Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-12-11 - RESOLUTIONS - MC 11 178 APPEAL (2)' RESOLUTION NO. 12-75 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA GRANTING AN APPEAL AND APPROVING MASTER CASE NUMBER 11-178 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 71806 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 11-040) FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF ONE 2.01 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS ZONED RESIDENTIAL LOW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24387 QUIGLEY CANYON ROAD (APN 2834-028-034) IN THE PLACERITA CANYON COMMUNITY WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY. a. The subject property is located at 24837 Quigley Canyon Road and consists of Assessor Parcel Number 2834-028-034, and is located in the Placerita Canyon neighborhood in the community of Newhall in the City of Santa CIarita, County of Los Angeles, California; b. On December 28, 2011, an entitlement application for Master Case No. 11-178, consisting of a request for Tentative Parcel Map 71806 and Oak Tree Permit 11-040, was ' filed by Mr. Curtis Hairell, hereafter referred to as "the applicant;" C. The application for Master Case 11-178 and its associated entitlement was deemed complete on July 16, 2012; d. The General Plan land use designation and zoning classification for the subject property is Non -Urban 5 (NU5) which is a single-family detached category with a density of one unit per gross acre; e. The Zoning designation for the subject property is Residential Low (RL) which allows for a maximum density of 2.2 dwelling units per acre with a minimum net lot size 20,000 square feet (Unified Development Code (UDC) § 17.15.010); f The surrounding land uses consist of residential parcels zoned RL and designated as NU5 under the City of Santa Clarita General Plan (General Plan); g. The subject property is located within the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District, is subject to the development standards listed in UDC §17.16.080, and is served by all applicable utilities for the Placerita Canyon community; h. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on September ' 18, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Santa Clarita City Council Chambers located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, 91355. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and continued the item to October 16, 2012, and directed staff to prepare a resolution to deny the project without prejudice based on the project site being physically unsuitable for the type of development and proposed density of development; i. At the hearing on October 16, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted the resolution of denial for the proposed two lot subdivision; J. The applicant filed a written appeal of the Planning Commission's action on October 17, 2012, to the City Clerk's Office; k. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this project on November 27, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Santa Clarita City Council Chambers located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, 91355. The City Council closed the public hearing and directed staff to return with a resolution for the City Council granting the appeal and approving the proposed project; 1. The City Council held a duly noticed meeting on this issue on December 11, 2012. The City Council adopted this resolution granting the appeal and approving the proposed project; , in Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090, 65391, and 65854 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed as well as the public noticing requirements set forth in Section 17.01.100, of the UDC. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council further finds and determines as follows: a. An Initial Study was prepared for the project that analyzed potential environmental impacts associated with both the proposed two -lot residential subdivision as well as the construction of a potential single-family home on the newly -created parcel; Based on the findings of the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared that included mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Noise; b. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program reflect the independent judgment of the City of Santa Clarita; C. The City Council, based on the findings as set forth above, hereby finds that the Mitigated 1 Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA; and 2 ' d. The location of the documents and other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is based on, is the Master Case 11-178 (Tentative Parcel Map 71806 and Oak Tree Permit 11-040) project file within the Community Development Department and is in the custody of the Director of Community Development. SECTION 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing ]'acts and findings (Section 17.03.030 of the UDC), the City Council hereby determines as follows: a. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan, the UDC, and any specifc plan. The applicant is requesting to subdivide a 2.01 -acre property into two new residential parcels. Lot 1 would contain one acre (43,749 square feet) and Lot 2 would contain 1.01 acre (44,151 square feet). The General Plan density for the NU5 designation is one dwelling unit per one acre. The UDC allows for 2.2 dwelling units per acre with a required minimum net -lot size of 20,000 square feet in the RL zone. The subject property is not located in a Specific Plan area, but is located within the boundaries of the Placerita ' Canyon Special Standards District. As proposed, the two lots created by this subdivision would be able to be developed in accordance with the development standards listed in Section 17.16.080 of the UDC, and would likewise be consistent with other sections of the UDC as well as the General Plan. Although issues of "apparent density" greater than 1 unit per acre based upon considering the subject property in conjunction with adjacent properties were raised at the appeal hearing for the project, and based upon additional information provided at the hearing, the City Council determined this property should be evaluated without regard to adjacent properties for purposes of determining consistency with General Plan density. The division of this 2.01 -acre property into two residential parcels each greater than 1 acre is consistent with the General Plan density limit of one unit per acre. b. The project site is physically suited for the type of development. The subject property is currently developed as a residential property with equestrian facilities. The project site is flat, has access to both Quigley Canyon Road and Meadview Avenue, and is consistent with other residential lots in the immediate vicinity. The western portion of the subject property is overlain by a flood hazard zone that also affects surrounding properties. The parcel map identifies a potential building pad that is not located within the flood hazard area and that would be viable as a location for a single-family residence. The applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that a home could 1 be constructed on the newly created parcel would meet development requirements of the RL zone, including the placement of an on-site wastewater disposal (septic) system. Further, both resulting parcels are sufficiently large to meet the Placerita Canyon Special 3 Standards District requirements for allowance of equestrian uses on the ' property specifically, that horses can be maintained on property greater than 5000 square feet. Accordingly, the subject property is physically suited for the type of development that would be reasonably foreseen as a result of the proposed subdivision. C. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The subject property is 2.01 acres. Under the General Plan, the property is designated as NU5, which allows for a density of one dwelling unit per acre. The subject property is zoned RL which permits a density of 2.2 units per acre with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. The subject property is currently developed with a single-family home and equestrian facilities including a barn, stables, and corrals. A home could be built on the newly created parcel. The site is suitable for the proposed density of the project because each lot would be at least one acre in size, is flat, has adequate access for private and emergency vehicles, and is served by all applicable utilities. The parcels created by this _ subdivision would meet the density requirement listed in the General Plan and the UDC. The parcels would also be substantially similar to other parcels in the immediate vicinity and would not require any significant grading or other major site preparations to accommodate the proposed density of one dwelling unit per acre. 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 I or their habitat. There are no water bodies on or adjacent to the project site and the design of the subdivision has taken into account the location of the existing oak trees. The subject property is not considered to be in an environmentally sensitive area and the project would not cause substantial environmental damage, nor would the project injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat. The parcel map has been designed to preserve existing shrubs where possible, and the building pad was situated in a location that is sensitive to the oak trees located on the site. e. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious health problems. The applicant is requesting to subdivide an existing residential lot into two new residential lots. The subject property has an existing home that was built in 1978. The property also contains a horse barn, stables, corrals, and other equestrian amenities. Upon recordation of the parcel map, a single-family residence could be constructed on the new lot. Although concerns were raised during the appeal hearing regarding flooding, as indicated by staff at the appeal hearing, development of the property would be required to conform to all flood zone regulations. Further, the anticipated residential structure proposed to be constructed is approximately the same size as the barn that would be , removed to accommodate such structure, thus there would not be a materially greater amount of impermeable structure square footage. Finally, information was provided at the M ' appeal hearing advising that impacts on drainage resulting from any development of the site would be addressed in conjunction with grading permits required for any such development. Nothing in the subdivision process, or in the normal construction methods of a single-family home, would be expected to create serious health problems. f The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, or for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The existing parcel takes its primary access from Quigley Canyon Road and has secondary access from Meadview Avenue. The two new parcels created by the subdivision would continue to take access from Quigley Canyon Road. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements or public access in the Placerita Canyon neighborhood. The project would be conditioned to offer an easement on Quigley Canyon Road for trail purposes. SECTION 4. OAK TREE PERMIT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings (Section 17.03.140 of the UDC), the City Council hereby determines as follows: a. The condition or location of the oak tree(s) requires cutting to maintain or aid its health, balance, or structure. ' b. The condition of the free(s) with respect to disease, danger of falling proximity to existing lots, pedestrian walkways, or interference with utility services cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures and practices. C. It is necessary to remove, relocate, prune, cut, or encroach into the protected zone of an oak tree to enable reasonable use of the subject property, which is otherwise prevented by the presence of the tree and no reasonable alternative, can be accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints of the property. d. The approval of the request will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. e. No heritage oak free shall be removed unless one or more of the above findings are made and the decision maker also finds that the heritage oak tree's continued existence would prevent any reasonable development of the property and that no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical constraints of the properly. It shall further be found that the removal of such heritage oak tree will not be unreasonable[I)l detrimental to the community and surrounding area. (Ordinance 08-13 §2, 8/26/08). ' All heritage -specimen oak trees will be preserved in place. The applicant would be allowed to remove two non -heritage oak trees as part of this project. Each oak tree slated for removal has experienced trunk failure or is situated in a manner that creates issues 5 with existing overhead utilities. Oak Tree No. 73 leans approximately 30 degrees to the ' south, indicating a girdled root system. This tree is also located directly under a power line that traverses the property. As a result, the Oak Tree No. 73 is required to be "topped" to stay clear of power lines—a condition that results in a "pancaking" of the canopy that will only exacerbate the lean and imbalance currently existing. Oak Tree No. 75 has significant borer damage and has lost half of its canopy due to failure. Thus, the two trees have health concerns. Further, although a driveway could be routed around Oak Tree No. 73, its continued horizontal growth will ultimately conflict with such a driveway, and the need to maintain clear passage for tall vehicles (such as emergency vehicles) will require further trimming which would negatively impact the tree. City staff worked with the property owner to develop the project, and based upon constraints of the minimum lot size, flood zone, sewer system, parcel shape and access, as testified to by both proponents and opponents of the project at the appeal hearing, the City Council determines that for purposes of the oak tree ordinance findings, no reasonable alternative to removal of the two oaks exists. Oak Tree No. 73 and No. 75 would be removed and 5. additional 24 -inch box trees would be planted to mitigate for the loss. In keeping with the City's Oak Tree Ordinance and policies, should the applicant be unable to find suitable areas on the property to plant five additional trees, the applicant would have the option of planting larger specimens and/or making a payment into the City's Oak Tree Preservation Fund. The Oak Tree Permit would also allow for encroachment into the protected zone of eight oak trees to accommodate the proposed building pad and associated driveway. All encroachments are subject to the Conditions of Approval and include protective measures and methods to ensure that the oak trees remain healthy and viable. Therefore, the project meets the burden for Findings 1-4 as listed above. SECTION 4. Based upon the findings of fact, the staff report (including staff report and materials from the Planning Commission hearings), written correspondence and oral testimony presented at the appeal hearing, the City Council does hereby grant the appeal, overturning the Planning Commission decision on the project and further does hereby adopt Resolution 12- , adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approving Master. Case No. 11-178 and its associated entitlements, including Tentative Parcel Map 71806 and Oak Tree Permit 11-040, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). SECTION 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 0 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December 2012. MAYOR ATTEST: INT M CITY CL K DATE: I STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SANTA CLARITA) ) ss. I, Armine Chaparyan, Interim 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 1 I th day of December 2012, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: McLean Weste, Boydston, Kellar None Ferry