Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-05-22 - AGENDA REPORTS - PREZONE 89-002 TTM46626 APPEAL (2)AGENDA REPORT 'City Manager Approval Z&/ Item to be presented by. PUBLIC HEARING Ken Pulskamp DATE: May 22, 1990 .SUBJECT: Prezone 89-002 and Appeal of Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 46626 and 47863 (Weston/American Landmark) DEPARTMENT: Community Developmen BACKGROUND: The above items involve two separate requests: a prezoning and a subdivision for 201 and 80 lots, respectively, all for single family residences. The proposal includes the dedication of a park site, a library site; and double the bridge and thoroughfare (traffic) fees. (1) 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. (2) Prezone 89-002, is necessary for Tentative Tract 46626 since its. site is entirely within the County of Los Angeles, and adjacent to the City limits. The 80 -acre site ispresently divided between two zones in the County, 40 acres each of A-1-10,000 and A-2-1. A prezoning of A-1-10,000 for the entire site has been requested 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. Upon adoption. of the prezoning,,the site shall be annexed to the City for development. Should the City -Council vote to overturn the Planning Commission approval, no action will be necessary on the prezone. Non -substantive changes have been made in the conditions relating to the two referenced tract maps. (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 as it does not typically pertain to single-family residential projects. Finally; language has.been proposed to clarify' Condition No. 93 of both tracts to reflect the understandings reached in former Director Mark Scott's leiter of March 27, 1990, to the appellant, Karen Holder. Since the Planning. Commission's approval action on. March 20, 1990, the applicants have secured an agreement' -from an adjacent property owner 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 ­h"d ,Agenda Item: -2 page 2 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 accepted by Parks and Recreation Director Jeff Kolin, and by Dr. Smythe of the school district and is considered to be of significant benefit to the commmunity and the, school district. In comparison, the park site now proposed by the applicants is approximately 32 acres in area, nearly twice the size of the recently completed 17 -acre Canyon Country Park. Usable pad 'area will be 14.5 acres (one pad of 12 acres, one of 2.5 acres), 5.5 acres larger than the 9 -acre pad at the Canyon Country site. This item was originally noticed for the Council's regularly scheduled public hearing on April 24, 1990, but was continued to May 22, 1990, at the request of the applicants. RECOMMENDATION• 1.. Approve the attached Negative Declarations. 2. Pending public testimony, approve Prezone No. 89-002 and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 46626 and 47863. 3. Adopt attached Resolution Nos. 90-74 and 90-75, with conditions as added, amended and deleted above. 4. Introduce. attached Ordinance No. 90-08 for Prezone 89-002 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. 6. Letter dated March 27, 1990, from Mark Scott to Karen Holder. 7. Financial Interest Disclosures. ID 56 0 .0 PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE 1. Mayor Opens Hearing a. States Purpose of Hearing 2. City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice 3. Staff Report (City Manager) or (City Attorney) or (RP Staff) 4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes) 5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes) 6. Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent) a. Proponent 7. Mayor Closes Public Testimony 8. Discussion by Council 9. Council Decision 10. Mayor Announces Decision • CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 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 • • 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 is Sheriff's Department on: Santa Clarita Post Office April 4, 1990 Rev.01/12/90 • CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 0 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. 0 Dated: March 30, 1990 George Caravalho City Clerk Publish date: April 4, 1990 • • • • 0 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 10 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 Clarita City Hall Sheriff's Department Santa Clarita Post Office Published: The Newhall Signal on: April 4, 1990 Rev.01/12/90 •• i RESOLUTION NO. 90-75 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 46626 I 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 followsl� 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. I 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 I Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at,6:30 p.m. d. On March 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. 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. At the request of the applicant the hearing was continued to a date certain on May 22, 1990. 1 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 and 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 size's 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, 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 1/22. 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 -Jots 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 aiea'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 inconformity with good, zoning practice. SECTION 4. The City of Santa Clar'ita 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.. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 1990. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the City Councial 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 31 0( 714 LIM 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 0( 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. 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 w 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. 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 13 after the date of the tentative must.be executed by the easement of the final map. • approval, a subordination holder prior to the filing 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. MRG/CON46626 Page -4- 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 0 36. 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 0( 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- 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. Page -8- MRG/CON46626 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 Page -8- MRG/CON46626 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 7A 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. section only Recreation, Development. MRG/CON46626 The applicant may use the non -alternate street with approval of the Director of Parks & the City Engineer and the Director of Community Page -10- 7A 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 r 0 9, 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 6"x4"x2 1/2", 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 ithan 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, 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 parkland, 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 • 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 ec 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 0/\ 0 • 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. 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 • • ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT (2-20-901 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 1C 10� �L • 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. MRG/CON46626 Page -17- 0 0 CITY COUNCIL AMENDED CONDITION (5-22-90) .93. (ADD TO END OF EXISTING TEXT) In implementing this condition, the City will send copies of the -final condition's approved for :this project -to: each -property owner within 4001 .._o;f-the-project,,--:as-set_forth above. The City shall include a cover letter explaining the:purpose of the documents and. the owner's.right to request inspection per this condition. A form will be -included which property owners will be invited to return as a written request for inspection. The results of all inspections performed by the applicant shall be made available to the City. Upon their receipt, the City shall notify each property owner who returned..the form that the results have.been filed with the City and shall make these results available to individual property -owners who may, if they chose, obtain.a copy.of ;their. -own inspection report. All property owners will in addition have access to public information on file. CITY COUNCIL NEW CONDITION (5-22-9U 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. 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 March.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. At the request of the applicant the hearing was continued to a date certain•on May 22,. 1990. 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 .gene•ral,plan... There _Is_-a.reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the general plan proposal currently being considered and studied, that there is little or no probability of substantial detriment 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. a •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 1/2X. 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. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 1990. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor 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 3 ID 32 0( 0 • 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, {i 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 0( 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, Page -2- MRG/CON47863 0( 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. OC 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 0( K • 0 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 MRG/CON47863 Page -4- 0( 0 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. 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 0 0 "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 Ell i C 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 W 58 FT. X X X 60 FT. X A 64 and 80 FT. X X X X X X 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 file with the City Engineer a statement from the water MRG/CON47863 Page -7- rl� • 0 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 4 i 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. 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 drainage concept to the satisfaction Department of Public Works. Page -9- MRG/CON47863 the approved of the Ell 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 16 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 7 40 (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 • 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. PARKS AND RECREATION CONDITIONS �1 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 AD • 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 with a side property line. Lots to be fenced as view lots shall be approved by the Director of Conmunity 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 3- D 0 0 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. 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,- 19901 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 construction of the walls, landscaping and irrigation on the MRG/CON47863 Page -14- subject propertAhich lies immediately adj*-ent 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 -4 Pi 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 44 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 0 0 CITY COUNCIL AMENDED CONDITION (5-22=90) 93. (ADD TO THE END OF EXISTING TEXT) In. implementing this condition, the City will send copies of the final conditions approved for this project to each property owner within 400' of the project; as set forth above. The City shall include a cover letter explaining the purpose of the documents and the owner's right to request inspection per this condition. A form will be included which property owners will be invited to return as a.request for inspection. The results of all inspections performed by the applicant shall be made available to the City. Upon their receipt, the City shall notify each property owner who returned the form that the results have been filed with the City and shall make these results available to individual property owners who may, if they chose, obtain a copy of their own inspection report. All property owners will in addition have access to public information on file. CITY COUNCIL NEW CONDITION (5-22-90) 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. • 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. _0 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. • 0 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 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 and local 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 the 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 prezoning 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 of the annexation (No. 1989-02) of the subject property to the City of Santa Clarita, whichever occurs last. 11, E • 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 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA) , 1990. 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: COUNCILMEMBERS: 0 CITY CLERK ID 33 wx T4 4 � go ~~'� •KMS VICINITY MAP E X H I B I T 1 CASE N O . PREZONE 89-002 • 0 11 :s. Donna Grindley Assistant City Clerk City of Santa Clarita 23920 %alencia Blvd. Valencia, CA 91355 Dear Ms. Grindley: • March 30, 1990 Karen Holder 28149 Foxlane Dr. Canyon Country, CA 91351 This letter is a formal request for appeal of Tentative Tract maps 46626 and 47863. These maps are the 'Heston 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 developing 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 4$335. In addition, the council extended the deadline for paying this fee from today, March30, 1990 to April 13, 1990. - Si er el y, Karen Holder C� CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT 0 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: 0 • • 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-1-10,000 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 43Z of the lots in the subdivision. For this proposed subdivision a minimum of 7,000 square feet is required for a maximum 43Z 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; 5-31 • 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. 5- 3a E E Prezonine• 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 (0-25X 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 (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. ioverall, 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 • S- 3q A VICINITY MAP u � +� C A S E N o . Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 46626 and Prezone No. 89-002 •..,..� Vesting Tentative Tract MaD No. 47863 VA i` l 0 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47863 0 TO: Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Planning Commission J FROM: Ken Pulskamp, Acting Director of Community Development ,�tIr-,(lw6/ 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 101 up to a maximum of 12.51. 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 Zonina 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 0 0 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 40 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; ��� 5 • 0 0 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). ANALYSIS - 0 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." f 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. iThe 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. q— �7 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 C7 11 q-, � 0 VICINITY MAP CASE NO. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 46626 and Prezone No. 89-002 Vestinq Tentative Tract Map No_ 47863 oou+tua � H CRU. • • 0 • CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 46626 and 47863 PREZONE 89-002 TO: 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 1OX 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. 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. 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 in this 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. • 0 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. • 0 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. P • 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. 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. VTTM 46626 PZ 89-002 VT7Vw 47663 'N2 PROJECT SITE <== WESTON HM U3.1 / �� w �Z C ' M U 2 U3'-7 � ( I U- • U2 u4! - u J 3 = FF 0 SOLEDAD � ��/ ;" P LIajN C ; M CYN P u2 — w/S U Z a U4 �.so) j u 4 U3• U3 SPI , u3 ' c v C ��- •SPI U3 c - - - P J��p HM .- FSPa N HM HM COUNTY GENERAL PLAN/ DESIGNATIONS 1190 -000 .� 1/T�'M 466a asp Pz ag—ood �...� --_amOpp u ' ®ITT 47.8E /o A-2-1 -M WESTON DEVELOPMEN -' -- i...............PROJECT SITE - _ RPD -S -?.1U AMERICAN A-1-10000 `R-1-6000 - LANDMARK ,, r�BENEPMENT R-1-10000 —i a - A-1-4000 IR -1 600 ' �,.: :R-,-� PROP SED`PA K-S��= R-3.150 A-1-10000 IL _ - _ -7000 '- - "r- - /-, 44,344,,.' IL 9.0 ----------- ZONING 1190 - • 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 / `5 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 1OZ up to a maximum of 12.51. 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 4667.6 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 11 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA • 0 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. 0 [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 Form completed by: [ ] are not attach / /// /i / O// (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. 515"1 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 - 5-53 i. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 YES MAYBE NO cubic yards or more? ....................... [X] [ J [ ] 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] [ J [ ] 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? .................... [ ] [ ] [X] b. The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [ ] [ ] [XJ C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? ............ [ ] [ ] [X] d. Development within a high wind hazard area? ...................................... [ ] [ ] [X] e. Other? [ ] [ ] [X] 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? .............................. [ ] [ ] [XJ 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? ............. [ ] [ ] [XJ e. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X] f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ............ [ ] [ ] [X] g. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ............................ [ ] [ ] [X] 5-53 - 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? ...... [ 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? ...................................... [ J [ ] [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? ........... [ ] ( ] [XJ 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [ ] [ ] [X] b. Exposure of people to severe or unacceptable noise levels?* ................. [ J [ ] [X] c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [ ] [ ] [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] [ J 1 1 �� S-55- - 4 - YES MAYBE NO C. A use that does not adhereto existing zoning laws? ••••••• [X] [ ] [ ] d. A use that does not adhere to established development criteria? ...................... [ ] [X] [ ] 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?................................. [ ] [ ] [X] b. Substantial 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)?................................ [ ] [ ] [X] C. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan?...................................... [ ] [ ] [X] d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety hazards?................................... [ ] [ ] [X] 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? ..................... [X] [ ] [ ] b. Other? [ ] [ ] [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] S-55- 0 - 5 - (5`5K YES MAYBE NO b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ................. [ ] [ J [X] C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? ............................ [X] [ ] [ ] d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? .............................. [X] [ ] [ ] e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [X] [ ] [ ] f. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? .............................. [ ] [ ] [X] 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? ........................... [ ] [ ] [X] b. Police protection? ......................... [X] [ ] [ ] c. . Schools? ................................... [X] [ ] [ ] d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .... [X] [ ] [ ] e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ........................... [ ] [ ] [X] f. Other governmental services? ............... [ ] [ ] [X] 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in? a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy. .................................... [ ] [ ] [X] b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? .. [ ] [ ] '[X] 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X] b. Communications systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [X] C. Water systems? ............................. [ ] [ ] [X] d. Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [X] e. Storm drainage systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [X] (5`5K 0 0 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? .............. [ ] [ ] [XJ b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? ... [ J [ ] [XJ 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 [XJ • s of-" YES MAYBE NO f. Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [ ) [ ] [XJ 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? ................................... [ ] [ ] [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? ....................... [ ] [XJ [ J C. Will the visual impact of the proposal be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ ] [ ] [XJ 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? .............. [ ] [ ] [XJ b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? ... [ J [ ] [XJ 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 [XJ • s of-" - 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. 0 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. 6-4 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 occur. Due to the presently to an 201 -lot single family change the existing land use. the present land use of the area will vacant condition of the site, the change residential subdivision will entirely 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 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. Ss? • • - 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. C, • - 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. 10 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. 0 - 8 - E 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. ......................................... [ ] • 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 • 0 • 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 16. UTILITIES So. Calif. Edison, So. Calif. Gas, Santa Clarita Water Co. 17. HEALTH Los Angeles Co. 10. RISK OF UPSET/HAZARDS County of Los Sanitation District 18. AESTHETICS Angeles Fire Dept. 11. POPULATION City of Santa Community Clarita Dept. of Development, and Community Development 19. 12. HOUSING City of Santa Clarita Dept. of Clarita Dept. of Parks and Recreation 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES Community Development 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Traffic Analysis, Recreation Office of Aug., 1989. Historic Preservation 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 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES State of California Dept. of Parks and Recreation Office of Historic Preservation S- Gas • CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 0 N E G A T I V E D E C L A RA 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. • 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? ............... [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? ................................... [ J [XJ [ ] g. Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ................................. [ J [ ] [XJ h. Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? ........................... [ J [XJ [] i i 2 - 7 _Y�e 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 251 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? ...................................... [X] [ ] [ ] e. Other? [ ] [ ] [X] 3. Yater. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ............................ [X] [ ] [ ] b. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? .............................. [ ] [ ] [X] c. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ......................... [ ] [ ] [X] d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ ] [ ] [X] 5 e. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ..................... [X] [ ] [ ] f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ............ [ ] [ ] [X] g. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ............................ [ ] [ ] [X] 7 _Y�e = 3 - 7-1P7 YES MAYBE NO h. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? .......... [ ] [ ] [X] i. Other? [ ] [ J [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? ........... [ ] [ ] [XJ 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? ... [ ] [ J [XJ 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] [ ] [ J b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of an area? ............... [X] [ J [ ] 7-1P7 • - 4 - 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? [ ] [ ) [X] 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ........................ [ ) [ ] [X) ' __w YES MAYBE NO C. A use that doesnotadheretoexisting zoning laws? • • . • ••..•.• [ ] [ ] [X] d. A use that does not adhere to established development criteria? ...................... [ ) [X] [ ] 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ................................. [ ) [ ) [X) b. Substantial 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)? ................................ [ ) [ ) [X) C. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ...................................... [ ) [ ) [X) d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety hazards? ................................... [ ) [ ) [X) 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? ..................... [X] [ ] [ ] b. Other? [ ] [ ] [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) ' __w 5 - YES MAYBE NO b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ................. [ ] [ ] [X] C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? ............................ [X] [ ] [ ] d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? .............................. [X] [ ] [ ] e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [X] [ ] [ ] f. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? .............................. ( ] [ ] [X] 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? ........................... [ ] [ ] [X] b. Police protection? ......................... [X] [ ] [ ] C. d. Schools? ................................... Parks or other recreational facilities? .... [X] [X] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ........................... [ ] [ ] [X] f. Other governmental services? ............... [ ] [ ] [X] 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in? a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy. .................................... [ ] [ ] [X] b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? .. [ ] [ ] [X] 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X] b. Communications systems? .................... [ ] ( ] [X] •C. Water systems? ............................. [ ] [ ] [X] d. Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ ] [ ] (X] e. Storm drainage systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [X] 0 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? [ ] [ ] [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? ... [ ] [ J [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] r� �- 50 0 - 7 - 0 Discussion of Impacts. SThe 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 502 of the site is located on terrain of greater than 251 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_� 9/ 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. Police services 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. 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 presently exist wil.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 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 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. ........................:........... [ J 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 r Michael A. Rubin, Associate Planner Name and Title • • • i • LIST OF SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION Initial Study Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47863 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 �— 5& • 9. NATURAL RESOURCES 10. RISK OF UPSET/HAZARDS 11. POPULATION 12. HOUSING 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION 14. PUBLIC SERVICES City of Santa Clarita Dept. of Community Development 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 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 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES State of California Dept. of Parks and Recreation Office of Historic Preservation 4�- 67 • • 9 Mr. Mark Scott e•,- { Director of Community Development and Planning 23920 West Valencia Blvd. ciry �v�ry : ,y i7 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 , 7 � 3�7 • Theodore J Kircher • 19323 ON Friend Road Santa Clarita, CA 91351 805-298-7086 January 27, 1990 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 in the southea'i corner. Based Cin 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 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 Borja, Chai an bites Canyon Homeowners Association /T,',7"� �_ T eodore J. Kircher Chairman Land Committee 0 cc: Members of the Planning Commission ` at y F.. x •t, i.� � ^i- `'r .,. k,. ♦ �t -fes ;+ � - _ A������ Landmark DEVELOPMENT, INC. "�' t'wL December 19,' 1989 nzi- f 4 a Mr.. Richard Henderson" ;•F � :City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. # 300 Santa Clarita, Ca., 91355 SUBJECT: VTT MAP 47863 - Dear Mr. Henderson, -We have been involved in several homeowner meetings in the last r: el " week with adjacent owners to our planned development. In these 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. k:."The items below are draft conditions for the proposed solutions.'! I All of these items are subject to city review and approval. Please feel free to redraft them. ::`j,:'•_ 1. The homeowner's to the east of the American Landmark proposed : -Y- : 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.` In addition, if the City determines through this study that oni i `,'r :• westbound Nadel Street a left turn . arrow is needed to turn onto, Whites Canyon in order to go south, Weston and American Landmar shall pay for' said modification. The homeowner''s.to"the east of the proposed tract have agreed that the above study and determination shall not delay the;:,,.,."'," processing or construction of the American Landmark Tract",:." but , F•'k' the cost of the study and of improV,,ments for any additionah stop ' signs, striping of modification of the signal for a left turn.'., -,,,•i ��`ata�o as determined by the City, shall be borne by Weston and I{I AmericanLandmark.:. a continued 4'F: �:rS 414 East Cota, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, California 93101 FAX (805) 963-1038 (805) 965-8515 • r' DEVELOPMENT, INC. "�' t'wL December 19,' 1989 nzi- f 4 a Mr.. Richard Henderson" ;•F � :City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. # 300 Santa Clarita, Ca., 91355 SUBJECT: VTT MAP 47863 - Dear Mr. Henderson, -We have been involved in several homeowner meetings in the last r: el " week with adjacent owners to our planned development. In these 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. k:."The items below are draft conditions for the proposed solutions.'! I All of these items are subject to city review and approval. Please feel free to redraft them. ::`j,:'•_ 1. The homeowner's to the east of the American Landmark proposed : -Y- : 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.` In addition, if the City determines through this study that oni i `,'r :• westbound Nadel Street a left turn . arrow is needed to turn onto, Whites Canyon in order to go south, Weston and American Landmar shall pay for' said modification. The homeowner''s.to"the east of the proposed tract have agreed that the above study and determination shall not delay the;:,,.,."'," processing or construction of the American Landmark Tract",:." but , F•'k' the cost of the study and of improV,,ments for any additionah stop ' signs, striping of modification of the signal for a left turn.'., -,,,•i ��`ata�o as determined by the City, shall be borne by Weston and I{I AmericanLandmark.:. a continued 4'F: �:rS 414 East Cota, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, California 93101 FAX (805) 963-1038 (805) 965-8515 'y fy WT aLr r Tt 'k,stFs` h 4 S y ! } . ,tofit'mac , ' S i . rr�I.+l . }fir Pa ,r}jp ,�`g , �y �,;k{- 'ty4;; 1 i r - Yfr t •� t' 4 ' ' ! _• r r l f •tt r t `,[ ?��- f .ON 'M - r d Sr} C e4 i r�,ctC`f :1k•i fir v`� +, ti .,r. ,c ,f.,t _. _.. •.h - r .. 1,Page two continued.. t { W Upon receiving individual approval from each homeowner ;wo sit? radjacent.to American Landmark's easterly boundary, American ,r Landmark will hire, at its cost, an inspector and survey each g'4; home and property, as, $a condition to create a bench mark siF,Gtt °;n, 1ii}tXt survey in which to determine if any grading on the American'. "NO r =Landmark Tract causes any damage to the adjacent existing homes. am"-`' Any damage determined to be caused by American Landmark will be -' ,._repaired, at American Landmark's cost, The property owners whose property is immediately adjacent to the easterly line of the proposed tract will be notified by ' Y Il ,,I.;>: American Landmark for their opoinions and comments as to...A '�'`=:" location, design and materials used in the construction of walls, ;••;:',:i,,fencing, landscaping and/or irrigation which is immediately, r;hn ,.adjacent tothe existing homes along said easterly boundary. KFAmerican Landmark shall submit evidence of same to the City. All`. landscaping adjacent to the easterly boundary shall require the fit��` t ! City approvals; which shall be to enhance the visual privacy of aur , ,,,:;. the adjacent property owners ;�►; ..i ��. We will discuss this matter with you today. We appreciate your = �: <► ;time and . cooperation on this. issue. ..+, We wish to make this a part ', ,l ° of the public-. record at out" Tuesday hearing. TOM 1 raN -• •FR! 1+- .� - ,: �r �. r"r cj Y f, d f - t, Ys xs�rark� i� -t �. 1f Y d, it r a t LAO, .¢ lit - '. },•-.� :L�. -rr l..,:,1... ..; 1 r T ! jt�1., >•� \ 1 p --st 7 �� 5., ► L. HO AS MCFADDEN 4 ;"Jot; r E•1 A r Jjt. r i �f I I 4 V1 T 1' ( •ti t.. N' ♦1� y. F14, {irk ` TM 'tt ' ' �' �, ' ! t :I >• '. ''�krt S`a tY (`,j !• as � r�i?�: ..IAi TTT [ n. >ti z All n Al 11PYTOTT 11 to its 51 i no..s _ _ now rR Whom -,, I Jyyp!"Af 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 ag 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. 0 CONTINUED PAGE TWO: EXHIBIT 2 - page 1 of 2 414 E.ist Coca, Suite 201 • Santa Barbara, California 93101 • FAX (803) 963-1038 • (803) 963-8515 • 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. Gil 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. Since r r1c,�. MARK HOLLAND, President tm a226 • ccMark Scott EXHIBIT 2 - page 2 of 2 414 East Coca, Suite 201 • Santa Barbara, California 93101 • FAX (805) 963-1038 • (805) 965-8515 • • 0 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 • 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 s9 10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2150 Los Angeles, California 90024 (213) 479-9900 7-8519 • 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 averagdoot in this R 1 7000 ola* 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 4'0 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 • • 0 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. - "y yours, john 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 5-13 .3• • • February 20, 1990 Mark Scott Director of Community Development CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 30 Santa Clarita CA 91355 W ESTON DEVELOPMENT 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 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. C„i►a 7150 T nc Anaf4q. ( Mifnrnia OM74 (2131479.0000 FAX: (213)$77-8519 Mark Scott # February 20, 199v" Page 2 Re: Vesting Tentati.vo 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 • City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia A Phone Suite 300 (805) 259-2489 City of Santa Clarita Fax California 91355 (805) 259-8125 March 27, 1990 Mrs. Karen Holder 28149 Foxlane Dr. Santa Clarita, CA 91351 Dear Karen: The following will formally state our mutual understandings concerning implementation of the Planning Commission approved resolutions and conditions for Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 47863 (American Landmark) and 46626 (Weston). Following the Planning 1. Commission's action last week, you brought to my attention several items that you did not feel were adequately covered by the resolutions. In anticipation that these approvals will be appealed by you and your neighbors, .I suggested the following: 1) Re Condition #95 (Landmark) and #98 (Weston), the City will send copies of the finally approved resolution and conditions to each property owner within 400' of the projects (as established under Condition 493 of each set of conditions). The City will include a cover letter explaining the nature of the documents and pointing out that property owners have a right to request that their property be inspected by the developers prior to grading, per Condition #93. A written form will be included with each letter which the property owner will be invited to return as satisfaction of the "written request" for inspection called out under the conditions. If I can restate the above in clear language, the City will take this step to make sure property owners know about the inspection and monitoring condition. By including the written form, we will make it simpler for property owners to be included in this process. Please understand that our letters will be sent to addresses shown on the last County Assessor's. rolls. This inevitably misses a few people, but it is the best means..we have to notify the public. 2) In the above letter, the City will also notify property owners that the results of the inspections will be submitted by the developers to the City. Upon receipt, the City will notify each property owner who returned the form that the results have been filed with the City. We will make these available to property owners who may, if they choose, obtain from the City their own copies of what we have on file. If not, they will still have access to the information on file. Page 2 • March 27, 1990 3) You also asked for verification that the Foxlane parcels which _ lie south (and easterly) of the American Landmark site are included in the protections under the conditions even though they are not adjacent properties.. As written, these properties will be included to the extent that they are within the prescribed distances called out under the various conditions (eg. 400' or 500'). If this matter is taken to the City Council on appeal, staff will make sure this is clarified, but it is already understood by staff to cover the parcels in question. 4) Regarding Condition 177 (Landmark), I do not know if the fire lanes will be marked as fire lanes (i.e. marked on the curbs). If you seek further conditioning on this, it would need to be done by the City Council. 5) Regarding Condition 197 (Landmark), it would be appropriate to include similar protections against heavy grading equipment for the homes near the Weston project. These can be added either by the City Council or by the City Engineer at permit issuance. This condition was never discussed with the Planning Commission, but I am sure there is no problem in adding this protection. 6) Condition 197 (Weston) should be included in the American Landmark conditions. This appears to be a clerical error which we are correcting. I appreciate your bringing these matters to our attention. As you correctly pointed out to me, Conditions #95 (Landmark) and 198 (Weston) were changed between March 6 and March 20 at the advice of the City Attorney. I believe that I did clarify to the Commission that the City would perform the resident notifications, but I believe you that I failed to point out the change in the condition wording. That was an error on my part, though certainly unintentional. In fairness, I hope you will also note that we made changes -that protected the residents as well. In fact, I believe we have represented your interests extremely well, and that our many long hours of meetings have paid off. My only frustration at this point is that you and your neighbors hold any ill feelings at all toward the process. We have all worked well together and tried our best.. I have enjoyed working with you and your neighbors and wish you the best. Sincerely, Mark Scott, Director Community Development MS/lb • ► ► ► MUM10010.4 In order for members of the Planning Comsicn or City Council to adequately assess"the potential for confltaict of interest in rendering decisions on land use mattars, the following information is required. Should the applicant(s) in the requested action be or include a partner.ship, the name of the partnership and of all partners shall be printed below. Should the applicant be a corporation, the name of the corporation and of all officers of said corporation shall be printed below. Ir there are env; business or joint venture parties, property cw ners, or individuals which have a financial intarest in this action not otherwise covered as a partnership or corporation, then their names shall be printed belcw. PARTNERSHIP NAME PPCPERT" Q1WNER( S) ROBERT F. FREEDMAN -HUSBAND SHERIL D. FREEDMAN -WIFE CORPORATION NAME PresiC.ant Vlca President Sacr etarf Other QLE3 AMERICAN LANDMARK DEVELOPMENT, INC. I HERESY CERTIFY THAT THE FCREGOINC INFORl4ATION IS ?(:CURATE AND CG.PLE7E TO THE EES CF MY KNQWLECGZ ANO BELIEF. LONI HOLLAND, SECRETARY (OPTIONEE) Printed Name of Applicant, or Agent for Applicant Data Casa File No.�����. FINANCIAL INTEREST DI SOLO SURE In order for members of the Planning Commission or City Council to adequately assess the potential for conflict of interest in rendering decisions on land use matters, the following information is required:_ Should the applicant(s) in the requested action be or include a partnership, the name of the partnership and of all partners shall be printed below. Should the applicant be a corporation, the name of the corporation and of all officers of said corporation shall be printed below. Ir there are any other business or joint venture parties, property cw ners, or Individual s"which have a financial interest in this action not otherwise covered as a partnership or corporation, then their names shall be printed below. PARTNER -S�1IP NAME PPtJPERTY OWNER(S) GOLDEN WEST ENTERPRISES, INC. CORPCRATION HAKE MICHAEL W. MAYFIELD President STEPHEN L. TIDLAND Vice President SUSAN K. MAYFIELD Secretarf Other OT14F� I HERESY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING It.FORMATION IS ACCURATE ANC COMPLETE TO THE GEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. Sieriature Susa {R. Mayfield, Sec'y GOLDEN WEST ENTERPRISES. INC. Printed Name of Applicant, or Agent for Applicant June 26, 1989 Data Case F i le No.