HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-04-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - PREZONE 89-002 TTM 46626 47863 (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented
PUBLIC HEARING Ken Pulskamp
DATE: 'April 24, 1990
SUBJECT: Prezone..89-002 and Appeal of Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 46626
and 47863
DEPARTMENT: Community Development.
BACKGROUND:
The above items involve two separate requests: (1) A prezoning is necessary
for Tentative Tract 46626 since its site is entirely within the County of Los
Angeles, and adjacent to the City limits. The site is presently divided
between two zones in the County, A-1-10,000 and A-2-1. A prezoning of
A-1-10,000 for the entire site has beenrequested by the applicant; the
Planning Commission, has reviewed this matter and recommended approval to the
City Council of the requested prezoning. .Pursuant to the Municipal Code, the
Council is the approving authority for a prezoning. (2) The two tentative
maps have been approved by the Planning Commission. A local resident whose
property abuts the site of Tentative. Tract 47863 has appealed the Planning
Commission's decision on both tract maps. Please see the attached letter_
dated March 30, 1990 from Karen Holder requesting the appeal and stating
reasons.for the request.
Non -substantive changes have been made in the conditions. (The appellant has
indicated that condition no. 97 in both tracts [a different subject in each
list of conditions, coincidentally numbered the same] was only indicated to
apply to one of the two tracts, although it is appropriate to include them in
both tracts. This has now been shown for both projects.) Also, condition no:
77 in VTTM 47863 has been deleted. It does not pertain to this type of
project.
Since the Planning Commission's approval action on February 20, 1990, the
applicants have secured an agreement from an adjacent property owner to the
south to expand the proposed park by an additional seven acres. This
expansion would provide two new access points, from Camp Plenty Road and Nadal
Street, and would retain existing access from .Whites Canyon Road. The
expansion provides a 2.5 acre pad fronting on the north side of Nadal Street
which would allow siting of an approximately 100 -space parking lot for use by
Canyon Country High School to the south. This lot would alleviate existing
traffic congestion caused by on -street .parking on Nadal Street during school
hours. The pad would also provide a site for location of a future library of
approximately 15,000 square feet, with additional space to meet library
parking requirements on-site. Finally, the expansion will allow the usable
pad area of the park to be increased from 11 acres to 12 acres_..
The proposed expansion has been reviewed and
Director Jeff Kolin, and. by Dr. Smythe
considered to be of significant benefit to
district.
Continued To: 517--T
accepted by Parks and Recreation
of the school district and is
the commmunity and the school
Agenda [tern.:
Page 2
As a measure of comparison, the park site now proposed by the applicants is
approximately 34 acres in area, -or twice the size of the recently completed
17 -acre Canyon Country Park. Usable pad area will be 12 acres, or 25Z larger
than the 9 -acre Canyon Country site..
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve the attached negative declarations.
2. Pending public testimony, approve Prezone No. 89-002 and Vesting Tentative
Tract Maps 46626 and 47863.
3. Adopt the attached resolutions, with the attached added conditions.'
4. Introduce the attached prezone ordinance and pass to second reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Letter dated March 30,'1990 from Karen Holder, requesting,the appeal.
2. Staff reports dated December 19, 1989, January 16, and•February 20, 1990.
3. Negative Declarations.
4. Correspondence received.
5. Draft Council resolutions and ordinance.
ID 30
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---
r __(RP
(RPStaff)
4.
Proponent Argument
5.
Opponent Argument
6.
Three-minute Rebuttal
a. Proponent
7.
Mayor Closes Public Testimony
8.
Discussion by Council
9..
Council Decision
10.
Mayor Announces Decision
March 30, 1990
Karen Holder
28149* Foxlane Dr.
Canyon Country, CA 91351
11s. Donna Grindley
Assistant Clerk
City of Santa Clarita.
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Valencia, CA 91355
Dear Ms. Grindley:
This.letter is a formal request for appeal of Tentative
Tract maps 46626 and 47863. These maps are the"Weston Dev-
elopment and American Landmark projects that were approved by
the Planning Commission on March 20, 1990.
These projects are not in tune with the developihg City
General Plan. The Planning Commission erred in approving
these projects due to the lack of official city policy regard-
ing the development of hillside areas and*the preservation of
ridgeline areas.
Action by the City Council at the March 27, 1990 council
meeting'resulted in a resolution directing that the City of
Santa Clarita consolidate the appeal fees of both projects
into a single fee of 3335. In addition, the council extended
the deadline for paying this fee from today, March30, 1990 to
April 13, 1990.
Sir,qerely,
101�1"
Karen Holder
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 0
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PRE -ZONE 89-002 AND APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 46626
NORTH OF THE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF FOXLANE DRIVE,
TAMBORA DRIVE, AND BAKERTON AVENUE
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of. the City of Santa
Clarita on Pre -Zone 89-002 and to consider an appeal of the Planning
Commission to conditionally approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46626, north
of the northerly terminus of Foxlane Drive, Tambora Drive, and Bakerton Avenue.
The appeal will be heard by the City Council in the Council Chambers, 23920
Valencia Blvd., 1st floor, the 24th day of April, 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, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd floor, Santa Clarita, Ca.
Dated: March 30, 1990
George Caravalho
City Clerk
Publish date: April 4, 1990
1 2812-10-8
GOLDEN WEST ENTERPRISES
3303 HARBOR BLVD. #C-10
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
88-2686 Page 1 ��
UPDATED 1-23-90
U
2 2812-10-7
SHAPELL MONTEVERDE
8383 WILSHIRE BLVD. #700
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211
2812-9-39 4 2812-9-40
SAME AS #2 JOHN HOOK
P.O. BOX 5224
SAN CLEMENTE, CA
2802-2-10 6 2802-29-1
SAME AS #1 CHARLES REUTER
18734 BOOKHAM DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
8 2802-29-3
ALAN MC PEAK
8101 LOBATA STREET
CITRUS HEIGHTS, CA 95610
11 2802-30-2
RAY CARD
28228 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
14 2802-30-5
CHARLES FRY
28204 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
17 2802-31-1
CHRIS COWDEN
28210 TAMBORA DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
20 2802-31-4
EDWARD BANYARD
28166 TAMBORA DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
9 2802-29-4
ROBERT KAHLIA
28156 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
12 2802-30-3
GLENNE REEVES
28222 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
15 2802-30-6
ANDREW OLSON JR.
18741 BOOKHAM DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
18 2802-31-2
EUGENE RIZZARDI
28206 TAMBORA DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
21 2802-31-5
ROBERT MC CAIN
28160 TAMBORA DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
3 2812-10-9
ARTHUR KAUDER
P.O. BOX 2437
LANCASTER, CA
5 2802-2-4-5
FRED SHERBURNE
3100 AIRPORT WAY
LONG BEACH, CA 90806
7 2802-29-2
RICHARD & STANLEY GREENLAND
18740 BOOKHAM DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
10 2802-30-1
DANIEL LOWE
28234 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
13 2802-30-4
ROBERT RENDICH
28212 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
16 2802-30-7
CLYDE LACORE
18735 BOOKHAM DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
19 2802-31-3
RON HAGEN
28202 TAMBORA DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
22 2802-31-6
MUNTHER DORGALLI
28154 TAMBORA DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
23 2802-31-7 24 2802-31-8 25 2802-31-9
GEORGE PARLEE MICHAEL COHN RICHARD POLLARD
28146 TAMBORA DRIVE 28140 TAMBORA DRIVE 28132 TAMBORA DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
26 2802-31-19
KENNETH & WYKIENA DEVOE
28157 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
29 2802-31-22
RANDOLPH EBERSBERGER
28203 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
32 2802-31-25
YOLANDA MC CRAY
23228 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
35 2802-33-2
NICHOLAS TITIRIGA
18915 ERMINE STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
38 2802-33-5
DANIEL SCHWENK
28166 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
41 2802-33-8
KENNETH CORWIN
5667 RAVENEL LANE
SPRINGFIELD, VA 22151
44 2802-33-11
FORREST & BARBARA FERONE
28130 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
47 2802-33-22
VAHE & LILA TOROSSIAN
28151 TAMBORA DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
27 2802-31-20
RONALD MYERS
28165 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
30 2802-31-23
PAUL BRANAM
28211 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
33 2802-31-26
TERRY LIEM
28231 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
36 2802-33-3
LOUIS FASMAN
18907 ERMINE STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
39 2802-33-6
JOSEPH SANFILIPPO
28162 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
42 2802-33-9
RONALD BOSWELL
28142 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
45 2802-33-20
DONALD SHEPARD
28137 TAMBORA DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
48 2802-33-23
CHARLES RATCLIFF
28157 TAMBORA DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
28 2802-31-21
JAMES KAUFFMAN
28171 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
31 2802-31-24
TERRY DIXON
28217 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
34 2802-33-1
GEORGE STIGILE
18921 ERMINE STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
37 2802-33-4
RICHARD CROCKER
18903 ERMINE STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
40 2802-33-7
ALEX & JAMIE RAMIA
28156 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
43 2802-33-10
MANUEL BARBOSA
28136 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
46 2802-33-21
JAMES ROGERS
28143 TAMBORA DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
49 2802-33-24
MICHAEL KONZ
28163 TAMBORA DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
50 2802-33-25 51 2802-33-26 52 2802-33-27
BLAS VALDON JOHN BADANO JOAN ADAMS
28171 TAMBORA DRIVE 28209 TAMBORA DRIVE 28217 TAMBORA DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
88-268B
Page 2
UPDATED
1-23-90
26 2802-31-19
KENNETH & WYKIENA DEVOE
28157 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
29 2802-31-22
RANDOLPH EBERSBERGER
28203 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
32 2802-31-25
YOLANDA MC CRAY
23228 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
35 2802-33-2
NICHOLAS TITIRIGA
18915 ERMINE STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
38 2802-33-5
DANIEL SCHWENK
28166 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
41 2802-33-8
KENNETH CORWIN
5667 RAVENEL LANE
SPRINGFIELD, VA 22151
44 2802-33-11
FORREST & BARBARA FERONE
28130 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
47 2802-33-22
VAHE & LILA TOROSSIAN
28151 TAMBORA DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
27 2802-31-20
RONALD MYERS
28165 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
30 2802-31-23
PAUL BRANAM
28211 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
33 2802-31-26
TERRY LIEM
28231 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
36 2802-33-3
LOUIS FASMAN
18907 ERMINE STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
39 2802-33-6
JOSEPH SANFILIPPO
28162 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
42 2802-33-9
RONALD BOSWELL
28142 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
45 2802-33-20
DONALD SHEPARD
28137 TAMBORA DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
48 2802-33-23
CHARLES RATCLIFF
28157 TAMBORA DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
28 2802-31-21
JAMES KAUFFMAN
28171 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
31 2802-31-24
TERRY DIXON
28217 BAKERTON AVENUE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
34 2802-33-1
GEORGE STIGILE
18921 ERMINE STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
37 2802-33-4
RICHARD CROCKER
18903 ERMINE STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
40 2802-33-7
ALEX & JAMIE RAMIA
28156 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
43 2802-33-10
MANUEL BARBOSA
28136 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
46 2802-33-21
JAMES ROGERS
28143 TAMBORA DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
49 2802-33-24
MICHAEL KONZ
28163 TAMBORA DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
50 2802-33-25 51 2802-33-26 52 2802-33-27
BLAS VALDON JOHN BADANO JOAN ADAMS
28171 TAMBORA DRIVE 28209 TAMBORA DRIVE 28217 TAMBORA DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
53 2802-34-1
JERRY OWENS
28186 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
56 2802-34-4
RANDY BARKER
28166 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
59 2802-34-14
ORLANDO MOLINA
28129 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
62 2802-34-17
WILHELM BANDORF
28147 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
65 2802-35-11
ROBERT WALKER
3130 KEMPER ROAD
FREMONT, CA 93436
68 2802-35-14
ROBERT CREO
28175 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
71 2802-35-17
CHARLES BROCKWAY
28201 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
74 2802-38-136
BOBBY FREEDMAN
11575 DONA DOROTEA DRIVE
STUDIO CITY, CA 91604
MR. & MRS. LOWELL
P_O. BOX 3155
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
88-268B Page 3
UPDATED 1-23-90
54 2802-34-2
DENNIS DATIN
28180 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
57 2802-34-5
ALLEN FLOCK
28160 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
60 2802-34-15
WESLEY LEE
19809 TERRI DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
63 2802-34-18
ROBYN DAVIDSON
28153 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
66 2802-35-12
CHARLES MURPHY
28163 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
69 2802-35-15
DONALD HART
28183 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
72 2802-35-18
JOHN PROVIENCE
28207 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
Q.M.S. 88-268B
6356 VAN NUYS BLVD., STE. 207
VAN NUYS, CA 91401
55 2802-34-3
JOHN CUDWORTH
17121 TUBA STREET
NORTHRIDGE, CA 91325
58 2802-34-6
JORGE RINCON
28154 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
61 2802-34-16
CARLOS RAMIREZ
C/O EMPIRE OF AMERICA REALTY
100 SENECA STREET
BUFFALO, NY 14203
64 2802-34-19
THOMAS JAMARILLO
28161 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
67 2802-35-13
DAVID HAREM
28169 FOXLANE DRIVE.
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
70 2802-35-16
WILLIAM GILES
28189 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
73 2802-38-133
CITATION HOMES
ATTN: ANTHONY ALLEN
17731 IRVINE BLVD. #201
TUSTIN, CA 92680
SIKAND ENGINEERING
15230 BURBANK BLVD.
VAN NUYS, CA 91411
4 2802-38-2,3
MICHAEL DE MEO
28008 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
7 2802-38-7
RODERICK MC ALPINE
28030 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
10 2802-38-10
MICHAEL & KATHY HSING
28046 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
13 2802-38-13
RAFAEL LOPEZ
28060 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
16 2802-38-16
EDWIN KENDALL
28072 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
19 2802-38-19
THOMAS ARMBRUSTER
28084 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
22 2802-38-22
ANTHONY MORDA
28106 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
5 2802-38-4,5
RICHARD ZIERENBERG
28012 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
8 2802-38-8
RICK TEICHEN
28036 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
11 2802-38-11
SCOTT RIFE
28052 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
14 2802-38-14
CLIFFORD GRAY
28064 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
17 2802-38-17
JOHN WATKINSON
28076 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
20 2802-38-20
DEEPAK SHAH
28088 WILDWIND ROAD #C
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
23 2802-38-23
JOSEPH LOPEZ
28108 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
3 2802-38-130-133
CITATION HOMES
ATTN: ANTHONY ALLEN
17731 IRVINE BLVD. #201
TUSTIN, CA 92680
6 2802-38-6
RONALD JEWELL
28024 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
9 2802-38-9
J.R. TUCKER
28042 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
12 2802-38-12
JUAN ADEVA
28056 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
15 2802-38-15
ROBERT INGRAM
28068 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
18 2802-38-18
STEPHEN GLOTFELTY
23716 WHITFIELD PLACE
VALENCIA, CA 91355
21 2802-38-21
JAMES & VIRGINIA TERRACCINO
28104 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
24 2802-38-24
HENRY BRUZZA
28112 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
25 2802-38-25 26 2802-38-26 27 2802-38-27
PETER REESE DEUK KIM DAVID SALVEN
28116 WILDWIND ROAD 28120 WILDWIND ROAD 28124 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
89-029A Page 1
UPDATED 1-23-90
1
2802-38-136,137
2
2802-38-134,135
BOBBY
FREEDMAN
PERRY
MENDENHALL
11575
DONA DOROTEA DRIVE
24743
VALLEY STREET
STUDIO
CITY, CA 91604
NEWHALL, CA 91321
4 2802-38-2,3
MICHAEL DE MEO
28008 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
7 2802-38-7
RODERICK MC ALPINE
28030 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
10 2802-38-10
MICHAEL & KATHY HSING
28046 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
13 2802-38-13
RAFAEL LOPEZ
28060 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
16 2802-38-16
EDWIN KENDALL
28072 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
19 2802-38-19
THOMAS ARMBRUSTER
28084 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
22 2802-38-22
ANTHONY MORDA
28106 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
5 2802-38-4,5
RICHARD ZIERENBERG
28012 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
8 2802-38-8
RICK TEICHEN
28036 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
11 2802-38-11
SCOTT RIFE
28052 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
14 2802-38-14
CLIFFORD GRAY
28064 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
17 2802-38-17
JOHN WATKINSON
28076 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
20 2802-38-20
DEEPAK SHAH
28088 WILDWIND ROAD #C
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
23 2802-38-23
JOSEPH LOPEZ
28108 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
3 2802-38-130-133
CITATION HOMES
ATTN: ANTHONY ALLEN
17731 IRVINE BLVD. #201
TUSTIN, CA 92680
6 2802-38-6
RONALD JEWELL
28024 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
9 2802-38-9
J.R. TUCKER
28042 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
12 2802-38-12
JUAN ADEVA
28056 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
15 2802-38-15
ROBERT INGRAM
28068 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
18 2802-38-18
STEPHEN GLOTFELTY
23716 WHITFIELD PLACE
VALENCIA, CA 91355
21 2802-38-21
JAMES & VIRGINIA TERRACCINO
28104 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
24 2802-38-24
HENRY BRUZZA
28112 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
25 2802-38-25 26 2802-38-26 27 2802-38-27
PETER REESE DEUK KIM DAVID SALVEN
28116 WILDWIND ROAD 28120 WILDWIND ROAD 28124 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
28 2802-38-28
TASK CHONG
28128 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
31 2802-38-31
ROBERT BURTON
28140 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
34 2802-38-78
SOUREN SANASARIAN
19336 OLD FRIEND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
37 2802-38-81
LUDWIG SHUSTERICH
19326 OLD FRIEND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
40 2802-38-84
LANCE KNOWLES
28135 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
43 28802-38-87
MARK STOCKS
28123 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
46 2802-38-90
DENNIS METCALF
28111 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
49 2802-38-93
DON IWANAGA
28067 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
52 2802-38-96
DAVID HARRIETT
28055 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
89-029A Page 2
UPDATED 1-23-90
29 2802-38-29 30 2802-38-30
ROY KNIGHT MICHAEL SCHAD
28132 WILDWIND ROAD 28136 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
32 2802-38-76 33 2802-38-77
SHAHRAM NAMVARI JEAN FRAZER
19342 OLD FRIEND ROAD 19340 OLD FRIEND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
35 2802-38-79 36 2802-38-80
EDGAR BARANDON LISA BENACH
19332 OLD FRIEND ROAD 19330 OLD FRIEND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
38 2802-38-82 39 2802-38-83
MARION VAN WEST GREGORY GOPARIAN
19322 OLD FRIEND ROAD 19316 OLD FRIEND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
41 2802-38-85 42 2802-38-86
QUENTIN MANSON GIOVANNA GORTON
28133 WILDWIND ROAD 28129 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
44 2802-38-88 45 2802-38-89
DANNY SHRY JAMES WESSELL
28119 WILDWIND ROAD 28115 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
47 2802-38-91 48 2802-38-92
DAVID WEBER EDWARD AYER
28109 WILDWIND ROAD 28071 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
50 2802-38-94 51 2802-38-95
JOHN BOLLINGER LARRY PRIEMER
28063 WILDWIND ROAD 28059 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
53 2802-38-97 54 - 2802-38-98
EARL BAYLESS ROBERT STEWART
28051 WILDWIND ROAD 28045 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
89-029A Page 3
UPDATED 1-23-90
55 2802-38-99
56 2802-38-100
57 2802-38-101
STEPHEN MOORE
RONALD SUFFICOOL
JAMES CARPENTER
28041 WILDWIND ROAD
28039 WILDWIND ROAD
28035 WILDWIND ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
58 2802-37-19-22
59 2802-25-1
60 2802-25-2
AMERICAN CANYON COUNTRY
EVERADO CADILLAS
RICHARD PETRELLA
1990 S. BUNDY DRIVE #500
18914 GOODVALE ROAD
18942 GOODVALE ROAD
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
61 2802-25-3
62 2802-25-4
63 2802-25-5
MILTON HINKLE
EDWARD NICE
RICHARD PETRELLLA
18928 GOODVALE ROAD
18936 GOODVALE ROAD
18942 GOODVALE ROAD
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
64 2802-25-6
65 2802-25-7
66 2802-25-8
LUCILLE WATSON
JOHN STOIC
MICHAEL FOSTER
27976 FOXLANE DRIVE
27970 FOXLANE DRIVE
18923 NADAL STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
67 2802-25-9
68 2802-25-10
69 2802-25-11
ARNOLD COMPRONI
JOHN ESPINOZA
WILLIAM HART
18915 NADAL STREET
18907 NADAL STREET
18891 DARTER DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
70 2802-25-900
71 2802-26-10
72 2802-26-11
L.A. CO. FLOOD CONTROL DIST.
THOMAS SHELBURG
EDUARDO COSTELLO
2250 ALCAZAR STREET
18906 NEARVIEW DRIVE
18912 NEARVIEW DRIVE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90033
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
73 2802-26-12
74 2802-26-13
75 2802-26-14
GERALD CHAFFEE
LLOYD WRIGHT
DAVID & ROBIN JENKINS
18918 NEARVIEW DRIVE
18924 NEARVIEW DRIVE
18930 NEARVIEW DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
76 2802-26-15
77 2802-26-16
78 2802-26-17
SEAN CONLEY
LEONARD SUSHINSKY
STEPHEN GEORGE
18936 NEARVIEW DRIVE
28046 FOXLAND DRIVE
18939 CLAYCREST DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
79 2802-26-18
80 2802-26-19
81 2802-26-20
JAMES BARTOS
ROBERT MORENO -
MITCHELL ROSENFIELD
18933 CLAYCREST DRIVE
18927 CLAYCREST DRIVE
P.O. BOX 3165
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
89-029A Page 4
�-
UPDATED 1-23-90
82
2802-26-21
83 2802-26-22
84 2802-26-23
EDUARDO
& MARIA COSTILLO
SALVATORE FUSCO
ROLANDO ESTEVEZ
18912
NEARVIEW DRIVE
18907 CLAYCREST DRIVE
18901 CLAYCREST DRIVE
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
85
2802-26-24
86 2802-26-25
87 2802-26-26
ROBERT
MUNN
VERNON PERA
STEVEN KONOROSKY
18900
CLAYCREST DRIVE
18904 CLAYCREST DRIVE
18908 CLAYCREST DRIVE
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
88
2802-26-27
89 2802-26-28
90 12802-26-29
THOMAS
BILLARD
ERNEST FELDMANN
WILLIAM BROWN
18914
CLAYCREST DRIVE
18922 CLAYCREST DRIVE
18926 CLAYCREST DRIVE
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
91
2802-26-30
92 2802-26-31
93 2802-26-32
ARTHUR
GERARD
JO WEYAND
NATHAN LEITER
18932
CLAYCREST DRIVE
28018 FOXLANE DRIVE
28000 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
94
2802-26-33
95 2802-26-34
96 2802-26-35
JOHN LUCAS
ROBERT CHISM
HOWARD FINDLEY
18937
GOODVALE ROAD
18933 GOODVALE ROAD
18925 GOODVALE ROAD
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
97
2802-26-36
98 2802-26-37
99 2802-26-38
ROBERT
HOUSTON
TERRANCE LEIDHOLDT
ROBERT KAUFMAN
18919
GOODVALE ROAD
18909 GOODVALE ROAD
9136 MC BRIDE RIVER AVE.
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708
100
2802-27-1
101 2802-27-2
102 2802-27-3,4
LAWRENCE
BECKMAN
JOHN LEMON
KENNETH MONSON
18939
NADAL STREET
P.O. BOX 5461 PMC
21159 W. ELDER CREEK DR.
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA 91351
FRAZIER PARK, CA
SAUGUS, CA 91350
103
2802-27-5,6
104 2802-27-7,8
105 2802-27-9
ROBERT
OLIN
JOEL MC NABB
DONALD PETROVICH
27971
FOXLANE DRIVE
27977 FOXLANE DRIVE
27985 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
106
2802-27-10
107 2802-27-11
108 2802-27-12,13
KENNETH
SONG
RAMON SMITH
CHARLIE GARCIA
27991
FOXLANE DRIVE
28001 FOXLANE DRIVE
28007 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
89-029A Page 5
UPDATED 1-23-90
0-
109 2802-27-14,15 110 2802-27-16 111 2802-27-17
JOSEPH SYLVIA HAROLD GOEBEL JAMES COLLETTA
28015 FOXLANE DRIVE 28019 FOXLANE DRIVE 28027 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
112 2802-27-18
JON LETHIN
28033 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
115 2802-27-21
WILLIAM PETERSON
28053 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
2802-27-900,901
SAME AS #70
120 2802-28-10
BRIAN ASHTON
18908 CABRAL STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
123 2802-28-13
STEVEN & PATRICIA HALLQUIST
4950 WILSHIRE BLVD.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90010
126 2802-28-16
CLARENCE PRICE
18937 NEARVIEW DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
129 2802-28-19
LEONARD TUCKER
18919 NEARVIEW DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
113 2802-27-19
MARY LEONARD
28039 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
116 2802-27-22
DONALD MASANDL
28059 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
118 2802-28-8
EDGAR SVENDSEN
11846 CABRAL STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
121 2802-28-11
KENT & LYNN LOWRY
18914 CABRAL STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
124 2802-28-14
GODREY STONE JR.
18934 CABRAL STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
127 2802-28-17
RONALD FLESHER
18931 NEARVIEW DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
130 2802-28-20
SAMUEL ERICKSON
18913 NEARVIEW DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
114 2802-27-20
RICHARD VARNON
28047 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
117 2802-27-23
MYKOLA KRAWEC
28069 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
119 2802-28-9
DARWIN HARRWELL
18902 CABRAL STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
122 2802-28-12
BERNARD RODEN
18920 CABRAL STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
125 2802-28-15
ANDREW BISSETT
28062 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
128 2802-28-18
JANE CRUTCHFIELD
18925 NEARVIEW DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
131 2802-28-21
THOMAS ESTRADA
18907 NEARVIEW DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
132 2802-32-5 133 2802-32-6 134 2802-32-7
ERNEST MARTINEZ FRED & JAN TEPSTEIN DENNIS DVORAK
18920 BASEL STREET 18928 BASEL STREET 18934 BASEL STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
135 2802-32-8
CONSTANCE SANSING
18040 SHERMAN WAY #530
RESEDA, CA 91335
138 2802-32-11
NORMAN JOHNSON
18927 CABRAL STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
141 2802-32-14
LEROY WENZEL
18903 CABRAL STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
144 2802-33-2
NICHOLAS TITIRIGA
18915 ERMINE STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
136 2802-32-9
EDWARD SCHURICHT
18948 BASEL STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
139 2802-32-12
J.R. MONKHOUSE
18917 CABRAL STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
142 2802-32-15
ARMEN DAYTIAN
18847 CABRAL STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
145 2802-33-3
LOUIS FASMAN
18907 .ERMINE STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
147 2802-33-5 148 2802-33-6
DANIEL SCHWENK JOSEPH SANFILIPPO
28166 N. HAXTON DRIVE 28162 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
150 2802-33-8
KENNETH CORWIN
5667 RAVENEL LANE
SPRINGFIELD, VA 22151
153 2802-33-11
FORREST FERONE
28130 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
156 2802-33-14
NORMA WILLIAMS
28108 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
151 2802-33-9
RONALD BOSWELL
28142 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
154 2802-33-12
LORIE NICHOLS
28122 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
157 2802-33-15
LAWRENCE STARK
28102 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
137 2802-32-10
ROY STARKE
21348 PLACERITA CYN. ROAD
NEWHALL, CA 91321
140 2802-32-13
MARK & DIANE LEWIS
18909 CABRAL STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
143 2802-33-1
GEORGE STIGILE
18921 ERMINE STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
146 2802-33-4
RICHARD CROOKER
18903 ERMINE STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
149 2802-33-7
RONALD HENRICKSON
28156 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
152 2802-33-10
MANUEL BARBOSA
28136 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
155 2802-33-13
DONALD BOLLINGER
28116 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
158 2802-34-1
JERRY OWENS
28186 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
159 2802-34-2 160 2802-34-3 161 2802-34-4
DENNIS DATIN JOHN CUDWORTH RANDY BAKER
28180 FOXLANE DRIVE 17121 TUBA STREET 28166 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 NORTHRIDGE, CA 91325 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
89-029A
Page 6
UPDATED
1-23-90
135 2802-32-8
CONSTANCE SANSING
18040 SHERMAN WAY #530
RESEDA, CA 91335
138 2802-32-11
NORMAN JOHNSON
18927 CABRAL STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
141 2802-32-14
LEROY WENZEL
18903 CABRAL STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
144 2802-33-2
NICHOLAS TITIRIGA
18915 ERMINE STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
136 2802-32-9
EDWARD SCHURICHT
18948 BASEL STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
139 2802-32-12
J.R. MONKHOUSE
18917 CABRAL STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
142 2802-32-15
ARMEN DAYTIAN
18847 CABRAL STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
145 2802-33-3
LOUIS FASMAN
18907 .ERMINE STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
147 2802-33-5 148 2802-33-6
DANIEL SCHWENK JOSEPH SANFILIPPO
28166 N. HAXTON DRIVE 28162 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
150 2802-33-8
KENNETH CORWIN
5667 RAVENEL LANE
SPRINGFIELD, VA 22151
153 2802-33-11
FORREST FERONE
28130 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
156 2802-33-14
NORMA WILLIAMS
28108 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
151 2802-33-9
RONALD BOSWELL
28142 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
154 2802-33-12
LORIE NICHOLS
28122 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
157 2802-33-15
LAWRENCE STARK
28102 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
137 2802-32-10
ROY STARKE
21348 PLACERITA CYN. ROAD
NEWHALL, CA 91321
140 2802-32-13
MARK & DIANE LEWIS
18909 CABRAL STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
143 2802-33-1
GEORGE STIGILE
18921 ERMINE STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
146 2802-33-4
RICHARD CROOKER
18903 ERMINE STREET
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
149 2802-33-7
RONALD HENRICKSON
28156 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
152 2802-33-10
MANUEL BARBOSA
28136 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
155 2802-33-13
DONALD BOLLINGER
28116 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
158 2802-34-1
JERRY OWENS
28186 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
159 2802-34-2 160 2802-34-3 161 2802-34-4
DENNIS DATIN JOHN CUDWORTH RANDY BAKER
28180 FOXLANE DRIVE 17121 TUBA STREET 28166 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 NORTHRIDGE, CA 91325 CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
89-029A Page 7
® .
UPDATED 1-23-90
162
2802-34-5
163
2802-34-6
164 2802-34-7
ALLEN
FLOCK
JORGE
RINCON
CHRISTOPHER GIAMPIETRO
28360
FOXLANE DRIVE
28154
FOXLANE DRIVE
28146 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA
91351
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA
91351
165
2802-34-8
166
2802-34-9
167 2802-34-10
JOHN FRIEDMANN
CHARLES
CHESSMAN
D.W. BOZMAN
23140
N. FOXLANE DRIVE
18949
BASEL STREET
18943 BASEL STREET
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA
91351
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA
91351
168
2802-34-11
169
2802-34-12
170 2802-34-13
LARRY
& ANNE LEACH
ANTHONY
GILKEY
DANA MUNSON
18,935
BASEL STREET
28117
HAXTON DRIVE
28123 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA
91351
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA
91351
171
2802-34-14
172
2802-34-15
173 2802-34-16
ORLANDO
MOLINA
WESLEY
LEE
CARLOS RAMIREZ
23129
HAXTON DRIVE
19809
TERRI DRIVE
C/O EMPIRE OF AMERICA
REALTY
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA
91351
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA 91351
100 SENECA STREET
BUFFALO, NY 14203
174
2802-34-17
175
2802-34-18
176 2802-34-19
WILHELM
BANDORF
ROBYN
DAVIDSON
THOMAS JARAMILLO
28147
HAXTON DRIVE
28153
HAXTON DRIVE
28161 HAXTON DRIVE
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA
91351
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA
91351
177
2802-35-1
178
2802-35-2
179 2802-35-3
TIMOTHY
DOOLEY
HAROLD
SMITH
ROBERT ARTHUR
23081
FOXLANE DRIVE
28087
FOXLANE DRIVE
28101 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA
91351
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA
91351
180
2802-35-4
181
2802-35-5
182 2802-35-6
JACK ZIMMERMAN
MARK PAPP
ROSALBA MANRIQUE
28017
FOXLANE DRIVE
28115
FOXLANE DRIVE
28121 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA
91351
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA
91351
133
2802-35-7
184
2802-35-8
185 2802-35-9
ROCCO
FAZIO
MARIO
& ROSEMARY FACINE
ALEJANDRO ALBA
28129
FOXLANE DRIVE
28135
FOXLANE DRIVE
28143 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA
91351
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA 91351
CANYON COUNTRY, CA
91351
136
2802-35-10
187
2802-35-11
188 2802-35-12
ROBERT
HOLDER
ROBERT
WALKER
CHARLES MURPHY
28149
FOXLANE DRIVE
3130 KEMPER ROAD
28163 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON
COUNTRY, CA
91351
FREMONT, CA 94536
CANYON COUNTRY, CA
91351
189 2802-35-13
DAVID HAREM
28169 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
192 2802-35-16
WILLIAM GILES
28189 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
195 2802-2-10
GOLDEN WEST ENTERPRISES
3303 HARBOR BLVD. #D-10
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
190 2802-35-14
ROBERT CREO
28175 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
193 2802-35-17
CHARLES BROCKWAY
28201 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
SIKAND ENGINEERING
15230 BURBANK BLVD.
VAN NUYS, CA 91411
191 2802-35-15
DONALD HART
28183 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
194 2802-35-18
JOHN PROVIDENCE
28207 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
Q.M.S. 89-029A
6356 VAN NUYS.BLVD., STE. 207
VAN NUYS, CA 91401
89-029A
Page 8
UPDATED
1-23-90
189 2802-35-13
DAVID HAREM
28169 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
192 2802-35-16
WILLIAM GILES
28189 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
195 2802-2-10
GOLDEN WEST ENTERPRISES
3303 HARBOR BLVD. #D-10
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
190 2802-35-14
ROBERT CREO
28175 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
193 2802-35-17
CHARLES BROCKWAY
28201 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
SIKAND ENGINEERING
15230 BURBANK BLVD.
VAN NUYS, CA 91411
191 2802-35-15
DONALD HART
28183 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
194 2802-35-18
JOHN PROVIDENCE
28207 FOXLANE DRIVE
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
Q.M.S. 89-029A
6356 VAN NUYS.BLVD., STE. 207
VAN NUYS, CA 91401
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
APPLICATION: Prezone 89-002 and Appeal of Planning
Commission approval of Vesting Tentative Tract
.._Map 46626
PROJECT PROPONENT: Weston Development Corporation.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Prezoning of property to A-1-10,000 zone and
subdivision -of 201 lots for single family
residences.
LOCATION: North of the northerly terminus of Foxlane
Drive, Tambora Drive, and Bakerton Avenue.
.ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 2802-002-010 and 2812-010-008.
A public hearing on this matter and associated potential
environmental impacts, if any, will be -conducted by the City of
Santa Clarita Planning Commission on:
DATE: April 24, 1990
TIME: 6:30 p.m.
LOCATION: City Council Chambers
23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed project
and is available for public review at:
City Hall
Valencia Library Department of Community Development
23743 Valencia Boulevard & 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Ste. 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Santa Clarita, CA 91355
If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior
to, the public hearing.
For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the
City of Santa Clarita, Department of Community Development, 23920
Valencia Blvd., Third Floor, Santa Clarita, CA 91355; Telephone:
(805) 255-4330.
Ken Pulskamp
Acting Director of Community Development
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: Santa Clarita City Hall Published: The Newhall Signal
Sheriff's Department on:
Santa Clarita Post Office April 4, 1990
Rev.01/12/90
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 47863
WHITES CANYON RD., EAST SIDE, APPROX. 600 FEET
NORTH OF WHITES CANYON & NADAL ST.
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 to conditionally
approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47863, Whites Canyon Rd., east side,
approx. 600 feet, north of Whites Canyon & Nadal Street.
The appeal will be heard by the City Council in the Council Chambers, 23920
Valencia Blvd., 1st floor, the 24th day of April, 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, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita, Ca.
Dated: March 30, 1990
George.Caravalho
City Clerk
Publish date: April 4, 1990
• CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 0
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
APPLICATION: Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47863.
PROJECT PROPONENT: American Landmark Development, Inc..
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:_.80-lot subdivision for single family
residences.
LOCATION: Whites Canyon Road, east sid, approximately
_600 -feet north.of.the.intersection of Whites
Canyon Road and Nadal Street.
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 2802-001-037.
A public hearing on this matter and associated potential
environmental impacts, if any, will be conducted by the City of
Santa Clarita Planning Commission on:
DATE: April 24, 1990
TIME: 6:30 p.m.
LOCATION: City Council Chambers
23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed project
and is available for public review at:
City Hall
Valencia Library Department of Community Development
23743 Valencia Boulevard & 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Ste. 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Santa Clarita, CA 91355
If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior
to, the public hearing.
For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the
City of Santa Clarita, Department of Community Development, 23920
Valencia Blvd., Third Floor,.--Santa-.,..Clarita, CA .91355; Telephone:
(805) 255-4330.
Ken Pulskamp
Acting Director of Community Development
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted:-- Santa C-larita City Hall " Published: The Newhall Signal
Sheriff's Department on:
Santa Clarita Post Office April 4, 1990
Rev.01/12/90
ORDINANCE NO. 90-8
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
(Prezone Case No. 89-002)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine
as follows:
a. An application for a prezone and vesting tentative tract
map were filed simultaneously with the City of Santa
Clarita, June 6, 1989, by Weston Development Corporation
("the applicant"). The property for which these
entitlements have been filed is an 80 -acre parcel located
north of the existing northerly terminus of Foxlane Drive,
Tambora Drive, and Bakerton Avenue. The purpose of the
vesting tentative tract map application submittal is to
create 201 lots within the subject site for family
residential units. The purpose of the prezone is to
request the A-1-10,000 zone (Light Agricultural --one
d.u./10,000 sq. ft.) prior to annexation to the City.
Assessor Parcel Nos. 2802-002-010 and 2812-010-008.
b. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning
Commission on December 19, 1989, continued to January 16,
1990, and February 20, 1990, at the City Council Chambers,
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m.
c. On February 20, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted
resolution no. P90-15 conditionally approving Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 46626, and recommending approval to
the City Council of Prezone No. 89-002.
d. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council
on April 24, 1990 at the City Council Chambers, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence
received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigation
made by the Planning Commission and the City Council and on their
behalf, the City Council further finds and determines as follows:
a. The subject property is an 80 -acre parcel.
b. The subject property is presently zoned A-2-1 Heavy
Agricultural --one d.u./acre (northerly 40 acres) and
A-1-10,000 (southerly 40 acres) in the County of Los
Angeles.
c. The request is for a prezoning of A-1-10,000 (Light
Agricultural --one d.u. 10,000 sq. ft.) for the entire site
to authorize the establishment of 201 lots for single
family residences.
d. The subject property is of a size and shape which lends
itself to the proposed uses that would be established as a
result of_this request.
e. That the City is. proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of a general plan. There is a I reasonable
probability that this rezoning 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 rezoning is ultimately
inconsistent with the .plan. This rezoning complies .with
all other applicable requirements of state law andlocal
ordinance.
f. The• prezoning of A-1-10,000 .will not result in a
significant environmental effect.
g. A Negative Declaration has been approved for. this project
pursuant to thea California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq..):
SECTION 3. In acting on the prezoning application, the
City Council has considered certain principles and standards, and
finds and determines as follows:
a. That modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning
plan as it pertains to the subject property;
b. That a need for the proposed zone classification exists
within the. area.of the.subject,property; -
c. That the subject property is a proper location for the
A-1-10,000 zone classification;
d. That the requested prezone at the subject property will be
in the interest of public health, safety and general
welfare, and in conformity with good zoning practice;
e. That pre"zoning the subject property will not result in a
need for greater water supply for adequate fire protection;
and,
SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council does
hereby ordain that the application for a prezoning is approved, and
that the official zoning map of the City of Santa,Clarita is hereby
amended so that the subject property is prezoned A-1-10,000, and
shown on the attached map (Exhibit 1).
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective at 12:01
a.m. on the thirty-first day after adoption, or upon the effective
date,_ o,f—then, annexation •(No.-• 1989-02) , of -the subject—property to the
City of Santa Clarita, whichever occurs last.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage
of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner
prescribed by law;'
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 1990.
MAYOR.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I; City Clerk of the City
of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No.
90- 8.was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at
a regular meeting of the City Council on the day
of 1990. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly
adopted and passed at a .regular meeting of the. City Council on
-'-the day of 1990, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERSi
CITY CLERK
ID 33
VICINITY MAP
CASE N O • PREZONE 89-002
E X H I B I T 1
RESOLUTION NO. 90-74
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47863
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine as
follows:
a. An application for a vesting tentative tract map was filed with
the City of Santa Clarita, June 5, 1989, by American Landmark
Development, Inc. ("the applicant"). The property for which
this entitlement has been filed is a 32 -acre parcel located on
Whites Canyon Road approximately 600 feet northwest of the
intersection of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street. The site
is zoned A-1-10,000. The purpose of the vesting tentative tract
map application is to create 80 lots within the subject site for
single family residential units.. Assessor Parcel No.
2802-001-037.
b. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee (DRC) met
on October 26, 1989 and supplied the applicant's agent with
recommended conditions of approval.
C. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning
Commission on December 19, 1989, continued to January 16, 1990,
and February 20, 1990, at the City Council Chambers, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m.
d. On February 20, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted resolution
no. P90-16 conditionally approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 47863.
e. An appeal was filed by Karen Holder on March 30, 1990 which was
within the appropriate period to file an appeal.
f.. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on
April 24, 1990 at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia,
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received
at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigation made by the
City Council and on its behalf, the Council further finds and determines
as follows:
a. The City of Santa Clarita is proceeding in a timely fashion with
the preparation of a general plan. There is a reasonable
probability that this project, including the density -controlled
development, will be consistent with the general plan proposal
currently being considered or studied, that there, is little or
no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with
the future adopted general plan if the proposed resolution is
ultimately inconsistent with that plan, and that the proposed
project complies with all other applicable requirements of state
law and local ordinances.
b. The division and development of the property in the manner set
forth on the subject parcel map will not unreasonably interfere
with the free and complete exercise of any public entity and/or
public utility right-of-way and/or easements within the parcel
map.
C. Approval of this vesting tentative tract map will expire
twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval.
d. The applicant has submitted a vesting tentative tract map which
depicts the area proposed for the 80 lots within the subject
site.
e. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will
not cause serious public health problems, since sewage disposal,
storm drainage, fire protection, and geological and soils
factors are addressed in the recommended conditions of
approval. The discharge of sewage from the subdivision into the
public sewer system will not violate the requirements prescribed
by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant
to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code.
f. The subject property is of a size and shape which lends itself
to the proposed use.
g. The recommended subdivision- will not result in a significant
environmental effect.
h. Implementation of this proposal will cause no adverse effects in
the environment which cannot be adequately mitigated through the
application of available controls. The design of the
subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause
substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable
injury to fish or wild life or their habitat, since the project
site is not located in a mapped significant ecological area.
i. The proposed lot sizes are consistent with surrounding lot sizes.
j. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible,
for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities
in the subdivision given the size and shape of the lots and
their intended use.
k. The proposed subdivision does not contain or front upon any
public waterway, river_, stream, coastline, shoreline, lake or
reservoir.
1. The housing needs of the .region were considered and balanced
. against the public service needs of local residents.
M. Neither the design of the subdivision nor the type of
improvements will conflict with public easements for access
through the use of property within the proposed subdivision,
since the design and development as set forth in the conditions
of approval and on the tentative map, provides adequate
protection for easements.
n. The subject property is in a proper location for single family
residential uses.
o. The City Council finds that satisfactory evidence has been
provided, in accordance with Section 21.24.100 of the municipal
code, that a lower street grade is not possible. The maximum
street grade proposed is 12 1/2Z.
p. The applicant has requested a reduction in lot area in
accordance with Section 21.24.260 of the municipal code.
Accordingly, the City Council makes the following findings
required of Section 21.24.250A:
1. That due to sloping terrain, the topographic features within
the division of land will be better utilized if a portion of
the lots in such division are less in area than the
applicable designation; and
2. That a final map or parcel map of the division of land or
any part thereof will not be filed unless the average area
of all lots on such map or maps is not less than the
applicable zoning designation; and
3. That the lots having a reduced area will be compatible in
design to the design of adjacent facing and siding lots of
abutting development; and
4. That all lots which are not reduced in area shall comply
with Subsection A of Section 21.24.240.
SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarita City Council 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 City Council hereby approves the negative
declaration.
SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby
approves the application for the vesting tentative tract map subject to
following conditions attached hereto as "Exhibit 1" and incorporated
herein by reference allowing the creation of 80 lots for single family
residential uses.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution and shall transmit a copy to the applicant, the Departments of
Public Works, Fire, and Parks and Recreation.
1990.
PASSED; APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of ,
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the
City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof,
held on the day of 1990, by the following vote of the
Council:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
City Clerk
ID 32
CITY COUNCIL CONDITION (4-24-90)
102. In addition to the monitoring devices required
above, the applicant shall establish survey monitoring points
along its southern tract boundaries near the off-site property
corners three (3) months prior to the commencement of grading
activity. These survey points shall be read on a monthly basis
until such timeas construction activity commences.
Thereafter, these survey points shall be read once per week
until such time as grading activity is completed within five
hundred (500) feet of the tract boundary. The survey points
shall then be read on a monthly basis for a period of six (6)
months following completion of said area.
H
CI
EXHIBIT 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47863
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47863 (the
"VTTM") shall expire two years from the date of its
conditional approval.
2. The applicant (as hereinafter defined) may
file for an extension of the VTTM by filing an application
for extension at least 60 days prior to expiration of the
VTTM. Said extension shall not exceed a period of one year.
3. Within 30 days of any change in the status of
the applicant or upon designation of a new engineer, the --
applicant (as hereinafter defined) shall be responsible for
notifying the Department of Community Development, in
writing, of any such 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 grant. 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 provided for in the 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, 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 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.
5. Details shown on the VTTM are not necessarily
approved. Any details which are inconsistent with
requirements of ordinances, these general conditions of
approval, or City policies must be specifically approved.
Page -1-
MRG/CON47863
a
C
6. The subject property shall be subject to fees,
at the rate.being charged by the City at the time the
applicant seeks building permit issuance, including but not
limited to (1) Los Angeles County Residential Sewer
Connection Fee; (2) Interim School Facilities Financing
Fee; (3) Installation or Upgrade of Traffic Signals Fees;
and (4) Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fee.
7. During construction of the improvements upon
the property which is the subject of this land division, a
stop -work order shall be considered in effect immediately
upon the discovery of any historic artifacts and/or remains,
at which time the City shall be immediately notified of the
discovery. Said stop -work order shall remain in effect
until City terminates said order, which shall not be
unreasonably prolonged.
8. In lieu of establishing the final specific
locations of structures on each lot at this time, the
applicant shall develop the property in conformance with the
City Code and other appropriate ordinances, including but
not limited to the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading
Ordinance, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Zoning
Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Water
Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance,
Electrical Code, and Fire Code. Improvements and other
requirements may be imposed by the Department of Community
Development and the Department of Public Works pursuant to
such codes and ordinances.
9. A grading permit shall be required for any and
all off-site grading which is done for the purposes of
developing the property covered by these conditions.
10. The applicant shall make the required deposit
to the City prior to City review of documents and plans for
final map clearance in accordance with Section 21.36.010(c)
of the Subdivision Ordinance.
11. All existing and new utilities shall be
undergrounded.
12. Easements shall be granted to the City, or.
other appropriate agency or entity, for the purpose of
ingress, egress. construction and maintenance of all
infrastructure constructed for this land division, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
13. The applicant shall adjust, relocate and/or
eliminate lot lines, lots, streets, easements, grading,
MRG/CON47863
Page -2-
c
geotechnical protective devices, and/or physical
improvements to comply with ordinances, policies and
standards in effect at the date the County determined the
application to be complete, all of which shall be to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
Map Requirements
14. All easements existing at the time of final
map approval must be accounted for on the approved tentative
map, including but not limited to 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 of its location. If all easements
have not been accounted for on the VTTM at the time final
map approval is sought, the applicant shall submit a
corrected tentative map to the City Engineer for approval.
15. All offers of dedication shall be noted by
certificate on the face of the final map.
16. The final map shall be prepared by or under
the direction of a licensed land surveyor or registered
civil engineer.
17. The final map must be approved by the City
Engineer before filing with the County Recorder.
18. The applicant shall quitclaim or relocate
existing easements which would otherwise underlie or run _
through proposed structures.
19. If the applicant intends to file multiple
final maps, he must so inform the Department of Public Works
and the Department of Community Development at the time the
tentative map is filed. The boundaries of each unit of the
final map shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and the Department of Community Development.
20. If signatures of record title interests appear.
on the final map, a preliminary guarantee shall be required
for each record title owner. A final guarantee shall be
required for each record title owner at the time of filing
the final map. If said signatures do not appear on the
final map, a title report/guarantee shall be provided
showing all fee owners and interest holders and this account
Page -3-
MRG/CON47863.
14
•
•
must remain open until the final parcel map is filed with
the County Recorder.
21. The applicant shall grant to the City or other
appropriate agency or entity for the purpose of ingress,
egress, construction and maintenance of all infrastructure
constructed for this land division to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
Road Improvements
22. Local street(s) shall be aligned so that the
central angles of the right-of-way radius returns do not
differ by more than 10 degrees.
23. The applicant shall provide letter(s)
guaranteeing the dedication of slope easement(s) and
drainage acceptance by the applicant and the adjacent
homeowners respectively, as required by the City Engineer or
Director Public Works.
24. The applicant shall provide at least 40 feet
of frontage at the front property line between radial lot
lines for each lot fronting on a cul-de-sac or knuckle.
25. The applicant shall be required to install
distribution lines and individual service lines for
community antenna television service (CATV) for each lot in
the subject property.
26. The applicant shall place above ground
utilities including, but not limited to, fire hydrants,
junction boxes and street lights outside of the sidewalk.
27. The applicant shall install mailboxes and
posts for each lot on the subject property per City
standards. Approval of the U.S. Postal Service shall be
secured prior to installation of mailboxes and posts.
28. Existing trees in dedicated right-of-way or
right -of way to be dedicated shall be removed if they are
not acceptable as street trees. The determination as to the
acceptability of existing street trees shall be made in the
sole discretion of the Director of Parks and Recreation.
29. The applicant shall be required to plant
street trees to City standards and specifications unless
this condition has been waived by the Director of Parks and
Recreation because, in his sole discretion, sufficient trees
have been placed within an abutting landscaped setback. The
Page -4-
MRG/CON47863
c
0
applicant shall contact the City Department of Parks and
Recreation for street tree location, species, and approved
method of installation and irrigation.
30. The applicant shall not grant or record any
easements within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or
offered for dedication for public streets or highways,
access rights, building restriction rights, or other areas
intended to be used by the public or restricted in use until
after the final map is filed with the County Recorder unless
such easements are subordinated, in writing, by the easement
holder to the proposed grant or dedication.
31. The applicant, by agreement with the City
Engineer or Director of Public Works, may guarantee
installation of improvements as deemed necessary by the City
Engineer or Director of Public Works through faithful
performance bonds, letters of credit or any other acceptable
means.
32. Off-site improvements may be required for "A"
Street if in the sole discretion of the Director of Public
Works such off-site improvements are necessary.
C.33. Where off-site grading and street improvements
are required, it shall be the responsibility of the
applicant to acquire the necessary right-of-way and/or
easements, provided, however,.that the provisions of
Government Code Section 66462.5 shall be applicable.
. 34. The centerlines of all local streets shall be
aligned without creating jogs of less than 150 feet. A one
foot jog may be used where a street changes width from 60
feet to a 58 foot right-of-way.
35. The centerline radius of each street with (1)
a grade in excess of 10%, or (2) a distance of 40 feet
between curbs shall be a minimum of 350 feet.
36. The design of local streets shall have a
minimum centerline curve radii which will provide centerline
curves to 100 feet minimum length; provided, however, that
reversing curves need not exceed a radius of 1,500 feet and
no curve need exceed a radius of 3,000 feet. The length of
curve outside of the beginning of curb return shall be used
to satisfy the 100 foot minimum requirement.
37. The minimum centerline radius on a local
street with an intersecting street on the concave side
should comply with design speeds per Road Section's
Page -5-
MRG/CON47863
C
"Requirements for Street Plans" and sight distances per the
current standards of the American Association of State
Highway Transportation Officials.
38. Street grades shall be permitted in excess of
10% at the following location: "B" Street between "A"
Street and "C" Street, not to exceed 12.5%.
39. The design for intersections of local streets
with General Plan Highways shall provide sight distance to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Additional right-of-
way dedication and/or grading may be required.
40. The design for intersections of local streets
shall provide sight distances to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. Additional right-of-way dedication and/or
grading may be required.
41. The central angles of the right-of-way radius
returns shall not differ by more than 10 degrees on local
streets.
42. The applicant shall provide standard property
line return radii of (1) 13 feet shall be provided at all
local street intersections, including intersections of local
streets with General Plan Highways, (2) 27 feet where all
General Plan Highways intersect, or (3) standard property
line return radii which are satisfactory to the Department
of Public Works.
43. Compound curves are preferred over broken -back
curves, but broken -back curves, where used, shall be
separated by a minimum of 200 feet tangent.(1,000 feet for
multi -lane highways.
44. The applicant shall construct drainage
improvements and offer for dedication easements needed for
street drainage or slopes.
45. The applicant shall construct full width
sidewalks at all sidewalk returns.
46. The applicant shall repair any broken or
damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement on. streets
within or abutting the subdivision as required by the
Department of Public Works.
47. The applicant shall construct a slough wall
outside the street right-of-way when the height of slope is
Page -6-
MRG/CON47863
greater than 5 feet above the sidewalk and the sidewalk is
adjacent to the street right-of-way.
.48. The applicant shall provide and install street
name signs prior to occupancy of the first unit in the
subject property.
49. The applicant shall dedicate to the City, for
Public use, vehicular access right on Whites Canyon Road,
unless construction of a wall is required. If the
construction of a wall is required, the applicant shall
dedicate to the City for public use, complete access rights.
50. Driveways shall not be constructed within 25
feet upstream of any catch basin on a street with a grade in
excess of 6%.
51. The applicant shall construct the following
required road improvements:
Street
Curb &
Street Street
Name
Width
Gutter
Paving
Lights
Trees
Sidewalk
C,D,E,F,G
58 FT.
X
X
X
X
X
B
60 FT.
X
X
X
X
X
A 64
and 80 FT.
X
X
X
X
X
52. The offer for Future Street and for Nearview
Drive must be accepted prior to recording the final map if
it is not already a dedicated street. The temporary
turnaround on Nearview Drive shall be eliminated and curb,
gutter, base, pavement and sidewalk shall be constructed.
WATER CONDITIONS
53: 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 flows
required for the land division are to be determined in the
sole discretion of the City Engineer or Director of Public
Works, Fire flows required are to be determined in the sole
discretion of the Fire Chief.
54. Prior to the issuance of the first building
permit for the proposed development, the applicant shall
jfile with the City Engineer a statement from the water
Page -7-
MRG/CON47863
purveyer indicating that the water system will be operated
by, and water service will be provided to, the project 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.
55. The applicant shall provide all documents or
materials necessary to substantiate to the City's
satisfaction 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.
SEWER CONDITIONS
56. The applicant shall submit an area study to
determine whether capacity is available in the sewerage
system to be used as the outlet for the sewers in this land
division. If the system is found to have insufficient
capacity, the problem must be resolved to the satisfaction
of the Director of Public Works prior to the issuance of the
first building permit.
57.. The applicant shall, prior to the issuance of
the first building permit for this land division or at such
time as required by the Director of Public Works, (1)
install and offer for dedication the local main line sewers
and separate house laterals to serve each lot of the land
division, or (2) have on file with the City a City approved
and bonded sewer plan which provides in detail for the
installation and dedication of the main line sewer and
separate house laterals to serve each lot of the land
division. Determination of whether or not the applicant
shall install and dedicate the above -required improvements
or file a plan and bond shall be in the sole discretion of
the Director of Public Works.
58. An hydrology study shall be submitted by the
applicant and approved by the Director of Public Works prior
to filing the final map.
GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND GEOLOGY CONDITIONS
59. A grading plan shall be submitted and approved
by the Department of Public Works prior to approval of the
final map.
60. The grading plan required by these conditions
must.be based on a detailed engineering Geotechnical report
and must be specifically approved by City's. geologist
Page -8-
MRG/CON47863
11
and/or soils engineer
by them. The grading
map and conditions as
All buttresses shown
25 feet high shall be
and show all recommendations submitted
plan shall agree with the tentative
approved by the Planning Commission.
on the grading plan to be in excess of
accompanied by calculations.
61. Because portions of this project are within a
mapped landslide area, (1) all geologic hazards associated
with the development proposed for this land division must be
eliminated or (2) the applicant shall delineate a
restricted use area approved by the consultant geologist to
the satisfaction of the Geology and Soils Section of the
City Public Works Department and dedicate to the City by
legal means approved by the City Attorney the right to
prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures
within the restricted use areas.
62. Because portions of the property lying in and
adjacent to natural drainage courses are subject to flood
hazard because of overflow, inundation, and debris flows and
because portions of the property are subject to sheet
overflow and ponding and high velocity scouring action, the
applicant shall provide, prior to filing the final map,
drainage plans and necessary support documents to comply
with the following requirements which shall be to the
satisfaction of, and be approved by, the Director of Public
Works:
(a) Provide for the proper distribution of
drainage; and
(b) Provide drainage facilities to remove the
flood hazard and dedicate and show necessary
easements and/or rights of way on the final map and
show on the final map the City's/Flood Control
District's right-of-way for storm drains. A permit
will be required for any construction affecting the
right-of-way or facilities; and
(c) 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;
and
(d) Comply -with the requirements of the approved
drainage concept to the satisfaction of the
Department of Public Works.
Page -9-
MRG/CON47863
63. The applicant shall submit for approval by the
Director of Public Works, a final geotechnical and soil
report. That report shall be based upon adequate test
borings or excavations, and 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 shall be required and
shall be done in accordance with the procedures of Uniform
Building Code Standard No. 29-2.
64. A drainage benefit assessment district shall
be established and ratified prior to recordation of the
final map to insure the continued maintenance of any
drainage improvements and subdrains. The first year's
maintenance costs shall be paid by the applicant prior to
approval of the final map.
65. The applicant shall include in covenants,
conditions and restrictions applicable to the subject land
division notifications to homeowners of all recommendations
and requirements of the geotechnical engineer.
66. The applicant shall construct the project in
compliance with the required and approved drainage plan to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
PUBLIC WORKS - TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
67. Prior to approval of the final map, the
applicant shall pay a bridge and thoroughfare fee in the
amount of $5,300 per dwelling unit.
68. The following traffic mitigations shall be
required by the applicants for both the VTTM and Tentative
Tracts Map No. 47863. Costs for these requirements shall be
assessed on a pro rata basis for each of the two tracts:
(a) A traffic signal with appropriate signs and
street striping shall be installed at the
intersection of Whites Canyon Road and "A" Street.
(b) "A" Street shall be extended between the
boundaries of tentative tracts 46626 and 47863 to
complete a continuous length from Whites Canyon
Road to the easterly boundary of the VTTM. This
shall include acquisition of right-of-way between
the two tracts including off-site easement for
future public streets and off-site grading
necessary to accommodate the proposed street.
Page -10-
MRG/CON47863
(c) Peak -hour parking restrictions shall be
installed on Whites Canyon Road on both the east
and west sides, north of Nadal Street for which the
applicant shall provide and install signage and/or
striping as determined in the sole discretion of
the City's Traffic Engineer. The applicant shall
stripe the approach and departure lanes to the
intersection of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street
(within the existing right-of-way) by restriping
and shall provide and install any related signing
of the northbound and southbound approaches to
Whites Canyon Road to provide one additional
northbound and southbound lane. All work shall be
funded by the applicant and completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
69. The applicant may use the non -alternate street
section only with approval of the Director of Parks &
Recreation, the City Engineer and the Director of Community
Development.
/ FIRE CONDITIONS
70. This property is located within the area
described by the Forester and Fire Warden as Fire Zone 4 and
future construction and shall comply with applicable Code
requirements.
71. 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. All fire hydrants for the subject property shall
have a fire flow over and above maximum daily domestic use
of 1250 gallons per minute @.20 psi for a duration of two
hours.
72. The applicants shall provide and install 9
Public Fire Hydrants which meet the shall each measure
61Ix4"x2 1/211, be made of brass or bronze and conform to
current American Water Works Association Standard C503 or
approved equal.
73. All hydrants shall be installed a minimum of
25' from a structure or where a structure is a distance
less than 25' from a fire hydrant that structure shall be
protected by a two hour fire wall as per map on file, or as
otherwise approved by the Fire Department.
Page -11-
MRG/CON47863
i
0
74. The applicant shall provide Fire Department
and'City approved street signs, and building address numbers
prior to occupancy.
75. All required fire hydrants shall be installed,
tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access
to the required fire hydrants must be provided and
maintained serviceable throughout construction.
76. The applicant shall participate in an
appropriate financing mechanism to provide funds for fire
protection facilities which are required by new commercial,
industrial or residential development in an amount
proportionate to the demand created by this project.
77. All przl tate dy};aejia--s 4he,` j e
shall ba -i n a•s•2 a e e d—eR dc -he- Ie4n a l N.aP—a - II J: i r-e—Za R e a
-94•__— 44e
PARKS AND RECREATION CONDITIONS
78. An in lieu park and recreation fee, or
dedication of park land, as determined by the City, or a
combination of the two shall be required prior to approval
of the final map and in accordance with the Municipal Code.
79. Either a special landscape maintenance
assessment district or a homeowner's association (a HOA")
shall be formed to have the responsibility and authority to
maintain all slopes, and street trees if the non -alternate
street section is used, in the land division including, but
not limited to, landscaping, irrigation and street trees.
The formation of a landscape assessment district or HOA must
be disclosed in real estate documents to homeowners.
80.. The applicant shall provide access to, and
egress from, slopes which are to be maintained by a
Landscape Assessment District or HOA by the dedication of
easements or other legal means satisfactory to the City
Attorney.
81. Median landscaping improvements shall be made
to the medians from adjacent to the tract frontage on Whites
Canyon Road to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and
Recreation.
Page -12-
MRG/CON47863
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
82. Three copies of a landscape plan and fencing
plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of
Community Development and the Director of Parks and
Recreation prior to the issuance of building permits. The
landscape plan shall show size, type, location of all
plants, trees, and water facilities and locations
dimensions, and details of the project fencing and/or walls
and shall be in conformity with the following standards:
a. Fencing for each lot shall be provided in the
form of a decorative masonry block wall, with a
cap, at a height of six (6) feet, or other
.. materials as approved by the Director of Community
Development.
b. View lots may be fenced using a combination of
a base fencing of three (3) courses of masonry with
wrought iron the remainder of the distance to the
six (6) feet height. Masonry pilasters shall be
provided at the intersection of a rear property
1 with a side property line. Lots to be fenced as
view lots shall be approved by the Director of
Community Development.
C. Fencing for each lot shall end at the end of
the pad for each lot. All remaining slope areas
shall be fenced to give the appearance of a single
open space lot.
d. "Entrances to side yards shall be constructed
of masonry wall and wooden gates. No wrought iron
shall be permitted at side yard entries except a
side yard entry which is not visible from the
street.
83. Prior to occupancy, landscaping and fencing
for the tract shall be provided and installed in conformity
with the landscape and fencing plans.
84. A subdivision entry sign may be permitted in
accordance with Section 22.52.970B of the Municipal Code and
maybe incorporated into tract fencing and landscaping.
85. The existing oak tree on the site shall be
incorporated into future landscaping of the tract, and shown
on the landscape plan. During grading and construction,
that oak tree shall be appropriately protected. No work
Page -13-
MRG/CON47863
shall be permitted within the protected zone which shall be
in conformity with City standards (5 feet from the
dripline).
86. The applicant shall comply with all
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the specific zoning
for the subject property unless provisions to the contrary
are set forth in any approval issued with respect to the
development of the subject property or shown on the approved
tentative map. Any deviation from zoning requirements shall
be made only with the proper approval.
87. The property shall be developed and maintained
in substantial conformance with the tentative,map.
88. 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..
1 89. Any violation of any condition hereof or of
any law, statute, or ordinance applicable to this land
division and the development of the subject property shall
result in suspension of the entitlement granted hereby and
lapse of all privileges granted hereby granted hereunder;
provided that the applicant has been given written notice to
cease such violation and has failed to cease such violation
for a period of 30 days following the giving of such notice.
90. Pursuant to approval and agreement of the
applicant, final map approval shall not be granted until the
applicant enters into an agreement for school mitigation
with the William S. Hart Union High School District, the
Saugus Union School District and the Sulphur Springs Union
School District.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS REOUESTED BY THE APPLICANT(Reference•
Applicant's letters of December 19, 1989 and February 20
990
91. Prior to submitting the fencing and
landscaping plans required above, the applicant shall
solicit from the existing property owners whose property
abuts the southerly boundary of the subject property for
opinions and comments of those homeowners regarding the
location, design and materials to be used in the
1 construction of the walls, landscaping and irrigation on the
Page -14-
MRG/CON47863
subject propertywich lies immediately adjont to those
existing homes.
92. Prior to occupancy, a traffic study shall be
conducted by the City in the existing neighborhood to the east
of the subject property to determine if any additional traffic
controls are required. The cost of the study and controls
deemed required shall be borne by the applicant. Additional
controls which may be required by the City as a resolution of
the traffic study may include, but shall not be limited to, any
necessary signal modifications at the intersections of Whites
Canyon Road and Nadal Street, and potential use of speed bumps
or humps or raised ceramic pavement markers. Property owners
within 400 feet of the eastern boundary of the subject property
shall be notified by the City of the results of the study.
93. Prior to commencement of any grading, the
applicant shall hire, at applicant's cost, an inspector to
inspect each home and property within 400' of the eastern
boundary of this land division, from whose owner the applicant
receives a written request so to do, to help determine its
existing conditions and to create a bench mark by which to
determine if any grading on the applicant's tract causes any
damage to the adjacent existing homes. Any damage determined
to be caused by the applicant will be repaired at the
applicant's expense.
94. A monitoring system for ground movement shall be
established within the off-site tract street and sidewalk
network to establish a baseline reference six (6) months prior
to commencement of any proposed grading activity. Such
monitoring shall continue through the grading process until the
grading is completed, within five hundred (500) feet of the
tract boundary. Thereafter, such monitoring shall continue for
a period of six (6) months following the completion of grading
activity in said area. Said monitoring system shall be read
and examined once a month. The survey points shall be
established in an area within five hundred (500) feet of the
tract boundaries.
In addition to the monitoring devices required
above, the applicant shall establish survey monitoring points
along its southern tract boundaries near the off-site property
corners three (3) months prior to the commencement of grading
activity. These survey points shall be read on a monthly basis
until such time as construction activity commences.
Thereafter, these survey points shall be read once per week
until such time as grading activity is completed with five
hundred (500) feet of the tract boundary. The survey points
shall then be read on a monthly basis for a period of six (6)
months following completion of said area.
95. Prior to the commencement of the monitoring
required by conditions noted above, the applicant shall notify
the City. The applicant shall make all survey data and
monitoring results available to the City of Santa Clarita, to
its representatives, and to the applicant's consultants for the
purpose of analysis and review.
Page -15=
MRG/CON47863
96. Prior to the commencement
soon as practicable, the applicant shall
places where plant life has been removed
slope of the site during the exploratory
on February 3. 1990.
•
of grading, and as
hydroseed all
from the easterly
trenching completed
97. During grading of the site, small equipment
shall be used within five hundred (500) feet of any existing
residences to minimize vibration. Any excessive vibration
may be reported to the City which may recommend additional
mitigation measures.
98. Subject to written approval from the property
owner of the residence at 28135 Foxlane Drive, the applicant
shall be permitted to enter the property to correct a
localized surficial slump in the vicinity of the rear yard
of that property. It is recognized that, to accomplish the
task outlined herein, the applicant will require access
through two adjacent properties at 28129 and 28143 Foxlane
Drive and that written permission of the owners of those
properties will be required to ingress and egress to the
slump area described above.
99. To reasonably insure the safety of the
adjacent property during the grading process, the applicant
shall install two chain link fences, one near and
surrounding any portion of the subject property upon which
the applicant is grading and another near the property line
of the subject property with adjacent homes. The fence
shall be designed to perform beyond normal standards in
protecting adjacent homes from the results of grading. Such
fences shall require approval by the Department of Public
Works before installation.
ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITION (1-16-90)
100. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation
measure prescribed in the biological resources report for
the site dated January 8, 1990.
ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITION (3-6-90)
101. During the grading and construction, no
traffic shall be permitted ingress and egress the site via
Foxlane Drive, Nearview Drive, Tambora Drive or Bakerton
Avenue. All vehicles entering the site shall be required to
use Whites Canyon Road as the point of ingress and egress.
Page -16-
MRG/CON47863
CITY COUNCIL CONDITION (4-24-90)
102. In addition to the monitoring devices required
above, the applicant shall establish survey monitoring points
along its southern tract boundaries near the off-site property
corners three (3) months prior to the commencement of grading
activity. These survey points shall be read on a monthly basis
until such time as construction activity commences.
Thereafter, these survey points shall be read once per week
until such time as grading activity is completed within five
hundred (500) feet of the tract boundary. The survey points
shall then be read on a monthly basis for a period of six (6).
months following completion of said area.
RESOLUTION NO. 90-75
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 46626
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine as
follows:
a. An application for a prezone and vesting tentative tract map
were filed simultaneously with the City of Santa Clarita, June
6, 1989, by Weston Development Corporation ("the applicant").
The property for which these entitlements have been filed is an
80 -acre parcel located north of the existing northerly terminus
of Foxlane Drive, Tambora Drive, and Bakerton Avenue. The
purpose of the vesting tentative tract map application submittal
is to create 201 lots within the subject site for family
residential units. The purpose of the prezone is to request the
A-1-10,000 zone prior to annexation to the City. Assessor
Parcel Nos. 2802-002-010 and 2812-010-008.
b. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee (DRC) met
on October 26, 1989 and supplied the applicant's agent with
recommended conditions of approval.
C. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning
Commission on December 19, 1989, continued to January 16, 1990,
and February 20, 1990, at the City Council Chambers, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m.
d. On February 20, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted resolution
no. P90-15 conditionally approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 46626.
e. An appeal was filed by Karen Holder on March 30, 1990 which was
within the appropriate period to file an appeal.
6 f. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on
April 24, 1990 at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence
received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigation made
by the City Council and on its behalf, the Council further finds and
determines as follows:
a. The City of Santa Clarita 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 currently being considered; or studied,
that there is little or no probability of substantial detriment
to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the
proposed resolution is ultimately inconsistent with that plan,
and that the proposed project complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
b. The division and development of the property in the manner set
forth on the subject parcel map will not unreasonably interfere
with the free and complete exercise of any public entity and/or
public utility right-of-way and/or easements within the parcel
map.
C. Approval of this vesting tentative tract map will expire
twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval.
d. The applicant has submitted a vesting tentative tract map which
depicts the area proposed for the 201 lots within the subject
site..
e. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will
not cause serious public health problems, since sewage disposal,
storm drainage, fire protection, and geological and soils
factors are addressed in the recommended conditions of
approval. The discharge of sewage from the subdivision into the
public sewer system will not violate the requirements prescribed
by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant
to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code.
f. The subject property is of a size and shape which lends itself
to the proposed use.
g. The recommended subdivision will not result in a significant
environmental effect.
h. Implementation of this proposal will cause no adverse effects in
the environment which cannot be adequately mitigated through the
application of available controls. The design of the
subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause
substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable
injury to fish or wild life or their habitat, since the project
site is not located in a significant ecological area.
i. The proposed parcel sizes are consistent with surrounding parcel
sizes.
j. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible,
for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities.
in the subdivision given the size and shape of the lots and
their intended use.
k. The proposed subdivision does not contain or front upon any
public waterway, river, stream, coastline, shoreline, lake or
reservoir.
1. The housing needs of the region were considered and balanced
against, the public service needs of local residents.
M. Neither the design of the subdivision nor the type of
improvements will conflict with public easements for access
through the use of property within the proposed subdivision,
sii1ce the design and development as set forth in the conditions
of approval and on the tentative map, provides adequate
protection for easements.
n. The subject property is in a proper location for single family
residential uses.
o. The City Council finds that satisfactory evidence has been
provided, in accordance with Section 21.24.100 of the municipal
code, that a lower street grade is not possible. The maximum
street grade proposed is 12 1/2%.
p. The applicant has requested a reduction in the lot area in
accordance with Section 21.24.260 of the municipal code.
Accordingly, the City Councial makes the following findings
required of Section 21.24.250A:
1. That due to sloping .terrain, the topographic features
within the division of land will be better utilized if a
portion of the lots in such division are less in area
than the applicable designation;
2. That a final map or parcel map of the division land or
any part thereof will not be filed unlessthe average area
of all lots on such map or maps is not less than the
applicable zoning designation;
3. That the lots having a reduced area will be compatible in
design to the design of adjacent facing and siding lots
of abutting development;
4. That all lots which are not reduced in area shall comply
with Subsection A of Section 21.24.240.
SECTION 3. In making the recommendation contained in this
resolution, the City Council has considered certain principles and
standards, and finds and determines as follows:
a. That modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning plan
as it pertains to the subject property; and
b. That a need for the proposed zone classification exists within
the area of the subject property; and
C. That the subject property is a proper location for the
A-1-10,000 zone classification; and
d. That placement of the proposed zone at the subject property will
be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare,
and in conformity with good zoning practice.
i 0
SECTION 4. The City of Santa Clarita City Council 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 City Council hereby approves the negative
declaration.
SECTION 5. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby
approves the application for the vesting tentative tract map subject to
following conditions attached hereto as "Exhibit 1" and incorporated
herein by reference allowing the creation of 201 lots for single family
residential use.
SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution and shall transmit a copy to the applicant, the Departments of
Public Works, Fire, and Parks and Recreation, and shall give notice of
this recommendation in the manner prescribed by Section 22.60.190 of the
City's Planning and Zoning Code.
ATTEST:
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 1990...
City Clerk
I hereby certify that the foregoing is
adopted by the City Councial of the City
meeting thereof, held on the day
following vote of the Council:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ID 31
Mayor
3 true copy of a Resolution
of Santa Clarita at a regular
of 1990, by the
City Clerk
C
0 0
EXHIBIT 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 46626
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 46626 (the
"VTTM") shall expire two years from the date of its
conditional approval.
2. The applicant (as hereinafter defined) may
file for an extension of the VTTM by filing an application
for extension at least 60 days prior to expiration of the
VTTM. Said extension shall not exceed a period of one year.
3. Within 30 days of any change in the status of
the applicant or upon designation of a new engineer, the
applicant (as hereinafter defined) shall be responsible for
notifying the Department of Community Development, in
writing, of any such 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 grant. 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 provided for in the 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, 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 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.
5. Details shown on the VTTM are not necessarily
approved. Any details which are inconsistent with
requirements of ordinances, these general conditions of
approval, or City policies must be specifically approved.
Page -1-
MRG/CON46626
C
6. The subject property shall be subject to fees,
at the rate being charged by the City at the time the
applicant seeks building permit issuance, including but not
limited to (1) Los Angeles County Residential Sewer
Connection Fee; (2) Interim School Facilities Financing
Fee; (3) Installation or Upgrade of Traffic Signals Fees;
and (4) Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fee.
7. During construction of the improvements upon
the property which is the subject of this land division, a
stop -work order shall be considered in effect immediately
upon the discovery of any historic artifacts and/or remains,
at which time the City shall be immediately notified of the
discovery. Said stop -work order shall remain in effect
until City terminates said order, which shall not be
unreasonably prolonged.
8. In lieu of establishing the final specific
locations of structures on each lot at this time, the
applicant shall develop the property in conformance with the
City Code and other appropriate ordinances, including but
not limited to the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading
Ordinance, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Zoning
C Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Water
Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance,
Electrical Code, and Fire Code. Improvements and other
requirements may be imposed by the Department of Community
Development and the Department of Public Works pursuant to
such codes and ordinances.
9. A grading permit shall be required for any,and
all off-site grading which is done for the purposes of
developing the property covered by these conditions.
10. The applicant shall make the required deposit
to the City prior to City review of documents and plans for
final map clearance in accordance with Section 21.36.010(c)
of the Subdivision Ordinance.
PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
Map Requirements
11. All easements existing at the time of final
map approval must be accounted for on the approved tentative
map, including but not limited to 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 of its location. If all easements
Page -2-
MRG/CON46626
0
0
have not been accounted for on the VTTM at the time final
map approval is sought, the applicant shall submit a
corrected tentative map to the City Engineer for approval.
12. All offers of dedication shall be noted by
certificate on the face of the final map.
13. The final map shall be prepared by or under
the direction of a licensed land surveyor or registered
civil engineer.
14. The final map must be approved by the City
Engineer before filing with the County Recorder.
15. The applicant shall quitclaim or relocate
existing easements which would otherwise underlie or run
through proposed structures.
16. If the applicant intends to file multiple
final maps, he must so inform the Department of Public Works
and the Department of Community Development at the time the
tentative map is filed. The boundaries of each unit of the
final map shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and the Department of Community Development.
1 17. If signatures of record title interests appear
on the final map, a preliminary guarantee shall be required
for each record title owner. A final guarantee shall be
required for each record title owner at the time of filing
the final map. If said signatures do not appear on the
final map, a title report/guarantee shall be provided
showing all fee owners and interest holders and this account
must remain open until the final parcel map is filed with
the County Recorder.
18. The applicant shall grant to the City or other
appropriate agency or entity for the purpose of ingress,
egress, construction and maintenance of all infrastructure
constructed for this land division to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
19. The applicant shall not grant or record any
easements within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or
offered for dedication for public streets or highways,
access rights, building restriction rights, or other
easements, until after the final map is filed with the
County Recorder unless such easements are subordinated to
the proposed grant or dedication. If easements are granted
Page -3-
MRG/CON46626
C
after the date of the tentative approval, a subordination
must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing
of the final map.
c
Road Improvements
20. Local street(s) shall be aligned so that the
central angles of the right-of-way radius returns do not
differ by more than 10 degrees.
- 21. The applicant shall provide letter(s)
guaranteeing the dedication of slope easement(s) and
drainage acceptance by the applicant and the adjacent
homeowners respectively, as required by the City Engineer or
Director Public Works.
22. The applicant shall provide at least 40 feet
of frontage at the front property line between radial lot
lines for each lot fronting on a cul-de-sac or knuckle.
23. The applicant shall be required to install
distribution lines and individual service lines for
community antenna television service (CATV) for each lot in
the subject property.
24. The applicant shall place above ground
utilities including, but not limited to, fire hydrants,
junction boxes and street lights outside of the sidewalk.
25. The applicant shall install mailboxes and
posts for each lot on the subject property per City
standards. Approval of the U.S. Postal Service shall be
secured prior to installation of mailboxes and posts.
26. Existing trees in dedicated right-of-way or
right -of way to be dedicated shall be removed if they are
not acceptable as street trees. The determination as to the
acceptability of existing street trees shall be made in the
sole discretion of the Director of Parks and Recreation.
27. The applicant shall be required to plant
street trees to City standards and specifications unless
this condition has been waived by the Director of Parks and
Recreation because, in his sole discretion, sufficient trees
have been placed within an abutting landscaped setback. The
applicant shall contact the City Department of Parks and
Recreation for street tree location, species, and approved
method of installation and irrigation.
Page -4-
MRG/CON46626
•
28. The applicant shall not grant or record any
easements within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or
offered for dedication for public streets or highways,
access rights, building restriction rights, or other areas
intended to be used by the public or restricted in use until
after the final map is filed with the County Recorder unless
such easements are subordinated, in writing, by the easement
holder to the proposed grant or dedication.
29. The applicant, by agreement with the City
Engineer or Director of Public Works, may guarantee
installation of improvements as deemed necessary by the City
Engineer or Director of Public Works through faithful
performance bonds, letters of credit or any other acceptable
means.
30. Off-site improvements may be required for "A"
Street and Foxlane, Tambora Drive and Bakerton Avenue if in
the sole discretion of the Director of Public Works such'
off-site improvements are necessary.
31. Where off-site grading and street improvements
are required, it shall be the responsibility of the
applicant to acquire the necessary right-of-way and/or
easements, provided, however, that the provisions of
Government Code Section 66462.5 shall be applicable.
32. The centerlines of all local streets shall be
aligned without creating jogs of less than 150 feet. A one
foot jog may be used where a street changes width from 60
feet to a 58 foot right-of-way.
33. The centerline radius of each street with (1)
a grade in excess of 10%, or (2) a distance of 40 feet
between curbs shall be a minimum of 350 feet.
34. The design of local streets shall have a
minimum centerline curve radii which will provide centerline
curves to 100 feet minimum length; provided, however, that
reversing curves need not exceed a radius of 1,500 feet and
no curve need exceed a radius of 3,000 feet. The length of
curve outside of the beginning of curb return shall be used
to satisfy the 100 foot minimum requirement.
35. The minimum centerline radius on a local
street with an intersecting street on the concave side
should comply with design speeds per Road Section's
"Requirements for Street Plans" and sight distances per the
current standards of the American Association of State
Highway Transportation Officials.
Page -5-
MRG/CON46626
C36. Street grades shall be permitted in excess of
10% in the following locations:
a) "C" Street between "A" Street and "H" Street,
and not to exceed 12.4%.
b) "C" Street between "G" Street and "H" Street,
not to exceed 12.0%.
C) "B" Street between "C" Street and "E" Street,
and not to exceed 12.5%.
37. The design for intersections of local streets
with General Plan Highways shall provide sight distance to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Additional right-of-
way dedication and/or grading may be required.
38. The design for intersections of local streets
shall provide sight distances to the satisfaction of the -
City Engineer. Additional right-of-way dedication and/or
grading may be required.
39. The central angles of the right-of-way radius
returns shall not differ by more than 10 degrees on local
streets.
40. The applicant shall provided standard property
line return radii of (1) 13 feet shall be provided at all
local street intersections, including intersections of local
streets with General Plan Highways, (2) 27 feet where all
General Plan Highways intersect, or (3) standard property
line return radii which are satisfactory to the Department
of Public Works.
41. The applicant shall construct drainage
improvements and offer for dedication easements needed for
street drainage or slopes.
42. The applicant shall construct full width
sidewalks at all sidewalk returns.
43. The applicant shall repair any broken or
damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement on streets
within or abutting the subdivision as required by the
Department of Public Works.
44. The applicant shall construct a slough wall
outside the street right-of-way when the height of slope is
greater than 5 feet above the sidewalk and the sidewalk is
adjacent to the street right-of-way.
Page -6-
MRG/CON46626
C
I
45. The applicant shall provide and install street
name signs prior to occupancy of the first unit in the
subject property.
46. The applicant shall provide temporary
turnarounds with a radius of 24 feet within the right-of-way
at the terminus of streets.
47. The applicant shall either (1) offer for
dedication that portion of the project which lies between
the terminus of temporary turnarounds and the tract boundary
for or (2) extend the turnarounds beyond the tract
boundaries within the adjacent ownerships.
48. Where applicable, the applicant shall pay fees
for signing and striping of streets as determined by the
City Traffic Engineer.
49. The applicant shall prepare signing and
striping plans for all multi -lane streets and highways
within or abutting this land division to the satisfaction of
the Department where applicable.
50. Driveways shall not be constructed within 25
feet upstream of any catch basin on a street with a grade in
excess of 6%.
51. The applicant shall offer for dedication to
the City or the appropriate assessment district all slope
easements at the front property line of "A," street and "B"
street, as required by the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
52. The applicant shall construct the following
required road improvements:
Street
Name
Curb &
Street Street
Width Gutter Paving Lights Trees Sidewalk
L,D,E,F,G,H, 58 FT. X X X X X
I,J,K,B,C, 60 FT. X X X X X
A 64 FT. X X X X X
WATER CONDITIONS
53. All lots shall be served by adequately sized
water system facilities, including fire hydrants of
MRG/CON46626
Page -7-
C
0 0
sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire
flows required for the land division. Domestic flows
required for the land division are to be determined in the
sole discretion of the City Engineer or Director of Public
Works, Fire flows required are to be determined in the sole
discretion of the Fire Chief.
54. Prior to the issuance of the first building
permit for the proposed development, the applicant shall
file with the City Engineer a statement from the water
purveyer indicating that the water system will be operated
by, and water service will be provided to, the project 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.
55. The applicant shall provide all documents or
materials necessary to substantiate to the City's
satisfaction 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.
SEWER CONDITIONS
56. The applicant shall submit an area study to
determine whether capacity is available in the sewerage
system to be used as the outlet for the sewers in this land
division. If the system is found to have insufficient
capacity, the problem must be resolved to the satisfaction
of the Director of Public Works prior to the issuance of the
first building permit.
57. The applicant shall, prior to the issuance of
the first building permit for this land division or at such
time as required by the Director of Public Works, (1)
install and offer for dedication the local main line sewers
and separate house laterals to serve each lot of the land
division, or (2) have on file with the City a City approved
and bonded sewer plans which provides in detail for the
installation and dedication of the main line sewer and
separate house laterals to serve each lot of the land
division. Determination of whether or not the applicant
shall install and dedicate the above -required improvements
or file a plan and bond shall be in the sole discretion of
the Director of Public Works.
58. The applicant shall send a print of the land
division map to the County Sanitation District, with the
request for annexation to that District. Such annexation
MRG/CON46626
Page -8-
• 0
must be assured in writing prior to issuance of the first
building permit for this land division.
59. Sewer reimbursement charges as determined by
the Director of Public Works shall be paid to the County of
Los Angeles before the filing of this land division map.
GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND GEOLOGY CONDITIONS
60. A grading plan shall be submitted and approved
by the Department of Public Works prior to approval of the
final map.
61. The grading plan required by these conditions
must be based on a detailed engineering Geotechnical report
and must be specifically approved by City's geologist
and/or soils engineer and show all recommendations submitted
by them. The grading plan shall agree with the tentative
map and conditions as approved by the Planning Commission.
All buttresses shown on the grading plan to be in excess of
25 feet high shall be accompanied by calculations.
62. Because portions of this project are within a
mapped landslide area, (1) all geologic hazards associated
with the development proposed for this land division must be
eliminated or (2) the applicant shall delineate a
restricted use area approved by the consultant geologist to
the satisfaction of the Geology and Soils Section of the
City Public Works Department and dedicate to the City by
legal means approved by the City Attorney the right to
prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures
within the restricted use areas.
63. Because portions of the property lying in and
adjacent to natural drainage courses are subject to flood
hazard because of overflow, inundation, and debris flows and
because portions of the property are subject to sheet
overflow and ponding and high velocity scouring action, the
applicant shall provide, prior to filing the final map,
drainage plans and necessary support documents to comply
with the following requirements which shall be to the
satisfaction of, and be approved by, the Director of Public
Works:
(a) Provide for the proper distribution of
drainage; and
(b) Provide drainage facilities to remove the
flood hazard and dedicate and show necessary
easements and/or rights of way on the final map and
Page -9-
MRG/CON46626
0
show on the final map the City's/Flood Control
District's right-of-way for storm drains. A permit
will be required for any construction affecting the
right-of-way or facilities; and
(c) 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;
and
(d) Comply with the requirements of the approved
drainage concept to the satisfaction of the
Department of Public Works.
64. The applicant shall submit for approval by the
Director of Public Works, a final geotechnical and soil
report. That report shall be based upon adequate test
borings or excavations, and 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 shall be required and
shall be done in accordance with the procedures of Uniform
Building Code Standard No. 29-2.
65. The applicant shall offer for dedication, and
said offer shall be accepted, for a Future Street for
Foxlane Drive, Tambora Drive, and Bakerton Avenue prior to
recording the final map, if said streets are not already
dedicated streets. Prior to release of the first house in
the subject land division for occupancy, the applicant shall
eliminate the temporary turnarounds on Foxlane Drive,
Tambora Drive, and Bakerton Avenue and construct curb,
gutter, base, pavement and sidewalk adjacent to or thereon.
66. The applicant shall include in covenants,
conditions and restrictions applicable to the subject land
division notifications to homeowners of all recommendations
and requirements of the geotechnical engineer.
67. The applicant may use the non -alternate street
section only with approval of the Director of Parks &
Recreation, the City Engineer and the Director of Community
Development.
Page -10-
MRG/CON46626
i
PUBLIC WORKS - TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
68: Prior to approval of the final map, the
applicant shall pay a bridge and thoroughfare fee in the
amount of $5,300 per dwelling unit.
69. The following traffic mitigations shall be
required by the applicants for both the VTTM and Tentative
Tracts Map No. 47863. Costs for these requirements shall be
assessed on a pro rata basis for each of the two tracts:
(a) A traffic signal with appropriate signs and
street striping shall be installed at the
intersection of Whites Canyon Road and "A" Street.
(b) "A" Street shall be extended between the
boundaries of tentative tracts 46626 and 47863 to
complete a continuous length from Whites Canyon
Road to the easterly boundary of the VTTM. This
shall include acquisition of right-of-way between
the two tracts including off-site easement for
future public streets and off-site grading
necessary to accommodate the proposed street.
(c) Peak -hour parking restrictions shall be
installed on Whites Canyon Road on both the east
and west sides, north of Nadal Street for which the
applicant shall provide and install signage and/or
striping as determined in the sole discretion of
the City's Traffic Engineer. The applicant shall
stripe the approach and departure lanes to the
intersection of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street
(within the existing right-of-way) by restriping
and shall provide and install any related signing
of the northbound and southbound approaches to
Whites Canyon Road to provide one additional
northbound and southbound lane. All work shall be
funded by the applicant and completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
FIRE CONDITIONS
70. This property is located within the area
described by the Forester and Fire Warden as Fire Zone 4 and
future construction and shall comply with applicable Code
requirements.
71. 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
Page -11-
MRG/CON46626
recorded. The required fir flow for public fire hydrants at
this location is 1,250 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a
duration of two hours, over and above maximum daily domestic
demand.
72. The applicants shall provide and install 15
Public Fire Hydrants which meet the shall each measure
61Ix4"x2 1/211, be made of brass or bronze and conform to
current American Water Works Association Standard C503 or
approved equal.
73. All hydrants shall be installed a minimum of
25' from a structure or where a structure is a distance
less ,than 25' from a fire hydrant that structure shall be
protected by a two hour fire wall as per map on file, or as
otherwise approved by the Fire Department.
74. The applicant shall provide Fire Department
and City approved street signs, and building address numbers
prior to occupancy.
75. All required fire hydrants shall be installed,
C tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access
to the required fire hydrants must be provided and
maintained serviceable throughout construction.
76. The applicant shall participate in an
appropriate financing mechanism to provide funds for fire
protection facilities which are required by new commercial,
industrial or residential development in an amount
proportionate to the demand created by this project.
PARKS AND RECREATION CONDITIONS
77. An in lieu park and recreation fee, or
dedication of park land, as determined by the City, or a
combination of the two shall be required prior to approval
of the final map and in accordance with the Municipal Code.
78. Either a special landscape maintenance
assessment district or a homeowner's association (a HOA")
shall be formed to have the responsibility and authority to
maintain all slopes, and street trees if the non -alternate
street section is used, in the land division including, but
not limited to, landscaping, irrigation and street trees.
The formation of a landscape assessment district or HOA must
be disclosed in real estate documents to homeowners.
79. The applicant shall provide access to, and
egress from, slopes which are to be maintained by a
Page -12-
MRG/CON46626
0
E
Landscape Assessment District or HOA by the dedication of
easements or other legal means satisfactory to the City
Attorney.
80. Three copies of a landscape plan and fencing
plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of
Community Development and the Director of Parks and
Recreation prior to the issuance of building permits. The
landscape plan shall show size, type, location of all
plants, trees, and water facilities and locations
dimensions, and details of the project fencing and/or walls
and shall be in conformity with the following standards:
a. Fencing for each lot shall be provided in the
form of a decorative masonry block wall, with a
cap, at a height of six (6) feet, or other
mataerials as approved by the Director of Community
Development.
b. View lots may be fenced using a combination of
a base fencing of three (3) courses of masonry with
wrought iron the remainder of the distance to the
six (6) feet height. Masonry pilasters shall be
provided at the intersection of a rear property
with a side property line. Lots to be fenced as
view lots shall be approved by the Director of
Community Development.
C. Fencing for each lot shall end at the end of
the pad for each lot. All remaining slope areas
shall be fenced to give the appearance of a single
open space lot.
d. Entrances to side yards shall be constructed
of masonry wall and wooden gates. No wrought iron
shall be permitted at side yard entries except a
side yard entry which is not visible from the
street.
81. Prior to occupancy, landscaping and fencing
for the tract shall be provided and installed in conformity
with the landscape and fencing plans.
82. A subdivision entry sign may be permitted in
accordance with Section 22.52.970B of the Municipal Code and
maybe incorporated into tract fencing and landscaping.
Page -13-
MRG/CON46626
( I
83. The applicant shall comply with all
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the specific zoning
for the subject property unless provisions to'the contrary
are set forth in any approval issued with respect to the
development of the subject property or shown on the approved
tentative map. Any deviation from zoning requirements shall
be made only with the proper approval.
84. The property shall be developed and maintained
in substantial conformance with the tentative map.
85. 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.
86. Any violation of any condition hereof or of
any law, statute, or ordinance applicable to this land
division and the development of the subject property shall
result in suspension of the entitlement granted hereby and
/ lapse of all privileges granted hereby granted hereunder;
provided that the applicant has been given written notice to
cease such violation and has failed to cease such violation
for a period of 30 days following the giving of such notice.
87. Pursuant to approval and agreement of the
applicant, final map approval shall not be granted until the
applicant enters into an agreement for school mitigation
with the William S. Hart Union High School District, the
Saugus Union School District and the Sulphur Springs Union
School District.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT (1-18-901
88. All model homes for the project shall be
located on "A" Street or to the north of "A" Street at a
location approved by the Director of Community Development.
89. Prior to occupancy, the new extended streets
of Foxlane Drive, Tambora Drive and Bakerton Avenue shall
not be opened to through traffic until required to be opened
by the City to obtain occupancy or inspection approval.
90. Prior to occupancy of the homes along the
applicant's southerly property line next to the existing,
adjacent homes, the applicant agrees to remove the existing
fences (subject to each adjacent homeowner's approval) and
construct a six (6) foot block wall on the property line
Page -14-
MRG/CON46626
common to the adjacent homes and those on the property which
is the subject of this land division. In addition, the
applicant agrees to install and pay for a six (6) foot block
wall on the west side yard of the homeowner located at 18921
Ermine Street with that homeowner's approval. The applicant
shall repair and replace any damage to the landscaping
and/or irrigation system of any adjacent homeowner which is
caused by the construction of any wall required by this
condition.
91. Prior to submitting the fencing and
landscaping plans required above, the applicant shall
solicit from the existing property owners whose property
abuts the southerly boundary of the subject property for the
opinions and comments of those homeowners regarding the
location, design and materials to be used in the
construction of walls, landscaping and irrigation on the
subject property which lies immediately adjacent to those'
existing homes.
92. Prior to occupancy, a traffic study shall be
conducted by the City in the existing neighborhood to the
south of the subject property to determine if any additional
traffic controls are required. The cost of the study and
any controls deemed required shall be borne by the
applicant. Additional controls which may be required by the
City as a result of the traffic study may include, but shall
not be limited to, any necessary signal modifications at the
intersection of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street, and
potential use of speed bumps or humps or raised ceramic
pavement markers. Property owners within 400 feet of the
southerly boundary of the subject property shall be notified
by the City of the results of the study.
93. Prior to commencement of any grading, the
applicant shall hire, at applicant's cost, an inspector to
inspect any home and property within 400' of the southern
boundary of this land division, from whose owner the
applicant receives a written request so to do, to create a
bench mark inspection from which to help determine if any
grading on the applicant's tract causes any damage to the
adjacent existing homes. Any damage determined to be caused
by the applicant will be repaired at the applicant's
expense.
ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS (1-16-90)
94. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation
measure prescribed in this biological resources report for
the site dated January 8, 1990.
Page -15-
MRG/CON46626
0
0
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT (2-20-90)
95. To reasonably insure the safety of the adjacent
property during the grading process, the applicant shall
install a chain link fence, along the southern property line of
the subject property with adjacent homes. The fence shall be
designed to perform beyond normal standards in protecting
adjacent homes from the results of grading. Such fences shall
require approval by the Department of Public Works before
installation.
96. A monitoring system for ground movement shall be
established within the southern off-site tract street and
sidewalk network to establish a baseline reference six (6)
months prior to the commencement of any proposed grading
activity. Such monitoring shall continue through the grading
process until the grading is completed within five hundred
(500) feet of the tract boundary. Thereafter, such monitoring
shall continue for a period of six (6) months following the
completion of grading activity in said area. Said monitoring
system shall be read and examined once a month. The survey
points shall be established in an area within five hundred
(500) feet of the tract boundaries.
97. In addition to the monitoring devices required
above, the applicant shall establish survey monitoring points
along its southern tract boundaries near the off-site property
corners three (3) months prior to the commencement of grading
activity. These survey points shall be read on a monthly basis
until such time as construction activity commences.
Thereafter, these survey points shall be read once per week
until such time as grading activity is completed with five
hundred (500) feet of the tract boundary. The survey points
shall then be read on a monthly basis for a period of six (6)
months following completion of said area.
98. Prior to the commencement of the monitoring
required by conditions noted above, the applicant shall notify
the City. The applicant shall make all survey data and
monitoring results available to the City of Santa Clarita, to
its representatives, and to applicant's consultants for the
purposes of analysis and review.
ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS (3-6-90)
99. During grading and construction, no traffic shall
be permitted ingress and egress of the site via
Page -16-
MRG/CON46626
CITY COUNCIL CONDITION (4-24-90
0
101. During grading of the site, small equipment
shall be used within five hundred (500) feet of any existing
residences to minimize vibration. Any excessive vibration may
be reported to'the City which may recommend additional
mitigation measures.
Foxlane Drive, Nearview Drive, Tambora Drive and Bakerton
Avenue. All vehicles entering the site shall be required to
use Whites Canyon Road as the point of ingress and egress.
100. The applicant shall request and support
annexation of the subject property to the City of Santa
Clarita. Successful annexation to the City and recordation
of said annexation by the County Recorder shall be required
prior..to approval of the final map.
Page -17-
MRG/CON46626
CITY COUNCIL CONDITION (4-24-90)
101. During grading of the site, small equipment
shall be used within five hundred (500) feet of any existing
residences to minimize vibration. Any excessive vibration may
be reported to the City which may recommend additional
mitigation measures.
Ll
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
•
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 46626
PREZONE 89-002
TO: Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Ken Pulskamp, Acting Director of Community Development�����'��
DATE: December 19, 1989
APPLICANT: Weston Development Corporation
LOCATION: North of the northerly terminus of Foxlane Drive, Tambora
Drive, and Bakerton Avenue.
REQUEST•
Proposed subdivision of 80 acres (gross area) into 201 lots for single
family residences and prezoning of the property to A-1-10,000 to
accommodate the proposed density.
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 modification of street grades in excess of 1OZ up to
a maximum of 12.5X.
3. Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 46626 based on the
required findings and subject to the attached conditions of
approval.
4. Recommend approval to the City Council of a prezoning of
A-1-10,000.
5.. Adopt the attached resolution.
BACKGROUND -
General Plan Designation, Existing Zoning and Land Use: The 1984 Santa
Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan designation for the subject property
is "Hillside Management" (HM). In terms of the amount of units for this
site --11, 17, and 24 units represent the low, midpoint, and high end of
the density range. It is proposed to be developed to a gross density of
2.5 du/ac. The existing zoning is A-1-10,000 and A-2-1. The site is
currently vacant. The General Plan designation, existing zoning and land
use of the surrounding properties are as follows:
V
General Plan Zoning Land Use
North Urban 1 (U1) A-2-1 Vacant Hillside
East Hillside Mgt. A-1-10,000/ Vacant Hillside
(HM) A-2-1
South Urban 2 (U2) R-1-7,000 Residential Single
Family
West Hillside Mgt. RPD -5-1.1U/ Vacant Hillside
(HM) A-2-1
Project Description: The site is proposed to be subdivided into 201 lots
for future single family residences. All lots are proposed for
development; no open space lots are proposed. No recreational amenities
are proposed within the project site.
Circulation consists of a new collector street ("A" street on the map),
64 feet wide, that would intersect Whites Canyon Road (off-site) to the
southwest of the site, beyond the tract boundary. "A" street serves as a
collector street for this tract and the adjacent proposed 80 lot
subdivision (please see map and staff report for tentative tract no.
47863, also appearing on the Planning Commission's December 19, 1989
agenda). From this collector, a "loop" street system is proposed. The
site also proposes to connect to the existing northerly terminus of the
following streets: Foxlane Drive, Tambora Drive and Bakerton Avenue,
located to the south of the project site. As proposed, "A" street would
provide an additional point of access, only if the adjacent tentative
tract 47863 is approved. If 47863 is not approved, "A" street would
serve as a stub -end street at both ends; additionally "B" street is
designed as a stub -end street that would enable future development beyond
the tract boundary to connect this tract.
The A-1710,000 zone requires a minimum of 10,000 square foot lots, with
the following exception:
Sec. 21.24.260 of the subdivision ordinance allows a reduced area, not to
exceed 432 of the lots in the subdivision. For this
proposed subdivision a minimum of 7,000 square feet is
required for a maximum 432 of lots (86 lots) is permitted
by the code. The applicant has requested 81 of the lots
to be reduced in area. To authorize this, a minimum
average width of 70 feet must be maintained for each
reduced area lot. Each lot appears to show compliance
with all required standards. Presently, some lots appear
deficient in meeting these standards. To approve their
request, the Planning Commission must make the following
findings:
1. That due to sloping terrain, the topographic features
within the division of land will be better utilized if a
portion of the lots in such division are less in area than
the applicable designation;
.2. That a final map or parcel map of the division of land
or any part thereof will not be filed unless the average
area of all lots on such map or maps is not less than the
applicable zoning designation;
3. That the lots having a reduced area will be compatible
in design to design to adjacent facing and siding lots of
abutting development;
4. That all lots which are not reduced in area shall
comply with Subsection A of Section 21.24.240.
The subdivision ordinance, Section 21.24.100 limits street grades as
follows:
"21.24.100 Street Grades. No highway or street shall have a
grade of more than six percent, except for short stretches
where the topography makes it impracticable to keep within
such grade, and in no event shall the grade exceed 10
percent, except where evidence, which is satisfactory to the
advisory agency, is given that a lower grade is not
possible."
Street grades of up to 12.5 percent are requested by this application.
The Planning Commission must be provided evidence that this is
necessary. The applicant has stated that the steepness of the existing
contours and the grading required make it infeasible to limit the street
grades to the 6-10 percent preferred slope. Substantially more grading
would be required to reduce the street grades. The applicant has
adequately documented the need for this request.
Since no new roads are proposed that would provide a regional benefit,
the applicant has agreed to pay double the bridge and thoroughfare fee.
The City and the applicant have tentatively agreed to enter into a
development agreement pertaining to this project. Both the Planning
Commission and the City Council will be required to hold a public hearing
on the agreement at a future date.
The park obligation of both tentative tracts 46626 and 47863 are proposed
to be satisfied jointly as follows:
1. A 30 -acre parcel fronting on the west side of Whites
Canyon Road diagonally opposite tentative tract 47863 (see
vicinity map) is proposed to be dedicated to the City for
park purposes. The acquisition cost of this is
approximately $300,000.
2. Additionally, the applicants will provide $700,000 to
the City to be used for grading and improvements to complete
the park.
.The combined costs would be shared by the applicants and would be 3 to 4
times the amount of their obligatin under the City code. The applicants
have voluntarily agreed to provide this park, as they have done in other
cities, in the spirit of providing needed amenities for their projects.
the park would be a public City park.
57— 3IR
Prezonina:
The applicant has filed for an annexation (No. 1989-02) and a prezone of
A-1-10,000 concurrently with the tentative map. The requested prezoning
will establish a zone classification appropriate for the site and
vicinity upon annexation.
Correspondence Received:
The applicant has provided a package of promotional material that was
distributed to the same list of property owners who received the public
hearing notice. (See attached gray envelopes).
ANALYSIS:
The following General Plan objective applies to Hillside Management Areas.
"Within these areas, it is intended that future development
will occur in the most suitable and least environmentally
sensitive areas, and will be designed in terms of scale and
intensity in a manner compatible with the natural resource
values and character of the area."
To accommodate the intent of the Santa Clarita Valley General Plan, a
common approach in subdivision design in the Hillside Management areas is
to concentrate development within the less steep slope areas (0-25%
slope). enabling less grading to occur and protecting a significant amount
of the hillside area. This project is not designed in that fashion; the
tract (38890 shown also on the tentative tract map) to the west was
designed in this manner and approved by the County in 1983. The
tentative map.shows that the.201.lots are evenly distributed throughtout
the project. A glance at the cut and fill map (available at the public
hearing) shows that an extensive portion of the site, perhaps 80 percent
of the surface area of the site, is proposed to be graded. Furthermore,
grading as proposed would require grading within the required open space
lot of the adjacent tract (38890) to the north (primarily to connect "A"
street to Whites Canyon Road) Although the intent of the hillside
management designation is to sensitively locate areas to be developed, it
would not serve a practical purpose to configure this subdivision in a
cluster form since its site size is relatively small.
The tract is located within a logical infill development area. Mostly
existing single family residences abut the tract or are located nearby; a
large multiple family residential complex is nearby across Whites Canyon
Road. The size of the individual lots is larger than either of the
adjacent and nearby developments.
Some potential environmental concerns are indicated in the attached
negative declaration regarding grading, aesthetics, and traffic.
Staff feels that the finding can be made that this project would
..ultimately be consistent with the General Plan, once adopted.
S 33
In summary the proposed project offers the following advantages:
1. It is compatible with the surrounding existing pattern
of development and is an infill development.
2. Its circulation is designed to minimally affect the
existing adjacent neighborhood.
3. The park site offered is a major community benefit.
4. The applicant has agreed to pay double the bridge and
thoroughfare fee.
Disadvantages of the proposed project are:
1. The grading required will change views presently enjoyed
by adjacent homes. These homes presently have open space
views of rolling hills, which will then change to views of a
housing tract.
2. No new arterial streets are proposed. The tract merely
carries its own traffic load to an existing arterial street.
3. Traffic generated by the project will further impact
traffic on the Antelope Valley Freeway. No plans presently
exists for improvements to the affected portion of the
freeway.
Overall, the development is reasonable and logical for this site and
vicinity: Therefore, the staff requests the Commission's favorable
consideration of this request.
MAR: rd
5- 3q
VICINITY MAP
CASE NO. Vesting Te ntative Tract Map No. 46626 and
Prezone No. 89-002
Vestin Tentative Tract Mar) No. 47863
Ca—
OT3
wy—
Canyon
�N"
► Country
NX y3
proposed
park site
T
C River
84
Na' I I
M
TR 47863
-----------
—FriF!ndN
TR 46626
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47863
TO: Chairwoman Garasi and" Members of the Planning
Commission �
FROM: Ken Pulskamp, Acting Director of Community Development �P(m< ')
DATE: December 19, 1989
APPLICANT: American Landmark Development, Inc.
LOCATION: Whites Canyon Road, east side, approximately 600 feet
north of the intersection of Nadal Street and Whites
Canyon Road.
REQUEST:
Proposed subdivision of 32 acres (gross area) into 80 lots 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 modification of street grades in excess of 1OZ up
to a maximum of 12.56.
3. Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47863 based on the
required findings and subject to the attached conditions of
approval.
4. Adopt the attached resolution.
BACKGROUND:
General Plan Designation, Existing Zoning and Land Use: The 1984
Santa Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan designation for the
subject property is "Hillside Management" (HM). In terms of the
amount of units for this site --3, 14, and 24 units represent the
low, midpoint, and high end of the density range. It is proposed to
be developed to a gross density of 2.5 du/ac. The existing zoning
is A-1-10,000 (Light Agricultural). The site is currently vacant.
The General Plan designation, existing zoning and land use of the
surrounding properties are as follows:
General
Plan
Zoning
Land Use
North
Hillside
Mgt.
RPD -5-1.1U
Vacant Hillside
East
Hillside
Mgt.
R-1-7,000
Residential
Single Family
South
Urban 3
(U3)
R -3-15U
Residential
Multi -Family
West
Urban 2
(U2)
RPD -5-1.1U
Residential
Single Family
Project Description: The site is proposed to be subdivided into 80 lots
for future single family residences. . All lots are proposed for
development; no open space lots are proposed. No recreational amenities
are proposed within the project site.
Circulation consists of a new collector street, 64 feet wide, that would
intersect Whites Canyon Road. "A" street, as it is shown on the
tentative map would connect to the area to the northeast of this site to
provide an extension of this collector street. "A" street also serves as
a collector street for the adjacent proposed 201 -lot subdivision (please
see map and staff report for tentative tract no. 46626, also appearing on
the Planning Commission's December 19, 1989 agenda). From this collector
are three side streets, "B", "D", and "G" street proposes to connect to
the existing tract to the east as an extension of Nearview Drive. If
tentative map 46626 to the northeast is approved, tract 47863 will have
three points of access beyond the site boundary. If tentative tract
46626 is not approved, this site would only have two points of access.
The subdivision ordinance, section 21.24.100, limits street grades as
follows:
"21.24.100 Street Grades. No highway or street shall have a grade
of more than six percent, except for short stretches where the
topography makes it impracticable to keep within such grade, and in
no event shall the grade exceed 10 percent, except where evidence,
which is satisfactory to the advisory agency, is given that -a lower
grade is not possible"
Street grades of up to 12.5 percent are requested by this application.
The Planning Commission must be provided evidence that this is
necessary. The applicant has stated that the steepness of the existing
contours and the grading. required make it infeasible to limit the street
grades to the 6-10 percent preferred slope. Substantially more grading
would be required to reduce the street grades. The applicant has
adequately documented the need for this request.
The A-1-10,000 zone requires a minimum of 10,000 square feet lots, with
the following exception:
Section 21.24.260 of the subdivision ordinance allows a reduced
area, not to exceed 43 percent of the lots in the subdivision. For
this proposed subdivision a minimum of 7,000 square feet is required
for a maximum of 43 percent of lots (34 lots) is permitted by the
code. The applicant has requested only 16 of the lots to be reduced
in area. To authorize this, a minimum average width of 70 feet must
be maintained for each reduced area lot at time of final map
approval. Each lot appears to show compliance with all required
standards. To approve this request the Planning Commission must
make the following findings:
1. That due to sloping terrain, the topographic
features within the division of land will be better
utilized if a portion of the lots in such division are
less in area than the applicable designation;
2. That a final map or parcel map of the division of
land or any part thereof will not be filed unless the
average area of all lots on such map or maps is not less
than the applicable zoning designation;
�_'.2,JC
3. That the lots having a reduced area will be
.compatible in design to design to adjacent facing and
siding lots of abutting development;
4. That all lots which are not reduced in area shall
comply with Subsection A of Section 21.24.240.
A particular geologic condition exists with respect to the area adjacent
to tentative tract 47863. In its natural condition, a slide area exists
beneath Whites Canyon Road. Standard engineering practices can alleviate
this condition. When buttress fills, shear keys, and proper subsurface
drainage system are installed as part of the development of this site,
these measures can reduce the potential for landslides in the area.
Since no new roads are proposed that would provide a regional benefit,
the applicant has agreed to pay double the bridge and thoroughfare fee.
The City and the applicant have tentatively agreed to enter into a
development agreement pertaining to this project. Both the Planning
Commission and the City Council will be required to hold a public hearing
on the agreement at a future date.
The park obligation of both tentative tracts 46626 and 47863 are proposed
to be satisfied jointly as follows:
1. A 30 -acre parcel fronting on the west side of Whites
Canyon Road diagonally opposite tentative tract 47863
(see vicinity map) is proposed to be dedicated to the
City for park purposes. The acquisition cost of this is
approximately $300,000.
2. Additionally, the applicants will provide $700,000.
to the City to be used for grading and improvements to
complete the park.
The combined costs would be shared by the applicants and would be 3 to 4
times the amount of their obligation under the City code. The applicants
have voluntarily agreed to provide this park, as they have done in other
cities, in the spirit of providing needed amenities for their projects.
The park would be a public City park.
One oak tree exists on the site, within lot 65. It is a Valley oak
(Quercus lobata) and is unique in its location. It is believed to be the
_ western most Valley oak in the Santa Clarita Valley. Furthermore, it is
a B+ rated tree and has a triple trunk of 30, 34, and 42 inches in
circumference. Condition No.83f requires this tree to be protected,
saved, and incorporated into the landscaping of the tract.
Correspondence Received:
The applicant. has provided a package of promotional material that was
distributed to the same list of property owners who received the public
hearing notice. (See attached gray envelope).
Z/�- -�(0
0 0
ANALYSIS•
The following General Plan objective applies to Hillside Management Areas.
"Within these areas, it is intended that future development will
occur in the most suitable and least environmentally sensitive
areas, and will be designed in terms of scale and intensity in a
manner compatible with the natural resource values and character of
the area."
To accommodate the intent of the Santa Clarita Valley General Plan, a
common approach in subdivision design in the Hillside Management areas is
to concentrate development within the less steep slope areas (0-25X
slope), enabling less grading to occur and protecting a significant
amount of the hillside area. This project is not designed in that
fashion; the tract to the northwest was designed in this manner and
approved by the County in 1983. The tentative map shows that the 80 lots
are evenly distributed throughtout the project. A glance at the cut and
fill map (available at the public hearing) shows that an extensive
portion of the site, perhaps 85 percent of the surface area of the site,
is proposed to be graded. Furthermore, grading as proposed would require
grading within the required open space lot of the adjacent tract (38890)
to the north (primarily to connect "A" street to Whites Canyon Road).
Although the intent of the hillside management designation is to
sensitively locate areas to be developed, it would not serve a practical
purpose to configure this subdivision in a cluster form since its site
size is relatively small.
The tract is located within a logical infill development area. Mostly
existing single family residences abut the tract or are located nearby; a
large multiple family residential complex is located opposite the site
across. Whites Canyon Road. The size of the individual lots is larger
than either of the two adjacent developments.
Some potential environmental concerns are indicated in the attached
negative declaration regarding grading, aesthetics, and traffic.
Staff feels the finding can be made that the project would ultimately be
consistent with the General Plan, once adopted.
In summary the proposed project offers the following advantages:
1. It is compatible with the surrounding existing pattern of
development.and is an infill development.
2. Its circulation is designed to minimally affect the existing
adjacent neighborhood.
3. The area devoted to landscaping that is visible from Whites
Canyon Road should result in an aesthetically pleasing appearance.
4. The park site offered is a major community benefit.
5. The development of the site will pose the opportunity to
safeguard against future landslides associated with Whites Canyon
Road.
0 0
6. The applicant has agreed to pay double the bridge and
thoroughfare, fee.
Disadvantages of the proposed project are:
1. The grading required will change views presently enjoyed by
adjacent homes. These homes presently have open space views of
rolling hills, which will then change to views of a housing tract.
2. No new arterial streets are proposed. The tract merely carries
its own traffic load to an existing arterial street.
3. Traffic generated by the project will further impact traffic on
the Antelope Valley Freeway. No plans presently exists for
improvements to the affected portion of the freeway.
overall, the development is reasonable and logical for this site and
vicinity. Therefore, the staff requests the Commission's favorable
consideration of this request.
MAR: rd
u
A VICINITY MAP
1 CASE NO. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 46626 and
Prezone No. 89-002
Vestinq Tentative Tract Mao No. 47863
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 46626 and 47863
PREZONE 89-002
T0: Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Mark Scott, Director of Community Development
DATE: January 16, 1990 (continued from December 19, 1989)
APPLICANT: Weston Development Corporation and American Landmark Development,
Inc.
LOCATION: North of the northerly terminus of Foxlane Drive, Tambora Drive,
and Bakerton Avenue (VTTM 46626) and Whites Canyon Road, east
side, approximately 600 feet north of the intersection of Nadal
Street and Whites Canyon Road. (VTTM 47863).
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve the attached negative declarations with corrections as noted with
the finding that the proposed projects will not have a significant effect
on the environment.
2. Approve modification of street grades in excess of 10Z up to a maximum of
12.52.
3. Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 46626 and 47863 based on the
required findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval as
modified (See additional conditions nos. 97-102 for 46626 and conditions
nos. 89-91 for 47863. Condition no. 31 for.both tract maps is proposed
to be modified, and a new Condition no. 103 is proposed for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 46626 and no. 92 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
47863.)
4. Recommend approval to the City Council of a prezoning of A-1-10,000 for
VTTM 46626.
4. Adopt the attached resolutions.
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting of December 19, 1989, the Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on the above entitlements and continued the matters to the
January 16, 1990 meeting, with the public hearings being left open. The
purpose of the continuance was for the staff to provide new or additional
information on the following subjects:
1. Cluster arrangement of lots.
2. Drainage relating to adjacent existing neighborhoods.
3. Wildlife displacement.
4. Use.of.contour grading.
5. Traffic
a.) Mitigation related to existing streets.
b.) Cumulative impacts.
6. Relationship to the General Plan.
L'
Additionally, staff has provided the Commission with applicant requested -
additions to the conditions of approval and staff requested corrections to the
negative declarations.
1. Cluster arrangement
As described in the staff report the land use category of this vicinity in the
SCV Areawide General Plan is Hillside Management (HM). A subdivision proposed
inthis classification normally is designed in a cluster arrangement so that
grading and development in the 50Z and above slope areas is generally
avoided. The design of these projects is not arranged in a cluster concept.
The site areas are too small to make effective use of a cluster arrangement.
The configuration as proposed is in character with the vicinity. A cluster
arrangement might work well if a condominium project were proposed. The slope
analysis map,.(.available at the hearing) shows that the 50Z -.and above slope
areas are dispersed throughout the two sites. VTTM 46626 indicates 16 acres
of the 80 -acre site is in the 50Z and above slope area. Approximately 20Z of
the site is in the 50Z and above areas. VTTM 47863 has 8 acres of the 32 -acre
site in the 50Z and above slope areas. Approximately 25Z of the site is in
the 50Z and above slope areas. Because of the relatively low percentage of
site areas in the steep slope category and the fact, that the steep slopes are
dispersed, the cluster concept would not work well for these projects.
2. Drainage
When property is developed, it is required to be designed so that it drains
within its boundary. It was mentioned at the hearing that drainage from the
sites of the two proposed tracts drains onto existing adjacent neighborhoods.
These drainage problems will be corrected as part of the grading of the two
tracts. _.The result will. be that the.. new drainage will be a solution to an
existing problem.
3. Wildlife displacement
See attached reports by Independent Environmental Consultants, entitled
"Biological Resources for Tentative Tracts 46626 and 47863" (separate report
for each tract). In particular, the section (on page 6 of both reports)
labeled "Impact of Development" indicates the author's conclusions. A new
condition of approval (no. 103 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46626 and no.
92 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47863) is proposed to mitigate soil run-off
that may affect the Santa Clara River.
4. Use of contour grading .
See attached revised tentative maps for both tracts. Sculptured contours are
shown for manufactured slopes in a few locations.
5. Traffic
a.) Mitigation as it relates to existing neighborhoods has been addressed by
the applicants. Both applicants furnished a letter at the December 19th
hearing agreeing to fund a study to be conducted by the City that would
identify necessary additional traffic controls in the existing neighborhood
(Foxlane Drive, Tambora Drive, Bakerton Avenue, Cabral Street, etc.). Should
new traffic controls be deemed necessary, they will be installed at the
applicants' expense.
b.) Cumulative impacts have been addressed in the traffic study. The roadway
network assumed to be in place at the time of completion of both tracts does
include the Plum Canyon Road/Whites Canyon Road connection. All known
approved and pending projects that would be considered as infill projects
within this corridor have been accounted for in the cumulative impacts
analysis of the traffic study. There are only two additional parcels in the
vicinity that may support additional development. Each is 40 acres in size
and is addressed in a supplemental traffic study. One of the 40 acre parcels
has a major ridgeline running through it, and therefore has limited
development potential. Potential applicants have talked to staff about 20
homes on the 40 acres. The conclusion of the supplement is that the two
additional parcels do not change either the conclusions reached nor the
prescribed mitigation measures of the original traffic study for each
tentative map. In the original traffic study, a total of 46 pending and
approved projects were assessed, in addition to all existing development in
the Whites Canyon/Plum Canyon corridor.
6. General Plan
As a new City, the City of Santa Clarita is currently in the process of
developing its first general plan. In the interim, the County of Los Angeles
General Plan has served as a general guideline. The County's Santa Clarita
Valley Areawide General Plan designation for these properties is HM, Hillside
Management. This designation would allow approximately 12 to 67 units total
on both sites. Pursuant to the Santa Clarita Valley Areawide Plan,
residential densities in excess of the low density threshold (12 units for
both sites) would require performance review and a conditional use permit.
The County General Plan also encourages clustering of residential uses in
hilly and mountainous areas to minimize grading and to preserve the natural
terrain where consistent with existing community character and specifies that
a minimum of 70Z of a project site in this designation shall be retained in a
natural or open condition. Since Tentative Tract 47863 is within the
incorporated City limits, the County General Plan is not binding, however, it
is used as a guideline at the present time. Tentative Tract 46626 is
currently under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles and the County
General Plan governs this property until such time as it is annexed into the
City. The County's recently released General Plan Update does not propose a
General Plan Amendment in this area. (See attached vicinity maps of County
General Plan Designations and Zoning.)
The City's General Plan Advisory Committee has developed three preliminary
general plan maps which are currently being refined into a composite to
reflect a preferred land use alternative. Of the three preliminary maps, only
one has applied a designation to these properties. It is believed that the
other two maps were not completed in this vicinity. Preliminary Map No. 1
designates these properties and the general area for low density residential
use. For the purposes of the preliminary mapping, the low density residential
designation was assumed to contain a broad density range of from 1 to 5.6
units per gross acre. More finite ranges are currently being considered,
including a low density range of .9 to 3.2 dwelling units per gross acre. The
submitted tentative tract maps, which propose 2.5 dwelling units per gross
acre, would be consistent with both of these density ranges. Again, it must
be emphasized that the general plan designations, density standards and other
goals and policies have not been adopted and are at a preliminary stage at
this time.
The draft goals. and policies which are currently being prepared by the General
Plan Advisory Committee have been reviewed for their relevance to the subject
projects. In addition to policies regarding clustering similar to the County
Plan, numerous draft policies relate to ridgeline preservation. One such
policy specifies .that a ridgeline preservation ordinance should be adopted
that identifies prominent primary and secondary ridgelines which shall not be
modified and which shall be preserved as open space, further incorporating
sensitive slope and grading regulations for interface with such primary and
secondary ridgelines. Although primary and secondary ridgelines have not yet
been identified, it is believed that the ridgeline above the subject projects,
which separates Soledad Canyon from Plum Canyon and serves as a primary
backdrop for the Canyon Country area, will be identified as either a primary
or secondary ridgeline which should be preserved. Other draft policies
indicate that hillside grading standards should be developed to minimize the
hazards of erosion and slope failure and that landform grading standards
should be implemented which minimize the impact of grading operations and
foster replication of naturally recurring landforms.
Although the subject projects do not propose clustering, development and
grading activities have been pulled off of and are not proposed on the crest
of the ridgeline. House pad elevations would be approximately 106-200 feet
below the main ridge above the property. The pad for the proposed water tank
site in the northeast corner of the property would be approximately 100 feet
below the main ridge. Certain contour grading techniques are being proposed
which will lend a more natural appearance to the manufactured slopes within
the tracts. In addition, project development and grading will correct
existing slope failure areas. The project engineer is currently restudying
the upper elevations of the proposed project and will be providing additional
cross-sections and renderings for the Commission's consideration at the public
hearing. The intent of the additional illustrations is to clearly show the
proposed distance between the house rooflines and the top of the ridgeline,
and provide a visual illustration of the projects as they would appear after
construction. Areas of restudy include the northwest corner of Tentative
Tract Number 46626 with respect to the distance between the top of the
ridgeline and elevation of development activities as well as the visual impact
of the proposed water tank in the northeastern portion of the tract.
Other draft general plan policies which the proposed projects are addressing
relate to goals and policies to acquire future park land and the high priority
placed upon provisions for schools and roads. The project proponents have
gone beyond minimum requirements and have addressed these needs by agreeing
(1) to pay double the current assessment of the Bridge and Thoroughfare
District fee; (2) to dedicate a 30 acre park site and provide $700,000 in park
and improvement monies; and (3) to pay full School District fees.
In consideration of the community benefits proposed in connection with these
projects and the hillside sensitivities incorporated into the design, staff
continues to believe that these projects will be consistent with the General
Plan proposal currently being considered. The Commission should be aware that
the decision on these projects may have implications for the undeveloped land
to the east and north of these properties, some portion of which may be before
the Planning Commission in the near future. Staff will be happy to address
any additional questions the Planning Commission may have concerning these_
nearby areas.
Staff Requested.Corrections to the Negative Declarations
At the December 19, 1989, meeting some confusion was created by the trip
generation volumes shown in the negative declarations of the 2 projects. Item
13a in both documents indicates. the daily trips generated by both projects
(over an average 24-hour day) and both the a.m.. and p.m. peak hour trips.
When the 2 negative declarations were made available, the trip .generation
numbers indicated for both projects were inadvertently indicated as being the
same. The figures for the VTTM 47863 were indicated for both projects; at the
Planning Commission Meeting the correct figures for VTTM 46626 were shown hand
corrected in the negative declaration. However, some members of the public
saw the early version (incorrect), while others saw the corrected version.
Among the mitigation measures listed is No. 13a which proposes to restrict any
occupancy of either tract until.the Whites Canyon Road/Via Princessa/Highway
14 connection is completed. After.the negative declaration was prepared, it
was determined that this mitigation measure was not required. Therefore, it
was not included within the conditions of approval. Accordingly, it should be
deleted from the mitigation measures in the negative declaration. This
circumstance arose from the fact that after writing the negative declaration,
it was learned that the schedule for completion of Whites Canyon Road to
Highway 14 is due to occur by November, 1992. The applicants have indicated
that the earliest possible occupancy of the two tracts is early 1993. Even if
the schedule for the road and bridge improvements is delayed, it is
anticipated that only a short period of time would occur, where the homes
might be occupied and the road improvements may not yet be completed.
Additional Conditions Requested by the Applicant (VTTM 46626)
97. Prior to occupancy, the model homes for the project shall be located on A
Street or to the north of A Street.
98. Prior to occupancy, the new extended streets of Foxlane Drive, Tambora
Drive and Bakerton Avenue shall not be opened to through traffic until
required to be opened by the city to obtain occupancy or inspection
approval.
99. Prior to occupancy along the applicant's southerly property line next to
the existing homes, the applicant agrees to remove the existing fences
(subject to each homeowner's approval) and construct a six (6) foot block
wall on the property line. In addition, the applicant agrees to install
and pay for a six (6) foot block wall on the west side yard along Foxlane
Drive of the homeowner located at 18921 Ermine Street. The applicant
shall repair and replace any damaged landscaping and irrigation due to
the wall installation.
100. Prior to occupancy, the property owners, whose property is immediately
adjacent to the southern property line of the proposed tract, will be
notified by the applicant and solicited for their opinions and comments
as to the location, design and materials used in the construction of the
walls, fencing, landscaping and irrigation which is immediately adjacent
to. the existing homes prior to the fencing and landscape plan being
submitted to the City for review and approval.
9 0
101. Prior to occupancy, a study shall be conducted of the existing
neighborhood to the south to determine if any additional traffic controls
are required. The cost of the study and any controls deemed required
shall be borne by the applicant. This may include any necessary signal
modifications at the intersection of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street.
102. Prior to occupancy and upon receiving individual approval from each
homeowner adjacent to the applicant's southerly boundary, the applicant
will hire, at his cost, an inspector to survey each home and property as
to its existing condition to create a bench mark survey in which to
determine if any grading on the applicant's tract causes any damage to
the adjacent existing homes. Any damage determined to be caused by the
applicant will be repaired at the applicant's cost.
Additional Conditions Requested by the Applicant (VTTM 47863)
89. Prior to occupancy, the property owners, whose property is immediately
adjacent to the easterly property line of the proposed tract, will be
notified by the applicant and solicited for, their opinions and comments
as to the location, design and materials used in the construction of the
walls, fencing, landscaping and irrigation which is immediately adjacent
to the existing homes prior to the fencing and landscape plan being
submitted to the City for review and approval.
90. Prior to occupancy, a study shall be conducted of the existing
neighborhood to the east to determine if any additional traffic controls
are required. The cost of the study and any controls deemed required
shall be borne by the applicant. This may include any necessary signal
modifications at the intersection of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street.
91. Prior to occupancy and upon receiving individual approval from each
homeowner adjacent to the applicant's easterly boundary, the applicant
will hire, at his cost, an inspector to survey each home and property as
to its existing condition to create a bench mark survey in which to
determine if any grading on the applicant's tract causes any damage to
the adjacent existing homes. Any damage determined to be caused by the
applicant will be repaired at the applicant's cost.
Staff requested modification (for both tentative maps)
31. Where off-site grading and street improvements are required, it shall be
the sole responsibility of the applicant to acquire the necessary right
of way and/or easements. Should the applicant be unsuccessful in making
the necessary acquisition, the City shall be required to use its
authority of eminent domain. If this occurs, the City's expense shall be
borne by the applicant.
Additional Community Development condition no. 103 for VTTM 46626 and no. 92
for VTTM 47863
The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measure prescribed in the
biological resources report for the site dated January 8, 1990.
nN�`�%;,--VIV,
U2 uz
P
u2
.
-7 u
ork 4
u
u
NI
N 2 A
u2,
=U3
N 2-
V'A'T M 466��
PZ 89-002
VTTVk 47.862,
`N2
PROJECT SITE
CSN -MOO C VTTM 466;
etr ag'
-�N ' *-\VTTM 4781
A-2-1
--- WESTON DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT SITE
.Y -
_ RPD -5-1.1 U
AMERICAN
,.- A-1-10000 k.t
TR -1-6000= LANDMARK
-tea L `DEVE PMENT
A 1-w10000 ( I I
L �. ; .... •• i� R-1-10000
t
I71
R-1-6000
PROP SED'PA K'SJTE-�= R -3.15U: I
'g - - A-1-10000
IL 4w
R-1-6000 R-1-7000 1
a ■ Y�
Jr- \ • i lid ^~++�' t ►r '' - - _
�_\ \ i� I � H t •`��J � / �� tib
"�
Ira
i� t• s, t`� u �
D-4-las
ZONING 1190
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: February 20, 1990
APPLICANT: American Landmark Development, Inc.
TYPE OF PERMIT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map
FILE NO.: VTTM 47863
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Whites Canyon Road, east side, approximately 600
feet north of the intersection of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: 80 -lot subdivision for single family residences.
[ ] City Council
It is the determination of the [X] Planning Commission
[ ] Director of Community Development
upon review that the project will not have a significant
effect upon the environment.
Mitigation measures [X] are attached
Form completed by:
(Signature)
Michael A. Rubin, Associate Planner
(Name and Title)
Date of Public Notice: INovember 29, 1989
[X] Legal advertisement.
[X] Posting of properties.
[X] Written notice.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
CASE NO. VTTM No. 47863 Prepared by: Michael A. Rubin
Project Location: Whites Canyon Road east side, approximately 600 feet
north of the intersection of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street.
Project Description and Setting: Vacant hillside land proposed to be
subdivided into 80 lots for single family residences.
General Plan Designation Hillside Management (HM)
Zoning: Light Agricultural A-1-10000
Applicant: American Landmark Development Inc.
Environmental Constraint Areas: Hillside terrain, traffic, aesthetics
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
L""-
7'— `f'J
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
..a..
Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? ..................
[X] [ ] [ J
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? ...............
[XJ [ I [ J
C.
Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?" ...........................
[X] [ l [
d.
The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features? ..................................
[ l [ 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? ....................................
[ ] [XI [ I
g.
Changes in deposition,.erosion or
siltation? .................................
[ [ ] [XI
h.
Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ...........................
[ ] [X] [ ]
L""-
7'— `f'J
3.
2 _
YES MAYBE NO
i.
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? .......................
[X] [ ] [ ]
j.
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25Z natural grade? .............
[X] [ ] [ ]
k.
Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? .... _.. ..............
[ ] [ J [X]
Development proposed in a mapped
Other7 landslide area
[X] [ ] [ ]
Air.
Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? ....................
[ ] [ ] [XJ
b.
The creation of objectionable odors? .......
[ J [ ] [X]
c..
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? ..............
[ ] [ ] [XJ
d.
Development within a high wind hazard
area? ......................................
[X] [ ] [ ]
e.
Other?
[ ] [ ] [X]
Water. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? .............................
[XJ [ ] [ ]
b.
Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? ..............................
[ J [ ] [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? ............
[ ] [ J [X]
g.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ............................
[ ] [ ] [X]
= 3 -
YES
MAYBE NO
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? ..........
[ ]
[ ] [X]
i.
Other?
[ ]
[ ] [X]
4.
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
.a.
Change in the diversity of species or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ...
[ ]
[X] [ ]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ......
[ ]
[ ] [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal re-
plenishment of existing species? ...........
[ ]
[ ] [X]
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? ......................................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
5.
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
insects or microfauna)? ....................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? .....
[ ]
[ ] [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ......
[ ]
[ ] [X]
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? ...........
[ ]
[ ] [X]
6.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Increases in existing noise levels? ........
[X]
[ J [ ]
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 areal ........................
[X]
[ ] [ ]
b.
A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? ...............
[X]
[ J [ ] ��?
0 •
- 4 -
YES
MAYBE NO
C.
A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? ............................... [ l
[ l [Xl
d.
A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? ....................... [ ]
[X] [ J
9.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? ................................. [ ]
[ J [Xl
b.
Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? .........................
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? .......................... [ l
[ l [Xl
b.
Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous -or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ................................ [ J
[ J [Xl
C.
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ...................................... [ J
[ l [Xl
d.
Otherwise expose people to.potential safety
hazards? ................................... [ l
[ J [Xl
11.
Population. Will the proposal:
a.
Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ..................... [X]
[ ] [ ]
b.
Other? [ l
[ ] [X]
12.
Housing. Will the proposal:
a.
Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................ [ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Other? [ ]
[ J [X]
13..
Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
_
result in:
a.
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................ [ ]
[ ] [X]
5 -
I/-- "
YES
.MAYBE NO
b.
Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? .................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
c.
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ............................
[X]
[ l [ )
d.
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? ..............................
[X]
[ l [ )
e.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? .......
[X]
[ ] [ ]
f.
A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? ..............................
[ l
[ ) [X)
14. Public Services. Will.the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
a.
Fire protection? ...........................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Police protection? .........................
[X]
[ ) [ ]
C.
Schools? ....................................
[X)
[ l [ l
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities? ....
[X]
[ ] [ I.
e.
Maintenance of .public facilities,
including roads? ...........................
[ ]
[ ) [X]
f.
Other governmental services? ...............
[ ]
[ ] [X]
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy. ....................................
[ l
[ l [Xl
b.
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
--
the development of new sources of energy? ..
[ ]
[ ] [X]
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for
new systems, or substantial alterations to
the
following utilities:
a.
Power or natural gas? ......................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Communications systems? ....................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
_ C.
Water systems? .............................
[ )
[ ) [X)
d.
Sanitary sewer systems? ....................
[ ]
[ ) [X]
e.
Storm drainage systems? ....................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
I/-- "
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? .............. [ ] [ J [X]
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? ... [ ] [ ] [XJ
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ] [ J [XJ
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X]
6 -
YES MAYBE. NO
f. Solid waste and disposal systems? ..........
[ J L ] [X]
g.. Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? .........
[ ] [ J [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? ...................................
[ ] [ J LXJ
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] L ]
19.
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? .....................
[ ] [ ] [XJ
20.
Cultural. Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? .............. [ ] [ J [X]
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? ... [ ] [ ] [XJ
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ] [ J [XJ
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X]
- 7 -
Discussion of Impacts.
The following is a discussion of the "yes" and "maybe" responses in the
Initial Study. Responses to "no" items are optional.
1 a. Changes in geologic substructures will occur. As a result,, major
geologic corrective measures are need such as, but not limited to,
shear keys, buttress fills, stabilization fills, subdrain systems, and
.removal and recompaction.
1 b. These impacts are inherent in grading operations. Compaction and fill
will be required.
1 c. A major change in topography will occur as a result of this project
proposal. An area of gentle to moderately rolling hills will be graded
to accommodate a housing development. An estimated 85Z of the surface
area of the site is proposed to be graded.
1 d. Landslide hazards are known to exist within the project site. Standard
engineering practices such as the recommendations in the preliminary
geotechnical report for this project will reduce these potential
hazards to an insignificant level.
1 i. Cut and fill in the amount of approximately 580,000 cubic yards will be
required to accommodate the proposed project. Construction impacts,
though short term, will generate temporary nuisance impacts. Noise and
exhaust from grading equipment, as well as truck traffic to and from
the site will pose an inconvenience to residents in the immediate
vicinity.
1 j. Approximately 50% of the site is located on terrain of greater than 25%
slope.
1 1. The project site is located within a mapped landslide area as per the
Mint Canyon quadrangle of the Geology Maps of the California Department
of Mines and Geology.
Standard engineering practices for earthwork design as well as state and
municipal code requirements for grading operations can reduce these impacts
to insignificant levels.
3 a. The site is presently in a vacant condition. Any development would
increase the amount of surface area impervious to water, thus
increasing the rate and amount of runoff. Existing storm drains in the
vicinity are expected to accommodate the increased runoff.
3 e. In the vicinity of lot 65, an intermittent spring exists. Water from
the spring presently flows off-site to the east. Standard grading and
engineering practices, including the recommendations for subdrains
contained in the Preliminary Geotechnical Review, dated October 16,
1989, by Leighton Associates, shall be incorporated into the grading
plan.
4 a. One Valley Oak tree (Quercus lobata) exists on the project site within
lot 65 and may be adversely impacted by grading and/or the future
location of a residence within that lot.
See attached Mitigation Measures: Plant Life
- 7a -
6 a. Since the site is presently vacant, any new development will increase
existing noise levels. Noise sources are likely to emanate from
construction equipment and traffic, and after occupancy of the tract
from vehicular traffic--,,.and--typical ambient residential noise sources
such as stereos, power tools, household appliances, barking dogs, etc.
Since the project is proposed only for residential uses and is located
adjacent to existing residences, no significant impacts from noise are
anticipated.
7. Because development is proposed where none presently exists, new light
and glare will be created. Headlight glare from vehicular traffic will
be the primary source. Other sources will include street lights and
interior lighting of the individual residences. No significant impacts
from light and glare are expected.
8 a. A substantial alteration of the present land use of the area will
occur. Due to the presently vacant condition of the site, the change
to an 80 -lot single family residential subdivision will entirely change
the existing land use.
8 b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of the area will
occur. The 1984 Santa Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan, classifies
the vicinity as Hillside Management, therefore, Nonurban, by
definition. A density formula normally applied to the nonurban
category for this site would allow a minimum of 3.6 units and a maximum
of 24 units with a preferred limit of 14 units (representing the
midrange). The referenced general plan has been adopted by the City of
Santa Clarita as a policy guide only, and is not a regulatory document.
It is noted that the existing zoning of the site is Light Agricultural
A-1-10,000. This allows development of single family residences of a
minimum 10,000 square foot lot sizes. A provision exists in the City's
subdivision ordinance to permit a reduction in the required area to a
minimum 7,000 square foot lot size for up to 43Z of this proposed
subdivision. Only 18 lots are proposed to have a reduced area. The
existing zoning would permit approximately 113 lots. The average lot size
for this project is 14,157 square feet.
8 d. The proposed use does not conform to established development criteria
in that it is in an area designated by the General Plan as Hillside
Management (HM). In this designation the intent is to develop
residential lots in cluster form, thus avoiding grading in steep sloped
areas; lots would then be developed in the shallower areas 0-25Z
slopes. The proposed project shows lots evenly distributed throughout
the site. Again, an estimated 85Z of the surface area will require
grading.
lla. The project will alter the location, distribution, density, and growth
rate of the area. Since new development is proposed where none
presently exists, these impacts are inevitable. The impacts generated
are addressed elsewhere in this Environmental Assessment primarily
within sections Al, A13, A14, and A18.
13a. The number of vehicular trips generated per day by this project is
estimated to be 828, with a morning peak hour of 66 trips and and
afternoon peak of 89. These figures alone represent a negligible
impact on the local street system. However, when considered with the
cumulative impacts of other proposed developments that will be
utilizing the same street system, the impact is considered significant.
- 7b -
13c. The cumulative impacts of this project and others proposed that will be
located on the existing and future planned extensions of Antelope
Valley Freeway (State Highway 14). Only mimimal improvements to this
freeway are budgeted in the near future (one to three years). A
widening is planned from Via Princessa to Sand Canyon Road from the two
existing lanes each direction to three lanes total each direction.
Since freeway traffic generated by this tract will enter the freeway at
Via Princessa, and the primary travel direction is west (toward Los
Angeles), this improvement will not directly improve traffic conditions
generated by this project. No improvements are contemplated within the
State Transporation Improvement Plan (STIP) within the next five
years. The true cumulative impacts of this and other projects
affecting the Antelope Valley Freeway are difficult to quantify at this
time since much of the development which would impact the freeway is
expected to occur outside of the City's jurisdiction. The cities of
Palmdale, Lancaster, and the County of Los Angeles are other
jurisdictions whose land use decisions impact the freeway.
13d. The design of the proposed project will alter present patterns of
circulation. The project proposes a new collector street that will
intersect Whites Canyon Road. This will create a new turning movement
that does not presently exist, thereby altering circulation in this
segment of Whites Canyon Road.
13e. Inherent in new development is the potential for increased traffic
hazards to motorists, bicyclists, and pedistrians. Mitigation measures
identified for this project will alleviate additional traffic hazards.
See attached Mitigation Measures: Transportation/Circulation
14b.. Policeservices will be further utilized by the additional population
of this project creating additional demands for services.
14c. Schools are all ready at or above capacity levels at all levels serving
this project site.
14d. Park and recreation services in this portion of the City are at a
minimum level. The additional population generated by this project
will additionally burden these services.
See attached Mitigation Measures: Public Services.
18a. The area in which the site is located consists of rolling hills. Many
homes to the northwest of the site and some to the east have a view of
this area. Grading of these hills will come within close proximity to
these existing homes, and will change the view that these homes
presently enjoy. Subsequent construction of homes within the site will
change the character of the view of the open space now afforded by the
homes presently above and below this site. The impact of this
development is that the close range view that both areas .to the east
and northwest of this site have will be dramatically changed. The
distant views that the homes to the northwest have will be unaffected;
however the homes to the east may possibly have distant views blocked
to the northwest.
11--53
- 7c -
18b. The change in view from open space, chapparral covered hills, to a
housing development could be considered offensive by those most
affected by the changes in new described in No. 18a above.
18c. Those who perceive the view to be offensive, could consider' the visual
impact detrimental.
See attached Mitigation Measures: Aesthetics
In general, changes in views that pr`esently-exist wi1.1 be unavoidable. The
degree of significance in these changes will vary on an individual basis,
and is a difficult subject to assess in terms environmental impacts.
B. DISCUSSION OF RAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED
4. Plant Life
The existing oak tree on the site shall be incorporated into future
landscaping of the tract. During grading and construction, the tree
shall be appropriately protected. No work shall be permitted within
the protected zone (five feet from the dripline).
13. Transportation/Circulation
b. A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Whites
Canyon Road and "A" Street.
C. Parking restrictions on Whites Canyon Road shall be installed and
restriping of Nadal and Whites Canyon Road.
14. Public Service
Park land shall be dedicated to improve the existing public park
availability in the vicinity.
18. Aesthetics
Uniform landscaping and fencing shall be required. The City shall have
the authority to review and approve both. A landscape maintenance
assessment district shall be formed to ensure continued maintenance.
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.
0
W:M
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.) ........... [ J [ ] [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? ......... [ ] [ J [XJ
D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED. .................................... [ ]
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. ......................................... [ ]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
November 29, 1989
Date Signature
Michael A. Rubin, Associate Planner
Name and Title 5S
• •
LIST OF SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
Initial Study
_Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47863
Environmental
Sub'ect Source of Information
1. EARTH City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Public Works and
Preliminary
Geotechnical Review,
Oct. 16, 1989, by
Leighton Associates
2. AIR South Coast Air
Quality Mgmt.
District Air Quality
Handbook
3.
WATER
Santa Clarita Water
Co., Geotechnical
Review, and Drainage
Analysis, Aug., 3,
1989, by Sikand
Engineering
Associates
4.
PLANT LIFE
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of.
Community
.Development Maps of
Significant
Ecological Areas and
Oak Tree Survey,
July 19, 1989 by
James Henrickson,
Ph.D.
5.
ANIMAL LIFE
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community
Development Maps of
Significant
Ecological Areas
6.
NOISE
Traffic Analysis,
Aug., 1989, by Crain
& Associates.
7.
LIGHT & GLARE
Traffic Analysis,
Aug., 1989.
8.
LAND USE
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
�_ 66�
9.
NATURAL RESOURCES
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
10.
RISK OF UPSET/HAZARDS
County of Los
Angeles Fire Dept.
11.
POPULATION
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
12.
HOUSING
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
13.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Traffic Analysis,
Aug., 1989.
14.
PUBLIC SERVICES
City of Santa
Clarita Depts. of
Parks and
Recreation, and
Public Works.
County of Los
Angeles Depts. of
Fire and Sheriff,
Saugus Union,
Sulphur Springs
Union and Wm. S.
Hart High School
Districts
15.
ENERGY So. Calif. Edison and So. Calif.
Gas
16.
UTILITIES
So. Calif. Edison,
So. Calif. Gas,
Santa Clarita Water
Co.
17.
HEALTH Los Angeles Co. Health Dept. and
Sanitation District
18.
AESTHETICS
City of Santa
Clarita Depts. of
Community
Development, and
Parks and Recreation.
19.
RECREATION
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Parks and Recreation
2.0.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
State of California
Dept. of Parks and
Recreation Office of
Historic Preservation
P
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: February 20, 1990
APPLICANT: Weston Development Corporation
Prezoning and
TYPE .OF PERMIT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map
FILE NO.: PZ -89-002 and VTTM No. 46626
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT:. North of the existing northerly Terminus of
Foxlane Drive, Tambora Drive and Bakerton Avenue
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Prezoning to the A-1-10,000 zone and
subdivision for 201 lots for single family residences. The site is
presently in unincorporated territory of Los Angeles County. Concurrent
with these entitlements is an application for annexation to the City of
Santa Clarita.
[X] City Council
It is the determination of the [X] Planning Commission
[ ] 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 attt�achheed
Form completed by: c -'r16/ 1111/
( ignature)
Michael A. Rubin, Associate Planner
(Name and Title)
Date of Public Notice: November 29, 1989
[X] Legal advertisement.
[X] Posting of properties.
[X] Written notice.
E
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
•
PZ -89-002
CASE NO. VTTM 46626 Prepared by: Michael A. Rubin
Project Location: North of the existing northerly terminus of Foxlane
Drive Tambora Drive and Bakerton Avenue
Project Description and Setting: Vacant hillside land proposed to be
developed for 201 single family residences.
General Plan Designation Hillside Management (HM)
Zoning: Light Agricultural A-1-10,000 and Heavy Agricultural A-2-1
Applicant: Weston Development Corporation
Environmental Constraint Areas: Hillside terrain, traffic. aesthetics
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
5=Sa
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? ..................
[X] [ ] [ ]
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? ...............
[X] [ ] [ ]
C.
Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ...........................
[X] [ ] [ ]
d.
The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features? ..................................
[ ] [ ] [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 a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ...........................
[ ] [ ] [X]
5=Sa
0. 0
6 5
- 2 -
YES
MAYBE NO
i.
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? .......................
[X]
[ ] L ]
J.
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25Z natural grade? .............
[X]
k.
Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ...................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
Development proposed in a mapped
1._
Other.? landslide area
[X]
[ ] [.]
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? ......................................
L ]
[ ] [X]
e.
Other?
L ]
[ ] LX]
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................
[X]
L ] L ]
b.
Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? ..............................
L l
L ] LX]
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? ............................
L ]
L ] LX]
6 5
3 -
YES MAYBE NO
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? ..........
[ ] [ J [Xj
i.
Other?
[ ] [ ] [X]
4.
Plant
Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs,.grasses, crops, and microflora)? ...
[ J [ ] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ......
[ ] [ J [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)? ....................
[ ] [ ] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? .....
[ ] [ ] [XJ
c.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ......
[ ] [ ] [XJ
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? ...........
[ ] [ J [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? .................
[ ] [ ] [Xj
C.
Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ...
[ ] [ ] [XJ
7.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? ..................
[XJ [ ] [ J
8.
Land
Use. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial alteration of the present
land use of an area? .......................
[XJ [ ] [ ]
b.
A substantial.alteration of the
planned land use of an area? ...............
[XJ
0
- 4 -
S-5'5
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? ................................. L )
[ J LX]
b.
Substantial depletion 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? ........................... [ J
[ ] [X]
b..
Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ................................ [ )
[ ) [XJ
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? [ ]
[ ] [X]
12.
Housing.
Will the proposal:
a.
Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................ [ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Other? [ ]
[ ] LX]
13..
Transportation/Circulation.
Will the proposal
result in:
a.
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................ [ ]
[ ] [X]
S-5'5
9 0
�1=
YES
MAYBE NO
b.
Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? .................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
C.
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ..........................
[X]
[ ] [ ]
d.
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? ..............................
[XJ
[ J [ J
e.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? .......
[X]
[ ] [ ]
f.
A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? .............................
[ J
[ J [X]
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
a.
Fire protection? ............................
[ J
[ J [XJ
b.
Police protection? .........................
[X]
[ ] [ J
C.
Schools? ...................................
[XJ
[ J [ J
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities? ....
[X]
[ ] [ ]
e..
Maintenance.of public.facilities,
including roads? ...........................
[ J
[ ] [XJ
f..
Other governmental services? ...............
[ ]
[ ] [X]
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy. ....................................
[ J
[ J [XJ
b.
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? ..
[ ]
[ J [X]
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for
new systems, or substantial alterations to
the
following utilities:
a.
Power or natural gas? ......................
[ ]
[ ] [XJ
.b.
Communications systems? ....................
[ ]
[ J [X]
- C.
Water systems? .............................
[ J
[ J [XJ
d.
Sanitary sewer systems? ....................
[ ]
[ J [X]
e.
Storm drainage systems? ....................
[ J
[ ] [X]
_ 6 _
S- of`
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)? ...
[ ] [ J [X]
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ...................................
L ] [ ]. [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? .....................
[ J [ ] [X]
S- of`
7 -
Discussion of Impacts.
The following is a discussion of the °yes° and °maybe" responses in the
Initial Study. Responses to "non items are optional.
1 a. Changes in geologic substructures will occur. As a result,, major
geologic corrective measures are need such as, but not limited to,
shear keys, buttress fills, stabilization fills, subdrain systems, and
removal and.recompaction.
1 b. These impacts are inherent in grading operations. Compaction and fill
will be required.
1 c. A major change in topography will occur as a result of this project
proposal. An area of gentle to moderately rolling hills will be graded
to accommodate a housing development. An estimated 80Z of the surface
area of the site is proposed to be graded.
1 d. Landslide hazards are known to exist within the project site. Standard
engineering practices such as the recommendations in the preliminary
geotechnical report for this project will reduce these potential
hazards to an insignificant level.
1 i. Cut and fill in the amount of approximately 1.5 million cubic yards
will be required to accommodate the proposed project. Construction
impacts, though short term, will generate temporary nuisance impacts.
Noise and exhaust from grading equipment, as well as truck traffic to
and from the site will pose an inconvenience to residents in the
immediate vicinity.
1 j. Approximately 43Z of the site is located on terrain of greater than 25C
slope.
1 1. The project site is located within a mapped landslide area as per the
Mint Canyon quadrangle of the Geology Maps of the California Department
of Mines and Geology.
Standard engineering practices for earthwork design as well as state and
municipal code requirements for grading operations can reduce these impacts
to insignificant levels.
3 a. The site is presently in a vacant condition. Any development would
increase the amount of surface area impervious to water, thus
increasing the rate and amount of runoff. Existing storm drains in the
vicinity are expected to accommodate the increased runoff.
6 a. Since the site is presently vacant, any new development will increase
existing noise levels. Noise sources are likely to emanate from
construction equipment and traffic, and after occupancy of the tract
from vehicular traffic and typical ambient residential noise sources
such as stereos, power tools, household appliances, barking dogs, etc.
Since the project is proposed only for residential uses and is located
adjacent to existing residences, no significant impacts from noise are
anticipated.
5 V�
• 0
7a -
7. Because development is proposed where none presently exists, new light
and glare will be created. Headlight glare from vehicular traffic will
be the primary source. Other sources will include street lights and
interior lighting of the individual residences. No significant impacts
from light and glare.are expected.
8 a. A substantial alteration of the present land use of the area will
occur. Due to the presently vacant condition of the site, the change
to an 201 -lot single family residential subdivision will entirely
change the existing land use.
8 b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of the area will
occur. The 1984 Santa Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan, classifies
the vicinity as Hillside Management, therefore, Nonurban, by
definition. A density formula normally applied to the nonurban
category for this site would allow a minimum of 11.2 units and a
maximum of 24 units with a preferred limit of 17 units (representing
the midrange). The referenced general plan has been adopted by the City
of Santa Clarita as a policy guide only, and is not a regulatory
document.
It is noted that the existing zoning of approximately half of the site is
Light Agricultural A-1-10,000. This allows development of single family
residences of a minimum 10,000 square foot lot sizes. The other half of the
site is zoned Heavy Agriculture A-2-1, allowing a minimum of one -acre lot
size. Under the existing zoning (accounting for the combination of the two
zones), a maximum of 212 lots would be permitted; only 201 are proposed. A
provision exists in the City's subdivision ordinance to permit a reduction
in. the required area to a minimum 7,00.0 square foot lot size for up to 432
of this proposed subdivision. A total of 81 of the 86 allowable lots are
proposed to have a.reduced area. The average lot size for this project is
14,374 square feet.
8 c. The use does not presently conform to existing zoning laws. A portion
of the site is presently zoned A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural 1 -acre minimum
lot size). The applicant has requested a prezoning to A-1-10,000.
(Light Agriculture, minimum 10,000 square foot lot area). The project
conforms to the A-1-10,000 zone.
8 d. The proposed use does not conform to established development criteria
in that it is in an area designated by the General Plan as Hillside
Management (HM). In this designation the intent is to develop
residential lots in cluster form, thus avoiding grading in steep sloped
areas; lots would then be developed in the shallower areas 0-252
slopes. The proposed project shows lots evenly distributed throughout
the site. Again, an estimated 852 of the surface area will require
grading.
lla. The project will alter the location, distribution, density, and growth
rate of the area. Since new development is proposed where none
.presently exists, these impacts are inevitable. The impacts generated
are addressed elsewhere in this Environmental Assessment primarily
within sections Al. A13, A14, and A18.
5' cm .
7b -
13a. The number of vehicular trips generated per day by this project is
estimated to be 1,969, with a morning peak hour of 152 trips and and
afternoon peak of 210. These figures alone represent a negligible
impact on the local street system. However, when considered with the
cumulative impacts of other proposed developments that will be
utilizing the same street system, the impact is considered significant.
13c. The cumulative impacts of this project and others proposed that will be
located on the existing and future planned extensions of Antelope
Valley Freeway (State Highway 14). Only mimimal improvements to this
freeway are budgeted in the near future (one to three years). A
widening is planned from Via Princessa to Sand Canyon Road from the two
existing lanes each direction to three lanes total each direction.
Since freeway traffic generated by this tract will enter the freeway at
Via Princessa, and the primary travel direction is west (toward Los
Angeles), this. improvement will not directly improve traffic conditions
generated by this project. No improvements are contemplatedwithin the
State Transporation Improvement Plan (STIP) within the next five
years. The true cumulative impacts of this and other projects
affecting the Antelope Valley Freeway are difficult to quantify at this
time since much of the development which would impact the freeway is
expected to occur outside of the City's jurisdiction. The cities of
Palmdale, Lancaster, and the County of Los Angeles are other
jurisdictions whose land use decisions impact the freeway.
13d. The design of the proposed project in combination with an adjacent
proposed tract will alter present patterns of circulation. The project
proposes a new collector street that will intersect Whites Canyon
Road. This will create a new turning movement that does not presently
exist, thereby altering circulation in this segment of Whites Canyon
Road.
13e. Inherent in new development is the potential for increased traffic
hazards to motorists, bicyclists, and pedistrians. Mitigation measures
identified for this project will alleviate additional traffic hazards.
See attached Mitigation Measures: Transportation/Circulation.
14b. Police services will be further utilized by the additional population
of this project creating additional demands for services.
14c. Schools are presently at or above capacity levels at all levels serving
this project site.
14d. Park and recreation services in this portion of the City are at a
minimum level. The additional population generated by this project
will additionally burden these services.
See attached Mitigation Measures: Public Services.
0 .0
- 7c -
18a. The area in which the site is located consists of rolling hills. Many
homes to the west of the .site and some to the south have a view of this
area. Grading of these hills will come within close proximity to these
existing homes, and will change the view that these homes presently
enjoy. Subsequent construction of homes within the site will change
the character of the view of the open space now afforded by the homes
presently below this site. The impact of this development is that the
close range view that both areas to the south and west of this site
have will be dramatically changed. The distant views that the homes to
the west have will be unaffected; however the homes to the south may
possibly have distant views blocked to the northwest.
18b. The change in view from open space, chapparral covered hills, to a
housing development could be considered offensive by those most
affected by the changes in new described in No. 18a above.
18c. Those who perceive the view to be offensive, could consider the visual
impact detrimental.
In general, changes in views that presently exist will be unavoidable. The
degree of significance in these changes will vary on an individual basis,
and is a difficult subject to assess in terms environmental impacts.
See attached Mitigation Measures: Aesthetics.
B. DISCUSSION OF WAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED
13. Transportation/Circulation
b. A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Whites
Canyon Road and "A" street.
C. Parking restrictions on Whites Canyon Road shall be installed and
restriping of Nadal and Whites Canyon Road.
14.- Public Services
C., A.mitigation agreement shall be entered between the applicant and
the appropriate school districts.
d. Park land shall be dedicated to improve the existing public park
availability in the vicinity.
18. Aesthetics
Uniform landscaping and fencing shall be required. The City shall have
the authority to review and approve both. A landscape maintenance
assessment district shall be formed to ensure continued maintenance.
- 8 -
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
- is required. .......................................... [ ]
9 _
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
November 29, 1989
Date Signature
Michael A. Rubin, Associate Planner
Name and Title
5-63
LIST OF SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
Initial Study
.Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46626
and
Prezone 89-002
Environmental
Subject
1. EARTH
2. AIR
3. WATER
4. PLANT LIFE
5. ANIMAL LIFE
6. NOISE
7. LIGHT & GLARE
8. LAND USE
9. NATURAL RESOURCES
Source of Information
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Public Works and
Preliminary
Geotechnical Report,
Jan., 10, 1989, by
Pacific Soils
Engineering, Inc.
South Coast Air
Quality Mgmt.
District Air Quality
Handbook
Santa Clarita Water
Co. and Drainage
Analysis, Aug., 3,
1989, by Sikand
Engineering
Associates
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community
Development Maps of
Significant
Ecological Areas
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community
Development Maps of
Significant
Ecological Areas
Traffic Analysis,
Aug._, 1989, by Crain
& Associates.
Traffic Analysis,
Aug., 1989.
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
•
10. RISK OF UPSET/HAZARDS
11. POPULATION
12. HOUSING
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
15. ENERGY
16. UTILITIES
17. HEALTH
18. AESTHETICS
19. RECREATION
20. .CULTURAL RESOURCES
•
County of Los
Angeles Fire Dept.
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
Traffic Analysis,
Aug., 1989.
City of Santa
Clarita Depts. of
Parks and
Recreation, and
Public Works.
County of Los
Angeles Depts. of
Fire and Sheriff,
Saugus Union,
Sulphur Springs
Union and Wm. S.
Hart High School
Districts
So. Calif. Edison
and So. Calif. Gas
So. Calif. Edison,
So. Calif. Gas,
Santa Clarita Water
Co.
Los Angeles Co.
Health Dept. and
Sanitation District
City of Santa
Clarita Depts. of
Community
Development, and
Parks and Recreation
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Parks and Recreation
State of California
Dept. of Parks and
Recreation Office of
Historic Preservation
S G�
O
Mr. Mark Scott' 1y�
Director of Community Development and Planning r�,a 0�
23920 West Valencia Blvd.
1y
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
January 31, 1990
Dear Mr. Scott:
We are homeowners in the existing Oak Grove Tract adjacent to the proposed Weston
Development project, Tentative Tract 46626, and the proposed American Landmark
project, Tentative Tract 48763.
We oppose these projects. We believe that there exists geologic and related safety
problems with both sites. We have addressed our concerns, both verbally and in
writing, to the developers, the City of Santa Clarita, and the County of Los Angeles.
If these projects are approved, despite our concerns, and injury to ourselves or damage
to our property occurs, we will consider that the governmental agencies which approved
these projects and the developers to be liable. We have no other choice.
We presume that you are aware of the "Big Rock" litigation in Malibu, the Princess
Homes development litigation in Newhall, and the Shangra-La development litigation in
Canyon Country. These cases illustrate that although it may be technologically feasible
to develop on an unstable geologic area it is not always prudent to do so.
We will continue our opposition to these projects. We encourage you to also oppose these
developments.
Please note: this is
one copy of eight (8)
copies received of this
letter.
Sin I ,
�a 7 �.
V �
� 3�7
rTheodore J. Kircher
19323 Old Friend Road
Santa Clanta, CA 91351
805-298-7086
Mr. Mark Scott
Director of Community Development
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard #300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Ref.: American Landmark - Tentative Tract No. 47863
Weston Development - Tentative Tract No. 46626
Dear Mr. Scott:
I spoke to you and Commissioner Worden during the break at
the Planning Commission meeting of January 16 concerning what I
perceived to be a misstatement of fact in connection with the proposed
developments by American Landmark and Weston.
These two proposed developments abut common area property
owned by the Whites Canyon Homeowners Association (the Ridge
development) - Weston to the east and Landmark to the south of our
property. These proposed developments do not abut but touch at their
southwest and northeast corners respectively.
A major element of their proposed plans is the so-called
"Road A" which traverses their sites on an approximate diagonal from
the southwest corner of Landmark to the northeast corner of Weston.
In order for that road to be continuous it must cross over our property
111 the southeast corner. Based oii some of the arguments offered by the
builders this road is critical to the projects.
At the aforementioned Commission meeting I understood a
representative of the builders to assert that the property required by
Road A outside of the proposed development boundaries was "open
land" with the implication that it was county land.
I brought this to your attention with the request that the record
be corrected so the Commissioners would not be in the position of
making a decision based on erroneous information. Unfortunately,
neither you nor Commissioner Worden corrected the record, requiring
us to bring the matter to your attention in writing.
Mr. Mark Scott, Director of Community Development Page 2
A second and more important matter concerns the recommen-
dation of the Commission staff relating to supporting the request of the
builders that our property be acquired by eminent domain if not pur-
chased by them.
Landmark and Weston are private builders proposing develop-
ments of some $100,000,000 with the expectation of realizing substan-
tial profits from their labor. The Commission staff has seriously jeop-
ardized our position in connection with negotiations for this property
with the builders. The builders' original verbal offer was ludicrous and
we were threatened that "...if ... held -up ... the property would be obtained
by condemnation." This statement had to be made based on the assur-
ance that the Commission staff would prevail in having the Commission
approve the builders' related request.
We are at a loss to understand what justification the staff has to
support such a request which would result, not in the acquisition of this
land for a public purpose, but for the private profit of the builders.
Under the circumstances the White Canyon Home Homeowners
Association hereby demands that the provision concerning the acquisi-
tion of our property contained in the Commission staff recommenda-
tion be removed completely. There is no justification for the Commis-
sion to be involved in providing private builders with the leverage to
improve their potential profits from these developments by severely
constraining the negotiating position of the 120 homeowners in our
Association.
I will call you before the end of next week to discuss this matter.
If it appears that the aforementioned provision cannot be removed
from the Commission staff report, we will be put in the position of
having to obtain outside counsel and taking such legal actions as may be
required to protect our interest.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Since ly,
se Borja, Chai an
se -
Canyon
Homeowners Association
'T.�
T eodore J. Kircher
Chairman
Land Committee
cc: Members of the Planning Commission
DEVELOPMENT, INC..
f
December= 199 '. 1989
R
,
�i.ksf
t Richard Hen ;
derson
City 'of Santa Clarita
Valencia Blvd. # 300
Santa Clarita, Ca., 91355
SUBJECT: ` VTT .MAP 47863
Dear Mr. Henderson, ,
have been involved in several homeowner meetings in the last
..,...:._'Vweek with adjacent owners to our planned development.In these
7' `"` '' meetings and after the review of a substantial amount of material
regarding the development the general feeling of the homeowner
has been very favorable. A few issues have been brought to our
,.,,.. attention for which we plan to cooperate with the said ajoining
owners., -
g, The items below are draft conditions for the proposed solutions.
All of these items are subject to city review and approval:
Please .feel free to redraft them.
3' 1. The homeowner's to the east of the American Landmarkproposed
tract would like to have installed several stop signs in their,,
existing neighborhood and request a study to be done for that .'
purpose. they have suggested three-way intersections at Foxlane.`:'..'.'
and Cabral, Foxlane and Basel and Foxlane and Nadel. the
surrounding homeowner's shall be notified by the city of the
study and their determination.
t
In addition, .. if the City determines through this study that
westbound Nadel Street a. left turn.:`arrow is needed .to turn onto,
Whites Canyon in order to go'south, Weston and American Landmark
'shall pay for said modification. : ¢`
dl
The homeowner's to the east of the proposed tract have agreed =t,
`. that the above study and determination shall not delay the
processing or .construction of the American Landmark Tract,_. but.. `kx
the cost of the study and of improy,roents for any additionah stop
r t� signs, striping of modification of the signal for a left turn
arrow, as determined by the City, shall be . borne by Weston and
tf ,_ American Landmark..:
id
c 3
continued....
414 East Cota, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, California 93101 FAX (805) 963-1038
0 (805) 965-8515
JP
+ 7
L k
4im(\�/�--'-��� �(`,/,'�_.�
Laiidm'ark
DEVELOPMENT, INC..
f
December= 199 '. 1989
R
,
�i.ksf
t Richard Hen ;
derson
City 'of Santa Clarita
Valencia Blvd. # 300
Santa Clarita, Ca., 91355
SUBJECT: ` VTT .MAP 47863
Dear Mr. Henderson, ,
have been involved in several homeowner meetings in the last
..,...:._'Vweek with adjacent owners to our planned development.In these
7' `"` '' meetings and after the review of a substantial amount of material
regarding the development the general feeling of the homeowner
has been very favorable. A few issues have been brought to our
,.,,.. attention for which we plan to cooperate with the said ajoining
owners., -
g, The items below are draft conditions for the proposed solutions.
All of these items are subject to city review and approval:
Please .feel free to redraft them.
3' 1. The homeowner's to the east of the American Landmarkproposed
tract would like to have installed several stop signs in their,,
existing neighborhood and request a study to be done for that .'
purpose. they have suggested three-way intersections at Foxlane.`:'..'.'
and Cabral, Foxlane and Basel and Foxlane and Nadel. the
surrounding homeowner's shall be notified by the city of the
study and their determination.
t
In addition, .. if the City determines through this study that
westbound Nadel Street a. left turn.:`arrow is needed .to turn onto,
Whites Canyon in order to go'south, Weston and American Landmark
'shall pay for said modification. : ¢`
dl
The homeowner's to the east of the proposed tract have agreed =t,
`. that the above study and determination shall not delay the
processing or .construction of the American Landmark Tract,_. but.. `kx
the cost of the study and of improy,roents for any additionah stop
r t� signs, striping of modification of the signal for a left turn
arrow, as determined by the City, shall be . borne by Weston and
tf ,_ American Landmark..:
id
c 3
continued....
414 East Cota, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, California 93101 FAX (805) 963-1038
0 (805) 965-8515
ffin�x��yj�µq page two continued....: f
Pf
s 1 -
y.; 2.. Upon receiving PP' individual approval from each homeowner
P
� &;,",'adjacent,to American'Landmark's easterly boundary, American =W
KI
� =Landmark will hire, at its cost,' an inspector and survey each
home and property as; to"existing.condition to create a bench mark
survey.in which to determine if any grading on the American
Landmark Tract causes' any damage to the adjacent existing homes.:
Any damage determined to be caused by American Landmark will be 't
repaired at American Landmark's cost. ;
FTr�J 3. The property owners whose property is immediately adjacent to Y4
the easterly line of the proposed tract will be notified by
American Landmark for their opoinions and comments as to -..
location, design'and materials used in the construction of walls,
fencing, landscaping and/or irrigation which is immediately
tr'if.adjacent to. the existing homes along said easterly boundary.;
r�FF, A American Landmark shall, submit evidence of 'same to the City. A11
landscaping adjacent to the easterly boundary shall require the
.City approvals, which shall be to enhance the visual privacy. of
the adjacent property owners `
We will `discuss this matter with you today.'f We appreciate your,
time and cooperation on jthis- issue: We wish to make this a part tl P'�Yrf
h of the tpublic:. record a:t out Tuesday hearing:
_ /� fu3 1 rt r • Y �. ti a4t.v _� t � F r c I '' M ��.. -d1t .
* f eN i - r r' , �r ! It r .,., S '"' _ �t r s -r "��r r � �d t aa1�.i ai n •-�,�yf'�,y, �4
"' A 2 �% try � t � t ' y fes: t t2 t � x ° � r�; s . t• ' f
:rte :t!�.' �-i hfi �F t it '�t,{4' .,. C'a+ , t.T'�& ir«'^ti s�; �,5 Y °}+t �L ,. � M ,t i.I,� t i• SPa, n .� t `#i- "..
,, rh r� t s•�tar i t t h, r�- '# , x
" �t���4`.����� n e 1 c► ' �+/�' ..,E_4i,'`r rt„t.".'��at �+;z'i''•s- srdS_.3�a 6�. t�'.f.� �. ,}.��� i t, rt c�r �lr"� ci;! , .,?E. -i=. { {. � ?...��% ,���'� . _ ..i'J'''
0, ,
ty�
f�9.SL
1 ,T
HOMAS MCFAD DEN
a,tC51,��-1
r
t
jt ,,yR)0 -lT+ F " ! P ti,• t `. Hr f W t....rA �y t I --� -t- F , t., i rr. t i 1F �r� k4 � E7"�.b � I
198
I TRR ' I .-: J,� ', , i r :l t � ' � �5rc 4 F ` - '. _ �r r � c�•'f �j+� �1 ia>�
•.',� 1'sra G'w F''. 1.11 F �r y 4 7 a �r r p �re t 1-:`t j i } }iN''b i E p t 1' t� .f 1 :. r'1`$' p' 3i�•
1
tti',�4rni-•� F I�'i..� ` N 1 :j �' tk 1l f ✓�
t -
�- { 111
J� f .. C a. � � I � • T I ` ~ � ��1
.i htt
11�
American Landmark
DEVELOPMENT, INC.
February 20, 1990
Richard Kopecky, City Engineer
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor
Santa Clarita, Ca., 91355 VIA FAX 805-901-7451
RE: ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS VTT MAP 47863
Dear Mr. Kopecky,
In responce to the homeowner's meeting of February 19, 1990, in
the Council Chambers please add the following conditions to our
VTT Map 47863 on the Planning Commission Hearing for the 20th, of
February, 1990.
1. Construction monitoring of offsite properties:
Establish a monitoring system within the offsite tract 27493
street and sidewalk network. This will establish the baseline
reference for movement. Six months prior to any proposed grading
survey points would be established in ate area within 400 feet of
the Tract boundary. ( There should be a few points outside the
house survey area to act as reference points. This is the reason
for the 400 feet ).
Monitor each house adjacent to said Tract in addition, any house
requesting to be monitored that is within the 400 feet. Three
months prior to the start of grading the Developer and or his
agent, with the cooperation of all homeowners, will perform a
visual survey of each home. Existing conditions will be
documented through photos and video camera filming with a written
summary. Verification of structural integrity of the house
structure and appurtanances, such as ... slab areas, pools,
decking, retaining walls, etc....
Establish survey monitoring points along the Tract Boundary, at
the offsite corners. This will be done three months prior to
grading. Readings will be taken monthly to establish the
baseline. When work is directly adjacent to the Tract Boundary,
the offsite corner survey will be performed once a week. Once
the adjacent work is completed the readings shall be taken
monthly for a_period of six months.
CONTINUED PAGE TWO:
EXHIBIT 2 - page 1 of 2
414 East Cora, Suite 201 • Santa Barbara, California 93101 • FAX (805) 963-1038 - (805) 965-8515
f
PAGE TWO CONTINUED
All the survey data will be made available to the City, their
representatives, and Developers consultants to analyze and
review. The City copy would be public record and available to
the Homeowners to review.
2. All vegetative disturbances remaining on the easterly slope
from the exploritory trenching of VTT Map 47863 completed on
_ February 3, 1990, are to be by � seeded as soon as possible.
G 3. During the grading of the subdivision it is the intent of the
Developer to use small equipment within 500 feet of the adjacent
Tract 27493, so as to mitigate vibration of said adjacent areas.
Any excessive vibration should be reported to the City Staff and
the City Staff will then recommend to the Developer mitigating
measures.
4. As a gesture of good faith and good will the Developer will
correct localized surfical slump at the rear yard of 28135
Foxlane. In response to the homeowner concerns we volunter to
correct this offsite slope condition. This can only be
accomplished through the approval of the homeowner of 28135
Foxlane, it will also be necessary for the approvals of the
adjacent homeowners on either side, being 28129 and 28143
Foxlane, for the purpose of ingress and egress to said localized
area described above. The approvals of the City Staff is
necessary in this matter.
�j 5. To reasonably insure the safety of adjacent property during
the grading process the Developer agrees to install safeguard
devices reasonably -beyond the standard minimum to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Si 1c�r `�l
r ; re
MARK HOLLAND, President
tm
x226
ccMark Scott
EXHIBIT 2 - page 2 of 2
414 East Coca, Suite 201 • Santa Barbara, California 93101 • FAX (805) 963-1038 • (805) 965-8515
w
December 18, 1989
Mr. Rich Henderson
Principal Planner
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Bvld. #30
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map #46626
Dear Rich,
We have had several meetings with the surrounding homeowner's
regarding our proposed tract and have given them substantial
information for their review. In these meetings the response has been
very positive and we have been able to inform people sufficiently to
satisfy their concerns. Through these meetings several issues have
been brought up which the surrounding homeowner's and I have agreed to
cooperate on.
The items below are draft conditions for the proposed solutions. All
of these items are subject to city review and approval. Please feel
free to redraft them if you would like.
1. The model homes for the project will be located on A Street or
to the north of A Street.
2. The new extended streets of Foxlane, Tambura, and Bakerton,
will not be open for through traffic until required to by the;
city in order to obtain occupancy or inspection approval.
3. Along Weston's southernly property line next to the existing';
homes, Weston agrees to remove the existing fences (subject to;:
each homeowner's approval) and construct a six (6) foot block
wall on the property line. In addition, Weston agrees to'.
install and pay for a six (6) foot block wall on the west side!
yard along Foxlane Drive of the homeowner located at 18921
Ermine Street. Weston will repair and replace any damaged
landscaping and irrigation due to the wall installation.
4. The property owners whose property is immediately adjacent to
the southern property line of the proposed tract will be
notified by the City Department of Public Works for their
opinions and comments as to the location, design and
materials used in the construction of the walls, fencing,
landscaping and irrigation which is immediately adjacent to
the existing homes.
10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2150 Los Angeles, California 90024 (213) 479-9900 FAX: (213) 477-8519
0 ' 0)
Mr. Rich Henderson -2-
December 18, 1989
5. The homeowner's to the south of the Weston proposed tract
would like to have installed several stop signs in their
existing neighborhood and request a study to be done for that
purpose. They have suggested three-way intersections at
Foxlane and Cabral, Foxlane and Basel, and Foxlane and Nadel
.Street. The surrounding homeowner's shall be notified by the
City of the study and their determination.
In addition, if the City of Santa Clarita determines through
this study that on westbound Nadel Street a left turn arrow is
needed to turn onto Whites Canyon Road in order to go south,
Weston and American Landmark shall pay for said modification.
The homeowner's to the south of the Weston proposed tract
have agreed that the above study and determination shall not
delay the processing or construction of the Weston tract, but
the cost of improvements for any additional stop signs,
striping or modification of the signal for a left turn arrow,
as determined by the City, shall be borne by Weston and
American Landmark.
�. Upon receiving individual approval from each homeowner
adjacent to Weston's southernly boundary, Weston will hire, at
its cost, an inspector and survey each home and property as to
its existing condition to create a bench mark survey in which
to determine if any grading on the Weston tract causes any
damage to the adjacent existing homes. Any damage determined
to be caused by Weston will be repaired at Weston's cost.
I will give you a call to discuss the above. I appreciate your time
and cooperation on this issue. I would like to make this part of the
public record at our Tuesday hearing.
Very truly yours,
John A. Ashkar
President
JAA/hj t
January 11, 1990
Rita Garasi
Chairwoman, Planning Commission
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Chairwoman Garasi:
On behalf of both Weston and American Landmark, we would like to
extend our thanks to you, the other commissioners, and to the Planning
staff for the very cordial and professional relationship we have
enjoyed thus far.
An important question raised at the first phase of our public hearing
was what benefits are there and what precedent would be set for
development in the Santa Clarita Valley if the American Landmark and
Weston Development projects were to be approved. We would like to
expand on this important question and outline the development
practices and community benefits to which we are committed. We
believe that we propose quality, sensitive and well designed projects
that not only mitigates any impacts that it may have but also
contributes to the community major benefits in helping to resolve the
City's current impacts. The following is a brief summary:
I. VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION
The Weston project is currently located on land under Los Angeles
County jurisdiction. More than 1-1/2 years ago, Weston became
the very first development company to voluntarily seek annexation
to the City of Santa Clarita, so that the City would have the
benefit of all of its park and road contributions.
In addition, at the recent LAFCO hearing on the sphere of
influence, Weston Development was one of only four developments
who submitted a letter supporting approval of the City's complete
sphere request and asking that the City's sphere of influence
proposal be approved as submitted.
II. PARK AND RECREATION BENEFITS
The Quimby requirement for the Weston and Landmark projects are a
little more than 2-1/2 acres or about $250,000. We propose to
voluntarily contribute $755,000 in excess of our Quimby
requirement.
1
10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2150 Los Angeles, California 90024 (213) 479-9900 FAX: (213) 477-8519
We are proposing to donate in excess of one million dollars
($1,000,000) total value to Santa Clarita comprising of land cost
of $305,000 and a cash donation of $700,000.
Since our last hearing in December, the escrow on the park land
could not be extended therefore we closed escrow and acquired the
28 acre site. Located off site from both projects fronting on
Whites Canyon Road, a minimum of 11 level acres of parkland can
be graded on this 28 acre site.
The proposed park site is in an outstanding location.
The proposed park site has already been unanimously accepted by
the City's Parks and Recreation Commission. We believe the
impact of our contribution will be a regional benefit.
III. VOLUNTARY PAYMENT OF THE SCHOOL FEES
We have voluntarily agreed to pay the full amount of the old
special June 1987 school tax.
Over 1-1/2 years ago, letters of committment to pay this tax was
given to the various school districts. This was voluntarily done
without any pressure from either the school districts or the
City, but purely as a reflection of our commitment to outstanding
development practices.
We currently have executed agreements with the school districts.
IV. NET ROAD BENEFITS
We will be contributing voluntarily, DOUBLE the current Bridge
and Thoroughfare District fees for the area. Therefore, instead
of $744,000, we will be contributing more than $1,488,000 for
offsite road improvements.
In addition, the two projects will signalize the intersection of
our new access street and the park entrance with Whites Canyon
Road. This will have the beneficial safety effect of moderating
the excessively high speed on Whites Canyon Road.
The two projects will save the City potentially a considerable
amount of money and liability by stabilizing Whites Canyon Road.
Whites Canyon Road was built directly across an uncorrected land
slide. This slide could, of course, rupture at any moment.
The grading and landslide repair work on the new proposed park
site and on the American Landmark project will have the vital
incidental benefit of substantially stabilizing Whites Canyon
Road without the necessity for its closure.
Also, the projects provide much needed additional means of access
to an entire neighborhood of existing older homes that have
suffered the safety risk of a single point of access for more
than 20 years.
2
5--/0
This entire neighborhood of older homes is non -conforming under
current county codes. Three streets, Foxlane, Tambora and
Bakerton Avenues are all substantially longer than 700 feet.
Each of these three streets currently dead end into stubs into
what will be the Weston project at their southerly terminus.
They all converge. on Nadal Street which is currently their only
single means of access into and out of their neighborhood.
County code does not permit "cul de sac" streets longer than 700
feet. The City potentially could face liability if emergency
vehicles were unable to enter this older area, or were slowed
down, by a street system that is permitted to continue to be non-
conforming to the code. The Weston and Landmark projects solve
this problem completely.
The Weston and Landmark projects will provide this large
currently land locked nieghborhood with four additional points of
access. These will converge on a whole new secondary access route
to Whites Canyon Road which will have a new traffic signal
installed.
V. RIDGELINE PRESERVATION.& CONTOUR GRADING
Both projects have taken considerable pains in their design,
resulting in the loss of lots, to make sure that the visible
ridgelines that surround the projects remain completely natural
and unaltered.
In addition, an expensive but innovative design for contour
grading was created for the project slopes so that they will
curve and unjulate to mimic natural hillsides.
VI. CONSERVATIVE DESIGN
Both projects exhibit a net density of only 2.5 units per acre.
In addition, both projects propose a design amenity not seen in
new subdivisions for many years. We propose a landscaped
greenbelt park way of some five feet (5) in width on both sides
of the main entry street that will separate the roadway from the
sidewalk.. Large specimen trees on this landscaped park way will
be planted thereby giving this street an aesthetic quality.
VII. COMPATIBILITY WITH THE NEW CITY GENERAL PLAN
Both of these proposed projects are infill projects which are
considerably less dense than the projects which surround them.
Directly bordering the Weston Project to the north is the
approved Shappel Monteverde 3,200 unit project. The Shappel
project exhibits substantial multi family density. The single
family areas have lots which average only 5,000 square feet in
size.
The neighborhood immediately to the south of the Weston project
and to the east of the Landmark Project is an area of older
single family homes located in a zoning section of R 1 7000.
3
The averag4kof in this R 1 7000 olo neighborhood is 9,700
square feet. The smallest lot is 5,070 square feet. The largest
lot is about 35,000 square feet.
The Weston project is partially zoned R 1 10,000 and proposes to
extend that zoning throughout its entire 80 acres. The smallest
Weston lot is 7,000 square feet. The largest Weston lot is over
72,000 square feet. The average size Weston lot is 17,000 square
feet.
The American Landmark project also proposes R 1 10,000 zoning.
The smallest lot in the project is 7,100 square feet. The
largest lot is over 45,000 square feet. The average size lot is
17,400 square feet.
The American Landmark project is also considerably less dense
than any of the surrounding projects.
The American Landmark project is adjacent to a single family home
tract of 140 units built and sold in 1984 and 1985 by Citation
Homes. The lots in this project vary from between 4,000 to 7,000
square feet.
Again the Weston and Landmark projects at a net density of 2.5
units per acre are considerably less dense and are on larger lots
than any of the surrounding approved and standing project and
therefore are compatible as infill projects with the new proposed
Santa Clarita City General Plan.
VIII. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION
Since you all received a copy of the very extensive information
packet and the schedule of five different meetings that we
arranged for the people who surrounded our projects, you have
some idea of our commitment to open communication with everyone.
As you know, the legal requirement for information to be sent to
residents surrounding the proposed projects involves only a
notice of a public hearing. The Weston notice involved only 75
homes. The American Landmark notice involved only 193. We both
agreed to send our complete packet of information to all the
residents in the vicinity of both of our projects and to nearly
an additional 100 homes besides, for a total of nearly 350 homes,
or about 700 adults.
It was our intent to fully resolve all of the many questions and
apprehension people usually have about any change.
Of the 700 adults who received our information, 2 chose to call
us on our 24 -hour -a -day Santa Clarita telephone number, and about
40 people total attended the 5 meetings that we held in Canyon
Country. Of the 40 people who attended our meetings, 37
expressed satisfaction with our project and felt it would be an
asset to their neighborhoods and to the Santa Clarita Valley as a
whole. Three people remained unconvinced. These 3 people
contacted about 17 households who were 2-3 blocks away from our
projects, and they were the people who comprised most of the
opposition that appear at our hearing.
n
s- I a.
Virtually none of these 35 people had any information about our
project or our companies and were, in fact, responding to the
overall negative development environment that has been most
unwisely -created by other developers.
Since our last hearing, we have initiated extensive contact with
these new people, and arranged a meeting at a church we rented
for any of the homeowners and parents concerned about our
development so that they may meet with Dr. Robert Nolet, the
Superintendent of the Sulphur Springs School District and
ourselves. The meeting was very informative for the homeowners
and satisfied the concerns of most.
As was mentioned at our initial hearing, we intend to continue
extensive dialogue with any and all people who are interested or
concerned about our projects. This will in no way cease when .we
have received our approvals.
Lastly, we have met with and started good faith negotiations with
the Board of the Whites Canyon Homeowners Association for a road
easement over a small portion of their permanent dedicated open
space.
We sincerely hope that our letter assists you in determining the
unique and beneficial nature to your great new city of the American
Landmark and Weston Development projects.
Very_tru-ly yours,
-J, n A. Ashkar
President
c.c. Louis Braithwaite, Vice Chairman
Pat Modugno, Commissioner
Jeannette Sharar, Commissioner
.Connie Warden, Commissioner
Mark Scott, Community Development Director
Richard Henderson, Principal Planner
Michael Rubin, Planner
5
IS.
EU
February 20, 1990
Mark Scott
Director of Community Development
WESTON
DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Suite 30
Santa Clarita CA 91355
RE: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NUMBER 46626
-Dear. Mark:
Pursuant to the meeting with the City staff and the sur-
rounding homeowners yesterday regarding the soils and geology
issues, I would like to add additional draft conditions to our
tract as discussed and agreed to. These conditions should
satisfy most of the concerns of the homeowners.
The items listed hereinbelow are subject to your review and
approval. Please feel free to re -draft any of these items as you
deem appropriate. '
1. To reasonably insure the safety of the adjacent pruperty
during the grading process, WESTON agrees to install safe-
guard devices which are designed to perform beyond the minimum
standards as approved by the Department of Public: Works.
2. With reference to Item No. 6 of my letter dated 12-19-89,
wherein WESTON agrees to. inspect and survey each home adja-
cent to our tract boundary,.if each particular homeowner extends
permission to WESTON to enter onto their property, WESTON will
agree -- in addition to the above -- to inspect and survey on an
as -requested basis, any home within four hundred (400) feet of
the tract boundary, whose owner is concerned about the grading
operation of our project. .Said inspection and survey shall be
completed within three (3) months prior to the commencement of
the grading activity. Said inspection and survey shall document
existing property conditions and the structural integrity of the
house and any appurtenances -through the use of photographs,
videotapes, and a written summary.
10o0�n W;iJL T1_,Jo..,,I C�,ira 715(1 T nc AnoPlPc. (`alifnrnia Qfltild (2131470A000 FAX: (213)477-' 519
Mark Scott
February 20, 199U
Page 2
1
Re: vesting Tentative Traot Map No. 46626
3. WESTON agrees to establish a monitoring system within the
off-site tract street and sidewalk network to establish a
baseline reference six (6) months prior to the commencement of
any proposed grading activity. Such monitoring shall continue
through the grading process until the grading is completed within
five hundred (500) feet of the tract boundary. Thereafter, such
monitoring shall continue for a period of six (6) months follow-
ing the completion of grading activity in said area. Said moni-
toring system shall be read and examined once a month. The
survey points would be established in an area within five hundred
(500).feet of the tract boundaries.
4. WESTON agrees to establish survey monitoring points along
its tract boundaries near the off-site property corners
- three (3) months prior to the commencement of grading activity.
These survey points,shall be read on a monthly basis until such
time as construction activity commences. Thereafter, these
survey points shall be read once per week until such time as
grading activity is completed within five hundred (500) feet of
the tract boundary. The survey points would then be read on a
monthly basis for a period of six (G) months following completion
of said area.
5. WESTON agrees to make all survey data available to the City
of Santa Clarita, to its representatives, and to developer -
consultants for the purposes of analysis and review.
I would like to make these conditions a part of the public
record at our hearing tonight. I appreciate your time and coop-
eration.
Very truly yours,
JOHN A. ASHKAR
President
JAA:AJP
cc:.. Mr. Dick Kopecky - Dept of Public Works
Mr. Rich Henderson — Principal Planner
r-
V1
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 46626 and 47863 and PREZONE 89-002
TO: Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Mark Scott, Director of Community Development 145
DATE: February 20, 1990 (continued from January 16, 1990)
APPLICANT: Weston Development Corporation and American Landmark Development
LOCATION: North of the northerly terminus of Foxlane Drive, Tambora Drive,
and Bakerton Avenue (VTTM 46626) and Whites Canyon Road, east
side, approximately 600 feet north of the intersection of Nadal
Street and Whites Canyon Road. (VTTM 47863).
RECOMMENDATION:
If satisfactory resolution of grading issues is reached, staff would
recommend:
1. Approve the attached negative declarations with corrections as noted with
the finding that the proposed projects will not have a significant effect
on the environment.
2. Approve modification of street grades in excess of 10Z up to a maximum of
12.5%.
3. Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 46626 and 47863 based on the
required findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval as
modified (See additional conditions nos. 97-102 for 46626 and conditions
nos. 89-91 for 47863. Condition no. 31 for both tract maps is proposed
to be modified, and a new Condition no. 103 is proposed for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 46626 and no. 92 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
47863.)
4. Recommend approval to the City Council of a prezoning of A-1-10,000 for
VTTM 46626.
5. Adopt the attached resolutions.
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting of January 16, 1990 the Planning Commission continued the
public hearing from December 19, 1989, on the above entitlements. The items
were continued once again to the Commission's meeting of February 20, 1990 for
the purpose of addressing geologic concerns raised by nearby residents.
Since the January 16th meeting, new geologic studies have been conducted by
the applicants and reviewed by the City's geologic consultant, Converse
Consultants, Pasadena. Following the new studies and review, an informational
meeting was scheduled for February 19, 1990 to discuss the geologic issues
pertaining to the two sites. Because of the late date of the informational
meeting, staff will report the results of the meeting, orally, to the Planning
Commission at the Commission's February 20th meeting. Additional conditions
of approval will likely be developed to protect nearby residents from impacts
of grading activity.
MS/MAR/lb
0
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: February 20, 1990
APPLICANT: American Landmark Development, Inc.
TYPE OF PERMIT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map
FILE NO.: VTTM 47863
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Whites Canyon Road, east side, approximately 600
feet north of the intersection of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: 80 -lot subdivision for single family residences.
[ ] City Council
It is the determination of the [X] Planning Commission
[ ] Director of Community Development
upon review that the project will not have a significant
effect upon the environment.
Mitigation measures [X] are attached
Form completed by:
(Signature)
Michael A. Rubin, Associate Planner
(Name and Title)
Date of Public Notice: November 29, 1989
[X] Legal advertisement.
[X] Posting of properties.
[X] Written notice.
• 0
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
CASE NO. VTTM No. 47863 Prepared by: Michael A. Rubin
Project Location: Whites Canyon Road east side, approximately 600 feet
north of the intersection of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street.
Project Description and Setting: Vacant hillside land proposed to be
subdivided into 80 lots for single family residences.
General Plan Designation Hillside Management (HM)
Zoning: Light Agricultural A-1-10,000
Applicant: American Landmark Development Inc.
Environmental Constraint Areas: Hillside terrain, traffic, aesthetics
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a..
Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? ...................
[X] [ ] [ ]
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? ...............
[XJ [ ] [ ]
C.
Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ...........................
[X] [ J [ J
d.
The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features? ..................................
[ ] [ ] [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? .....................................
[ ] [XJ [ ]
g.
Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? .................................
[ ] [ J [XJ
h.
Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ...........................
[ J [X] A J
- 2 -
YES MAYBE NO
i.
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? ........... ._...... .
[X] [ ] [ l
j.
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25Z natural grade? ............
[X] [ ] [ ]
k.
Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ......................
[ ] [ l [XJ
Development proposed in a mapped _
1. Other? landslide area
[X] [ ] [ l
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? ..............
[ ] [ l [X]
d.
Development within a high wind hazard
area? ......................................
[X] [ l [ l
e.
Other?
[ ] [ ] [X]
3. Vater. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................
[X] [ ] [ l
b.
Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? ..............................
[ l [ l [Xl
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? .............
[ ] [ l [X]
e.
Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? .....................
[X] [ ] [ l
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? ............................
[ l [ l [Xl
- 3 -
YES
MAYBE NO
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? ..........
[ ]
[ ] (X]
i.
Other?
( ]
[ ] (X]
4.
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ...
[ ]
[X] [ ]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ......
[ ]
[ ] [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal re-
plenishment of existing species? ...........
[ ]
[ ] [X]
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? ......................................
[ ]
[ ] (X]
5.
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
insects or microfauna)? ....................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? .....
[ ]
[ ] [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ......
[ ]
[ ] [X]
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes?
[ ]
[ ] [X]
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]
[ ] [ ] ���?
r
- 4 -
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ..................... [X] [ ] [ J
b. Other? [ ] [ ] [X]
12. Housing. Will the proposal:
a. Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................ [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Other? [ ] [ ] [X]
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? ............................... [ ]
[ J [X]
d.
A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? ...................... [ ]
[X] [ J
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? ................................. [ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Substantial depletion 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)? ................................ [ ]
[ J [XJ
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] [ ] [ J
b. Other? [ ] [ ] [X]
12. Housing. Will the proposal:
a. Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................ [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Other? [ ] [ ] [X]
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................ [ ] [ ] [X]
0
- 5 -
0
YES
MAYBE NO
b.
Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? ..................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
C.
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ............................
[X]
[ ] [ ]
d.
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? ..............................
[XJ
[ ] [ ]
e.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? .......
(X]
[ ] [ J
f.
A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? ...............................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
a.
Fire protection? ...........................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Police protection? .........................
[X]
[ ] [ J
C.
Schools? ...................................
[X]
[ J [ J
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities? ....
[X]
[ ] [ ]
e.
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ...........................
( J
[ ] [X]
f.
Other governmental services? ...............
[ J
[ J [X]
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?_
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy. ....................................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy?
[ ]
[ ] [X]
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for
new systems, or substantial alterations to
the
following utilities:
a.
Power or natural gas? ......................
( ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Communications systems? .....................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
C.
Water systems? .............................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
d.
Sanitary sewer systems? ....................
( ]
[ ] (X]
e.
Storm drainage systems? ....................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
0
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
YES
MAYBE. NO
f.
Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [ ]
[ J [XJ
g.
Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
[ ] [X]
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
improvements for any of the above? ......... [ ]
[ ] [X]
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ]
a.
Creation of any health hazard or potential.
religious or sacred uses within the
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ... [ ]
[ J [X]
b.
Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? .................................... [ ]
[ J [XJ
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a.
The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ................... [ ]
[XJ [ ]
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? .............. [ J
[ ] [XJ
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? ............. [ ]
[ ] [XJ
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ..................... [ ]
[ ] [X]
- 7 -
Discussion of Impacts.
0
The following is a discussion of the "yes" and "maybe" responses in the
Initial Study. Responses to "no" items are optional.
1 a. Changes in geologic substructures will occur. As a result,, major
geologic corrective measures are need such as, but not limited to,
shear keys, buttress fills, stabilization fills, subdrain systems, and
removal and recompaction.
1 b. These impacts are inherent in grading operations. Compaction and fill
will be required.
1 c. A major change in topography will occur as a result of this project
proposal. An area of gentle to moderately rolling hills will be graded
to accommodate a housing development. An estimated 85Z of the surface
area of the site is proposed to be graded.
1 d. Landslide hazards are known to exist within the project. site. Standard
engineering practices such as the recommendations in the preliminary
geotechnical report for this project will reduce these potential
hazards to an insignificant level.
1 i. Cut and fill in the amount of approximately 580,000 cubic yards will be
required to accommodate the proposed project. Construction impacts,
though short term, will generate temporary nuisance impacts. Noise and
exhaust from grading equipment, as well as truck traffic to and from
the site will pose an inconvenience to residents in the immediate
vicinity.
1 j. Approximately 50Z of the site is located on terrain of greater than 252
slope.
1 1. The project site is located within a mapped landslide area as per the
Mint Canyon quadrangle of the Geology Maps of the California Department
of Mines and Geology.
Standard engineering practices for earthwork design as well as state and
municipal code requirements for grading operations can reduce these impacts
to insignificant levels.
3 a. The site is presently in a vacant condition. Any development would
increase the amount of surface area impervious. to water, thus
increasing the rate and amount of runoff. Existing storm drains in the
vicinity are expected to accommodate the increased runoff.
3 e. In the vicinity of lot 65, an intermittent spring exists. Water from
the spring presently flows off-site to the east. Standard grading and
engineering practices, including the recommendations for subdrains
contained in the Preliminary Geotechnical Review, dated October 16,
1989, by Leighton Associates, shall be incorporated into the grading
plan.
4 a. One Valley Oak tree (Quercus lobata) exists on the project site within
lot 65 and may be adversely impacted by grading and/or the future
location of a residence within that lot.
See attached Mitigation Measures: Plant Life q, S/
7a -
6 a. Since the site is presently vacant, any new development will increase
existing noise levels. Noise sources are likely to emanate from
construction equipment and traffic, and after occupancy of the tract
from vehicular traffic and typical ambient residential noise sources
such as stereos, power tools, household appliances, barking dogs, etc.
Since the project is proposed only for residential uses and is located
adjacent to existing residences, no significant impacts from noise are
anticipated.
7. Because development is proposed where none presently exists, new light
and glare will be created. Headlight glare from vehicular traffic will
be the primary source. Other sources will include street lights and
interior lighting of the individual residences. No significant impacts
from light and glare are expected.
8 a. A substantial alteration of the present land use of the area will
occur. Due to the presently vacant condition of the site, the change
to an 80 -lot single family residential subdivision will entirely change
the existing land use.
8 b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of the area will
occur. The 1984 Santa Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan, classifies
the vicinity as Hillside Management, therefore, Nonurban, by
definition. A density formula normally applied to the nonurban
category for this site would allow a minimum of 3.6 units and a maximum
of 24 units with a preferred limit of 14 units (representing the
midrange). The referenced general plan has been adopted by the City of
Santa Clarita as a policy guide only,.and is not a regulatory document.
It is noted that the existing zoning of the site is Light Agricultural
A-1-10,000. This allows development of single family residences of a
minimum 10,000 square foot lot sizes. A provision exists in the City's
subdivision ordinance to permit a reduction in the required area to a
minimum 7,000 square foot lot size for up to 43Z of this proposed
subdivision. Only 18 lots are proposed to have a reduced area. The
existing zoning would permit approximately 113 lots. The average lot size
for this project is 14,157 square feet.
8 d. The proposed use does not conform to established development criteria
in that it is in an area designated by the General Plan as Hillside
Management (HM). In this designation the intent is to develop
residential lots in cluster form, thus avoiding grading in steep sloped
areas; lots would then be developed in the shallower areas 0-25Z
slopes. The proposed project shows lots evenly distributed throughout
the site. Again, an estimated 85Z of the surface area will require
grading.
Ila. The project will alter the location, distribution, density, and growth
rate of the area. Since new development is proposed where none
presently exists, these impacts are inevitable. The impacts generated
are addressed elsewhere in this Environmental Assessment primarily
within sections Al, A13, A14, and A18.
13a. The number
estimated
afternoon
impact on
cumulative
utilizing
of vehicular trips generated per day by this project is
to be 828, with a morning peak hour of 66 trips and and
peak of 89. These figures alone represent a negligible
the local street system. However, when considered with the
impacts of other proposed developments that will be
the same street system, the impact is considered significant.
= 7b -
13c. The cumulative impacts of this project and others proposed that will be
located on the existing and future planned extensions of Antelope
Valley Freeway (State Highway 14). Only mimimal improvements to this
freeway are budgeted in the near future (one .to three years). A
widening is planned from Via Princessa to Sand Canyon Road from the two
existing lanes each direction to three lanes total each direction.
Since freeway traffic generated by this tract will enter the freeway at
Via Princessa, and the primary travel direction is west (toward Los
Angeles), this improvement will not directly improve traffic conditions
generated by this project. No improvements are contemplated within the
State Transporation Improvement Plan (STIP) within the next five
years. The true cumulative impacts of this and other projects
affecting the Antelope Valley Freeway are difficult to quantify at this
time since much of the development which would impact the freeway is
expected to occur outside of the City's jurisdiction. The cities of
Palmdale, Lancaster, and the County of Los Angeles are other
jurisdictions whose land use decisions impact the freeway.
13d. The design of the proposed project will alter present patterns of
circulation. The project proposes a new collector street that will
intersect Whites Canyon Road. This will create a new turning movement
that does not presently exist, thereby altering circulation in this
segment of Whites Canyon Road.
13e. Inherent in new development is the potential for increased traffic
hazards to motorists, bicyclists, and pedistrians. Mitigation measures
identified for this project will alleviate additional traffic hazards.
See attached Mitigation Measures: Transportation/Circulation
14b. Police services will be further utilized bythe additional population
of this project creating additional demands for services.
14c. Schools are all ready at or above capacity levels at all levels serving -
this project site.
14d. Park and recreation services in this portion of the City are at a
minimum level. The additional population generated by this project
will additionally burden these services.
See attached Mitigation Measures: Public Services.
18a. The area in which the site is located consists .of rolling hills. Many
homes to the northwest of the site and some to the east have a view of
this area. Grading of these hills will come within close proximity to
these existing homes, and will change the view that these homes
presently enjoy. Subsequent construction of homes within the site will
change the character of the view of the open space now afforded by the
homes presently above and below this site. The impact of this
development is that the close range view that both areas to the east
and northwest of this site have will be dramatically changed. The
distant views that the homes to the northwest have will be unaffected;
however the homes to the east may possibly have distant views blocked
to the northwest.
9
7c -
18b. The change in view from open space, chapparral covered hills, to a
housing development could be considered offensive by those most
affected by the changes in new described in No. 18a above.
18c. Those who perceive the view to be offensive, could consider' the visual
impact detrimental.
See attached Mitigation Measures: Aesthetics
In general, changes in views that presently exist will be unavoidable. The
degree of significance in these changes will vary on an individual basis,
and is a difficult subject to assess in terms environmental impacts.
B. DISCUSSION OF QAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED
4. Plant Life
The existing oak tree on the site shall be incorporated into future
landscaping of the tract. During grading and construction, the tree
shall be appropriately protected. No work shall be permitted within
the protected zone (five feet from the dripline).
13. Transportation/Circulation
b. A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Whites
Canyon Road and "A" Street.
C. Parking restrictions on Whites Canyon Road shall be installed and
restriping of Nadal and Whites Canyon Road.
14. Public Service
Park land shall be dedicated to improve the existing public park
availability in the vicinity.
18. Aesthetics
Uniform landscaping and fencing shall be required. The City shall have
the authority to review and approve both. A landscape maintenance
assessment district shall be formed to ensure continued maintenance.
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.
•
- 8 -
YES MAYBE NO
T. 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-i:.erm, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, cefinitive period of time while long-term
impacts gill endure well into the future.) ........... [ ] [ ] [X]
3. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable?
(A project :nay impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the total
of those impacts on the environment is significant.) .. [ J ( ] [X]
4. Does the project have environmental effects
which will causa 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. ......................................... [ ]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
November 29, 1989
Date Signature
Michael A. Rubin, Associate Planner
Name and Title
i"— Jas
LIST OF SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
Initial Study
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47863
7. LIGHT & GLARE Traffic Analysis,
Aug., 1989.
8. LAND USE City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
-Community Development
'V_5(9
Environmental
Subject
Source of Information
1.
EARTH
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
=
Public- Works and
Preliminary
Geotechnical Review,
Oct. 16, 1989, by
= -
Leighton Associates
2,
AIR
South Coast Air
.
Quality Mgmt.
District Air Quality
Handbook
3.
WATER-
Santa Clarita Water
Co., Geotechnical
-__
Review, and Drainage
Analysis, Aug., 3,
-
1989, by Sikand
Engineering
Associates
4.
PLANT LIFE--
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community
Development Maps of
Significant
Ecological Areas and
Oak Tree Survey,
July 19, 1989 by
James Henrickson,
Ph.D.
5.
ANIMAL LIFE
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community
Development Maps of
Significant
Ecological Areas
6.
NOISE
Traffic Analysis,
Aug., 1989, by Crain
& Associates.
7. LIGHT & GLARE Traffic Analysis,
Aug., 1989.
8. LAND USE City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
-Community Development
'V_5(9
9.
NATURAL RESOURCES
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
10.
RISK OF UPSET/HAZARDS
County of Los
Angeles Fire Dept.
11.
POPULATION
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
12.
HOUSING
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
13.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Traffic Analysis,
Aug., 1989.
14.
PUBLIC SERVICES
City of Santa
Clarita Depts. of
Parks and
Recreation, and
Public Works.
County of Los
Angeles Depts. of
Fire and Sheriff,
Saugus Union,
Sulphur Springs
Union and Wm. S.
Hart High School
Districts
15. ENERGY So. Calif. Edison and So. Calif. Gas
16. UTILITIES
So. Calif. Edison,
So. Calif. Gas,
Santa Clarita Water
Co.
17. HEALTH Los Angeles Co. Health Dept. and Sanitation District
_ 18. AESTHETICS City of Santa
Clarita Depts. of
Community
Development, and
Parks and Recreation
19. RECREATION
2.0. CULTURAL RESOURCES
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Parks and Recreation
State of California
Dept. of Parks and
Recreation Office of
Historic Preservation
�- 57
•
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: February 20, 1990
APPLICANT: Weston Development Corporation
Prezoning and
TYPE OF PERMIT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map
FILE NO.: PZ -89-002 and VTTM No. 46626
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: North of the existing northerly Terminus of
Foxlane Drive, Tambora Drive and Bakerton Avenue
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Prezoning to the A-1-10,000 zone and
subdivision for 201 lots for single family residences. The site is
presently in unincorporated territory of Los Angeles County. Concurrent
with these entitlements is an application for annexation to the City of
Santa Clarita.
[X] City Council
It is the determination of the [X] Planning Commission
[ ] 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:/wv�(/
( ignature)
Michael A. Rubin, Associate Planner
(Name and Title)
Date of Public Notice: November 29. 1989
[X] Legal advertisement.
[X] Posting of properties.
[X] Written notice.
5 5�1
L'
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PZ -89-002
CASE NO. VTTM 46626 Prepared by: Michael A. Rubin
Project Location: North of the existing northerly terminus of Foxlane
Drive Tambora Drive and Bakerton Avenue
Project Description and Setting: Vacant hillside land proposed to be
developed for 201 single family residences.
General Plan Designation Hillside Management (HM)
Zoning: Light Agricultural A-1-10,000 and Heavy Agricultural A-2-1
Applicant: Weston Development Corporation
Environmental Constraint Areas: Hillside terrain, traffic, aesthetics
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? .................. [X] [ ] [ ]
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? ............... [X] [ ] [ ]
C.
Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ........................... [X] [ ]
[ ]
d.
The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features? .................................. [ ] [ ]
[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 a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ........................... [ ] [ ]
[X]
- 2 -
67- 53
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 25.Z natural grade? ............
[X] [ ] [ ]
k.
Development within the Alquist-Priolo _....
Special Studies Zone? .......................
[ ] [ ] [X]
Development proposed in a mapped
1.
Other? landslide area
[X] [ ].. IJ
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? ......................................
[ ] [ ] LX]
e.
Other?
[ ] [ ] LX]
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? ..............................
L ] L ] [X]
C.
Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? .........................
L ] L ] LX]
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? ............................
[ l L ] LX]
67- 53
- 3 -
57
YES MAYBE NO
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? ..........
[ ] [ ] [Xl
i.
Other?
[ ] [ l [Xl
4.
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ...
[ ] [ ] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ......
[ ] [ ] [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal re-
plenishment of existing species? ...........
[ ] [ ] [Xl
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? ......................................
[ l [ l [Xl
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)? ....................
[ ] [ l [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
...rare
or endangered species of animals? .....
[ ] [ l [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ......
[ ] [ l [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? ........
[ j [ ]. [Xl
b.
Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? .................
[ ] [ l [X]
C.
Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ...
[ ] [ ] [X]
7.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? .................
[X] [ ] [ l
8.
Land
Use. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial alteration of the present
land use of an area? .......................
[X] [ ] [ l
b.
A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? ...............
[X] [ ] [ ]
57
- 4 -
YES
MAYBE NO
C.
A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? ............................... [X]
L l [ l
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? ................................. L )
[ ] [Xl
b.
Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? ......................... [ ]
[ ) [XJ
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? .......................... [ ]
[ ] [XJ
b..
Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ................................. [ l
L ] [X]
C.
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
.plan?... ............................. ....... [ ]
L ] [X]
d.
Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? ................................... [ )
[ l [XJ
11.
Population. Will the proposal:
a.
Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ..................... [XJ
[ ] [ J
b.
Other? [ ]
[ ] [XJ
12.
Housing. Will the proposal:
a.
Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................ [ ]
[ J [XJ
b.
Other? [ ]
[ J [XJ
13.
Transportation/Circulation.
Will the proposal
-
result
in:
a.
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................ [ l
[ ] [XJ
S -(s`5
- 5 -
YES
MAYBE NO
b.
Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? .................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
C.
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ............................
[X]
[ ] [ ]
d.
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? ..............................
[XJ
[ J [ J
e.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? .......
[X]
[ J [ J
f.
A.disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? ..............................
[ J
[ l [XJ
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental services.in any of the following areas:
a.
Fire protection? ...........................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
b.
Police protection? .........................
[XJ
[ J L J
C.
Schools? ...................................
[XJ
[ J [ J
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities? ....
[X]
[ ] [ J
e....Maintenance
of public facilities,
including roads? ...........................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
f..
Other governmental services? ...............
[ ]
[ J [X]
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy. ....................................
[ J
[ l (XI
b.
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? ..
[ ]
[ ] [X]
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for
new systems, or substantial alterations to
the
following utilities:
a.
Power or natural gas? ......................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
.b.
Communications systems? ....................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
c.
Water systems? .............................
[ J
[ J [XJ
d.
Sanitary sewer systems? ....................
L J
[ J [X]
e.
Storm drainage systems? ....................
[ ]
[ ] [X]
t 0
- 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? ......... [ ]
[ ] [XJ
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? ................................... [ J
[ ] [X]
18.
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ................... [ ]
[XJ [ ]
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? ............. [ J
[ ] [X]
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ..................... [ ]
[ ] [X]
- 7 -
Discussion of Impacts.
The following_ is a discussion of the "yes" and "maybe" responses in the
Initial Study. Responses to "no" items are optional.
1 a. Changes in geologic substructures will occur. As a result, major
geologic corrective measures are need such as, but not limited to,
shear keys, buttress fills, stabilization fills, subdrain systems, and
removal and recompaction.
1 b. These impacts are inherent in grading operations. Compaction and fill
will be required.
1 c. A major change in topography will occur as a result of this project
proposal. An area of gentle to moderately rolling hills will be graded
to accommodate a housing development. An estimated 80Z of the surface
area of the site is proposed to be graded.
1 d. Landslide hazards are known to exist within the project site. Standard
engineering practices such as the recommendations in the preliminary
geotechnical report for this project will reduce these potential
hazards to an insignificant level.
1 i. Cut and fill in the amount of approximately 1.5 million cubic yards
will be required to accommodate the proposed project. Construction
impacts, though short term, will generate temporary nuisance impacts.
Noise and exhaust from grading equipment, as well as truck traffic to
and from the site will pose an inconvenience to residents in the
immediate vicinity.
1 j. Approximately 43Z of the site is located on terrain of greater than 25Z
slope.
1 1. The project site is located within a mapped landslide area as per the
Mint Canyon quadrangle of the Geology Maps of the California Department
of Mines and Geology.
Standard engineering practices for earthwork design as well as state and
municipal code requirements for grading operations can reduce these impacts
to insignificant levels.
3 a. The site is presently in a vacant condition. Any development would
increase the amount of surface area impervious to water, thus
increasing the rate and amount of runoff. Existing storm drains in the
vicinity are expected to accommodate the increased runoff.
6 a. Since the site is presently vacant, any new development will increase
existing noise levels. Noise sources are likely to emanate from
construction equipment and traffic, and after occupancy of the tract
:from vehicular traffic and typical ambient residential noise sources
such as stereos, power tools, household appliances, barking dogs, etc.
Since the project is proposed only for residential uses and is located
adjacent to existing residences, no significant impacts from noise are .
anticipated.
- 7a -
7. Because development is proposed where none presently exists, new light
and glare will be created. Headlight glare from vehicular traffic will
be the primary source. Other sources will include street lights and
interior lighting of the individual residences. No significant impacts
from light andglareare expected.
8 a. A substantial alteration of the present land use of the area will
occur. Due to the presently vacant condition of the site, the change
to an 201 -lot single family residential subdivision will entirely
change the existing land use.
8 b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of the area will
occur. The 1984 Santa Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan, classifies
the vicinity as Hillside Management, therefore, Nonurban, by
definition. A density formula normally applied to the nonurban
category for this site would allow a minimum of 11.2 units and a
maximum of 24 units with a preferred limit of 17 units (representing
the midrange). The referenced general plan has been adopted by the City
of Santa Clarita as a policy guide only, and is not a regulatory
document.
It is noted that the existing zoning of approximately half of the site is
Light Agricultural A-1-10,000: This allows development of single family
residences of a minimum 10,000 square foot lot sizes. The other half of the
site is zoned Heavy Agriculture A-2-1, allowing a minimum of one -acre lot
size. Under the existing zoning (accounting for the combination of the two
zones), a maximum of 212 lots would be permitted; only 201 are proposed. A
provision exists in the City's subdivision ordinance to permit a reduction
in. the required area to a minimum 7,000 square foot lot size for up to 43Z
of this proposed subdivision. A total of 81 of the 86 allowable lots are
proposed to have a.reduced area. The average lot size for this project is
14,374 square feet.
8 c. The use does not presently conform to existing zoning laws. A portion
of the site is presently zoned A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural 1 -acre minimum
lot size). The applicant has requested a prezoning to A-1-10,000.
(Light Agriculture, minimum 10,000 square foot lot area). The project
conforms to the A-1-10,000 zone.
8 d. The proposed use does not conform to established development criteria
in that it is in an area designated by the General Plan as Hillside
Management (HM). In this designation the intent is to develop
residential. lots in cluster form, thus avoiding grading in steep sloped
areas; lots would then be developed in the shallower areas 0-25Z
slopes. The proposed project shows lots evenly distributed_ throughout
the site. Again, an estimated 85Z of the surface area will require
grading.
lla. The project will alter the location, distribution, density, and growth
I ate of the area. Since new development is proposed where none
.presently exists, these impacts are inevitable. The impacts generated
are addressed elsewhere in this Environmental Assessment primarily
within sections Al, A13, A14, and A18.
0 16
57.
- 7b -
13a. The number of vehicular trips generated per day by this project is
estimated to be 1,969, with a morning peak hour of 152 trips and and
afternoon peak of 210. These figures alone represent a negligible
impact on the local street system. However, when considered with the
cumulative impacts of other proposed developments that will be
utilizing the same street system, the impact is considered significant.
13c. The cumulative impacts of this project and others proposed that will be
located on the existing and future planned extensions of Antelope
Valley Freeway (State Highway 14). Only mimimal improvements to this
freeway are budgeted in the near future (one to three years). A
widening is planned from Via Princessa to Sand Canyon Road from the two
existing lanes each direction to three lanes total each direction.
Since freeway traffic generated by this tract will enter the freeway at
Via Princessa, and the primary travel direction is west (toward Los
Angeles), this improvement will not directly improve traffic conditions
generated by this project. No improvements are contemplated. within the
State Transporation Improvement Plan (STIP) within the next five
years. The true cumulative impacts of this and other projects
affecting the Antelope Valley Freeway are difficult to quantify at this
time since much of the development which would impact the freeway is
expected to occur outside of the City's jurisdiction. The cities of
Palmdale, Lancaster, and the County of Los Angeles are other
jurisdictions whose land use decisions impact the freeway.
13d. The design of the proposed project in combination with an adjacent
proposed tract will alter present patterns of circulation. The project
proposes a new collector street that will intersect Whites Canyon
Road. This will create a new turning movement that does not presently
exist, thereby altering circulation in this segment of Whites Canyon
Road.
13e. Inherent in new development is the potential for increased traffic
hazards to motorists, bicyclists, and pedistrians. Mitigation measures
identified for this project will alleviate additional traffic hazards.
See attached Mitigation Measures: Transportation/Circulation.
14b. Police services will be further utilized by the. additional population
of this project creating additional demands for services.
14c. Schools are presently at or above capacity levels at all levels serving
this project site.
14d. Park and recreation services in this portion of the City are at a
minimum level. The additional population generated by this project
will additionally burden these services.
See attached Mitigation Measures:
Public Services.
7c -
18a. The area in which the site is located consists of rolling hills. . Many
homes -to the west of the site and some to the south have a view of this
area. Grading of these hills will come within close proximity to these
existing homes, and will change the view that these homes presently
enjoy. Subsequent construction of homes within the site will change
the' character of the view of the open space now afforded by the homes
presently below this site. The impact of this development is that the
close range view that both areas to the south and west of this site
.have will be dramatically changed. The distant views that the homes to
the west have will be unaffected; however the homes to the south may
possibly have distant views blocked to the northwest.
18b. The change in view from open space, chapparral covered hills, to a
housing development could be considered offensive by those most
affected by the changes in new described in No. 18a above.
18c. Those who perceive the view to be offensive, could consider the visual
impact detrimental.
In general, changes in views that presently exist will be unavoidable. The
degree of significance in these changes will vary on an individual basis,
and is a difficult subject to assess in terms environmental impacts.
See attached Mitigation Measures: Aesthetics.
B. DISCUSSION OF WAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED
13. Transportation/Circulation
b. A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Whites
Canyon Road and "A" street.
C. Parking restrictions on Whites Canyon Road shall be installed and
restriping of Nadal and Whites Canyon Road.
14.. Public Services
C. A mitigation agreement shall be entered between the applicant and
the appropriate school districts.
d. Park land shall be dedicated to improve the existing public park
availability in the vicinity.
18. Aesthetics
Uniform landscaping and fencing shall be required. The City shall have
the authority to review and approve both. A landscape maintenance
assessment district shall be formed to ensure continued maintenance.
10 0
8 -
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. ......................................... [ l
5=6a
0- 0
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
November 29, 1989
Date Signature
Michael A. Rubin, Associate Planner
Name and Title
5-63
LIST OF SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
Initial Study
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46626
and
Prezone 89-002
Environmental
Subject Source of Information
1. EARTH City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Public Works and
Preliminary
Geotechnical Report,
Jan., 10, 1989, by
Pacific Soils
Engineering, Inc.
2. AIR South Coast Air
Quality Mgmt.
District Air Quality
Handbook
3. WATER Santa Clarita Water
Co. and Drainage
Analysis, Aug., 3,
1989, by Sikand
Engineering
Associates
4. PLANT LIFE City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community
Development Maps of
Significant
Ecological Areas
5. ANIMAL LIFE City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community
Development Maps of
Significant
Ecological Areas
6. NOISE Traffic Analysis,
Aug., 1989, by Crain
& Associates.
7. LIGHT & GLARE Traffic Analysis,
Aug., 1989..
8. LAND USE City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
9. NATURAL RESOURCES City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
SS611
•
10. RISK OF UPSET/HAZARDS
11. POPULATION
12. HOUSING
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
15. ENERGY
16. UTILITIES
17. HEALTH
18. AESTHETICS
19. RECREATION
20. CULTURAL RESOURCES
0
County of Los
Angeles Fire Dept.
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
Traffic Analysis,
Aug., 1989.
City of Santa
Clarita Depts. of
Parks and
Recreation, and
Public Works.
County of Los
Angeles Depts. of
Fire and Sheriff,
Saugus Union,
Sulphur Springs
Union and Wm. S.
Hart High School
Districts
So. Calif. Edison
and So. Calif. Gas
So. Calif. Edison,
So. Calif. Gas,
Santa Clarita Water
Co.
Los Angeles Co.
Health Dept. and
Sanitation District
City of Santa
Clarita Depts. of
Community
Development, and
Parks and Recreation
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Parks and Recreation
State of California
Dept. of Parks and
Recreation Office of
Historic Preservation
S G6
C
Mr. Mark Scott
Director of Community Development and Planning rCa,
23920 West Valencia Blvd. C04fr., ;90
circ �N17-,
Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Sror���CgRM�r�r
January 31, 1990
Dear Mr. Scott:
We are homeowners in the existing Oak Grove Tract adjacent to the proposed Weston
Development project, Tentative Tract 46626, and the proposed American Landmark
project, Tentative Tract 48763.
We oppose these projects. We believe that there exists geologic and related safety
problems with both sites. We have addressed our concerns, both verbally and in
writing, to the developers, the City of Santa Clarita, and the County of Los Angeles.
If these projects are approved, despite our concerns, and injury to ourselves or damage
to our property occurs, we will consider that the governmental agencies which approved
these projects and the developers to be liable. We have no other choice.
We presume that you are aware of the "Big Rock" litigation in Malibu, the Princess
Homes development litigation in Newhall, and the Shangra-La development litigation in
Canyon Country. These cases illustrate that although it may be technologically feasible
to develop on an unstable geologic area it is.not always prudent to do so.
We will continue our opposition to these projects. We encourage you to also oppose these
developments.
- Sin I ,
77
---------------------- Ot,,
Please note: this is �Lf?io
one copy of eight (8)
copies received of this'.
letter.
�/ t /,Y
Theodore I Kocher
19323 Old Friend Road
Santa Clahra, CA 91351
805-298-7086
Mr. Mark Scott
Director of Community Development
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard #300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
January 27, 1990
Ref.: American Landmark - Tentative Tract No. 47863
Weston Development - Tentative Tract No. 46626
Dear Mr. Scott:
I spoke to you and Commissioner Worden during the break at
the Planning Commission meeting of January 16 concerning what I
perceived to be a misstatement of fact in connection with the proposed
developments by American Landmark and Weston.
These two proposed developments abut common area property
owned by the Whites Canyon Homeowners Association (the Ridge
development) - Weston to the east and Landmark to the south of our
property. These proposed developments do not abut but touch at their
southwest and northeast corners respectively.
A major element of their proposed plans is the so-called
'Road A' which traverses their sites on an approximate diagonal from
the southwest corner of Landmark to the northeast corner of Weston.
In order for that road to be continuous it must cross over our property
111 the southea t corner. Based on sortie Gf the arguments offered by the
builders this road is critical to the projects.
At the aforementioned Commission meeting I understood a
representative of the builders to assert that the property required by
Road A outside of the proposed development boundaries was "open
land" with the implication that it was county land.
I brought this to your attention with the request that the record
be corrected so the Commissioners would not be In the position of
making a decision based on erroneous information. Unfortunately,
neither you nor Commissioner Worden corrected the record, requiring
us to bring the matter to your attention in writing.
0 0
Mr. Mark Scott, Director of Community Development Page 2
A second and more important matter concerns the recommen-
dation of the Commission staff relating to supporting the request of the
builders that our property be acquired by eminent domain if not pur-
chased by them.
Landmark and Weston are private builders proposing develop-
ments of some $100,000,000 with the expectation of realizing substan-
tial profits from their labor. The Commission staff has seriously jeop-
ardized our position in connection with negotiations for this property
with the builders. The builders' original verbal offer was ludicrous and
we were threatened that "...if...held-up ... the property would be obtained
by condemnation." This statement had to be made based on the assur-
ance that the Commission staff would prevail in having the Commission
approve the builders' related request.
We are at a loss to understand what justification the staff has to
support such a request which would result, not in the acquisition of this
land for a public purpose, but for the private profit of the builders.
Under the circumstances the White Canyon Home Homeowners
Association hereby demands that the provision concerning the acquisi-
tion of our property contained in the Commission staff recommenda-
tion be removed completely. There is no justification for the Commis-
sion to be involved in providing private builders with the leverage to
improve their potential profits from these developments by severely
constraining the negotiating position of the 120 homeowners in our
Association.
I will call you before the end of next week to discuss this matter.
If it appears that the aforementioned provision cannot be removed
from the Commission staff report, we will be put in the position of
having to obtain outside counsel and taking such legal actions as may be
required to protect our interest.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Since ly,
se BorjaChai, an
hites Canyon
Homeowners Association
7�
Tlfeodore J. Kircher '
Chairman
Land Committee
cc: Members of the Planning Commission
tC']gY� ¢ it[YEjlq•X, r yaj1J83N+tf H'� 4` i 1{,.•N:4 f a:...:F t �.7-.t Sv1 r t J
A'T WF iw1> ;r .. .: +- •.
(,. _
a. K. , 7 Y�'J K f 't. s t
tmeric an
tanama
a
ar'�� ��figrt Aar !� {}1 �t 4 i - a• I'
r' 1,1s t���«,i' 1a 'ter DEVELOPMENT,
INC# t:.,
I[�
{ T
1
t 4 L
"3•.1�,
t'.
r r- , t
rf S 3,7 0 a �1�
ii.Y
f t [--.
°
}S_ c od p 4 S{� [q>r Y g(Itj fi
l t t �'y. a¢, f ,1 rt
('' & T" ":., G t sfr( - { it
nSkh1 h 1 i T t +
+ rA' ➢- :�SAi /F 9
1 December 19� 4 t .� y{:
4., r : ,-.
11989
rh.ra�:.�rS%6-•x'G.i„'� �li!'A n,i'f Sppii
.. ,�-1.wr {' St• /S•• 7)
:. . ili: 1:. n. �.� ,*d'
{S ti, W t Y
I,
'Ly,,t1-
/a '1!%
lS�l r.. } .C{ t Yt.. S� f t5� ' it r4Y 'iii: �' �, _ -h „t, r 6 S`';.�1i.'f: ,� - t
[".:. f e e�� i.% -4 &}�jf 4 I9.i'• fi� L
uli r5 .. �,' fit§ : f 2 { �1 ..'.+,� i v^ ..`�T� ta•4 R �' `' 4'SI a' , �......4z L
i�� 4 s,���" 4}� .!+ '1 4�•I �i . .W 1 Y I
65 t{. 1t t'¢1a,IS d f
di,-.
�. Gf J S CF I'A fi f r C , f •Y -,`�' ! r`..,
I.r ,"'� 'q.iA i?: I! It :{.a4 1'F %,.l '�,.r{f;
5 i '�,;r '� F'��K3,! Yt
15 `��,' ii
kF1Lf'
!
( ✓ry`!" t `lt; 1 if 'n c 4 f -
L .-•i C "�A .
• t' s n{ a�yrt'.4
Mr Richard Henderson
r ,
it s , i� �# '1{L
City of Santa Clarita �f�
"
�4
a r_ r t . r
,
.. ,rY 6,
920 -,Blvd. � #r
.'Valencia
Santaa Clarita, C61-1 91355
C
` '
• � x I L� k'�r �t , i
L Y f
T, AA'g8 i
I s
A
41'..
' .,''t 7 .:. . •- ! I t, , s a i
I i r t
SUBJECT VTT MAP 47803,
} 1 �i
gyp`. �- rt. 54} t ,•: ,'° `! h..( t ( i�i� f :x u ( 7 V} { 1'.
t � F f a t, _1,
r L c t_{'rys ? i { it , f t� g�¢i.E.
r a 3s•� �- u.
t,,
Dear Mr. Henderson,
,¢ r � ,
4'�itx ,,c:
A
11
l +�� 44 f "'IX'J.� x CSl E4�. LL {i '`... F f S,
�
c f s Z�n-rrr S
T� +-� - i C �ih� if ���}�{�"GY�„•slS �l$ A 4-.
�
� L�/ a 6 _ r _�V 1 t. .rx) .- ST
� ._ •'':..I++.. 4 i.. b!' t.�F�-r'c /��.�+. �flt�i
We have been involved in several homeowner meetings in the lasta
a S j `qtr �4t
week with adjacent owners to. our.,, planned development.. In. these st�ai,3=
meet{ngs and `after the review` of asubstantial amount •of `material' ,trig
t FF .�.�•C:L'S
regarding the development the general feeling of the homeowner k,�a,lN
I has been.very'favorable.,_.A few.issues have. been brought to ourl��F
attention for which we plan to cooperate with the said ajoining Ar
i owners.l 7{f• ta'tiAi i ii" l„�l;4r' rl i i a;
5t i t
I r �
p.
The items below aredraft conditions, for the.proposed solutions.��,�,
y ! •'.., t
•t
A11' of these 'items`: are subject .to city review and approval
Please feel free _to..redraft them.
{
t ( ” }a•rii or ;.iC t i.. I :.•,u..i ..;t fi rr #.� I.fir �Srt {r r .:� ¢zp�,rr
7r hrk t�I"y �✓.;i r 10l,_. •. I u 4 ^. - •.r'' I: i,t.: r i .'.�,, �,I,y
1 The homeowner A to the east of "the American Landmark `proposedi r ,•
tract,:would'�.like :to have:, installed:, several,' stop signs in '"their rW.
existing neighborhood and request•a,study to be done for that'
purpose.`':.. they..have_ suggested , three-way intersections at Foxlane & E '+t
and Cabral; Foxlane. and Basel .and Foxlane and.Nadel•.. the
surrounding homeowner's shall be notified by the city of they�1d,�
'study and their. determination:r�:1 , °ter s� ` 4
k In addition, if the. City determines, through l this.. study that onla
s t q{lu i.. Ecf ar ti
westbound Nadel Street {a' Teft ,;turns„arrow: is ;neededq to t turn onto +
Whites Canyon in order to 'go south, Weston and American Landmark F��{
4 s=L r
saicl� 'modification.°��
. G•�H.l<f "f ti Tu ”/��J :. 9':.`v' I i',_rnX :� ., , m, nyw.r'r'tvF !• ,Ar f'..+., �'q> i3 YF F ,�Y%iyalt a -k t'a r tr. all vet r �l.ra i. ;l I _4a,:�r lAlt.'t
�tn� f¢f '.r ^.,J• ;ri t.r'1 +� l�1
1�rt4 r The homeowner s to the'` east of the .proposed .tract have agreed,,
K ;, t�� iRr J that the , above :I study and_ determination shall. not' delay they 1, # r
t'' t'^` iklProcessing_ or construction of. the American . Landmark Tract ° 'butk'
the cost of ttie study: ,and, of improV,ments .for any` additionala`sto
ns stri „ip of:� modification of the signal for a' left turn
P g g. �.
I "! rFt #�< u I r � �
arrow, as determined by the City, shall be borne by Weston and. '
4 i,�6 ��vFlrt America15
na Landmark
-.�r
• ,5' �fy
!.
�#a•5P,
connued• • • •a 5 I sB '4 iils ri f, lFL' } 7{ F t1 s �L:. X'•;=,, r!!,
ti
lR (alk •i :rt �a n�l y'Sh �-L, {aRf.a it 1. `t$}il` t .ritr gtr'kTd lrl ��'t:d ]r'ri rl+ti rr��.,` tf 7i yips,'
R,%'c'.� l"
Jh ; (fY Irl - ..
`414 East Cota, Suite 20T Sa a Barbara, California 93101 p • FAX (805 3-1038 • (805) 965-8515 `
receiving' individual p
proval from each homeowner -
adjacent t MAN
Landmark Ame, rican:' Landmark's boundary", -Amer
"will j
"atts: cos an inspector and survey ..eac.
home dptope'tty:`.as"t' ti 'bondition't'r'.
o-�.exis. ng,,,,. o::create-,a bench -mark
�,..,8ut'Veyift whichto.
,''.-d*6"t"e"rmin'-.e'z_-U any, gradin-g'oh t-he:...Amerii
can.,,,,.v.-;,
IdndmarkT�act�'caus'es"nydmdge.'.to,the adjacent existing- omes:
.3
riy- damage det6rminedto'be'caused by
American Landmark 'will ''be,11.1al
r6paixed -a't. American{ '.:Landmae.kls� cost",; Ae
§Mft
p
I"R;
45:* 0,
J-K*3'-��;,_ The property ..% owners ..who6 e'' property i -s:',. - immediately .'adjacent , to
eas erly 'T
:o ,'...`�,�thd�!'ptbjjosed rdt,"dwill. e'. noti d!.. b
Y'"
-mdric'an - Landmarkfc"ir'. the in-,,opoinions and. 'comments as tW,;k-,�!-,"'q'l":�,
.location;"design``'and"materials used: i n t c!t o n s t r u c t i 0 6.� f walls,
fencing, landscaping and/or which is immediately
J ace nt- to,,�,�thq!;,'e x is t ingjr,homes a I ongl said eaILY
ster bo:unda"y
;r" -"l'
mcan�an,dmark: submi :evidence' eq
same to' theC
iiy`0n"
", A .,f!mie
Ian scapindadjacent td - the -easterly boundary shall require the.,i'�
4,C i y_approvals,. w h
ich,shal,l'b'e"tdenhance,
privacy
�9
)roperty
Jacerit; :1 'owner
W,@ik,r, _-Wlt you W'i FI` 'I. d i s"dus s ": this_ � _iha t te h .'t o d a W 6" appreciate y
We
i.;.,,,
-wish�-.J.,to_.make,. this 4
ime.i!and,'�'�,,coopLirationon
-�..-,i:.this iss,ue.�at',�".'A", t �� IBM,.
-A
6 bubl
0
-V614 Y�
OX
0
6,�
P
v
Amerioc Landmark
DEVELOPMENT, INC.
February 20, 1990
Richard Kopecky, City Engineer
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor
Santa Clarita, Ca., 91355 VIA FAX 805-901-7451
RE: ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS VTT MAP 47863
Dear Mr. Kopecky,
In responce to the homeowner's meeting of February 19, 1990, in
the Council Chambers please add the following conditions to our
VTT Map 47863 on the Planning Commission Hearing for the 20th, of
February, 1990.
1. Construction monitoring of offsite properties:
Establish a monitoring system within the offsite tract 27493
street and sidewalk network. This will establish the baseline
reference for movement. Six months prior to any proposed grading
survey points would be established in ao area within 400 feet of
the Tract boundary. ( There should be a few points outside the
house survey area to act as reference points. This is the reason
for the 400 feet ).
Monitor each house adjacent to said Tract in addition, any house
requesting to be monitored that is within the 400 feet. Three
months prior to the start of grading the Developer and or his
agent, with the cooperation of all homeowners, will perform a
visual survey of each home. Existing conditions will be
documented through photos and video camera filming with a written
summary. Verification of structural integrity of the house
structure and appurtanances, such as...slab areas, pools,
decking, retaining walls, etc....
Establish survey monitoring points along the Tract Boundary, at
the offsite corners. This will be done three months prior to
grading. Readings will be taken monthly to establish the
baseline. When work is directly adjacent to the Tract Boundary,
the offsite corner survey will be performed once a week. Once
the adjacent work is completed the readings shall be taken
monthly for'a period of six months.
CONTINUED PAGE TWO:
EXHIBIT 2 - page 1 of 2
414 East Cota, Suite 201 9ata Barbara, California 93101 - FAX (10) 963-1038 - (805) 965-8515
W
PAGE TWO CONTINUED
All the survey data will be made available to the City, their
representatives, and Developers consultants to analyze and
review. The City copy would be public record and available to
the Homeowners to review.
2. All vegetative disturbances remaining on the easterly slope
from the exploritory trenching of VTT Map 47863 completed on
_ February 3, 1990, are to be by � seeded as soon as possible.
G 3. During the grading of the subdivision it is the intent of the
Developer to use small equipment within 500 feet of the adjacent
Tract 27493, so as to mitigate vibration of said adjacent areas.
Any excessive vibration should be reported to the City Staff and
the City Staff will then recommend to the Developer mitigating
measures.
4. As a gesture of good faith and good will the Developer will
correct localized surfical slump at the rear yard of 28135
Foxlane. In response to the homeowner concerns we volunter to
correct this offsite slope condition. This can only be
accomplished through the approval of the homeowner of 28135
Foxlane, it will also be necessary for the approvals of the
adjacent homeowners on either side, being 28129 and 28143
Foxlane, for the purpose of ingress and egress to said localized
area described above. The approvals of the City Staff is
necessary in this matter.
5. To reasonably insure the safety of adjacent property during
the grading process the Developer agrees to install safeguard
devices reasonably -beyond the standard minimum to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerel ,
MARK `HOLLAND, President
tm
x226
ccMark Scott
EXHIBIT 2 - page 2
414 East Cota, Suite 201 •ata Barbara, California 93101
of 2
0 FAX (0963-1038 • (805) 965-8515
December 18, 1989
Mr. Rich Henderson
Principal Planner
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Bvld. #30
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map #46626
Dear Rich,
We have had several meetings with the surrounding homeowner's
regarding our proposed tract and have given them substantial
information for their review. In these meetings the response has been
very positive and we have been able to inform people sufficiently to
satisfy their concerns. Through these meetings several issues have
been brought up which the surrounding homeowner's and I have agreed to
cooperate on.
The items below are draft conditions for the proposed solutions. All
of these items are subject to city review and approval. Please feel
free to redraft them if you would like.
1. The model homes for the project will be located on A Street or
to the north of A Street.
2. The new extended streets of Foxlane, Tambura, and Bakerton
will not be open for through traffic until required to by the
city in order to obtain occupancy or inspection approval.
3. Along Weston's southernly property line next to the existing
homes, Weston agrees to remove the existing fences (subject to
each homeowner's approval) and construct a six (6) foot block
wall on the property line. In addition, Weston agrees to
install and pay for a six (6) foot block wall on the west side
yard along Foxlane Drive of the homeowner located at 18921
Ermine Street. Weston will repair and replace any damaged
landscaping and irrigation due to the wall installation.
4. The property owners whose property is immediately adjacent to
the southern property line of the proposed tract will be
notified by the City Department of Public Works for their
opinions and comments as to the location, design and
materials used in the construction of the walls, fencing,
landscaping and irrigation which is immediately adjacent to
the existing homes.
10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite* Los Angeles, California 90024 ( 2139-9900 FAX: ( 213) 477.8519
Mr. Rich Henderson -2- December 18, 1989
5. The homeowner's to the south of the Weston proposed tract
would like to have installed several stop signs in their
existing neighborhood and request a study to be done for that
purpose. They have suggested three-way intersections at
Foxlane and Cabral, Foxlane and Basel, and .Foxlane and Nadel
Street. The surrounding homeowner's shall be notified by the
City of the study and their determination.
In addition, if the City of Santa Clarita determines through
this study that on westbound Nadel Street a left turn arrow is
needed to turn onto Whites Canyon Road in order to go south,
Weston and American Landmark shall pay for said modification.
The homeowner's to the south of the Weston proposed tract
have agreed that the above study and determination shall not
delay the processing or construction of the Weston tract, but
the cost of improvements for any additional stop signs,
striping or modification of the signal for a left turn arrow,
as determined by the City, shall be borne by Weston and
American Landmark.
1. Upon receiving individual approval from each homeowner
adjacent to Weston's southernly boundary, Weston will hire, at
its cost, an inspector and survey each home and property as to
its existing condition to create a bench mark survey in which
to determine if any grading on the Weston tract causes any
damage to the adjacent existing homes. Any damage determined
to be caused by Weston will be repaired at Weston's cost.
I will give you a call to discuss the above. I appreciate your time
and cooperation on this issue. I would like to make this part of the
public record at our Tuesday hearing.
Very truly yours,
John A. Ashkar
President
JAA/hjt
January 11, 1990
Rita Garasi
Chairwoman, Planning Commission
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Chairwoman Garasi:
On behalf of both Weston and American Landmark, we would like to
extend our thanks to you, the other commissioners, and to the Planning
staff for the very cordial and professional relationship we have
enjoyed thus far.
An important question raised at the first phase of our public hearing
was what benefits are there and what precedent would be set for
development in the Santa Clarita Valley if the American Landmark and
Weston Development projects were to be approved. We would like to
expand on this important question and outline the development
practices and community benefits to which we are committed. We
believe that we propose quality, sensitive and well designed projects
that not only mitigates any impacts that it may have but also
contributes to the community major benefits in helping to resolve the
City's current impacts. The following is a brief summary:
I. VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION
The Weston project is currently located on land under Los Angeles
County jurisdiction. More than 1-1/2 years ago, Weston became
the very first development company to voluntarily seek annexation
to the City of Santa Clarita, so that the City would have the
benefit of all of its park and road contributions.
In addition, at the recent LAFCO hearing on the sphere of
influence, Weston Development was one of only four developments
who submitted a letter supporting approval of the City's complete
sphere request and asking that the City's sphere of influence
proposal be approved as submitted.
II. PARK AND RECREATION BENEFITS
The Quimby requirement for the Weston and Landmark projects are a
little more than 2-1/2 acres or about $250,000. We propose to
voluntarily contribute $755,000 in excess of our Quimby
requirement.
1 5-q
10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 230 Los Angeles, California 90024 (213) 479-9900 FAX: (213) 477-8519
We are proposing to donate in excess of one million dollars
($1,000,000) total value to Santa Clarita comprising of land cost
of $305,000 and a cash donation of $700,000.
Since our last hearing in December, the escrow on the park land
could not be extended therefore we closed escrow and acquired the
28 acre site. Located off site from both projects fronting on
Whites Canyon Road, a minimum of 11 level acres of parkland can
be graded on this 28 acre site.
The proposed park site is in an outstanding location.
The proposed park site has already been unanimously accepted by
the City's Parks and Recreation Commission. We believe the
impact of our contribution will be a regional benefit.
III. VOLUNTARY PAYMENT OF THE SCHOOL FEES
We have voluntarily agreed to pay the full amount of the old
special June 1987 school tax.
Over 1-1/2 years ago,.letters of committment to pay this tax was
given to the various school districts. This was voluntarily done
without any pressure from either the school districts or the
City, but purely as a reflection of our commitment to outstanding
development practices.
We currently have executed agreements with the school districts.
IV. NET ROAD BENEFITS
We will be contributing voluntarily, DOUBLE the current Bridge
and Thoroughfare,District fees for the area. Therefore, instead
of $744,000, we will be contributing more than $1,488,000 for
offsite road improvements.
In addition, the two projects will signalize the intersection of
our new access street and the park entrance with Whites Canyon
Road. This will have the beneficial safety effect of moderating
the excessively high speed on Whites Canyon Road.
The two projects will save the City potentially a considerable
amount of money and liability by stabilizing Whites Canyon Road.
Whites Canyon Road was built directly across an uncorrected land
slide. This slide could, of course, rupture at any moment.
The grading and landslide repair work on the new proposed park
site and on the American Landmark project will have the vital
incidental benefit of substantially stabilizing Whites Canyon
Road without the necessity for its closure.
Also, the projects provide.much needed additional means of access
to an entire neighborhood of existing older homes that have
suffered the safety risk of a single point of access for more
than 20 years.
2
5--10 10
This entire neighborhood of older homes is non -conforming under
current county codes. Three streets, Foxlane, Tambora and
Bakerton Avenues are all substantially longer than 700 feet.
Each of these three streets currently dead end into stubs into
what will be the Weston project at their southerly terminus.
They all converge on Nadal Street which is currently their only
single means of access into and out of their neighborhood.
County code does not permit "cul de sac" streets longer than 700
feet. The City potentially could face liability if emergency
vehicles were unable to enter this older area, or were slowed
down, by a street system that is permitted to continue to be non-
conforming to the code. The Weston and Landmark projects solve
this problem completely.
The Weston and Landmark projects will provide this large
currently land locked nieghborhood with four additional points of
access. These will converge on a whole new secondary access route
to Whites Canyon Road which will have a new traffic signal
installed.
V. RIDGELINE PRESERVATION.& CONTOUR GRADING
Both projects have taken considerable pains in their design,
resulting in the loss of lots, to make sure that the visible
ridgelines that surround the projects remain completely natural
and unaltered.
In addition, an expensive but innovative design for contour
grading was created for the project slopes so that they will
curve and unjulate to mimic natural hillsides.
VI. CONSERVATIVE DESIGN
Both projects exhibit a net density of only 2.5 units per acre.
In addition, both projects propose a design amenity not seen in
new subdivisions for many years. We propose a landscaped
greenbelt park way of some five feet (5) in width on both sides
of the main entry street that will separate the roadway from the
sidewalk. Large specimen trees on this landscaped park way will
be planted thereby giving this street an aesthetic quality.
VII. COMPATIBILITY WITH THE NEW CITY GENERAL PLAN
Both of these proposed projects are infill projects which are
considerably less dense than the projects which surround them.
Directly bordering the Weston Project to the north is the
approved Shappel Monteverde 3,200 unit project. The Shappel
project exhibits substantial multi family density. The single
family areas have lots which average only 5,000 square feet in
size.
The neighborhood immediately to the south of the Weston project
and to the east of the Landmark Project is an area of older
single family homes located in a zoning section of R 1 7000.
3
The average Ot in this R 1 7000old0 neighborhood is 9,700
square feet. The smallest lot is 5,070 square feet. The largest
lot is about 35,000 square feet.
The Weston project is partially zoned R 1 10,000 and proposes to
extend that zoning throughout its entire 80 acres. The smallest
Weston lot is 7,000 square feet. The largest Weston lot is over
72,000 square feet. The average size Weston lot is 17,000 square
feet.
The American Landmark project also proposes R 1 10,000 zoning.
The smallest .lot in the project is 7,100 square feet. The
largest lot is over 45,000 square feet. The average size lot is
17,400 square feet.
The American Landmark project is also considerably less dense
than any of the surrounding projects.
The American Landmark project is adjacent to a single family home
tract of 140 units built and sold in 1984 and 1985 by Citation
Homes. The lots in this project vary from between.4,000 to 7,000
square feet.
Again the Weston and Landmark projects at a net density of 2.5
units per acre are considerably less dense and are on larger lots
than any of the surrounding approved and standing project and
therefore are compatible as infill projects with the new proposed
Santa Clarita City General Plan.
VIII. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION
Since you all received a copy of the very extensive information
packet and the schedule of five different meetings that we
arranged for the people who surrounded our projects, you have
some idea of our commitment to open communication with everyone.
As you know, the legal requirement for information to be sent to
residents surrounding the proposed projects involves only a
notice of a public hearing. The Weston notice involved only 75
homes. The American Landmark notice involved only 193. We both
agreed to send our complete packet of information to all the
residents in the vicinity of both of our projects and to nearly
an additional 100 homes besides, for a total of nearly 350 homes,
or about 700 adults.
It was our intent to fully resolve all of the many questions and
apprehension people usually have about any change.
Of the 700 adults who received our information, 2 chose to call
us on our 24 -hour -a -day Santa Clarita telephone number, and about
40 people total attended the 5 meetings that we held in Canyon
Country. Of the 40 people who attended our meetings, 37
expressed satisfaction with our project and felt it would be an
asset to their neighborhoods and to the Santa Clarita Valley as a
whole. Three people remained unconvinced. These 3 people
contacted about 17 households who were 2-3 blocks away from our
projects, and they were the people who comprised most of the
opposition that appear at our hearing.
4
S- IR
Virtually none of these 35 people had at information about our
project or our companies and were, in fact, responding to the
overall negative development environment that has been most
unwisely created by other developers.
Since our last hearing, we have initiated extensive contact with
these new people, and arranged a meeting at a church we rented
for any of the homeowners and parents concerned about our
development so that they may meet with Dr. Robert Nolet, the
Superintendent of the Sulphur Springs School District and
ourselves. The meeting was very informative for the homeowners
and satisfied the concerns of most.
As was mentioned at our initial hearing, we intend to continue
extensive dialogue with any and all people who are interested or
concerned about our projects. This will in no way cease when we
have received our approvals.
Lastly, we have met with and started good faith negotiations with
the Board of the Whites Canyon Homeowners Association for a road
easement over a small portion of their permanent dedicated open
space.
We sincerely hope that our letter assists you in determining the
unique and beneficial nature to your great new city of the American
Landmark and Weston Development projects.
Very.._ y yours,
`JI6hn A. Ashkar
President
c.c. Louis Braithwaite, Vice Chairman
Pat Modugno, Commissioner
Jeannette Sharar, Commissioner
Connie Warden, Commissioner
Mark Scott, Community Development Director
Richard Henderson, Principal Planner
Michael Rubin, Planner
5 -►3
February -20,1990
WESTON
Markt Scott DEVELOPMENT.
Director of Community Development
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Suite 30
Santa Clarita CA 91355
RE: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NUMBER 46626
-Dear Mark:.
Pursuant to the meeting with the City staff and the sur-
rounding homeowners yesterday regarding' the soils and geology
issues, I would like to add additional draft conditions to our
tract as discussed and agreed to. These conditions should
satisfy most of the concerns of the homeowners.
The items listed hereinbelow are subject to your review and
approval. Please feel free to re -draft any of these items as you
deem appropriate. '
1. To reasonably insure the safety of the adjacent property
during the grading process, WESTON agrees to install safe-
guard devices which are designed to perform beyond the minimum
standards as approved by the Department :ok'Public wurks.
2. With reference to Item No. 6 of my letter dated 12-19-89,
wherein WESTON agrees to inspect and survey each home adja-
cent to our tract boundary, if each particular homeowner extends
permission to WESTON to enter onto their property, WESTON will
agree -- in addition to the above -- to inspect and survey on aii
as -requested basis, any home within four hundred (400) feet of
the tract boundary, whose owner is concerned about the grading
operation of our project. Said inspection and survey shall be
completed within three (3) months prior to the commencement of
the grading activity. Said inspection and survey shall document
existing property conditions and the structural integrity of the
house and any appurtenances -through the use of photographs,
videotapes, and a written summary.
tno�n �a�;1,1,:« R..,,lo..�.rl Sniff 715n T nc AnaPla.,a, (`�lifnrnin 9(10]4 (213) 479.()400 FAX: (213)477-B519
Mark Scott
uar 20 199
�
]February ,
Page 2 Re:
s
vesting Tentative' Tract Map No. 46626
3. WESTON agrees to establish a monitoring system within the
off-site tract street and sidewalk network to establish a
baseline reference six (6) months prior to the commencement of
any proposed grading activity. Such monitoring shall continue
through the grading process until the grading is completed within
five hundred (500) feet of the tract boundary. Thereafter, such
monitoring shall continue for a period of six (6) months follow-
ing the completion of grading activity in said area. said moni-
toring system shall be read and examined once a month. The
survey points would be established in an area within five hundred
(500) feet of the tract boundaries.
4. WESTON agrees to establish survey monitoring points along
its tract boundaries near the off-site property corners
- three (3) months prior to the commencement of grading activity.
These survey points,shall be read on a monthly basis until such
time as construction activity commences. Thereafter, these
survey points shall be read once per week until such time as
grading activity is completed within five hundred (500) feet of
the tract boundary. The survey points would then be read on a
monthly basis for a period of six (G) months following completion
of said area.
5. WESTON agrees to make all survey data available to the City
of Santa Clarita, to its representatives, and to developer -
consultants for the purposes of analysis and review.
I would like to make these conditions a part of the public
record at our hearing tonight. I appreciate your time and coop-
eration.
Very truly yours,
:JOHN A. ASHKAR
President
JAA:AJP
cc:.. Mr. Dick Kopecky - Dept of Public Works
Mr. Rich Henderson - Principal Planner