Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-03-13 - AGENDA REPORTS - PC APPEAL TTM 46879 (2)r AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval. Item to be presented— PUBLIC resented—PUBLIC HEARING Mark Scott DATE: March 13, 1.990 SUBJECT: Appeal from Planning Commission Denial Without Prejudice -- Tentative'Tract Map 46879. DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND 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 followingfindings, 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: ,�! Jam\ Agenda Item: Bridge and General Flood Issues - The Planning Commission was advised by staff that the proposed project would not likely cause any worsening in the flood 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. c) Continue 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 (option "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. Cid 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. ATTACHMENTS .1. Appeal letter submitted by Jim and Rita Chatterley. 2. Staff report'to the Planning Commission dated January 2, 1990. 3. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 2, 1990. 4. Resolution of denial adopted by the -Planning Commission on January 16, 1990. 5. Correspondence from residents in the area. January 23, 1990 Mr. Mark Scott Director of Community Development CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Blvd., #300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Reference: Tentative Tract Map 46879 10 Acres 24766 Golden Oak _Lane Newhall, CA 91321 Dear Mr. .Scott: A& ASSOCIATES As owner and applicant of the referenced Tentative Map, we wish to offically appeal the decision to deny the application as presented on January 2, 1990. We .suggest the City Council request the Planning Commission reopen the -hearing to allow for: 1. PUBLIC WORKS INPUT: Allow time for the Director of Public Works to present his views on: A. IMPROVED SAFETY: How the project's offsite improvements will improve the safety and -access -to 82 existing homes and one church during storm conditions. B. EQUESTRIAN TRAIL ROAD DESIGN: The unique equestrian neighborhood can be maintained by providing horse trails within the Street Right of Way adjacent to the paved streets. C. STREET DUST & MAINTENANCE: The Street paving condition will enhance maintenance and eliminate dust (a concern of many residences and the City). D. PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL PLAN: If general information is available regarding improvements the City is consider- ing for the General Plan Recommendations that apply to Placerita Canyon, the- Planning Commission should con- sider these points. For example, is there a pos- sibility that the alignment of Rio Vista would provide all weather access north of. Placerita Creek? Have 24766 Golden Oak Lane Newhall, California 91321 805-254 3933 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 1/23/90 Page -2- other all-weather.access locations been conditioned or considered for other developments north of Placerita Creek? E. CITY BENEFITS: The Director of Public Works should address the benefits of the offsite improvements, i.e., maintenance, erosion control, trash/garbage collection, emergency access, etc. F. SPECIFIC DESIGN COMMENTS regarding the proposed bridge; i.e., flood control criteria - -height above high flood flow elevation, full span to eliminate debris trapping, channel improvements, etc. 2. TESTIMONY FROM SUPPORTING NEIGHBORS: Eight (8) separate neighbors living adjacent to the property were prepared to speak on behalf of the project. However, because of the late hour (10:15 P.M.), they went home before the hearing commenced. 3. CURRENT LOS ANGELES COUNTY GENERAL PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS: The City Planning staff should research and comment on any recommendations included in the L. A. County General Plan that may apply to Placerita Canyon. If we understood one of the reasons the Commission denied the project,without allow- ing a continuence for more input, were their concerns for a General Plan that specifieed improvements that would be required to minimize floor hazards. Feedback from the workshop meetings should be presented. 4. COMPARISON TO IRON CANYON DEVELOPMENT: The commissioners compared the Golden Oak Lane Development to Iron Canyon that was denied on the same evening. There are some basic differences: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 1/23/90 Page -.3- A. .3- A. OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS: Golden Oak required some offsite improvements to minimize flood hazards and paved streets to improve access to a large sector of the Com- munity. Iron Canyon Development did not have any off- site conditions. B. FLOOD PLAIN: Golden Oak house pads are designed above the flood plain where the runoff to the flood plain would be reduced. Many of the lots in Iron Canyon were in the flood plain. C. GRADING: Golden Oak requires approximately 20,000 c.y. of grading, where Iron Canyon would required 40,000 c.y., D. CUL-DE-SAC ACCESS: Golden Oak design includes a 650' long access to service the lots where Iron Canyon required 2400 L.F. 5. PLACERITA CREEK FLOODING: The neighbors presented photographs of the flooding at Placerita Creek. Ironically, the best way to address the neighbors' concerns is to design .a bridge to meet L. A. County Flood Control Criteria. 6. ADDITIONAL STUDIES: The Golden Oak Lane neighbors opposed the design of a creek crossing on Golden Oak Lane. However, the conditions al- lowed for a crossing at Choke Cherry. The applicant should be given an opportunity to study this location. The neigh- bors opposed the paving of Golden Oak Lane. The applicant should be the opportunity to present the studies and recom- mendations of Soil Stablization Products Company where all- weather access may be maintained with non-toxic, non - petroleum chemicals on flat streets. Also, the Engineer op CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 1/23/90 Page -4-. posed the structure bridge. Photographs of an existing low water crossing on Placerita Creek near Aden Street serving Placerita Country Estate Development should be presented to the Commission. 7. CORRECTION OF STAFF REPORT NARRATIVE: The residences and commission were concerned about the pos- sible requirement to request additional Oak Tree removal permits. NONE are required or requested. 8. Our project proposed an overall density of .5 du/per acre, with 5 homes on 10 acres. This is a lower density that ex- ists within the adjacent developed areas. The 10 _acres to the southwest has 18 homes, the 10 acres to the south has 11 homes, and the 10 acres to the southeast has 8 homes. 9. Our project can provide vital funds for improvements to the floodway. We ahve also offered to allow a helicopter pad to be located on Lot 3 to improve emergency evacuation. 10. The minimal modification of the flood plain was approved by the City Public Works Department. No additional grading will occur within the flood plain and the City's engineer, Mr. Kopecky stated that he felt our project would have a negligible affect on the amount of flood water. 11. Slopes will be planted with native ground cover species to minimize erosion and maximize water percolation into the groundwater table. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 1/23/90 Page -5- 12. The idea of a low water crossing was suggested by Fire Cap- tain Don Pierpont and tentatively approved by Fire Captain Bruce Mitchell. Captain Mitchell was the Fire Department's land division. expert at the time the County's legal counsel recommended the requirement for a full-scale bridge. Please contact the undersigned with your suggestions regarding the next step that must be taken and any•procedural matters. I understand there is a City fee of $325 required for filing an ap- peal. The check is enclosed. Sincerely, Jim L. Chatterley cc: Don Hale (Hale & Associates) File E•1 March 5, 1990 Mr. George Caravalho CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CLERK/MANAGER 23920 Valencia Blvd-. Santa Clarita, CA 91355, Reference: TENTATIVE TRACT 46879., Subject: City Council -Appeal March 13, 1990 Mr. Caravalho: J4. & ASSOCIATES M � I understand any written data that must be submitted for the City Council review must be received one week prior to the scheduled hearing date. Please accept -one of the following data: * Signed petitions and letters representing 29 Placerita Canyon residences. * Area map showing location of project supporters. * Area map showing comparable lot sizes. * Regional Topography showing proposed pad elevations relative to ridge line. * Tentative Tract Map 46879. * Letter from Watt Industries: Bridge would not be used for access to vacant properties north of.subject site. Letter dated January 23, 1990 by Project Land Owner, identifying design considerations. * Colored Xerox showing schematic design of proposed bridge. * Agenda for hearing presentation. 24766 Golden Oak Lane 805-254-3933 Newhall, California 91321 George Caravalho City of Santa Clarita 3/5/90 Page Two Please call if there is other data required or if we must meet any other appeal formalities. Sincerely, Jim L. Chatterley JLC/nh encl. cc: Rick Patterson Don Hale File L.A W rf E r 4 C E J RINK LJ"' t'1\:A 11. LESLIE K GROSSMAN 1 CHR IS 70 11­1ER L. M A H A N �'��'�^"\'I1 SII :. 1 �: II ._:I•: ;.,I \ �'1I-� 1 1:, 1. c.rrt �-•1 L , L.n .. .al nl,.. 1.1 r: .:, 1. December 26, 1989 City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 Re: Tentative Tract Map #46879 Proponent: Jim Chatterley Gentlemen: AREA CODE 918 TELEPHONE 781-0026 366-4140 I have reviewed the above tentative tract map proposal and have spoken with Mr. Chatterley extensively on this matter. I presently own 10 acres in the area and find no logical argument against the project. It is beneficial to the community to have a bridge for the community to be properly served especially with reference to the need in the areas of fire, police protection and related services. In order .to facilitate the services, necessary and proper paving of various areas would he beneficial to the community. I see only positive aspects to the above referenced proposal by Mr..Chatterley. Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation. Very truly yoiits, LA RENCE .TF RINK LJR:nl HARVEY L. RAWN 'P.O. Box 1553 Pacific Palisades, California 90272 (213)459-9335 Fax ( 213) 454-0605 February 19, 1990 Jim Chatterley J. R. & ASSOCIATES 24766 Golden Oak Lane Newhall, CA 91321 Re: Tentative Tract Map No. 46879 Golden Oak Lane & Oak Orchard Drive Dear Mr. Chatterley: As one who has a transaction in escrow for the purchase of a 2.5 acre parcel of land just West of Oak Creek Avenue at 21313 Oak Orchard Drive, I have interest in the progress of the subject project. In recent weeks, I have reviewed the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 46879 and attached City Conditions and was in attendance at the January 2, 1990, Planning Commission Meeting during which they were considered. Please be advised that I support the Conditions as approved by the Planning Department staff prior to the Meeting, and will be pleased to directly reaffirm that support to City representatives. Sincerely, H arve� R)wn I Lol/ �X N� co 6M s� o C) O 0 Cb d O I _ CC o I/ C o N / a OOo b 21 b Ad �ei�4rE L�rv� �ror�c T-r� 9 6 0�. V V l+ $ G L- m OAK LONE _ n g=z I rn z P. m l m um� m m • 'o 9 A V O (n 71 � ^600 - :;•,' '"� f O F yy � TSP 3S Nn r Ili • io �o `#. .. O mS O N � r q " \ to Own. rn „ it \ • 1 �• -1 i .. - m 0..—_4' •�(�"'��",�non� U�� // ,. ^__ .� /�!••'Q..��.//+ � soles �N� � �/�/� 4� u tib \ it� • pl L - F— . CWOKE s; _ CHERRY LANE K m >i m V1 m T m Dm #g r� p� m 0 i� f D z m � oN Z O AESOCIRTES, INC. 4G ENONEERS 24703 S:1N FERNf:/= Rom, NEWH:iII. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 46879 • TENTATIVE MAP 46879 OAK MEADOW ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PETITION - MARCH 1990 After reviewing the design and potential neighborhood improve- ments that are conditions of approval of the referenced develop- ment, i.e., all weather crossing of Placerita Creek and paving of Golden Oak Lane from Placerita Canyon Road to Oak Orchard Road., we the undersigned residents of the neighborhood support the development. Date Name 4 l ,, Address .7 2-20 21:22 40 M 7Z t?0 el 7 > Ke 27 3 11-21 Ai :Z 79 _11q 212 C� TENTATIVE MAP 46879 OAK MEADOW ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PETITION MARCH 1990 After reviewing the design and potential neighborhood improve- ments that are conditions of approval of the referenced develop- ment, i.e., all weather crossing of Placerita Creek and paving of Golden Oak Lane from Placerita Canyon Road to Oak Orchard Road., we the undersigned residents of the neighborhood support the development. Date Name Address OUT 3/Lj/� C) all & -,!5? 9 i��<Gl'�'l/I/xIl Oak C7rdic r P YY W5 .Zr rt -A- a rf 1k, a l6 3� Dt L 0 rchu rJ l -2,f - r %i oq ze- ,q14 J tc ! i if • TENTATIVE MAP 46879 OAK MEADOW ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PETITION MARCH 1990 After reviewing the design and potential neighborhood improve- ments that are conditions of approval of the referenced develop- ment, i.e., all weather crossing of Placerita Creek and paving of Golden Oak Lane from Placerita Canyon Road to Oak Orchard Road., we the undersigned residents of the neighborhood support the development. Date Name « t9 90 c f-F�tRR P M � �yS0 -etch �C F-03- 690 Address -LI 7/5- P4"4C.E2l7-65 SL✓D_ 2476;6, Z41 b b GP14v_ c,lerr�lav4x- y! . �G�-rt�►-t,G� TENTATIVE MAP 46879 OAR MEADOW ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PETITION MARCH 1990 After reviewing the design and potential neighborhood improve- ments that are conditions of approval of the referenced develop- ment, i.e., all,weather crossing of Placerita Creek and paving of Golden Oak Lane from Placerita Canyon Road to Oak Orchard Road., we the undersigned residents of the neighborhood support the development. Date Name Address /2 w(3 qS 0 �v � wr ��De� /l � 2i s C - Q �'7f g 32-/ qo CA ql3�l Alma- k. ov,o� y7j, 3 Qom, 3A/9 0 L�� u0 Z �r WATT INDUSTRIES, INC. P.O. BOX 2114 . 2716 OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90406-2114 (213) 450-0779 e FAX (213) 452-9134 FEB, 20: 1990 MR. IM "'HATTERLEY 25757 Parada Dr. Valencia, Calif. 91355 Dear Mr. Chatterley, it is my understanding that the question of• acres from P1aGerita area -o the 1TC•ie "'T" development has been raised during the course of yo.-�r processing a s._�bdi v-- sion of land on property to the South of Circle 11 1" Watt -America is currently attempting to process a �'.evelopment plan for the remainder of the Circle "7" development and 1 .can assure yo�7 that we ha,,e no plans 4. aGGe6S Circle "J" from the P1aGerita area. Sincerely, Watt lneustries.'%�nr. Davila C. Jo sZ1 ` i1 i1 •_ IV :\ \\'.-\TT ENTERPRISES COMPANY I. II. 0 OAK MEADOW ESTATES TENTATIVE TRACT 46879 CITY COUNCIL APPEAL AGENDA MARCH 13, 1990 Project Overview A. Response to City Presentation and Report. B. Project Positive Features. Lower density comparison, oak tree preservation, flood and fire safety through improvements, equestrian trails, ground water recharging, school agreements. C. Hillside Grading: Control Grading/Ridge Line Protection. Project Specifics A. Drainage. Pad elevations, ground water recharg- ing, no modification of existing drainage pat- terns. B. On-site Improvements. Equestrian trail, street pavement, retention basis, heli -stop @ cul-de-sac. C. Off-site Improvements. Street pavement speed limit signs, Placerita Creek crossing, single span, park and flood control approvals. Choke Cherry. Golden Oak. Other. Area wide improvements/less maintenance. Project Planning A. 'Coordination meetings with neighbors, slide presentation. IV. Project Support A. Letters, signed partition area map. i V. Legal Issues A. Planning Review Based Upon Current Zoning and Development Guidelines. B. Fair, Responsible Decision. C. Offsite Reimbursement Agreement by Other Projects Who Benefit for Lot Splits. VI. Other Proponents VII. Summary A. Offsite Improvement Benefits, 82 Existing Residences and Church. B. "Catch -Up Development. C. Final Design Approval By City and County En- gineers. D. Consistent Quality Planning. r. 40 _Q CAI r. x '���' • CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 46879 PUBLIC NOTICE IS.HEARBY GIVEN: A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission denial of Tentative Tract Map 46879. The appeal will be heard by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st floor, the 13th day of March, 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. Futher information may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's office, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd floor. Dated: George Caravalho City Clerk CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 46879 DATE: January 2, 1989 TO: airwoman Garasi Memb o the Planning Commission FROM: Ken P 1 alp Acting Director of Gommunity Development APPLICANT: Jim and Rita Chatterley LOCATION: 24766 Golden Oak Lane REQUEST: To subdivide an approximately 10 acre parcel:.:i.nto _five (5) parcels for single-family residences. RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the attached Negative Declaration with=the finding that the proposed project will not have.:a significant effect on the environment. . 2. Approve Tentative Tract Map 46879 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). 3. Adopt the attached Resolution. BACKGROUND 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.) Permitted density for the project was determined according to Section 22.56.215 of the Santa Clarita Planning & Zoning Code, 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 50Z. Application of the hillside regulations 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 existing zoning is A-1-1, Light Agriculture, 1 acre minimum lot size. The General Plan designation, existing zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is a request for a subdivision of the existing 10 -acre parcel into five lots for single family residences. The lots will range in net area from approximately 1.02 to 2.14 acres. Access to all five parcels is proposed via Golden Oak Lane and Oak Meadow Street. The site has approximately 660 feet of frontage on Oak Orchard Drive, and 660 feet of frontage on a northerly extension of Golden Oak Lane, marked on the tentative map as "Lot 0." There is one new single family residence, and detached garage on the site. Both Oak Orchard and Golden Oak Lane are public streets, and are unimproved adjacent to the subject property. Oak Meadow is proposed as a new private street. Paving is required for Golden Oak and Oak Meadow as a condition -of -approval. --Additionally; offsite-,-road-improvements will be required to provide all weather vehicle access, subject to Fire Department requirements. These improvements include paving of Golden Oak Lane to Placerita Canyon Road, and constructing an on -grade bridge over Placerita Creek on Golden Oak Lane. General Plan Zoning Land Use Site HM,,W A-1-1 (New) Residential Single Family North HM A-1-1 Vacant East HM.and W A-2-1 Residential Single Family South W A-1-20000 Residential Single Family West HM and W A-1-1 Residential Single Family PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is a request for a subdivision of the existing 10 -acre parcel into five lots for single family residences. The lots will range in net area from approximately 1.02 to 2.14 acres. Access to all five parcels is proposed via Golden Oak Lane and Oak Meadow Street. The site has approximately 660 feet of frontage on Oak Orchard Drive, and 660 feet of frontage on a northerly extension of Golden Oak Lane, marked on the tentative map as "Lot 0." There is one new single family residence, and detached garage on the site. Both Oak Orchard and Golden Oak Lane are public streets, and are unimproved adjacent to the subject property. Oak Meadow is proposed as a new private street. Paving is required for Golden Oak and Oak Meadow as a condition -of -approval. --Additionally; offsite-,-road-improvements will be required to provide all weather vehicle access, subject to Fire Department requirements. These improvements include paving of Golden Oak Lane to Placerita Canyon Road, and constructing an on -grade bridge over Placerita Creek on Golden Oak Lane. Grading of approximately 40,000 cubic yards of earth is required for this project. All excavated earth is planned to be balanced on site. The grading is necessary to create level building pads for the single family residences, which are proposed to be clustered in the hillside areas of the site. This clustering minimizes encroachment into the projected zones of oak trees on the site. There are approximately 56 Coast Live Oak trees remaining on the site. In February, the Planning Commission approved the removal of four trees to permit construction of one single-family residence. (OTP 88-540) `These trees have been removed. No additional oak trees are proposed to be affected by this subdivision, as building pads have been located away from the primary oak grove area. However, subsequent oak tree permits may be required for future construction of residences. Recently, the applicants installed a sprinkler system and lawn in the vicinity of the trees' protected -zones. "The. -applicant was informed by staff that this irrigation was likely to be detrimental to the health of the remaining trees, and that .the installation of the system was in violation of Sections 22.56:2090:and'22.56.2100 of the City Oak`Tree Preservation Ordinance 89-010. The applicant has advised staff that the irrigation system will be removed as soon as -possible. A mitigation agreement with both the William S. Hart High School District and the Newhall Elementary School District has been signed by the.Chatterleys, and the school districts.:have given their support to this major land division. ANALYSIS The subdivision as proposed is reasonable and appropriate for the site and vicinity, and no substantial environmental impacts are foreseen. Therefore, the staff recommends approval of this request. KP/CMK/ Cf- 9. F INITY MAP N O . Tentative Tract Map 46879 w PEtCfr--MrP • �► - CRS LOCATIOAf Cc`, � QQ � t �i T� -' w.t_s-ws_«.; 4,i'83t.�'-�. __ .4��.•�y1l.r�� Y.w.J(,i.A��tr:. _ EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 46879 GENERAL r� 1. She.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. PARRS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 5. The applicant shall provide ramps for equestrian access across the proposed bridge on Golden Oak Lane to the satisfaction of the City Parks and Recreation Department. Said ramps shall be constructed or�bonded for prior to the recordation of the map. 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. 7. Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall submit to the City of Santa Clarita park fees for five single-family residences, pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 21.24.340 and 21.28.140. 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. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, all-weather access shall be provided via a bridge to be constructed on Golden Oak Lane or Choke Cherry Lane across Placerita Creek. Said bridge shall be constructed or bonded for prior to the -recordation -of the map. 14. 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. 15. Fire hydrant requirements are as follows: Install 1 Public Fire hydrant. �__ 9 0 0 16. 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 17. The owner's statement Indicates that domestic water will be supplied by Newhall County Water District. 18. 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. PUBLIC VORKS DEPARTMENT 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. 20 All offers of dedication shall be noted by certificate on the face of the final map. 21. The final map shall�be•prepared by or under the -direction of a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer. 22. A final tract map must be processed through the City Engineer prior to being filed with the County Recorder. 23. Extend lot/parcel lines to the center of private and future streets. q_1 10 24. 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. 25. Mailboxes and posts shall be installed per City standards. Secure approval from the Post Office prior to installation. 26. Provide letter(s) of slope easement(s) and drainage acceptance as directed -by the City Engineer or Director of Public Works. 27. 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. 28. If offsite improvements are required, it shall be the sole responsibility of the developer to acquire the necessary right of way and/or easements. 29. 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. 30. 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. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. 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 32. 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. T��� 33. 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. 34. A grading plan must be submitted and approved prior to approval of the final map. 35. A detailed Engineering Geotechnical report must be approved prior to the recordation.of the -map. 36. All geologic hazards associated with this proposed development must be eliminated prior --to the issuance of building permits for Lots 2-5. 37. A geology and/or soil engineering report may be required by the Director of Public Works prior to approval of building or grading plans. 38. 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. IV_- 13 CERTIFICATION DATE: APPLICANT: TYPE OF PERMIT: FILE NO.: r— CITY OF SANTA CLARITA N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N Jim and Rita Chatterlev Tentative Tract Map TTM 46879 LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: 21198 Oak Orchard Road .DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Subdivision of a 10 net acre parcel into 5 lots in the A-1-1 Zone. [ ] City Council It is the opinion of [ ] Planning Commission [X] Director upon review that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. Mitigation measures [X] are attached [ ] are not attached 4 Form completed by: vel.�L (Signature) l Christine Kudija, Junior Planner (Name and Title) Date of Public Notice: December 8. 1989 [X] Legal advertisement. [X] Posting of properties. [X] Written notice. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CASE NO. TTM 46879 Project Location: Project Description and -Setting: Prepared by: Christine Kudija 21198 Oak Orchard Road, northeast of Oak Orchard and Golden Oak Lane. Proposed subdivision of 10 acre Parcel into five proposed parcels. General Plan Designation HM (Hillside Management) and W (Watershed) Applicant: Jim and Rita Chatterley Environmental Constraint Areas: Flood hazard area. Oak Trees, Fire Zone 4 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] [ l [ ] C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ........................... [x] [ ] [ d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? .................................. [ l [ l [Xl e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? .......... [ ] [X] [ l f. Exposure of people or property to geologic .hazards.such as -earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ................................... [ ] [ l [Xl g. ..Changes in.deposition, erosion or siltation? ................................. [ ] [Xl [ l h. Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? ........................... [ ] [x] [ l 2. 3. 2 - YES MAYBE NO i. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? ....................... [x] j. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 252 natural grade? ............ [ ] [ ] [X] k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X] 1. Other? [ ] [ ] [X] Air. Will the proposal result.in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? .................... [ ] [ ] [X] 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? ...................................... [ ] [ ] [X] e. Other? [ ] [ ] [X] Yater. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ............................ [ ] [X] [ ] b. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? .............................. [ ] [ ] [X] C. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ......................... [ ] [ ] [X] d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ ] [ ] [X] e. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X] 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? ............ [ ] [ ] [X] g. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ............................ [ ] [ ] [X] 3 - YES MAYBE NO h. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? .......... [ J [xJ [ ] i. Other? [ ] [ ] [X] 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] S. 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? ..... [ ] [ J [XJ 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] 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [x] [ ) [ ] b. Exposure of people to severe or ....unacceptable noise levels? ................. [ ] [ J [X] C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [ J [ ] [XJ 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? ................. [ ] [XJ [ J 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial alteration of the present land use of an area? ........................ [X] [ ] [ J b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of an area? ............... [ ] [ ] [X] - 4 - YES MAYBE NO C. A use that does not adhere.to existing zoning laws? ............................... [ l [ l [Xl d. A use that does not adhere to established development criteria? ...................... [ ] 9. Natural.Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ................................. [ ] b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable naturalresources? ......................... [ j 10. Risk of Upset/Nan-Made 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? .......................... [ ] b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard- ous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ................................ [ .] C. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ...................................... [ l d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety hazards? ................................... [ l 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? ..................... [ ] b. Other? [ ] 12. Housing. Will the proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? [ ] b. Other? [ ] 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ........................ [ ] [ l [Xl [ ] [Xl [ l [Xl [ l [Xl i• - 5 - YES MAYBE NO b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ................. [ ] [ ) [X] C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? ............................ [ ] [ ] [X] d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? .............................. [ ] [ ] [X] e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles.,.bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [ ] [ ] [X] f. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? .............................. [ ] [ ] [X] 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? ........................... [X] [ ] [ ] b. Police protection? ......................... [ ] [ ] [X] C. Schools? .. ............. ................. [ ] [X] [ ] d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .... [ ] [X] [ ] e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ........................... [ ) [ ] [X] f. Other governmental services? ............... [ ] [ ], [X] 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in? a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy. .................................... [ ] [ ] [X] b. .Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? .. [ ] [ ] [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? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X] b. Communications systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [X] C. Water systems? ............................. [ ] [X] [ ] d. Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [X] e. Storm drainage systems? .................. [ ] [ ] [X] 6 - YES MAYBE NO f. Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [ ] [ ] [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)? ... [ ] [ ] [X] b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ..................................• [ ] [ ] [X] 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? ................... [ ] b. Will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ....................... [ ] C. Will the visual impact of the proposal be detrimental to the surrounding area.? [ ] 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ] 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? [ ] b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? ... [ ] C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ] d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ..................... [ ] Discussion of Impacts. Section Subsection 1 a,b.c,e,g,i 1 h 3 a 3 h 4 a.c 6.7 a 8 a 13 a 14 a,c,d 16 c 18 c 7 _ Evaluation of Impact The applicant has indicated that approximately 40,000 cubic yards of on-site grading will occur. A bridge crossing Placerita Creek at Golden Oak Lane, providing all weather access to the subject property, is required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department as a condition of approval. Project may increase runoff levels. A portion of the project lies within a natural floodway. Excavation and construction will remove native vegetation. Future residences will increase levels of ambient noise and localized light and glare. Development of previously undeveloped and vacant land will occur if this project is approved. Development of undeveloped land will raise local traffic levels. The project requires installation of fire protection and water service systems. See above. The project requires the installation of a bridge on Golden Oak Lane as discussed in lh above. Introduction of an engineered structure into the predominantly rural atmosphere of this area may be considered to be a negative visual impact. 8 - Discussion of Impacts. Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact 1 a,b,c,e,a,i The potential significant impacts of the on-site grading can be mitigated through common engineering practices such as compaction and slope stabilization. Erosion may be increased during excavation work; however, it can be mitigated to a level of insignificance under existing City erosion control measures, and long term effects should -be -insignificant. The proposed grading plan has been reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Department. No significant impacts are anticipated. A low -profile, on -grade bridge to provide all-weather emergency access has been required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department for approval of the project. While some disturbance of the stream channel will be created by construction of bridge supports, little change of the wash environment from the current state (an "Arizona crossing") is anticipated by City public works engineers. Ramps for equestrian use will be provided to bypass the bridge. No significant impact is anticipated. 3 a The project may increase runoff levels, but the potential significant impact can be mitigated during the final engineering of the grading and pad excavation. Drainage systems will be subject to City Public Works Department approval. 3 h A portion of the property lies within the natural floodplain of Placerita Creek, but impacts should be negligible as all proposed pad locations and future residences will be required to be elevated above the floodplain areas. 4 a __The project will require the removal of 4 Coast Live Oak trees, which was approved by the City Planning Commission on February 21, 1989. (Oak Tree Permit No. 88-540) To minimize effects on _the-remaining.oak-trees on the property, building pad locations are set substantially away from the areas of oak groves. Other native vegetation will be removed as a result of site grading. Additionally, common non -indigenous landscape plants are likely to be introduced as site landscaping. This will change the existing vegetative character of the site. However, the 9 - level of impact is not anticipated to be significant, due to the low-density nature of the anticipated development which corresponds to the surrounding land uses. The development of the site may result in short and long-term reduction in habitat, population, and diversity of existing chaparral and oak woodland fauna. However, the level of impact on these factors is not expected to be substantial because this habitat type remains widespread throughout the area. Additionally, the project is of an infill nature and will not result in a barrier to wildlife movement or migration. 6 a "The project may result in short-term increases of ambient noise levels during anticipated construction activity. No significant long-term ..impact is anticipated. 7. 8a, 13a The project site is currently undeveloped; however, it lies within a general plan designation for hillside management that permits residential land uses at a low density. Community Development staff have determined that the project density conforms to that permitted in hillside areas. The zoning also permits residential development at 1 unit per acre, and the project is consistent with this density. The development of primarily vacant property with 5 residences will increase the amount of light produced in the vicinity. Traffic levels will also increase slightly. However, these impacts are not anticipated to be substantial because of the limited scale of the project. 14a, c, d. 16c The project will require the installation of fire protection improvements, and water service system expansions to eliminate the potential significant impacts on the area. School and Park development fees will serve to mitigate the potential impacts of this project on those public services. Additionally, the applicants have entered into a mitigation agreement with both school districts, and have received school support for this project. 18c The required bridge may be considered to be a negative visual impact on this predominantly rural area. Presently, Golden Oak Lane is a dirt road, and the appearance of surrounding residences is one that is characteristic of a rural setting. The installation of a bridge may be perceived as an introduction of an undesirable urban visual element. However, the benefits for emergency protection may outweigh potential negative aesthetic impacts. Mitigation measures may include requiring submission of bridge designs for review for aesthetic considerations by Community Development staff. With this condition, significant aesthetic impact can be avoided. 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. YES MAYBE NO 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 sus- taining 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? ................. [ ] [ ] [Xj 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] 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.) .. [ J [ ] [X] 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ......... [ ] [ ] [XJ D. DETERMINATION 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 isrequired. ......................................... [ ] r - 12 - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT "i CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA j ? December 5, 1989 Date Signature Christine Kudija, Junior Planner Name and Title 0 1-2-90 PC PCI -130 MEETING OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY January 2, 1990 6:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of 'the. Planning Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Garasi., .at 6:38 p.m., in the _ Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa .,Clarita.,._Cal.if ornia. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Sharar led the Pledge of Allegiance to the ..f.lag of the United -States of America. ROLL .CALL The Secretary called'the-roll. Those present were _Commissioners Modugno, Sharar and Worden, Vice .Chairman Brathwaite, and Chairwoman Garasi. Also present were .City Attorney Diary Gayle; Assistant City Manager Ken Pulskamp; Director of Community Development Mark Scott; Building and Engineering Services Manager Dick Kopecky; Principal Planner Richard Henderson; Assistant Planner Fred Follstad; Junior Planner Chris Kudija; and Secretary Stephanie Kuhn. 'APPROVAL OF It was moved by Brathwaite, seconded by Worden, and MINUTES unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 19, 1989, as amended. ITEM 1 Mr. Pulskamp introduced this item which was CCNDITIONAL continued from November 21, 1989. The applicants USE PERiMIT are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to expand 89-006 the use of Atlasta Ranch to accommodate a series of equestrian events throughout the year. Mr. Follstad presented information contained in the staff report. Staff's recommendation is for approval. Chairwoman Garasi declared the public hearing open at 6:45 p.m. Sneaking in favor of the item was the applicant Terry Payne, who voiced her dissatisfaction with conditions 16 and 20. Speaking in opposition was Karen Frycklund, 24737 Aden Avenue. Regarding condition 16, the Commission directed staff to revise the requirement for the suitable. striping of parking spaces to state "at the Director's discretion." Condition 20, regarding the removal of. truck.. trailers, will be similarly revised to state ,at the Director's discretion." Staff was also asked to ensure that both the stiff report and the conditions of approval reflect the correct \._ 1-2-90 I] PC PCI -131 number of horse shows allowed within the year which is six. Hearing no further comments favoring or opposing the matter, Chairwoman Garasi declared the public hearing closed at 7:06 p.m. In addition to the aforementioned changes, it was ......determined .that the conditions would be further revised as follows. At the end of the one year trial period granted -by the conditional use permit, another full public hearing will be held; and at that time, a requirement .for .bridge and thoroughfare fees may be re-examined. Also, the applicant will submit a calendar of the six events scheduled for the coming year. In conclusion, .it -was moved by'Modugno, seconded by Sharar, and unanimously carried to (1) approve the negative declaration with the finding that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on .the environment; (.2) approve Conditional Use Permit 89-006, subject to the conditions of approval as revised; and (3) .-_adopt the ,resolution. ITEM 2 Mr. Follstad presented -this request -to subdivide TENTATIVE TRACT 33.93 acres of land .into "12 single family lots. The 41812 AND OAK applicant is also asking to .remove one oak tree. TREE PER`4IT '89-`016 "The staff reccmmended a conditional approval, * including'project reduction to 10 lots, by the elimination of lots 11 and 12. Chairwoman Garasi declared the public hearing open at 7:30 p.m.. Speaking in favor of the item were Don Hale, 24303 San Fer^ardo =cad; and Linda Sherlock, 16285 Vasquez Canyon Road. Speaking in opposition were Greg Kidman, 26415 Josel Drive; Robert Stevenson, 15349 Iron Canyon Road; and Dorothy Riley, 21224 Placerita Canyon Road. Speaking again during the rebuttal period was Can Hale. Mr. Kopecky discussed the desirability of extending Warm Springs Road if development continues in the area. He also commented on the need for improved flood control measures there. COMMISSION RECESS COMMISSION RECONVENES Chairwoman Garasi stated her concern that flood waters rerouted over the years by new development would affect existing homes and that the opportunity to take preventative steps, that were not taken in the past, should not be lost. Chairwoman Garasi declared a recess at 8:25 p.m. Chairwoman Garasi called the meeting back to order at 8:4.9 p.m. 1-2-90 PC PC1-132 Chairwoman.Garasi declared the public hearing closed -at 8:52 p.m. Commissioner Worden indicated her concerns about ruling on.a project_ such_ as this one in which flood control and hillside management issues are paramount and with no City General Plan in place. The Commission concurred, and it was Mr. ....Pulskamp's suggestion that workshops be scheduled for the purpose of discussing hillside management and flooding. He stated that a new workshop schedule will be prepared for the next several months and submitted to the Planning Commission at the next meeting. The first workshop will be in March. In the ensuing discussion, the Commissioners.agreed that they did not have enough information to find that the proposed subdivision would be consistent with the City's evolving General Plan. Further, they felt that certain aspects of the proposal could contribute to unsafe conditions or inadequate infrastructure to support the development. In conclusion, it was moved by Sharar, seconded by Garasi, and unanimously carried to deny the .item without prejudice. A formal resolution of denial, with findings, will be placed on the January 16 agenda. 7k. ITEM 3 Mr. Pulskamp explained that a letter had been `�✓ OAK TREE received earlier in the day from Leisure Technology PERMIT 89-055 Corporation asking for the withdrawal of this request and recommended that the item be pulled from the agenda. _t was so ordered. ITEM 4 Ms. Kudija presented this request to subdivide an TENTATIVE approximately 10 acre parcel into five parcels for TRACT MAP 46879 single family residences. Staff's recommendation is for approval. Chairwoman Garasi declared the public hearing open at 9:28 p.m. Speaking in favor of the item were the agent for the applicant, Don Hale; and the applicant, Jim Chatterley, 24766 Golden Oak Lane. Speaking in opposition to the item were David Dennis, 24742 Golden Oak Lane; Barbara Bradley, 24755 Golden Oak Lane; Eugene Leary; Robert Leemon, 21231 Simay Lane; Wayne Valerius, 24711 Golden Oak Lane; and Dorothy Riley, 21224 Placerita Canyon Road. Mr. Hale spoke again during the rebuttal period. Of primary concern to those speaking against the project were flood control issues and the construction of a bridge. Mrs. Bradley was also concerned that a former City employee who worked on the project as a representative of Santa Clarita now works for Hale & Associates which represents the 1-2-90 PC PC1-133 applicants. City -Attorney Gayle stated that there is no legal problem with that. Mr. Henderson discussed the requirement for a bridge. He explained that, based on the policy followed since the early 1980s in north Los Angeles County, which includes the City of Santa Clarita, if the density is higher than one unit per five acres, convenient, all-weather access by paved road must be provided to each lot. If the applicant does not wish to construct the access bridge, staff recommends two five -acre parcels. Hearing no other comments favoring or opposing the item, Chairwoman Garasi declared the public hearing closed at 10:29 p.m. In addition to the bridge issue, Commission concerns about this project were similar to those regarding Item 2, the proposed Iron Canyon subdivision, i.e. flood control and hillside management. Following discussion, it was moved by Sharar and seconded by Worden to deny the project without prejudice. Motion carried by the following vote -- Ayes: Garasi, Mcdugno, Sharar and Worden; Noes: Brathwaite. A formal resolution of denial, with findings, will be placed on the January 16 agenda. VESTING 'TENTATIVE Mr. Pulskamp stated .that the Community Development '*.PARCEL MAP 20795, Department .requires additional review of this CONDITIONAL USE proposal prior to formulating a recommendation PER`?IT 89-002, AND to the Commission and recommends that the item be OAR TREE PERMIT continued to January 16, 1990. Accordingly, it was 89-013 moved by Mcdugno, seconded by Brathwaite, and unanimously carried to continue the item to January 16, 1990. CITY AND COUNTY The initial hearing on the County General Plan GENERAL PLAN Amendment will be held on January 4, 1990. Mr. UPDATE Pulskamp indicated that he will attend, along with Commissioner Worden and Mayor Darcy, to present the City's.writ ten and oral comments. DIRECTOR'S Director Mark Scott will be contacting members of ANNOUNCEMENTS the Planning Commission to schedule individual meetings..with each of them. Not only was this Mr. Scott's, first day, it was also the first day on the job for new Assistant Planner, Darene Sutherland. COMMISSION AGENDA The Planning Commissioners expressed their appreciation to Mr. Pulskamp for his hard work over the past several months as Acting Director. c 1-2-90 PC PC1-134 Commissioners also acknowledged Commissioner Sharar for attending the League of California Cities Conference: in San Francisco and expressed their appreciation that she was able to participate in the lengthy meeting that evening. PUBLIC BUSINESS Robert Silverstein, 19318 Flowers Court, president of the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment (S.C.O.P.E.),- requested .a written reply from the Commission to S.'C:O.'P.E.''s letter of December 29, 1989, regarding *Valencia `Company's proposed regional shopping center. ADJOURNMENT Chairwoman Garasi adjourned -the -meeting at 10:44 p.m. RITA GARA , .Chai:r-aoman Planning Commission ATTEST: IIAR_K SCOTT, Director Community Development City of Santa Clarita ft 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 hearing was held on the application by the Planning C =- ission on January 2, 1990 at the City Council Chambers, 21-920 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. ap.proximately 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 Areawi.de 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 25Z; the remaining 75Z of the property has slopes between 25Z and 50X. c. A portion of the subject (W) in the Santa Clarita C described above. property is shown as Floodvay Valley Areawide General Plan 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 has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained Cin 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. SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies approval for Tentative Tract Map 46879. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of January, 1990. v Rita Garasi, -airwoman Planning Commission r 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 regular 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 i'�y=GO-`ir Mark Scott, Director Community Development i March 5, 1990 City of Santa Clarita Council Jo Anne Darcy- Mayor Carl Boyer -Mayor Pro -Tem Dennis Koontz -Council man Jan Heidt-Councilwoman Howard McKeon -Councilman George Carevel ho -City Manager • Re: Tentative Tract Map 46879 Project Proponents: Ji m & Rita Chatterl y We enclose for your review the fol Iowi ng items: Letter dated December 14, 1989 disputi ng the fi ndi ngs of the Planni ng Staff of the City of Santa Clarita in their Negative Declaration on the above property area resident's signatures attached to our letter supporting our position Photographs with comments and explanations outlining our concerns of the potential flood problem in this canyon, particularly on Golden Oak Lane and Oak Orchard Road In addition, the recent ammonia spill from Arco flowed from Arco through the course outlined in photographs * 17 through *20, affi rmi ng the drai nage area of the north side of Placerita Canyon. A review of the Planning Staff's check list indicated that Lots 1,2 and 5 are subject to flood hazard and that provision should be made fur contri butory drei nage from adjoi ni ng properties . The list also indicated that portions of the property would be subject to sheet overflow. The Public Works check list supported the above comments. We concur with the Planning Commission findings that the sub -division should be denied without prejudice until the General Plan is adopted. We request that you reject Mr. Chatterl y's appeal of the Planni ng Commision's decision. e thank you for your consideration. /. ohn Brailey Barbara Bradley / 4755 Golden Oak Lane, Santa Clarita CA 91321 • December 26, 1989 City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission Chai rwomen Rita Gar asi Vice Chairman Louis Brat hwaite Commissioner Modugno Commissioner Sharer. Commissioner Morden Re: Tentative Tract Me 45879 Project Proponents: Jim & Rita Chatterly Project Description: Subdivision of a 10 acre parcel into 5 lots in the A-1-1 Zone Project Location: 21 198 Oak Orchard Road Assessor's Parcel: No. 2834-029-016 We are enclosi ng for your review the fol Iowi ng items: Lette r dated Dece m be r 14, 19 8 9 di s p uti ng t he fi ndi ngs of t he pl a n ni ng staff of the City of Santa Clarity in their Negative Declaration on the above property Area resident's signet ures attached to our letter supporting our position Photographs with comments and explanations outlining our concerns of the potential flood problem in this canyon, particularly on Golden Oak Lane and Oak Orchard Road The volume of water in the wash was much more spectacular, and , therefore was highly photographed. However, from 200 feet from the north benk of the mai n was h, the flow of the water on the canyon floor is toward the north side of the canyon. The volume is considerable. It is our belief that without adequate provision for disposal of flood waters that Oak Orchard Road will become a wash. We thank you fo (your consideration. Very truly yours, John Bradley Barbara Bradley 24755 Golden Oak Lane Santa Clarita CA 91321 Copy : ken Pulskamp Rich Henderson 9 • December 14, 1989 City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development Z3920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita CA 91355 Re: Tentative Tract Map 46879 Project Proponents: Jim &. Rita Chatterly Project Description: Subdivision of a 10 acre parcel into S lots in the A- 1-1 Zone Project Location: 21 198 Oak Orchard Road Assessor's Parcel: No. 2834-029-016 We would Ii ke to submit for your review the followi ng items which we believe to be i nvalid i n the Environmental Assessment report on Case No. TTM 46879. A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Section Subsection Eval uati on of I m pact 1 e Construction of the pad on level 1 encroached ten feet in the flood plain on the meadow below. Current hillside erosion will not decrease, but rather increase. 1 f We believe the answer should be Yes. Construction of similar pads on the :youth side of PI ace rita Canyon caused mudslides into the yards of property owners at the base of the hill. We believe the same situation could occur from the Chatterly property. 1 h A natural wash has been filled i n to construct the road leadi ng to pad 1. Si nee the water that flows i n this wash origi nates on the east side of Chokecherry and flows across Chokecherry through properties on Golden Oak Lane into the middle of the meadow on Chatterl y property, the disposition of this water is a major concern to property owners on Golden Oak Lane and Oak Orchard Road. In one area we believe the grading on a slope to be greater than 25% natural grade. 3 a.b.c.h We believe the answers to a,b,c, & h should be Yes. Reduction of the flood plain by the ten foot encroachment on the flood plain because of the construction of pad 1 with moved earth reduces the absorption area. The natural flow has been eliminated by t he fi 11 i ng of t he net u ral was h to c reate t he roadwa y. T he s u rface Ovate r wi 11 necesse ri 1 y i nc rease beac use of t he paved a rea . The tentative tract ma p s u b mi tted by Hale & Associates states no distinctive watercourses. That statement is completely invalid. It is quite evident to property owners in this area that flooding would be i mmi vent i n a heavy rain. Page One Although the proposed houses would be above the flood plain, the roadways and houses will eliminate absorption on the hillside which would increase the flow of water to the flood plain. 6 b It is our understanding that this will be a five year project for Mr. Chatterl y. To date we have been subjected to heavy traffic, dust, operation of heavy mac hi nery past the normal worki ng day, i ncl udi ng heavy equi pment operati ng on Sunday starti ng at 7 AM. Five years is too long a period to be exposed to this type of harassment. 1 1 a This answer should be Yes. The construction of five large houses i n the area would defi nitel y i ncrease the population density far the i mmediate area. 13 a Mr. Chatter] y'3 family has already increased the vehicular movement on Golden Oak Lane. Four more houses would only add to the increased traffic. Some i nterferenee with equestrian traffic +could be encountered by the increased vehicular traffic. 16 e, g We find no evidence of any proposal to install a drainage system so that current property owners will not be affected by the inevitable water run-off from a heavy storm. Currently there is no drainage syatem to dispose of the water. 18 a At the present ti me, equestrian traffic uses the gas company easement for access to the back. country. We bre extremely concerned with potential flooding problems. If the project is approved as requested by Mr. Chatterly, and if there should be a severe storm which causes flooding or mud damage to surrounding properties, we request that the approval state that either Mr_ Chatterly or the City of Santa Clarita be responsible and liable for such damage. We respectfully request that you deny the above mentioned sub division for the construction of four additional houses. Thank you for your attention in this matter. John J. Bradley Barbara Bradley 24755 Golden Oak Lane, Newhall CA 91321 Page Two D L, 1 T IC -1 N A L SIGNATURES: N tl E e4//v Y ewlelem6Tml /Ao ;DURESS IV,F efil) Z 21 21 k1 A C;CEr k C-zr C. NC -C-" --A k-:� �,JIL�3 PIAC,946 &11�a 13 6- f / 111,11,21 ��7/ 9 /gy 0 0 mal J1 2 1736 S -t w tT- -1 ( N i`/'f? c. 6Aef 2 0 op 3 0 hi ED Ct P E '- S If 7 7� .7 � r� a y �� � -� , � ; nam a -P City of Santa Clarita Jan Heidt Mayor Jo Anne Darcy Mayor Pro -Tem Carl Boyer, III Councilmember Dennis M. Koontz Councilmember Howard "Buck" McKeon Councilmember 23920 Valen d. Phone Suite 300 (805) 259-2489 City of Santa Clarita Fax California 91355 (805) 259-8125 December 29, 1989 Mr. and Mrs. John Bradley 24755 Golden Oak Lane Santa Clarita, California 91321 Re: Tentative Tract Map 46879 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bradley: Eli Your letter was received by the Department of Community Development on December 26. I'd like to assure you that all the records relating to the flood hazard, and the grading and `- construction were reviewed with Public Works staff prior to responding to your letter, in order to determine whether you were addressing issues that had been overlooked. Many of the questions you raised were of an engineering nature; Mr. Richard Kopecky, the City Public Works Office Manager, assisted in responding to the issues you raised. le, f. Hillside erosion is not likely to increase if required slope stabilization measures are followed. Mr. Kopecky has stated that slope stabilization measures generally provide protection for areas likely to be affected by slope failure, and have been demonstrated to be effective in other areas of both the City and the County at large. Generally, the required slope planting reduces erosion from slope areas so that land and mudslides are avoided. The City is willing and able to enforce compliance with slope stabilization requirements. lh. Mr. Kopecky responded that the direction of flow from the road construction will not be significantly changed from its former path. li. Grading of slopes of greater than 25X is not prohibited in.current codes. 3.a,b, c,h Mr. Kopecky reviewed the potential for this project to increase the local flood hazard, including the. grading that has already been accomplished. According to his professional judgement, the intrusion of the fill slope for the proposed Lot No. 1 may cause an increase of less than 1" in flood elevation for that area of Oak Orchard Drive. Additionally, while some soil surfaces are being covered with structures and/or paving, and thus unable to absorb rainfall, some of the slopes around the property have actually been reduced, so they are not likely to drain as fast as they would in their (more steep) native condition, once they are vegetated as described above. The loss of some soil surface may be compensated by the increased flat and gently sloping surfaces that will be created by the building pad grading, if the tract is approved. It is true that local flooding is likely following a series of storms in this area. However, this development is not likely to change the degree of flooding to a significant extent. 6b. Municipal ordinances regulate public nuisance issues, such as project noise and construction traffic during certain hours of the day. Again, the City Code Enforcement Officer as well as the Sheriff's Department are willing and able to enforce compliance with all ordinances. lla. Both the zoning and the general plan designations for this area allow for this density of residential development. The project is generating lots of an average 2 -acre size; these lots exceed many surrounding lots in area. 13a,e The addition of four residences to the existing residence on the site will increase local traffic slightly. However, the City Traffic Engineers do not consider this to be a significant increase warranting a recommendation of denial of the subdivision. 16e,g Again, erosion control measures and drainage devices may be required. You are welcome to review the conditions of approval which address these issues directly. 18a An easement for public use is required as a condition of approval of the map to dedicate that portion of the land that coincides with the gas easement. This will maintain the existing equestrian trail over the gas easement. I greatly appreciate the time and energy you have invested in raising all'of these issues. As it turns out, they have been addressed in the development review process. I hope that these comments address your concerns adequately. If you have any _further questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Nancy DeLange, City Public Works Department, at 255-4353, for questions of an engineering nature, or myself at 255-4330. We will be happy to assist you. Sincerely, Mark Scott March 1, 1990 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to show our approval and support for the development that Mr. Jim Chatterly is proposing. As I am a Firefighter and Emergency Medical Technician for the City of Los Angeles, I feel that the construction of a bridge on Golden Oak Lane will provide access to many residences during an emergency when water in Placerita Wash prohibits emergency vehicles from crossing. The bridge will also provide a safe means of egress when the wash is impassible. It will create a safer environment for the people which may need emergency medical services or fire protection. . I have four children, ages four and under, and my wife is solely responsible for their well being for extended periods of time while I am at the fire station, therefore I feel that an all weather crossing is a necessity. As for the paving of Golden Oak Lane, we feel it would provide a safe, smooth, aesthetically appealing road that would enhance property values in this area. We have studied and reviewed Mr. Chatterly's subdivision and we feel that it would be an'improvement to Placerita Canyon, therefore we support the development of his property. _ rely,Xf M�Mrs. R ert R. Turner 03i13i90 11:56 $213 27) 4062 Z 002 Pt ACERITA CANYON1 _ _ p ..: PROPERTY OWNER' ASSOCIATION l C, P,,O. Box 245 Newhall, .CA 9137.2 (� l March 13, 1990 Members of the City Council George Caravalho, City Manager John Medina, Director of Public works Kan Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager Carl Newton, City Attorney City of Santa.clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Ste. 300 City of Santa Clarita, Ca. 91355 805 259 2489 Re: RIO VISTA fax ON AGENDA OF MARCH 13 COUNCIL FETING Ladies and Gentlemen: The Plaoerita Canyon Property Owners Association [PCPOA] is in favor of A-l.ignment 't C" for the proposed Rio Vista Road. That alignment runs through the Palmer Wastcreek project. This is the preferred alignment because: 1. it minimizes the impact to the Placerita Canyon area for the near and distant future. 2. It avoids having to build several costly bridges. 3. It utilizes an underused freeway interchange. 4. It solves several valley -wide transportation needs with minimal impact on the existing equestrian lifestyle. S. It avoids having to condemn existing homes. We urge you to adopt that alignment and to begin condemnation proceedings for that alignment. MMc:1009 Sincerely yours,] Ah �Mc ,Attorney for PCPOA Heidt: I went the meeting last night, not because this was on the agenda, but when I got the agenda, I found that there were two additional items that the City should be commenting on. The major one was there item that said consideration of a position statement on HR 998. We gave testimony that if HR998 passed, it would preclude environmental review and indeed that was acknowledged by the Attorney General, who was working on behalf of the group. When they discovered that that would prevent environmental review, they're recommendation, on the Berman Bill would be that that be removed and that it be subject to full environmental review. Darcy: And then the other part of it which was to support the Senator Davis' Bill to include a member from the City of Santa Clarita on the Conservancy. Kolin: Madam Mayor, that would Senate Bill No. 1885 Darcy: I testified in favor of that for the City Council. We had Ann Irvine and Ms. Vera Johnson and the lady from the Elsmere, Ms. McClain all testified on behalf of the issues to help Santa Clarita. Koontz I move the staff recommendation. McKeon Second Darcy: Ok, It's been moved and second that we support the proposed revisions to boundary map for the Santa Monica Conservancy... Boyer: I would like to observe, at this time, that there was an angry letter in the Signal, yesterday or the day before, about the lack of progress on trails in the City and while I thought that letter was perhaps a little strong, it.kind of reflects my frustration with the lack of progress that we're making within the City, and I would hope that there would be some more dedication to that within the City limits in the near future. Darcy: Well, we have made a lot of progress with trails. What the point is we're not getting that communication out to the public. We are going to answer that letter. Lorrene Weste has been working with City staff to draft a reply along the Jeff Kolin. -They will get an answer and find out what we are doing. McKeon I think some of the frustration was when the Whites Bridge was put in place, that at the trail wasn't provided for, and I think that's part of the frustration. Darcy: I know, but it was a case of, I think it was a $150,000 at that point, we didn't seem to have it. ® II i McKeon: But, that's what's frustrating was that the. effort thatlwas made to make sure that trail was in place, and then when thelbridge started to be constructed then all of a sudden we realize that that trail had not,been provided for. So, what we're going to have to do is go back and retrofix something or at least ramping down into the wash or whatever we're going to do. Darcy: You have to realize that we've never been required, out',hear, to really provide for trails, it's only recently since we've become a City that we've put full awareness to that effort.. Now the County is filing suit because all of the outlying area now they're building in trails, all through Castaic and that is a plus that we have set the guidelines or set the pattern out there for the others to follow. Heidt: Well, it's to bad that people have to write angry.letters when they could just call and find out what's going on. Boyer: That's an excellent point. Darcy: But, that's what happens unfortunately. All right, it's been moved and second that we support the proposed revisionsito the boundary map. I Kolin: Madam Mayor, If you'd like we'd be happy to agendize resolution of support for SB 1885 for your next agenda. McKeon: That's also part of the motion. Heidt: You might talk about that when you go up there tomorrowl,morning. Kolin: And HR 998. Darcy: Right, no objections? City Council? so ordered.