Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-04-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - PREZONE 89-003 TTM 47324 (2)PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: BACKGROUND: April 24, 1990 AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented by: Ken Pulskamp Prezone 89-003 and appeal of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47324, Conditional Use Perm007 and Oak Tree Permit 89-046 Community Devel The City Clerk's office has received an'appeal of the Planning Commission's decision of'February 20, 1990, to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47324, Conditional Use Permit 89-007 and Oak Tree Permit 89-046.. This item also includes a Public Hearing on Prezone 89-03. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the prezone application, while approving the other entitlements, at the meeting on February 20. The appeal, of which a.copy is attached, was filed by Mr. Hal.Good, an adjacent landowner. Mr. Good has numerous concerns, though his main concerns are the project's required second means of access and the drainage and flood control improvements. The applicant, Sand Canyon Estates, is required to provide a second means of access or a minimum width of 36 feet of paving to Sand Canyon Road. Mr. Good was concerned that the second means of access would be Boulder Creek Road, a future street which is not constructed at this time. Since the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant has demonstrated that there is more than the required width of paving on Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, and therefore our code does not require the second means of access. The other major concern of Mr. Good is that future flood control improvements may impact his property along Sand Canyon Road. The Los Angeles County Flood Control District has proposed that flood control improvements be made along the Live Oak Springs Canyon to the Sand Canyon Wash. The improvements include a debris basin located along Sand Canyon Road, on property owned by Mr. Good. The Public Works Department, which only received information•on this 5 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing, estimates the cost of the improvements at 1.5 to 2.5 million dollars. During the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission considered that this project is not the cause of the need for these. - improvements, and in fact may even lessen the need for a debris basin, and therefore decided to accept the applicant's offer of $500,000, to be used by the City for any public works benefiting the community as it sees fit. At this time the flood control improvements have not been finalized by the Public Works Department. U � Adopted: / Tv Apda 11_m -- _ Although LAFCO has already approved annexation of this property, the City needs to conduct a Public Hearing for Prezone 89-03. .This prezone would officially recognize the existing Los Angeles County Zoning of A-1-1, and A-1-2 (light agricultural with one and two acre lot'sizes). The Planning Commission_ recommended approval of the Prezone to the City Council when they adopted the resolution of Approval for the Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit and Oak Tree Permit. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve the attached negative declaration. . 2. Pending public testimony, approve Prezone No.89-.003, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47324,.Conditional Use Permit 89-007 and Oak Tree Permit 89-046. 3. Adopt the attached resolutions. 4. Introduce the attached ordinance and pass to second reading. ATTACHMENTS: 1. A letter from Mr. Hal Good requesting the.appeal. 2. Staff reports dated January 16, 1990, and February 6, 1990. 3. Negative Declaration. 4Planning Commission resolution P90-05. 5. Draft Council resolutions and ordinance. KP:FLF CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 47324, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-007, OAK TREE PERMIT 89-046, AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PREZONE 89-003' A PUBLIC HEARING WILL ALSO BE HELD ON PREZONE 89-003 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 decision to conditionally approve Tentative Tract Map 47324, Conditional Use, Permit 89-007, Oak Tree Permit 89-046, and approval of Prezone 89-003. The City Council shall also conduct a Public Hearing on Prezone 89-003. The request would allow a Subdivision of 70 single family residential lots and 2 private parks lots on + 137 acres located at 16000 Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. The Prezone would officially recognize the existing A-1-2 zoning. The appeal and public hearing for the Prezone 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, 23290 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita, Ca. Dated: March 30, 1990 George Caravalho City Clerk Publish Date: April �1, 1990 s c Ron & Lucy NOrdeen Jack D. & Carol M. Hibbs 3 Wallace E. & Carolyn L. Weaver 28024 N. Oak Springs Cyn. 26091 Oak Springs Cyn Rd. 28082 Oak Springs Cyn Rd. Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91351 Arthur C & Lorena A BDllin Lawrence M & Bail Y McClain % John N & Bobbe E Higby Y Orange St. I P.O. Bos I031 27945 Braceton 1112 Grove Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91351 San Fernando, CA 91340 { Lynn C & Nan Tyson / 15838 Falconri■ Or 0 Prime West, Inc. d 13030 Inglewood A+enue Griffin Howes,Crystal Springs / 24005 Ventura Blvd. Canyon Country, CA 91351 Hawthorne, CA 90250 Calabasas, CA 91302 Crystal Springs Partnership Gregory A. Foster Griffin Hoses, Crystal Springs / 0 27,123 Bronco Drive f) 27327 Bronco Drive P.O. Boz 9810 Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91,151 Calabasas, CA 91302 Griffin Hoses, Crystal Springs / 3 H.C.& Jane H. McClure Bruce A & Dorothy J Smith i S Clear Lake Or P.O. Boz 9810 / 27541 Clearlake Or 27542 Calabasas, CA 91302 Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91351 George & Donna R Schweiger �y Charles P Richter 7 Bruce B & Carrie L Bernards L 27531 Clear Lal.e Or / 27524 Clear Lake Or 6 27521 Clear Lake Gr Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91351 Leo W & Linda L Anseim Chester.S. Wojciechowski Richard A Deesky 27500 Clear Lake Or 27501 Clear Lake Or 15845 Cedarfort Or Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91351 Paul & Priscilla Buege Karin B. Duenckel, et al Robert & Jeanne Porter q d� 27491 Clear Late Or 413 27483 Clear Lake Or 27481 Clear Lake Or Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91351 i Don & Cheryl Driogs Theodore Ludwig & Trust Eugene & Betty Burke Clearlake Rd (_, 27461 Clear Lake Or 7 27441 Clear Lake Or ,_R6-27475 Canyon Country, CA 91351 l Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91351 t.. Daniel & Margery Parkinson Applicant Daniel & Elwood Parkinson 16031 Live Oak Springs 1 �n/a '� 16031 Live Oak Springs Canyon Country, CA 91351 n/a, Canyon Country, CA 91351 Stephen & Cathy Kraeger Charlotte & Ballo Pacheco Ballo & Charlotte Pacheco 3 ( 16075 Live Oak Springs jZ 16045 Live Oak Springs j3 16045 Live Oak Springs Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91351 or James 6 Veronica Carpenter 16059 Live Oak Springs Canyon Country, CA 91351 Richard 6 Arlene Keysor 7 16046 Live Oak Springs Canyon Country, CA 91351 Steven 6 Emma Davis 16106 Live Oak Springs �T Canyon Country, CA 91351 Steven 4 Emma Davis LI 2 16106 Live Oak Springs Canyon Country, CA 91351 'Paul Heinrich 12045 Rives Ave Downey, CA 90242 Darryl 8 Sonia Truelsen 4 (° 27553 Trailridge Rd I Canyon Country, CA 91351 Don 6 Lorraine Freeberg 800 N. Brand Blvd �( Glendale, CA 91203 Arnold Borresen 5 S 30401 Morning View Or Malibu, CA Calvin k Terry Fulton 27551 Trail Ridge Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 Stephen b Janell Reid 1 2554 Fernside Circle Orange, CA 92665 Lawrence 6 Julia Witter y/[ 16136 Live Oak Springs r Canyon Country, CA 91351 0 Richard 6 Arlene I:eysor 3 16046 Live Oak Springs Canyon Country, CA 91351 John Miccolis (� 16030 Live Oak Springs a Canyon Country, CA 91351 Steven 6 Emma Davis 4 16106 Live Oak Springs Canyon Country, CA 91351 Roger 6 Kathleen Hand Y 4 27545 N. Trail Ridge Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 Robert 6 Lynne Stevenson _ 7 15349 Iron Canyon Rd / Canyon Country, CA 91351 Roger 6 Kathleen Hand 0 27545 Trailridge Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 Dan k Lorraine Freeberg c 800 N. Brand Blvd Glendale, CA 91203 Calvin 6 Terry Fulton 27551 Trail Ridge Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 John 6 Betty Mc6uinness j9 23311 Stirrup Or Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Calvin 6 Terry Fulton yl 27551 Trail Ridge Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 Levan Arklin S 27604 Sand Canyon Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 Richard k Arlene 1'eysor �. 16046 Live Oak Springs Canyon Country, CA 91351 Steven 6 Emma Davis </ 16106 Live Oak Springs l Canyon Country, CA 91351 Steven 6 Emma Davis 16106 Live Oak Springs Canyon Country, CA 91351 Curtis 6 Patricia Bianchi 027539 Trailridge Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 Darryl 6 Sonia Truelsen b 27553 Trailridge Rd Saugus, CA 91350 Curtis & Patricia Bianchi 27539 Trail Ridge Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 Calvin 6 Terry Fulton 27551 Trailridge Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 Joel i Rod True CJ 8530 E. Farm St Downey, CA 90241 Unpublished Gn/a n/a, Calvin 6 Terry Fulton 3 27551 Trail Ridge Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 r Edw. 6 Loreita Hefferon 27664 Sand Canyon Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 44>^ D r I Rom.Cath. Archbishop of L.A 1531 W. 9th Street Los Angeles, CA 90015 Jonathan & Cathy Snyder '71 27733 Sand Canyon Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 Gary Bautista `7 P.O.Box 16056 1 West Hollywood, CA James & Patricia Caskey 27821 Sand Canyon Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 Harold Kurth q� 4 O 23664 Park Andora Calabasas, CA 91302 John & Eleanor Porambo b7 ?, 15940 W. Pashley St Canyon Country, CA 91351 Robert & Cynthia Couto 28163 Oak Springs �� Canyon Country, CA 91351 p William and Sandra Day / 28132 Oak Springs Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 William & Diana Schrey 28123 Oak Springs Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 David & Rose Clark 28111 Oak Springs Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 Daniel & Elwood Parkinson 16031 Live Oak Springs Canyon Country, CA 91351 Rom.Cath. ,Archbishop of L.A. / 9 1531 W. 9th Street o Los Angeles, CA 90015 David Farness 27734 Sand Canyon Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 Carl & Audrey Barcus 73 19636 Fairweather Canyon Country, CA 91351 Robin & Particia West �1 27829 Sand Canyon Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 Harold Kurth 23664 Park Andora Calabasas, CA 91302 Timothy & Evamarie Tindell 15242 Poppy Meadow St Canyon Country, CA 91351 John & Patricia Tohill 19443 Old Friend Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 William & Sandra Day y�Y 28132 Oak Springs Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 David & Rose Clark 13 28111 Oak Springs Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 q�Wayne & Doris Boydston Box 1022 Canyon Country, CA 91351 41r Rom. Cath. Archbishop of L.A. �71531 W. 9th Street I Los Angeles, CA 90015 t Clifford & Dorothy Snyder 27731 Sand Canyon Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 i Carl & Audrey Barcus 19636 Fairweather Canyon Country, CA 91351 A6 Adrienne Good 7G 27800 Sand Canyon Rd r Canyon Country, CA 91351 E r. R W Magliano Inc. ✓jr 27841. Sand Canyon Rd / Canyon Country, CA 91351 Harold Kurth 23664 Park Andora Calabasas, CA 91302 k Albert & Grace Posthumus 1-' 15906 W. Pashley St 0 Canyon Country, CA 91351 Robert & Cynthia Couto YYY 28163 Oak Springs Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 t. William & Diana Schrey q28123 Oak Springs Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 t fI Jack & Carol Hibbs T 28091 Oak Springs Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 Applicant n1a i n1a, Rom.Cath. Archbishop of L.A 1531 W. 9th Street Los Angeles, CA 90015 Jonathan & Cathy Snyder '71 27733 Sand Canyon Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 Gary Bautista `7 P.O.Box 16056 1 West Hollywood, CA James & Patricia Caskey 27821 Sand Canyon Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 Harold Kurth q� 4 O 23664 Park Andora Calabasas, CA 91302 John & Eleanor Porambo b7 ?, 15940 W. Pashley St Canyon Country, CA 91351 Robert & Cynthia Couto 28163 Oak Springs �� Canyon Country, CA 91351 p William and Sandra Day / 28132 Oak Springs Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 William & Diana Schrey 28123 Oak Springs Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 David & Rose Clark 28111 Oak Springs Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 Daniel & Elwood Parkinson 16031 Live Oak Springs Canyon Country, CA 91351 Rom.Cath. ,Archbishop of L.A. / 9 1531 W. 9th Street o Los Angeles, CA 90015 David Farness 27734 Sand Canyon Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 Carl & Audrey Barcus 73 19636 Fairweather Canyon Country, CA 91351 Robin & Particia West �1 27829 Sand Canyon Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 Harold Kurth 23664 Park Andora Calabasas, CA 91302 Timothy & Evamarie Tindell 15242 Poppy Meadow St Canyon Country, CA 91351 John & Patricia Tohill 19443 Old Friend Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 William & Sandra Day y�Y 28132 Oak Springs Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 David & Rose Clark 13 28111 Oak Springs Rd Canyon Country, CA 91351 q�Wayne & Doris Boydston Box 1022 Canyon Country, CA 91351 41r MR. MARK SCOTT Director of Community Development City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE; APPEAL FOR TRACT 47324 Dear Mr.Scott: L� HAL GOOD 27800 Sand Canyon Road Canyon Country, CA 91351 Telephone: (805) 252-2028 February 26, 1990 I am submitting this letter to formally appeal the February 20, 1990 decision of the Planning Commission to,conditionally approve Tentative Tract Map 47324, Conditional Use Permit 89-007 ,Oak Tree Permit 89-046, and recommending approval of prezone No-:' 89-003. i I have enclosed a check for $335.00 to cover the appeal fee. I.am sorry to burden the City with this added work but, as you know, I am unwilling to suffer the damage to my property caused by others. Cordially, ,:;4A GOO 9 HG: as debris 8 0 MR. MARK SCOTT Director of Community Development City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 0 HAL GOOD 27800 Sand Canyon Road Canyon Country, CA 91351 Telephone:(805) 252-2028 February 28', 1990 RE: Appeal for Tract 47324 and My Appeal Letter dated 02-26-90 Dear Mr. Scott: This letter has two purposes: (1) to request a City Council hearing date of April 24, 1990 , or later; and, (2) to be more specific in the items to be addressed in subject appeal. I request that I not be limited to only the enumerated items, as further investigation may reveal items that are of equal or greater concern. The following items in Planning Commission Resolution No. P90-05 need to be eliminated or modified, therefore it is respectfully requested that the City Council consider my request that the subject tentative tract be rejected: Resolution No. P90-05: Page 1-2 Section 2(e) will cause serious health problems (g) This subdivision will have a significant effect on the environment, if only the debris basin is included, let alone construction pollution (i) proposed parcels are substandard in size when one considers useable area of a lot and zoning. -- (m) tentative map does not provide protection for offsite properties and easements (o) lower street grades would be completely feasible except for subdivider increasing density in the hillside management areas Page 1-4 Section -4- a further study would determine environmental showing a serious effect on the surrounding area a negative declaration should be DISAPPROVED. Page 2 of 3 Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval for tentative tract map 473^4, conditional use permit 89-007; oak tree permit 89-046 and recommending approval of pre zone no 89-003 have a number of items that need to be modified or.disapproved: Page. 1..-6. General .Condi-tion ..8 ( 4 ) planned local drainage fee gives no protection to the adjoining property owners Page 1-6 Item 13 all easements are not accounted for on the tentative map Page 1-7 Item 23 & 24 Pages 1-8&9 Items 30 & 32 Pages 1-8&9 Items 38,39 & 42 Page 1-9 Item 46 Page 1-10 Item 52 all streets need to be dedicated through the tract. The area is becoming a built-in "gridlock" due to poor planning. these items are not available and should be required prior to "tentative approval." Winners Circle Drive and Andalusian Way should be dedicated and improved to the property line some easements may have other owners with a right to use same some of these easements may Trot be available to the subdivider and should be required prior to "tentative approval." Page 1-10 & 11, Item 54 (a),(b),(c),(d) Items 59,60 & 64 a contribution of money does not help the surrounding neighbors from the detrimental effect caused by the subdivider. A considerable amount of evidence will be presented on these items. Page 1-14 Item 88 objection will be to the detrimental effect of guard gates on the surrounding area. ere.-: Page 3 of 3 "page 1=14 Item. 9.4 this"water course.. crosses private properties not owned by the subdivider and will require approval. by others .than the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Page 1-16 Item 112 access items affect all surrounding property owners and need to be identified prior to "tentative"map approval. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Cordially, �'ZOD HG: as debris 10 RESOLUTION NO. 90-76 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 47324; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-007.; AND OAK TREE PERMIT 89-046; 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 tentative tract map, conditional use permit, oak tree permit and prezone.were filed simultaneously with the City of Santa Clarita, May 8, 1989, by Sand Canyon. Estates Ltd. ("the applicant"). The property for which these entitlements have been filed is an 137.23-acre•parcel located at 16000 Live Oak Springs Road. The purpose of the tentative tract map application submittal is to create 70 lots within the subject site for family residential units and 2 private recreation lots. The purpose of the prezone is to request the A-1-1 and A-1-2 zone prior to annexation to the City. Assessor Parcel.Nos. 2840-13-13,-i4,-15; 2840-14-22; and 2840-16-21,-22. b. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee (DRC) met on September 14, 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 January 16, 1990, and a decision was made on February 20,'1990, at the City Council Chambers, 23,920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. d. On February 20, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P90-05 conditionally approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47324, Conditional Use Permit 89-006 and Oak Tree Permit 89-046. e. An appeal was filed by Mr. Hal Good on March 1, 1990 which was within the appropriate period to file an.appeal. f. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City.Council on April 24, 1990 at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia .Boulevard,,Santa Clarita,,at 6:30 p.m. SECTION 2.; Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at.the public hearing, and upon studies and investigation made by the.City Council and on its behalf, the Council further finds -and determines as follows: a. The City of Santa Clarita is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of.a general plan. There is a reasonable probability that this project, will be consistent with the general plan proposal currently being considered or studied, that there is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposedresolution 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 tentative tract map will expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval. d. The applicant has submitted a tentative tract map which depicts the area proposed for the 72 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. is The proposed parcel sizes Are consistent with surrounding parcel sizes. j. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling.opportunities in the subdivision given the size and shape of the lots and their intended use. k. The proposed subdivision does not contain or front upon any public waterway, river, stream, coastline, shoreline, lake or reservoir:. 1. The housing needs of the region were considered and balanced against the public service needs of local.residents.. m. Neither the design of the subdivision nor the type of improvements will conflict with public easements for access through the use of property within the proposed subdivision, 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 14X. SECTION 3. In making the recommendation contained.in this resolution, the Planning Commission has considered certain principles and standards, and finds and•determines as follows: a. That modified conditions warrant a revision inthe 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-1-1 and A-1-2 zone classification; and d. That placement.of the proposed zone at the subject property will be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare, and in conformity,with good zoning practice. SECTION 4. The City of Santa'Clarita City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Initial Study, and determines that it is in compliance with CEQA and that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. A negative declaration was prepared for this project. Based upon the findings stated above, the City Council hereby approves the negative declaration. SECTION 5. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby approves the application for the tentative tract map, conditional use permit and oak tree permit subject to following conditions attached hereto as "Exhibit -A". and "Exhibit B" and incorporated herein by reference allowing the creation of 70 lots for .single family residential use and 2 lots for park purposes. SECTION 6. 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, 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 27 day of March, 1990. Mayor � fo . CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 27, 1990 APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item Nos. 12 and 15 were pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. It was moved by McKeon and second by Boyer to approve the Agenda. On roll call vote: Ayes: Boyer, Heidt, Koontz, McKeon, Mayor Darcy Noes: None Motion Carried APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Boyer and second by McKeon to approve the minutes for February 27 and March 13, 1990. Hearing no objections, it was so ordered. PRESENTATIONS Mayor Darcy presented a commendation to Johnny Hannah for his quick and dedicated reaction in an emergency situation. Mayor Darcy presented a Proclamation and plaque to Bela Palagyi for his outstanding commitment to youth over his thirty-two years of teaching. Mayor Darcy presented a plaque in special recognition to Richard Schneck and the Santa Clarita Valley Wood Carvers Club for the hand carved logo given to the City. City Manager, Caravalho made an announcement to Council that the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers presented the City with a presentation for outstanding finance reporting. ITEM 1 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF REOPENING Community Development Director, Scott presented G. H. PALMER the report to Council stating that the public hearing DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT dealt with the appeal of the Planning Commission's AND RELATED PUBLIC approval of. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 45022, HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit No. 87-017 and Oak Tree Permit No. 87-017 which involves 24.5 acres into .seven lots to. accommodate 103 detached residential condominium units. The Oak Tree Permit would call for the removal of six oak trees. Mayor Darcy opened the public hearing. Assistant City Clerk, Grindey reported that this item was published and posted in accordance with the law, therefore, the public hearing was in order. -1- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 27, 1990 ITEM 16 NEW BUSINESS FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 City Manager, Caravalho presented the report to BUDGET STUDY SESSIONS Council stating that staff will present the budget to Council with the recommendation that the issue be referred to the Planning Commission for consistency with the General Plan and Parks and Recreation Commission for their comments on May 8, 1990. It was moved by Boyer and second by Koontz to bring this item back to the April 17, 1990 meeting. Hearing no objections, it was so ordered. PUBLIC STATEMENT The following persons addressed the Council: Dennis AUDIENCE Datin, 28180 Foxlane Drive, Canyon Country - regarding overdevelopment. PUBLIC STATEMENT City Manager, George Caravalho addressed the Council STAFF giving a brief overview of what staff has done pursuant to Council's direction on the Elsmere Canyon Landfill Proposals, that staff received another grant from the Amateur Athletic Foundation in support of a swim program in the amount of $7,109. PUBLIC STATEMENT Mayor Darcy stated that she received,a note from COUNCIL Dr. Frank Mancini who has offered to have the DeMolays take down any election posters if we have the need. CLOSED.SESSION At 10:02 p.m., Mayor Darcy adjourned to Closed Session on an employee relations and personnel matter. Councilwoman Heidt was not present. At 10:55 p.m., Council reconvened. It was moved by Boyer and second by Koontz to approve the Civil Engineer range from 61 to 65. Hearing no objections, it was so ordered. ADJOURNMENT At 11:00 p.m. Mayor Darcy adjourned the meeting to April 4, 7:30 p.m. and in memory of Thomas E. Mason. ATTEST: George Caravalho City Clerk Jo Anne Darcy Mayor -1- • ORDINANCE NO. 90-9 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP (Prezone Case No. 89-003) 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, vesting tentative tract map, conditional use permit, and oak tree permit were filed simultaneously with the City of Santa Clarita, May 8, 1989, by Sand Canyon Estates ("the applicant"). The property for which these entitlements have been filed is a 137.23 -acre parcel with 99.15 acres outside the existing city boundary. The site is located at 16000 Live Oak Springs Road. The purpose of the vesting tentative tract map application submittal is to create 70 lots within the subject site for family residential units. The purpose of the prezone is to request the A-1-1, A-1-2 zone (Light Agricultural --one and two acre lot size) prior to annexation to the City. Assessor Parcel Nos. 2840-13-13,-14,-15; 2840-14-22 and 2840-16-21,-22. is b. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on 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. P90-05 conditionally approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47324, Conditional Use Permit 89-007, and Oak Tree Permit 89-046 and recommending approval to the City Council of Prezone No. 89-003. 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 137.23 -acre parcel with 99.15 acres outside of the existing City limits. b. The subject property is,presently zoned`A-1-1 Light Agricultural --one d.u./acre and A-1-2 in the County of Los Angeles. c. The request is for a prezoning of A-1-1 (Light Agricultural --one d.u. per acre) and for the entire site to authorize the establishment of 70 lots for single family residences. i .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-1-1 and A-1-2 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-1-1 and A-1-2 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-1-1 and A-1-2, and shown on the attached map (Exhibit 1). SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify as to the.passage of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner prescribed by law; • 0 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commissioners ////%% FROM: Mark Scott, Director of Community Development P 5 DATE: January 16, 1990 SUBJECT: Hunters Green Project (Sand Canyon Estates) As the Commission will note, there are several very complex issues that must be addressed in reviewing the Hunters Green project. Staff has worked with this applicant for over a year in seeking mutually agreeable development conditions, and the staff recommendations reflect many such agreed upon conditions. Despite these efforts, there are still several points that should be highlighted for the Planning Commission's attention: 1) Naturally, staff's efforts to reach mutually agreeable conditions do not in any sense commit the Planning Commission, nor does staff's process of preliminary project review minimize in any way the public hearing process. Staff's pre -hearing recommendations are always subject to revision after the public hearing input is received. On this particular project, the applicant has worked closely with neighboring property owners and has considerable support from among some of these neighbors. In good faith to the applicant, staff has prepared a list of conditions under which staff could recommend a project approval, but the recommendations are not all agreeable to the applicant as presented herein. 2) In reviewing this project, it became clear that four significant .- concerns needed to be addressed, including: a) Hillside/Grading Issues b) Flood/Drainage Issues c) Subarea Traffic Linkages d) Acceptability of Gated Community Concepts The staff report and conditions discuss these issues in some detail. It would seem that the Planning Commission has several options that it may choose to exercise on each issue. Following is a brief review of what those options may be: Hillside/Grading Issues - As part of this area is in fairly steep hillside terrain, some of the same hillside issues exist as on the recent case that was denied. The Planning Commission could respond in any of several manners: a) Accept the project as proposed, recognizing that the second -access roadway is made possible by grading through this hillside portion of the project. 604 a E • b) Modify the project to eliminate some of the hillside lots (which would also likely eliminate the second road access). c) Continue action until the hillside standards issue has been addressed in study session. Flood/Drainage Issues - As explained in the staff report, the applicant is not in agreement with staff's recommendation, but has agreed to considerable financial contribution toward the proposed mitigation. The Planning Commission may choose to: a) Accept staff's conditions as proposed. b) Accept the applicant's counter proposal. c) Defer action pending a more detailed report and recommendations by the City Engineer and/or after further dialogue with the County regarding their commitment to the project. d) Continue or deny the project due to the flood and drainage concerns. Subarea Traffic Linkages - The staff report illustrates a proposed secondary traffic system to link this project and others planned for the area. While the applicants are likely aware of this plan, it is unclear that all of the residents in the area are equally familiar with it. The applicant concurs with the concept of building the second -access roadway, but does not wish to construct it as a publicly -dedicated, non -gated road. The Planning Commission may choose to: a) Accept the staff recommendation to require a public roadway. b) Accept the applicant's proposal for a private, gated roadway. c) Direct that a public meeting be held with residents and owners in the entire area prior to discussing this subarea traffic plan prior to Planning Commission action on the current project. (It should be understood, in fairness, that the applicant has agreed to make other road system improvements in addition to the second -access element of the staff report.) Gated Community - As a policy matter, the Planning Commission should seek agreement as to whether gated communities are desirable in this area. Obviously, there are pros and cons to this issue. The applicant feels that gated roadways are a necessity to his project. The Planning Commission may choose to: a) Approve the concept as proposed by the applicant. b) Approve the project conditioned on removal of the gated road concept. c) Approve the project with any number of possible modifications to the concept. Unfortunately, the project is complex to the point that the Planning Commission's decision process will not be simple. Staff suggests that the above issues be addressed sequentially in some structured manner. There will also likely be other conditions that the Planning Commission may wish to discuss. Please feel free to call upon staff at the meeting to help structure this decision process for the Commission. • CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT 47324 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-007 PREZONE 89-003 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 89-046 DATE: January 16, 1990. 0 TO: Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Planning Com/mission /�'� FROM: Mark Scott, Director of Community Development S APPLICANT: Sand Canyon Estates. LOCATION: 16000 Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. _ REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to subdivide 137.23 acres of land into 70 single family lots and 2 private recreation lots. The applicant is also requesting to remove 34 oak trees. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Negative Declaration with the finding that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Approve Tentative Tract Map 47324, Conditional Use Permit 89-007 and Oak Tree Permit 89-046 based on the required findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval. - Recommend approval to the City Council of a prezoning of A-1-1 and A-1-2. Adopt the attached resolution. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The site consists of six lots on +/- 137.23 acres of land located at 16000 Live Oak Springs Canyon Road in the City of Santa Clarita. The parcel is currently zoned A-1-1 and A-1-2 light agriculture with a one and two acre minimum lot size. On the Santa Clarita Valley Areawide Plan prepared by Los Angeles County, which the city has not adopted, the site is shown as N-1 (Nonurban, one unit per every two acres) and HM (Hillside Management). The site is not located in either the Alquist-Priolo special study zone for earthquake faults or in a Significant Ecological Area. No archaeological sites have been found in the area. (v " 3 • 0 At the present time the site is primarily vacant with one existing residence. The topography of the site ranges from flat land on the southwestern portion of the site to steep hillside on the northern and eastern sections of the property. The surrounding land uses are depicted below: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAND USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN t------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROJECT vacant, single A-1-2 N-1, HM family residence A-1-1 ---------- SOUTH -------------------------------------------------------------- single family residences A-1-1, A-1-2 N-1, HM, N-2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- NORTH vacant A-1-1, A-1-2 N-1, N-2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- EAST vacant A-1-1 HM, N-1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- WEST single family residences A-1-2 N-1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- vacant The site is partially located within the Hillside Management category. The staff required that the applicant submit a slope analysis. The slope analysis breakdown as provided by the applicant's engineer is as follows: Less than 25Z slopes 60.3 acres 44 Z of the site 25Z to 501 slopes 60.8 acres 44 Z of the site Greater than 50Z slopes 16.1 acres 12 Z of the site After applying the Hillside formula, we arrived at a high threshold of 61.37 units and a low threshold of 18.95 units. The mid-range for the entire 137.2 acres would be 40.16 units. The applicant has filed for a prezone (89-003) and annexation to the city (89-003). The applicant is seeking the existing Los Angeles County zoning of A-1-1 and A-1-2. The annexation of the easterly 79.31 acres was approved by LAFCO on December 18, 1989. The approval of this prezone would officially recognize the existing zoning. The applicant has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to allow flexibility of lot sizes (Density Controlled Development). This will allow the applicant the flexibility to create some lots of one -acre size in the two -acre zone and vice versa. Using the existing zoning the allowable units would be 84 and the proposed number is 70. 6., 7 0 The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site into 70 single family lots and two private recreation lots. No Quimby (park -land) fee is being required, since the overall housing density of the project is less than one unit per acre and thereby exempted by our code. The applicant has stated that the approximate 4 acres of recreation area will provide equestrian facilities which will access trails through his project. The Conditional Use Permit is being conditioned to allow City review of these private facilities. The applicant is also proposing approximately 0.6 miles of public and 1.7 miles of private equestrian trails traversing the site. The applicant is removing one residence and several agricultural buildings. To accomplish this the applicant will have to grade approximately 500,000 cubic yards of earth which is to be balanced onsite. A major portion.of the earthwork is required to create a road to tap the eastern property boundary. The staff is recommending approval of the proposal for 70 new homes, even though the hillside formula allows a maximum of 61 homes. The City requested the applicant to eliminate homes in the southeasterly portion of the map at one time, but has since required the applicant to tap the boundary with Winners Circle Drive. Much of the proposed grading in that area will now be required to accommodate the roadway, and for this' reason the additional lots are justified. The applicant has met with the two school districts and has entered into written agreements with both. 'The site contains 225 native Oak trees located throughout the property. The applicant is proposing to remove 34 Oak trees which are depicted on the attached Oak Tree Report. The trees are to be replaced by the replanting of trees of equal value according to the ISA values. The proposal will also require the encroachment into the protected zones of 22 oak trees. The applicant is requesting to shift the paved roadway within the roadway section to minimize the encroachment into the trees. The City's Oak Tree Consultant has reviewed the applicant's material and is satisfied with the applicant's proposal. As proposed by the.applicant, the circulation on the site consists of one main entry featuring a guardhouse creating a private gated community. There would be one additional access point along the easterly border which is to be used in emergencies only. All access to the project would be from Live Oak Springs Canyon Road off Sand Canyon Road. The internal circulation consists of one large semicircle along the existing canyons with 3 cul-de-sacs emanating from this street. &.5 In reviewing this project, staff took into account three other projects that are proposed in the vicinity. The three projects are located to the east of the subject property. Staff feels that the construction of a road that will serve as a second access for the Sand Canyon area would be an areawide benefit. This road would begin at the intersection of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road and Trailridge Road, then travel northeast through the site known as the "UCLA" property, then into the site owned by Jack Shine. The road in the Shine tract will go underneath the railroad and over the Santa Clara River to the intersection of Oak Springs Road and Soledad Canyon Road. To accomplish this, the applicant of this project will have to make adjustments on the Final Map to accommodate this road. The applicant is requesting not to provide this link as it would require a public street instead of allowing a private gated community. However, the staff feels that Sand Canyon Road is not presently built to highway standards. Therefore, new projects of this size should not depend wholly on Sand Canyon for their access while simply building single accesses from Sand Canyon. If designed to accommodate the flow as foreseen on the conceptual drawing, this project will have two means of -access. Please refer to the attached conceptual drawing of the proposed general alignment of the road. If the Planning Commission decides that this project should be a gated community, then they should do so with full awareness that they would be committing Bronco Lane as the only southerly access for the future proposal on the "UCLA" property. Staff does not feel that a lot of traffic will ever flow through either Winner's Circle Drive or Bronco Lane, but does feel that this new proposal should connect to the future north -south route, as should Bronco Lane. Staff is also requesting that the applicant install a left turn pocket on Sand Canyon Road at the intersection of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road and contribute a portion of the cost to widen Soledad Canyon Road east of Sand Canyon Road. Another concern that was raised was that the development is proposed in the flood fringe areas. The Public Works Department has requested that the applicant provide full drainage improvements both onsite and offsite to their satisfaction. This will assist in the reduction of debris flow and flooding that affects a portion of Sand Canyon Road north of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road during heavy rainstorms. This will be a significant benefit to the region. Attached to this report is a letter dated March 3, 1989. It includes a description and graphic representation of the Live Oak Springs Canyon drain project. The City of Santa Clarita has identified this project as the highest priority drainage improvement in the City, and will attempt to convince LA County of its urgency. The County has Flood Control money available but must prioritize projects on a countywide basis. The City's Engineers will work with the County and the applicant to ensure an aesthetically pleasing storm drain, to the extent possible. The staff feels that this improvement is an appropriate condition of Tract 47324 and that the applicant should contribute, if necessary, toward its completion. This is, however, an expensive project that could cost from oft" $1.5 to $2.5 million. The applicant has submitted the attached letter offering to contribute up to $500,000 toward the project, rather than the cost of the full project. Staff feels that if the applicant integrates these concerns (drainage, public streets and improvements on Soledad Canyon Road) into their design, the project would provide benefits for the area. If all conditions were met, staff would recommend project approval. EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 47324; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-007; AND OAR TREE PERMIT 89-046 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. The approval of this Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit and Oak Tree Permit shall expire two years from the date of ..conditional approval. 2. The subdivider may file for an extension of the conditionally approved map prior to the date of expiration for a period of time not to exceed one year. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed no later than 60 days prior to expiration. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Department of Community Development in writing of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or a change in the status of the developer, within 30 days of said change. 4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this 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 Tentative Tract Map are not necessarily approved. Any details which are inconsistent with requirements of ordinances, general conditions of approval, or City policies must be specifically approved. 6. Easements shall not be granted or recorded 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 after the date of 1-S • the tentative approval, a subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing of the final map. 7. The final map shall be prepared by or under the direction of a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer. 8. The Applicant is hereby advised that this project is subject to fees at the time of building permit issuance, including, but not limited to, the following as applicable: (1) Los Angeles County Residential Sewer Connection Fee; (2) Interim School Facilities Financing Fee; (3) Installation or Upgrade of Traffic Signals Fees and/or Road Improvement Fees; and (4) Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fee. 9. Upon development, a stop -work order shall be considered in effect upon the discovery of any historic artifacts and/or remains, at which time the City shall be notified. 10. In lieu of establishing the final specific locations of structures on each lot at this time, the owner, at the time of issuance of a building permit, agrees to develop the property in conformance with the City Code and other appropriate ordinances such as 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 pursuant to such codes and ordinances. 11. A final tract map must be processed through the City Engineer prior to being filed with the County Recorder. 12. A grading permit shall be required for any and all off-site grading to occur for the purposes of this project. PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING Map Requirements 13. All easements existing at the time of final map approval must be accounted for on the approved tentative map. This includes the location, owner, purpose, and recording reference for all existing easements. If an easement is blanket or indeterminate in nature, a statement to the effect must be shown on the tentative map in lieu of its location. If all easements have not been accounted for, submit a corrected tentative map to the Community Development Department for approval. 14. All offers of dedication shall be noted by certificate on the face of the final map. 15. The final map shall be prepared by or under the direction of a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer and shall be processed through the City Engineer. 16. Abandon or remove existing wells prior to approval of the final map. 1-(0 17. Quitclaim or relocate easements running through proposed structures. 18. If the subdivider intends to file multiple final maps, he must so inform the Advisory Agency at the time the tentative map is filed. The boundaries of the unit final map shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Community Development Department. 19. If signatures of record title interests appear on the final map, a preliminary guarantee is needed. A final guarantee will be required. If said signatures do not appear on the ,final map, a title report/guarantee is needed showing all fee owners and interest holders and this account must remain open until the final parcel map is filed with the County Recorder. 20. Submit non-interference letters as required prior to approval of the final map. Road Improvements 21. The intersection of Trailridge Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road is to be redesigned to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 22. Local street(s) shall be aligned such that the central angles of the right-of-way radius returns do not differ by more than 10 degrees.Intersections shall be designed with a tangent section from "beginning of curb return" (BCR) to BCR. 23. Temporary turnarounds shall be provided at the terminus of streets within the right-of-way with a radius of 24 feet. 24. Future streets shall be dedicated beyond the turnarounds on all streets to the tract boundary or extend the turnarounds beyond the tract boundaries within the adjacent ownerships. 25. Where applicable, pay fees for signing and striping of streets -as determined by the City Traffic Engineer or shall prepare signing and striping plans for all multi -lane highways within or abutting the subdivision to the satisfaction of the Department. 26. The subdivider shall be required to install distribution lines and individual service lines for community antenna television service (CATV) for all new development. 27. Place above ground utilities including, but not limited to, fire hydrants, junction boxes and street lights outside sidewalks. 28. Mailboxes and posts shall be installed per City standards. Secure approval of U.S. Postal Service prior to.installation. 29. Landscaping or Equestrian easements shall not be granted or recorded 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 1-7 %Wft- are granted after the date of tentative approval, a subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing of the final parcel map. 30. Provide letter(s) of slope easement(s) and drainage acceptance as directed by the City Engineer or Director of Public Works. 31. Obtain approval of the Director of Community Development and the City Attorney for proposed homeowners association maintenance agreements prior to recordation of the final map or a phase thereof. 32. If off-site street improvements are required, it shall be the sole responsibility of the developer to acquire the necessary right-of-way and/or easements. 33. Street slopes, horizontal and vertical curves and centerline radii should comply with design speeds and requirements per Engineering Department's "Requirements for Street Plans" and sight distances per the current AASHTO. 34. The minimum centerline radius is 350 feet on all local streets with 40 feet between curbs and on all streets where grades exceed 10X. 35. Design local streets to have minimum centerline curve radii which will provide centerline curves of 100 feet minimum length. Reversing curves need not exceed a radius of 1,500 feet and any curve need not exceed a radius of 3,000 feet. The length of curve outside of the BCR is used to satisfy the 100 foot minimum requirement. 36. Provide standard property line return radii of 13 feet at all local street intersections. 37. Construct drainage improvements and offer easements needed for street drainage or slopes. 38. Offer "Private And Future" right-of-way with an irrevocable 60 -dear offer of dedication to the City: 30' from centerline on Trailridge Road between Live Oak Springs and Thoroughbred Way. 30' from centerline on Live Oak Springs. 29' from centerline on Trailridge Road from Thoroughbred Way to the end of the cul-de-sac. 30' from centerline on Thoroughbred Way except at Lots 21 to 24. 29' from centerline on Thoroughbred Way at cul-de-sac at Lots 21 to 24. 29' from centerline on Steeple Chase Circle and Breeders Cup Circle. 30' from centerline on Winners Circle Drive from Thoroughbred Way to end of cul-de-sac (Tentative Map shows 29' from centerline). /_S 0 0 - 39. Make an irrevocable 60 -year offer of dedication for future right-of-way 30' from centerline on Winners Circle Drive from the end of the cul-de-sac to the easterly property line. 40. Driveways will not be permitted within 25 feet upstream of any catch basins when street grades exceed 6X. 41. Provide and install street name signs prior to occupancy of building(s). 42. Dedicate slope easements to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works along Winners Circle Drive to property line on the east. 43. Dedicate the right to restrict vehicular access on Live Oak Springs. 44. Construct inverted shoulder pavement 14 feet (land width) and 4 feet (shoulder width) on all streets. 45. Permission granted for the following street grades: a. Andalusian Way = 13Z b. Winners Circle = 11.5X (from Thoroughbred Way to tract boundary) c. Thoroughbred Way = 14Z (west of Steeplechase to Winners Circle). 46. Permission granted to vacate existing slope and sewer easements. Easements shall be provided for all utility companies that have facilities remaining within the vacated area. Water 47. There shall be filed with the City Engineer a statement from the water purveyor indicating that the water system will be operated by the purveyor and that under normal operating conditions, the system will meet the requirements for the land division, and that water service will be provided to each lot. 48. 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 by the City Engineer or Director of Public Works. Fire flows required are to be determined by the Fire Chief. Sewers 49. The subdivider shall install and dedicate main line sewers and facilities as required and serve each lot with a separate house lateral or have approved and bonded sewer plans on file with the Department of Public Works. 50. The subdivider shall submit an area study to determine whether capacity is available in the sewerage system to be used as the 0 E 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. 51. The subdivider shall send a print of the land division map to the County Sanitation District, with the request for annexation. Such annexation must be assured in writing. 52. Easements shall be granted to the City, 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. This includes the sewer lift station, floodway and drainage facilities. 53.' A deposit is required to review documents and plans for final map clearance in accordance with Section 21.36.010(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance. The discharge of sewage from this land division into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code. Existing main line sewer available to serve site. Grading. Drainage. and Geology 54. Contribute $500,000 towards construction and offer for dedication necessary right of way for construction of drainage improvements along Live Oaks Springs Canyon Wash. The right of way shall be limited to the portions of land located within the "A" portion of the "FIRM" maps. As agreed by the applicant, the $500,000 contribution may be used by the City for other Public Works projects in the vicinity of this tract map. These improvements, which are subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works, may include: a. West of Sand Canyon Road, construct reinforced concrete open._ channel. b. Along Sand Canyon Road to Boulder Canyon Road, construct reinforced concrete box. c. At Boulder Creek, construct a debris basin. d. From the debris basin to Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, construct a reinforced concrete channel. 55. A grading plan must be submitted and approved prior to approval of the final map. The grading plan is subject to approval of the Director of Community Development (for slope aesthetics) and the Director of Public Works. 56. Grading plan must be based on a detailed engineering Geotechnical report and must be specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer and show all recommendations submitted by them. It must also agree with the tentative map and conditions as approved by the Advisory Agency. All buttresses over 25 feet high must be accompanied by calculations. A detailed engineering Geotechnical report must be approved. ��/� 57. All geologic hazards associated with this proposed development must be eliminated. Or delineate a restricted use area approved by the consultant geologist to the satisfaction of the Geology and Soils Section.and dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within the restricted use areas. 58. Portions of the property lying in and adjacent to natural drainage courses are subject to flood hazard because of overflow, inundation, and debris flows. Portions of the property are subject to sheet overflow and ponding and high velocity scouring action. Drainage plans and necessary support documents to comply with the following requirements must be approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to filing of the final map. 59. A Drainage Benefit Assessment District shall be established, unless this is determined to be unnecessary by the City Engineer, and ratified prior to recordation of the final map to insure the continued maintenance of any backdrains and drainage improvements. The first year's maintenance costs shall be paid by the subdivider prior to approval of the final map. 60. Provide for the proper distribution of drainage. Show and label all natural drainage courses as flood hazard areas on lots where a note of flood hazard is allowed. No building permits will be issued for lots/parcels subject to flood hazard until the buildings are adequately protected. 61. Notify the State Department of Fish and Game prior to commencement of work within any natural drainage course. 62. Contact the Corps of Engineers to determine if a 404 permit is required for any proposed work within the major watercourse. 63. Offer an easement to the City of Santa Clarita over the portion of flood hazard area to be used for future flood control purposes. Submit calculations to determine the width and location of the easement as required by the City Engineer. 64. 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. 65. A hydrology study shall be submitted and approved prior to the filing of the final map. The hydrology shall verify, among other things, that the proposed streets and existing downstream streets are able to carry, edge of gutter to edge of gutter, the anticipated flow through the subdivision. 66. The tentative map show that proposed slopes will cross lot/parcel lines. For approval of grading plans, these slope or lot/parcel lines shall be adjusted so that lot/parcel lines are located at or near the top of the slopes, along drainage terraces, or at similar locations acceptable for establishment of slope maintenance responsibilities. /-1 67. Include the geologist's recommendations in the CC & R's regarding any restrictions or requirements for landscape planting and watering. 68. The property must be annexed into the City prior to approval of the final map. 69. Street construction and grading must comply with requirements of the oak tree report. 70. Permission granted to jog pavement within the right-of-way to avoid interference with oak trees, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 71. Construct a crossing.over the flood hazard area to the satisfaction of the Fire Department, the Department of Public Works and the Department of Parks and Recreation (for possible requirements for equestrian clearance beneath bridge). 72. Easements shall be granted to the City of Santa Clarita for equestrian trails to the satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Department and said easements shall be shown on the final map. 73. A system for the maintenance of the equestrian trails shall be established to the satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Department prior to recordation of the final map. 74. Prior to final approval, enter into a written agreement with the City of Santa Clarita whereby the subdivider agrees to pay to the. City a sum of $1000 (or a amount to be determined by the City Council), times the factor per development unit for the purpose of contributing to a proposed Bridge and Thoroughfare Benefit District to implement the highway element of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impacts of this and other subdivisions in the area. The form of security for performance of said agreement shall be as approved by the City. The agreement shall include the following provisions: Upon establishment of the District and the area of benefit, the fee shall be paid to a special Department of Public Works fund. In the event funds are required for work prior to formation of the District, the Director of Public Works may demand a sum of $1,000 (or greater as determined by the City Council), times the factor per development unit to be credited toward the final fee established under the District. The subdivider may construct improvements of equivalent value in lieu of paying fees established for the District subject to approval of the Director of Public Works. /-/Z i 0 The Director of Public Works may require the developer to submit a traffic report periodically that addresses traffic congestion and the need to mitigate the problems prior to issuing building permits. Factors for development units are as follows: Development Unit Factor Single Family per unit 1.0 Townhouse per unit 0.8 Apartment per unit 0.7 Commercial per unit 5.0 Industry per unit 3.0 The project is in the Route 126 Bridge and Thoroughfare District. TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT 75. Construct at least two 12 -foot lanes of pavement for access road from Live Oak Springs Road northerly to tract boundary. 76. Construct street improvements within project and adjacent to project along Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, north side within limits of project. 77. Develop a funding mechanism and contribute a proportionate share of the cost for construction of traffic signals and associated roadway improvements at Soledad Canyon Road and the southbound State Route 14 ramps. This is to be installed and operational within two years after the first occupancy. 78. Develop a funding mechanism and contribute a proportionate share of the cost for construction of Soledad Canyon Road to its ultimate width from Sand Canyon Road to the easterly existing City boundary in the vicinity of Oak Springs Canyon Road, including the appropriate transition. This is to be installed and operations.1 two years after the first occupancy. 79. Provide sufficient pavement on Sand Canyon Road at Live Oak Springs Canyon Road to allow the installation of a left turn lane (southbound to eastbound) with appropriate transition areas. This is to be installed and operational prior to occupancy. 80. Contribute "fair share" of fui nding for the modification of the traffic signal system to provide left turn phasing (east -west) at Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. This is to be installed and operational prior to occupancy. DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 81. Prior to recordation, all recreation facilities including the staging area are subject to the approval of the Director of the City of Santa Clarita Parks and Recreation Department. i 0 82. A special landscape maintenance assessment district shall be formed having the responsibility and authority of all slope maintenance, including but not limited to, landscaping, irrigation and street trees. 83. All public trails are to be constructed to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita Department of Parks and Recreation. FIRE DEPARTMENT 84. This property is located within the area described by the Forester and Fire Warden as Fire Zone 4 and future construction must comply with applicable Code requirements. 85. 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. 86. Provide Fire Department and City -approved street signs, and building address numbers, prior to occupancy. 87. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. 88. Streets shall be a minimum 15' wide clear on either side of entry guard gate. 89. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 1000 gallons per minute @ 20 psi for a duration of 2 hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. 90. Fire Hydrant requirements are as follows: Install 15 Public Fire Hydrants; and Upgrade 1 Public Fire Hydrant. 91. All hydrants shall measure 6"x4"x2k" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal. All hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25' from a structure or protected by a (2) two-hour fire wall. 92. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. 93. All hydrants shall be installed in conformance with Title 20, L.A. County Government Code or appropriate City regulations. This shall include minimum six-inch diameter mains. Arrangements to meet these requirements must be made with the water purveyor serving the area. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 94. Any grading or fill activities within this watercourse (including its associated vegetation) will require a permit from the Corps of Engineers. If the project impacts less than 10 acres of streambed, it may qualify for a Nationwide permit #26 rather than an individual permit that is posted on public notice. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 95. All sections of Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance 89-10 apply to this permit. 96. During all construction work on the site, a protective fencing is to be installed around the protected zone of all oak trees on the site. A four -foot high chain link fence is acceptable. 97. There is to be no storage of materials or parking of any vehicles under any of the oaks on or off site. 98." The applicant is to follow all mitigation measures and conditions set forth in the Oak Tree Permit prepared by Lee Newman and Associates dated November 6, 1989, and the mitigation letters prepared by Scott Pease dated December 8, 1989 and January 29, 1990. 99. All roadway section shifts are subject to the Department of Public Works approval. 100. The applicant is to remove 32 oak trees with a total economic value of $160,662 per ISA standards values. The applicant is required to submit a plan to replace the removed trees to the satisfaction of the Department of Community Development. 101. The applicant shall install organic material such as crushed walnut hulls to a depth of 3". This is to be shown on the required landscape plan. 102. Lots 20 thru 25 and 48 thru 52 have heavy compaction of the soil. The applicant shall hand dig vertical sumps 6 inches on center, 24 inches in depth throughout the protected zone of the trees on the affected lots. These should be filled with organic mulch and waterbed. 103. All work done within the protected zone of the oak trees is to be done using small handheld tools. 104. 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. 105. 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. 106. It is further declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof is violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has filed to do so for a period of 30 days. ,.107..__All_requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the specific zoning of subject property must be complied with unless set forth in the permit or shown on the approved plot plan.,. 108. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the tentative map. 109. Three copies of a landscape 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. 110. The applicant shall submit three copies of a fencing and gating plan to the Department of Community Development depicting the materials, location, color and design of the fencing and gates. 111. The applicant is to plant mature landscaping materials around the equestrian staging areas, sufficient to shield activity in this area from existing homes across Live Oak Springs Road. This is to be included in the required landscape plan. 112. The applicant shall provide a second means of emergency access as required by the City Code, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Proof of acquisition of the right to pave the access shall be provided prior to recordation, as well as a financial guarantee for the improvement. /—/ 0 . CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT 47324, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-007, PREZONE 89-003, AND OAR TREE PERMIT 89-046 DATE: February 6, 1990. TO: Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Mark Scott, Director of Community Development /"6 APPLICANT: Sand Canyon Estates LOCATION: 16000 Live Oak Springs Canyon Road REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to subdivide 137.23 acres of land into 70 single family lots and 2 private recreation lots. The applicant is also requesting to remove 34 oak trees. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Negative Declaration with the finding that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Approve Tentative Tract Map 47324, Conditional Use Permit 89-007 and Oak Tree Permit 89-046 based on the required findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval. Recommend approval to the City Council of a prezoning of A-1-1 and A-1-2. Adopt the attached resolution. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: -- This item was first brought before the Planning Commission on January 16, 1990. A public hearing was held and the Commission continued it to the following Saturday to allow a field visit of the site. During this meeting the Commission toured the applicant's property and adjoining sites. While on the site the Commission reviewed the proposed grading and hillside development. The Commission proceeded to visit the northern terminus of Bronco Drive to observe the proposed easterly extension of Winners Circle Drive. The last portion of the field visit was a stop on Sand Canyon Road to observe the location of a proposed debris basin and related street and storm drain improvements. After the site visit was completed, the public hearing was continued to February 6, 1990. 3-I • 0 During the field visit, the staff was directed by the Commission to obtain additional information on five issues. They included: oak tree removals, slope benching, ridgeline preservation, drainage improvements, and the building locations visible to Bronco Drive. Following is the staff's latest understandings on each issue: Oak Tree Removals The applicant has submitted a letter stating that a redesign can save two of the trees slated for removal. The total number of trees to be removed is reduced to 32. The applicant will present an exhibit to show which trees are being removed and which trees are being encroached upon. Attached is a letter dated January 29, 1990, from the applicant listing the reason for tree removals. Drainage Improvements Staff has been in contact with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), regarding the planned flood control improvements for the area. The LACFCD representatives were scheduled to meet on Friday, February 2, 1990 to discuss this issue. Since this report was to be posted on this day, staff will present any materials at the Public Hearing. The applicant has supplied a blue line print of the proposed debris basin. Staff has also received the attached letter from Mr. Hal Good opposing the debris basin and also the use of the access easement to the project site, which the applicant has proposed for a secondary access. Slope Benching/Ridgeline Preservation Slope benching and ridgeline preservation exhibits will be presented on the night of the public hearing as they were not submitted in time for this report. Building Visibility to Bronco Drive An issue was raised that residences of Bronco Drive would be able to view the proposed residences. The applicant indicates that at least two of the pad locations will be visible from Bronco Drive. From staff's perspective, visibility is not the issue as much as proper grading for the pads. The applicant should address this on February 6. During the site visit the applicant attempted to use an existing easement for secondary emergency access. Since the meeting, the adjoining landowner questioned the legality of this access. A letter is enclosed from Mr. Hal Good, the landowner, stating his point of view. The applicant submitted the underlying Parcel Map depicting this access. It is also enclosed. The applicant submitted a letter, which is attached, indicating that the need for a second access is unnecessary. The applicant feels that Live Oak Springs Canyon Road is 37 feet wide which includes the rolled curb _ and asphalt shoulder. Staff feels that the measurement is the 30 foot 3-� wide driveable surface only which does not include the curb or shoulder. Therefore the single means of access to Sand Canyon Road is less than 36 feet, and thereby the limit of 75 homes must be reduced by 25 percent if no second access is provided. The adjacent property owner ("UCLA") has submitted sketches of a true -to -scale view of Winners Circle Drive, as it would look if it were extended as a public street or emergency access. Staff has attached the original Conditions Of Approval and would ask that the Planning Commission make any changes they see fit. The changes could include creating a private community, changing the second means of access, and any of the items listed above. Secondary Access Issues The issue of secondary access continues to be troublesome. Staff's original position, as you will recall, was that Winner's Circle Drive should be put through to the "UCLA" property and that it should be dedicated as a public, non -gated road. Staff also felt that Bronco Drive should ultimately be connected so that multiple access points are created and so that traffic is dispersed as widely as possible. During the field visit, and following representations as to the severity of the roadway cut from the Hunter's Green site, there were concerns expressed that the connection would not be worth the negative impact to the hillside. Staff will concede that the limited number of units involved in the Hunter's Green project tends to minimize the need for the Winner's Circle connection as long as an alternate connection is designated. The Commission should, however, be aware of several arguments that will be presented by interested parties at the February 6 hearing: 1. Representatives of the "UCLA" site, owned by Mr. Batta Vujicic, have prepared renderings which they argue to be more realistic in showing the Winner's Circle cut from the Hunter's Green site. If accurate, they show a very different view of what was seen in the public hearing and in the field. This may or may not alter the Commission's perception of need for this connection. 2. As indicated above, Mr. Hal Good is disputing Mr. Fargeon's legal right to use the easement on his property. This is primarily a problem for Mr. Good and Mr. Fargeon to resolve. 3. Mr. Fargeon is arguing, by the attached letter dated January 31, 1990, that he does not require a second access because, by his calculation, Live Oak Springs Canyon Road is 37 feet wide if the rolled curb and shoulder are included. Staff counts only the driving surface in the calculation, and thereby considers it to be only 30 feet wide. 3-3 ii 0 Other Issues 10 Staff would also ask that the Commission add the following project conditions: 1. Applicant will obtain design approval from the Community Development Department for the fencing and gating around the project. 2. Applicant will fully screen the equestrian loading/staging area from neighboring properties by use of mature landscaping, subject to approval by the Community Development Department. Recommendations Staff believes that the project is substantially acceptable and that terms of approval should be possible on February 6. The following determinations need to be made: 1. Is the revised oak tree removal program acceptable? 2. Does the Commission wish to satisfy the secondary access requirement_ by: a. Connection of Winner's Circle Drive to the "UCLA" property as a public access road (per staff recommendation); or b. Accepting the applicant's alternate plan to use the easement access across Mr. Good's property; or c. Some alternate design? 3. Will the Commission accept Mr. Fargeon's offer of $500,000 for flood control/drainage improvements as satisfaction of his obligation (conditioned to allow use of the funds in this geographical area as ultimately determined by the City)? 4. Is the Commission satisfied with the benching/ridgeline preservation _ plans? Assuming that the above issues can be resolved, staff recommends project approval. MS/ff • CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN.L NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT APPLICATION: Tentative Tract Map 47324 Conditional Use Permit 89-007 Oak Tree Permit 89-046 Prezone 89-03 PROJECT PROPONENT: Sand Canyon Estates, Ltd. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 70 single family lots, 2 park lots on 137.23 acres. PROJECT LOCATION: 16000 Live Oak Springs Canyon Road ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 2840-13-13,14,15; 2840-14-22; 2840-16-21,22. 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: January 16, 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 beginning at 4:00 p.m. on December 26, 1989 at: City 'call 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. Fred Follstad , Project Planner. Ken Pulskamp Acting Director of Community Development --------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: Santa Clarita City Hall Sheriff's Department Santa Clarita Post Office ii Published: The Newhall Signal on: December 26, 1989 Rev. 12/8/89 i 0 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N CERTIFICATION DATE: APPLICANT: Sand Canyon Estates TYPE OF PERMIT: Tract Map 47324. Annexation 89-03, Conditional Use Permit 89-007, Oak Tree Permit 89-046 LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: 16000 Live Oaks Springs Road DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: 70 Single family residences and 2 park sites on +137 acres. [ ] City Council It is the determination of the [ ] Planning Commission [X] Director of Community Development upon review that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. Mitigation .measures [X] are attached [ ] are not attached Form completed by: (Signature) Fred Follstad Assistant Pianner (Name and Title) Date of Public Notice: December 26, 1989 [X] Legal advertisement. [X] Posting of properties. [X] Wriczen FOtiC:e. ��� -0171.1- . _ .- . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CASE NO. Tentative Tract 47324 Prepared by: . Fred Follstad Project Location: 16000 Live Oak Springs Road Project Description and Setting: 70 single family residential lots and 2 park lots on +137 acres. The site ranges from flat to hillside with over 200 Oak trees. General Plan Designation _N-1, HM Zoning: A-1-1 and A-1-2 Applicant: Sand Canyon Estates, Ltd. Environmental Constraint Areas: Oak trees, hillsides, Fire Zone 4, blue line stream A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS %"71 YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Gill the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? .................. [ J [X] [ ] b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? .............. {1 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 [X] [ ] g. Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ................................. [ ] [X] [ J h. Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? ........................... [ ] [X] [ ] %"71 0 0 - 2 - `7" J YES MAYBE NO i. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? ....................... LX]... L.J... [ ] j. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 252 natural grade? ............ [X] [ ] [ ] k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? .. _._......... .._ .. [ ]. [_]_.. [X] 1. Other? [ .] [ ] [ ] 2. Air. _Tdill_ the. proposal -.result in: .-_a. Substantial air .emissions or_dete_riorat.ion of ambient air quality? .................... [X] [ ] [ ] b. The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [ J [ J [XJ C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? .............. [ ] [ ] [X] d. Deveiopment within a high wind hazard area? ...................................... [ ] [ ] [XI e. Other? L ) [ ] [ ; 3. Vater. 'dill the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ............................ b. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? .............................. i ] .'] L ] C. Change in the amount of surface water ~ 1n any water body? .......................... L ! !•l] d. Discharae into Surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ ] [ ] [X] e. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of =round waters? ..................... [ ] �._ 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] Substantial reduction in the amount of nater otherwise available for public cater supplies"? ............................ [ ] L ] LXI `7" J - 3 - YES MAYBE NO h. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? .......... [ J [ ] [X] i. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ] 4. Plant Life. Vill the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grasses,._,_crops, and.microflora)? ... [X] [ ] [ ] b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? ...... [X] [ ] [ ] C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal re- plenishment of existing species? ........... ]X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ...................................... [X] [ J i ] 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)? .................... b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals': ..... ( ] ( ] [A] C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ...... d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat and/or migratory routes? ........... ( ] [ ] (X] 6. Noise. Vill the proposal result in: a. increases in existing noise levels? ........ [X] [ ] [ ] b. Exposure of people to severe or unacceptable noise levels? ................. [ ] [ ] [X] C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [ j [ ] (ri] 7. Light and Glare. Gill the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? ................. [ ] IN [ ] S. Land Use. 'Till the proposal result in: a. Substantial alteration of the present land use of an area? ....................... 0. A substantial alteration of ':he planned land use of an areal ............... - 4 - YES :MAYBE NO C. A use that does not adhere to existing zoning laws? ............................... [ ) [ ) [X) d. A use that._does,.not_adhere to established_.,,,_ development criteria? ...................... [ ) [ ] [X] 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ................................. [ ) [ ) [X) b.= Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources? ......................... [ ] [ ] [XJ 10. Risk of Upset/Man-Made Hazards. Will the proposal: a. Involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? .......................... b. Use, store, transport or dispose or hazard- ous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ................................ ) C. Possible interference with an emergent-; response plan or an emergency evacuation ........................................ _ ] _. ne-wise excose neonle to potent. -1 seer :azards'?................................... l ] [X) 11. Population. =gill the proposai: a. Alter:lie location. distribution, densit,T, orro:7th _ate of the human population of an area? ..................... [ ] [ ] [XJ 12. Housing. ':ill the proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing sousing, or create a demand for addizionai .ousing? ........................ b. Other? ( ] [ ] [ ] 13. `:ransDortation/Circulation.?ill the nroposai - result in: a. :generation of substantial additional :-ehicuiar movement'' ........................ • 0 - 5 - YES MAYBE 'NO b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ................. [ 1 [ J [X] C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? ............................ j J [X] [ J d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? .............................. [ 1 [ 1 [X1 e., Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [ ] [XJ [ ] f. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? .............................. [ 1 [ 1 [X1 14. Public Services. [dill the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: - a. Fire protection? ........................... [ J 1X] [ ) b. Police protection? ......................... ( 1 1 C C. Schools? ................................... d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .... . e.- Z!alntenance Of puDiiC iacliitieS, _nclndinQ roads? ........................... _. Other governmental services? ............... 15. Energy. hill the proposal result in? a. �,se o- substantiai amounts of fuel or energy. .................................... 1 [ IX] b. substantial i, -crease in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require O= new sources of anergy? ) [ 1 [{] 16. Utilities. gill .. e orocosai resuiL in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the foi_cving L:,.-_ities: a _ oxer _ ..at.�ai gas? .... ) [ ) "X] b. Communications systems! .................... j [ J ({J aLdr SjStcmSY ............................. d. anitary Sewer systems? .................... i ) [ ) `L.�"1 �. storm drainage systemsY .................... ( - b - 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? ......... [ 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? ................................... [ l [ ] [X] 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? ................... [ ] [:{J [ ] b. Uill the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ....................... [ ] [:{] C. Will the visual impact of the proposal be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... 19. Recreation. Uill the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ..................... 10. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or Id'- archaeological site? .............. f ] FX] [ J D. pili t o or000sal result in adverse phvsicai or aesthet_C effects to a. orehistoric or historic bulldirg, structure, or object? [ ] [X] [ ] C. oes the proposal :ave the potential to Cause a physical c ange which would aL_ect unicue etnnic cultural values? ............. ] ;X] d. 'Jill the proposal restrict existing religious or sacrea uses within the potential impact area? ..................... [ 1 [;;] 0 - 7 - Discussion of Impacts. is Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact (Source) la -j. The applicant is proposing a significant amount of grading (700,000 cubic yards), development of slopes over 25Z, and other geological concerns may arise (City of Santa Clarita Public Works Department). 2a. Emissions from vehicles during construction (City of Santa Clarita Community Development). 3a,b,e.° Possible alteration of blue line stream, removal of natural hillsides and introduction of impervious materials (USGS Topographic map and the City of Santa Clarita Community Development and Public Works). 4a, d. The site contains 225 native oaks and the applicant is requesting to remove 34 and large number of native Chaparral species. Approximately 20 sheep currently graze on a portion of this property. (City of Santa Clarita Community Development). - 5a. Reduction of natural habitat for existing wild life (City of Santa Clarita Community Development). oa. An increase in sound during construction (City of Santa Clarita Community Development). 7. The lights naturally associated with resi:entisl : 0 L� B. DISCUSSION OF `GAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED la, i. The majority of grading for the proposed project is required for road iWprovements and for the preservation of Oak trees. The applicant has made an effort to leave the 50z slopes in a natural state. Additional geologic concerns were addressed to Public corks satisfaction by the applicants submitted geologic study. 2a. This condition is associated with construction and will be short term. 3a, b, e. Introduction of slope plantings with native drought resistant plants will stablize the hills and assist in erosion control. Hydrology study will address surface runoff and drainage patterns. Applicant is requesting to leave stream in natural state and restrict construction near it. 4a, b, d. The applicant will replant trees per Oak Tree Consultant's request. The installation of irrigation systems will be restricted within the driplines of all Oaks on the site. The loss of agricultural land is not preventable. 5a. A large portion of the land will be left in a natural state. 6a. This conditicn is associated with the construction .'-ase and is, therefore, short term. 7. The addition of residential liehting is naturally associated with a project of this scope and of limited sianificance. Ba. The current site consists of one residence ana several =-rm buildings. The rest of the site is vacant. The land use to the south and .rest, is sincie family residences. 12a. The development will require the removal of one house but will construct 70 new homes. �3c,e. The applicant will be required to modify the intersection of Live Oak Springs Road and Sand Canyon Hoads. In addition, ,.he applicant will contribute a fair snare payment for signalization aicng Sand Canvor. Road. ,a, c. ::nplic_._ _s reauired to follow all conditions of Fire Zone 4 construction and brush clearance. The applicant will be required to ray the affected school districts an appropriate mitigation fee. _"s _maact is r-inimal as host siopes will be untouched and the density is quite low. The applicant will also be creating park ^ace and equestrian trails. 20. The site is not on the State of California List of Historic _�ndmar':s. The:applicant will be required to stop fork if any =haeoiohical : cecirzens are round. • 0 - 9 - 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? ................. [ l [ ] [X] 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively - brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ........... ( J ( (X] 3. Does the project have impacts which are individuaiiv 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 ..pacts on the environment is significant.) 4. Does the project have environmental effects 'nick will cause suDstant'_a1 adverse errects cn human beings, either directly or indirectly? D. DETERMINATION On the basis of :.his Initiai Study, it is determined t az: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE 'ECLARATIO?d WILL PREP?.RED..................................... Although t -e proposed proiect COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there STILL ,OT 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 .ILL _E P?..PARED..................................... (X] The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envircnment, _^na an ENVIRONMENTAL 1:IP.CT °SPORT isrecuired.......................................... ( J 6 ,/ 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA December 19, 1989 Date - 10 - Signature Fred Follstad, Assistant Planner Name and Title 650 • RESOLUTION NO. P90-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 47324; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-007; OAK TREE PERMIT 89-046; AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PREZONE NO. 89-003 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and determine as follows: a. An application for a tentative tract map, conditional use permit, oak tree permit and prezone were filed simultaneously with the City of Santa Clarita, May 8, 1989, by Sand Canyon Estates Ltd. ("the applicant"). The property for which these entitlements have been filed is an 137.23 -acre parcel located at 16000 Live Oak Springs Road. The purpose of the tentative tract map application submittal is to create 70 lots within the subject site for family residential units and 2 private recreation lots. The purpose of the prezone is to request the A-1-1 and A-1-2 zone prior to annexation to the City. Assessor Parcel Nos. 2840-13-13,-14,-15; 2840-14-22; and 2840-16-21,-22. b. The'City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee (DRC) met on September 14, 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 January 16, 1990, and a decision was made on February 20, 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 on its behalf, the Commission further finds and determines as follows: a. The City of Santa Clarita is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of a general plan. There is a reasonable probability that this project, will be consistent with the general plan proposal currently being considered or studied, that there is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed resolution is ultimately inconsistent with that plan, and that the proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. b. The division and development of the property in the manner set forth on the subject parcel map will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete.exercise of any public entity and/or public utility right-of-way and/or easements within the parcel map. C. Approval of this tentative tract map will expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval. d. The applicant has submitted a tentative tract map which depicts the area proposed for the 72 lots within the subject site. e. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems, since sewage disposal, storm drainage, fire protection, and geological and soils factors are addressed in the recommended conditions of approval. The discharge of sewage from the subdivision into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code. f. The subject property is of a size and shape which lends itself to the proposed use. g. The recommended subdivision will not result in a significant environmental effect. h. implementation. -.of this proposal will cause no adverse effects in the environment which cannot be adequately mitigated through the application of_available controls. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable injury to fish or wild life or their habitat, since the project site is not located in a significant ecological area. i. The proposed parcel sizes are consistent with surrounding parcel_ sizes. j. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision given the size and shape of the lots and their intended use. k. The proposed subdivision does not contain or front upon any public waterway, river, stream, coastline, shoreline, lake or reservoir. 1. The housing needs of the region were considered and balanced against the public service needs of local residents. m. . Neither the design of the subdivision nor the type of improvements will conflict with public easements for access through the use of property within the proposed subdivision, 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 Planning Commission 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 14X. p. The applicant has requested a reduction in the lot area in accordance with Section 21.24.260 of the municipal code. Accordingly, the Planning Commission 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 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 the design of adjacent facing and siding lots of abutting development; 4. That all lots which are not reduced in area shall comply with Subsection A of Section 21.24.240. .- SECTION 3. In making the recommendation contained in this resolution, the Planning Commission 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-1-1 and A-1-2 zone classification; and d. That placement of the proposed zone at the subject property will be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare, and in conformity with good zoning practice. /-3 V",- INST. N0. , 2, 6.,-90, d' � Lr)I N I N i'1 r I.fS'►f9L� IN, .cc .60 AO si � p, (n N N SB'4£9Z nn a a i•1 n \� 'ON U� 04- n V �� n IMPto tiO�n � N N.p V1 N�N Oo �� �_ ON u c6 W nnLn / SNI Nb N �V I W W �O M 0ez9 'oN 'W'd ------1---� I i n o W ID Or ' ca '1 W_ ,9LYS9Ul — — — tr ! r'] y .v, 3 , .UU t. O .tZ,90.00 N a s co N O V W N m I d � � W m ✓ 1 W z 37 C5 `a� W v� 2'� N co p O' 3 n (V CV Z � Ong u ( O OCD O �N2nl F �N N w0�� ,�N n ,D N \ �N a to V 7\ 1 00 (.ss'clfl] tte -9S ,zo .oD s; \� < o n \\ u O — 1119 CL t — �. _1 N� .ZO,f0.00 S o ,Q o —. — o — — .ze•9s9 t Z8'999 ,c9'clCl N u w L 19699 -►B �- n I (3 .9S ,20 .00 N' 'Ott '15NI n � - . ,n 3 WI c��l 9B60b91-BB 3 n a �� i'1I 40 !� 'ON '1SNI a u rin w CO R��h to 3 u = o f �l n: W Z W ' ` 'ON SSNI B, = <�= W U ' to g Ln 4 12 i I W V O J cc CI p b N W' LLJ 'oma, m N n < = m 00 �i�, I N CO r- �;� Q wLL I J \ • m �— S 00'D3'0T F ea OT OB' 32' v:> 2G,9.6H'> N 13;7.23'IN rol % It: 00' 03' 44, w( �^ J• }T: Off 03' u' wi 12L,9.69'� o,� (n j�47 jr, 217 -R r - n•n ,n V� N D 3'43" W 261%:_SS nt �; N Nr.n Nn jLm N e in so Q \ CNOf . n 9NI.sIX3 (n0o o mc1 m W `� 2 •O •� rC"�•a'. t+ J' F Z "' 3 3 0. V ZI • ni i d� N lS / y . Y In N r o d C14�, f',psf��. � - d P: 'r°, :n rlj W O. �' m � n a�-. ^ (D m �O Z� N N (n n,a� • •pE6 rrLf Cil ..I .N� b00"'v O n / (3 r6 !SFf r�2 w Z rni rJ 00'03'02` w I'D r JZ • ^ ^ • to-, Q 649.62' /.0 3 � fV N v N ca < N... p W W W t0 ,0'1 'M ,6S .0 I N ^ W p O ^ `M in d . <`* sd 38 '0r1 Ota " , r Tg 2J N • .00'0 tZ • N _ Cn m e) of u`ni : n N3dO .2 dJ o N . yr Z � N \ FbS p� �''t/ ¢ �- co Q . ((.es'uf1)) Z Q c rS �^ `3 .6Z,9L.00 N 4 b ��< a m O <r m 00'00Z 3 m Z9'llll o� °O v in a • < b 3 \� o 3 _6Z,S 1.00 N tr -- .,Q:� *� • < �' ((3 .9c 1l .00 N)) ry N ' m W m ((3 .ef .L l .00 N)) Z tD H .r W v n Oryi " Z 'p, `* N Quin O ;`. to m cr C) N QI J Ua 1 m Y1 N� !rC 740 , cc,) �m N to Z L) C6 'pro I _co oyer _.Z o,Lm bb'£li l ti N N Z ,t•b'£tLt ' 6B- % 3 .Lf,0t.00 W low v � VICINITY MAP � CASE No. TTM 47324 E UC.ED O DeUN.IER L 1 A.,D a�S 'PROJECT SITE �'d---------- - J 4COOwo- WOW �e W" Comm - IK YAIILT RAN RD ORA on m Nu ..• .ANGELES ...._fAMA ` A T uo�_ ,� raw Tr — 'LANGstmt NEtICRK 3 u (.(!ANrftO itt\,� ' 1 BAR RO �� •cArE ` �% vpwm as'""` ^'<PMU1, ,yARAµ,iN RD i fe "Wowss uK' 4 �► a �, i G z CON 40 E UC.ED O DeUN.IER L 1 A.,D a�S 'PROJECT SITE 4COOwo- - IK YAIILT RAN RD .ANGELES 1 BAR RO �% ^'<PMU1, ,yARAµ,iN RD fA`��LRIM fe y ' G z CON 40 SULTUS I ST i a I i MANOALAY RD i CAC LNC JSP 1� r�r �PDRr � CANYON R OP RAVENGLENRO :. yA RI,yV..t c GGG Gam` Q �j fOCKFU • NNEVIEMI GATE RO 0.VT �VAJ Conditional Use Permit Application Page 3 of 4 RECORD OWNER(S) Mary Dapas, Trustee Name (Please Print) 17429 San Fernando ^4ission Blvd. Address (818) 363 - Granada Hills 4969 City Zio Code Phone Morton -Stanley, Ltd. Name (Please Print) 18988 Soledad Canyon Road Address Santa Clarita 91351 (805)251-9990 City Zip Ccde Phone Clement Cox, Paula Cox Name (Please Print) 16093 Live Oak Springs Address- (805) 252 - Santa Clarita 91351 2409 City Zip Code Phone Edith S. Palmer Name (Please Print) 16087 Live Oak Springs Address (805) 252 - Santa Clarita 91351 2409 City Zip Code Phone PROPERTY AUTHORIZATION: THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THEY ARE THE OWNER(S) of the property described 'herein and hereby give authori- zation for the filing of this application. Further, I/W E DO BY ,•]Y/OUR SIGNATURE(S) ON THIS AGREEMENT, absolve the City of Santa Clarita of all liabilities regarding any deed restrictions that may be applicable to theproperty described herein. (Signature of all property owners needed. OWNER IN ESCRCtq IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Use extra sheets if p -ceded.) Clement Cox S', Print Name J 52.jgn�atu c Date Paula Cox _ �/ .�,L�✓f /� — — Print Name SIcnature Date Stan Fargeon Print Name Signature Date Mary Dapas Print Name Signature Date Edith Palmer Signature Date -. CERTIFICATION: I. hereby certify that the information conta-ined in this .application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Sioned Date r (,applicant or Applicant's Agent 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. If there are any other business or joint venture parties, property owners, or individuals which have a financial intorest in this action not otherwise covered as a partnership or corporation, then their names shall be printed below. Sand Canyon Estates, Ltd., PARTNER QIP NAME CORPORATION NAME A California Limited Partnership Presioent Stan Fargeon, Gen. Ptner Vice Fresident Morton Forshpan, Gen. Ptner Secretary Other FRCFERT! CWNER(S)OXNER Morton -Stanley, Ltd., A California Limited Partnershin Clem and Paula Cox Edith Palmer Mary Dapas I HERESY CERTIFY THAT TEE FCREGOINC INFO BEST OF MY KNOWLECGE AND BELIEF. Case File No. IONVJIS ACCURATE AND COPPLETE TO THE Sier+ature / � St Far eon, General Partner Frinte Name f Ap licant, or Agent for Applicant May 1989 Date ATTACHMENTS Please see the April 24, 1990 City Council Agenda Packet for: Tentative Tract Map No. 47324