Re: Appeal 24-005 re: Master Case 24-008: Minor Use Permit 24-003, AP 24-003 The following is a letter sent to each of the listed planning commissioners on 10/25/24. We never heard any sort of response so we are including it here again...
Tom and Laurie Ozanich
22139 Placeritos Blvd. RECEIVED
Newhall, CA 91321
2:01pm
[email protected]
117125
cityclerks office
October 25, 2024
Santa Clarita Planning Commission
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Commissioners; Tim Burkhart, Patsy Ayala, Lisa Eichman, Renee Berlin, Denise Lite
We would like to thank you for listening to our perspective at the hearing on October 1, 2024 regarding Master case 24-008; Minor Use Permit 24-003 for a prefabricated garage permit at 24715 Aden Ave. We were very grateful for the attention given to our concerns and the specific recommendations for the project like screening plants, etc. you gave at the hearing. We were satisfied with the result and fully expected to see Mr.
Bradley's project move forward with your specific recommendations included in the requirements of the project.
Unfortunately some information was shared only at the last minute which we felt forced an appeal in order to get the planning director to actually require the specifications laid out in the Oct, 1 hearing. The day after the hearing our neighbor, Del Nelson, requested a copy of the final conditions as they would be written into the permit. He did not receive that information until October 15th, one day before the deadline to appeal. Del emailed the head of the planning office because the conditions that were brought up by the planning commission at the meeting were not added to the conditions for the permit. (The email chain is included at the end of this letter.) Basically, the way it is currently written, nothing is tangibly different in the requirements versus prior to the hearing. The Planning Commission is effectively being ignored from what we can tell. Everything seems to be left to the discretion of the Director. It says; "..the permittee must install landscaping in the Screening Plan (if any)"... which would seem to suggest that they certainly could do nothing at all.
Screening from only one adjacent property is mentioned which would appear to be the Nelson's since the wording also suggests the existing Oleanders on the Nelson's property is sufficient screening. The specific plant heights discussed at the hearing (15-17ft at time of planting), spacing, irrigation, holes being filled in, etc. are all missing from the conditions as written. Additionally, required maintenance is only required for 2 years.
This is obviously upsetting because we feel as if we were duped. Our question to you is, is the planning office obligated to put in the recommendations raised by the planning commission? We are reaching out to you hoping for some assistance and clarification. You can reach us at [email protected], 22139 Placeritos Blvd. Newhall, CA 91321, or 661-210-8477.
Sincerely,
Tom & Laurie Ozanich
Begin forwarded message:
From: "E.D. \(Dell) Nelson" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Appeal 24-002 Metal Shed
Date: October 16, 2024 at 12:11:11 PM PDT
To: "''David Peterson'' <[email protected]>. 'Kyla Danforth'" <KDANFORTH@santa- clarita.com>
Cc: "'Patrick Leclair'" <[email protected]>, "''Jason Crawford'' <JCRAWFORD@santa- Clarta.com>
Good morning Dave:
The Planning Commission conditionally approved the project expressly based on the height of trees and additional screening measures. When we left the Planning Commission meeting, it was clear from the commissioner's comments the additional work they directed that staff perform. They also made it clear that they wanted Urban Forestry involved with the screening plan.
The inclusion of the phrase "if any" with regards to the Screening Plan makes it sound as though the "Director" may not require any new plantings, which is clearly contradictory to the Planning Commission's statements.
They also directed that the holes and openings in the oleanders be filled.
The commission was addressing both properties, not just one.....
We were hopeful that after the Planning Commission meeting these issues had been addressed but the way this is written he could put in an 18" box Privitt and be done with it.
We will await your response in the morning.
Thanks,
E.D. (Del) Nelson
From: Kyla Danforth <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 3:57 PM
To: E.D. (Del) Nelson <[email protected]
Cc: David Peterson <[email protected]>; Patrick Leclair <[email protected]>; Jason Crawford <JCRAWFORD @santa- clarita.com>
Subject: RE: Appeal 24-002 Metal Shed
Good afternoon Del,
Thank you for your patience. Below is a draft of the two conditions that reflect the motion of the Planning Commission regarding landscaping:
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 20° to 30° F; maximum summer high temperatures typically 105° F to 110° 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.
As a reminder, tomorrow is the last day to submit an appeal to the Planning Commission's decision. If you have any questions, please reach out.
Best,
Kyla Danforth I Planning Technician
Planning Division
Email: [email protected]
Ciry of
SANTA CLARITA
From: E.D. (Del) Nelson <[email protected]»
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 1:38 PM
To: Kyla Danforth <[email protected]>
Cc: David Peterson <[email protected]>
Subject: Appeal 24-002 Metal Shed
Good afternoon Kyla,
Thank you for your time last evening at the Planning Commission meeting.
I wanted to check with you to see if we will be able to review the final conditions that urban forestry comes up with for the screening of the shed.
We also wanted to check with you to see if it was possible to request a bond for replacement of our oleanders when they become distressed from the tin wall reflected heat.
We would like to get this information before our window to appeal expires 15m.
Thanks,
E.D. (Del) Nelson
President
E.D. Nelson Construction, Inc.
22115 Placeritos Blvd.
Newhall, CA 91321
0 (661) 254-1321
F (661) 254-1368
C (818) 400-1531
http://www.ednelsonconstruction.com/
City of Santa Clarita
Planning Department
Attn: Kyla Danforth
City Hall
23920 Valencia Blvd.,
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
24715 Aden Ave., Santa Clarita, CA 91321 (Assessor's Parcel Number: 2834-033-015) MASTER CASE 24-008
MINOR USE PERMIT 24-003
ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT 24-003
P.C. APPEAL 24-002
Is this What Your "Vision
for Santa Clarita" is?
17.57.040 K. Accessory Buildings
Outbuilding. - An accessory
structure/outbuilding is an
accessory structure on a
residential lot that provides
enclosed or conditioned space in
addition to the primary dwelling
unit and/or accessory dwelling unit.
Such structures may include
barns, pool houses, studios,
greenhouses, offices, storage
buildings, garages, etc.
We are APPEALLING the PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL as well as the implementation of their determinations and decisions by Planning Staff of the above noted Case and Associated Permits pursuant to the Class III Application called out in UDC 17.24 for a Minor Use Permit as well as UDC 17.06.030 (C) for Minor Use Permits. 1| Page
We are appealing against the Planning Commission Decision affirming the approval of the Minor Use Permit noted above, because, among other reasons, the approval does not comply with the following City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code or General Plan sections; The Planning Department has written Conditions that are completely dishonest and contradictory to the intent and directions that were given at the conclusion of the Planning Commission Hearing / Meeting; the proposed metal building is not physically suitable for the site and the proposed location and size are not suitable for the proposed UR-1 lot, as is a required finding for a Minor Use Permit; there is an Abuse of the Discretionary Powers of the Director, Planning Manager and especially Planning Staff, by completely ignoring the General Plan, Municipal Code and the Unified Development Code o of Santa Clarita.
7.01.040 Applicability of Zoning Regulations.
B. Compliance with Regulations. No land shall be used, and no structure shall be constructed, occupied, enlarged, altered, or moved unless it is in accordance with the provisions of this code. No permit or entitlement may be issued or renewed for any use, construction, improvement, or other purpose unless specifically provided for, or permitted by, this code. No person shall use, or permit to be used, any structure, or land, nor shall any person erect, structurally alter, or enlarge any structure, or advertise on any structure, except in accordance with the provisions of this code.
17.01.030 Consistency with the General Plan.
"Any permit or approval issued pursuant to this code must be consistent with the General Plan.
In the event of inconsistency of this title with the goals, policies, and objectives of the adopted General Plan and its elements, the General Plan goals, policies, and objectives shall govern. " Santa Clarita General Plan Page L-14
"In addition, development in the area must comply with the City's Special Standards District to maintain the rural community character desired by residents."
COMMERCIAL USE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE FALLACY
The Planning Manager has consistently stated (including Timestamp 43:20 of the Planning Commission Hearing) that the Setbacks are referring to some mysterious "Commercial" Aspect of the RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. He is making this up as he goes. He offers no code section as verification.
The "Commercial" section of the UDC is 17.53 that has a Section of Accessory Buildings but has NO reference to Accessory Garages. That is very clearly called out in UDC 17.57.040 (K) His argument is False unless it can be documented by the UDC. 2| Page
17.57.040 (K)(2). Development Standards. An accessory structure/outbuilding shall be subject to all the development requirements of the underlying zone, with the exception of the following:
a. Accessory structures/outbuildings shall meet the setbacks applicable to accessory structures.
17.57.040 Accessory Buildings and Structures.
D. 1. Must be set back twenty-five (25) feet from property lines of properties developed with residential uses;
17.01.050 Administration of Use Classifications.
1. The accessory uses and structures shall be deemed an integral part of each primary use; The Issues are:
1) The determination or interpretation is not in accord with the purposes of this code:
• Staff is disregarding their own Planning Department Conditions of Approval (PL-5) by not requiring adherence to 17.57 and 17.51 and allowing project to proceed in contradiction to requirements of UDC.
• That condition states that "the proposed project must comply with the Unified Development Code including but not limited to Residential Standards pursuant to chapter 17.51 and chapter 17.57.
• 17.57 contains the Requirements for Additional Accessary Buildings • 17.57.040(K) (2)(a) Accessory structures/outbuildings shall meet the setbacks applicable to accessory structures.
• UDC Section 17.57.040 Accessory Buildings and Structures (D) states in the "Modular Building for Nonresidential Uses" that "Modular buildings for nonresidential uses in residential zones shall be subject to the following additional requirements:"
• 1. Must be set back twenty-five (25) feet from property lines of properties developed with residential uses;
• 2. Shall be subject to the approval of a minor use permit in accordance with Section 17.24.120 (Minor Use Permit);
• 3. Shall be subject to the approval of a landscape plan review, in accordance with Section 17.23.150 (Landscape Plan Review), to ensure that the buildings are adequately screened from public views and from adjacent residences; 3| Page
There are numerous other examples in Placerita Canyon and there are owners who were told that the Proposed Accessory Building must match the primary residential structure.
The record includes inaccurate information:
• Staff Planner presented FALSE Information to the Planning Commission with regards to previously constructed Accessory buildings on UR-1 Zoned Lots. He stated that the code only requires consistency with the primary structure when it is connected to the primary structure when in truth the code calls for 17.57.040(K) (2) (d) Requires the project to "shall be consistent and compatible with the primary dwelling unit in terms of architecture, finish materials, and color. ".
• Not just Painted Like "Lipstick on a Pig"!
4| Page
Although it was stated in the Planning presentation that the existing accessory building was a 2 car garage, that UR-1 property currently has a 3 car garage (constructed with materials in the Type V manner) attached to the primary residence AND a 4 car accessory garage building (3 bays and workshop, (constructed with materials in the Type V manner)) on his UR-1, ½ acre lot. (Please verify by the pictures in my letter for the Hearing). Setting the precedent for "Tin Can" sheds in UR-1 zones (with 5' side yard setbacks) is going to fill this city's UR-1 suburbs with "Tin can" RV garages.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions,
Sincerely,
some Dild
22115 Placeritos Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91321
(661) 254-1321
5| Page