:n/a Zoning:n/a Applicant:City of Santa Claria Environmental Constraint Areas:n/a 0 1. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS YES MAYBE NO Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? ...................... L1 L ] [x] b,. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? ...... ♦ . . . . :...... . . [] [ ] [x] c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ............................. . [ ] [ ] [XI d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? .. [ ] [ ] [x] e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ....... . ... . ....... [ ] 1 ] Lx] f. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ...... [] [ ] [x] _1. H g. Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? .... [ ] [ ] [X] h. Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? . ......... . ..................... [ l [ l [Xl i. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? .......................... [ ] [ ] [X] j. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 25% natural grade? .. ....... . [ ] [ ] [X] k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? ...................... . ... [ ] [ l [X] 1. Other? ...................................... [] [l [X] 2. Air. Will the proposal, result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? :: . ............... . .. . .... [ l [ ] [X] b. The creation of objectionable odors? .............. [ ] [ l [X] C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? ...... . ...... . ... [ ] [ ] [X] d. Other? ......................................• [] [] 1X] 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ............... ............... [ 7 [ ] [Xl b. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? ........................ . ........ [ ] [ ] [XJ a Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? . _ � ...................... .. [ J [ l [Xl d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature; dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ..... ...... [ ] [ ] [X] -2- e. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? .. [ l [ l [x] f Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? [ ] [ l [x] g. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? .............................. [l [l [x] h. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? [ ] [ l [xl i. Other? ...................................... [l [l [xl 4: Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? [ l b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? ............. [ ] C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal re- plenishment of existing species? ....... ......... . d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ....................................... [] 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and insects or microfauna)? .. , ............ [ 1 b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? [ ] C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ......... . [ ] -3- 7, 8. 9. 10. d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat and/or migratory routes? . Noise. Will the proposal result in a. Increases in existing noise levels? ............ . [ ] [ ] [x] L ] [ ] [x] b. Exposure of people to severe or unacceptable noise levels? ............. C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? [ ] Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? .... .... , ........_.. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial alteration of the present land use of an area? ...............:............ [] b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of an area? [ ] C. A use that does not adhere to existing zoning laws? .............................. [] d. A use that does not adhere to established development criteria? ................ : ....... [ ] Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? . ................................. [l b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources? ... 1 ] Risk of Upset/Man-Made Hazards. Will the proposal: a. Involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? ............. I ..... I......... [] b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard- -4- ous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? .....................•....,.....:. [] C. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ... ... [] d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety hazards? ..................... _ _ .......... [] 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? .. . .... . . . .......... , ..... [ ] b. Other? ...............•.........,.,.......... [l 12. Housing. Will the proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? ............................ [] b. Other? : .............. ....................... [] 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ....... b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? [ ] C. 11 e. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? ............... ............... [] Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? .................... . ....... [ ] Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? -5- ..,.,, I I [Xl f, A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? . , , . . [ 1 [] [x] 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? ....... . ........... . ..... . ... . L 7 L ] [xl b.. Police protection? , , , ; : . : .........: .. ....:... , ... , [ ] [ ] [x] C. Schools? .::. . ....:. . : . .:.:. . ... . ..:..... ... [ 7 [ ] [x] d. Parks or other recreational facilities? [I LI [x] e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? . .......................... , .. C ] [] [xl f, Other governmental services? ...... . ...... .. . ....... [ ] [] [x] 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in? a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ..................................... [] [] [x] b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? , . , .... , , [ 1 [] [x] 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ...... . ............... . .. [] [] [x] b. Communications systems? ........ . . . ... . . ....... [] [] [xl C. Water systems? . . ....... . .... _ ..... .... , .... [ ] [] [x] d. Sanitary sewer systems? . ..... . . . ...... L ] [] [x] e. Storm drainage systems? . , ......... . ....... . .... [ ] [] [x] f. Solid waste and disposal systems? [] [ j [x] g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed d or inefficient pattern of delivery system improvements for any of the above? ....... . ...... [ ] [ ] [xl 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? ..........: [ l [ l [x] b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? .................................... L1 [l [xl 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? ..... . b. Will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ... ......... ............ [ 1 [ l [xl C. Will the visual impact of the proposal be detrimental to the surrounding area? . , ........ [ 1 [ 1 [xl 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ........................ _ . [] [ 1 [x] 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? .............. . :..... [ ] [ ] [x] b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? ..... „ ....... [ ] [ l [x] C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ................... [ ] [ l [x] d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ........... [ ] [ 1 [xl -7- Will the project have an adverse effect either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish. amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability." Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code . ..... .............................. ................. .................... [] [I [X] Discussion of Impacts and Mitigation Monitoring Program Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact 1. EARTH Discussion of Impacts Gating of roadways and driveways are not anticipated to result in significant physical impacts to the earth because only minimal changes are required to roadways to accommodate gate construction. The proposed ordinance only applies to new gates and each proposed new gate will be subject to site specific environmental review. 2. AIR Discussion of Impacts Gating of roadways and driveways are not anticipated to have a significant impact on air quality. 3. Water Discussion of Impacts The results from gating roadways and driveways will have no significant impacts on the water quality. 4. Plant Life Discussion of Impacts The results from gating roadways and driveways will have no signficant impacts on plant life. 5. Animal Life Discussion of Impacts The results from gating roadways and driveways will have no significant impacts on animal life. 6. Noise Discussion of Impacts The results from gating roadways and driveways will have no significant impacts on the noise level. 7. Light and Glare Discussion of Impacts Any new gates would be lit for safety per the ordiance. No significant impacts are anticipated because the lighting proposed is consistent with urban development. S. Land Use Discussion of Impacts Although the gating of roadways and driveways may have a minor effect on property values, however, no significant physical impacts are anticipated. Each new gate proposed would be subject to site specific environmental review including review of impacts to land use. 9. Natural Resources Discussion of Impacts No significant impacts are anticipated due to the gating of roadways and driveways. 10. Risk of Upset/Man-Made Hazards Discussion of Impacts The results of gating roadways and driveways will possibly delay emergency vehicle response times and cause potential safety hazards within those newly gated communities; however, the standards of the gate ordinance are designed to ensure that access will be provided. No significant impacts are anticipated. 11. Population Discussion of Impacts The results of newly gated roadways and driveways will not have a significant impact on the population with the application of this ordinance. 12. Housing Discussion of Impacts The results of newly gated roadways and driveways will not have a significant impact on housing with the application of this ordinance. 13. Transporation/Circulation Discussion of Impacts The results of newly gated roadways and driveways will have a minor effect on circulation patterns and movement of people since the ordinance provides that gates not block areawide through routes. Site specific impacts of each new gate will be reviewed at the time new gates are proposed. The standards for new gates will also prevent stacking in roadways fronting any new gate. No significant impacts are anticipated. 14. Public Services Discussion of Impacts The results of newly gated roadways and driveways will not have a significant impact on public services with the application of this ordinance. 15. Energy Discussion of Impacts The results of newly gated roadways and driveways will not have a significant impact on energy resources. 16. Utilities Discussion of Impacts The results of newly gated roadways and driveways will not have a significant impact on utilities. 17. Human Health Discussion of Impacts The results of newly gated roadways and driveways will not have a significant impact -10- on human health with the application of this ordinance. 18. Aesthetics Discussion of Impacts The results of newly gated roadways and driveways will not have a significant impact on aethetics. 19. Recreation Discussion of Impacts The results of newly gated roadways and driveways will not have a significant impact on recreation. 20. Cultural Resources Discussion of Impacts The results of newly gated roadways and driveways will not have a significant impact on cultural resources. C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act states, in part, that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared.. YES MAYBE NO 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? . [ l [ ] [x] 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) _............. ........ ........... I........ [] [] [x] 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant) ........... ................... .. [ ] [ ] [x] 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ........ [ ] 11 [x] -12- D. DETERMINATION On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. [X] Although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in this Initial Study have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. [I The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] JEFF LAMBERT CITY PLANNER CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA Pre red By: ( ignature) cdforms \initialb.frm Laura Stotler. Associate Planner (Name/Title) -13- June 24, 1996 (Date)