The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-02-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - PLANNING APPEAL TTM 41812 (2)PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 27, 1990 AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented AyV: Mark Scott SUBJECT: Appeal from Planning Commission Denial Without Prejudice -- Tentative Tract Map 41812 and Oak Tree Permit 89-016., DEPARTMENT: Community Development 44S RECOMMENDATION Concerning the appeal on Tentative Tract Map -41812 and Oak Tree Permit 89-016, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission denial without prejudice. Any City Council comments on the project would be welcome by' staff and the Commission, and could be useful at such time as the applicant re=files. Staff further recommends that the City Council authorize re -filing by the applicant without new application fees as long as the applicant files substantially the same (or a reduced) project, and if they file within 12 months. BACKGROUND The City has received an appeal from a January 2 action of the Planning Commission on Tentative Tract Map 41812 and Oak Tree Permit 89-016. The applicants are Linda Sherlock, Larry Stevens, Joan Stevens, et al. After considerable discussion of several issues, including flood control/drainage and hillside/grading issues, the Planning Commission denied the application without prejudice. 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 are the appeal letter submitted by Keith Uselding of Hale and Associates, the applicants' representative, as well as a subsequent letter from the applicants themselves setting out their reasons for appeal and their arguments for approval of their project. ANALYSIS The Planning Commission made the following findings, prepared by the City Attorney's office, in denying the project applications without prejudice: �J 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 �; 4 Agenda Item: grading proposed'by the, applicant may impact the natural hillside environment and development may severely alter 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 findings 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: 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. The project does,nothing',to improve existing conditions. The Commission felt that it would be improper to.allow additional development in this specific location until further planning was done regarding necessary flood control/drainage improvements. Therefore, the. Commission asked staff to further study the situation and report back in study session,-- preferably in March. Hillside Issues - Staff had recommended,that two of the proposed 12 lots be eliminated due to the steep hillside grades involved and because they would require unusually_.long,..steep driveway access. The applicant was in disagreement with the staff.position and sought approval of all 12 lots which they had proposed: . After conside..rable.discus,sion,..the..Plannixig Commission was uncomfortable in acting on this'matter without further review of hillside grading policy. 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 on a Saturday in March. 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 the issues. Subsequent to the January.2 meeting, the Planning Commission has reviewed -other applications involving. similar hillside issues. One of those applications (the Hunter's Green project off of Live Oak Springs) was approved after the Commission visited the site and placed staff'review,conditions, on any grading to occur. It is possible that the appellants' application may receive similar consideration if and when the.Planning Commission re -hears it. It should be understood, however, that the Planning Commission's action to deny without.prejudice on January 2 was based on more than the hillside issue alone. Therefore, the circumstances are not entirely comparable to other projects reviewed by the Planning Commission since.January 2. In_.addition�tc the.,above;- the Planning Commission still had some issues relating to oak trees and internal circulation that need to be addressed prior to final action -= whether by the City Council or Planning Commission.. Applicants' Comments A letter from the applicants is attached, explaining the basis for their appeal. In general, staff wishes the applicants to understand that the Planning Commission's action should not be interpreted in any way as an absolute denial. Staff fully expects the project to be re -filed following the hillside and flood issue study sessions. At that time, staff would be,better able to provide the Planning Commission with conditions of approval. Given this perspective, staff has several responses to points made in the applicants' letter: Substantive Issues: a) The applicants state on page 2 of their letter.that the National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), etc., identify this property as an area of minimal flooding. They further indicate that City staff recommended approval of the project after reviewing the flood issues. Response: It may be true that the FIRM map shows this as a minimal flooding area. It should be understood, however, that these maps are notoriously inaccurate and especially where earth movement (grading) occurs in an area. Local knowledge is always a more relevant issue. -The City Engineer's office has indicated that new development in this area will not likely make flood matters worse, but they advised the. -Commission that the already existent conditions are potentially serious. While much of the site may be protected by elevation, some of the lots were in locations of potential flooding, and access routes are in floodprone areas. Rather than redesign the project in a public hearing, the Planning Commission took an action which allows the applicant to wait for the study session on flood control policy or to redesign their project such that flood issues are not a problem. The latter approach would likely result in fewer units, so staff doubts that it would be an immediately desirable option for.the applicants. b) On page 3, the applicants state that section 2, subsection E,of the findings must not have been "prepared by a professional land development expert" and that the "City itself, not the applicant, sets the required improvements necessary to solve the existing drainage problem." The letter references Condition 30 from the staff report that requires Director of Public Works approval of plans for drainage. Response: The Community Development Department staff and City Attorney's Office wrote the findings. The Planning Commission simply asked for a .study session to discuss how staff reviews such issues and what standards are applied to_that review. It is aoP licy consideration not a technical staff matter -- if the City is going to allow further . development in an area which already has significant drainage problems. The study session will be part of the City's'due diligence in performing its designated responsibility -- as acknowledged by the applicant. Q), On.page..4,•.-the.- applicants, point out that the number of .proposed. units conforms to the County's standards for a "hillside management" area. They argue that the length and grade of the driveway to the two most elevated lots are in keeping with City standards. Response: Conformance with County hillside standards for number of units would not seem relevant. In fact, that was the point of the Planning Commission action. The Commission indicated that they wish to establish City standards: The same issues have been discussed on every case before the Planning Commission this.year where hillside characteristics were present. The City is in great need of such a policy. Regarding the driveways, they are 800 and 1,000 feet in length and up to 20Z in grade. Staff feels this is excessive on roads which would exist for no other reason than to create two more lots. Staff had recommended denial of those two lots. d) On page 4,' the applicants take issue with the Planning Commission for denying the negative declaration despite staff's recommendation of approval. They state, "It is extremely disappointing to us that, after working with the City staff for nine months to resolve the technical issues, the Planning Commission has chosen to disregardstaff's recommendations." Response: Staff regrets that it was not able to assist the applicants in moving forward with a fully acceptable project. (It should be remembered, however, that staff and the applicants were not in agreement regarding the two lots.) At the same time, the final determination of environmental matters is made by the decision-making body -- not by staff. Staff accepts that all issues had not been resolved to the Commission's satisfaction, and staff is working toward study session reviews on two of those issues. Procedural Issues:. a) The applicants question (on page 1) Mrs. Garasi's participation on a matter within 1,000 feet of her property, and her decision not to "discuss the circumstances and her options" with the City Attorney at the public hearing. Response: As the,City Council knows, by law, an official makes his/her own judgments as to conflict of interest. Mrs. Garasi.was not required to address this at the hearing. The point having now been raised, however., there would not seem to be any reason why she should have declared any conflict given the circumstances of the proposal. The law does not assume any conflict due simply to proximity of property one owns. For a conflict to exist, the official's action would need to involve a financial gain and have an impact beyond the general impact on other properties. In any case, this is not a City Council issue. b) The applicants further express concerns over a long break that occurred during the public hearing, their perception that off-the-record dialogue occurred on the project during the break, their perception that an opposition speaker (a Mr. Stevenson) was encouraged.to address the Commission, and their feeling that applicants' speaking 'time was unfairly spent by Mr. Kopecky. Response: The Planning Commission normally holds shorter breaks, but circumstances not relating to the project caused a longer break that evening. Obviously, the length of the break is not a legal matter. This was,a,long.public.hearing, and the break was needed for all the reasons that people take breaks. More to the point, staff is. completely unaware of any improper discussion during the break. Both staff and Mrs. Gayle, from the City Attorney's office, were diligent in monitoring the break and making sure that .Commissioners did not inadvertently congregate illegally or otherwise conduct public business. Staff was asked prior to the break to think about how the Commission might obtain the hillside and flood/drainage information it needed. Staff.spent time during the break considering' options concerning reports, workshops, consultants, study sessions, etc., for that purpose -- and timeframes for such reviews were considered. All of this was discussed by staff on the record and for the benefit of the Planning Commission and the public when the break ended. Again, staff is unaware of any improper discussions during the break', and procedural matters discussed by staff during the break were placed on the public record. The applicants' project was not discussed by'staff nor to staff's knowledge during the break. Staff sees no impropriety in or connected with the testimony of Mr. Stevenson. In fact, a Commissioner has a right to ask for testimony during a public hearing. Similarly, there did not appear to be inadequate opportunity for the applicants' representatives to speak during the public hearing. Mr. Kopecky was called on to offer clarification, but staff does not recall that this deprived applicants of a full hearing. The above only highlights the appellants' comments. Obviously, their letter needs to be read by the City Council in full and in context. If the City Council has additional questions, 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.. Citv 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 among several options on February 27: 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 Commis.sion's. Resolution of Denial which was acted on at their January 16 meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Appeal letter submitted by Keith Uselding. 2. Appeal letter submitted by applicants. 3. Staff report to the Planning Commission dated January 2, 1990. 4.. Minutes of the' Planning Commission meeting of January 2, 1990. 5. Resolution of denial adopted by the Planning Commission on January 16, 1990. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 41812 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 89-016 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 41812 and Oak Tree Permit 89-016. The appeal will be hear by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920, Valencia Blvd., 1st floor, the 27th day of February, 1990, at or after 6:30 p.m. Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter .at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's Office, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd floor. Dated: January 31, 1990 George Caravalho City Clerk I 0 HALE & ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consulting Engineers • 24303 San Fernando Rd. Newhall, California 91321 Telephone: (805) 259-9700 Janaury 24, 1990 Mr. Mark Scott,- Director of Community Development City of Santa Clarita- 23-)20 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 APPEAL FOR TRACT 41812 Dear Mr. Scott; On behalf of our clients, I am submitting this letter to formally appeal the January 16,-1990 decision of the Planning Commission to deny without prejudice Tentative Tract Map 41812 and Oak Tree Permit 89-016. I have enclosed a check for $335.00 to cover the appeal fee. Please schedule a City Council hearing for this project as soon as possible as we are anxious -to present our project to the council. Sincerely, KE�sITHH�VUSELDING Project Manager February 8, 1990 City of Santa Clarita Mark Scott, Director of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Tract 41812 Planning Commission Hearing Dear Mr. Scott, We are writing this letter as a follow up to our meeting on; Thursday January 4, 1990 and the Planning Commission hearing on Tuesday January 2, 1990 regarding Tract 41812 and Oak Tree Permit 89-016. As you know, our project was denied "without prejudice" by the Planning Commission. We would like some clarification as to what a denial without prejudice constitutes and what steps we will need to take in . order to continue pursuing a subdivision on our property. We apologize for the delay of this letter, but we waited to respond until we had completed a transcript of the hearing tape to ensure accuracy. We were also waiting for the resolution to be adopted at the January 16, 1990 Commission meeting. We do n6t feel that our project was accurately analyzed by the ` lanning Commission and we have some concern whether our project recieved due process. We question Chairwoman Garasis participation in this hearing as she resides within 1,000 feet of our property. The potential for a conflict of interest is substantial and we feel that the Chairwoman should have discussed the circumstances and her options with the City Attorney during the public hearing. We thought that formal hearing protocol must be followed, yet our rebuttal time was partially consumed by questions from the Commission to Mr. Dick Kopecky of the City's Building and Engineering Services. Department, without our consent. Later during the public hearing Commission Modugno stated that the Commission's options were limited to approval or denial, because the public hearing had been closed. We wonder why we were not offered the option of requesting a continuance of the hearing to a specific date, or to continue the hearing indefinately and renotice the public hearing. The Commission has offered these options to other projects including the Atlasta Ranch Horse shows (C.U.P. 89-006), American Beauty Homes Meadows II project (Tract 44359, ZC 85-503, C.U.P.85-503) and Hunters Green Tract (47324, C.U.P. 89-007, P2 89-003 and OTP 89-046). PAGE TWO TR 41812 Our project appeared to have been subjected to unreasonable prejudice. The Commission requested a 10-15 minute break during our public hearing, though the hearing had lasted only about 2 hours at that point. During the intermission Chairwoman Garasi was observed ' speaking individually with each of the other Commissioners. When the hearing reconviened (about 30 minutes later) the Commission's perception of the project and attitude towards the project had changed dramatically. Commissioner Worden's initial comments, "As I was ` reminded in our discussions this evening", after the break implied that the Commissioners had discussed the project privately during the intermission. We feel that all discussions among the CoAmissioners related to the project should take place in public for the public record. We also question the fairness of Chairwoman Garasi asking Mr. Stevenson (who was speaking in opposition to our project) to comment on the flood issue. Her statement was "Wouldn't you like to comment on the flood issue?" We feel that this statement indicates that collaboration ocurred between Mr. Stevenson and Commissioner Garasi. We also question the ethics of Ms. Garasi in questioning Mr. Kopecky as to whether or not we could be required to pave her access street as a condition of approval of our map. A tract map was approved on this property for 14 single family lots by the Los Angeles County Planning Commission. The approved tentative map expired because the previous owners could not completely finance the required improvements. At our hearing the idea that environmental problems caused the map to expire was unnecessarily belabored and falsely stated. This current subdivision proposal was submitted to the City of Santa Clarita in March, 1989. The ensuing nine months were utilized by the City to thoroughly analyze our project. The Community Development, Building and Engineering, and Fire Departments were the primary actors involved in this review. However, other responsible agencies and departments were also consulted. The primary issues brought up at the Commission hearing and referenced in the resolution of denial (Resolution No. 90-02) were related to hillside management and flooding. The National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map (Firm). prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the Federal Insurance Administration, identifies this property as being located primarily within Zone C (Panel 480 of 1275, Community Panel Number 065043 0480 B, effective date December 2, 1980). Zone C A described as areas of minimal flooding. A small northerly portion of the site is designated as AO (Depth 1) which is described as: Areas of 100 -year shallow flooding where Depths are between one (11 and three (3) feet; average depths of inundation are shown (1 foot for this site), but no flood hazard factors are determined. A copy of a portion of Firm map for our property is enclosed, with the approximate boundaries of our property plotted. PAGE THREE TR 41812 Mr. Kopecky and Ms. Judy Sleavin, of the City's Building and Engineering Services Department, reviewed and analyzed the drainage concept for our project. Their response was that the required improvements and mitigation measures were not tremendously complicated. The resolution for denial states in section 2, subsection E., that: "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." This statement illustrates that the resolution was not prepared by a professional land development expert. The City itself, not the applicant, sets the required improvements necessary to solve the existing drainage problem. These improvements are subject to the• approval of the Department of Public Works and were included in the Conditions of Approval for our project, Condition 13 states that the applicant must "Construct drainage improvements and offer easements needed for street drainage or slopes." Condition No. 30 states: "Drainage plans and necessary suport documents to comply with the following requirements must be approved to the SatiSfaCtion of th¢• Director of Public=- work=: prior to filing of the final map: a. Provide drainage facilities to remove the flood hazard and dedicate and show necessary easements and/or rights-of-way on the final map. b. Place a note of flood hazard as required on the final map and delineate the areas subject to flood hazard. Dedicate to the County the right to restrict the erection of buildings in the flood hazard areas. C. Provide for the proper distribution of drainage. d. Show and label all natural drainage courses on lots where a note of flood hazard is allowed. e. No building permits will be issued for lots/parcels subject to flood hazard until the buildings are adequately protected. f. Provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties." �~ PAGE FOUR TR 41812 Futhermore, Mr. Kopecky.stated that his professional opinion was that the project would not contribute significantly to flooding in the area, yet the Commission stated they could not accept his assurance. Section 3 of the resolution states that our: "development may severely alter 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." We find it extremely discouraging to have the support of the City's professional engineering staff on the flood control issue and then have the commission not accept the staff's position. The hillside management issue was thorougly reviewed by the City's Community Development staff and their recommendation was for approval of a ten lot subdivision on our property. The Los Angeles County Santa Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan would have allowed 7.83 to 12.63 single family homes on this property. Our proposal is within that range. The Community Development staff recommended approval at the midpoint of this range and asked us to eliminate the building pads on the steepest areas of the property. The resolution for denial states that our proposal includes "long, unusually steep private roads." Our proposed road does not exceed the City's standards for private road length or road grade steepness. The City's Community Development staff prepared a Negative Declaration for our project utilizing their professional expertise and information submitted by other responsible agencies. It is extremely disappointing to us that, after working with the City staff for nine months to resolve the technical issues, the Planning Commission has chosen to disregard staff's recommendation. We seriously doubt that a true connection, or nexus, can be made between our project and the existing flood hazard as is required by the California Environmental Quality Act. The City's professional staff would seem to agree with us, as they chose toPrepare a Negative Declaration with minor mitigation measures being required. Our property currently consist of three legal lots, and we are proposing to create nine additional lots. Our project is a well planned residential development which would develop our property with 12 custom single family residences. The proposed conditions, covenants and restrictions would require homes to be at least 3,500 square feet in size and would ensure that the architectural styles and maintenace standards would be consistant with the Iron Canyon area. ' PAGE FIVE TR 41812 We realize that the Iron Canyon area has some environmental. constraints, but we feel our project design and the required improvements will enable us to help solve the existing problems. Our proposal density is less than the surrounding developed areas and we are not disturbing the natural ridgelitie s. We have agreed to preserve all of the native oak treesiginally proposed removing one tree and to revegetate the graded slopes with native plant species. This Will help to ensure that erosion is minimized and water conservation is maximized. Our project would improve the Fire Department's access to this area and our proposed private road has been conceptually approved by the Fire Department. We have also reached formal agreements with the William S. Hart Union High School District and the Sulphur Springs Elementry School District. These agreements will ensure that these districts receive adequate funding for the necessary educational facilities. We are intending to build our own homes on this property and we hope to become an integral part of the Iron Canyon Community. We feel our project represents a quality development which will help to solve some of the flood related problems, rather than exacerbate them as the Planning Commission believes. We do not feel that the Commission position on our project is a result of a thorough analysis of the technical information presented by our consultant and the City Staff. We hereby appeal the Planning Commission's denial without prejudice for Tract 41812 and Oak Tree Permit 89-016. We worked hard for Cityhood and we believe in the controlled, planned development of our valley. We must strive to ensure that technical expertise, common sense and a serious committment to infrustructure improvements rise, above political pressures in planning new development in Santa Clarita. Please distribute a copy of this to each member of the City Council and the Planning Commission to ensure that our position is understood. Sincere! Y, NIDA S EI _OC . ` ~ LA RR\��TEvcmo ^ ENS CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 00, STAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT 41812 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 89-016 DATE: January 2, 1990. TO: Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Ken Pulskamp, Acting Director of Community Development APPLICANT: Linda Sherlock, Larry Stevens, et al. LOCATION: 15516 Iron Canyon Road. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to subdivide 33.93 acres of land into 12 single family lots. The applicant is also requesting to remove one oak tree. RECOMMENDATION: The staff would recommend approval of Tentative Tract 41812 and Oak Tree Permit 89-016 and the attached negative declaration if the project is reduced to ten lots, by the elimination of lots 11 and 12. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The site consists of three lots on +/- 39.33 acres of land located at 15516 Iron Canyon Road in the City of Santa Clarita. The parcel is currently zoned A-1-2, light agriculture with a two acre minimum lot size. On the Santa Clarita Valley Areawide Plan prepared by Los Angeles County, which the city has not adopted, the site is shown as N-1 (Nonurban, one unit per every two acres) and W (Floodway). The site is not located in either the Alquist-Priolo special study zone for earthquake faults or in a Significant Ecological Area. No archaeological sites have been found in the area. At the present time the site is primarily vacant with one existing residence. The topography of the site ranges from flat land near the wash to steep hillside on the southern half of the property. The surrounding land uses are depicted below: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAND USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN ------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROJECT vacant, single A-1-2 N-1 family residence ------------------------------------------------------------------------- NORTH single family residences A-1-2 W, N-1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOUTH vacant A-1-1 HM ------------------------------------------------------------------------- EAST vacant, single A-1-2 HM,N-1 family residences ------------------------------------------------------------------------- WEST single family residences A-1-1 N-2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- vacant _ ��:,nw.�-w..--- -- -...i•�:.�.'�i�i,'.n�';ddi�-Via;.,:' _.-. ... The site, though not in the Hillside Management category, is hilly .with steep slopes. The staff required that the applicant submit a slope analysis. The slope analysis breakdown as provided by the applicant's engineer is as follows: Less than 25Z slopes 12.3 acres 37 Z of the site 25Z to 50Z slopes 12.0 acres 35 Z of the site Greater than 50Z slopes 9.6 acres 28 Z of the site This would equal a high threshold of 12.63 units and a low threshold of 7.83 units. The mid-range for the entire 33.9 acres would be 10.23 units. _-The-.site contains -30 native Oak trees along the northerly property line. The applicant is proposing to remove one Oak tree(U24 on the -Exhibit A) to accommodate -a --proposed building -pad on lot 14. The tree, which is 45 feet tall with a diameter of 25 inches at the 4.5 foot level, is to be replaced by four 15 gallon trees of the Quercus genus. Staff asked the applicant to redesign the pad on lot 4 in order to save the tree and the applicant's engineer indicated it would be impossible without redesigning the entire project. The'applicant will not encroach into the protected zone of any other oak tree according to their submitted material. There are a number of other trees of various species on the site which'the applicant will hopefully incorporate into the design of the --future homes. Staff's recommendation of approval is not without concerns, and staff recommends a modification of the project. The project consists of ten lots located along future streets and two flag lots located on the hillside above these lots. The two -flag -lots -are linked to Warmsprings Drive by a shared driveway measuring 20 feet wide. The length of the driveway that serves lot 11 is 800 feet from street to building pad. The distance on lot 12 is over 1,000 feet and the slope range on both driveways is from 12 to 20 percent. Staff recommends a redesign of the project to eliminate the two flag lots. By removing the flag lots the required grading would be cut approximately in half. - �t -cf ?A VICINITY MAP V T w �0 CASE No. TM 41$42 �.Mi fl�r[ ni110/K fil[ �� a c..n•/ ��s; �. • ,i 1 :, z I � rw.Mrrri = r'• � �L• �i �� nj 1 w.wun. •o ,I� 1 1` 1• i) ' I0 N.4770NA L ' sures •' h' I `` ?ROJECT SITE I 1 I i PARK FOREST RESOLUTION NO. P90 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 41812 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 89-016 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 41812 and Oak Tree Permit 89-016 was filed by Linda Sherlock and Larry Stevens (the "applicant") on April 3, 1989. The application relates to the real property located at 15516 Iron Canyon Road. (Assessors parcels 2848-003-038, 2848-005-027,028). b. The Tract Map was reviewed by the Community Development and Building and Safety Departments of the City of Santa Clarita and has been deemed consistent with the required standards. C. A duly noticed public hearing was held on the application by the Planning Commission on January 2, 1990 at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, Ca. 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 determines as follows: a. This tract map is for the subdivision of the subject property, consisting of three lots in the A-1-2 Light Agricultural Zone in the City of Santa Clarita, for the creation .of ten parcels for the development of ten (10) single-family residences on approximately 33.93 acres. The property is presently developed with one single family residence. The rest of the subject property is undeveloped. b. The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of a general plan. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the general plan proposal which will be studied within a reasonable time. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if this project is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. This project complies with all applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. C. Though the City of Santa Clarita has not adopted the Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan as prepared by Los Angeles County, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Area Plan designation of Ni (Non -Urban Residential) and W (Floodway). -1-57 d. The site is physically suitable for the type of proposed development and density since the site has, or will have as a result of conditions imposed by this resolution, proper access, proper water system facilities, proper drainage and consistency with the densities and uses specified in the Zoning Ordinance. e. The development of the property as apporved by this Resolution and as set forth on the subject tract map will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of public utility rights- of -way and/or easements on the subject property whether served by the City of Santa Clarita and/or any public utility serving said parcel. f.. The design and improvement of the subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, because the site is not within a sensitive habitat area and all potential impacts are insignificant as noted in the environmental review section of the staff report. g. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems, since sanitary requirements, geologic hazards, expansive properties of soils, sheet overflow and ponding conditions as well as contributory drainage from adjoining properties will be mitigated prior to the issuance of a building permit. h. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision. i. The proposed subdivision does not contain or front upon any public waterway, river, stream, coastline, shoreline, lake or reservoir. j. The housing needs of the region were considered and balanced against the public service needs of local residents. k. No discharge of waste from the subdivision into an existing community sewer system will occur which would result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by a California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1. The design and improvement of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, because all such easements have been incorporated into the proposed public streets. SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Initial Study, and determines that it is in compliance with CEQA and that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. A negative declaration was prepared for this project. Based upon the findings stated above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the negative declaration. ��Y SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the application for -the vesting tentative tract map and oak tree permit subject to the conditions attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B". SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and shall transmit a copy to the applicant, the Department of Public Works and the City Engineer. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of January, 1990. Rita Garasi, Chairwoman 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 on the 2nd day of January, 1990, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Ken Pulskamp, Acting Director Community Development EXHIBIT -.W Tentative Parcel Map 41812 and Oak Tree Permit 89-016 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General 1. The approval of this Tentative._- ract.Map_.shall_expire two years 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 year. If such extension is requested, it must be filed no later than 60 days prior to expiration. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Community Development Department in writing of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or a change in the status of the developer, 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 preceding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, 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 entitlement is approved by the applicant. Public Works Department 5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the A-1-2 Light Agriculture Zone. 0 6. Details and notes shown on the tentative map are not necessarily approved. Any details or notes which may be inconsistent with requirements of ordinances "'general conditions of approval, or City policies must be specifically approved in other conditions, or ordinance requirements are modified to those shown on the tentative map upon approval by the Advisory Agency. 7. All easements existing at the time of final map approval must 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 must be shown on the tentative map in lieu its location. If all easements have not been accounted for, submit a corrected tentative map to the Department of Community Development for approval. B. Prior to submitting the tract or parcel map to the City Engineer for his examination pursuant to Sections 66442 and/or 66450 of the Government Code, obtain clearances from all affected departments and divisions, including a clearance for the following mapping items: mathematical accuracy; survey analysis; and correctness of certificates, signatures, etc. 9. If signatures 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 parcel map is filed with the County Recorder. 10. Permission granted to eliminate existing offer of dedication for Warm Springs Road where it does not fall within approved alignment. 11. Applicant shall have proposed alignment of Warm Springs Road approved by the Engineering Department prior to submitting street plans for plan check. 12. The minimum centerline radius is 350 feet on all local streets with 40 feet between curbs and on all streets where grades exceed 10Z. 13. Construct drainage improvements and offer easements needed for street drainage or slopes. 14. Repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement on streets within or abutting the subdivision. 15. Provide and install street name signs prior to occupancy of building(s). 16. Whenever there is an offer of a future street or a private and future street, provide a drainage statement/letter. �-9 17. Whenever the centerline of the existing pavement does not coincide with the record centerline, provide a new centerline to the -satis'faction of the Department:_-6€=Fublic Works. 18. Make an offer of private and future right-of-way 30 feet from centerline on Iron Canyon Road. 19. Make an offer of private and future right-of-way 32 feet from centerline on Warm Springs Road. 20. Construct inverted shoulder pavement 14 feet (lane width) and 4 feet (shoulder width) on all streets. 21. Approval from the Health Department required for septic systems. 22. Prior to final approval, enter into a written agreement with the City of Santa Clarita whereby the subdivider 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 of this and other subdivisions in the area. 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 subdivider 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 The Project is in the Route 126 Bridge and Thoroughfare District. ,3-/0 23. Construct a water system with appurtenant facilities to serve all lots/parcels in the land division. The system shall include fire hydrants of the type and location as determined by the Fire Chief. The water mains shall be sized to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows. 24. The final map must be approved by the Geology and Soils Section to assure that all geologic factors have been properly evaluated. 25. A grading plan must be. approved by the Geology and Soils Section. This grading plan must be based on. a detailed engineering geology report and/or soils engineering report and must be specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer and show all recommendations submitted by them. It must also agree with the tentative map and conditions as approved by the Advisory Agency. All buttresses over 25 feet high must be accompanied by calculations. 26. A detailed engineering geologic report and soils engineering report must be approved. 27. All geologic hazards associated with this proposed development must be eliminated or delineate a restricted use area approved by the consultant geologist to the satisfaction of the Geology and Soils Section and dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within the restricted use areas. 28. Portions of the property lying in and adjacent to natural drainage courses are subject to flood hazard because of overflow, inundation, and debris flows. 29. Portions of the property are subject to sheet overflow and ponding and high velocity scouring -action. 30. 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: a. Provide drainage facilities to remove the flood hazard and dedicate and show necessary easements and/or rights-of-way on the final map. b. Place a note of flood hazard as required on the final map and delineate the areas subject to flood hazard. Dedicate to the County the right to restrict the erection of buildings in the flood hazard areas. c. Provide for the proper distribution of drainage. d. Show and label all natural drainage courses on lots where a note of flood hazard is allowed. e. No building permits will be issued for lots/parcels subject to flood hazard until the buildings are adequately protected. f. Provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties. 31. Portions of the site'are located in flood zone A0. 32. A preliminary soil report must be submitted prior to approval of the final map. The report, based upon adequate test borings or excavations, shall (1) describe any soil or geologic condition(s) which, if not corrected might lead to structural damage or slope failure, and (2) recommend action likely to prevent structural damage or slope failure. A soil expansion index test is required and shall be done in accordance with the procedures of UBC Std. No. 29-2. 33. Portions of the project may be within a 1,000' radius of a landfill area. Comply with Building Code requirements in Section 308(A). 34. Label --common driveways -.as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" and delineate on the final map to the satisfaction of the Department of Community Development. Provide for the paving and accessibility of this driveway prior to recordation, to the satisfaction of the Department of Community Development and Fire Department. 35. A final tract map must be processed through the City Engineer prior to being filed with the County Recorder. 36. If signatures 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 parcel map is filed with the County Recorder. 37. Ordinance frontage charges as'determined by the Director of Public Works shall be paid before filing this land division map. 38. A depositis required to -.review documents -and plans from final map clearance in accordance with Section 21.36.010(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance. 39. There shall be filed with the City Engineer a statement from the water purveyor indicating that the water system will be operated by the purveyor and that under normal operating conditions, the system will meet the requirements for the land division, and that water service will be provided to each lot/parcel. 40. Postal delivery receptacles shall be installed in groups to serve two or more residential units to meet City and Post Office standards. 41. Repair any broken or damaged pavement on streets within or abutting the subdivision. Fire Department 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. Provide Fire Department and City approved street signs, and building address numbers prior to occupancy. 45. Fire Department access shall extend to within 150 feet distance of any portion of structures to be built. 46. Where driveways extend further than 300 feet and are of single access design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided -and shown on the final map. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed and maintained to insure their integrity for --Fire= Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways which extend over 150 feet. 47. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. 48. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is .1,000 gallons per minute @ 20 psi for a duration of two hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. 49. Fire Hydrant requirements are as follows: Install two Public Fire Hydrants and upgrade 1 Public Fire Hydrant. 50. 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 hour fire wall. 51. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. 52. If required fire flow can be met, upgrade will not be required. Health Department 53. The Los Angeles County Department of Health Services requires that the subdivider notify the State of California, Division of Real Estate that: a. Sanitary sewers are not available and the tract will be dependent upon the use of individual, private sewage disposal systems. b. The private sewage disposal systems shall be installed in compliance with Los Angeles County Health Codes and Building and Safety Codes. � - /3 c... Issuance of -building permits shall be subject to compliance with the requirements of the Plumbing Code and subject to review and approval by the Los Angeles County Department of Health. d. The usage of the lots may be limited by the size and type of sewage systems that can legally be installed. e. The issuance of buiding permits are subject to "Will Serve" letters for domestic water supply from the Santa Clarita Water Company. Department of Recreationand Parks 54. The applicant is required to pay $10,528 for "In Lieu Park Fees". Department of Community Development 55. All sections of Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance 89-10 apply to this permit. 56. There is to be no grading or construction activities within the protected zones of any oak trees including those trees off site. 57. The oak tree that is to be removed ( J24 on the "Exhibit A") , is to be replaced with four 15 gallon size trees of the Quercus Cenus. The site of the replacements must be approved by the Department of Community Development. 58. During all construction work on the site, a protective fencing is to be installed around the protected zone of all oak trees on the site. A four foot high chain link fence is acceptable. 59. There shall be no storage of materials or parking of any vehicles under any of the oak trees on or off site. 60. Provisions shall be taken to maintain the existing trees of various types of lots 2 and 3. 61. The applicant shall enter into a written agreement prior to final approval with the Sulpher Springs and William S. Hart School Districts to assist in mitigating the lack of available classroom space. 62. The applicant shall vacate the easements of record which is traversing a building pad. This easement is shown as item 9 on your Exhibit A. 63. Upon development, a stop -work order shall be considered in effect upon the discovery of any historical artifacts and/or remains, at which time the city shall be notified. s 64. The applicant shall submit to the department of Community Development a revised Exhibit A showing.. a. total of 10 lots showing all revisions necessitated by these Conditions Of Approval. 65. This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and the owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed with the Director of Community Development their affidavit stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. -� - 15 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N CERTIFICATION DATE: APPLICANT: Linda Sherlock and Larry Stevens TYPE OF PERMIT: Tentative Tract Map No. 41812 and FILE NO.: Oak Tree Permit No: 89-016 LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: 15516 Iron Canyon Road DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: 12 single family lots on +33.93 acres [ ] City Council It is the determination of the [ ] Planning Commission [X] Director of Community Development upon review that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. Mitigation measures [X] are attached [ ] are not attached Form completed by: (Signature) Fred Follstad Assistant Planner (Name and Title) Date of Public Notice: December 8, 1989 [X] Legal advertisement. [X] Posting of properties. [X] Written notice. 0! 0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Tentative Tract Map No. 41812 CASE NO. Oak Tree Permit 89-016 Prepared by: Fred Follstad Project Location: 15516 Iron Canyon Road .Project Description and Setting: The project is a 12 -lot subdivision on approximately 34 acres. The site is currently vacant with one structure and several oaks on flat to steep hillsides. Santa Clarita Valley General Plan Designation W (Floodway) and N1 (Non -Urban .5 units per acre) Zoning: A -1 - Applicant: Linda Sherlock and Larry Stevens' Environmental Constraint Areas: Oak trees. Firezone 4. Flood Hazard Areas A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? .................. [ ] [X] [ ] b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? ............... [ ] [X] [ ] C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ........................... [X] [ ] [ ] d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features7................................... L ] [ ] [X] e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? .......... [ ] [X] [ ] f. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ................................... [ ] [X] [ ] g. Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ................................. [ ] [X] [ ] h. Other modification of awash, channel, creek, or river? ........................... [ ] [X] [ ] ,�-17 -3-17 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 25Z natural grade? ............ [X] [ ] [ ] k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X] 1. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ] 2. 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? [ ) [ ] [ ] 3. Water. 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] -3-17 YES MAYBE NO h. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? .......... [ J [ ] [XJ i. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ] 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, grass_es_,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] 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and insects or microfauna)? .................... [ J [X] [ ] b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ] [ ] [X] C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ...... [ ] [ ] [X] d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat and/or migratory routes? ........... [ ] [ ] [X] 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [ ] [ ] [X] b. Exposure of people to severe or unacceptable noise levels? ................. [ ] ( ] [X] C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [ ] [ ] [X] 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? ................. [ ] [X] [ ] 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial alteration of the present land use of an area? ....................... [X] [ ] [ ] b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of an area? ............... [ ] [ ] [X] �� 19 12. Housing. Will the proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? ........................ [ ] [ ] [X] b. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ] 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ........................ [ ] [ ] [X] YES MAYBE NO C. A -use that does not adhere to existing zoning laws? ............................... [ ] [ ] [X] d. A use that does not adhere to established development criteria? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X] 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of.any natural resources? ................................. [ ] [ ] [X] b. Substantial de.pletion.of any nonrenewable natural resources? ......................... [ ] [ ] [X] 10. Risk of Upset/Man-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? .......................... [ ] [ ] [X] b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard- ous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ................................ [ ] [ ] [X] C. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ...................................... [ ] [ ] [X] d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety hazards? ................................... [ ] [ ] [X] 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X] b. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ] 12. Housing. Will the proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? ........................ [ ] [ ] [X] b. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ] 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ........................ [ ] [ ] [X] A YES MAYBE NO b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ................`. [ ] [ ] [X] C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public L J LX] f. transportation? ............................ [ ] [ J LX] d. Alterations to present patterns of a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or circulation or movement of people energy. ........................ ,..... [ ] and/or goods? .............................. L ] L ] LX] e. Increase -in traffic hazards to motor existing sources of energy, or require vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [ ] [ ] [X] f. A disjointed pattern of roadway 16. Utilities. Will the proposal.result in a need improvements? .............................. [ ] [ ] LX] 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect the upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- a. mental services in any of the following areas: [ ] [X] a. Fire protection? ........................... [ ] [X] [ ] b. Police protection? ......................... [ ] [ ] [X] C. Schools? ................................... LX] L ] L ] d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .... [ ] [ ] [X] e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ........................... [ ] L J LX] f. Other governmental services? ............... [ J [ ] [X] 1 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? .................... [ J [ ] [X] C. Water systems? ............................. L ] [ ] LX] 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? ................... [ ] [X] [ ] b. Will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ....................... [ ] [X] [ ] C. Will the visual impact of the proposal be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ ] [ ] [X] 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X] 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? .............. [ ] [X] [ ] b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? ... [ ] [ ] [X] C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ] [ ] [X] d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X] IP' q - 7 - Discussion of Impacts. la,b, The applicant is proposing to grade 40,000 cubic yards of soil, c,e, including slopes of over 502. The applicant is proposing to grade f -j, within a flood hazard areas. 2a. Construction vehicles will produce substantial emissions. 3a,b The project will be removing natural watershed and introducing e,f impervious covering. There is also proposed grading and structures within the Flood Hazard Zone. 4a,b The. applicant_.. is proposing,__to remove one oak tree and .the introduction of non-native plants. 5a The removal of natural plants also introducing _housing will decrease the amount of natural habitats. 7. The amount of light naturally associated with residential development. 8a. The present land use is vacant. 14a,c. The site is within Fire Zone 4. All schools within the City are impacted. 18a,b. Construction of residences on natural hillsides. 20a. No sites are known at this time. -3--33 8 - B. DISCUSSION OF WAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED 1. Mitigation measures can include the elmination of Lots 11 and 12 which would greatly reduce the amount of required earth work. The prohibition of grading within the Flood Hazard Zone would reduce the amount of erosion in the wash. All grading of slopes should incorporate hillside plantings. 2. The effect is only short term during construction phase. 3. Mitigation measures include a reduction in the amount of required grading, installation of ground cover immediately after construction, reduction -of -grading _within -.the flood hazard areas and installation of minimal impervious materials. Improvements to the storm drainage system will also help to mitigate this concern. 4. The applicant is required to plant 4-15 gallon Oaks to replace the one tree removed. The applicant shall save all remaining trees on the property. 5. The reduction of grading by eliminating the proposed flag lots will preserve the natural habitat. 7. The light impact would be that which is normally associated with a residential development. 8. The current land use will be changed from vacant to single family residences on two acre lots, which is identical to the parcels of land to the east, 'west and -north.. The parcels to the south are undeveloped and vacant. 14. The applicant will have to use appropriate building techniques and brush clearance as required by the Fire Department. The applicant will be required to provide the school districts with some form of mitigation measures to the schools satisfaction. 18. The residences should not be built on hilltops which would detract from the view of surrounding property owners. 20. The applicant would have to stop all construction if any artifacts are. found and notify the City of any finds. "1��7 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? ................. [ ]. [ ] [X] 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a.relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ........... [ ] [ ] [X] 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.) .. [ ] [ ] [X] 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ......... [ ] [ ] [X] 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. .................................... [ ] 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 ..................................... [X] The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT isrequired. ......................................... [ ] -3� 1�5 - 10 - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA I� c� Date S i�g na t Fred Follstad, Assistant Planner Name and Title 1-2-90 • 90 MEETING OFTHE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY January 2, 1990 6: 3 0 -,p .-m . PC1-1.30 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, California. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Sharar led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag 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 Mary 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 CONDITIONAL 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 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 staff report and �t the conditions of approval reflect the correct 1-2-90 NA C PC1-131 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 Fernando Road; 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 Chairwoman Garasi declared a recess at 8:25 p.m. COMMISSION Chairwoman Garasi called the meeting back to order at RECONVENES 8:49 p.m. F&�Z9; • 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. ''-,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. It 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 C. . 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, 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 f -PARCEL MAP 20795, Department requires additional review of this CONDITIONAL USE proposal prior to formulating a recommendation PERMIT 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. 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, 19.318 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 , Chairwoman Planning Commission ATTEST: .;� MARK SCOTT, Director Community Development City of Santa Clarita �1 RESOLUTION NO. P90-02 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION .OF '.,THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 41812 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 89-016 THE PLANNING COY -MISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Karning Commission does hereby find and determine as follows: a. An application for a Tentative Tract Map 41812 and Oak Tree Permit 39-015 was filed by Linda Sherlock and Larry Stevens (the 'applicant") on April 3, 1989. The application relates to the real property located at 15516 Iron Canyon Road (Assessors Parcels 2848-003-038, 2842-005-027 and 2343-005-028). b. The tract map was reviewed by the Community Development and Building and Saety Departments of the City of Santa Clarita. c. A duly noticed :Lt --c hearing was held on the application by the Planning Coldmission on January 2. 1990 at the City Council Chambers, 2-39.20 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, Califo =--:a, at 6:30 p.m. SECTION 2. Based .:ion the testimony and other evidence received at the public hear = ,.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 three lots in the A-1-2 Light Agricultural Zone it the City of Santa Clarita, to create twelve (12) single-family residences on approximately 33.93 acres. The property is presently developed with one single-family residence. The rest of the property is undeveloped. The subject property is hilly with steep slopes; i.e. 12.3 acres or 37Z of the property has slopes of less than 25:, 12.0 acres or 35Z of the property has slopes of 25-50X, and 9.6 acres or 23Z of the property has slopes of -greater than 50X. b. The subject property is shown as V (Floodway) and N-1 (Non Urban, 0.5 units per acre) in the 1984 Santa Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan prepared by Los Angeles County which the City has not adopted, but .which is used as a guideline for the City during preparation of its general plan. c. 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 City's future general plan, which will be studied within a reasonable time. d. 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. e. 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 beer proposed or suggested by this applicant; the potential for flooding in the area; and the proposed development on steep hillside areas including long, unusually steep private roads. SECTION 3. 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 anplicant may impact to natural hillside environment and development may severely alter 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 findings 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-appr-,val for Tentative Tract Map 41812 and Oak Tree Permit 89-016. PASSED, APPROVED LNM ADOPTED this 16th day of January, 1990. Rita Garasi, Chairwoman Planning Commission 1 1 0 0 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, Vorden, Vice Chairman Brathwaite and Chairwoman Garasi -"NOES: None ABSENT:, None Mark Scott, Director Community Development