HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-28 - AGENDA REPORTS - APPEAL 8TH ST (2)PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
Agenda Item:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by:
October 28, 2008
•s
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF
MASTER CASE 06-157, A PROPOSED FIVE -LOT SUBDIVISION
AT 23327 8TH STREET IN THE HAPPY VALLEY COMMUNITY
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council conduct a public hearing and deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the
Planning Commission to adopt a resolution, denying Master Case 06-157 (Tentative Tract Map
67310, Oak Tree Permit 06-026), a request to subdivide one residential parcel into five
residential parcels at 23327 8th Street.
BACKGROUND
On July 3, 2006, an application was submitted to the City with a request to subdivide one parcel
into five parcels on the subject property located at 23327 8th Street, five parcels east of Valley
Street, identified as APN 2830-037-004.
On April 15, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the project
and considered the staff presentation, the staff report, and public testimony on the proposal. The
Planning Commission considered the project proposal and in a 5-0 vote, directed staff to prepare
a resolution of denial for the proposed five -lot subdivision, and continued the public hearing to
May 20, 2008. Alternatively, the Planning Commission, at the April 15th meeting, recommended
that the applicant work with City staff on revising the proposal and return with a project
consisting of a reduced density and number of lots.
Following the April 15th Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested additional time
and a continuance of the scheduled May 20th meeting to June 3, 2008, in order to revise plans for
a three -lot subdivision. After further consideration of the Planning Commission's recommended
project revision, the applicant decided not to revise the project to a three -lot subdivision for the
Planning Commission's review.
On June 3, 2008, the Planning Commission, in a 4-0 vote (with one Commissioner being absent),
denied, without prejudice, Master Case No. 06-157, a request to subdivide one residential parcel
at 23327 8th Street into five parcels. Subsequently, an appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision was submitted by the applicant on June 17, 2008.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Master Case 06-157 consists of a request for a tentative tract map and oak tree permit to create
five parcels on the subject property located at 23327 8th Street. The subject property consists of a
single-family residence, is approximately 43,807 square feet in area (1 acre), and is zoned RS
(Residential Suburban). The subject property is in an L -shape configuration with an existing
single-family residence located toward the front of the property, a detached garage in the middle
of the property, and vacant areas located toward the rear of the property.
The proposed subdivision would create one (1) standard key lot (lot fronting on a street) and four
(4) flag lots (lots located behind key lots that utilize a flag strip for access). Proposed Parcel No.
1 is a standard key lot, located at the front of the subject site. Proposed Parcels No. 2-5 are flag
lots that would range from 5,803 square feet to 7,950 square feet in net lot area. Each of the
proposed flag lots would share a common driveway and each would have a required 10 -foot wide
access strip connecting to 8th Street. The proposed parcels are contiguous to one another, and
are bound by a single-family residence to the north and east, 8th Street and single-family
residences to the south, and single-family residences to the west.
ANALYSIS
Inconsistency with Unified Development Code Findings
At the April 15, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the
proposed subdivision and found the project to be incompatible with the character and pattern of
development within the Happy Valley neighborhood.
Pursuant to Section 16.13.060 of the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code, the Planning
Commission or City Council may disapprove the platting of flag lots where the proposed design
is not justified by the size and shape of the division of land or where the design is in conflict with
the pattern of neighborhood development.
The proposal consists of the creation of one (1) standard key lot at the front of the site and four
(4) flag lots at the rear of the site. Compared to the pattern of development in the neighborhood,
the proposed project is not consistent with the majority of the lots surrounding the site and within
this neighborhood, which include standard key lots with lot sizes that range between 7,000
square feet to 21,000 square feet. The proposed lots would have net lots areas that range between
5,803 square feet and 7,950 square feet. These lots sizes would not be in keeping with the
average lot sizes in the Happy Valley community and would be smaller than most lots in this
area.
The Planning Commission, in their review of the project, directed staff to work with the
applicant on revising the proposal and return with a project consisting of a reduced number of
lots. Such a revision and reduction in density would create lots averaging 14,500 square feet,
which would be in keeping with the density of development in Happy Valley. Because a revised
project proposing three (3) lots was not submitted, staff supports the Planning Commission's
direction to deny the project as proposed, finding that the proposed five -lot subdivision does not
meet the UDC's tentative tract map findings.
Public Review
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of
the subject property were notified by mail, advertising the public hearing for Master Case
06-157. In addition, the public notice was placed in a local newspaper and a sign was posted at
the site.
Environmental Review
Pursuant to Section 21080b.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), proposed
projects that result in denial are not subject to the CEQA review and evaluation process.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Approve the appeal and approve Master Case 06-157, a request to subdivide one residential
parcel into five residential parcels at the project site.
2. Direct staff to work with the applicant on a revision to the project that would consist of a
subdivision of reduced density (either a three -lot or a four -lot alternative); continue the item
to a future meeting to consider the revised project. It should be noted that any such revision
would require additional environmental review and analysis and would be brought back
before the City Council for a public hearing and review.
3. Other actions as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
No negative fiscal impact is anticipated. Any cost associated with development of the proposed
project would be paid in full by the applicant/appellant.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A - Resolution
Exhibit B - Site Plan/Elevations
Exhibit C - Aerial Map
Exhibit D - Zoning Map
Exhibit E - Letter of Appeal
Exhibit F - Letters from residents
Planning Commission Resolution P08-08 available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Planning Commission Staff Report available in the City Clerk's Reading File
,Exµ18rY-
RESOLUTION NO. 08-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
DENYING MASTER CASE 06-157 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 67310, OAK TREE
PERMIT 06-026) FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF ONE RESIDENTIAL PARCEL INTO FIVE
RESIDENTIAL PARCELS FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23327 8TH STREET
(ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 2830-037-004), IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following
findings of fact:
a. On July 3, 2006, an entitlement application was filed by Norris and Tori Whitmore (the
"Applicant") with the Planning Division, which included the following requests:
Tentative Tract Map 67310 to subdivide the subject property for future residential uses;
and Oak Tree Permit (OTP06-026) to allow encroachment into the protected zone of two
(2) off property oak trees and two (2) oak trees located on the subject property;
b. On September 21, 2007, the applicant filed with the County Recorder, a Certificate of
Compliance for Lot Line Adjustment No. 06-007 for APNs 2830-037-012 and 2830-037-
004 (the subject property);
c. The subject property is located on at 23327 81h Street, Assessor Parcel Number 2830-037-
004 (hereafter the "subject property"). The subject propert� is approximately 43,575
square feet in area (1 acre) and located on the north side of 8` Street, five parcels east of
Valley Street in the Happy Valley neighborhood of the Newhall community, City of
Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles;
d. The General Plan land use designation and zoning classification of the subject property is
RS (Residential Suburban);
e. The surrounding land uses consist of single-family residences to the north, east, south,
and west with a General Plan land use and zoning designation of RS (Residential
Suburban);
f. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090, 65391, and
65854 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed;
g. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on April 15,
2008. This public hearing was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard,
Santa Clarita. At the April 15, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning
Commission considered the staff presentation, the staff report, and public testimony on
the proposal. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to May 20, 2008
Resolution 08 -
Master Case 06-] 57
Page 2 of 4
and directed staff to prepare a resolution to deny the project without prejudice or work
with the applicant on a revised proposal of reduced density for consideration;
h. A continued public hearing before the Planning Commission was held on May 20, 2008,
at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa
Clarita, California. During this meeting, the Planning Commission voted to continue the
item to June 3, 2008 to allow additional time for the applicant to revise the project;
A continued public hearing before the Planning Commission was held on June 3, 2008, at
7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita,
California. During this meeting the Planning Commission received the staff report and
public testimony on the project. A revised project was not submitted or presented to the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the project
without prejudice;
On June 17, 2008, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision on the project to the City Council; and
k. The City Council held a duly noticed hearing on this issue on October 28, 2008. This
public hearing .was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa
Clarita. At the hearing, the City Council considered staff's presentation, the staff report,
and public testimony on the proposal;
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based upon
the foregoing facts, the Commission further finds and determines as follows:
a. The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 21080 b.5 which states, "This
division does not apply to any of the following activities [including] projects which a
public agency rejects or disapproves."
SECTION 3. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and
findings (Section 17.03.030 of the Unified Development Code and Section 66474 of the
Subdivision Map Act) for Tentative Tract Map 67310, a legislative body of the City of Santa
Clarita shall deny approval of a tentative map, if it is inconsistent with any of the following
findings.
a. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is
consistent with the Santa Clarita General Plan, this Code, and/or any specific plan,
b. The site is physically suitable for the type of development;
c. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development;
d. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife
or their habitat;
e. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious health
problems; and
Resolution 08 -
Master Case 06-157
Page 3 of 4
f. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the
proposed subdivision.
The City Council hereby determines as follows:
That the proposed subdivision is not consistent with all of the above findings as outlined
in the City's Unified Development Code (Section 17.03.030) and the Subdivision Map
Act (Section 67310). More specifically, the proposed subdivision, together with the
provisions for its design and improvement, would not be consistent with the City's
Unified Development Code. Pursuant to Section 16.13.060 of the Unified Development
Code, the Planning Commission or City Council may disapprove the platting of flag lots
where the proposed design is not justified by the size and shape of the division of land or
where the design is in conflict with the pattern of neighborhood development. The site of
the proposed subdivision would not be physically suitable for the type or density of
development. The proposed four (4) flag lots and one (1) key lot would not be
compatible in design, density, or pattern with the neighborhood development. The
neighborhood in which the site is located consists largely of lots that are standard key lots
ranging between 7,000 square feet and 21,000 square feet in area. The lots located within
this community exceed the sizes of lots proposed within this subdivision, which range
between 5,803 square feet and 7,950 square feet. The design and density of the proposed
subdivision and the flag lots is not justified by the size and shape of the subject site or by
the pattern of development within the neighborhood.
SECTION 4. OAK TREE PERMIT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings,
the City Council hereby determines as follows:
a. The project would not necessitate an oak tree permit for the encroachment of oak trees
located on the project site without the approval of the proposed tentative tract map. The
design and density of the proposed subdivision and the flag lots is not justified by the size
and shape of the subject site, therefore an oak tree permit for encroachment of oak trees
on site is not warranted.
SECTION 5. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita, California, as follows:
Adopt Resolution 08- , denying the appeal and affirming the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny Master Case 06-157, consisting of Tentative Tract Map 67310, Oak
Tree Permit 06-026.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this
record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken.
Resolution 08 -
Master Case 06-157
Page 4 of 4
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 12008.
u: •:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 1
I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk, of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. was regularly introduced and passed at a regular meeting of
the City Council on the day of , 2008 by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
S \CD\CURREN 812006\06-157 (TTM, OTP)\City Council\06-157 Council Resolution doc
lvmro�-
� f. 4,01
.. 0
It I ma ""001IR
0
rl
a
P
O
)y 3jO/ N3
/
T
N N
\
T EVI
OR
O
Z
I
w
BU T
p
-i{
Z
I
= _..
DERV`
r
RK
I
'
a
°
v
I
a°
I
AC N CT
1
V Y
cq
r
\
S
O
\'\
T
P LCL
/
K /
1
N
�
Z
�
Y
C
s955sg_.�
Bkmr
a�:
r
4
O
O a
t`
OJ
�Eoc 8i
e
gd0
m o
CC) N c
e N w
fig
Z
q
of
E
8
Q
o
J
C?IP
ir��
Cx A, g -r e
R E C E I V E D
PLANNING DIVISION
City of Santa Clarita JUN 17 2008
Department of Community Development
23920 Valencia Blvd., Third Floor CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Atten: Planning Department
RE: 23327 81" Street, Newhall, CA 91321
Master Case #06-157; Tentative tract map #67310
Oak Tree permit #06-026
June 16, 2008
Dear Planning Director,
I am writing you in regards to the planning commission meetings on 4/15/08,
5/20/08, and 6/3/08. At the April 15`" meeting the planning commission proposed to
allow only 3 lots out of the 5 I am requesting. Anything less than 5 lots will not work
financially. At the June 3rd meeting the planning commission gave the project a
formal denial for the 5 lots requested. I have followed all zoning requirements and
guidelines set forth by the City of Santa Clarita (and in most cases exceeded their
requirements for a 5 lot sub -division). In so doing I had a 100% planning staff
support. At the April 15`" meeting all 5 members of the planning commission denied
the 5 lots. It is not right that after following all the guidelines and requirements I
was denied by the planning commission for personal reasons.
This is my formal appeal of the June 3rd, 2008 meeting denying the 5 lot sub-
division. Please let me know what I need to do from here. I understand that it will
go to the City Council.
On a side note, I want you to know what a great job James Chow did in presenting
the project. I think he was surprised at the outcome, as many of us were.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Norris Whitmore
r,
o
661-406-0961
-+
m
-<�
C__
oT
r -m
rnC7
—
��T,
N �
J
z
D
Orn
D
rnO
�
'7
.9
D
rn
m
—
—+
c
a
P.O. Box 55786 • Santa Clarita, Ca 91385 • (661) 259.3985 • FAX (661) 259-1409
,CXN/8r-r r -
September 14, 2008
City Manager Kenneth R. Pulskamp
City of Santa Clarita
Santa Clarita City Hall
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Ref: Norris Whitmore Petition — 8th Street Development //
Dear City Manager Pulskamp: l,,s�a , N, � �5 71 `
Since we will be out of town for Norris Whitmore's petition to the City Council for the planned
development of a 5 unit subdivision on 8th Street, I would like to express my concerns in writing to all
of the City Council members at this time.
When Norris Whitmore's petition was presented to the Planning Commission on June 3rd, the
Planning Commission denied his petition. I would like to appeal to the City Council to support the
Planning Commission's decision for denial based on the following:
• The neighbors are agreeable to a subdivision of 3 lots — a development of 5 homes would not
conform to the character of the neighborhood. The architecture of the homes presented by
Mr. Whitmore at the Planning Commission meeting did not fit in with the design of the homes
that already exist on 8th Street.
• Traffic is already a monumental problem on 8th Street, even 3 homes would bring multiple
vehicles coming and going on Valley Street and Cross. The speed limit of 25 mph is already
misused and hard to enforce!
• Safety is also major concern. There are no side walks on 8th Street and visibility can be a
huge problem. More homes would increase this concern immensely.
• As you may know, Happy Valley is now in the process of working with the City on a "Special
Standards District" to be developed that will help maintain, preserve and enhance the rural
character of our neighborhood.
Please vote your denial of this petition of 5 homes, and support the recent decision of the Planning
Commission.
I'm sorry that we will not be at the City Council Meeting in person to express our concerns.
Sincerely,
0 , & �,, k&L—."
Carol and Ron Mosher
23314 8" Street
Newhall, CA 91321
cm/p
October 12, 2008
City of Santa Clarita
Planning Division
23920 Valencia Blvd., Third Floor
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Attention: James Chow, Associate Planner
Re: Project Location: 23327 8`" Street, Newhall, CA 91321
Master Case No: 06-157
Tentative Tract: 67310
Dear Mr. Chow:
We are residents of Newhall and live on Cross Street in close proximity to the location of
the project. We are writing on behalf of ourselves and our neighbors in response to the
notice of appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed subdivision of the
project to divide the property into five single-family residential lots and to obtain an Oak
Tree Permit to encroach on four coast like oak trees.
We provided written statements to the Planning Commission and enclose a copy of our
letter dated April 12, 2008. We repeat and restate the statements contained in our letter
dated April 12, 2008.
While we understand that the developer wants to make money, he should not be allowed
to adversely affect the lives of others. This community is a special place in Newhall and
is known as Happy Valley. We cannot let this developer's greed change our
neighborhood. What will stop other property owners in seeking to do the same thing?
We want our neighborhood preserved and reiterate our request to limit the development
to no more than two single family homes. Five is too much. We also strongly favor
protecting oaks trees on the property. To allow the encroachment of four oaks will
detract from the community and increase the potential of irreparable harm to the oak
trees.
For the safety of the residents of Happy Valley, development of the project should be at
the reduced level of no more than 2 lots. Additionally, the City should require a full
environmental review of the project and not merely a mitigated negative declaration to
determine the cumulative impacts of the project.
Sincerely;
Dennis Petracca 9 V
Cristina Petracca PLANNING DIVISION
24408 Cross Street
Newhall, CA 91321 OCT 16 2008
CITY OF SANTA CLARMY
April 12, 2008
City of Santa Clarita
Department of Community Development
23920 Valencia Blvd., Third Floor
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Attention: James Chow, Associate Planner
Re: Project Location: 23327 8th Street, Newhall, CA 91321
Master Case No: 06-157
Tentative Tract: 67310
Dear Mr. Chow:
We are residents of Newhall and live on Cross Street in close proximity to the location of
the project. We are writing on behalf of ourselves and our neighbors in response to the
Notice of Public Hearing/Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
relating to the proposed subdivision of the project to divide the property into five single-
family residential lots and to obtain an Oak Tree Permit to encroach on four coast like
oak trees.
Although the Developer lives in the area at the end of Wildwood Canyon and builds good
homes, we oppose the number of lots involved in the subdivision. Five is too much. We
propose no more than 2 lots. Our request is supported by the following:
1. The project is located in the Happy Valley area of Newhall that consists of a
neighborhood community. With the exception of structures located on Valley Street, the
homes on 8th Street and surrounding streets do not contain multiple dwelling units of the
density that the developer is proposing to build on the project.
2. Development at the higher density level will exacerbate traffic in our
neighborhood. Already many of the residents of 8th street and surrounding streets,
including Cross Street have repeatedly complained to the City to mitigate traffic
congestion on these streets. In fact, for us at our home, traffic is at times so intense that
we are unable to exit our driveway. The addition of 5 homes will compound an already
difficult situation.
3. Further, 8th Street is a frequent location for pedestrians who walk along 8th street
other surrounding streets. 8th street is not improved with sidewalks and pedestrians walk
on the street. To allow five additional homes to be built on a lot that was occupied by
one single family home will increase traffic and create risk to pedestrians and children
who frequently play along 8th and Cross Street and other surrounding streets.
4. Other impacts will result from this project that will adversely impact our
neighborhood including noise and pollution.
5. Approval of the developer request will create a precedent that may be relied upon
by other property owners to subdivide their properties.
6. We strongly favor protecting oaks trees on the property. Happy Valley is an area
of the City of Santa Clarita that is known for its oak trees and rural atmosphere. To allow
the encroachment of four oaks will detract from the community and increase the potential
of irreparable harm to the oak trees.
For the safety of the residents of Happy Valley, development of the project should be at a
reduced level of no more than 2 lots. Additionally, the City should require a full
environmental review of the project and not merely a mitigated negative declaration to
determine the cumulative impacts of the project.
Sincerely;
Dennis Petracca
Cristina Petracca
24408 Cross Street
Newhall, CA 91321
RESOLUTION NO P08-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MASTER CASE 06-157, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
67310, OAK TREE PERMIT 06-026 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF ONE RESIDENTIAL
PARCEL INTO FIVE RESIDENTIAL PARCELS FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT
23327 8TH STREET (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 2830-037-004) ZONED RS
(RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN), IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The Planning Commission does hereby make the
following findings of fact:
a. On July 3, 2006, an entitlement application was filed by Norris and Tori Whitmore (the
"Applicant") with the Planning Division, which included the following requests:
Tentative Tract Map 67310 to subdivide the subject property for future residential uses;
and Oak Tree Permit (OTP06-026) to allow encroachment into the protected zone of two
(2) off property oak trees and two (2) oak trees located on the subject property;
b. On September 21, 2007, the applicant filed with the County Recorder, a Certificate of
Compliance for Lot Line Adjustment No. 06-007 for APNs 2830-037-012 and 2830-037-
004 (the subject property);
c. The subject property is located on at 23327 8th Street, Assessor Parcel Number 2830-037
004 (hereafter the "subject property"). The subject propert is approximately 43,575
square feet in area (1 acre) and located on the north side of 8t Street, five parcels east of
Valley Street in the Happy Valley neighborhood of the Newhall community, City of
Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles;
d. The General Plan land use designation and zoning classification of the subject property is
RS (Residential Suburban);
e. The surrounding land uses consists of single-family residences to the north, east, south,
and west with a General Plan land use and zoning designation of RS (Residential
Suburban);
f. The project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the project, .
which determined that the proposed mitigation measures will reduce the impacts
associated with the project to a less than significant impact to the environment;
g. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090, 65391, and
65854 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed;
Resolution P08-08
Master Case 06-157
Page 2 of 4
h. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on April 15,
2008. This public hearing was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard,
Santa Clarita. At the April 15, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning
Commission considered the staff presentation, the staff report, and public testimony on
the proposal. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to May 20, 2008
and directed staff to prepare a resolution to deny the project without prejudice or work
with the applicant on a revised proposal of reduced density for consideration;
i. A continued public hearing before the Planning Commission was held on May 20, 2008,
at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa
Clarita, California. During this meeting, the Planning Commission voted to continue the
item to June 3, 2008 and adopt a resolution of denial for the proposed 5 -lot subdivision;
and
j. A continued public hearing before the Planning Commission was held on June 3, 2008, at
7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita,
California. During this meeting the Planning Commission received the staff report and
public testimony on the project.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based upon
the foregoing facts, the Commission further finds and determines as follows:
a. The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 21080 b.5 which states, "This
division does not apply to any of the following activities [including] projects which a
public agency rejects or disapproves."
SECTION 3. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and
findings (Section 17.03.030 of the Unified Development Code and Section 66474 of the
Subdivision Map Act) for Tentative Tract Map 67310, a legislative body of the City of Santa
Clarita shall deny approval of a tentative map, if it is inconsistent with any of the following
findings.
a. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is
consistent with the Santa Clarita General Plan, this Code, and/or any specific plan;
b. The site is physically suitable for the type of development;
C. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development;
d. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife
or their habitat;
e. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious health
problems; and
f. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the
proposed subdivision.
Resolution P08-08
Master Case 06-157
Page 3 of 4
The Planning Commission hereby determines as follows:
The proposed subdivision is not consistent with all of the above findings as outlined in
the City's Unified Development Code (Section 17.03.030) and the Subdivision Map Act
(Section 67310). More specifically, the proposed subdivision, together with the
provisions for its design and improvement would not be consistent with the City's
Unified Development Code. Pursuant to Section 16.13 060 of the Unified Development
Code, the Planning Commission may disapprove the platting of flag lots where the
proposed design is not justified by the size and shape of the division of land or where the
design is in conflict with the pattern of neighborhood development. The site of the
proposed subdivision would not be physically suitable for the type or density of
development. The proposed four (4) flag lots and one (1) key lot would not be
compatible in design, density, or pattern with the neighborhood development. The
neighborhood in which the site is located consists largely of lots that are standard key lots
and that exceed the sizes of lots proposed within this subdivision. The design of the
proposed subdivision and the flag lots is not justified by the size and shape of the subject
site or by the pattern of development within the neighborhood.
SECTION 4. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the
City of Santa Clarita, California, as follows:
Adopt Resolution P08-08, denying, without prejudice, Master Case 06-157, consisting of
Tentative Tract Map 67310, Oak Tree Permit 06-026.
Resolution P08-08
Master Case 06-157
Page 4 of 4
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd
ATTEST:
ING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Lisa M. Webber, Secretary of the Planning Commission 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 3rd day of June 2008, by the following
vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BERGER, BURKHART, KENNEDY, TRAUTMAN
NOES: , COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: OSTROM
G COMMISSION SECRETARY
S.\CD\CURREN'IV2006\06-157 (TTM, OTP)\Planning Commission\06-157 PC Resolution DENIAL - 6.03.08 doc
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
MASTER CASE NO. 06-157
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 67310
OAK TREE PERMIT 06-026
DATE: June 3, 2008
TO: Chairperson Berger and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lisa M. Webber, AICP, Planning ManagerQ�,
CASE PLANNER: James Chow, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: Norris and Tori Whitmore
LOCATION: 23327 8`h Street
Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 2830-037-004
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract map (TTM 673 10)
to allow the subdivision of one developed residential parcel into five
residential parcels. Entitlements include a TTM to subdivide the subject
property into five parcels for future residential uses and an Oak Tree
Permit (OTP) to allow the encroachment and/or pruning of four (4) oak
trees located on or adjacent to the subject property. The project site is
approximately 43,807 square feet in area (1 acre) and is zoned RS
(Residential Suburban). The project site is located at 23327 8`" Street in
the Community of Newhall, City of Santa Clarita.
BACKGROUND
On July 3, 2006, an application was submitted to the City with a request to subdivide one parcel
into five parcels on the subject property located on the north side of 8"' Street, five parcels east of
Valley Street, identified as APN 2830-037-004.
On April 15, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the project
and considered the staff presentation, the staff report, and public testimony on the proposal. The
Planning Commission voted to continue the public hearing to May 20, 2008 and directed staff to
prepare a resolution of denial for the proposed 5 -lot subdivision or work with the applicant on
revising the proposal and return with a project consisting of a reduced number of lots.
Following the April 151h Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested additional time
and a continuance of the scheduled May 20`x' meeting to June 3, 2008, in order to revise plans for
a 3 -lot subdivision. After further consideration of the Planning Commission's recommended
Master Case 06-157
June 3, 2008
Page 2 of 3
revision to the project, the applicant decided not to concur with a project of reduced density and
chose not to resubmit revised plans for consideration.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a tentative tract map and oak tree permit to create five parcels on the
subject property located at 23327 Bch Street. The subject property consists of a single-family
residence, is approximately 43,807 square feet in area (1 acre), and is zoned RS (Residential
Suburban). The subject property is in an L -shape configuration with an existing single-family
residence located toward the front of the property, a detached garage in the middle of the
property, and vacant areas located toward the rear of the property.
The proposed subdivision would create one (1) standard key lot and four (4) flag lots. Proposed
Parcel No. 1 is a standard key lot, located at the front of the subject site. Proposed Parcels No. 2-
5 are flag lots that would range from 5,803 square feet to 7,950 square feet in net lot area. Each
of the proposed flag lots would share a common driveway and each would have a required 10 -
foot wide access strip connecting to 8th Street. The proposed parcels are contiguous to one
another, and are bound by a single family residence to the north and east, 8th Street and single
family residences to the south, and single family residences to the west.
FEW/efI-T&H
Inconsistency with Unified Development Code Findings
At the April 15, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the
proposed subdivision and found the project to be incompatible with the character and pattern of
development within the Happy Valley neighborhood.
Pursuant to Section 16.13.060 of the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code, the Planning
Commission may disapprove the platting of flag lots where the proposed design is 'not justified
by the size and shape of the division of land or where the design is in conflict with the pattern of
neighborhood development.
The proposal consists of the creation of one (1) standard key lot at the front of the site and four
(4) flag lots at the rear of the site. Compared to the pattern of development in the neighborhood,
the proposed project is not consistent with the majority of the lots surrounding the site and within
this neighborhood, which include standard key lots with lot sizes that range between 7,000
square feet to 21,000 square feet. A revised subdivision with a reduced density of three (3) lots
would create lots averaging 14,500 square feet, which is in keeping with the density of
development in Happy Valley.
r
The Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicant on revising the proposal and
return with a project consisting of a reduced number of lots. Because a revised project proposing
three (3) lots has not been submitted, staff is following through with the Planning Commission's
�L
Master Case 06-157
June 3, 2008
Page 3 of 3
direction to deny the project as proposed, finding that the proposed 5 -lot subdivision does not
meet the UDC's tentative tract snap findings.
Environmental Review
Pursuant to Section 21080b.5 of the California Envirommental Quality Act (CEQA), proposed
projects that result in disapproval are not subject to the CEQA review and evaluation process.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Adopt Resolution P08-08, denying, without prejudice, Master Case 06-157, Tentative
Tract Map 67310, Oak Tree Permit 06-026.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. P08-08
Aerial/Zoning Map
S \CD\CURRENT\12006\06-157 (TTM, OTP)\Planning Coinmission\06-157 PC Staff Report.DENIAL 6 03 08 doe