HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-09-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - NEG DEC GOLDEN VLY RD (2)PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT:
BACKGROUND
1P 0
AGENDA REPORT
September 25, 1990
GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD
ANTELOPE VALLEY FR
NEGATIVE DECLAR�TI
Public Works
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented
John E. Medina
TO SIERRA HIGHWAY
In January, the City Council directed staff to initiate a procedure to form an
assessment district for the construction of this segment of Golden Valley Road.
Five developers shall share in the cost of the assessment district. The
developers' funding this assessment district have each received City approval of
tentative tract maps for residential developments.
The Public Hearing for consideration of the negative declaration for Golden
Valley Road between the Antelope Valley Freeway and Sierra Highway should be
considered as part of the total project which includes the financial program of
the project. It was anticipated at the time that the public notice was
published that the financial reports would be completed. However, additional
work .is required. It is, therefore, recommended that this public hearing be
continued and be reconsidered at the time that the assessment district comes
before the City Council for consideration. The public hearing for the
assessment district and negative declaration will both be noticed in the near
future.
RECOMMENDATION
That this matter be continued indefinitely.
ATTACHMENTS
Negative Declaration and Initial Study
Project Site Plan
/gmm
Continued To: d•a:r a. Agenda Item: 3
i �d�►r;; r e.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CERTIFICATION DATE: September 25, 1990
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita. Department of Public Works
TYPE OF PERMIT: Environmental Assessment
FILE NO.: Golden Valley Road Environmental Assessment
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Golden Valley Road extension between Sierra
Highway and the Antelope Valley Freeway, Friendly Valley area, Santa
Clarita, CA.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Proposed bond for financing and improvement
and extension of Golden Valley Road of approximately 3,200 feet;
east -west orientation to link Sierra Highway to the Antelope Valley
Freeway through three newly.approved residential Tracts 148892, 145022
and 148117.
[X] City Council
It is the determination of the [ ] Planning Commission
[ ] Director of Community Development
upon review that the project will not have a significant
effect upon the environment.
Mitigation measures
Form completed by:
[ ] are attached
[X] are not attached
Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner II
(Name and Title)
Date of Public Notice: August 31. 1990
[X] Legal advertisement.
( ] Posting of properties.
[X] Written notice.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
CASE NO. GVREA Prepared by: Jeff Chaffin
Project Location: Golden Valley Road extension between Sierra Highway and
the Antelope Valley Freeway Friendly Valley Area, Santa Clarita, CA.
Project Description and Setting: Improvement and extension of Golden
Valley Road of approximately 3,200 feet: east -west orientation to link
Sierra Highway to the Antelope Valley Freeway through three newly
approved residential tracts (148892. 145022. 148117)
General Plan Designation Urban -2: Hillside Management
Zoning: R-1-9000• RPD 9000-10U: C-2
Applicant: City of Santa Clarita. Public Works Department
Environmental Constraint Areas: Grading: drainage: slope stability.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? .................. [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? ............... [X] [ ] [ ]
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ........................... [X1 [ ] [ ]
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features? .................................. [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? .......... [ J [ ] [X]
f. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure; or similar
hazards? ................................... [ 1 [X1 [ 1
g. Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? ................................. [ J [ l 1X1
h. Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ........................... [ 1 [ 1 [X1
i.
j
k.
2 -
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic -yards or more? .......................
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25Z natural grade? ............
YES MAYBE NO
Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ j [ ] [X]
Evaluation of Impacts
The project site is faced with several geologic features
including quaternary land slides, and expansive soils.
Extensive removal and recompaction measures are needed to
stabilize these problems. (305,140 cubic yards fill;
527,820 cubic yards cut for Golden Valley Road.)
Extensive grading on landslide area with conditions
similar to Princess Park Estates, which is located
directly to the southeast where there are expansive soils
which lifted Sierra Highway in the past.
Mitigation measures have been addressed by the "Geologic
Report on the Feasibility of Development," by Allan
Seward, Geologist. Feasible mitigation measures are
reviewed and should be adhered to in developing the site.
These Conclusions and Recommendations read as follows:
o The project sites are geologically feasible for
development, provided our recommendations and those
of the sails engineer are incorporated in the
tentative design and implemented during construction.
o No known historically active earthquake faults
traverse the project site.
o The landslide can be stabilized by removal and
recompaction and the constructions of a shear key.
o All the bedrock can be ripped and excavated by
conventional grading equipment. No blasting will be
required.
o Subdrains designed to the specifications of the
soils and engineer will be required in all major
fills and behind the shear key.
o Special remedial dewatering techniques (slot
cutting, dewatering wells, slot trenches, etc.),
.will probably be required during the grading
operations
o Cut -Slopes should be designed at 2:1 gradients to
the angle of the bedding.
o The standard County and City setbacks from the
ascending and descending slopes should be followed.
3 -
o All soil, slopewash and unconsolidated landslide
material should be removed prior to the placement of
the compacted fill and shear key.
o The construction of the shear key will require a
pumping system or off-site easements to dissipate
the ground water.
c The final location of the shear key will probably
depend on the City's policy relative to the location
of the sewer alignment along Sierra Highway.
o A large central landslide complex overlies Tentative
Tract 48892 and extends off-site to the south and
upslope.
o The central landslide complex can be stabilized by
construction of shear keys, buttress fills, soldier
piles and landslide removals.
o The soldiers piles must be installed before major
grading operations commence. The construction of
the shear keys may require slot cutting and
dewatering techniques.
o The excavations for all the soldier piles must be
geologically reviewed and approved prior to the
placing of steel and the.pouring of concrete.
o All fills will be placed under the observation and
testing of the project Geotechnical Engineer.
o All major canyon fills will require subdrains. Any
buttresses and/or stability fills required by the
project Geotechnical Engineer will also require
backdrains and subdrains.
o The subdrains and backdrains must be designed to the
specifications of the project Geotechnical Engineer.
o Grading operations should be conducted under
periodic geological inspections to confirm the
anticipated geologic conditions. Monthly in -grading
geologic reports will.be prepared and submitted to
the City for review and approval. Continuous
geologic inspections will be required during shear
key and land slide debris removals.
o Detailed geologic and soils engineering reports will
be prepared on the 40 -scale Grading Plan prior to
submittal to the City of Santa Clarita.
A.copy of the Geologic Report is available in the
Community Development Department of the City of Santa
Clarita, and the applicant's geologist will be available
at the Public Hearing to answer questions.
Public Works also required the following:
- 4 -
Prior to final map, the applicant's geologist shall
review, in writing,the geological reports of adjacent
tracts to ensure that the proposed tract will not affect
the stability of the existing developments.
A grading plan must be submitted and approved prior to
approval of the final map.
The grading plan must be based on a detailed engineering
Geotechnical report and must be specifically approved by
the geologist and/or soils engineer and show all
recommendations submitted by them. It must also agree
with the tentative map and conditions as approved by the
City. All buttresses over 25 feet high must be
accompanied by calculations.
All geologic hazards associated with this proposed
development must be eliminated.
YES MAYBE NO
2. Air. Vill the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? .................... [ ] [X] [ I
b. The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [ ] [X] [ ]
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? .............. [ ] [ ] [X]
'd. Development within a high wind hazard
area? ...................................... [ ] [ ] [Xl
Evaluation of Impacts
Dust and exhaust emissions from earth moving equipment can
be expected during the construction period (January 1991
to September 1991 as anticipated). Air quality.control
standards prescribed by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District shall be implemented during the
construction period. This will include, but not be
limited to exhaust control devices on heavy equipment and
wetting the soil.
Diesel exhaust will be accompanied by pungent odors as a
result of heavy equipment operation. Heavy equipment
operation shall be limited to daylight hours; these orders
should be dispersed and diminished on a daily basis. No
long-term adverse effects are expected.
3. Yater. Vill the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................ [ ] [Xl [ ]
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? .............................. [ ] [X) [ l
- 5 -
YES MAYBE NO
C. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ......................... [ I [ I [XI
d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ ] [XI [ I
e. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? ..................... [ ] [XI [ I
f. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? ............ [ ] [ I [XI
g. Substantial reduction in the.amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ............................ [ I [ I [XI
h. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as.flooding? ........... [ ] [ I [XI
Evaluation of Impacts
Extending Golden Valley Road will have an effect on the
region's hydrology. It is proposed that Golden Valley
Road extend from its present intersection with Green
Mountain Drive in a westerly direction to Sierra Highway.
The associated development due to the Golden Valley Road
extension will also affect the hydrology. Mitigation
measures have been addressed by the •Hydrology Report for
Golden Valley Road at Tract Nos. 45022, 48117, 48892, and
48893," by JSA Engineering and shall be implemented
through project conditions at Approval.
The proposed development of Tentative Tract Nos. 45022,
48117, 48892, and 28893 will be constructed after the
extension -of Golden Valley Road. Therefore, the hydrology
analysis for proposed developed conditions discussed in
the report is based on the assumption that the above four
(4) tracts will be fully developed. Two (2) independent
storm drain systems will collect stormwater runoff. They
will discharge on the north side of Sierra Highway. One
will require the installation of a new culvert to enable
it to discharge at approximately the same location as the
existing thirty (30) inch CMP culvert. The other line
will use the existing forty-eight (48) inch RCP culvert.
Both lines will connect to existing storm drain facilities
upstream that discharge runoff from Tract No. 30396.The
storm drain improvements for Tract No. 48117 will consist
of constructing a proposed storm drain from an existing
storm drain in Golden Valley Road at the intersection of
Golden Valley Road and Green Mountain Drive in a
northeasterly direction into the proposed
6
development of Tract No. 48117. Calculations were
performed for the.portion of the mainline that impacts
Golden Valley Road. Calculations for the proposed catch
basins along Golden Valley Road are discussed in Section
IV of the hydrology report.
The grading and paving required to construct this segment
of Golden Valley Road shall decrease absorption rates and
increase surface runoff of precipitation. This project
shall result in the paving of approximately 5.8 acres.
These impermeable surfaces shall include the roadway,
gutters, curbs, and sidewalks. The decrease in the
absorption rate should be negligible, and have no
significant effect on percolation for groundwater sources
in the area. Project drainage improvements shall utilize
existing flood control facilities which have the capacity
to accommodate site -generated surfacr runoff water.
The project site is not within a 100 -year floodplain and
should not alter floodwaters.
Increased runoff shall ultimately be discharged into the
drainage system of the Santa Clara River. In the City of
Santa Clarita, the Santa Clara River is ephemeral.
Because persistent surface water bodies do not exist,
impacts to surface water bodies should not occur.
Direction of ground water flow should remain unchanged.
However, the rate of ground water flow may be changed due
to a slight decrease in the ground water absorption rate
resulting from paving.
YES MAYBE NO
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity.of species or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ... [ ] [X] [ ]
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ...... [ ] [X] [ ]
C. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal re-
plenishment of existing species? ........... [ ] [X] [ ]
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? ...................................... [ ] [ ] [X]
Evaluation of Impacts
The entire project site will be graded removing all
natural vegeration.
The applicant shall replace the oaks according to I.S.A.
Standards and Values. The applicant shall try to lea•:e as
much land as possible and follow the City's Oak Tree
Ordinance and the Oak Tree Reports for tentative tracts
- 7 -
associated with the development of the project. (Oak Tree.
Reports for Tentative Tract Nos. 48892, 48893, 45022 and
48817.)
YES MAYBE NO
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
insects or microfauna)? .................... [ ] [X] [ ]
b. Reduction of the numbers of any .unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ] [ ] [X]
C. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ...... [ ] [ ] [X]
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? ........... ( ] [ ] [X]
Evaluation of Impacts
The species which occupy the site are various birds, small
mammals, reptiles, insects, etc. The destruction of the
habitat will not cause a significant change in the
diversity of species; no rare or endangered species occupy
the site.
The habitat, as it is now, will be disrupted and the
current animal population will either migrate to other
habitats or be destroyed by construction activity.
(Initial study, Tentative Tract No. 48893).
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [ ] [X] [ ]
b. Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? ................. [ ] [X] [ ]
C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [ ] [X] [ ]
Evaluation of Impacts
Temporary noise impacts associated with construction is
expected; all work shall comply with established noise
ordinances. After project completion, ambient noise levels
should increase slightly due to associated residentail
activities. These types of noise level increases are not
considered substantial.
The hours of construction will be regulated, as necessary,
by the Public Works and Building and Safety Departments.
The project must comply with California Sound transmission
Control Standards and other applicable legislation. The
project will include noise attenuating walls.
-a -
YES HAYSE NO
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? ................. [ ] [X] [ ]
Evaluation of Impacts
Street lighting and glare will not exceed the acceptable
standards. Lighting, shall illuminate only the intended
area and off-site glare shall be fully controlled.
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial alteration of the present
land use of an area? ....................... [X] [ ] [ ]
b. A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? ............... [ ] [ ] [X]
C. A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? ............................... [ I [ ] 1X1
d. A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? ...................... ( ] [ ] [X]
Evaluation of Impacts
The substantial alteration of the present land use is
unavoidable with the development of the adjacent
residential tracts. (Initial study, Tentative Tract No.
48892). Presently the property is vacant. However, this
project shall serve existing and proposed residential
development in the area.
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? ................................. [ ] [ 1 1X1
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? ......................... ( ] [.] [X]
10. Risk
of Upset/Han-Rade Hazards. Will the proposal:
a.
Involve a risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? .......................... [ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ................................ [ l
[ 1 1X1
C.
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ...................................... [ 1
( 1 [X]
d.
Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? .................................... [ ]
[ 1 1X1
9 _
11. Population. Will the proposal:
YES MAYBE NO
a. Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ..................... [ ] (X] [ ]
Evaluation of Impacts
This project may alter the location and distribution of
population due to the development of the five (5)
residential projects. This impact is unavoidable for any
residential project. (Initial study, Tentative Tract No.
48893). This area has previously been established as a
residential area.
12. Housing. Will the proposal:
a. Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................ [ ] ( ] [X]
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................ [X]
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? ......... a....... [ 1 [ ] [X]
C. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ............................ [ ] [ 1 1X1
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? .............................. [ 1 [ 1 1X1
e. Increase in traffic hazards'to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [ ] [ ] [X]
f. A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? .............................. [ ] [ 1 [X1
Evaluation of Impacts
Additional traffic will be generated by the project once
developed. The project -is adjacent to an existing
freeway. Commute hour traffic will have the benefit of
direct access to the freeway. Additionally, the project
will provide additional roadway of the extension of Golden
Valley Road north toward Sierra Highway. This will
facilitate traffic flow in the vicinity. It will also
sremove regional traffic from local residential streets
and redirect it onto arterial streets. (Initial study,
Tentative Tract No. 48117).
-10-
YES MAYBE NO
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
a.
Fire protection? .........................
[ ] [ l [Xl
b.
Police protection? .........................
[ ] [ l [Xj
C.
Schools? ...................................
[ l [ l [Xl
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities? ....
[ ] [ l [X]
e.
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ...........................
[XI [ l [ l
f.
Other governmental services? ...............
[ ] ( j [Xj
Evaluation of Impacts
Golden Valley Road shall be a:public road
and will require
City maintenance. Golden Valley Road will
also provide
access for emergency vehicles.
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy . ....................................
[ l [ l [XI
b.
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy?
[ ] ( j [X]
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for
new systems, or substantial alterations to
the
following utilities:
a.
Power or natural gas? ......................
[ ] [ ] [Xj-
b.
Communications systems? ....................
[ ] [ ] [Xj
C.
Water systems? .............................
[ ] [ l [Xl
d.
Sanitary sewer systems? ....................
[ ] [ l [X)
e.
Storm drainage systems? ....................
[ ] [ ] [Xj
f.
Solid waste and disposal systems? ..........
[ j [ ] [X]
g.
Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? .........
[ ] [ ] [X]
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ...
[ ] [ ] [Xj
b.
Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ...................................
[ 1 [ 1 1X1
YES MAYBE NO
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view.open to the public? ................... [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? ....................... [ ] [ ] [X]
C. Will the visual impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ ] [ ] [X]
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X]
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? .............. [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? ... [ ] [ ] [X]
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ] ( ] [X]
d. Will the.proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ..................... ( ] [ ] [X]
C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality
Act states, in part, that if any of the following can
be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a
significant effect.on the environment and an
Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared.
1. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory? ................. [ ] [ ] [X]
2. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well into the future.) ........... [ ] [ ] (X]
YES MAYBE NO
3. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the total
of those impacts on the environment is significant.) ( ]
4. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? ......... [ ]
D.
On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED . .................................... (X]
Although the proposed project COULD have a significant
effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described in this Initial Study
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED ..................................... ( ]
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required . ......................................... ( ]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
f3�M0t 14
Date Sig Loo
Jef Vchaffin, Assistant Planner
Name and Title
t r C 11�, huad
l I m1}(�,`'('" er' fN0 t 0M W. Ni. TCN o I� l,.I S�^ry�.,�r 4j 3/�1 - CiV o9 p]�daal. f _ll� % Ij ISV(vHURl \a��
al �
P0
gl4l O Ori ^ tS' U< liIIn10I2 pe 2 h � p \ e{wl Wn , I C>� wye^E � �' amore !o .l j �/ �Q SPRINGS 1�
` r G � _ Q CNeMe Ge.M'+n b St 9 » WWWWI1illlrrr C�'b � A' d ' nMwr� \a\\ I'+ COMM dr � i P
� — � aeamar - O ° a " `-�-F a i a 51. t 0
ONBY �` Y„aDe a _ R ,
xvrcracA YON 5 g�
+„Road Runner (Fi
1-' Sour 3',i� ae DA�i a`N...� m R .�\�
tlnner S ¢ soK/`u Marl <n St. 4Q SOLEMINt Y c 9 Iry `.\
I fo ..wrn i ce_ CN MN OF_iD_AGO_-� ene �D.f =_ ¢I a 1 FWWl C..I
-1
Nt
>I .....�_... -. ......_..._ ela k0e ca in
i
. H°11
Eater VA alleeRamrOal
Incnhd CJO°ff'4}
�
Rd.
o\i �navo"a uS�FVALUT RIENDLY� .�. OYye° CiefC pPl` I �� on�4 Blvtl �I I '^� 2 vl
GOLF,”- s Gae\a J _
ml( 'tI r COURS .e- 8t of ane0 ` ,%i 31 a�n�nd: �I
FRIENDLY - Teen °ofc/4mtia ko. pol; a� I =
mJl VALLEY _ \ 99 l
c nry ak a qq'O+-.Tt3[e5 <> �iT 1
Z C L > \ COry
A�a� r� �. SaMDiperN 5 a L° 0\ peg O .c" ly Ic Q F m
$t.
apt \ Gr YAl1EY VIEwf Y e `14 \ �JaBf $l ~I
i Po( a\ Gol Valle weaOe br. .� agt. \ ,� I I
I GOLDEN �� - f -. _... / 1, na Radclay St. ISULPHUR
NGS
t"p c1 i Green Mountain S'o Q/ �"?� �, c
VALLEY . ; x I
j'°l�fl 1 Goldn ePm 1 '` .� Faber $ta a o I
'' o Falterm 1 I
Sl.
%helly., Road9Ei Ravenylen Rd.
eY \n - �Q 1 \.� 0 t T
Frn Roatl R r / \�\� \\ 4 r Pinevrew Rd lT
ill �OQj \ia
r wll N plL / \ ,tel hiotnrv,,
/ TenderfPor Trail Rd.`..�
o-
Ro O. it _ _ kwe I ROAf
Kay Dr. J°r
ROAD Il Sal( t? re:::>:-.~.m.::^.:�n:.r:.-:'nss:.._,. .y.p:.....,. _.................-� ......._..... r........ _ _ ... ......_.
her q g Po 1 ANGELES �/ li NATIONAL FOREST
rrrrfr a
ill y O"Jden GaOa \nra \PD m f PLACERITA tl/t
! Un `Z' f• :. :.-NATURE CflvrER.I:-.T.
n
pt.wt
I �canlvoN
72n \V CERITA e H ... �...�:'`': `1._
CP' T'Yirne
e % PLA N rte%\�. L'.:::_ .....•:..
y / i.` ' PLACERITA CANYON I:
STATE PARK
0
L_j
4L
0
9
SIKAAID PROPERTi TENT. TR. N! 43/45
811E£R KET — IMP, 400 Cr
TRACT Ns 450PP
CUT: V3,440
FILL: 6TP, /60
IMPORTED FROM : a,9,540
GOLDEN VALLETRd
IMPORTEO FROM. /9, /00
�, AREA A'
A"
C617 -O& KINO .
069. P50
EXPORT 70 TR. 45022 :
/9. I00
EXPORTTOPARKSME :
77/,/90
EXPOR7 TO TRE REST :
/7B, 960
OF TR. 46B 93
PARK SITE
CUT I26, /60
FILL , 697, 350
IMPORT : 771, 190
TRACT Ns 4BB9P
CUT.
/,043,000
F/LL :
1,166,140
IMPORMD FROM:
/53,/40
COL04NVA14ETRd.
TRACT 40992
EX/STING RE5I0ENTYAL
i TRACT N3 30396
1 GOLDEN YRLLEY ROAD
CUT: SE7,6P0
FILL: 305, /40
EXPoRT70TR.496`72: /55, 140
EXPO R7 70 TR. 45OZZ: 69.540
DIRT MOVEMENT MAP
TR. N_^ 30396
EX/ST. RES/DENTAL
4
I0 CUT
1, 310 IMPORTED
17, SPO
ALEX L. 1 (:NIL CNGINEEP . LAND KANNERS. LING SUHV IY
CNK, a<ou�enmx..e Li 1.0 e.1 aQAUS uuvoxxl101000
6T: A. L. _ _4.I":. .0 W 1010 010 13
e
�
_
`12r G1l
d
G' er
°r
a�
GreeniaV
�V
Vir eo.
✓✓urcracker
ONBY
�
I
e
�
_
`12r G1l
d
G' er
°r
a�
GreeniaV
�V
Vir eo.
✓✓urcracker
Linnet C
V-. laarr
FRIENDLY
VALLEY
0
it Road
It Road "�
�tl L
w v".
m'
rl
Kay Dr. ROY7
we, o u G
ay o r--- - SCN
��. Uc ;ti Irnore
Q Q CMAM.ICartyort
1Q COMM. ounfrN
91
o_
x FRIENDLY
a VALLEY
r, n� q GOLF
3reen ?, day- _
i C
! Dolsnc I �,
SOLEMI
Fa Jakes WY. ! C
ROPO Ca tc
RP,pn pt
ask Blvd ;
°4
ay
KaQo Ocessa
[ales
I
a.
(,tit1V
•_ `.dam Flan
oad Runner
Rd.
3 CPr
C I
d
�1Q
Valle Ranch =
Rd. ,
I
CaaKon Oak
I Rd;\
a I .
p maty m i9 bt .. .�.• . , -
P�irt e a�G C ,5 t
�� I m ° F
ce as\ t°c O •cam Q !y is Q �
etraEsta Ot' 'mP 0 oy P � 14
V/EW t 0s L • R
ye84e
EL H. aglebaCt St.
Rad.
Green Moun n
0.
scar rn�N i m
sOr Ci
Goldstre9 Faltet.
¢
M
1 ✓'� r S
N �a C
a° y' t• \ ��de 1� ° I
a
I •c wbas r �--`�U Inc
o
\
80
Mo
�.1Motorwa 1I
trrail
Rd. se�Ic,01
t
7 0 0;% I
>. .....J :T. :::. s..... ,TT .... .. ......P:iu f,7a I— —.:-•,-;?'}-.- -?- Ui.-:rr.--t r-rr r- -__ ................. t .a
o��- pia �a Po \aft ANGELES' '�ih)� NATIONAL
n C ?4: \e?ra . SPG m ?LACERITA
Canyon
I_. r —� �.•'"� 3Canyon F
r- ( NANRE&krER:. --- J
r lacerits•--.-t � C�
LACERtiTA t N.ION to.1�ti,'' _•_';•�.;;i':'��
Gp' 1}xit-x'Picnic Area
l7;: 1
� PLACERITA CANYON
-
1.`�3". �., — STATE PAR".,j
I
Sultus
WLPHUR`
SPRINGS
1
CCi sac
1 •�I �
I I1 w
I` Raven len Rd.� a
T �d 1� d
1 < o• �
Pineview Rd. ton' �n
I j n
I I
1 o °�..
°
�
1 I
1..., n �.., rt.,ia ...ROAD
FOREST
rt—... of
K
C/.
n -F nravtnn SI
51 KAND PROPERTY _
SHEER KEY -- 128, 400 Cr
TENT. TR, N2 43145
TRACT Ne 48892
Efisj(� CUT : 11043.,000
/ F14L : /1190, 140
IMPORTED FROM : 153,140
GOLDEN VAL46M.'.
TRACT Ng 45.022
CUT : 783, 440
FILL: &72, /60
Ile IMPORTED FROM : 69, 540
GOLDEN VALLEiRd /
/MOORreo AREA OAQOM : /9, /00 A I��At
\\
„A M
CUT � BULKING : 969, ZSO
EXPORT M TR. 45OZZ : //i, /00
EXPORT TO PARK 5/TE 77/? 190
EXPORT TO THE REST : 17B, 960
OF TR. 4BB 93
PARK SITE
CUT :
FILL :
IMPORT :
/got I60
697, 350
771,160
TRACT 48892
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
TRACT Ne 303900
GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD
I
DIRT A40VE14EAI T MAP
TR. N° 3039 Co
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL
.16, 2I0
113/0
/ 7, 520
i
DATE . B/PP/90
DES
BY: RLEX L. CIVILENGINEERS- LAND PLANNERS • LAND SURVEYORS
CNK. 24013 VENTURA BOULEVARD. CALABASAS, CALIFORNIA 91302
8Y : A. L. (818) 9965580 FAX (818) 99&5813
CUT :
S27,,620
FILL:
305, 140
E,YPoRT TO TR.48B92:
153,140
EXP0,PT R9 TR. 450ZZ:
09,540
I
DIRT A40VE14EAI T MAP
TR. N° 3039 Co
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL
.16, 2I0
113/0
/ 7, 520
i
DATE . B/PP/90
DES
BY: RLEX L. CIVILENGINEERS- LAND PLANNERS • LAND SURVEYORS
CNK. 24013 VENTURA BOULEVARD. CALABASAS, CALIFORNIA 91302
8Y : A. L. (818) 9965580 FAX (818) 99&5813