Agenda Item: 2
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
DATE: January 28, 2025
SUBJECT: APPEAL TO THE SECOND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (MASTER CASE 24-008)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
PRESENTER: David Peterson
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing to consider Appeal No. 24-005, an appeal of a Planning Commission decision on October 1, 2024, approving a recreational vehicle metal garage, subject to conditions;
2. After receiving testimonial and written evidence from the public hearing, adopt a resolution denying Appeal 24-005 and upholding the Planning Commission’s October 1, 2024, decision; and
3. Take other action as determined by the City Council.
BACKGROUND
REQUEST
On October 1, 2024, the Planning Commission considered an appeal challenging the Hearing Officer’s approval of a project for a second accessory structure in the rear yard of an existing single-family home. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to deny the appeal and affirm the Hearing Officer’s approval of the project with new conditions of approval that the applicant must provide landscaping to screen the project along the southern (side) property line. After the conditions of approval were finalized (at the Planning Commission’s direction and approval), Mr. Eugene D. Nelson (appellant), appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The approved project consists of an 810 square-foot, prefabricated metal garage to be used as RV parking for the existing residence. Dimensionally, it is 17-feet, 6-inches tall, 45-feet long, and 18-feet wide. The height of the proposed structure does not exceed the height of the 19-foot-tall existing primary structure. The location of the garage would be 15 feet from the western (rear) property line and five feet from the southern (side) property line, consistent with the requirements of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC). The walls and roof of the structure would be painted to be consistent with the primary residence. An aerial map depicting the location of the site, a site plan indicating the location of the proposed garage, and the elevations of the garage are attached for reference.
ZONING AND LAND USES
The subject property has a General Plan designation of residential land use and is located within the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District (PCSSD) area, as provided in SCMC Section
17.39.020. The zoning designation for the subject property is Urban Residential 1 (UR1). The UR1 zone, as provided in SCMC Section 17.33.010, is for residential neighborhoods at densities that require urban services.
Table 1 below, and the attached zoning map, summarizes the zoning designations and land uses surrounding the subject property:
Table 1 – Land Use, Zoning, and Existing Uses
Zoning Land Use/Existing Uses
Project
Site
UR1 Residential – single-family homes and other
residential uses
North Non-Urban 5 (NU5) Residential – single-family homes and other residential uses
East UR1 Residential – single-family homes and other
residential uses
South UR1 Residential – single-family homes and other
residential uses
West Mixed-Use Neighborhood
(MX-N)
Mixed Use – residential with complementary
commercial services, including retail and
office uses
ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL AND APPEAL
Submittal
On January 16, 2024, the applicant, Stephen J. Bradley, filed a request for an Administrative Permit (AP) and a Minor Use Permit (MUP) for a second accessory structure in the rear yard.
The proposed accessory structure is a new prefabricated RV metal garage. The current rear yard also includes a detached car garage that was permitted in 2000. The application was deemed complete on February 14, 2024.
On March 6, 2024, a public notice was circulated to surrounding property owners providing a 15-day comment period, in accordance with the requirements of the SCMC. During the noticing period, City of Santa Clarita (City) staff received letters, generated by neighbors, objecting to the request. Of the letters received, only one requested an Administrative Hearing. The letter requesting the hearing cited concerns about consistency with the PCSSD, an oak tree adjacent to the property, and the structure’s architecture.
Administrative Hearing
On May 6, 2024, an Administrative Hearing was held before a Hearing Officer and was attended by approximately seven members of the public. The Hearing Officer received the staff presentation, opened the public hearing, and received comments from the applicant, and four of the public attendees who spoke in opposition to the project. Key concerns raised by the public speakers were regarding the material of the structure, that the structure does not align with the purpose of the PCSSD, a lack of screening from the adjacent property, and inconsistencies in how the City reviews similar projects. After conducting the hearing, the Hearing Officer approved the project with an additional condition of approval, that requires landscaping in the rear yard to screen the proposed structure from the neighbor to the west of the project site.
Planning Commission Appeal
On May 20, 2024, the City received an appeal statement and payment of the applicable fee (Appeal 24-002), appealing the Hearing Officer’s approval of the project to the Planning Commission. The appeal justification statement identified the following concerns and matched those made to the Hearing Officer by the appellant:
1. A concern that the proposed structure is not consistent with the PCSSD because it does not enhance the surrounding neighborhood;
2. A concern regarding an oak tree adjacent to the subject’s property;
3. A concern that the accessory structure’s proposed architecture is not consistent with code requirements; and
4. A concern that the structure is a modular building for nonresidential use and requires additional regulations.
Section 17.07.040 of the SCMC (Initiation of Appeals) requires that a request for appeal must specifically state whether:
1. A determination or interpretation is not in accord with the purposes of this code (SCMC); or
2. It is claimed that there was an error or abuse of discretion; or
3. The record includes inaccurate information; or
4. A decision is not supported by the record.
The appellant asserts that the approval determination or interpretation is not in accord with the purposes of the SCMC. The appellant has not provided further specific documentation to support the basis of the appeal.
Planning Commission Action
On October 1, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the appeal. The Planning Commission received staff’s presentation; opened the public hearing, and received comments from the applicant and members of the public. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 24-15, which denied Appeal 24-002 and upheld the Hearing Officer’s approval of the proposed project. A copy of the Planning Commission’s staff report is available in the City Clerk’s reading file.
In addition to affirming the project approval, the Planning Commission added two new conditions of approval to the project. The Planning Commission’s intent for the new conditions were to address the visibility of the structure and the noise concerns from the appellant’s property. The conditions of approval added by the Planning Commission are as follows:
“PC1. Before the Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must provide a final landscape screening plan to the Director (the “Screening Plan”) that includes existing landscaping located on the adjacent property. The Screening Plan must ensure that the permittee’s accessory structure is uniformly screened from view of the adjacent property to the extent practicable, to the Director’s satisfaction. The Screening Plan must be designed with the plant palette suitable for Santa Clarita (Sunset Western Garden Book Zone 18, minimum winter night temperatures typically 20º to 30º F; maximum summer high temperatures typically 105º F to 110º F) and generally complement the plants included in the landscape screen of the adjacent property. The plants proposed in the screening plan must be acceptable to the City’s Urban Forestry Division as well as the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
PC2. Before the Building Official issues a final certificate of occupancy, the permittee must install landscaping in the Screening Plan (if any) and provide a surety to the Director, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to secure maintenance of the Screening Plan for two years. The surety amount will be calculated based upon the value of the existing adjacent landscape screening as determined by the Director.”
Note that the language for these new conditions was finalized based upon specific Planning Commission direction, but was drafted following the meeting. The final form of these conditions was released on October 15, 2024.
Appeal to City Council
After the Planning Commission hearing and decision, the City received one appeal letter and an email in support of the appeal on October 16, 2024. A hearing was scheduled before the City Council to consider the appeal request made by Eugene D. Nelson (Appeal 24-005). The decision of the City Council is a final decision; any subsequent appeal must be made to the Superior Court.
Before the appeal was filed, both the applicant and appellant received a draft copy of the new conditions of approval added by the Planning Commission. The applicant and the appellant both
expressed their concerns of the new conditions. The applicant has concerns of being responsible for landscaping on the neighboring property.
A copy of the appeal letter is attached to this report for the City Council’s review. In summary, the appeal letter states the appellant’s concerns that:
• The project does not comply with the SCMC or General Plan; • The two conditions of approval added by the Planning Commission are contradictory to the Planning Commission’s direction to staff; and
• There is an abuse of power in the discretionary process.
RESPONSE TO APPEAL
Consistency with the SCMC
The project site is an existing residential site with a primary home and an accessory garage.
Based on the zoning, the proposed MUP is required to allow for a second accessory residential structure. The proposed residential accessory structure meets the requirements of rear and side setbacks, distance between main and accessory structures, and the height for accessory structures of the UR1 zone.
Santa Clarita Municipal Code § 17.57.040(D) – the code section relied upon by the appeal – is for nonresidential uses or structures in a residential zone. Relying upon this code section, therefore, is misplaced in this case. The SCMC requirements for residential structures and the project proposal are summarized in Table 2, below:
Table 2 – Existing and Proposed Project Requirements
UDC Requirements
SCMC
Section
Description Requirement Applicants Plans
17.33.010 Side yard setback, each side (in feet) 5/5 5
17.33.010 Rear yard setback (in feet) 15 15
17.33.010 Maximum height of accessory structures not exceeding the height of the main structure without a CUP (in
feet)
35 17.5
To address concerns regarding the oak tree adjacent to the subject property, the City’s oak-tree specialist conducted a site visit on March 26, 2024, and determined there would be no impact on the oak tree given the project would not create any further ground disturbance under the oak tree.
The proposed accessory structure would be built on the driveway that exists on the project site.
Accordingly, an Oak Tree Permit is not required.
To be consistent with the primary structure on-site, the proposed accessory structure uses a pitched roof, does not exceed the height of the primary structure, and would be finished with a smooth panel painted to match the colors of the primary structure.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.; “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). Per CEQA Guideline §15303, activity that results in new construction or conversion of small structures is exempt. The proposed structure qualifies as a Class 3 exemption because the proposal includes the construction of an accessory structure.
PUBLIC NOTICING
On January 7, 2025, as required by SCMC Sections 17.06.110 and 17.24.120 (D), public notices regarding the proposed project were mailed to all property owners and residents within 1,000 feet of the project site, and all parties requesting notification regarding the project. In addition, a notice was published in The Signal newspaper. On January 14, 2025, a notice of public hearing sign was posted on the project site.
The original requests for an administrative hearing, along with other correspondence received before the administrative hearing are attached. As of the writing of this staff report, two comments have been received before the City Council hearing. All requests and comments are attached for reference.
CONCLUSION
The proposed use is consistent with the PCSSD, the SCMC, would not endanger the public, and is physically suited for the subject site. Therefore, staff has drafted the necessary findings for approval of a MUP as set forth in SCMC Section 17.24.120, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval in Exhibit A of the draft resolution.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Other actions as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Aerial Image
Site Plan
Elevations
Zoning Map
Public Comments
Appeal
Public Notice