HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-09-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - APPEAL TM 46879 (2)PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
SUBJECT':
DEPARTMENT:
BACKGROUND
AGENDA REPORT.-
City Manager Approval
I
Item to be presented y:'
f
.Lynn M. Harris�e _1
September 11, 1990
Continuation of Appeal Hearing from Regular Council Meeting of
May 22, 1990.=- Tentative Tract 46879
Community Development.
This appeal has been continued from the May 22, 1990, meeting of the.City
Council, concerning the appeal of the January 2, 1990 denial by the Planning
Commission of a request to subdivide an approximately 10 -acre parcel into five
lots, northeast of Golden Oak Lane and Oak Orchard, in Placerita Canyon.' The,
appeal was first heard by the Council -on March 13, and was then continued to
May 22. At that time, the Council directed that staff prepare an additional
report to address seven primary issues of'concern,.including:
1. Evaluation of this project according to the standards for development
as proposed by the Placerita Canyon Property Owners' Association.
2. Evaluation of -the need for, and.location of a bridge to provide
all-weather access to lots north of Placerita Creek.
3. Evaluation of the need for paved roads.
4. Proposed density of the project, according to both the Hillside
Development Standards contained in the Santa Clarita Valley Areawide
General Plan, and the preliminary Santa Clarita General Plan land use
designation for the property.
5. Erosion control and slope revegetation of all graded slopes on the
property. Drought -tolerant, native plant material was requested to
be incorporated into slope planting plans.
6. Full mitigation of flood issues.
7: Impact of the project on equestrian trail plans.
Council directed that the Planning Commission review the report,as a
discussion item, and recommend an appropriate.course of action.: Following
this direction, the appeal hearing was continued to August 28, 1990, and at
the applicant's request, postponed to September 11, 1990.
Continued To.
Agenda Item:
Staff coordinated a meeting on June 21 with several board members of the
Placerita Canyon Property Owners' association (PCPOA) to discuss the project's
compatibility with the PCPOA's draft standards for development. The project
was also briefly reviewed by J.L. Webb Planning, Inc., the firm which has been
contracted to advise the City on hillside development issues, and to draft ,a
hillside development ordinance. Following these discussions and review, staff
prepared a report which was presented to the Planning Commission on August 21,
1990, and is attached. Public testimony in both opposition and support of the
project was received during the course of the meeting.'
Generally, the Commission felt that most of the above issues had been
addressed to their satisfaction. However, Item No. 4, regarding project
density, produced considerable discussion concerning the certainty of the
draft General Plan designation, which proposes that the density for this
parcel be reduced from its present density of one unit per acre, as permitted
by the A-1-1 zone, to Rural Residential, 0.2 units per acre: (Density issues
are discussed in items 1F,.4, and the summary of the -report) The Commission
acknowledged that this designation could be revised before the General Plan is
adopted. With,this understanding, the.four-member Commission remained evenly
divided between recommending that the project be reduced to three or two.lots.
RECOMMENDATION
In summary, the Planning Commission recommended as follows:
1. The Commission has no further -recommendation -regarding density of the.
project.
2. Regarding the Commission's original decision =January 2, 1990, to
deny the project,*the Commission recommends that the Council uphold
the decision, and that there be no changes to the Resolution denying
the project.
3. In the event that the Council chooses to overturn'the denial, the
Commission advises that the items as addressed in the staff report,
and in the attached revised Conditions of Approval appear to meet the
remaining concerns adequately.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution P90-03, denying Tentative Tract 46879, dated January 16, 1990
2. Revised Conditions of Approval
3. Vicinity Map
4. Staff Report for Planning Commission Discussion Item, 8/21/90
5. Report from J.L. Webb, Inc.
6. Placerita Canyon Property Owners' Draft^Standards for Development
4. Financial Interest Disclosure
5. Property Owner's List,
6. Previous Agenda Reports from 3/13/90 and 5/22/90
7. Report from John Medina, Director of Public Works, concerning residence in
garage
8. Letter from Fire Chief P. Michael Freeman, Los Angeles County Fire
Department, concerning bridge requirement
9. Recent letters from Mr. and Mrs. John Bradley, dated May 27 and July 19,
1990
LMH/CK/ck
A
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CONTINUATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 46879
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of,the City of
Santa Clarita to continue the consideration of an appeal'of the Planning
Commission denial of Tentative Tract Map 46879, a request by Jim and Rita
Chatterley to subdivide an approximately 10 acre parcel into five (5)
parcels for single-family residences -at 24766 Golden Oak Lane.
The appeal will be heard by the City Council'iri the City Hall Council
Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st floor, the 11th day of September,
1990, at or after 6:30 p.m.
Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard
on this matter at that time. Further information may be obtained by
contacting the City Clerk's office, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920
Valencia Blvd., 3rd floor..,
Dated: August ii, 1990
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk.
• •
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE
1.
Mayor Opens Hearing
a. States Purpose of Hearing
2.
City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice
3.`
Staff Report
(City Manager)
or
(City Attorney)
or
(RP Staff)
4.
Proponent Argument (30 minutes)
5.
Opponent Argument (30 minutes)
6.
Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent)
a. Proponent
7.'
Mayor Closes Public Testimony
8.
Discussion by Council
9.
Council Decision
X10.
Mayor Announces Decision
RESOLUTION NO. P90-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 46879
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine as follows:
a. An application for a Tentative Tract Map 46879 was filed
by Jim and Rita Chatterley (the "applicant") on March 10,
1989. The application relates to the real property
located at 24766 Golden Oak Lane (Assessors Parcel
2834-029-016).
b. The tract map was reviewed by the Community Development
and Building and Safety Departments of the City of Santa
Clarita and the Los Angeles County Department of Regional
Planning.
c. A duly noticed public hear-ing was held on the application
by the Planning Commission on January 2, 1990 at the City
Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa
Clarita, California, at 6:30 p.m.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence
received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigation
made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Commission
further finds and declares as follows:
a. The tract map is for the subdivision of the subject
property, consisting of one property in the A-1-1 Light
Agricultural Zone in the City of Santa Clarita, for the
development of five (5) single-family residences on
approximately 10 =acres, including one single-family
residence constructed recently on the proposed Lot 1.
b. A portion of the subject property is designated Hillside
Management (HM) in the 1984 Santa Clarita Valley Areawide
General Plan which has not been adopted by the City, but
which is used as a guideline for development while the
City is preparing its general plan. Approximately 25Z of
the property has slopes of less than 25X; the remaining
75.1 of the property has slopes between 25Z and 50X.
- N N
c. A portion of the subject property is shown as Floodway
(V) in the Santa Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan
described above.
d. The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of a general plan. There is a reasonable
probability that this project will not be consistent with
the general plan proposed which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
e. There is a reasonable probability, that approval of this
project at this time could cause substantial interference
with or detriment to the future adopted general plan.
f. There is a reasonable probability that the design of the
subdivision and the type of improvements proposed could
pose significant risk to the health, safety and general
welfare of the citizens of the City of Santa Clarita, by
reason of the existence of a drainage problem which poses
a threat to existing development in the area for which no
solution has been proposed or suggested by this
applicant, the potential for flooding in the area, and
the proposed development on steep hillside areas,
including unusually steep private roads.
SECTT_OP1 3. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission
C has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained
in the Initial Study, and determines that this project could have a
significant impact on the environment, in that grading proposed by
the applicant may impact the natural'hiilside environment and
development may severely alter the ground percolation increasing
flood and drainage characteristics already existing in the area and
otherwise exacerbate existing flooding or drainage risks for current
or future residents in and around the project site. Based upon the
finding stated above, the Planning Commission denies approval of the
negative declaration prepared for this project.
SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning
Commission hereby denies approval for Tentative Tract Map 46879.
1990.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of January,
Rita Garasi, hairwoman
Planning Commission
w
N
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a
iregular meeting thereof, held the 16th day of January, 1990, by the
following vote of the Commission.
AYES: Commissioners: Sharar. Modugno, Worden
and Chairwoman Garasi
NOES: Commissioners: Brathwaite
ABSENT: None
Mark Scott, Director
Community Development
EXHIBIT "B"
REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 46879
GENERAL
1. The approval of this Tentative Map shall expire 24 months from the date of
conditional approval.
2. The applicant may file for an,extension of the conditionally approved map
prior to the date of expiration for a period of time not to exceed one (1)
year. Any such extension must be filed at least 60 days prior to
expiration of the map hereby approved.
3. The applicant shall be 'responsible for notifying the Department of.
Community Development in writing of any change in ownership, designation
of a new engineer, or a change in the status of the permittee, within 30
days of said change.
4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall
include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity
making use of this permit. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and
hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and
employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its
agents, officers, or employees�to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the
approval of this subdivision by the City, which action,is brought within
the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. In the
event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the
City shall promptly notify the applicant and shall cooperate fully in the
defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant, or if the
City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not
thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the
City. Nothing contained in this Condition prohibits the City from
participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both
of the following occur: (1) the City bears its own attorneys' fees and
costs; and (2) the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant
shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the
settlement is approved by the applicant.
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
5. Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall submit to the
City of Santa Clarita-a fee of $5,000.00 for trail development or other
park use satisfactory to the Director of the Parks and Recreation
Department.
6. The applicant shall dedicate to the City an easement for public use to
construct, repair, and maintain an Equestrian and Hiking Trail to the
satisfaction of the Department of Parks and Recreation. The location of
the easement shall be in substantial conformance with existing gas
easement on the westerly portion of the property.
RESO P90-03
FIRE DEPARTMENT
8. This property is located within the area described by the Forester and
Fire Warden as Fire Zone 4 and future construction must comply with
applicable Code requirements.
9. The applicant shall provide water mains, fire hydrants,.and fire flows as
required by the County Forester and Fire Warden for all land shown on the
map to be recorded.
10. The applicant shall provide Fire Department City -approved street signs and
building address numbers prior to occupancy.
11. Fire Department access shall extend to within 150 feet distance of any
portion of structures to be.built.
12. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior
to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained
serviceable throughout construction.
13. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 1000
gallons per minute at 20 psi for a duration of 2 hours, over and above the
maximum daily domestic demand.
14. Fire hydrant requirements are as follows: Install 1 Public Fire hydrant.
15. All hydrants shall measure 6"x4"x2 1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to
current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal. All hydrants shall be
installed a minimum of 25' from a structure or protected by a two (2) hour
fire wall. Location shall be as per map on file with this office.
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
16. The owner's statement Indicates that domestic water will be supplied by
Newhall County Water District.
17._Although sanitary sewers are not available and the tract will be dependent
upon the use of individual sewage disposal systems, the County of Los
Angeles Department of Health Services has no objection to the approval of
proposed Tract Map No. 46879 on condition that:
a. The private sewage disposal systems shall be installed in compliance
with Los Angeles County Health Codes and Building and Safety Codes.
b. If, because of future grading, or for any other reason, it is found
that the requirements of the Plumbing Code cannot be met on any of
the proposed lots, the Department of Health Services will recommend
that no building permit shall be issued for the construction of homes
on such lots.
C. The usage of the lots may be limited by the size and type of sewage
systems that can legally be installed.
RESO P90-03
PUBLIC HORKS DEPARTMENT
18. Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall contribute a
fair -share cost,of providing all-weather access, including a bridge across
Placerita Creek, at -a location satisfactory to the Directors of the
Departments of Public Works and Community'Development.
19. All easements existing at the time of final map approval shall be
accounted for on the approved tentative map. This includes the location,
owner, purpose, and recording reference for all existing easements. If an
easement is blanket or indeterminate in nature, a statement to that effect
shall be shown on the tentative map in lieu of its location. If all
easements have not been accounted for, the applicant shall submit a
corrected tentative map to the Planning Department for approval.
21. All offers of dedication shall be noted by certificate on the face -of the
final map.
22. The final map shall be.prepared by or under the direction of a licensed
land surveyor or registered civil engineer.
23. A final tract map must be processed through the City Engineer prior to
being filed with the County Recorder.
24. Extend lot/parcel lines to the center of private and future streets.
25. If signature of record title interests appear on the final map, a
preliminary guarantee is needed. A final guarantee will be required. If
said signatures do not appear on the final map, a title report/guarantee
is needed showing all fee owners and interest holders and this account
must remain open until the final tract map is filed with the County
Recorder.'
26. Mailboxes and posts shall be installed per City standards. Secure
approval from the Post Office prior to installation.
27—Provide letter(s) of.slope easement(s) and drainage acceptance as directed
by the City Engineer,or Director of Public Works.
28. The applicant, by agreement with the City Engineer or Director of Public
Works, may guarantee installation of improvements as determined by the -
City Engineer or Director of Public Works through faithful performance
bonds, letters of credit, or any other acceptable means.
29. If offsite improvements are required, it shall be the sole responsibility
of the developer'to acquire the necessary right of way and/or easements.
30. The applicant shall offer for dedication right of way for future expansion '
of Cleardale and Oak Orchard Streets including that property measuring a'
distance of 30 feet from the center line of the appropriate street on Lots
0 and I.
31. In the event that any dedication of land is required by the applicant
pursuant to.the map approved hereby including, but not limited to,
dedication of land for future public streets, the applicant shall provide
a drainage statement/letter relative to the land to be dedicated.
RESO P90-03
rI
U
32. The applicant shall construct inverted shoulder pavement 14 feet (lane
width) and 4 feet (shoulder width) on Oak Meadow street and Golden Oak
Lane, and the southerly portion of Lot 0.
33. The applicant shall offer for dedication for use as a public street that
land lying 29 feet on each side of the center line of Oak Meadow.
34. Electric and telephone utilities shall.be installed underground to the
satisfaction of,the Director of the Department of Public Works.
35. Via Princessa Bridge and Thoroughfare Benefit District Condition
Prior to final approval, the applicant shall enter into a written
agreement with the City of Santa Clarita whereby the applicant agrees to
pay to the City a sum (to be determined by the City Council) times the .
factor per development unit for the purpose of contributing to a proposed
Bridge and Thoroughfare Benefit District to implement the highway element
of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impacts. The
form of security for -performance of said agreement shall be as approved by
the City.
The agreement shall include the following provisions:
Upon establishment of the District and the area of benefit, the fee
shall be paid to a special Department of Public Works fund.
In the event funds are required for work prior to formation of the
District, the Director of Public Works may demand a sum of $1,000 (or
greater as determined by the City Council) times the factor per
development unit to be credited toward the final fee established
under the District.
The applicant may construct improvements of equivalent value in lieu
of paying fees established for the District subject to approval of
the Director of Public Works.
The Director of Public Works may require the developer to submit a
traffic report periodically that addresses traffic congestion and the
need to mitigate the problems prior to issuing building permits.
Factors for development units are as follows:
Development Unit
Factor
Single Family
per
unit
1.0
Townhouse
per
unit
0.8
Apartment
per
unit
0.7
Commercial'
per
acre
5.0
Industry
per
acre
3.0
36. All lots shall'be served by adequately sized water system facilities,
including fire hydrants, of sufficient size to accommodate the total
domestic and fire flows required for the land'division. Domestic fire
flows required for the land division are to be determined by the City
Engineer or Director of Public Works. Fire flows required are to be
determined by the Fire Chief.
RESO P90-03
37. The applicant shall provide all materials necessary to substantiate that
there is an adequate water supply and a firm commitment from the water
purveyor that the necessary quantities of water will be available to the
proposed development and that under normal operating conditions the system
will meet requirements for the land division.
38. A grading plan must be submitted and approved prior to approval of the
final map.
a. The grading plan shall demonstrate the application of contour grading
principles to the satisfaction of the Directors of Public Works and
Community Development. The plan shall also demonstrate the use of
terracing or other means to retard slope runoff to the satisfaction
of the Directors of Public Works and Community Development.
39. A detailed Engineering, Geotechnical report must be approved prior to the
recordation of the map.
40. All geologic hazards associated with this proposed development must.be
eliminated prior to the issuance of building permits for Lots 2-5.
41. A geology and/or soil engineering report may be required by the Director
of Public Works prior to approval of building or grading plans.
42. Portions of the property lying in and adjacent to natural drainage "courses
are subject to flood hazard because of overflow, inundation, and debris
flows. Portions of the property are subject to sheet overflow and ponding
and high velocity scouring action. Drainage plans and necessary support
documents to comply with the following requirements must be approved to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to filing of the
final map. The applicant shall:
a. Place a note of flood hazard on lots 1,2, and 5 on final map and
delineate the areas subject to flood hazard. Dedicate to the City
the right to restrict the erection of buildings in.the flood hazard
areas.
b. Provide for the proper distribution of drainage.
C. Prior to issuance of building permits for Lots 2-5, the applicant
shall provide evidence satisfactory to the Department of Public Works
that�all buildings on lots subject to flood hazard will be adequately.
protected against such flood hazards.
d. Provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties and
return drainage to its natural conditions or secure off-site drainage
acceptance letters from affected property owners.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
40. The applicant shall submit a slope revegetation plan to the satisfaction
of the Directors of Community Development and Public Works. This plan
shall include, and not be limited to:
RESO P90-03
0
•
a. reservation of topsoil
b. revegetation of all cut or fill slopes with plant material native to
California.
C. contracting with a restoration consultant, landscape architect, or
other qualified professional for a period of time sufficient to
install and establish the revegetated slope•areas. This contract
shall specify the type of material to be planted, the method of
planting, and the method of maintenance. The Director of Community
Development reserves the right to determine the qualifications of the
consultant, and to extend the specifications of the revegetation plan.
RESO P90-03
VICINITY MAP
CASE N O . Tentative Tract Map 46879
�"" 1kyh�r > .rieG..+ y-s•E — *tl V - 3L "i -..cam Kc .. -...r
�rwG" � - c �.� ...e��. �.-...�.� - i�t....�.r+r�rJ[n—+•�.+.. _ s� e.a:. _. �a� --.. Y t�..�t a+1 .rw'.�_� �'�"
•
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
•
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 46879
PLACERITA CANYON PROPERTY GONERS' ASSOCIATION
SPECIAL STANDARDS DISTRICT PROPOSAL
DISCUSSION ITEM
DATE: August 7, 1989
TO: Chairwoman Garasi
and Members of the Planning Commission
A
FROM: Lynn M. Harris
Director of Community Development (�
APPLICANT: Jim and Rita.Chatterley
CASE PLANNER: Christine,Kudija, Assistant Planner II
LOCATION: 24766 Golden Oak Lane
REQUEST: Following the applicants' appeal hearing by the City _
Council on May 22, 1990, (appeal of Planning
Commission's denial without prejudice of a request to
subdivide an approximately 10 acre parcel into five
(5) parcels for single-family residences), respond to
Council request for additional review of this project
with respect to the hillside development study
session, and the draft standards for development
composed by Placerita Canyon Property Owners'
Association. Recommend course of action to City
Council.
BACKGROUND:
This proposal was initially heard by the Planning Commission on January
2, 1990. The application was denied at that time, following considerable
discussion of hillside area residential density issues, grading,
watershed management, erosion control, road paving, and the construction
of a bridge on Golden Oak Lane, across Placerita Creek. (The bridge was
required as a condition of approval of the project, and would fulfill the
requirement to provide convenient, all-weather access to the property.
As was discussed at the January meeting, street and other public works
improvements have always been required of subdivision applications creating
lots of less than five acres in area.) Residents of adjacent properties, who
spoke in opposition to this project, expressed significant concerns with the
issues mentioned above.
The applicant later appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City
Council. Hearings were held on March 13, 1990, and May 22, 1990. At the May
22 meeting, the City Council directed that the application be brought before
the Planning Commission as a study session or discussion item, specifically to
address the following:
1. Evaluation of this project according to the standards for development
as proposed by the Placerita Canyon Property Owners' Association.
2. Evaluation of the need for, and location of a bridge to provide
all-weather access to lots north of Placerita Creek.
3. Evaluation of the need for paved roads.
4. Proposed density of the project, according to both the Hillside
Development Standards contained in the Santa Clarita Valley Areawide
General Plan, and the preliminary Santa Clarita General Plan land use
designation for the property.
5. Erosion control and slope revegetation of all graded slopes on the
property. Drought -tolerant, native plant material was requested to
be incorporated into slope planting plans.
6. Full mitigation of flood issues.
7. Impact of the project on equestrian trail plans.
The appeal was continued to August 28, 1990, where it will be presented again
to the City Council.
Since the May 22 hearing, Community Development and Public Works staff has met
with the applicant and several of the Placerita Canyon Property Owners'
Association Board of Directors. The Special Standards District was discussed
with reference to'this project, and an alternative location for a bridge was
proposed. The requirement for paving, as well as the flood issues, were
discussed with the City Engineer. Each area of concern will be addressed in
this report, according to the order presented above. The following reiterates
the General Plan land use designations, zoning and land use patterns of the
subject property and environs.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION, EXISTING ZONING, AND LAND USE:
The subject property is an approximately 10 net acre parcel, located at the
northeast corner of Oak Orchard Road and Golden Oak Lane, approximately 1200
feet north of Placerita Canyon Road. The parcel has a gross area of 11.25
acres. The 1984 Santa Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan designations for
the subject property are Watershed (W) and Hillside Management (HM). (This
document is not adopted by the City; however it is used as a guideline for
development while the City prepares its own general plan.)
The project density was determined according to Section 22.56.215 of the Santa
Clarita Planning & Zoning Code, (using the gross acreage) and the general
conditions for development for designated "Hillside Management" areas as
described in the SCV Areawide General Plan These conditions set maximum and
minimum thresholds on the number of units that can be developed in a hillside
area according to the relative proportions of slopes present on a site.
Approximately 1/4 (2.81 gross acres) of the property has a slope of less than
25X, and approximately 3/4 (8.44 gross acres) of the property has slopes
between 25Z and 50X. Application of the hillside regulations for the entire
site resulted in a permitted density range of 1.24 units to 5.53 units. The
project density as requested will average 1 unit to 2 acres; the lots will
range in net area from approximately 1.02 to 2.14 acres.
The area of the site that is designated "W" (Watershed) is in the flood fringe
area of Placerita Creek, and is relatively flat. It supports 56 oak trees.
The applicant did not propose development within this area, in order to avoid
impact to the trees.
The existing zoning is A-1-1, Light Agriculture, 1 acre minimum lot size.
The General Plan designations, existing zoning and land use of the surrounding
properties are summarized as follows:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Additional descriptive information regarding this project is contained in the
original staff reports to the Planning Commission and the City Council.
CZ—3 .
Areawide
Preliminary
Zoning
Land Use
General
City General
Plan
Plan
Site
HM, W
Rural Residential
A-1-1
(New) Residential
(0 to 0.2 units/acre)
Single Family
North
HM
Rural Residential
A-1-1
Vacant
(0 to 0.2 units/acre)
East
HM and W
Rural Residential
A-21-1
Residential Single
(0 to 0.2 units/acre)
Family
South
W
Low `Density Res.
A-1-20000
Residential Single
(1.2 to 3.3 units/acre)
Family
West
HM and W
Low Density Res.
A-1-1
Residential Single
(1.2 to 3.3 units/acre)
Family
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Additional descriptive information regarding this project is contained in the
original staff reports to the Planning Commission and the City Council.
CZ—3 .
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY CITY COUNCIL
1. PROJECT EVALUATION ACCORDING TO PLACERITA CANYON PROPERTY OWNERS'
ASSOCIATION STANDARDS
The Placerita Canyon Property Owners' Association (PCPOA) has prepared
draft development guidelines for both residential and commercial
development for the area, which are included as an attachment. These were
discussed by staff in a meeting with representatives of the Association on
June 21, 1990. The applicable standards, and the project evaluation
according to each item, are as follows:
I.C. Equestrian trails: If adopted, developers would be required to
provide trail links through the development to connect with the
planned trail system. PCPOA would have input on design; fencing
would be in "rustic wood"; river access would be maintained; part of
right-of-way would be set aside for equestrian trail. This project,
as modified, complies with the PCPOA standards for equestrian trail
development, particularly in the following:
a. (trail easement) Condition of Approval No. 6, in the original
draft conditions of approval for the project, requires that the
applicant provide an easement for equestrian purposes along the
existing gas easement on the property. There is an existing
(informal) equestrian trail along the easement now. The easement
would ensure that the trail remain in its present location. At this
time, the conditions of approval do not require the applicant to
provide an equestrian trail or paving along Oak Orchard, which forms
the southerly boundary of the subject property. In lieu of requiring
the applicant to construct or set aside a trail easement along Oak
Orchard, staff suggests that a fee of $5,000.00 be paid to the City
for trail development at a location satisfactory .to the Director of
Parks and Recreation. This requirement will be added to the revised
draft conditions of approval, summarized at the end of this report.
b. (river access) When this project was previously presented to the
Planning Commission, a bridge was required to be constructed to cross
Placerita Creek at Golden Oak Lane, or some other location
satisfactory to the Directors of Public Works and Community
Development. Ramps for equestrian use were required to be
constructed from the creekbed to the roadway, to enable horses to
cross over the bridge at grade. Because of subsequent controversy
concerning the bridge and paving issues, the requirement for a bridge
in this location has been removed from the conditions of approval,
and equestrian access to the portion of Placerita Creek near the
project would remain unrestricted.
c. (12' unpaved right-of-way) The revised conditions of approval do
not require off-site paving; consequently, requiring an "unpaved"
portion for equestrian use is not necessary.
1.I Road improvements. A survey conducted by the PCPOA indicated that
local homeowners have a strong preference that paving should only be
required where absolutely necessary, and that side streets should
remain unpaved. (from results of survey conducted by PPOA) Paving
0
width would be limited
instead of sidewalks;
street trees would not
to 24 feet; inverted
streetlight placement
be required.
0
shoulders would-be used
would be minimized; and
The modified project complies with these standards. Paved access
from Placerita Canyon Road was originally included as a condition of
approval of the project, but in response to the desires of many
residents in the area, is no longer required. The City advised the
PCPOA.Board that either streets should be paved to full rural
standards (base, pavement, rolled shoulders) or left unpaved, since
the City has no standards or maintenance capability for alternative
road materials, and cannot require them. However, if the applicant
should desire at a later date to install a chipseal or other type of
alternative pavement, he is not restricted from doing so. At that
time, review of paving material would be conducted by the Department
of Public Works.
1.F Minimum Lot Sizes. Existing density would be maintained. New
parcels would be restricted to a minimum of one-half acre in size,
except for those in hillside areas, which would be restricted to five
acres. Equestrian uses would be "grandfathered" for undersized
parcels. Clustering of residences would be permissable.
In its present configuration, the project does not comply with the
PCPOA's standards, nor with the preliminary General Plan, which
designates this parcel as "Rural Residential," with a density of one
unit per five acres. It does comply with the 1984 Santa Clarita
Valley Areawide Plan, in which the density is determined by applying
the "hillside formula" as described earlier. The original proposal
for the subject property was to create five lots on ten acres, with
an average lot size of 2 acres. Neighboring lots range in size from
approximately 8,000 square feet to five acres, with an average
density of one unit per acre. Other hillside lots in the vicinity
have not been developed.
The applicant has proposed some modifications to the project which
may make it acceptable to neighboring residents. This is addressed
in a following section which discusses hillside development and
grading issues.
b. (cluster density) This project is "clustered", albeit on the
hillside area, rather than on level terrain. Clustering the
residences on the hillside above the floodplain allows them to be
constructed above the flood hazard area, and minimizes any negative
impacts on the 56 oak trees that grow in the floodplain on the
property. Any construction on the floodplain would require removal
of one or more trees, and would significantly impact others.
1.G. Sewers and Utilities. Subdivisions of more than four parcels would
be required to connect to public sewer systems; all new residential
developments would require that utility lines be placed underground.
This project has been approved by the Los Angeles County Department
of Health Services for septic systems; while this does not comply
with the PCPOA's standard, the standard itself may not be
CA
0 0
advantageous for Placerita Canyon, or the City as a whole. This was
discussed with representatives of the PCPOA board with both Community
Development and Public Works staff. If extensions of sewer lines
were installed to serve the canyon, additional growth would be
encouraged, and the capacity of the existing waste treatment plant
eventually strained. Undergrounding of utilities was not required in
the original Conditions of Approval; the revised conditions require
that utilities be placed underground to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
1.H. River. No requirement for concrete bottoms or sides for channels F
would be required; bridges would be designed to accommodate
equestrian use, and be placed only when necessary for safety.
Construction of a bridge to cross Placerita Creek on Golden Oak Lane
or Oak Creek Avenue was originally required as a condition of
approval of this project. As was discussed above, equestrian ramps
were included in the conceptual design. The bridge was required to
provide safe, all-weather access to this and other properties north
of Placerita Creek. However, considerable neighborhood opposition
arose regarding the construction of a bridge in either of these
locations. An alternative location for a bridge has been suggested
within a parcel approximately 1500 feet to the east of the property,
on a road yet to be constructed, in conjunction with a future,
subdivision; the applicant has contacted the leaseholder on that
property, who intends to submit a subdivision application soon. This
applicant would be required to submit fair -share costs for
construction of the bridge. Both Community Development and Public
Works staff feel that this would be an equitable solution to
providing access north of the creek, without disturbing existing
residents, or interfering with the rural character of the area. This
would also enable the PCPOA's standards to be satisfied, because the
subdivision design would enable sufficient room to be provided for
equestrian access.
The PCPOA's standards also included criteria for commercial, industrial and
road development; however, these did not apply directly to this project.
2. EVALUATION OF THE NEED FOR AND LOCATION OF A BRIDGE TO CROSS PLACERITA
CREEK:
The Los Angeles County Fire Department has advised the City that the
properties north of Placerita Creek cannot be adequately protected without
all-weather access to them. Because Placerita Creek is completely
impassable during high flows, a bridge is needed to support Fire
Department and other emergency vehicles; it is also necessary for
evacuation of residents. A letter from Captain Frank Luna, Los Angeles
County Fire Department, is attached.
3. EVALUATION OF THE NEED FOR PAVED ROADS:
Paved roads form part of the "all-weather" access required by the Fire
Department. However, considerable local preference has been expressed for
retaining the dirt roads and rural character of Placerita Canyon.
Previous approved subdivisions in Placerita Canyon have been required to
offer road right-of-way for private and future streets, but have not been
required to pave them. Residents that live in areas like this are likely
to assume certain risks associated with dirt roads (mud, dust, need for
periodic grading). Staff has considered that the City is still in the
process of developing a General Plan, and that rural standards, including
dirt roads, may be appropriate for certain areas of the city. Continued
participation on the part of the PCPOA with GPAC will be crucial to
determine the standards to be adopted. At this time, staff feels that
provision of the bridge is most important, and that paving may be waived
without unduly endangering residents.
4. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING
When this application was submitted in March of 1989, the standards for
hillside development established by Los Angeles County, were applied to the
project. Between 1.24 and 5.53 lots were permitted according to these
standards. The mid-range project density for this property would be three
lots. The zoning for the property was (and still is), A-1-1, and allows
one -acre lots; the applicant could conceivably have applied for up to ten
lots. The preliminary Santa Clarita General Plan for this property
designates it as "Rural Residential", with a five -acre minimum lot size.
The original application for five lots, averaging two acres in size, was
denied by the Planning Commission on January 2, 1990, in part because of
concern regarding the amount of earth to be graded to create Lots 2-5.
40,000 cubic yards were graded to create Lot 1 and the access driveway
(Oak Meadow Lane); an additional 25,000 to 30,000 cubic yards were
required to be graded for the remaining lots. Contour grading was
proposed. Following the initial appeal hearing to the City Council, the
applicant has met with staff (as instructed by Council) to determine if
modifications to the project would make it acceptable to both the
neighboring residents and to city staff.
The PCPOA's goal in restricting hillside density appears to be to reduce
grading of hillsides, and to reduce impact to dominant ridgelines. The
highest lot in the tract is approximately 60 feet below the top of the
ridge to the north, and would not affect the appearance of the ridgeline.
Also, modifications to the project since the hearing may further reduce
the impact to the hillside area. The applicant has proposed to reduce the
number of lots to four. Lot 2 would be eliminated, reducing the amount of
grading by half. The cul-de-sac would be moved slightly to the south,
reducing the cut slope above Lot 3 by ten feet. The fill areas on the
northeast corner of the property would be eliminated, leaving that portion
of the property in its natural state. Contour grading principles are
being followed, and can be required in the revised conditions of
approval.
However, staff's preference is for the applicant to reduce the number of
lots to three (mid-range of the allowable lots as calculated by the
hillside formula). Fewer lots would bring the project more closely into
compliance with the preliminary General Plan designation, and would be
more consistent with the goals of the PCPOA. Although reducing the
project to two lots (as would be indicated by the preliminary General
Plan) could be advised, staff feels that because the average size of
neighboring lots is one acre, creating 3.3 -acre lots is reasonable.
Grading would still be markedly reduced. Again, contour grading and
revegetation of cut and fill slopes would be required as conditions of
approval.
5. EROSION CONTROL/SLOPE REVEGETATION;
The City Building Code requires that erosion control measures be applied
to all manufactured slopes. In addition, requirements for slope
revegetation with native materials, under the supervision of a registered
landscape architect experienced in slope restoration, have been added to
the revised Conditions of,Approval for the project. Slope planting plans
will be reviewed for adequacy by Community Development and Public Works
Department staff, to the satisfaction of the Directors of each department.
6. FLOOD ISSUES.,
The City Engineer reviewed this project for its impact on local flooding.
It was determined that the contribution to floodwater height was
negligible, and that this project would not exacerbate existing conditions
(which have been demonstrated to be severe during flood events). In
addition, the creation of lots above the highest anticipated floodwater
level did not unduly subject residences to risk from flooding. The bridge
requirement will provide emergency access. Finally, adequate provision
for slope revegetation, particularly on the edges of the driveway and
other paving and roof drains, will mitigate the effect of sheet flow
runoff. The conditions addressing the slope revegetation, and other
conditions requiring terracing of fill slopes, require adequate planting
to reduce runoff to below a significant level.
7. EQUESTRIAN TRAIL PLANS.
The project's impact and contribution to the planned equestrian trail
linkage is addressed in the previous discussion of the PCPOA standards.
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall submit to
the City of Santa Clarita a fee of $5,000.00 for trail development or
other park use satisfactory to the Director of the Parks and
Recreation Department.
2. Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall
contribute a fair -share cost of providing all-weather access,
including a bridge across Placerita Creek, at a location satisfactory
to the Directors of the Departments of Public Works and Community
Development.
3. Electric and telephone utilities shall be installed underground to
the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
4. The grading plan shall demonstrate the application of contour grading
principles to the satisfaction of the Directors of Public Works and
Community Development. The plan shall also demonstrate the use of
terracing or other means to retard slope runoff to the satisfaction
of the Directors of Public Works and Community Development.
5. The applicant shall submit a slope revegetation plan to the
satisfaction of the Directors of Community Development and Public
Works. This plan shall include, and not be limited to:
a. reservation of topsoil
b. revegetation of all cut or fill slopes with plant material
native to California.
C. contracting with a restoration consultant, landscape
architect, or other qualified professional for a period of
time sufficient to install and establish the revegetated
slope areas. This contract shall specify the type of
material to be planted, the method of planting, and the
method of maintenance. The Director of Community
Development reserves the right to determine the
qualifications of the consultant, and to extend the
specifications of the revegetation plan.
SUMMARY
This project has received extensive review by Community Development, Public
Works, and Recreation and Parks staff. In general, it complies with most of
the applicable standards for development set by the Placerita Property Owners'
Association, with the exception of restricting the number of units on the
parcel to two. Staff feels that reducing the proposed number of units from
five to three will achieve the goals of the PCPOA and the city with respect tc
density and hillside grading, primarily because most of the grading has been
accomplished for the development of Lot 1, and less than 15,000 cubic yards
(by the applicant's rough estimate) would be required for two additional
building pads. The additional conditions of approval further mitigate the
environmental impacts that were of concern to area residents.
Should the Commission concur with the above analysis, it would be appropriate
to recommend to the Council that they grant the appeal, but to reduce the
number of lots to three, with the following findings:
1. The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of a
general plan. There is a reasonable probability that this project,
as revised, (0.3 units per acre) will be consistent with the general
plan proposal which will be studied within a reasonable time, which
presently indicates a five acre minimum lot size for this parcel (0.2
units per acre). There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future adopted general,plan if
this project is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, because the
parcels immediately adjacent to the south, east, and west of this
parcel are in a designation permitting 1.1 to 3.3 units per acre.
This project complies with all applicable requirements of state law
and local ordinances.
2. Although the City of Santa Clarita has not adopted the Santa Clarita
Valley Area Plan as prepared by Los Angeles County, the proposed
subdivision is consistent with the Area Plan designation of HM,
Hillside Management, (which sets a land use density of 1.24 units to
5.53 units for the subject property) and W Watershed.
�a-9
0 •
3. Although the City of Santa Clarita has not adopted the Placerita
Canyon Homeowners' Association standards for development (which
require 5 -acre lots in hillside areas and encourage cluster
development), the proposed subdivision as revised (to create three
lots on 10 acres, clustered on the hillside portion of the site) is
consistent with or will not substantially interfere with the land use
goals set forth by this Association.
4. The site is physically suitable for the type of proposed development
and density, since the site has, or will have as a result of
conditions imposed by this resolution, proper access, (Golden Oak
Lane and Oak Meadow Lane, both private streets; future all-weather
access is provided by a funding mechanism to construct a bridge on
Placerita Creek at an undetermined location to the east of the
subject property) proper water system facilities (public water
provided by Newhall County Water District), proper drainage (drainage
plan as approved in concept by the City Engineer, and final drainage
plan as required by the Conditions of Approval), and consistency with
the densities and uses specified in the Zoning Ordinance for the
A-1-2 zone.
5. The development of the property in the manner set forth on the
subject Tract map will not unreasonably interfere with the free and
complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights-
of-way and/or easements within the Tract map, because construction is
not encroaching upon the gas easement, and the applicant is required
as a condition of approval to dedicate an additional easement
congruent with the gas easement, for equestrian purposes..
6. The design and improvement of the subdivision will not cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, because the site is not
within a sensitive habitat area and all potential impacts (there are
56 native oak trees on the site, none of which will be impacted by
proposed construction) are insignificant as noted in the
environmental review section of the staff report.
7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not
cause serious public health problems, since sanitary requirements,
geologic hazards, expansive properties of soils, sheet overflow and
ponding conditions as well as contributory drainage from adjoining
properties are required through the conditions of approval to be
mitigated prior to the issuance of a building permit.
8. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for
future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the
subdivision.
9. The proposed subdivision does not contain or front upon any public
waterway, river, stream, coastline, shoreline, lake or reservoir.
10. The housing needs of the region were considered and balanced against
the public service needs of local residents.
11. No discharge of waste from the subdivision into an existing community
sewer system will occur which would result in a violation of existing
requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board. On-site septic systems have been approved by the Los
Angeles County Department of Health Services.
12. The design and improvement of the subdivision will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use,
of property within the proposed subdivision, because all such
easements have been incorporated into the proposed private streets or
the equestrian trail easement.
ATTACHMENTS
Revised Conditions of Approval
Vicinity Map'
Letter from Placerita-Canyon Property Owners' Association dated March 22, 1990.
Negataive Declaration and Environmental Assessment
Agenda.Reports dated March 13 and May 27, 1990
Staff Report dated January 2, 1990
Interoffice Memorandum dated July 24, 1990
Letter from County of Los Angeles Fire Department dated October 3, 1989
Letters from John and Barbara Bradley dated -May 27 and July 15, 1990
• r
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I N T E R O F F I C E M E,M 0 R A N D U M
TO: Lynn M. Harris
FROM: Chris Kudij a
DATE: August 20, 1990
SUBJECT: Tentative Tract 46879 (Chatterley) -- Hillside Consultant's
Comments
Attached are the comments forwarded by Mark Rogers of J.L. Webb Planning,
Inc., regarding the Chatterley tract map. After receiving the comments,
I telephoned Mark to get his opinion.of whether or not five lots was
beyond the capacity of the site, considering that our preliminary land.
use maps are indicating that this property -would be limited to five -acre
lots. He responded that the project as proposed, with his recommended
criteria, could be viable, safe, and esthetically pleasing. He also
indicated that his criteria would apply if the number of lots were
reduced to three.
In the course of the conversation, he added several other criteria, which
I have listed below: ;
13. An open space easement should be created for the area encompassing
the oak trees, in order to protect them from future construction,
grading, or storage.
14. Encroachment over slopes by decks, platforms, etc., should be
prohibited or restricted.
1--1 IJ 1� - G LJ - 7 kJ 1' 1 U f 1 1 J . -t ti. � . � 4•+ - � �• i . _ . .. . . . . . i 1 . �
2900 Bristol Strout, Surto F102, Costa Masa CA 92626 (714) 557.3707
J.L. Webb Pfanninq, Inc. r'(
Land Planning - Landscape ArChitc turn • UrUoi, t'. -
Meeting Notes
Santa Clarita Developmenl !'tan
August 15, 1990
111,111k. City 0, imur ('I.0 rte
In Aitendance: Cliris'1'rinkley
Christine Kudija
Mark Rogers
Comments on the Tentative Tract Map #46879 - based on review with the; City Staff on A rigust
15,1990.
1. OverWI, plan should achieve balanced earth work for cut and fill, anticipating bulking
shrinkage, otc.
2. Oak trees should be fenced 20' beyond drip line during construction period.
3. City Arbor Culturist should inspect trees after site grading to determine health stakes for
a minimum of one (1) year.
4. More thorough Drainage Plans to be submitted. No cross lot drainage should be
permitted.
5. All lots should demonstrate a bui lding envelope area to be approved by Communii v
Development Director.
6. Developer should provide 40' scale Landscape Concept and Maintenance
responsibilities for all areas including Fuel Modification Zone Standards.
7. Cul-de-sac should be located south of existing Iocation to balance large slope in to- 02,
and to aid in access for lot#5.
giJG-20-`30 MON 13 :42 J.L. Webb P l ann i ng ,
Inc P 0 3
Santa Cla6ta Development glan
g, lot #4 should be c�rdinaced with pad.
Drives and access to garage on
q • Access to
lot #5 should provide vehicular access to south end of pad area where
structure should be located.
10. Future Oak Meadows Street should have concrete rolled curb and gutter per Los
Angeles County Standard'-
r should evaluate minimum horizontal radius on Oak Meadow
11. City Traffic Engine
street.
• • nal landscape and prolonged maintenance of 11/2 :1 cut slopes should be
12. Addlao
provided.
Qg; Chris Trinkley
• •
UPI_ACERITA CANYON
PC ' PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION
P. O. Bos 245
,Newhall, CA 91322
March 22, 1990
Mark Scott
Community Development Director
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
RE: General Plan
Special Design and Standards
For Placerita Canyon
Dear Mr. Scott:
Much of the Santa Clarita Valley was once an oak -studded woodland
with scattered ranches and a rural lifestyle. Some of that flavor
remains today in Placerita Canyon, one of the few semi -rural areas
remaining in an increasingly urbanized valley.
It is for this reason that the Placerita Canyon Property Owners
Association, representing more than 300 families in Placerita
Canyon, submits the attached document for your consideration. The
proposed standards would represent a special design overlay in the
General Plan for Placerita Canyon. Now, while you are creating a-
new
new General Plan for the City of Santa Clarita, may well be the
last chance we will have to preserve a valued way of life in this
very unique corner of Santa Clarita.
The attached outline is a working document. The PCPOA Board has
been drafting and rewriting the proposal for many months. We
consider it to be very close to a finished product, but we would
like to complete one more homeowner review before we consider it
finalized. We submit it to you in this preliminary form because
we also are interested in your input, and because we know that you
are rapidly reaching your own General Plan deadlines. We would
like to provide our input before you make the many decisions which
will affect our future.
Placerita Canyon is rich in natural beauty, history and an
equestrian lifestyle which is vanishing rapidly from our valley.
With your help, we would like to create a document against which
all future planning in Placerita Canyon can measured.
- 1 -
0 •
Placerita Canyon
Page
We hope you will keep in mind the special ambiance of Placeria
Canyon as you create Santa Clarita's first General Plan.
Sincerely,
PLACERITA CANYON PROPERTY
OWNER ASSOCIATION
S� a Sc fhausen
Presider�L
SS/pw
Please cc: All Planning Commissioners
All City Council Members
City Manager
All GPAC Members
All Department Directors
John Medina
Jeff Kolin
.2-d6
PLA* TA CANYON PROPERTY OWNE�SSCCIATION
GPAC OUTLINE - PRELIMIII'RRY
1. RESIDENTIAL - Special Standards District shall apply
A. All future divisions will include a Special Standards District
review
B. Grandfather in all existing equestrian usage
C. Equestrian trails/walking/jogging
1. Developers shall be required to provide trail links through their
development to connect with planned trail system.
2. Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association (PCPOA)
Board shall have input on all proposals for design
3. Fencing of trails shall be in rustic wood where required
4. River access
a. Access will be provided at all street crossings
b. No fencing is allowed across the river 1
5. The normal 12 -ft, sidewalk setback area will be set aside
but shall be left unpaved and shall be restricted from
encroachment by fences, cars and other obstacles. -
D. Bicycle paths
1. An east -west through route will be established
i from Rio Vista/Lyons to Sierra Highway
2. Any through route will connect to the proposed
Master -s College loop.
E. Street Improvements
**(to be submitted for homeowner comment)
**"Should developers be required to pave side streets in Placerita Canyon
as a condition to their development? (Choose one)
Yes, as long as shoulders are left unpaved for trail use
no, side streets should not be paved
Other (comment):
I. RESIDENTIAL (Continued)
1. (Insert results of homeowner poll)
2. Where paving is required, maximum paving width
shall be 24 feet
3. Curbside Improvements
,,a. No sidewalks will be required /
,1b. Rolled berms will be acceptable; no curbs
-c. Streets lights shall be kept to the minimum required
where absolutely necessary for safety
--d. No street trees will be required
F. Minimum Lot Size
1. Maintain existing density
2. Minimum lot size for new parcels - 1/2 acre
;131 Maintain 1 unit per b acres in hillside management
designated areas
4. Grandfather in equestrian use for e::isting lots
which are under minimum lot size
QCluster density 1s permi__gR1hle
G. Sewers and Utilities
J./All new residential tracts of more than 4 parcels shall be
required to connect to public sewer systems
•2. All new residential development shall provide
underground utilities from the nearest power source
H. River
No concrete bottoms or sides to channels
2. Bridges
a. Shall be limited to the number required for public safety
b. Must be designed to accommodate equestrian access
a
(preferably underneath or, alternatively, ramped up)
0 0
II.COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL STANDARDS
A. Oil Fields
1. Expanded industrialization of the oil fields should be
reviewed in context of adjoining residential use
2. There is to be no further expansion in the use of portable
steam generators or cogeneration plants for oil
production in the Placerita oil fields
3. If oil fields are rezoned to Residential, all Residential
standards (I) shall apply
B. High Traffic Facilities
1. No new high traffic generating facilities (churches,
schools, etc.) will be allowed in Placerita Canyon
within the Residential Special Standards District
2. No further expansion of existing high -traffic facilities
will be allowed which further impact traffic in
the canyon
3. Commercial/industrial Parking restrictions will be
established for on -street parking; all high traffic users
will be required to provide adequate off-street parking
4. ::11 further development of Master's College shall be
designed for access from Rio Vista; no development shall
occur until such access becomes available
G,. The MWD right-of-way through Placerita Canyon shall be-_
\\ maintained as a greenbelt buffer zone only
D. Rio Vista/Lyons interchange area
1. Zoning of adjacent properties should be reviewed in
context of nearby residential use
? Individual properties adjoining the interchange should
be reviewed as a unit
U
0 •
II.COMMRCIAL/INDUSTRIAL (Continued)
3. If this area is rezoned Commercial, there should be no
direct vehicular access to Placerita Canyon Road
4. The Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association Board
shall have input on architectural and design standards
E. Landscaping Requirements
1. Street trees shall be required
2. Berms shall limit visual impact of parking areas from the street
3. Landscaping shall be required around buildings,
including extensive use of 24" minimum box trees
F. Trails
1. Developers shall be required to provided trail links
through their development to connect with the planned trail
system, where applicable
2. PCOPA Board shall have input on all proposals for design
3. Fencing of trails shall be in rustic wood where required
4. River access
a. Trail access will be provided at all street crossings
b. No fencing is allowed across the river
G. PCPOA to have input on all Commercial/Industrial architectural
and design standards
H. Sewers and Utilities
1. All new commercial/industrial developments shall be required
to connect to public sewer systems
2. Public sewer connections will be required for any
future Master "s College expansions
3. All commercial/industrial development shall provide underground
f� utilities from the nearest power source
I. River
A. No concrete bottoms or sides to channels
II. CoMMERCIAL:'INDUSTRIAL (Continued)
B. Bridges
1. Shall be limited to the minimum number required for
public safety
2. Must be designed to accommodate equestrian access,
perferably underneath or, alternately, ramped up
III. TRAFFIC
A. General safety recommendations
resident concerns
LAND USE MAP - The area included in the Placerita Canyon neighborhood
will include the area within the following boundaries:
Sierra Highway on the east
The ridge line on the south
San Fernando Road on the west
The Circle J ridge line on the north (adjusted to include Cleardale
and the upstream floodplain known as ••Foxie"s pasture")
The Special Standards District boundaries may be different to e::clude
commercial/industrial areas
1.
Speed limits on Placerita Canyon Road and all residential
streets should be 25 mph
.�
��2.
Install traffic controls to protect pedestrian zones at
Master's College and Town & Country School
Maintain existing laws prohibiting off-road vehicle use
"B. Placerita
Canyon Road
1.
Limited access from Rio Vista/Lyons interchange on the
west and Rio Vista/Sierra Highway on the east
i
12.
Placerita Canyon Rd. shall not be widened beyond its
present width
- - - _—_
3.
'Work toward privatization of Placerita Canyon Road
A�
a. From Quigley Canyon to AES when Rio Vista is in place
„
b. Conduct a feasibility study to address all City and
resident concerns
LAND USE MAP - The area included in the Placerita Canyon neighborhood
will include the area within the following boundaries:
Sierra Highway on the east
The ridge line on the south
San Fernando Road on the west
The Circle J ridge line on the north (adjusted to include Cleardale
and the upstream floodplain known as ••Foxie"s pasture")
The Special Standards District boundaries may be different to e::clude
commercial/industrial areas
O
In order for members of the Planning Commissicn or City Council to
adequately assess the potential for conflict of interest in rendering decisions
on land use matters, the following information is required. Should the
applicant(s) in the requested action be or include a partnership, the name of
the partnership and of all partners shall be printed below. Should the
applicant be a corporation, the name of the corporation and of all officers of
said corporation shall be printed below. If there are anv other business or
joint venture parties, property owners, or individuals which have a financial
interest in this action not otherwise covered as a partnership or corporation,
then their names shall be printed belcw.
PAP.TNER I) -i IP NAME
PROPERTY OWNFR(S)
Jim L. Chatterly
_Rita Chatterly
CORPCRATION NAME
President
Vice President
Secretary
Other
OTHER
I HERESY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING: 1NFORT4ATION IS K,CURA7E AND CU---PLE7E 10 THE
BEST OF MY hNOWLECGE AND BELIEF.
Sicr t
Fra R. Garcia (f Hale & Assoc., Inc.)
Printed Name of Applicant, or Agent for Applicant
March A, 1QAQ
Date
Case File No.'U�?N
.. 1 -ilz -� q(o3ll
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT:
BACKGROUND
March 13, 1990
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval /
Item to be presented/
Mark Scott
Appeal from Planning Commission Denial Without Prejudice --
Tentative Tract Map 46879. C
Community Development AS
The City has received an appeal from a January 2 action of the Planning
Commission on Tentative Tract Map 46879. The applicants are Jim and Rita
Chatterley. The Planning Commission denied the project without prejudice
after discussion of several issues, including flood control/drainage, the
construction and location of a bridge over Placerita Creek, and
hillside/grading issues. A denial "without prejudice" allows an applicant
to re -file the same application within a 12 month period. Otherwise, a
denied project cannot be re -filed in substantially the same form for at
least 12 months.
Attached is the appeal letter submitted by Mr. Chatterley, which outlines
his reasons for appeal and his arguments for approval of the project.
ANALYSIS
The Planning Commission made the following findings, prepared by the City
Attorney's office, in denying the project applications without,prejudice:
The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission has reviewed
and considered the environmental information contained in
the Initial Study, and determines that this project could
have a significant impact on the environment, in that
grading proposed by the applicant may impact the natural _
hillside environment and development may severely alter the
ground percolation increasing flood and drainage
characteristics already existing in the area and otherwise
exacerbate existing flooding or drainage risks for current
or future residents in and around the project site. Based .
upon the finding stated above, the Planning Commission
denies approval of the negative declaration prepared for
this project.
As indicated in the findings, the Commission felt most strongly that two
aspects of the project required additional review:
Agendalteft
Of 0
Bridge and General Flood Issues - The Planning Commission was advised by
staff that the proposed project would not likely cause any worsening in
the Z"lood threat to existing properties; however, it was explained that
existing flood conditions at this location are a significant concern
because there is no all-weather crossing for Placerita Creek. The staff
report on the project recommended construction of a bridge to cross
Placerita Creek on Golden Oak Lane (or other location_satisfactory_to the
Departments of Community Development, Fire, and Public Works) to address
the concerns of emergency access. Several neighbors to this property
argued against this condition, feeling it unnecessary and out of character
with the area. The applicant is willing to comply with this condition at
Golden Oak Lane, Choke Cherry or other locations the City may find
suitable. The Fire Department feels strongly that an at -grade,
all --weather crossing of Placerita Canyon is necessary. At present, lots
on the east side of the creek are cut off from normal access when the
channel is full. Planning Commissioners had some sympathy for the
preference of residents to avoid the bridge, but concluded that further
study by staff and the Commission was necessary before waiving a condition
about which the Fire Department felt so strongly. Alternate locations for
a bridge will also be considered.
There were also other flood concerns not addressed to the Commission's
satisfaction. The Commission felt that it would be improper to allow
additional development in this specific location until further research
was done regarding necessary flood control/drainage improvements and until
the bridge issue could be resolved. Therefore, the Commission asked staff
to further study the situation and report back in study session, to be
held in March or April.
Hillside Issues - The Planning Commission was advised by staff that the
proposed grading was not unreasonable for this project. However, hillside
grading issues had been a concern on a project (TTM 41812) in Iron Canyon
heard earlier in the evening (which had been denied without prejudice).
Similar concerns were raised in discussion of this project. Briefly, the
Commission felt that it was time to address acceptable grading standards
on a city-wide basis, and felt that such standards could be studied
reasonably quickly. This particular review is called for under the
General Plan consultant's contract. Staff has contacted the consultant
who will be working toward a Planning Commission study session on this
subject as soon as possible.
Because the Planning Commission also had the flood/drainage issue to
research, the Commission felt it appropriate to deny the application
without prejudice pending further evaluation of both of these issues.
A letter from the applicants is attached, which provides support for the
project. It should be noted that there is a petition attached that
supports construction of the all-weather bridge. There were other
neighbors in the area that did not support the bridge, and they also
submitted a letter on December 14, 1989 (see attached). If the City
Council has any questions concerning them, staff will address them at the
public hearing.
In choosing its action, the Planning Commission had several options:
a) Deny without prejudice, allowing the applicant to re -file within 12
months -- presumably after the hillside and flood control study
sessions.
b) Deny outright, requiring a 12 -month wait before re -filing.
ej.: g9ntinue the public hearing until the -study sessions were held.
d) Modify the project considerably and approve it.
e) Approve the project.
Except -for denial without prejudice, only a continuance (optioa•"c")
represented a viable option. However, a continuance could have created
uncertainty over State -mandated permit processing timelines. As a result,
the -most prudent course for the City and the applicant was to deny the
application -without prejudice.
city -Council Options____
The City Council's public hearing on the appeal is a "de novo" hearing,
meaning that the City Council hears the matter in full and any testimony
may be heard whether or not it was raised during the Planning Commission
hearing. Following public testimony, the City Council may choose several
options on March 13:
1) Uphold the Planning Commission's denial without prejudice.
2) Deny the project outright.
3) Approve the application as proposed.
4) Approve the application with conditions and/or modifications.
5) Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission with directions to
re -hear the application with or without City Council suggestions on
the application.
As indicated above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission denial
without prejudice be upheld and that re -filing fees be waived.
Also attached for the City Council's information are the January 2 staff
report to the Planning Commission, the minutes of that meeting, and the
Planning Commission's Resolution of Denial which was acted on at their
January 16 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal on Tentative Map
46879, thereby upholding the Planning Commission denial without
prejudice. At the same time, staff and the Planning Commission found many
positive aspects of this project and wish to work further with the
applicant to resolve the bridge and hillside grading concerns.
Staff further recommends that the City Council authorize re -filing by the
applicant for further Planning Commission review without new application
fees.
i
L-1
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: May 27, 1990
•
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presente
Lynn M. Harris
SUBJECT: Continuation of Appeal from Planning Commission Denial
Without Prejudice -- Tentative Tract Map 46879.
i
l_
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
This appeal has been continued from the March 13 meeting of the City
Council. The staff report discussing the background details of the case
is attached. Since that meeting, staff has met with the applicants and
their engineer, and has attended a meeting with both the applicant and
residents of the neighboring community.
Issues that were discussed at the meeting are outlined in a letter from
the applicant, which is attached.
ANALYSIS
Access to the project, and the potential disruption of the rural
environment by paving and bridge construction on Golden Oak Lane have been
the primary issues of concern of this project. Other concerns have
included grading, site drainage, and contribution of project construction
to existing flood problems in the canyon.
Staff (Community Development and Public Works) has discussed the location
of the bridge with the applicant, who has studied several options for
bridge construction. Two viable options exist for the bridge: Oak Creek
and Quigley Canyon Road. Of these, Oak Creek appears to be the best
location for the bridge, because it is closer to the project site, and few
residences actually front on Oak Creek in the vicinity of the bridge. If
the Oak Creek location is used for the bridge, Oak Orchard Lane, rather
than Golden Oak Lane (as was previously proposed), would be paved to
create paved access to the project. The City Engineer has recommended
that the condition of approval requiring the bridge be changed to require
that the bridge be constructed on Oak Creek Lane, or other location
satisfactory to the Department of Public Works.
Continued To: 6'
Agenda Item:
z `f3
There are several oak trees, including some of heritage dimensions, that
would be affected by the bridge construction and paving of Oak Orchard
Lane. A condition of approval of the tentative map would require that an
oak tree permit be filed prior to any construction near the trees. The
conditions of approval of the permit would address such issues as pruning,
planting of replacement trees, and avoiding tree removal where possible.
The Planning Commission is required to render a decision on the removal of
one heritage tree, or more than four non -heritage trees.
The issues of grading, drainage, and flood control have been reviewed by
the City Engineer. He has found that all project grading and drainage
meets City standards. In addition, he has stated that the development of
building pads and terraces above the floodplain area on the property can
reduce the rate and volume of runoff from its former condition. He
maintains that both the site development and the improvements required by
the conditions of approval of the project (bridge and paving) will
contribute to public safety in the area.
In its findings for project denial, the Planning Commission stated that
"this project could have a significant impact on the environment, in that
grading proposed by the applicant may impact the natural hillside
environment and development may severely alter the ground percolation,
increasing flood and drainage characteristics already existing in the area
and otherwise exacerbate existing flooding or drainage risks for current
or future residents in and around the project site." In subsequent
studies and discussion with the applicant, staff feels that certain
changes to the project, as addressed in the following revised conditions
of approval, will adequately mitigate environmental impacts to below
significant levels.
If the Council wishes to approve this project, the following conditions
should be added to the Conditions of Approval of the Tentative Map:
(change to Condition No. 13)
13. Prior to the issuance of buiding permits for Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5,
all-weather access shall be provided via a bridge across
Placerita Creek, to be constructed on Oak Creek Lane, or other
location satisfactory to the Departments of Community
Development, Public Works. and Fire. Said bridge shall be
constructed or bonded for prior to the recordation of the map.
(Community Development Department Condition)
39. The applicant shall obtain an oak tree permit prior to issuance
of building permits for the bridge and access road construction.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council options for this project are described in the previous
report. At this time, staff recommends that the City Council select
Option No. 4 (to approve the project with conditions and/or modifications
0
•
to the initial conditions of approval). Staff has found that the
applicant has been diligent in pursuing alternatives for the bridge
location, as well as in resolving the grading and flood issues to staff's
satisfaction.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Public Hearing Procedure
2. Previous staff reports, conditions of approval, and listed attachments
3. Financial Interest Disclosure
4. Project Proximity Map
5. Appeal letter from Mr. Chatterley, dated January 23, 1990
6. Letter from Mr. Chatterley, dated March 5, 1990
7. Reduced tentative map exhibit
8. Ridgeline exhibit
9. Bridge concept exhibit
10. Project supporters exhibit
11. Letters and petitions of project supporters
12. Applicant's suggested hearing format
13. Letter from Mr. Chatterley, dated April 10, 1990
16. Letter from Mr. Chatterley following community meeting on April 5,
dated May 3, 1990
15. Letter from Robert Leemon, opposing the project, dated April 26, 1990
16. Letter from staff in -response to the above letter, dated May 9, 1990
17. Other letters and petitions in support and in opposition to the project
18. Staff responses to letters from Mr./Mrs. Bradley, Mr./Mrs. Dennis, and
Mr. Cundiff.
I 1W %
I'VE D JUL 2 7 1990
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
T0: Lynn Harr
om
Director munity Development
FROM: John Medina
Director of Public Wor
DATE: July 24, 1990
SUBJECT: Chatterly Guest House
We have made a site visit to the Chatterly site and verified the kitchen
facilities in the guest house. These will only be used temporarily
while construction of the main house takes place. Upon its completion,
the kitchen facilities will be removed and the gas line permanently
capped.
In essence, this guest house is temporarily being used as is commonly
done with mobile homes during construction of the primary residence.
Abatement of the kitchen facilities will take place prior to issuance of
a certificate of occupancy or final approval by the building inspector.
Attached is a copy of a letter by the Chatterly's stating that they
agree to abate the kitchen facilities upon completion of the main
residence. We have discussed this with Chris Kudija of your Department
and she has expressed that this is acceptable.
JM: rb:ce
Attach.
a
D14"/
ift ASSOCIATES
/✓ecu ,Lire .
'Z7 /V O.r2_ o�i C"'r / 4e
C9o�s� S.cLg/ rte,
741,
Gfilmf'z ale 6 ice. /,47 q)
el iso
24788 Golden Oak Lan*
Newhall, Cali(omla 91321 805-25a-3933
pf �Ot �
1� 1
v 1
P4Q T M EH
P MICHAEL FREEMAN
FIRE CHIEF
FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN
PUNTY OF LOS ANGE10
��FIRE DEPARTMENT
October Z, 1989
1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90063
(213) 720-5141
Mr. and Mrs. Jim Chatterly ,
25757 Parada Drive
Valencia, CA 91:55
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Chatterly:
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 46879
This Department has completed its review of your request to
provide a low water crossing across Placerita Creek in lieu
of constructing a bridge. That review has disclosed that
your request i s being denied.
Fire Department policy for some time has been to allow low
water crossings only for one (1) single-family structure to
be built an an existing legal lot. Whenever property is
subdivided, access shall be via a bridge constructed to
Department of Public Works Standards.
As you know, there have been several recent meetings and
discussions within the Fire Department and also with other
County agencies and the City of Santa Clarita regarding the
current policy and whether or not it should be changed. It
has been decided that at this time the policy should remain
,the ssme as it has been.
In your particular case, there are several roads that cross
Placerita Creek into the area of your proposed subdivision.
The required bridge can be at any one of those roads as long
as all-weather access is provided from that bridge to your
property.
SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF
AGOURA HILLS
BRADBURY
DUARTE
LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE
MAYWOOD
ROLLING HILLS
SOUTH GATE
ARTESIA
CARSON
GLENDORA
LAKE IOOO
NORWALK
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
TEMPLE CITY
AZUSA
CERRITOS
HAWAIIAN GARDENS
LA MIRADA
PALMDALE
ROSEMEAD
WALNUT
BALDWIN PARK
CLAREMONT
HIDDEN HILLS
LANCASTER
PALOS VERDES ESTATES
SAN DIMAS
WEST HOLL'IWOGD
BELL
COMME4CE
HUNTING-, ON PARK
LA PUENTE
PARAMOUNT
SANTA CLARITA
WESTLAKE VILLAGE
BELLFLOWER
CUDAHY
INDUSTRY
LAWNDALE
PICO RIVERA
SIGNAL HILL
W_ HITTIER
BELL GARDENS
DIAMOND BAR
IR'rlINDALE
LOMITA
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
SOUTH EL MONTE
/
0
Mr. and Mrs. Jim Chatterly
October 3, 1989
Page 2
N
When the number of lots -created by the subdivision
process reaches 150, a second bridge will be required to
provide an all-weather second means of access. This
requirement is in line with the Subdivision Ordinance
requirements for restricted access.
You have the right to appeal this decision to the Planning
Commission for the City of Santa Clarita.
If you have any further questions, please contact Captain
Frank Luna at (213) 720-5141.
Very truly yours,
P. MI AEL RE MAN
, tC"
g
TTALION CHIEF DAVE P. HORN
IRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING
PREVENTION AND CONSERVATION BUREAU
DPH: ah
cc: City of Santa Clarita-Planning Department
Hale and Associates
M
r�
u
flay i?, 1990
Fjty of Santa Clarita Planning Commission
C hai rwoman Rita Garasi
Mice Chairman Louts Brathwaite
Commissioner Modugno
Commissioner Worden
Re- Development on hillside property
C�,�
1990
.1P, r
The Placerita Homeowner's Association has suggested that development on residential hillside
property should be limited to one dwelling unit per 5 acres. We have seen our hillsides being
demolished and the rural atmosphere of Placerita Canyon bei ng destroyed.
in our particular area, there are several owners of hillside property, as yet undeveloped,
who are waiting for the City Council's decision on TTM 46879 ( to subdivide 10 hillside acres
into 5 parcels). This is the property for which you denied the subdivision on January 2, 1990,
and which is now being appealed. If the Council should approve this subdivision, the other
property owners of hillside land will then have the opportunity to subdivide because a precedent
will have been set.
We urge you to agree with the Placerita Homeowners' Association that hillside property should
have a density of one dwelling unit per 5 acres.
'He thank you for your consideration in this matter.
S ncerely,
ohn & Barbara Bradley
:'4755 Golden Oak Lane
Newhall CA 91321
cc Lynn M. Harris, Director
Community Development
5'3
RIECIENTE D JUL 16 1990
July 15, 1990
Lynn M. Harris, Director
Community Development
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Ms. Harris:
At the Council meeting of May 22, 1990, the appeal of TTM 46879 from the Planning
Commission's denial was returned to the Planning Commission for further review.
We believe the Planning Commission's concerns for the denial are stili valid. At the Planning
Commission study session on Hillside Management, consultant Roy Stevenson recommended
"holding firm" on Commission decisions.
State officials, i n granti ng the extension far completi ng the General Plan, set conditions
requi ring the city to ensure that land use decisions made prior to the adoption of the Plan are in
compliance with the Proposed Plan. The proposed General Plan for the City of Santa Clarita
designates this property as Hillside Management with RR land use - 1 dwelling per 5 acres.
The use of clustering on areas designated Hillside should be restricted to where the dwelling
units are clustered on mare or less level land, leaving the steeper slopes in their natural state.
The formula for determining the number of allowable units should NOT be used to circumvent
the 1 du per 5 acres in the hillside management area.
75% of this property has slopes between 25% and 50%.
DRAFT GOALS AND POLICIES REPORT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA GENERAL PLAN:
UNDER QUALITY AND MAINTENANCE OF DEVELOPMENT, ONE OF THE POLICIES IS:
Maintain rural settings in those portions of the planning area that are rural and
designated such in the land use plan.
UNDER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ONE OF THE POLICIES IS:
Ensure that new development, grading, and landscaping are sensitive to the natural
topography and unique land forms in the planning area.
The original grading application to the County of Los Angeles showed cut 32,600 cu yds, fill
32,000 cu yds. The Negative Declaration from the City of Santa Clarita states that 40,000 cu
yds would be cut and 40,000 cu yds would be fill. At the Council session of May 22, 1990 when
Mayor D'Arcy asked how many cu yds would be cut, the developer stated 60,000 cu yds would be
cut. However, it is our understanding that even more than that would be required for the
subdivision - perhaps DOUBLING the original estimate.
We are enclosi ng for your review photographs of hillside properties adjoi ni ng TTM 46879.
It is our understanding that these property owners are also planning to subdivide if precedent is
o2-�41
Page 2
July 15, 1990
Lynn M. Harris, Director
set by approval of the TTM 46879 subdivision. In the proposed General Plan, the hillside
portions of these properties is designated as rural residential land use.
Placerita Canyon IS one of the small unique rural areas in the Santa Clarita Valley. We ask that
the decision to deny the TTM 46879 subdivision be upheld and that the recommendation to the
Council be to adhere to GPAC'S land use designation for this area as rural residential.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
nce re
g6 --(A.
John and Barbara Bradley
24755 Golden Oak Lane
Santa Clarita CA 91321
CC:
Chai rwomen Rita Garasi
Vice Chairman Louis Brathwaite
Commissioner Cherri ngton
Commissioner Modugno
Commissioner Worden
4V CE I V ED SEP 0 6 9Z_ JQ & ASSOCIATES
991
September 5, 1990
Lynn Harris
City of Santa Clarita, Director of Planning
23920 Valencia Boulevard, #300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Reference: Tentative Tract Map 46879
Oak Meadow Estates
Lynn:
In preparation for the City Council appeal hearing scheduled for
September 11, 1990, I am preparing this letter to address
specific conditions in the planning staff report dated August 7,
1990.
Parks & Recreation:
Item 5: $5,000.00 Fee For Equestrian Trail --I do not agree to
these conditions since there is an existing trail along the
southern boundary of the property that could be conditioned for
easement to maintain the equestrian trails. Also the Oak Meadow
is being retained in the development as a park setting that
provides a benefit to the neighborhood. State law provides that
fees can not be extracted from a developer unless there is no
other way to meet a city ordinance or provide for on-site mitiga-
tions. I believe our project provides for the trail easements
and park settings.
Public Works:
Item 18: Fair Share Contributions To Bridge Over Placentia
Creek --Since no formula is suggested for determining this fee, we
suggest the following: The fee should be a unit price per lot
payable at the issuance of the building permit. The unit price
fee should be based upon our estimate of the total cost at 1990
dollar value of the bridge construction divided by the total num-
ber of future lots that would be conditioned for the same all-
weather access.
24766 Golden Oak Lane 805-254-3933
Newhall, California 91321
9 9
Lynn Harris
City of Santa Clarita
Director of Planning
September 5, 1990
Page 2
Item 35: Via Princiessa Bridge Benefit District --The condition
provides that improvements of equivalent value may be built in
lieu of paying fees. If we are conditioned to pay fair share
fees for the Placentia Canyon bridge, we suggest this fee be
valued.
Community Development:
Item 40: Slope Revegetation Plan --The landscape plan should be a
condition of each specific lot building/landscape permit. Plant-
ing and irrigation and maintenance of the slopes on each lot
should be a condition of each specific lot building permit.
J. L. Webb: -- Hillside Consultant Memo
Item #13: Open Space Easement --The Oak Meadow should not be
restricted to future construction or other recreational improve-
ments. Since this project is designed for equestrian improve-
ments, the only feasible area for horse corrals/barns to be built
is the flat land and Oak Meadow.
Our input to the council will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
James lc4 Chatterley
cc: Keith Uselding
TR #46879
PAGE 1 OF 2
11. PRANGE,,G.N.
1. GLAZER, G. PRANGE FAMILY TRUST 21. MIFF, L.D.
P.O. BOX 2114 24708 CHOLE CHERRY IN. 24756 GOLDEN OAK LN.
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 EMU, CA 91321 NEWHALL, CA 91$21
12. WONG, H.S.
2. L.A. CITY DWP 21045 PLACERITOS BL. 22. DENNIS, D.M.
P.O. BOX 111 NEWHALL, CA 91321 24742 GOLDEN OAK IN.
TERMINAL ANNEX NEWHALL, CA 91$21
LOS ANGELES, CA 90051
13. HAENDLE, C.F.
16. GOMffi, T.
21131 PLACERITOS BL.
6. SCHREY, T. NEWHALL, CA 91321 26. CONLIN, P.A.
24766 CHOKE CHERRY LN. 24749 GOLDEN OAK LN.
NEWHALL, CA 91321 NEWHALL, CA 91321
17. AM, E. D.
P.O. BOX 515
7. CRIGLER, M.S. NEWHALL, CA 91321 27. LEVIN, A.M.
24766 CHOKE CHERRY LN. 24741 GOLDEN OAK LN.
NEWHALL, CA 91321 NEWHALL, CA 91321
18. BARNETT, C.R.
24748 GOLDEN OAK LN.
8. CUMMINGS, J.R. NEWHALL, CA 91321 28. ARMOUR, R.D. B S.C.
21025 PLACERITOS BLVD. 24723 OAK CREEL RD.
NEWHALL; CA 91321 NEWHALL, CA 91321
19. ARTER, B.G.
24759 CHOKE CUM LN.
9. ARNOLD, R. EMU, CA 91321 29. VALERIUS, W.A,
24746 CHOKE CHERRY LN. 24711 GOLDEN OAK LN.
NEWHALL, CA 91321 EMU, CA 91321
20. MULDOON, T.R.
24764 OLDEN OAK IN.
10. WALPER, C. NEWHALL, CA 91$21 30. MALLOY, M. A.
24738 CHOKE CHERRY LN. 21226 SIMAY LN.
NEWHALL, CA 91321 NEWHALL, CA 91321
21035 PLACERITOS BL.
23. BRADLEY, J.J.
3. SIRKEGIAN FAMILY
NEWHALL, CA 91321
BRADLEY TRUST
676 VIA ALHAMBRA
24755 GOLDEN OAK IN.
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653
NEWHALL, CA 91321
14. MC PEAK, G. 8 S.
24713 CHOKE CHERRY LN.
...4. RIDGEDALE JOINT VENTURE
NEWHALL, CA 91321
24. GALLOWAY, P. J.
2716 OCFAN PARK BLVD.
21157 PLACERITOS BL.
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
NEWHALL, CA 91321
15. COSTIN, R.R.
24719 CHOKE CHERRY, LN.
5. WEINER, *.L.
NEWHALL, CA 91321.
25. BARNETT, S. B.
24768 CHOLE CHERRY.LN.
24748 GOLDEN OAK LN.
NEWHALL, CA 91321-.
NEWHALL, CA 91321
16. GOMffi, T.
21131 PLACERITOS BL.
6. SCHREY, T. NEWHALL, CA 91321 26. CONLIN, P.A.
24766 CHOKE CHERRY LN. 24749 GOLDEN OAK LN.
NEWHALL, CA 91321 NEWHALL, CA 91321
17. AM, E. D.
P.O. BOX 515
7. CRIGLER, M.S. NEWHALL, CA 91321 27. LEVIN, A.M.
24766 CHOKE CHERRY LN. 24741 GOLDEN OAK LN.
NEWHALL, CA 91321 NEWHALL, CA 91321
18. BARNETT, C.R.
24748 GOLDEN OAK LN.
8. CUMMINGS, J.R. NEWHALL, CA 91321 28. ARMOUR, R.D. B S.C.
21025 PLACERITOS BLVD. 24723 OAK CREEL RD.
NEWHALL; CA 91321 NEWHALL, CA 91321
19. ARTER, B.G.
24759 CHOKE CUM LN.
9. ARNOLD, R. EMU, CA 91321 29. VALERIUS, W.A,
24746 CHOKE CHERRY LN. 24711 GOLDEN OAK LN.
NEWHALL, CA 91321 EMU, CA 91321
20. MULDOON, T.R.
24764 OLDEN OAK IN.
10. WALPER, C. NEWHALL, CA 91$21 30. MALLOY, M. A.
24738 CHOKE CHERRY LN. 21226 SIMAY LN.
NEWHALL, CA 91321 NEWHALL, CA 91321
31; "ME, M.A.
21225 SIMAY LN.
NEWHALL, CA 91321
32. LOZANO E.J. & 33
21216 OAK ORCHARD IN.
NEWHALL, CA 91321
33, REPAR, J.A.
21236 OAK ORCHARD LN.
NEWHALL, CA 91321
34. HURO, J.Y.
21231 SIMAY LN.
NEWHALL, CA 91321
35. CARDONE, L. G.
21237 SIMAY LN.
NEWHALL, CA 91321
36. ANDERSON, C.R.
24736 OAK CREEK RD.
NWHALL, CA 91321
37. SEATON, Y.R.
21240 OAK ORCHARD.RD.
NEWHALL, CA -91321
38. MEHETERIAN, K.
TURNER, R.
24540 BURR CT.
NEWHALL, CA 91321
$9. NERI,. J.A. & K.A.
21313 OAK ORCHARD RD.
NBYHALL, CA 91321.
40. BROTHERS, L:'-
24760 OAK CREEK RD.
NEYHALL, CA 91321
TRACT #46879
4`1 40. PAGE 2 OF 2
41, THOMSON, G. & P,L
24728 OAK CREEK RD,
NEWHALL, CA 91321
42, HAYS, I.M.
P.O. 272
NEWHALL, CA 91321
43. GILMORE, D.J. & M.
231 MILL VALLEY RD.
VALENCIA, CA 91355
44. LEAKY, E. L.
21236 SIMAY LN.
NEWHALL, CA 91321
45. AUTRY ORVON G. CO. TRUST
AUTRY FOUNDATION
P.O. BOO( 710
LOS ANGELES, CA 90078
46. VOLLAND, D. & S.
21255 PLACERITA CYN. RD,
NEWHALL, CA 91321
47. VIM, J.D.
21307 PLACERITA CYN. RD.
HEWHALL, CA 91321
48. CHATTERLEY, J.
21198 OAK ORCHARD RD.
NEWHALL, CA 91321
49. HALE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
24303 SAN FERNANDO RD.
NEWHALL, CA 91321