Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-25 - RESOLUTIONS - DENY MC 13-075 PERMIT 13-005 (2)' RESOLUTION NO. 14-67 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA TO DENY MASTER CASE NO. 13-075, AND DENY THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF THAT MASTER CASE, WHICH INCLUDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-005 TO ALLOW FOR THE OPERATION OF A PRIMARY SCHOOL LOCATED AT 25300 RYE CANYON ROAD, 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. An application for Master Case No. 13-075 (CUP 13-005) was filed by Albert Einstein Academy for Letters, Arts and Sciences (hereinafter "Applicant") with the City of Santa Clarita on June 5, 2013. The property for which this Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application (hereinafter "Application") was filed is located at 25300 Rye Canyon Road (hereinafter "Subject Site"); B. The Applicant originally proposed to operate a 650 -student primary school for students in 1 kindergarten through grade 6 (K-6) on the subject site; C. The zoning and General Plan designation for the subject site is Business Park (BP); D. The surrounding land uses include manufacturing, warehousing, and office uses to the north, south, east, and west of the Subject Site; E. On March 4, 2014, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita; F. At this public hearing, City staff recommended denial of the proposed 650 student primary school on the subject site because the Applicant could not provide a traffic plan sufficient to ensure that impacts on neighboring businesses would be mitigated at the same time that the safety of site users was ensured; G. At this public hearing, the Applicant represented that the site would be used for the Albert Einstein Academy-SCV Charter School, and representatives of that school spoke in support of the Application; H. At the close of this public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff report, ' staffs presentation, the Applicant's presentation, and public testimony; and with a unanimous 5-0 vote, approved staff s recommendation to deny the proposed project based upon traffic safety/circulation and a student population of up to 650 students; ' I. On March 19, 2014, in compliance with the requirements of the Unified Development Code (UDC), the Applicant submitted a letter to the City appealing the Planning Commission decision of March 4, 2014, to the City Council; J. On June 16, 2014, the Applicant submitted a revised, and now -current, project description, which includes the operation of a primary school consisting of a maximum of 250 on-site students and 50 home school students in grades K-4 to be operated within the same 53,000 square -foot commercial building on a fully developed site at 25300 Rye Canyon Road in the BP zone; K. At no time did the Applicant formally withdraw its original application for a 650 -student primary school, but the Applicant and City proceeded as though the now -current project description was a modification or mitigation of the project in response to the traffic safety/circulation grounds on which the Planning Commission's denial was based; L. On October 7, 2014, a public hearing was duly noticed for the City Council meeting for October 28, 2014, at or after 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita; M. At this public hearing, the Applicant represented that the site would be used for a ' different charter school, Albert Einstein Academy -Agus Dulce Elementary School Partnership Academy; N. At this public hearing, the City Council considered the staff report, staff presentation, Applicant's presentation, and public testimony both in favor of and in opposition to the proposed project. The City Council voted to deny the Applicant's project, which vote affirmed the decision of the Planning Commission; the City Council further directed staff to draft a resolution of project denial and return it to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting of November 25, 2014. SECTION 2. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE NO. 13-075. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for Master Case No. 13-075, the City Council hereby determines that it cannot make the following findings required for the grant of a Conditional Use Permit as sought by the Applicant: A. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and The City Council cannot make this finding. The proposed primary school, whether the originally proposed 650 -student school or the modified proposal for 250 day students and 50 home school students, would operate within an existing commercial building at the corner of two major arterial highways adjacent to properties that do not incorporate 2 ' sidewalks to facilitate the safe movement of pedestrians, such as children and employees, to and from the subject site. During the proposed operating hours for the school, and in particular during the morning hours, traffic moves at high volumes and high rates of speed on the two arterial streets creating conflict with any plan for drop-off at the proposed site. Surrounding commercial businesses include warehousing, manufacturing and research, and development land uses that possess operational characteristics such as large truck traffic which, combined with the presence of the arterial highways intersecting at the proposed project site, cause an undue safety risk to children. Therefore, the City Council finds that both the original 650 -student proposed primary school and the modified proposal for 250 on-site students and 50 home school students at this location would be detrimental to the public's health, safety, and welfare. B. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the proposal's physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable for the proposed use; The City Council cannot make this finding because, as proposed, the primary school would operate at a facility located on a site where children, parents, and employees would be required to traverse a portion of the subject property that would be in unsafe proximity ' to two high-speed, major arterial highways. The subject site lacks sidewalks, the setbacks for the existing building are inconsistent with the placement of a primary school at the site, there is an absence of on -street parking in the immediate area, and therefore the design, location, and operating characteristics of this site create undue risks to site users and undue burdens to the surrounding uses. Therefore, the City Council finds that the proposed primary school, at this location, is not physically suitable for this site. SECTION 3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS(CEOA,). Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby find as follows: A. As the Applicant's proposal is being denied, per Public Resources Code Section 20180(b)(5) and 14 California Code of Regulations 15270(a), CEQA does not apply to this decision. 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 deny the Applicant's appeal and confirm the Planning Commission decision to deny the project; and the City Council does also deny the Applicant's proposed modification to the project, thereby denying in full Master Case No. 13-075 and its associated entitlements, including CUP 13-005. it 7 The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSFT) APPROVF.T) ANT) ADOPTED this 25th day of November_ 2014. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ' COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Kevin Tonoian, 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 25th day of November, 2014 by the following vote of the City Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boydston, Kellar, Acosta NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: McLean ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Weste ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None C1,