Agenda Item: 2
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
DATE: February 24, 2026
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE LYONS SELF STORAGE PROJECT (MASTER CASE 25-039)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
PRESENTER: Andy Olson
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council:
1. Conduct the public hearing;
2. Determine that California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15270 provides that environmental review is not required when disapproving of a project; and
3. Adopt a resolution, denying Appeal 25-003 and affirming the Planning Commission’s denial of a request by Lyons Center, LLC, to amend the Lyons Corridor Plan and to construct and operate a new self-storage facility at 24860 Orchard Village Road (Master Case 25-039).
BACKGROUND
REQUEST
The applicant, Philip Lee, on behalf of Lyons Center, LLC, is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to deny Master Case 25-039, the Lyons Center Self Storage Facility Project. The project request includes the following entitlements: Zone Change (ZC) 25-002, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 25-002, Development Review (DR) 25-003, and Architectural Design Review (ADR) 25-004. The project proposes to amend the Lyons Corridor Plan (LCP) to permit self-storage uses in the Lyons Urban 3 zone and would allow for the construction of a new self-storage facility at 24860 Orchard Village Road (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN]:
2855-006-010) (Project).
PROJECT HISTORY
The appellant first submitted the self-storage project as a One Stop (OS) Review in 2022. During that review, City of Santa Clarita (City) staff informed the appellant that City staff would not be able to support the self-storage project for two reasons: firstly, that self-storage is not a permitted use within the Lyons Urban 3 (L-U3) zone, nor the underlying Community Commercial land use designation, and secondly, that prior City Council direction has been that self-storage is not to be permitted in Community Commercial zones and is not desirable on major arterial streets. The appellant was informed that to propose the self-storage project, it would need to request a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and/or ZC to change the zoning to allow the use. The OS was completed on March 17, 2022.
In 2025, the appellant resumed dialogue with City staff, initially considering and proposing two potential entitlement process paths through which the proposed Project request could be processed:
1. Request to amend the General Plan designation and zoning of the Project site to a designation that permits self-storage facilities (with a CUP), such as Business Park (BP) zoning.
2. Request to amend the text of the LCP itself to allow for self-storage facilities with a CUP.
Rezone and General Plan Amendment of the Project Site
The first potential path considered by the appellant was to amend the General Plan land use designation for the Project site and rezone it to allow for self-storage, such as a BP designation.
Self-storage facilities are permitted with a CUP in the BP, Mixed-Use Corridor (MXC), Mixed- Use Neighborhood (MXN), and Industrial (I) zones. Any proposal to amend the General Plan and rezone would need to be comprehensively reviewed to determine if all findings for a zone change could be made. The applicable findings for a zone change include, without limitation:
a. That modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning map as it pertains to the area under consideration;
b. That a need for the proposed zone classification exists within such an area;
c. That the particular property under consideration is a suitable location for said zone classification within such area;
d. That placement of the proposed zone at such a location will be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare, and in conformity with good zoning practice; and
e. That the proposed zone change is consistent with the adopted General Plan for the area, unless a General Plan amendment is filed concurrently and approved with said zone change.
In addition, any proposal to rezone the Project site would need to be thoroughly evaluated to determine if the proposal conflicted with nearby zones. This would include evaluation for potential spot zoning (which is generally prohibited by California law), because none of the zoning designations that allow for self-storage facilities exist in proximity to the Project site. The appellant abandoned this path.
Text Amendment of the Lyons Corridor Plan
The second path considered by the appellant was an amendment to the text of the LCP itself.
This amendment would remove the prohibition on self-storage facilities in the LCP. As proposed by the appellant, the Project would amend the text of the LCP to allow for self-storage uses in the L-U3 zone with a CUP.
FORMAL APPLICATION
In March 2025, the appellant submitted an application for the self-storage project, which included a ZC, CUP, DR, and ADR. The initial submittal did not identify a specific Zone Map amendment; therefore, the application was consequently deemed incomplete.
The appellant revised its request and submitted a proposed text amendment to modify the LCP.
This would allow self-storage with approval of a CUP throughout the L-U3 zone.
However, upon review of this request, the Director determined that because the LCP is a City- initiated plan, the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC) does not permit an applicant to initiate a text amendment. Only the Director, the Planning Commission, or the City Council can initiate a text amendment to the LCP, with City Council action required to make any changes. The appellant did not submit an alternative proposal to amend the City’s Zone Map. As proposed, the self-storage project did not comply with the LCP and conflicted with prior City Council direction on locations of self-storage. The appellant’s proposed mechanism to amend the LCP was not allowed. Consequently, on September 11, 2025, the Director denied the application.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On September 24, 2025, Hunt C. Braly, on behalf of Lyons Center, LLC, filed an appeal of the Director’s decision to deny the Project. A hearing occurred on December 2, 2025, before the Planning Commission.
During deliberations, the Planning Commission discussed the Valley Center Self-Storage project, commercial market conditions, potential precedent for amendments to existing corridor and specific plans, potential zoning pathways for the Project, and prior City Council direction regarding self-storage uses along major corridors.
Thereafter, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to adopt resolution P25-17, denying Appeal 25- 001 and affirming the Director’s denial. A copy of the Planning Commission’s staff report is available in the City Clerk’s reading file.
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
On December 15, 2025, the appellant timely appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council (Appeal 25-003). The City Council’s decision is final. A copy of the appeal letter is attached to this report for the City Council’s review.
PROJECT SETTING
The Project site is located within an existing commercial building in the Lyons Center shopping center at the northeastern corner of Lyons Avenue and Orchard Village Road. The proposed tenant space consists of approximately 26,880 square feet within the existing structure. Lyons Center contains four parcels totaling approximately seven acres and is currently anchored by ALDI, CVS, and other retail and restaurant tenants.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The denied Project consists of a ZC to amend the text of the LCP to permit self-storage facilities in the L-U3 zone with a CUP. The denied Project also includes a CUP, DR, and ADR to convert the vacant portion of the existing building at 24860 Orchard Village Road into a new self-storage facility. The remainder of the building is occupied by the ALDI grocery store, which would remain unchanged. The vacant, 26,880 square-foot, tenant space would be renovated to construct a second floor, resulting in 1,108 square feet of first-floor office space and 52,652 square feet of self-storage space. Exterior architectural enhancements are proposed on the front elevation. The site plan also includes a new drop-off zone in front of the self-storage use.
An aerial map depicting the location of the Project site, the proposed code amendments, site plan, floor plan, elevations, and renderings are included.
Existing Zoning and Land Use
The subject property has a General Plan designation of Community Commercial (CC) and a zoning designation of L-U3 within the LCP. As described in the City’s General Plan:
“The Community Commercial designation is intended for business providing retail and service uses which primarily serve the local market. Representative uses include restaurants, clothing stores, hardware and auto parts stores, grocery markets, pharmacies, banks and financial services, specialty retail, theaters and nightclubs, day care centers, and medical services. These areas are typically located along arterial streets or at the intersections of high traffic corridors” (General Plan Land Use Element p. 59).
Within the L-U3 zone, typical uses include “medical office, commercial office, retail, and services. Mixed-use projects that include residential units may be conditionally permitted with the approval of a Minor Use Permit” (LCP Section 3.1.040(C)).
The Project site is surrounded by developed properties with a mixture of residential, assembly, educational, and commercial uses. Table 1 below summarizes the land use and zoning designations, and current land uses for nearby properties.
Table 1 – Land Use, Zoning, and Existing Uses
General Plan Zoning
Designation
Existing Uses
Project
Site CC L-U3 Lyons Center Commercial Center
North UR2
PI
UR2
PI
Hart High School
Single-Family Homes
East PI
CC
PI
L-U3
Hart High School
Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church
South CC L-U3
Walgreens
Carl’s Jr
Apple Valley Plaza
Green Landscape
West CC L-U3 Old Orchard Center
St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church
Key: CC = Community Commercial; PI = Public/Institutional; UR2 = Urban Residential 2; L-U3 = Lyons Urban 3
AUTHORITY
Lyons Corridor Plan
The City initiated the LCP in 2010, and the City Council adopted the plan on July 9, 2013. The LCP is unique as it is one of only two corridor plans within the City, the other being the Soledad Canyon Road Corridor Plan. The LCP incorporates the City’s vision, General Plan principles, and community input to guide development in the plan area.
The City Council adopted the LCP to guide development of the Lyons Corridor, including ensuring walkability and pedestrian-friendly development, encouraging and incentivizing redevelopment, and protecting and enhancing the community identity of the corridor. The plan was prepared over the course of three years with extensive community outreach to incorporate community feedback into the LCP and its goals. The LCP is distinct from the City’s standard zoning and other specific plans.
Santa Clarita Municipal Code
Section 17.28.110(H) of the SCMC governs zone changes and amendments. It does not permit an applicant to initiate a text amendment to a specific plan or corridor plan prepared and adopted by the City. Specifically, an amendment to a City-initiated specific or corridor plan can only be initiated by the Director, Planning Commission, or City Council, with the City Council having the authority to approve or deny any zone changes.
In accordance with SCMC section 17.28.120(B)(2), an applicant is only permitted to request a zoning map amendment (e.g., a request to change the zoning for a particular property or properties), not a text amendment. This is described in Option 1 above.
Because the LCP was City-initiated, the appellant may not propose a text amendment to the LCP. Any text amendment to the LCP would require direction from the City Council to consider changes to the plan for the proposed Project.
If directed by the City Council, the Director would then evaluate the proposed ZC, CUP, DR, and ADR. This would include a full review of all applicable development standards, including, without limitation, architecture, parking, specific design standards for self-storage facilities, site planning, noise impacts, and environmental review.
In addition, the Director would need to review the proposal’s potential effects on the LCP. Of the 113-acre LCP area, approximately 82 acres are within the L-U3 zone. This equates to more than 72 percent of the plan area. The appellant’s proposed text amendment to the LCP would apply to all 82 acres of the L-U3 zone, allowing self-storage uses with a CUP in areas throughout the corridor. Findings would need to address the project, as well as the potential impacts to the remainder of the L-U3 zone.
Prior City Council Direction
In 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance 03-1 which modified the permitted use chart for self-storage facilities, including prohibiting self-storage in the CC zone, where previously it was permitted with a Minor Use Permit (MUP). The ordinance also established development standards for self-storage uses. This ordinance was codified in Section 17.17.040 and reflected the City' s intent is to limit the visibility of self -storage facilities along primary and secondary thoroughfares.
In 2013, these standards were updated as part of the comprehensive SCMC update following the adoption of One Valley One Vision. These development standards, renumbered SCMC Section
17.66.110, were updated to the current language, which states that “The City’s intent is to limit the visibility and/or adequately design self-storage facilities along major and secondary highways to appear as a structure, or use, anticipated for the surrounding land uses.”
Ordinance 03-1 was adopted to limit the visibility of self-storage facilities along primary and secondary thoroughfares, as well as to preserve commercial corridors, in an effort to improve the jobs/housing balance within the City. As a result, self-storage uses today are not allowed within the CC zone or anywhere within the LCP zone; they are only allowed in the BP, I, MXC, and MXN zones with a CUP. Since the adoption of the ordinance, City staff has followed the City Council’s direction and has referred applicants to these zones for self-storage projects.
Based on this previous City Council direction, the appellant was informed that a GPA/ZC for a self-storage project at this location could not be supported, given its visibility from Orchard Village Road, a major highway.
APPEAL LETTER – NEW ZONING DESIGNATION
The appellant’s appeal letter describes an alternative approach: amending the text of the LCP to create a LU-4 zoning designation for the Project site, which would allow self-storage with a
CUP. This zoning designation was not previously discussed, and the Director has received no additional information on this proposal from the appellant.
Section 17.07.060(C) of the SCMC limits the consideration of an appeal to the original application, plans, and materials that were the subject of the appealed decisions. However, it is noted that future projects could request a similar zoning designation elsewhere in the LCP. In addition, the issue of inconsistency of self-storage uses with the goals of the LCP would also remain with this scenario. This proposal would also need to be evaluated for potential spot zoning, since it would change the zoning of one project site to a new zoning designation not found elsewhere near the project site. Moreover, creation of an LU-4 zoning designation would not address how the project is inconsistent with prior City Council direction on the location of self-storage.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15270 provides that environmental review is not required when denying a project. The recommendation is to deny the appeal and deny the project.
PUBLIC NOTICING
On February 3, 2026, public notices regarding the appeal were mailed to all property owners and residents within 1,000 feet of the Project site, as well as to all tenants on the Project site.
Additionally, a notice was published in The Signal. On February 10, notice of public hearing signs were posted on the Project site.
To date, no public comment letters have been received.
CONCLUSION
The Project, which is the subject of an appeal, is not consistent with the City’s General Plan and SCMC, and the appellant cannot initiate the proposed amendment to the LCP. Staff has drafted the necessary findings for denial of the application in the draft resolution.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Other action as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact.
ATTACHMENTS
Public Hearing Notice
Resolution
Aerial and Zoning Map
Appeal Letter
Appellant Zoning Amendment Proposal
Appellant Self-Storage Facility Plans
Planning Commission Agenda - December 2, 2025 (available in the City Clerk's reading file)