Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-05-22 - AGENDA REPORTS - PC APPEAL TTM 46879 (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval //9' Item to be presente PUBLIC HEARING Lynn M. Harris DATE: May 27, 1990 SUBJECT: Continuation of Appeal from Planning Commission Denial Without Prejudice -- Tentative Tract Map 46879. i DEPARTMENT: Community Development�� BACKGROUND This appeal has been continued from the March 13 meeting of the City Council. The staff report discussing the background details of the case is attached. Since that meeting, staff has met with the applicants and their engineer, and has attended a meeting with both the applicant and residents of the neighboring community. Issues that were discussed. at the meeting are outlined in a letter from the applicant, which is attached. ANALYSIS Access to the project, and the potential disruption of the rural environment by paving and bridge construction on Golden Oak Lane have been the primary issues of concern of this project. Other concerns have included grading,,site drainage, and contribution of project construction to existing flood problems in the canyon. Staff (Community Development and Public Works) has discussed the location of the bridge with the applicant, who has studied several options for bridge construction.. Two viable options exist for the bridge: Oak Creek and Quigley Canyon Road. Of these, Oak Creek appears to be the best location for the bridge, because it is closer to the project site, and few residences actually front on Oak Creek in the vicinity of the bridge. If the Oak Creek location is used for the bridge, Oak Orchard Lane, rather than Golden Oak Lane (as was previously proposed), would be paved to create paved access to the project. The City Engineer has recommended that the condition of approval requiring the bridge be changed to require that the bridge be constructed on Oak Creek Lane, or other location satisfactory to the Department of Public Works. Continued To: Agenda Item: There are several oak trees, including some of heritage dimensions,' that would be affected by the bridge construction and paving of Oak Orchard Lane. A condition of approval of the tentative map would require that an oak tree permit be filed prior to any construction near the trees. The conditions of approval of the permit would address such issues as pruning, planting of replacement trees, and avoiding tree removal where possible. The Planning Commission is required to render a decision on the removal of one heritage tree, or more than four non -heritage trees. The issues of grading, drainage, and flood control have been reviewed by the City Engineer. He has found that all project grading and drainage meets City standards. In addition, he has stated that the development of building pads and terraces above the floodplain area on the property can reduce the rate and volume of runoff from its former condition: He maintains that both the site development and the improvements required by the conditions of.approval of the project (bridge and paving) will contribute to public safety in the area. In its findings for project denial, the Planning Commission stated that "this project could have a significant impact on the environment, in that grading proposed by the applicant may impact the natural hillside environment and development may severely alter the ground percolation, increasing flood and drainage characteristics already existing in the area and otherwise exacerbate existing flooding or drainage 'risks for current or future residents in and around the project site." In subsequent studies and discussion with the applicant, staff feels that certain changes to the project, as addressed in the following revised conditions of approval, will adequately mitigate environmental impacts to below significant levels. If the"Council wishes to approve this project, the following conditions should be added to the Conditions of Approval of the Tentative Map: (change to Condition No. 13) 13. Prior to the issuance of buiding permits for Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, all-weather access shall be provided via abridge across, Placerita Creek to be constructed on Oak Creek Lane or other location satisfactory to the Departments of Community Development, Public Works. and Fire. Said bridge shall be constructed or bonded for prior to the recordation of the map. (Community Development Department Condition) 39. The applicant shall obtain an oak tree permit prior to issuance of building permits for the bridge and access road construction. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council options for this project are described in the previous report. At this time, staff.recommends that the City Council select Option No. 4 (to approve the project with conditions and/or modifications to the initial conditions of approval). Staff has found that the applicant has been diligent in pursuing alternatives for the bridge location, as well as in resolving the grading and flood issues to staff's satisfaction. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Public Hearing Procedure 2. Previous staff reports, conditions of approval,'and listed attachments 3. Financial Interest Disclosure 4. Project Proximity Map, 5. Appeal letter from Mr. Chatterley, dated January 23, 1990, 6. Letter from Mr'. Chatterley, dated March 5, 1990 7. Reduced tentative map exhibit 8. Ridgeline exhibit 9. Bridge concept exhibit 10. Project supporters exhibit 11. Letters and petitions of project supporters 12. Applicant's suggested hearing format 13. Letter from Mr. Chatterley, dated April 10, 1990 16. Letter from Mr. Chatterley following community meeting on April 5, dated May 3,1990 15. Letter from Robert. Leemon, opposing the project, dated April 26, 1990 16. Letter from staff in response to the above letter, dated May 9 , 1990 17. Other letters and petitions in support and in opposition to the project 18. Staff responses to letters from Mr./Mrs. Bradley, Mr./Mrs. Dennis, and Mr. Cundiff. �91 PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE 1. Mayor Opens Hearing a. States Purpose of Hearing 2. City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice 3. Staff Report (City Manager) or (City Attorney) or (RP Staff) 4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes) 5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes) 6. Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent) a. Proponent 7. Mayor Closes Public Testimony 8. Discussion by Council 9. Council Decision 10. Mayor Announces Decision CITY OF SANTA CLARITA •'F, 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 0 0 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 46879 PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita to 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 22nd day of May, 1990, at or after 6:30 p.m. This appeal is being continued from March 13, 1990. Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's office, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd floor. Dated: May 11, 1990 George Caravalho City Clerk 31, FRANZE, M,A, 41, THtMSON, G, A M 21225 SIMAY LN. 24728 OAK CREEK RD, NEWHALL, CA 91321 i NEWHALL, CA 91,321 i 32. LOZANO E.J. & S.D 42. HAYS, I.M. 21216 OAK ORCHARD LN. P.O. 272 HEWHALL, CA 91321 NEWHALL, CA 91321 $3. REPAR, J,A, 212% OAK ORCHARD LN. NEWHALL, CA 91321 34. MURO, J.Y. 21231 SIMAY LN. NEWHALL, CA 91321 35. CARDONE, L.G. 21237 SIMAY LN. NEWHALL, CA 91321 $6, ANDERSON, C.R. 24736 OAK CREEK RD. NEWHALL, CA 91321 37. SEATON, W.R. 21240 OAK ORCHARD RD. NEWHALL, CA 91321 38. MEHETERIAN, K. . TURNER, R. 24540 BURR CT. NEWHALL, CA 91321-- 39. NERI, J.A. & K.A. 21313 OAK ORCHARD RD. NEWHALL, CA 91321. 40. BROTHERS, L: 24760 OAK CREEK RD. NEWHALL, CA 91321 43. GILMORE, D.J. & H'. 23951 MILL VALLEY RD. VALENCIA, CA 91355 44. LEARY, E.L. 21236 SIMAY LN. NEWHALL, CA 91321 45. AUTRY ORVON G. CO. TRUST AUTRY FOUNDATION P.O. BCU{ 710 LOS ANGELES, CA 90078 46. VOLLAND, D. & S. 21255 PLACERITA CYN. RD. NEWHALL, CA 91321 47. VISO, J,D, 21307 PLACERITA CYN. RD. NEWHALL, CA 91321 I - 48, CHATTERLEY, J. 21198 OAK ORCHARD RD. NEWHALL, CA 91321 49. HALE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 24303 SAN FERNANDO RD. NEWHALL, CA 91321 TRACT #46879 PAGE 2 OF 2 H I. GLAZER, G. P.O. BOX 2114 SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 2. L.A. CITY DWP P.O. BOX 111 _TERMINAL AMEX LOS ANGELES, CA 90051 3. SIRKEGIAN FAMILY 676 VIA ALHAMBRA LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 4. RIDGEDALE JOINT VENTURE 2716 OCIAN PARK BLVD. SANTA MONICA, CA 90405 5. WEINER, &.L. 24768 CHOKE CHERRY LN. NEWHALL, CA 91321 6. SCHREY, T. 24766 CHOKE CHERRY LN. NEWHALL, CA 91321 7. CRIGLER, M.S. 24766 CHOKE CHERRY LN. NEWHALL, CA 91321 8. CUMMINGS, J.R. 21025 PLACERITOS BLVD. NEWHALL, CA 91321 9. ARNOLD, R. 24746 CHOKE CHERRY IN. NEWHALL, CA 91321 10. WALPER, C. 24738 CHOKE CHERRY LN. NEWHALL. CA 91321 11. PRANGE, G.N. PRANGE FAMILY TRUST 24708 CHOKE CHERRY LN. NEWHALL, CA 91321 12. WONG, H.S. 21045 PLACERITOS BL, NEWHALL, CA 91321 13. HAENDLE, C.F. 21035 PLACERITOS BL. NEWHALL, CA 91321 i I 14. MC PEAK, G. & S. 24713 CHOKE CHERRY LN. NEWHALL, CA 91321 15. COSTIN, R.R. 24719 CHOKE CHERRY LN. NEWHALL, CA 91321 16. GOMEZ, T. 21131 PLACERITOS BL. NEWHALL, CA 91321 17. AM, E. D. P.O. BOX 515 NEWHALL, CA 91321 18. BARNETT, C.R. 24748 OLDEN OAK LN. NEWHALL, CA 91$21 19, ARTER, B.G. 24759 CHOKE CHERRY LN. NEWHALL, CA 91321 20. MULDOON, T.R. 24764 OLDEN OAK LN. NEWHALL, CA 91321 TR #46879 PAGE 1 OF 2 21. CUNDIFF, L.D. 24756 GOLDEN OAK LN. NEWHALL, CA 91321 22. DENNIS, D.M. 24742 GOLDEN OAK LN. NEWHALL, CA 91321 23. BRADLEY, J.J. BRADLEY TRUST 24755 GOLDEN OAK LN. NEWHALL, CA 91321 24. GALLOWAY, P. J. 21157 PLACERITOS BL. NEWHALL, CA 91$21 25. BARNETT, S.B. 24748 GOLDEN OAK LN. NEWHALL, CA 91321 26. CONLIN, P.A. 24749 GOLDEN OAK LN. NEWHALL, CA 91321 27. LEVIN, A.M. 24741 GOLDEN OAK LN. NEWHALL, CA 91321 28. ARMOUR, R.D. & S.C. 24723 OAK CREEK RD. NEWHALL, CA 91321 29, VALERIUS, W.A. 24711 GOLDEN OAK LN. NEWHALL, CA 91321 i 30. MALLOY, M. A. 21226 SIMAY LN. NWRALL. CA 9M.1 PC : AGENDA REPORT �/ :_. City Manager Approval Item to be presented/ PUBLIC HEARING Mark Scott DATE: _ March 13, 1990 SUBJECT: Appeal from Planning Commission. Denial Without Prejudice -- Tentative Tract Map 46879. DEPARTMENT: --Community Development Als 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 following findings, prepared by the City Attorney's office, in denying the project applications without prejudice: The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Initial Study, and determines that this project could have a significant impact on the environment, in that grading proposed by the applicant may impact the natural _ hillside environment and development may severely alter the ground percolation increasing flood and drainage characteristics already existing in the area and otherwise exacerbate existing flooding or drainage risks for current or future residents in and around the project site. Based . upon the finding stated above, the Planning Commission denies approval of the negative declaration prepared for this project. As indicated in the findings, the Commission felt most strongly that two aspects of the project required additional review: 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 to 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, �a_11=weather crossing of.Placeri-ta Canyon is necessary. At present, lots on the east side of the creek are cut off from normal access when the channel is full. Planning Commissioners had some sympathy for the preference of residents to avoid the bridge,' but concluded that further study by staff and the Commission was necessary before waiving a condition about which the Fire Department felt so strongly. Alternate locations for a bridge will also be considered. There were also other flood concerns not addressed to the Commission's satisfaction. The Commission felt that it would be improper to allow additional development in this specific location until further research was done regarding necessary flood control/drainage improvements and until the bridge issue could be resolved. Therefore, the Commission asked staff to further study the situation and report back in study session, to be held in March or April. . Hillside Issues - The Planning Commission was advised by staff that the proposed grading was. not unreasonable for this project. However, hillside grading issues had been a concern on a project (TTM 41812) in Iron Canyon heard earlier in the evening (which had been denied without prejudice). Similar concerns were raised in discussion of this project. Briefly, the Commission felt that it was time to address acceptable grading standards on a city-wide basis, and felt that such standards could be studied reasonably quickly. This particular review is called for under the General Plan consultant's contract. Staff has contacted the consultant who will be working toward a Planning Commission study session on this subject as soon as possible. Because the Planning Commission also had the flood/drainage issue to research, the Commission felt it appropriate to deny the application without prejudice.. pending further evaluation of. both. of these issues. A letter from the applicants is attached, which provides support for the project. It should be noted that there -is a petition attached that supports construction of the all-weather bridge. There were other neighbors in the area that did not support the bridge, and they. also submitted a letter on December 14, 1989 (see attached). If the City Council has any questions concerning them, staff will address them at the public hearing. In choosing its action, the Planning Commission had several options: a) Deny without prejudice, allowing the applicant to re -file within 12 months -- presumably after the hillside and flood control study sessions. b) Deny outright, requiring a 12 -month wait before re -filing. ej� g4ntinue 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-contiguance (option:I-".c") represented a viable option. However, a continuance could have created uncertainty over State -mandated permit processing timelines. As a result, the most,prudent course for the City and the -applicant was to deny the application_ without prejudice. City -Council Options:::_ The City Council's public hearing on the appeal is a "de novo" hearing, meaning that the City Council hears the matter in full and any testimony may be heard whether or not it was raised during the Planning Commission hearing. Following public testimony, the City Council may choose several options on March 13: 1) Uphold the Planning Commission's denial without prejudice. 2). Deny the project outright. 3) Approve the application as proposed. 4)-. approve -the application with conditions and/or modifications. 5) Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission with directions to re -hear the application with or without City Council suggestions on the application. As indicated above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission denial without prejudice be upheld and that re -filing fees be waived. Also attached for the City Council's information are the January 2 staff report to the Planning Commission, the minutes of that meeting, and the Planning Commission's Resolution of Denial which was acted on at their January 16 meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal on Tentative Map 46879, thereby upholding the Planning Commission denial without prejudice. At the same time;'staff and the Planning Commission found many positive aspects of this project and wish to work further with the applicant to resolve the bridge and hillside grading concerns. Staff further recommends that the City Council authorize re -filing by the applicant for further Planning Commission review without new application fees. ATTACHMENTS (D C 1. Appeal letter submitted by JiP13�nd W17ta 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. 0 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 46879 DATE: January 2,'1989' k. TO: airwoman Garasi Memb the Planning Commission FROM: Ke P a pj Acting Director of `Community Development APPLICANT: Jim and Rita Chatterley LOCATION: 24766 Golden Oak Lane REQUEST: To subdivide an approximately 10 acre parcel into 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 q_-1 r r r 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 25%, and approximately 3/4 (8.44 gross acres) of the property has slopes between 25Z and 50Z.`L 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: General Plan. --Zoning Site HM, W A-1-1 North HM A-1-1 East HM and W A-2-1 South W A-1-20000 West HM and W A-1-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Land Use (New) Residential Single Family Vacant Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family 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. q 4r r Grad-ing .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-hii-lside 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/ f- 3:. r �t EXHIBIT °A° CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL 1. The approval of this Tentative Map shall expire 24 months from the date of conditional approval. 2. The applicant may file for an extension -of the conditionally approved map prior to the date of expiration for a period of time not to exceed one (1) year. Any such extension must be filed at least 60 days prior to expiration of the map hereby approved. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Department of Community Development in writing of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or a change in the status of the permittee, within 30 days of said change. 4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this permit. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of this subdivision by the City, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant and shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this Condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both of the following occur: (1) the City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and (2) the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the applicant. T.- 0 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. -.._.,-A11-1hydrants _.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-lindicates-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 QORKS. 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. T: �� W 07 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. W 07 31. Via_Princessa Bridge.and Thoroughfare Benefit District Condition Prior to final approval, the applicant shall enter into a writtenagreement: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, ahe._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. W or 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 di, 34. .;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. 41-13 1-2-90 CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES s PC 0 MEETING OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY Januar_y_..: 2 , 1990 `'6:3.0 p.m. PCI -130 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; California. Commissioner Sharar led the Pledge of Allegiance to ..,the flag of the United States of. America. The Secretary called the roll. Those present were Commissioners Modugno, Sharar and Worden, Vice Chairman Brathwaite, and Chairwoman Garasi. Also -present were City Attorney Nary Gayle; Assistant City Manager Ken Pulskamp; Director of Community Development Mark Scott; Building and Engineering Services .tanager Dick Kopecky; Principal Planner Richard Henderson; Assistant Planner Fred Follstad; Junior Planner Chris Kudija; and Secretary Stephanie Kuhn. It was moved by Brathwaite, seconded by Worden, and 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 PERMIT 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. Speaking in favor of the item was the applicant Ter=y 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 staff report and the conditions of approval reflect the correct COMMISSION RECESS COMMISSION RECONVENES Chairwoman Garasi declared a recess at 8:25 p.m. Chairwoman Garasi called the meeting back to order at 8:49 p.m. 1-2-90 PC p _ C1 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 PERMIT 89-016 The staff recommended 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 Ferzande Rcad; 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 Don 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. 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. COMMISSION RECESS COMMISSION RECONVENES Chairwoman Garasi declared a recess at 8:25 p.m. Chairwoman Garasi called the meeting back to order at 8:49 p.m. 1-2-90 • PC 4P PCI -13', Chairwoman Garasi declared the public hearing closec -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. *.ITEM 3 Mr. Pulskamp explained that a letter had been '✓ OAK TREE received earlier in the day from Leisure Technology PER: -MIT 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. Chair -woman 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 thea -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, Modugno, 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 -MIT 89-002, AND to the Commission and recommends that the item be OAK TREE PERMIT continued to January 16, 1990. Accordingly, it was 89-013 moved by Modugno, 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 written 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 GARASs , Chairwoman Planning Commission ATTEST: . L AR_K.. SCCTT, Director Community Development City of Santa Clarita 0. 9 CITY -OF SANTA CLARITA-: -STAFF REPORT .- . TENTATIVE TRACT=MAP N0. 46879 DATE: January 16' 19,90. TO: Chairwoman Gara—S - and Members of the Planning Commission P FROM: Mark Scott--.'--'- __ . ...... ....... Director of Community Development APPLICANT: Jim and Rita Chatterley LOCATION: 24766 Golden Oak Lane REQUEST: To subdivide an approximately 10 acre parcel into five --.- (5) parcels for single-family residences. This request was presented to the Commission on January 2, 1990. A motion to deny the proposed subdivision without prejudice was approved by the Commission. The resolution for denial of the subdivision -is attached. C'. RESOLUTION NO. P90-03 A..RESOLUTION OF. THE PLANNING_ COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT HAP 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 2934-029-016). 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 CPlanning. c. A duly noticed public hearing was held on the application by the Planning C =-' ssion on January 2, 1990 at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, at 6:30 p.m. SECTION 2. Based :pon the testimony and other evidence received at the public hear4.;, and upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Commission further finds and declares as follows: a. The tract map is for the subdivision of the subject property, consisting of one property in the A-1-1 Light Agricultural Zone in the City of Santa Clarita, for the development of five (5) single-family residences on approximately 10 ac -es, including one single-family residence constructed recently on the proposed Lot 1. b. A portion of the subject property is designated 'Hillside Management (HM) in the 1984 Santa Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan which has not been adopted by the City, but which is used as a guideline for development while the City is preparing its general plan. Approximately 25Z of the property has slopes of less than 25Z; the remaining 75Z of the property has slopes between 25Z and 50,9.. c. A portion of the subject property is shown as Floodway f (7) in the Santa Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan (` described above. d.. The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of a -general -plan.- There is a reasonable probability -that -this project will -not be consistent with the general plan proposed which will be studied within a reasonable time. e. There is a reasonable probability that approval of this project at this time could cause substantial interference - with or detriment to the future adopted general plan. f. There is a reasonable probability that the design of the subdivision and the type of improvements proposed could pose significant risk to the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Santa Clarita, by reason of the existence of a drainage problem which poses a threat to existing development in the area for which no solution has been proposed or suggested by this aopiicant, the potential for flooding in the area, and the proposed development on steep hillside areas, including unusually steep private roads. SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission C has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Initial Study, and determines that this project could have a significant impact on the environment, in that grading proposed by the applicant may impact the natural hillside environment and development may severely alter the ground percolation. increasing Mood and drainage characteristics already existing i. the area and oteraise exacerbate existing -flooding or drainage risks _`or current or future residents in and around the project site. Based upon the fi^.ding stated above, the Planning Commission denies approval of the negative declaration prepared for this project. SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies approval for Tentative Tract Map 46879. 1990. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of January, Rita Garasi, hairwoman Planning Commission 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, 4Torden and-Chai=woman Garasi NOES: Commissioners: Brathwaite -ABSENT: None Mark Scott, Director Community Development 3 `i. R. & ASSOCIATES January 23, 1990 Mr. Mark Scott - - Director of Community Development -CITY OF= SANTA` CLARITA 23920 Valencia Blvd., 7#300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Reference: Tentative Tract Map 46879 10 Acres 24766 Golden Oak Lane Newhall, CA 91321 Dear Mr. Scott: 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 -1/23/80-- other all-weather access locations considered for other developments Creek? been conditioned or north of Placerita 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: 7CITY OF SANTA .CLARITA 1/23/90 Page -3- P_. 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 C CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 1/23%90 Page--4- posed age--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 j. R. & ASSOCIATES March 5, 1990 Mr: George-Caravaiho 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: 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 Newhall, California 91321 805 254-3933 George Caravalho City of Santa Clarita 3/5/90 .,Page Two Please. -call-if there is other data required or if we must meet S im c:erely_r _ Jim L. Chatterley JLC/nh encl. .. cc: Rick Patterson Don Hale File "ON O Q DD LLJ 3NVI l,'8kl3HD TACMD . I I oli /l �X LO \�VF CD CDO Lb LL - o /\ N 7',CAI rA-r1 ve, T,e.gt-r MA -P fG s 7 9 ,�, n 4E Lav+ P• -o rbc T,►� j SLL / STt A-T/O Aj r E �0 VJ _r.��ktr_r rc•� r.� d W � J � e It ,n W r 1 r W A a Q. 'STATE FARM ©� KEVIN D. WATKINS, Agent INSURANC Auto -Life -Health -Home and Business 26047 Bouquet Canyon Road _._.._.__....._....... _.__..._. _ Santa..Chwita, California 91350-2997 Phone: (805) 255-5252 & (818) 888-9931 March 27, 1990 Mr. Jim Chatterley 24766 Golden Oak Lane Newhall, CA 91321 Dear Jim: This is to express our interest in purchasing from you a one to three acre lot located at the north end of Golden Oak Lane in the-Placerita Canyon area. We.--. would like to build our dream home, a victorian or tudor style house, and settle down permanently to raise our family and eventually retire there. .very impressed with all -of. --your.. plans -for the property. _From the appearance of your recently -completed guesthouse, it is apparent that the English style home you're building will be an elegant addition to the neighborhood. We are especially pleased with the beautiful oak tree covered country park you've landscaped.at the entrance to the property. We believe your plans for a few high-quality custom homes nestled on the hillside will be more appealing than a hill sparsely covered with sagebrush. Furthermore, from an insurance risk standpoint, reducing the Chaperral brush will reduce the fire hazard risk for the rest of the neighborhood. The addition of higher quality homes to the community should do much to enhance the appearance and ambiance of the neighborhood as well as encourage the renovation and improvement of those currently existing homes lacking "pride of ownership." These elements will only serve to increase the property values and desireability of the area. Since your plans would be a tremendous benefit to the neighborhood and community at large I'm sure you'll be able to get the approval you need to complete your project. Good luck! Please let us know when you know what your anticipated completion date is. 1 Sincerely, rr 'v Kevin D. Watkins Agent lnk� It - a ertcia uilderc-i ;rL-c THE VERY BEST IN FRAMING March 2, 1990 E47 Jim Chatterley 24766 Golden Oak Lane Newhall, CA 91321 Re: Tentative Tract Map,#46879 Golden Oak Lane & Oak Orchard Dr.' Dear Mr. Chatterley, As one who has a transaction in escrow for the purchase of 24546 Golden Oak Lane, I have an interest in the progress of the above referenced property. I have reviewed the proposed tentative tract map #46879 and the attached city conditions. Please be advised that we support the conditions as approved by the planning department staff prior to January 2, 1990's meeting, and we would be pleased to reaffirm our support to city representatives. Sincerely, Larry D. Kern President LDK:Ig .23945 San Fernando Road 0 Newhall, CA 91321 0 (805) 254-0490 • FAX (805) 254- 8751 P ( LOW NE t I.L J NINA LE SL It: N -I FI>Sy-.N CrIFIS Ttfr.ILN L. -A.AN' FINK I. -N, - -, , I1.. I ..JI n.... I.I. I -I December 26, 1989. City7of-Santa Clarita Department of Community Development - 23920 Valencia Boulevard. Santa Clarita, California 91355 Re: Tentative Tract Map #46879 Proponent: Jim Chatterley Gentlemen: I have reviewed the above tentative tract map proposal and have spoken with ;.1r. Chatterley extensively on this matter. I presently own 10 acres in the area and find no logical argument against the project. APE& CODE 8145 TLLEP-ONE 781-00245 )4545-♦ 1.O 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 yolits, LAUPENCE J, RINK _ 1 LJR:nl 1 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. 8c 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, Harvey�4.__Rawn 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 oud,UY4, � did 6 2 a -j A' 3/y1 gU 3 /L -flf 6 3A19 0 3 k .o C� o Address ay236 o►4� a 1 sus - 2/ ass 0/2 't o'ec /07V /&/ L l�f �ch£le 4*, 0 011 CA j}lmQ I, O vb L" .1 g 7 b 3 tV`. v4 `= Cl 1 S 7 J 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,- - . e. ,—a�1 Weather- crossing - of-° Placerita Cree'}c-and-=pav_ hg of Golden Oak Lane from._P_lacerita Canyon Road to Oak Orchard Road., we the: undersigned-_residents.:of the neighborhood support the development. Date Name Address F(cl, CN 1 1 P, a;K14Z Z�f �- Ay C ,? �v,2r-J'E2 2/2.27 oj-A--� TENTATIVE MAP 46879 OAK MEADOW ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD ­ DEVELOPMENT , . -PETITION MARCH 1990 After reviewing the design and -potential neighborhood improve- -that are conditions of approval of the referenced.develop- ment, all weather cirossi nq . of . Pla cerita Creek .and paving of ---* Golden Oak Lane from Placerb a Canyon Road to . Oak hard Road., Orchard we ..;j4p;7pigne e en. . . o -th .- I . e neighborhood -.the _ residts f development. Date Name 0 Drvlu'a 4'�SWNIAI 4�xlv_ '�Cezn ;; .3���� c- _ c��,c,,.�-, . R M*e h-� res SIA I /I,) Address 2CIS-3 _FtAL&1-4TJQ- CA4KJ. z g1&15- a 0r6jjfjrq pct. / � 3)_ D a,,t L Zr Pf_� 6--z7c rf Ko . - . I . — A . - , n / 4"5)—/ TENTATIVE N[AP 46879 OAK -MEADOW ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD DEVEI,OPMENT•PET.ITION MARCH- '19 9 0 After reviewing the design and potential neighborhood im,prove- ments •t2 at are conditions of. -approval of the _referenced .develop- - -- ._ . .. , irierit", `i: e. , =- a31 weather -crossing of-Placerita Creek and pay„ing of -Golden--Oak Lane •ftoii-:::Placei=ita Ca:nyon --Read "to -oak Orchard” "Road., we =the=- unde'-rsigried residents -of the --neighborhood "su.pport the idevelopment. _ ..._. Date Name 23 rte, iq g0 �(, t-4RR &J%���,��,�,� arc 4 D \ Address l '7/S P�-�4CE2lTaS BLVD ,3-y?D/y CJS 247.6 CGidu. C�1,-',7 TENTATIVE MAP. -.46879 .-,-,;.OAK..MEADOW ESTATES - ...,...,..-NEIGHBORHOOD-DEVELOPMENT PETITION MARCH 1990 After er reViewing--the ..design. and potential neighborhood -improve- ments that are c6ndit1bns_._of 'approval of - the. referenced. develop - meet, o,: all w'eAther.,c'ros-sing _;!f_]?lacerita Creek and paving of '661aiih Oak nhok-fr6m. jljaci�rjta C.- paiyon 'Road.. to-. -Oak. Orchard ;Road. support the we, the -undersigned 'residents of thia neighborhood ire..- dev,610- P*miint. Date Name Address o h��Gy�7y 04 Ole C,7f -ply �� a y��� �- �2�.�Q . 31Lf1f 6 Ic- V qk film Q CA I, n RC4 3A19 0Q . -/ 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 9 '% Address A3ri9���, Ca WATT INDUSTRIES, INC. BOX 2114 . 2716 OCEAN PARK -BOULEVARD SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90406-2114 (2 13) 450-0779 • FAX (213)..452-9134 FEB. 20; 1990 M71 of CI. ... TE r. 111Z' •r L.l CIE. i��'CLE Y 25757 Parada ^r. Valencia, Calif. 91355 Dear Mr. Cha"eriev It is my that the question of "access tr0m Placerl`a area to the Circle 1e tt development has been ra;sed during zhe course of l: •:o;.ir processfn a subdIv.Cion of sand on ;fironer `o -he South o1e tt 7 11 - ..i f • �ir Ci -. 'Matt -America i8 current 1. y attempting to -process a development flan for the remainder Of the Circle �t 7" dPVelozpmPri`_ and. car. assure Jou -ha- we ♦.aup_ no -)pans to access Circle "J" from the Placenta area. S inf_'.er e,n iv, , rll�.a+1 •�a~ l'ls 1eq 1' D, av:....: n v i1L i; . .i oililSo_7 W \T -T ENTIMIRISES (l)MPANY OAK MEADOW ESTATES TENTATIVE TRACT 46879 CITY COUNCIL APPEAL AGENDA MARCH 13, 1990 -I. 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. II. 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. III. Project Planning A. Coordination meetings with neighbors, slide presentation. IV. Project Support A. Letters, signed partition area map. 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. & ASSOCIATES April 10, 1990 Mr. George Caravalho CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CLERK/MANAGER 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Reference: TRACT MAP 46879 Subject: City Council Appeal April 17, 1990 Mr. Caravalho:. Following the period when the City Council granted an extension for the hearing referenced above, additional input and studies have been received. Please include the following information in the City Council meeting packets: * Meeting with Fire Department Captain: On March 16, 1990, an additional design review meeting was conducted with the City Planning Staff and Captain Frank Lunna. Alternate bridge crossings of Placerita Creek be- tween Placeritos Blvd. and Choke Cherry Lane were discussed. The Fire Department and Planning Staff agreed that all crossings in this region could be considered as a master plan for the residences of Placerita Canyon. * Neighborhood Study Session: At the recommendation of Mark Scott, an additional study session was conducted on April 5, 1990 (copy of attendance list attached). The following topics were discussed: Hillside Grading: Contour grading Ridge line protection Protection of oak trees Protection unique Oak Meadow On -site -Drainage: All pads drain into meadow and recharge ground water. All-weather/Bridge Crossing - Placerita Creek: 24766 Golden Oak Lane Newhall, California 91321 Alternate locations Oak Creek / Placeritos Blvd. 805-254-3933 L� George Caravalho City of Santa.Clarita "4/10/90 Page Two Street Paving: Oak Orchard in lieu of Golden Oak Lane Draft General Plan recommendations by Placerita Homeowners' Association: Reviewed various conditions Bridge Design: Per City/County codes Development Schedule: Per market and City permits * Additional letters of support: In addition to the signatures of support submitted for the March 13th hearing, the attached letters and petitions have been received. * IResearch of Subdivision Map Act: On January 2, 1990, the Planning Commission rejected the tentative map application on the basis of future study ses- sions applyinig to the general plan should be conducted to determine if the project is in compliance with a general plan that may be adopted in the future. "The subdivision Map Act Section 66474.2 approval of tenta- tive map: ordinances, policies and standards applicable. (a) Except as otherwise provided in Subdivision (b) and (c), in determining whether to approve or disapprove an application for a tentative map, the local agency shall apply only those ordinances, policies. and standards in effect at the date the local agency has determined that the application is complete pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code. . . . " (Emphasis added.) It is clear that future enactments of ordinance, policies, and standards cannot be used to deny this application. At the Plan- ning Commission hearing on January 16, 1990 (the hearing follow- ing thisi project's original denial) the Commission argued that they would continue to review projects on a "case by case" basis during the interim period prior to the adoption of the new City of Santa Clarita General Plan. George Caravalho City of Santa-Clarita 4/10/90 Page Three Please grant this small project the courtesy of a fair and ex- peditious hearing. Sincerely, Jim L. Chatterley JLC/nh encl. cc: Don Hale K. raizi A It ?I Richar enderson is erson File -777,41-1 i ZS 5 boz 1�.R,RAw�J a�3 �� 9-x.335 J -ao�L� J� C�2 v i� . f Robert G. Leemon 21231 Simay Lane Santa Clarita, CA 9132.1 805/255-0664 April 26, 1990 Kenneth Pulskamp Acting Director of Community Development 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Public Hearing - Tract 46879 Dear Mr. Pulskamp: Apparently, staff erroneously believes there is only one issue to be resolved regarding the subject tract; namely, "...a possible bridge location." The residents have raised numerous issues which have yet to be addressed, much less resolved; specifically: 1. Hillside Management 2. Paving and/or widening of affected streets: a. Golden Oak Lane b. Oak Orchard Road, et al 3. Flooding of properties/residences caused by: a. Construction of the proposed residences on upper elevations of the hillsides; b. The raising of the ground level on newly constructed residences in the previous percolating meadows. 4. The adverse affect the above actions will have on the oak trees along Oak Orchard Road. 5. The negative affect on our canyon by allowing more hills to be "cut and shaved". The noted issues have been raised in our meetings with the applicant and by the Planning Commission. They must be resolved in order to preserve our semi -rural and equestrian life-styles. P., May 3, 1990 Mr. Richard Kopecky City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., #300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Tentative Tract Map 46879 Golden Oak Lane, Oak Orchard Newhall, California 4PR. & ASSOCIATES Cad MAY 1 o_ 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Subject: Suggested changes in Conditions of Approval Dated 1/2/90 Mr. Kopecky: Thank you for the meeting of May 2, 1990 and the input provided. If you recall, a letter was presented during the meeting where some suggestions were made for revised working of the project's conditions. As a part of the meeting there was additional data and input provided. Please accept my input for rewording and revisions to the exist- ing conditions as follows: #13 Prior to the issuance of building permits for lots 3, 4 and 5, all-weather access shall be provided via a bridge to be con- structed on Golden Oak Lane, Choke Cherry Lane or Oak Creek, across P'ancentia Creek. The priority location is to be Oak Creek designed to meet the requirements of County Fire, Flood Control, & Bridge Departments. #-39- Offsite improvements which include street paving and bridge construction will be financed by a reimbursement agreement with the City of Santa Clarita (all improvements will be financed by the developer and pro -rated reimbursements to the developer will be administered by the City Public Works divisions when building permits are issued to property owners or developers who will benefit from the "all-weather" access for their individual projects) . 24766 Golden Oak Lane Newhall, California 91321 805-2543933 r RECEI VED MAY i 0- 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 5/3/90 PAGE TWO #40 Street Improvements - Street improvements will be designed to meet the requirements of the Fire Department for access, Public Works for drainage. Oak trees in the existing right of way will be retained per the requirements of City Parks and Oak Tree Ordinance. #41 On-site drainage will be designed so all drainage from the lots will drain into the meadow at elevation 1335 +/-, by provid- ing re -changing of the ground water and minimizing drainage runoff onto the cul-de-sac Street "A". Your help in including these conditions for the May 22, 1990 Council Meeting will be appreciated. These conditions are also responding to input provided during recent neighborhood study sessions. Very truly yours, i Jim --=L. Chatterley JLC/nh cc: Keith Veleding (Hale Engineering) Dan Hale to of L --Christine Kudija (City of Santa Clarita) Corres. U i M The issues are crucial. Obviously, more meetings with staff and the concerned parties are required prior to the scheduled public hearing on May 22, 1990. I am looking forward to your prompt attention and timely action. Sincerely, Robert G. Leemon pc: Tim Chatterly Mayor Jo Anne Darcy Counclimember Carl Boyer III Councilmember Jan Heidt Counclimember Buck McKeon Councilmember Jill Klajic March 6, 1990 City of Santa Clarita Council' JoAnne Darcy -Mayor earl Boyer -Mayor Pro -Tem Dennis Koontz -Councilman .Jan Heidt-Councilwoman Howard McKeon -Council man George Caravel hu -Ci t Manager Re: Tentative Tract Map 46879 Project Proponents: Jim & Rita Chatterly 1,40 0 6 1990 i CITY MANAGER'S Cf7FtC�, CITY Or SANTA 0 APITA We enclose for your review copy of our December 19, 1989 letter to the Planning Commission stating our objections to the above TTM 46579 and outlining our differences with the Negative Declaration. Si tures-dt concerned nei-ij-hbors who agree with our position are attached. k rJ David Dennis Debra Dennis 24742 Golden Oak Lane, Newhall CA 9131 0 1p r December 19. 1989 1,1ky of Sania Ciarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita CA 91355 Re: Tentative Tract Map 46879 Project Proponents: Ji m f°. Rita Chatterl y Project Description: Subdivision of a 10 acre parcel into 5 lots in the A-1 -1 tone Project Location: 21 198 Oak Orchard Road Assessor's Parcel: No. 2334-029-016 We, the homeowners of PIace rita Canuon, feel that some of the statements i n the Negative Declaration on the above mentioned project are not true and need review. We would appreciate it if you would further review the following items: A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 'section 1, Subsection b Eve though i nspections were done, for the amount of soil moved, there was little water used and no compaction equi prnent except the mac hi nery itself. Section 1, Subsection f Because of t ,b we thi nk that 1 ,f should be changed to Yes Landslides, mud =slides, ground failure or similar hazards could occur. Section 1, Sub.ection h There has been some change in Tlood area:.. °section 2, Subsection a Answer should be changed to Yes. Increased traffic due to construction and personal traffic has caused major dust problems. If the subdivision is granted, the problem will become even greater. Section 3 This section has already been addressed in another letter to uou from other concerned homeowners, and is al -so of grave i mportanee to us. Section 13, Subsection e This answer should be changed to Yes. The Golden Oak Lane homeowners have put up with this project for one year al ready. We have experieneed discourteous behaviour from the construction workers and disregard from the Chatterlys when requested to reduce thei r vehicular speed. Will we be compelled to endure this treatment for five more years, which we understand is the time frame for this project? Page One OUR DIFFERENCES WITH STAFF EVALUATION OF IMPACT Page 7 Section 1 Subsection h and Section 13 Subsection c Page 8 Section 1 Subsections a,b,c,e,g,i Pages 9,10 Section 18, Subsection c A bridge crossing is required by the L. A. County Fire Department on Golden Oak Lane because of the increased population in our small canyon. In the past Nvhen the creek rose to uncrossable levels, the Fi re Department was able to make rescues +.Pith thei r large helicopters. Because of the construction of houses on the flat remaining properties, the Fire Department is now unable to make rescues by helicopter. So the bridge is, i n fact, necessary for this project. However, a low profile bridge on grade would be impossible because of t he exi sti nu dedi Gated era uest ri a n t rai 1. To accomodate the dedicated horse trail , the bridge would have to be approxi rnatel y 1 1 'to 13' from the floor of the creek, maki rig the bridge about 7' out and above the existing road, which would require a dirt ramp in front of the homes on either side of the bridge. PI ace ritos Boulevard would dead end into the ramp, thus denying the Choke Cherry area of the canyon access to the bridge. in 1978 and 1978 the raging water in Placerita Creek rose above the road level and came through some homeowners properties. (See enclosed pictures,. if the bridge was on grade, it would act as a dam and create even more severe problems to the homeowners. A high bridge of this magnitude would in fact be unsightly and change our community. A bridge would also encourage other large developers to invade and further destroy our once beautiful small canyon even more. Page Two EVALUATION OF IMPACT - continued Page 9 Section 7, Section 3 Subsection a, Section 13 Subsection a On or about May 31, 1939, I, David Dennis, called the City Planners Office requesting to speak to Rich Henderson. He was riot available and I was referred to Keith Useldi ng. At that ti me I was told by Mr. Useldi ng that the property could not be subdivided into five ( 5) parcels because the formula of hills, angles, canyons and flat only computed to four plus lots. He also informed me that Mr. Chatterl y had agreed to do further community development if the Planning Commission would grant him the five lot division. Now the homeowners and the Commission, through this report, are led to believe that this property is suitable for ten units, when, in fact, his grading permit is calculated for onl y four pl us lots. No one from the City Planni ng staff has spoken to any of the adjacent homeowners prior to the preparation of the Negative Declaration. We would appreciate it if you would investigate the concerns of the homeowners in this letter, and any others that may be stated at the hearing on 1-i-1990. David Dennis Debra Dennis 24742 Golden Oak Lane, Newhall CA 91321 Page T h ree ADE -11T I,- N'AL TURES: (v1; P-1 E l'iN Y e-&,04167-6131 Q�✓�"E' �c r"rivlC,6 ✓\ ADDRESS XY- 21 V. Gin c 13 6 ,000000m� i1f1w � J v f, 4 -2 Y 7 3 7 /7 10, CL r /,a Na )A // -100�-4:- - Z14,114 2 17 3C, A'I�Wlf-4?c 6-lor-If 2 dp P 3 u • 0 5858 SUNSET BOULEVARD • P.O. BOX 710 • LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90078 April 27, 1990 Dear Mr. Chatterley: As a long time owner of property in Newhall, I read with interest your proposal regarding bridge and street improvements. After reviewing the matter and giving it careful consideration, I must say that I fully support your efforts and hope the. City representatives will look favorably upon this project. Warmest personal regards, Gene Autry Mr. Jim Chatterley J. R. & Associates 24766 Golden Oak Lane Newhall, CA. 91321