The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-08-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - ZC 90-001 GREEN MTN ORD 90-23 (2)PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: DEPARTMENT: BACKGROUND AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented August 14, 1990 Zone Change 90-001 at the Westerly terminus of Green Mountain Drive - Zone Change Ordinance No. 90-23 Showcase Homes Community Development The applicant is requesting a zone change on the subject property from A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural) to RPD -9000-2U for a Residential Planned Development. The applicant has received Planning Commission approval to develop the site into 161 residential lots, five open space lots, and one public park lot. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for this proposal on July 3, 1990 and has determined the change of zone to be appropriate and consistent with the surrounding uses subject to conditions. Vesting Tentative Tract Map (48893) and Oak Tree Permit 90-007, and Conditional Use Permit (90-003) for this project were approved by the Planning Commission under Resolution P90-25. That Resolution also recommends City Council approval of Zone Change 90-001 subject to conditions (see Exhibit B). The project consists of 82.2 acres of land located north of the Antelope Valley freeway, south of Sierra Highway, and west of Green Mountain Drive. This project is part of the five developers proposing to construct Golden Valley Road from Sierra Highway to the Antelope Valley Freeway. This project also contains a park site which has been approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission on July 16, 1990. RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the attached Negative Declaration with the finding that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. Approve Zone Change 90-001 based on the required findings. 3. Introduce the attached ordinance, waive further reading, and pass to the second reading. ATTACHMENTS Zone Change Ordinance 90-23 Staff Reports I, - Negative Declaration /t /V Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REQUESTING APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 90-001 FROM A-2-1, HEAVY AGRICULTURAL TO RPD -9000-2U, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE, NORTH OF THE ANTELOPE VALLEY FREEWAY, SOUTH OF SIERRA HIGHWAY, 82.2 ACRE PARCEL PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita to consider approval of Zone Change 90-001, from A-2-1, Heavy Agricultural to RPD -9000-2U, Residential Planned Development at the western terminus of Green Mountain Drive, North of the Antelope Valley Freeway, South of Sierra Highway. This zone change would allow the development of Vesting Tentative Tract 48893, which consists of 161 single family homes, 5 open space lots, and one public park site on 82.2 acres. The hearing will be heard by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers. 23920 Valencia Blvd., lst Floor, the 14th day of August, 1990, at or after 6:30 p.m. Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's Office, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita, Ca. Dated: July 23, 1990 Donna M. Grindey City Clerk Publish date: July 30, 1990 3 11�e PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE 1. Mayor Opens Hearing a. States Purpose of Hearing Z. City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice 3. Staff Report (City Manager) or (City Attorney) or (RP Staff) 4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes) 5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes) 6. Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent) a. Proponent 7. Mayor Closes Public Testimony 8. Discussion by Council 9. Council Decision 10. Mayor Announces Decision 0 ORDINANCE NO. 90-23 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP (Zone Change Case No. 90-001) 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 zone change was filed with the City of Santa Clarita.Department of Community Development on:by Palmdale 160 ("the applicant"). The purpose of the zone change application is to facilitate the establishment of 161 single family lots, five open space lots, and one park site at the westerly terminus of Green Mountain Drive, and further described in the attached Legal Description and shown on the attached map (Exhibit "A"), which was approved by the Planning Commission (Ordinance P90-25). b. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the application on June 19, 1990, and July 3, 1990, at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa. Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P90-25 recommending approval to the City Council of the requested zone change. c. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the rezoning application on August 14, 1990 at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. SECTION Z. 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 a 82.2 acre parcel located at the southerly terminus of Green Mountain Drive. b. The request is for a change of zone from A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural) to RPD -9000-2U (Residential Planned Development) for 161 single lots, five open space lots, and one park site on the site. c. 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. d. The subject property is located in a residential area and is a planned development area. e. The City is proceeding in a timely manner with the preparation of a general plan. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the future general plan. f. The recommended change of zone from A-2-1 to RPD -9000-2U will not result in a significant environmental effect. g. The project has received a Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.). SECTION 3. In acting on the rezoning 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 Residential Planned Development Zone classification; d. That the 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; e. That rezoning the subject property will not result in a need for greater water supply for adequate fire protection; and, f. 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. SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council does hereby ordain that the application for a zone change is approved, and that the official zoning map of the City of Santa Clarita is hereby amended so that the subject property is rezoned from A-2-1 to RPD -9000-2U. is SECTION 5. The City of Santa Clarita City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Initial Study, which was considered by the Planning Commission, and determines that it is in compliance with CEQA and the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. A mitigated negative declaration was prepared for this project. Based upon the findings stated above, the City Council hereby approves the mitigated negative declaration. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner prescribed by law. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 1990. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK i STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA) I, , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90-23 was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of 1990.. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 0 CITY CLERK 0 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 44893 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Montezuma Placer Mining Claim described as the West half of the northwest quarter, the west half of Lot 1 and the west half of Lot 4 of Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 15 West, San Bernardino Meridian, according to the Official Plat of said land on file in the District land Office. 1. 2842-2-39 Eleanor Hersh & Robert Felt 22851 N. Highway 1 Fort Bragg, CA. 95437 3. 2842-4-23 Reynold &.Bernice 0 Meara 421 E. Belle Terr. Bakersfield, CA. 93307 5. 2842-4-27 Alfred & Joanne Cruchley 4456 Birchwood Ave. Seal Beach, CA. 90740 2842-2-40 Same as Ownership No. 1 2842-4-24 Same as Ownership No. 3 6. 2842-4-28 Harry Rothschild 10201 Bianca Ave. Northridge, CA. 91325 2. 2842-2-41 Lester Hope Et Al P.O. Box 4777 Chatsworth, CA. 91313 4. 2842-4-25 Donald & Luvena Haytron 235 Poppy Ave. Corona Del Mar, CA. 92625 7. 2842-4-29 Santa Clarita Water Co. P.O. Box 8 Saugus, CA. 91350 8. 2842-4-70 10. 2842-21-14 11. 2842-21-15 L.A. City Dept. of W & P Gerald & Dawn Mc Cartin Robert & Grace Norris P.O. Box 111 Term Annex 19569 Green Mountain Dr. 19635 Green Mountain Dr. Los Angeles, CA. 90051 Newhall, CA. 91321 Newhall, CA. 91321 12. 2842-21-16 13. 2842-21-17 14. 2842-21-18 Michael & Barbara Leary William Casaus & Daniel Conte Otto & Norma Lindemann 19641 Green Mountain Dr. 19649 Green Mountain Dr. 19655 Green Mountain Dr. Newhall, CA. 91321 Newhall, CA. 91321 Newhall, CA. 91321 15. 2842-21-19 Ian & Kirstein Campbell 19661 Green Mountain Dr. Newhall,CA. 91321 18. 2842-21-22 Thomas & Vivian Carrick 19707 Mountain.Rd. Newhall, CA. 91321 21. 2842-22-11 Dolores Taylor 16748 Armstead St. Newhall, CA. 91321 24. 2842-22-14 Milton & Lore Statezny 19660 Green Mountain Dr. Newhall, CA. 91321 16. 2842-21-20 William & Mary Fessler 19667 Green Mountain Dr. Newhall, CA. 91321 19. 2842-22-9 Michael & Sydney Moran 19653 Crystal Spring Ct. Newhall, CA. 91321 17. 2842-21-21 Robert Rinehardt 19701 Green Mountain Dr Newhall, CA. 91321 20. 2842-21-10 Allen & Gail Glasenapp 19659 Crystal Springs Ct. Newhall, CA. 91321 22. 2842-22-12 23. 2842-22-13 James & Myra Aubery Burton & Barbara Dulman 19671 Crystal Springs Ct. 3940 Handcock St., #104 Newhall, CA. 91321 San Diego, CA. 92110 25. 2842-15-15 26. 2842-22-16 Rita Hopper & Ronald Fordham Gary & Carol Trenda 19654 Green Mountain Dr. 29051 Flower Park Dr. Newhall, CA. 91321 Canyon Country, CA. 91351 27. 2842-22-17 Gerald Mathers 23925 Via Ara nda Valencia, CA. 91335 28. 2842-22-18 Paul & Teresa Seltzer 19634 Green Mountain Dr. Newhall, CA. 91321 31. 2842-23-14 Michael & Christie Van deusen 19645 Coldstream Way Newhall, CA. 91321 34. 2842-23-17 John & Pamela Grisaffi 19676 Crystal Springs Newhall, CA. 91321 29. 2842-23-12 John & Judith Gibson 19633 Coldstream Way Newhall, CA. 91321 32. 2842-23-15 Richard & Joann Legg 19651 Coldstream Way Newhall, CA. 91321 35. 2842-23-18 Steven & Helene Camara Ct. 19668 Crystal Springs Ct. Newhall, CA. 91321 37. 2842-23-20 C A & Byron Manley 19654 Crystal Springs Ct. Newhall, CA. 91321 40. 284224-2 Michael & Margaret Weedon 25536 Mountain Pass Rd. Newhall, CA. 91321 38. 2842-23-21 Robert Harris 19648 Crystal Springs Ct. Newhall, CA. 91321 41. 2842-24-3 Gary Kipka 25542 Mountain Pass Rd. Newhall, CA. 91321 P 30. 2842-23-13 Ernest & Valerie Bouthiller 19639 Coldstream Way Newhall, CA. 91321 33. 2842-23-16 Audre & Grant Rothhammer 26819 Ave of the Oaks, #B Newhall, CA. 91321 36. 2842-23-19 Retha White 19660 Crystal Springs Rd. Newhall, CA. 91321 39. 2842-24-1 David & Sharon Henderson 25528 Mountain Pass Rd. Newhall, CA. 91321 42. 2842-24-4 Irene Scholten 25546 Mountain Pass Rd. Newhall, CA. 91321 43. 2842-24-5 44. 2842-24-6 45. 2842-24-7 John & Janet Weidner Michael & Gail Burke Dallas Sr. & Barbara Gibson 19646 Coldstream Way 19640 Coldstream Way 19634 Coldstream Way Newhall, CA. 91321 Newhall, CA. 91321 Canyon Country, CA. 91351 46. 2842-24-8 47. 2842-25-1 48. 2842-25-2 Gilbert & Emma Clinker Susan Tredway Charles & Sandra 0 Connor 19630 Coldstream Way 25721 Mountain Pass Rd. 25715 Mountain Pass Rd. Newhall, CA. 91321 Newhall, CA. 91321 Newhall, CA. 91321 49. 2842-25-3 50. 2842-25-4 51. 2842-25-5 Lydia Howell Catherine Annand Soo Kim 3940 Handcock St., #104 25701 Mountain Pass Rd. 25631 Mountain Pass Rd. San Diego, CA. 92110 Newhall, CA. 91321 Newhall, CA. 91321 52. 2842-25-6 53. 2842-25-7 54. 2842-25-8 Rajul Gokarn David & Jeanette Stankewicz James & Florence Buttitta 758 McGill Pl. 25619 Mountain Pass Rd. 3940 Handcock St., #104 Atlanta, GA 30312 Newhall, CA. 91321 San Diego, CA. 92110 55. 2842-25-9 Mikel Avery & G. Robinson 25605 Mountain pass Rd. Newhall, CA. 91321 58. 2842-25-12 Josef & Hildegard Forg 3940 Handcock St., #104 San Diego, CA. 92110 61. 2842-25-15 Rolando & A. Lorenzana 25529 Mountain Pass Rd. Newhall, CA. 91321 2842-3-23 Same as Ownership No. 62 2842-3-26 Same as Ownership No. 64 2842-3-270 Same as Ownership No. 8 2842-3-273 Same as Ownership No. 8 2842-3-276,277,278,279,280 Same as Ownership No. 8 66. 2842-33-2 T J Gatson Properties Ltd. 10880 -Wilshire Blvd., #903 Los Angeles, CA. 90024 56. 2842-25-10 Joel & Kathy Thompson 25561 Mountain Pass Rd. Newhall, CA. 91321 59. 2842-25-13 Robert &.Carol Hartzog 25539 Mountain Pass Rd. Newhall, CA. 91321 57. 2842-25-11 donald & Joan Pieczarka 25555 Mountain Pass Rd. Newhall, CA. 91321 60. 2842-25-14 Ralph Bauman 25533 Mountain Pass Rd. Newhall, CA. 91321 62. 2842-3-19 63. 2842-3-21 Herman & Beverly Rassp Trs. Frank Thompson Goodman Partnership I P.O. Box 74 P.O.. Box 6548 Liberty, IL 92347 Burbank, CA. 91510 64. 2842-3-24 2842-3-25 Renaud & Sue Veluzat P.O. Box 597 Same as Ownership No. 62 Newhall, CA. 91321 2842-3-29 2842-3-38 Same as Ownership No. 62 Same as Ownership No. 62 2842-3-271 2842-3-272 Same as Ownership No. 8 Same as Ownership No. 8 2842-3-274 2842-3-275 Same as Ownership No. 8 Same as Ownership No. 8 65. 2842-3-902 2842-3-90319042905,906 L.A. County S By S 550 S. Vermont Ave. Same as Ownership No. 65 Los Angeles, CA. 90020 67. 2842-33-3 2842-33-415,6,9110 Floyd Deatherage 2563 Neptune P1. Same as -Ownership No. 62 Port Hueneme, CA. 93041 0 2842-33-11 Same as Ownership NO. 64 70. 2842-33-16 W E & Clara Rider 25800 Sierra Way Newhall, CA. 91321 72. 2842-33-20 Lydia Sparks c/o Raymond Stotts Route 3 Boone, Iowa 50036 2833-30-270,2711273,274 Same as Ownership No. 8 76. - 2836-20-43 Renaud & Sue Veluzat P.O. Box 597 Newhall, CA. 91321 2836-20-53,55,57,59 Same as Ownership No. 76 2836-20-60 Same as Ownership No. 62 81. 2836-29-33 Lester Hope Et Al 6400 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, CA. 90028 83. CalTrans 120 S. Spring St., #420 Los Angeles, CA. 90012 68. 2842-33-14 Jerome Cain & Marie Hughes 45 Alto Dr. Oa View, CA. 93022 71. 2842-33-17 Mahlon Arnett 949 S. San Rafael Ave. Pasadena, CA. 91105 73. 2842-33-21 Leon Fink 805 S. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004 74. 2836-20,41 Leonard Canfield 23259 Mariano St. Woodland Hills, CA. 91367 77. 2836-20-44 Elaine Booker Et Al P.O. Box 4402 c/o Gary Booker Inglewood, CA. 90309 79. 2836-20-54 Stan & Frances Davis 24421 Encorvado Lane Mission Viejo, CA. 92675 2836-20-61265,662 Same as Ownership No. 76 Same as Ownership No. 82 JSA 24013 Ventura Blvd. Calabasas, CA. 91302 Attn: Bob Martinez 69. 2842-33-15 Dana Poulsen P.O. Box 1 Santa Rosa, CA. 95402 2842-33-18,19 Same as Ownership No. 62 2842-33-270,271,2721273,274 2752276,277,278, . Same as Ownership No. 8 75. 2836-20-42 Maria Lopez 29644 Silver St. Val Verde, CA. 91350 78. 2836-20-47 Manuel Sapon 19145 Friar St. Reseda, CA. 91335 80. 2836-20-56 Oscar Muro P.O. Box 5242 Mission Hills, CA. 91345 2842-20-270,272,273,275,276 282,283,287,291,292,293 Same as Ownership No. 8 82. 2848-9-20 Disney Walt Productions,Inc. 500 S. Buena Vista St. Burnbank, CA. 91521 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 48893 ZONE CHANGE 90-001 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-003 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 90-007 DATE: July 3, 1990. TO: Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: PROJECT PLANNER: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Fred Follstid, Assistant Planner Development iJ l � APPLICANT: Showcase Homes LOCATION: West of the terminus of Green Mountain Drive, and north of the Antelope Valley Freeway (14). REQUEST: The applicant is .requesting to subdivide 82.2 acres of land into 163 single family lots, 5 open space lots and 1 lot for a Public Park. The applicant is also requesting to remove 8 native oak trees and a Zone Change on the site to RPD -9,000-2U. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: This item was previously before the Planning Commission on June 19, 1990. At that time the Public Hearing was continued to the July 3, 1990 meeting to allow the . applicant time to address some of the Commission's concerns. The comments and concerns are summarized below with additional information provided by the applicant and staff comment: 1. The Commission had concerns with the proposed paseo walkway as it relates to the existing and proposed residences. Applicant Response: The applicant has.eliminated Lot No. 76 to allow a direct connection of the walkway from terminus of Green Mountain Drive to "B" Court. The applicant is agreeable to also provide the paseo behind Lots 77 through 84 to connect directly to the park, or to remove it and provide homeowner maintained open space with fencing at both ends to prevent pedestrian access in this area. Staff Comments: The Commission may wish to condition the project leaving the final access points up to the Parks and Recreation Commission. 2. The applicant should address the parking issues created by the park. Applicant Response: The applicant is still working with the Parks and Recreation Department on the design of the amenities to be providedin the park, including the parking arrangements. The latest revision removes lots 85 and 86 and provides a flat buildable area of.9500 square feet. Staff Comments: Staff has met with the Parks and Recreation Department and reviewed the Parks and Recreation Commission's responsibilities with regard to the new park. We understand it is the Parks and Recreation Commission's responsibility for. park design. It is up to interpretation which Commission determines parking requirements for a park facility. Staff recommends the parking design and location be left to the parks and Recreation Commission. prior to final map recordation. In the event of any changes in access or size of the park occur, the Directors could resubmit the design to both commissions. During the above discussion, the Parks and Recreation Director. noted the recreation building site is not yet identified on the. map pending the geologic investigation. The map represents the worst case geologic condition. So as to ensure no unbuildable lots are created, staff. feels it is appropriate to identify the buildable area as Lot 85 and .Lot 86 in the conditions for purposes of the recreation building, including meeting rooms and storage and rest rooms of approximately 3,000 square feet unless further geologic information is accepted by a City geologist after grading but prior to final map recordation to show the building could be constructed elsewhere on the designated park area, acceptable to Parks and Recreation Department. 3. The applicant should address the transition of Green Mountain Drive into the paseo, and the installation of a possible cul-de-sac at this location. Applicant Response: The applicant will make a presentation the night of the hearing showing conceptual renderings of an "overlook" and pictures of the site as it currently exists. The overlook idea does not include a cul-de-sac. Staff Comments: Staff finds either approach acceptable. The temporary barricade currently existing would be upgraded per previous homeowner requests. 4. The applicant was asked to prepare an exhibit showing where building pads are to be placed on slopes of 40 percent and above. The applicant was to seek any alternatives to cresting the ridge for road purposes. Applicant Response: The map showing which residences are being built on the 40 percent slope will be presented at the public hearing. In addition, the applicant has redesigned the project to the north of the water storage tanks. In. this area, "F" Street has been cul-de-saced in the area of Lots 87 and 105. By doing this, the applicant intends to place fan -lots to regain the loss of four lots entailed in the revisions. All flag lots have been removed on the revised map. Staff Comments: The commission's attention is directed to the June 19, 1990 staff report detailing the amount of this site in Hillside Management and the resulting potential' range of densities. The proposed number of units fall in the high end of the range. The application includes a zone change request to increase the number of potential units under the ' Hillside Management designation. Development of the site under existing zoning would result in less than 80 units. 5. The applicant was asked to identify which lots are in the "eyebrow" and to determine if a redesign of these lots would reduce the visual impact from the Antelope Valley Freeway. Applicant Response: On the southwesterly portion of the map, the applicant has revised the street pattern to reduce the number of homes visible from the freeway, from 1S to 14. On the revised Tract Map, "H" Court is longer and "J" Court is shorter to retain some of.the natural topography. Knolls will remain in place to screen the view towards Lots 148 and 150,. as the Flag Lot No. 149 has been removed. At the rear of Lot 153, another knoll will remain to screen the view towards Lots 153 and 154. Another knoll to the west of Lot 146 will also remain. Staff Comments: These are welcome changes to the map. However, the connection of "J" Court to Mountain Pass Road still results inpotentially adverse visual impacts from the freeway and other high elevation points areawide. Staff cannot identify any other -roadway that currently exists in the City that crests a ridgeline in. the manner proposed. The commission should discuss whether there are overriding considerations to allow a roadway in this manner. Potential considerations would include the existence of power lines and water tanks in the immediate area. Staff suggests this discussion take place in the context of the density comments in No. 4 above. We note the applicant has reduced the number of visible units. At what point should units be visible from the top of.the hill? Lot slope could be used as a criteria to set this standard. Staff recommends no roadway be permitted to "crest" (i.e. go up and over) the ridge of the hill. 6. The Commission expressed concern about the boundary wall on the perimeter of the proposed lots. Applicant Response: The applicant will present an exhibit which should deomonstrate that the perimeter wall will not be visible from property outside of the tract's boundary. This wall will be designed to retain dirt along rear property lines, and the top of the wall will match the exterior grade. The wall will be topped with a three-foot wrought iron fence, which is all that will be visible from outside of the tract. .On the other hand, a person looking towards the tract's boundaries from the interior of the project will see a fence -wall combination six feet in height. Staff Comments: Staff feels that with appropriate landscaping this is acceptable. RECOMMENDATION: Review the additional materials, allow any additional testimony, close the public hearing and deliberate on this project. 1-3 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 48893 ZONE CHANGE 90-001 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-003 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 90-007 DATE: June 19, 1990. TO: Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development PROJECT PLANNER: Fred Follstad, Assistant Planner APPLICANT: Showcase Homes LOCATION: West of the terminus of Green Mountain Drive, and north of the Antelope Valley Freeway (14). REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to subdivide 82.2 acres of land into 163 single family lots, 5 open space lots and 1 lot for a Public Park. The applicant is also requesting to remove 8 native oak trees and a Zone Change on the site.to RPD -9,000-2U. 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 48893, Conditional Use Permit 90-003 and Oak Tree Permit 90-007 based on the required findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval. Recommend approval to the City Council of Zone Change 89-04, changing the existing zoning from A-2-1 to RPD -9,000-2U. Adopt the attached resolution. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The site consists of two lots. on 82.2 acres of land located south of the terminus of Green Mountain Drive, and east of the Antelope Valley Freeway. The parcel is currently zoned A-2-1, heavy agriculture with a one acre minimum lot size. The site is not located in either the Alquist-Priolo special study zone for earthquake faults though the site does contain a fault zone. The site is not located in a Significant Ecological Area.. No archaeological sites have been found on the property. �r7 VICINITY MAP VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 48893 ZONE CHANGE 90-001 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-003 OAR TREE PERMIT 90-007 •' .v L. :kaoYs A6"� I' srr�,'N: YI onc.[Nxcx n.. � c d yi a ,M� w ,p r `".a. s �' R � _•i.�e ek ee i' MrQi ``I" .�N.• u i 'Z@ �.,g yet e � s; , 4 r e N t ...9_. seed' - °;aue•I 1" � �r.y"f {'... - ..moi i \ .nNNx _ �` .• C y F�. ✓ 1J��`Fm Zb ,{4�� (s \ � 8„�y�.'uIY + 1 /lY.^.`.•y' ; ( n �. r i �20 ,_ I r •sy i � , 31 � � 32 5! r�`i �R`$4n'°4iy X10 N.w 'Yo ncN b JP �' vR "✓ ^ wm `- I siM � SITE An a .:A l i ''"'vo° lt1 3�`mdrs muar R�.;'j e _ sem• P '—T._... a�rfw x.l .o-- .. ,sw lum H \ f.,�s a LZ S.Re f1! F h �F 1•�pa r iu I A 'srA� 5 r _ i e \l�..xir. _,;f�t�',r,.°�.,r�•� c0(1yo� Yof raQ. a- � '��,eo� I ' P ..°d,yroi., i i.8�d ^• I r t �' _i" ! I _`_.I 'i r„.e� `� •� r 1 • rc� � � �µ�: G!h.9Q•-` ur s�si - _�_ - - - - -j 71 ' i p, -- - --- -:-- - - ti .- ? Sc_._ E MIE IfJ, j� O�' srrss '3T'4 TF ��'r ;'"� — `Z .rnt ' 18 17 �lr�•A-� r_ I; ?�¢ is ..� Via:: _..-�s it Y Q C F,... TIAL INTEREST DIMLOS RE 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 interest in this action not otherwise covered as a partnership or corporation, then their names shall be printed belcw. PALfAyALe IaO: A t,AUr-MAA PARUER-SHIP NAME aevA,AAL, (k:Hef 5►i WJ A t, riJra : al'o- U L (ill�M.1R A ;AL1r• .:oRfot�w. _ U t7W A. FSUEi� w ttA1 //lkrubrl A" IWONICVAt -; = ........... c..Gr:.l. Yi�i=�*iLRY Gt.JEIAPr.C,iJ`, p1c.� o�yluMib HvWCA69 HOM I , A c;AuF. C0"U1-+71Da CORPORATION NAME WIWA0 J. t.�.R-UEtat; Q President . i,M L.] 4AMi i-n%M'Lt (j Vice President Secretary Other W For4F1164 ~6' G z rrk..tuewr nfjATr Wteal-Atil Ace.' F40. A.•%'r I HERESY CERTIFY THAT THE FCREGOItiG INFORMATION IS A(:CLRAIE AND COMPLETE TO THE FEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND EELIEF. Case File No. Signature i retnj.' -W ! oen. t. PAm-". l Printa9_"Name of Applicant, or Anent for Applicantj 05 Date PROOF OF PUBLICATION (20155 C.C.P) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above -entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the NEWHALL SIQAL a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published D3ILY in the City of VAt.PN T; County of Los Angeles, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, under the date of AUG. 7 , lq 45 Case Number 504ac9 ; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: all in the year 19 90 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at VALENCIA California, this 2-9 day ofMpY- 19 90 Signature I" mP- of tW blank torneny be r md(n= California Newspaper Service Bureau, Inc. Advertising Clearing House P.O. Box 8022 El Monte, 91734-2322 (818) 288-C\S3 ?lean lequnt CL-ERAL?,v of Nbiow. when order:n& tU torn This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of CITY OF SANTA CLARrl DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT` • �A public hearing on this matter and assn, ciated potential environmental impacts, if any; ; .t win be conducted by the City of Santa Clarity Planning Commission on: ' - * :DATE: June 19, 1990.: TIME: 6J0 pm. - LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor, Santa- Clarice, CA 91355. - - PROJECT LOCATION: At th a western farm l-'.' ' nus of Green Mountain Drive, north of State Highway 14. - \ - ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 2842-004-023, 'y 024. APPLICATION: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 48893, Conditional Use Permit 90-003, Oak'' Tree Permit 90006 and Zone Change 90-001. ' - PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A subdwision to allow 163 single family lots on 922 acres and one park site lot ' PROJECT PROPONENT: Show'case�,,- Homes. A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed project and Is . available for public review beginning at 4:00. p.m. on May 29, 1990 at Valencia Library, 23743 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 & City Hag, Department of Community. Development, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Ste. .: 300, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in courtyou may be limited to raising A only arose issues you orsomeoneelse raised at r the public hearing described in this notice, or im written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita a4 or prior lo, the public hearing. For further information regarding this prop. - osal. you may contact the City of Santa Clerics, " Department of Community Development, 23920 Valencia Blvd.. TNM Floor, Santa Clar. - its, CA 91355; Telephone: (805) 255.4330, Fred Follstad, Project Planner. Lynn M. Harris •'' Director of Community Development Richard Henderson '•.Principal Planner. :1-1" "4'�e:`*• rr ,. Publish In Newhall Signal and Saugus Entao-,.;;;�5 prise May 27. 1990. I -C26 J2., ! j7'1lj June 14, 1990 Thomas and Vivian Carrick 19707 Green Mountain Drive Newhall, CA. 91321 Lynn M. Harris Director of Community Development 2=920 Valencia Boulevard, Ste. 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Reg Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46893, Conditional Use Permi.L• 90- 003,, Oak Tree Permit: 90-006 and Zone Change 90-001 Dear- Lynn Harris;, This letter is being written to express our concerns with the proposed tract located at the western terminus of Green Mountain Drive, north of State Highway 14, the project proponent being Showcase Homes/American Beauty Homes. We have had personal experience with the unstable earth in this area. Our first home in this tract was sitting on a landslide which also caused the destruction of a number of other Houses. Our present home which is at the end of Green Mountain Drive and right next to the proposed tract has had considerable subsidence, although it has been stable for a number of years we are concerned about what will happen when they begin bulldozing the 2.5 million cubic yards of dirt which the negative declaration states they plan to do. Will the vibration and shifting of the soil have a negative impact on our property? Has the technology improved in the past 20 years so that the future homeowners who purchase these proposed houses will not suffer the heartaches that so many families suffered in the Princess Home tract, not only from the .landslides but from the expansive soil which continues to affect many of the homes? Thank you for allowing us to express our concerns. Sincere y, --"' Tom and Vivian Carrico:: /-.77 Princess Parr Home Owner's Association P.O. Box 413, Newhall, CA 91322 City of Santa Clarita Regional Planning Commission 23920 Valencia.Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Commissioners: Dr. Donald R. Gaskin, President J,, 6�199D CITCCM7y'^, cl i l' DE'✓FLC7MEN7 $.:n. r'.SRnp On May 9, 1990 our Association met with SHOWCASE HOMES relative to their plans to construct approximately 163 single family hones adjacent to our'development. A copy of the meeting announcement is enclosed for your perusal. We are informed the price range of these hones is $350,000 to $550,000 and the formal hearing date regarding this project is on June 19. Our Association is pleased with the project and feel it will add to our community. The sole concern we have is the routing of traffic off of Green Moun- tain and/or Mountain Pass. We have learned that either or both of these are destined to be punched -through for entry -into and out -of the SHOWCASE project. Naturally, we desire no cut -through however, if one is imminent we desire it be Mountain Pass. The south end of our tract consists solely of cul-de-sacs and resi- dents moved into these areas to preclude a large traffic flow pattern and are reluctant to see it change. We have enjoyed the serenity for twenty years and desire it continue. We encourage -you to consider alternate entry and exit routes off Golden Valley Road and Sierra Highway if at all possible. As always we will respect your final decision and understand it will be made after much consideration and deliberation. If I may be of further service, council or advice feel free to con- tact me at your leisure. I_appreciate your interest in community association concerns. lent c: City of Santa Clarita Public Works Parks and Recreation Showcase Homes File , 7 INfAncess Park Home Owner's Association April 18, 1990 Fellow Homeowner: Jury Q E.199Q COAAdUNIiYC C1ryCF SAN ,'LopMANT SHOWCASE HOMES has contacted our Association relative to their plans to construct a one -hundred and sixty-three home development directly south of Mountain Pass between Highway 14 and Sierra Highway. The presentation will be held on Wednesdays May 91 1990 from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. in the multi-purpose room (Room 3) at Valley View Elementary School. Please join us and provide input into our rapidly changing community. SHOWCASE HOMES is desireous of enhancing our existing neighborhood through their project. Your opinions and concerns do count however, only if you are present to convey them. We look forward to seeing you on the 9th. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS /7�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: Showcase Homes TYPE OF PERMIT: VTTM 48893, Zone Change 90-001, CUP 90-003 and Oak Tree Permit 90-007. FILE NO.: LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: South of the present terminus of Green Mountain Drive, east of the Antelope Valley Freeway (14). DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The applicant is to subdivide +/- 82.2 acres of land into 162 residential lots and to remove 13 Oak Trees. [ ] City Council It is the determination of the [X] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Community Development upon review that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. Mitigation measures [X] are attached Form completed by: [ ] are not attached (Signature) Fred Follstad. Assistant Planner (Name and Title) Date of Public Notice: May 29. 1990 [X] Legal advertisement. [X] Posting of properties. [X] Written notice. �� ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA VTTM 48893 CASE NO. Zone Chanpe 90-001 Prepared by: Fred Follstad OTP 90-007 and CUP 90-003 Project Location: South of the present terminus of Green Mountain Drive east of the Antelope Valley Freeway. Project Description and Setting: The applicant is proposing to subdivide, +82 acres into 162 single family residences and to remove 13 oak trees. The site is currently vacant hillside. General Plan Designation Hillside Management. U-2 (3.4 to 6.6 units/acre) Zoning: Existing is A-2-1 proposed RPD -9.000-2U Applicant: Showcase Homes Environmental Constraint Areas: Special study Zone. Oaks, Scenic Highway A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? .................. [X] ( ] [ ] b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? ............... [X] [ ] ( ] C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ........................... [X] [ ] [ ] d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? .................................. [X] e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? [ ] [X] [ ] f. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ................................... [XI [ l [ l g. Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ................................. [ l [Xl [ ] h. Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? ........................... [ l [Xl [ ] /-,3/ - 2 - C. Change.in the amount of surface water in any water body? ......................... [ ] [XI [ l d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ ] [ ] [XI e. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ..................... [ ] [XI [ ] f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ............ [ ] [X] [ ]. g. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ............................ [ l [ ] [X] 312 YES MAYBE NO i. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or morel ....................... [X] [ ] [ ] j. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 25% natural grade? ............ [X] [ ] [ ] k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X] 1. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ] 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? .................... [X] [ ] ( ] b. The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [X] C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or.regionally? .............. [ ] [ ] [X] d. Development within a high wind hazard area? ...................................... [ ] [ I (XI e. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ] 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ............................ (X] [ I [ ] b. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? .............................. [ l [ l [X] C. Change.in the amount of surface water in any water body? ......................... [ ] [XI [ l d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ ] [ ] [XI e. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ..................... [ ] [XI [ ] f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ............ [ ] [X] [ ]. g. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ............................ [ l [ ] [X] 312 - 3 - d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat and/or migratory routes? [ ] [X] [ ] 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [X] [ ] [ ] 7. 8. b. Exposure of people to severe or unacceptable noise levels? [ ] C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [X] Light and Glare. Will the proposalproduce substantial new light or glare? ................. [X] Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial alteration of the present land use of an area? ....................... [X] b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of an area? ............... [ ] I -33 YES MAYBE NO h. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? .......... [ ] [ ] [X] i. Other? [ ] [ ] [ j 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ... [X] [ ] [ ] b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? ...... [X] [ ] [ ] C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal re- plenishment of existing species? ........... [X] [ ] [ ] d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ...................................... [ ] [ ] [X] 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and insects or microfauna)? .................... [X] [ ] [ ] b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ] [X] [ ] C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ...... [X] [ J [ ] d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat and/or migratory routes? [ ] [X] [ ] 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [X] [ ] [ ] 7. 8. b. Exposure of people to severe or unacceptable noise levels? [ ] C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [X] Light and Glare. Will the proposalproduce substantial new light or glare? ................. [X] Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial alteration of the present land use of an area? ....................... [X] b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of an area? ............... [ ] I -33 - 4 - 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of .the human population of an area? ..................... [X] [ ] [ ] b. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ] 12. Housing. Will the proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? ........................ [ ] [ ] [X] b. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ] 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ........................ [X] [ ] [ ] 1-3q 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? ......................... [X] [ ] [ ] 10: Risk of Upset/Man-Made Hazards. Will the proposal: a. Involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? .......................... [X] [ ] [ ] b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard- ous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ................................ [X] [ ] [ ] C. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ...................................... [ ] [ ] [X] d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety hazards? ................................... [X] [ ] [ ] 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of .the human population of an area? ..................... [X] [ ] [ ] b. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ] 12. Housing. Will the proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? ........................ [ ] [ ] [X] b. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ] 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ........................ [X] [ ] [ ] 1-3q - 5 - YES MAYBE NO b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ................. [ ] [ I [X] C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? ............................ [ ] [X] [ ] d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? .............................. I ] I I [XI e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [XI [ I I ] f. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? .............................. [ I [XI I I 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? ........................... [X] b. Police protection? ......................... [ ] [Xj [ ] C. Schools? ................................... [X] [ I [ ] d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .... [X] [ ] [ ] e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ........................... [ ] IXI I I f. Other governmental services? ............... [ ] [ I [X] 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in? a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy . .................................... [X] I I [ I b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? [ J [ ] [X] 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ...................... [ ] [ I [XI b. Communications systems? .................... [ ] [ I [X] C. Water systems? ............................. [ ] (X] [ ] d. Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [X] [ I [ ] e. Storm drainage systems? .................... [X] [ ] ( ] YES MAYBE NO f. Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [ ] [X] [ ] g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of delivery system improvements for any of the above? ......... [ ] [ ] [X] 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? ... [ ] [X] [ ] b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ................................... [ ] [X] [ ] 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? ................... [X] [ ] [ ] b. Will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ....................... [ ] [X] [ ] C. Will the visual impact of the proposal be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ ] [X] [ ] 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X] 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? .............. [ ] [X] [ ] b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? ... [ ] [X] [ ] C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ] [ ] [X] d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X] /-34 M! Discussion of Impacts. Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact (source) is. The site contains collapsible soils, landslides and fault zones (Public Works). lb. There will be displacement, compaction, overcovering and disruptions of the soil associated with the development (Public Works). lc. There will be grading cuts up to 70 feet deep and 100 feet of fill to prepare the site for development. (applicant's Initial Study). ld. There are landslides and the San Gabriel fault located on the site (Public Works). le. The removal of natural vegitation and change of topography will increase erosion (Community Development). if. The site contains a fault zone and landslides (Public Works). lg. The site contains drainage areas that drains on to adjacent properties (Public Works). lh. The same as above. li. The applicant is proposing to move 2.5 million cubic yards of earth (submitted application). 1j. The applicant is developing a large amount of land with slope over 25%.(applicant's Slope Analysis). lk. The site is not located on the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Maps (Community Development). 2a. There will be an increase in emissions during the construction phase. Additionaly, there will be an increase in emissions with the development of 162 homes creating 1,620 vehicle trips per day. The site is adjacent to the Antelope Valley Freeway (14) (Community Development). 2b. During the construction phase, diesel engine fumes may be present (Community Development). 2c. This project is not to a scale or type that could affect the climate (Community Development). 2d. The area is not in a known wind hazard area (Community Development). 3a. The project will alter the absorption rate and drainage patterns by the introduction of impervious surfaces (Public Works). 1-37 Discussion of Impacts. Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact 3b. None identified in the hydrology report (applicant's Hydrology Report). 3c., The project ultimately drains into the Santa Clara River (USGS Topographic Maps). 3d. The project is not the type or size to alter water quality (Public Works). 3e. There is no known alteration of ground waters to occur (Applicant's Hydrology Report). 3f. There is no known aquifers that will be altered at this time (Applicant's Hydrology Study). 3g. There will be minimal water usage associated with this residential development (Community Development). 3h. There are no known hazards related -to this project (Public Works). 4a. Approximately 70Z of the site will be graded removing all natural vegetation (Community Development). 4b. The applicant is proposing to remove 13 of the native oak trees on the site (applicant's Oak Tree Report). 4c. There will be the introduction of non-native plants associated with residential development (Community Development). 4d. The.site is not under agricultural uses (site visit). 5a. The development of the site will reduce the available natural habitat forcing them to the property to the south (Community Development). 5b. The unarmored three -spine stickleback fish is known to habitat in the Santa Clara River which is within three miles of the site (Community Development maps). 5c. There will be the introduction of domesticated animals not known to exist on the site currently (site visit). 5d. The Santa Clara River is located within three miles of the site (Community Development Maps). 6a. There will be two types of noise increases. One level is associated with the construction activity and the other is associated with residential development (Community Development). Discussion of Impacts. Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact 6b. There is an existing freeway to the east of the site, though the existing levels are exceptable (Community Development Maps). 6c. The development during construction could result in vibrations depending on.equipment used (Community Development). 7 There will be an increase of light which is naturally associated with residential development (Community Development). 8a. The site is currently vacant natural land (site visit). 8b. The City of Santa Clarita has not adopted a General Plan, but in the preliminary drawings, the could be consistent with the General Plan (Community Development Maps). 8c. The site is currently zoned A-2-1 which is one acre minimum lot size. The application is reqesting a change of zone to RPD -9,000-2U. (Tentative Map, Santa Clarita Maps). 8d. The development is subject to all provisions of the Zoning Subdivision Codes (Title 21 & 22 of the City Code). 9a. The project will use natural resources associated with residential. development (Community Development). 9b. The project will use non-renewable resources associated with residential development (Community Development). 10a. The site is adjacent to a state freeway on which hazardous materials may be carried (Community Development). 10b. There will be hazardous materials such as paint, oil, etc. used with the proposed single family residences (Community Development). loc. The site with its proposed.roads will help in decreasing this impact (Community Development). 10d. To the south of the project there are several high voltage transmission lines and oil wells (Community Development). lla. All areas around the proposed development are primarily residential (site visit). 12a. There are no existing residences on the.site (site visit). 13a. The project will result in 1,620 vehicle trips per day (Public Works). 13b. All parking for the project will be handled on site (site map). /-39 - 10 - Discussion of Impacts. Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact 13c. The project will not a substancial affect the transportation systems (Applicant's Traffic Study). 13d. The project will help to create a new circulation pattern thereby reducing any existing impact (applicant's Traffic Study). 13e. The project with proposed improvements is designed to be safe if proper vehicle laws are obeyed thogh the site contains some 14Z slopes (Community Development). 13f. The same as 13 d 14a. The nearest fire station is located 3 -miles from the site. The site is located within Fire Zone 4 (Community Development Maps, L.A. County Fire Dept.). 14b. No alteration of police services is anticipated though responce times may increase as the population increases (L.A. County Sheriff's Dept.) 14c. All schools in the Santa Clarita Valley are overcrowded. There is a long commute time for the elementary students (William S. Hart. and Newhall School District). 14d. The applicant is proposing an 8.2 acre public park land in the faultzone (site plan, Parks and Recreation). 14e. There will be interior roads which are built to City standards (Community Development). 14f. No effects on additional services are known (Community Development). 15a. The fuel and energy used will be, those associated with residential construction and occupancy (Community Development). 15b. The site will not contribute to a substantial increase in demand for energy (Community Development). 16a. Both utilities have submitted letters stating that they can serve the project (So. Cal. Gas Co., So. Cal. Edison). 16b. The site can be serviced by this utility (Pacific Bell). 16c. The site is currently not served by the water company (Santa Clarita Water). 16d. The site is currently not serviced by a sanitation district (L.A. County Sanitation District). Discussion of Impacts. Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact 16e. The onsite drainage improvements are required (Public Works). 16f. There will not be a need for additional solid waste, systems though recycling programs should be adopted (Community Development). 16g. No inefficient delivery system is anticipated (Community Development). 17a. The creation of a health hazard is not anticipated as this is a residential development (Community Development). 17b. No health hazards are known but the site contains oil wells and high voltage lines. 18a,b. The site is adjacent to a scenic highway (Community Development Maps). 18c. The area is in an area with existing residences (site visit). 19. The project will be increasing the recreational opportunities by installing equestrian trails (Parks and Recreation). 20a. No known archaeological finds are on the site, though there are some in the area (ESRI). 20b,c,d No known cultural sites or activities are known . - 12 - B. DISCUSSION OF RAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED la,d,f The applicant shall follow all conditions addressed in the submitted Soils/Geology Report. lb,c,i,j The majority of the required grading is to accommodate the Golden Valley Road and the park site. The applicant shall also use contour grading whenever possible. le,g,h The applicant shall take all precautions to reduce this per City Codes. 2a,b, This impact is only short term, therefore, a minimal impact. 3b,c,e,9 The applicant shall follow all conditions -of the Public Works Department and the Drainage Concept/Hydrology Report. 4a,b,c The applicant shall replace the oaks according to I.S.A. StandardsandValues. The applicant shall try to leave as much land natural as possible and follow the City's Oak Tree Ordinance .and the applicants Oak Tree Report. 5a,b,c,d This impact is unavoidable with any development on the site. 6a,c This impact is only short term, therefore, a minimal impact. 6b The applicant shall follow all conditions of the submitted noise study which includes the construction of sound walls. 7,8a,b,c This impact is unavoidable with any development of the site. 9a,b The construction will include evergy saving devices per the Building Codes. 10a,b The applicant shall use and dispose of the materials as required by law. ila This impact is unavoidable for any residential development. 13a,c,e,f The applicant shall install all road improvements required in the conditions of approval and those identified in the applicants's Traffic Study. 14a,b,c,d,e The applicant shall provide an agreement with the school districts. The applicant shall follow all required provisions of Fire Zone 4 and create some form of funding for the landscape maintaince. 15a This impact is unavoidable with any development. 16c,d,e The applicant shall bear the costs of the required annexations to, improvements and upgrades to the systems. 17a,b The applicant shall seal all wells per state rquirements. The transmission line and freeway impacts are minimual. 18a,b The applicant is to have a landscaped buffer between the development and the freeway. 20a The standard stop -work condition will be applied to this project. /- Sl3 C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act states, in part, that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. YES MAYBE NO 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ................. [ ] [ ] [X] 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ........... [ j [ ] [X] 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) .. [ ] [ ] [X] 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? .......... [ ] [ ] [X] D. On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED . .................................... [ ] Although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in this Initial Study have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED ..................................... [X] The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. .......................................... [ l T , - 14 - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT _.CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA May 29, 1990 Date Signature Fred Follstad, Assistant Planner Name and Title 725" -p'R MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Monday July 16, 1990 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Weste at 7:02 p.m. at Council Chambers, City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. FLAG SALUTE The flag salute was led by Commissioner Storli. ROLL CALL All Commissioners were in attendance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Lyons and seconded by Commissioner Longshore that the minutes for June 18, 1990, be approved. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner Lyons.and seconded by Commissioner Storli that the agenda be approved as written. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A letter was received by Director Kolin from Jan Tavares, a Saugus High School Swim Coach, dated 6/22/90, commending the City on its .excellent swimming staff. She stated that this was Saugus High's most successful swim season, and felt that the Parks and Recreation Department's swim staff was partly responsible for that. NEW BUSINESS ITEM it INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES Superintendent Sorensen introduced the new Parks personnel who were present at the meeting: Ron Fierro, Park Supervisor; Ed LeGris, Building Maintenance Worker II, Carpentry; Emilio Blanco, Groundskeeper II, field maintenance; Chris Davis, Groundskeeper I; Kim Bottles, Groundskeeper I; and Silva Blackstone, Park Intern. Manuel Flores, Groundskeeper I, was not present. Page 1 of 4. ITEM #2 PROPOSED EIGHT -ACRE PARK SITE ITEM 13 FOURTH OF JULY PENNY CARNIVAL ITEM 14 TRAIL STANDARDS Superintendent Sorensen introduced Wayne Weber, Park Planner, who gave details of an eight -acre park site being proposed by Showcase Homes. This park will accompany the building of 571 homes in total, and will be fully completed by the developers, including Showcase Homes. Rae L. Price, of Peridian Landscape Architecture and Planning, 17848 Sky Park, Irvine, CA 92714, added details on the proposed park. It was stated that the landscaping and irrigation of slopes would be included as part of a homeowners association responsibility for maintenance. A building which contains both a recreation room and a restroom will also be included. It was moved by Commissioner Wheeler and seconded by Commissioner Longshore to approve the proposed park site as presented, with the paseo route and street connection included in the overlook design. There was no opposition to the motion. Recreation Coordinator Jean Hinman described the penny carnival at Newhall Park on July 4th. Commissioner Lyons would like the next agenda to contain an item to consider the 30I fee for vendors at special events other than July 4th. Chairman Weste thought that it was the best July 4th celebration in a long time. Director Kolin commended staff on the splendid job they have been doing. Superintendent Sorensen .introduced Wayne Weber, Park Planner, = who gave background information on the trail standards. James McCarthy, Trails Coordinator for Los Angeles County, P.O.Box 801643, Santa Clarita, CA 91380-1643, requested a revision on page 4-5, No. 1, which should be clarified to state that a 15 -percent grade is allowed for distances of 300 feet or less, if it is composed of decomposed granite or soil base. Also, on page 4-7,_ the width between fencing should be 8 to 10 feet. It was requested- by Commissioner Lyons that specific language be written to safeguard removal of large trees. It was moved by Commissioner Lyons and seconded by Commissioner Storli that the trail standards be approved, with the exceptions noted by Commissioner Lyons and Mr. McCarthy. There was no opposition to the motion. Page 2 of 4. ITEM 15 SANTA CLARA RIVER STUDY PROGRESS REPORT ITEM 16 PLACERITA CANYON NATURE CENTER OWNERSHIP STATUS ITEM #7 MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT PUBLIC STATEMENTS (COMMISSION) Director Kolin gave a detailed status report on the study to date, along with future objectives. Mr. Lee C. Pulsipher, of Soledad Canyon Road Associates, Ltd., P.O. Box 3568, Granada Hills, CA 91394 addressed the Commission in favor of the Santa Clara River Study. He handed out copies of a memo sent by his firm to the Planning Department and the G.P.A.C. proposing construction of a levee in the Soledad Canyon area where his firm is planning a business park. Director. Kolin gave background information on the subject on the proposed transfer of ownership of the Placerita Canyon Nature Center from the state to the county, in exchange for Tapia Park in Malibu. Received and filed. The gyms are open now. The summer concert series opened last night with a country -western performance by Cliffie Stone. Next week will focus on big. band music with dancing at Old Orchard Park. Chairman Weste asked if two sessions are still planned for the parkmobile. Superintendent Foley stated that there will still be two sessions, they will just start later. Chairman Waste also asked some questions of Superintendent Sorensen -on recycling plans. Commissioner Storli asked about an item in the Signal about the pool schedule. Superintendent Foley said she will look into evening recreational swim and get back to Commissioner Storli. Commissioner Lyons asked about recycling of trash in the parks. Superintendent Sorensen said that gondolas will be placed in the parks for newspapers by the Public Works Department. Director Kolin will prepare an agenda item next month relating to solutions to the recycling problem, with details including locations. A representative of the Public Works Department will attend the meeting to answer questions. Page 3 of 4. Commissioner Longshore asked about the possibility of composting at Pamplico Park. He was informed that material could be composted elsewhere, and then transported to new park sites. Chairman Weste stated that a videotape on composting is available. PUBLIC STATEMENTS (STAFF) Superintendent Sorensen stated that Seco Canyon Road is due to have a signal to facilitate crossing to the Santa Clarita Park. Director Kolin informed the Commissioners that interviews for prospective Parks and Recreation Commissioners will be held on August 1, 1990, beginning at approximately 5:30 p.m. Candidates should be notified on July 26 or 27th as to time of their interview. Commissioner Wheeler stated that he will be out of town at that time and that he will call the City Clerk to let her know. ADJOURNMENT At 9:10 p.m., it was moved by Commissioner Storli, and seconded by Commissioner Lyons, to adjourn the meeting. Laurene Frimel Weste, Chairman Jeffo i rector Park d ecreation Mat Page 4 of 4. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION 6:30 P.M. July 3, 1990 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita was called to order by Chairwoman Garasi at 6:35 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor, Santa Clarita, California. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Brathwaite led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL All Commissioners were present. Also present were City Attorney, Doug Holland; Community Development Director, Lynn Harris; Parks and Recreation Director, Jeff Kolin; Principal Planner, Rich Henderson; Associate Planner, Michael Rubin; City Engineer, Jim Van Winkle; and Acting Commission Secretary, Sandy Walrath. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Worden, seconded by Modugno, to approve the Minutes of the May 29 Study Session as modified. There being no objection, the minutes were unanimously approved. ITEM 1 PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JUNE 19 VESTING TENTATIVE ZONE CHANGE 90-001; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-003; AND OAK TREE PERMIT 90-007 It was moved by Cherrington, seconded by Modugno, to approve the Minutes of the June 5 Regular Meeting. There being no abjection, the minutes were unanimously approved. It was moved by Modugno, seconded by Worden, to approve the minutes of the June 19 Regular Meeting. There being no objection, the minutes were unanimously approved. Chairwoman Garasi opened the public hearing. Lynn Harris presented a supplemental staff report covering questions raised at the meeting of June 19. These questions included proposed paseo walkway and elimination of Lot 76; parking for the park site; the elimina- tion of Lots 85 and 86 to accommodate park building; a clarification of the transition from Green Mountain Drive as an overlook or a cul-de-sac; a description of the boundary wall; landscape plan for the buffer zone; modifica- tion of the "eyebrow" area and roadway over the crest; removal of two flag lots to improve visual impact. Ms. Harris also pointed out the density statistics and the difficulty of development because of the slope and the amount of cut and fill required for this site. 7-3-90 PC Page 2 Proponent addressing the Commission was: Steve Krueger, Showcase Homes, 14482 Beach Blvd, Suite W, Westminster, CA. After Mr. Krueger's presentation, the Commission asked for additional information regarding paseos vs alternative means of ingress/egress; use of fast growing/drought resistant, larger than 15 gallon size trees for landscaping areas requiring camouflage planting; use of single family residences where view of such is expected. The Commission also questioned Jeff Kolin, Parks and Recreation Director, about ingress/egress and parking for the proposed park site and the proposed paseo. It was determined that Parks and Recreation would coordinate final agreement as to what method would be used. Commissioner Worden requested that Allan Seward comment on inquiries from homeowners in adjacent area as to stability of land after grading is accomplished. Mr. Seward reported that the grading would be an enhancement to the area. Chairwoman Garasi asked if there were any opponents, and receiving no response, closed the public hearing at 8:40 P.M. After a further discussion of the above, the Commission asked that the following be incorporated into the conditions for this item: The paseo plan or type of ingress/egress used for the park; Lots 85 and 86 be identified as the park site; a condition calling for enhanced architectural treatment on rear of buildings visible from Golden Valley and the Antelope Freeway, to be documented with exhibits to be submitted to staff; park design, access and location be decided by the Department of Parks and Recreation; larger than 15 gallon size requirement for trees in buffer zone; Condition 88 be.amended to properly reflect the description of the parameter wall. Mr. Krueger indicated he accepted all of the above conditions as proposed. A motion for approval of Item 1 was made by Commissioner Worden, seconded by Commissioner . Cherrington, and approved unanimously by the Commission. Director Harris presented Draft Resolution 90-25 for approval. This resolution would amend the resolution to state that approval of this project improves and stabilizes the geologicalcondition of an existing adjacent tract to the east. Motion for approval was made by Commissioner Worden, seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite and unanimously adopted by the Commission. 7-3-90 PC Page 3 ITEM 2 VESTINGTENTATIVE Chairwoman Garasi opened the public hearing, TRACT MAP 48403 and stepped down from the hearing due to a potential conflict of interest. Vice Chairman Brathwaite assumed the duties of the Chair. Rich Henderson, Principal Planner, reported on Item 2. This is a proposed industrial subdivision of two existing lots. Lot 2 has an existing building and one in the final stages of construction. The developer wishes to subdivide a 3.3 acre parcel into two parcels consisting of 2.3 acres and 1.0 acre. Lot 1 is 6.7 acres and developer wishes to subdivide three buildings into 21 industrial condominium units. The buildings are presently under construction and nearing completion. It was read into the record that Mr. Henderson had been contacted by the Fire Department on July 3 and was advised that the conditions set by the subdivision section for this development have been superceded by the local Fire Protection Office of the Fire Dept. According to the local Fire Protection Office, the conditions have been met and the necessary hydrants are in. The Commission requested clarification regarding the two conflicting sets of conditions prepared.by the Fire Department. Mr. Van Winkle, City Engineer, was present to answer any questions concerning the conditions. Proponents addressing the Commission were= Daniel Gluck, Gluck Development Company, 21820 Burbank Blvd., Woodland Hills, CA. 91367; Robert E. Zuckerman, 23293 Ventura Blvd Woodland Hills, CA 91364; David Osborn, 20969 Ventura Blvd.. Woodland Hills, CA 91364; Joseph E. Pifko, 6338 Variel Ave., Woodland Hills, CA; Larry Mar, Engineering Service Corp., 6017 Bristol Parkway, Culver City, CA 90250. Mr. Gluck requested that Condition No. 11 be modified to reflect the Fire Dept. requirements for hydrants. He also requested modification of Conditions 12, 13 and 14, all of which relate to the above. In addition, he requested modification or deletion of the following: Condition 22 (which would prohibit occupancy of the multi -tenant buildings on Lot 1 prohibiting occupancy until final approval of the tract map); Condition 29 (agreement to dedicate right of way for bus bay - questions additional 2 ft of property on Avenue Stanford); Condition 33 (relating to sewer installation); Condition 39 (question regarding fee payment); Conditions 40 and 41 (landscape assessment district); Condition 45 (sidewalks); Condition 46 (funding for traffic signal control). Mr. Gluck submitted a letter from Donald Puente, Valencia Company, to be Exhibit to 48403. 7-3-90 ITEM 3 ZONE CHANGE 89-007 AND PLOT PLAN 89-125 PC Page 4 Robert E. Zuckerman spoke in opposition of Condition 22 as it stands. He also supported Mr. Gluck's request for modification of Condition 29. David Osborn, JDO & Associates, architects.for project, requested modification on Conditions relating to landscaping and sidewalks. Joseph E. Pifko, industrial real estate broker, spoke regarding benefits of industrial condominium project. Larry Mar identified himself as available to answer any questions of a technical nature relating to engineering. Mr. Brathwaite closed the public hearing and asked for comments from the Director. Mr. Cherrington asked for comments on sidewalks; median, 40' vs 42' allowance for bus bay. Ms. Harris commented that the sidewalk condition was one that should be decided by the Planning Department, stated the.bus bay easement should be 40', and recommended to the Commission that Staff should meet and present to the Commission a set of conditions which was ready for review. She recommended that this item be continued and that public testimony be accepted at the continued hearing. Commissioner Worden moved to continue this item, Modugno seconded, and the Commission voted 4-0 to continue this item to July 17. Chairwoman Garasi rejoined the Commission and declared an approximate 10 minute break at 8:45 The Commission meeting reconvened at 9:00 P.M. The public hearing was called to order. Richard Henderson presented the staff report. Proponent for this item was Mike Massoonnea, Ace Engineering, Montrose, CA. A continuance was requested in order to obtain guidance from the Commission. The Commission held a brief discussion on areas to be addressed by staff. Mr. Massoonnea indicated his willingness to redesign and work with staff to attempt a resolution of this matter. . A motion for continuance of uncertain date was made by Commissioner Brathwaite, seconded by Commissioner Worden, and approved unanimously by the Commission. 7-3-90 PC Page 5 ITEM 4 MOBILE HOME PARK ORDINANCE Upon recommendation of the Director of Community Development, a motion for CPD zone change for the entire site was.made by Commissioner Worden, seconded by Commissioner Modugno, and approved unanimously by the Commission. This is to occur in conjunction with the submission of a Conditional Use Permit proposing a revised design. The applicant will bear the cost of the CUP. The public hearing was opened at 9:40 P.M. Staff report was presented by Mike Rubin. Commissioner Worden asked Mr. Rubin to provide additional broad term explanation of the zoning ordinance, after which Chairwoman Garasi called for public presentations from persons speaking in support of this item. Proponents for this item were: Ron Bates, 16274-40 Vasquez Cyn., Canyon Country, who spoke at 9:43 P.M.; and Donald M. Wilder, 21441 Brier Way, Saugus, CA 91350, who spoke at 9:48 P.M. The Chairwoman then called for presentation by persons in opposition to this item. Opponents were Marion Clever, 3225 Longridge, Sherman Oaks, CA 91423, who spoke at 9:57 P.M.; Judith F. Porcasi, 1622 Campbell Avenue, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360, who spoke at 9:59 P.M.; David Evans, Star Rt, Box 8057, Frazier Park, CA 93225, who spoke at 10:05; Asa L. Shaw, 24833 San Fernando Rd., Newhall, CA 91321, who spoke at 10:10 P.M.; and Larry Kalvelage, 854 Hacienda Circle, Camarillo, CA, who spoke at 10:16 P.M. After hearing all speakers, the Commission held a general discussion about the appropriateness of proceeding on this item without additional information. Following consultation with legal counsel on various aspects of the ordinance as proposed, it was moved by Commissioner Brathwaite, seconded by Commissioner Modugno, and approved unanimously by the Commission to continue Item 4 to date uncertain, and to. schedule a study session for July 26. ITEM 5 Chairwoman Garasi opened the public hearing on ZONE CHANGE Item 5, and upon recommendation of staff enter - INITIATION tained a motion for continuance to a date ORDINANCE uncertain, to follow the study session set for July 26. There was no person to address the Commission on Item 5. �M!K DIRECTOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS COMMISSION AGENDA PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR hblifolik k1IyI:@kl�y PC Page 6 Mike Rubin announced that July 17 would be the date set for Oak Tree Guideline discussion. Material was given to the Commission for an early review. Commissioner Warden requested a study session on water. There was no indication that any person wished to address the Commission from the Floor. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P.M. RITA GARAS , Chairwoman Planning Commission ATTEST: ]: Nj M. HARRIS; Director Community Development City of Santa Clarita RESOLUTION NO. P90-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 48893 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-003 OAR TREE PERMIT 90-007 AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 90-001 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 vesting tentative tract map, oak tree permit and conditional use permit were filed with the City of Santa Clarita, February 15, 1990, by Showcase Homes. (•the applicant'). The property for which this entitlement has been filed is a 82.2 -acre parcel located at the western terminus of Green Mountain Drive. The site is zoned A-2-1. The purpose of the vesting tentative tract map application is to create 163 single family residential lots, 5 open space lots and 1 park site. Assessor Parcel Nos. 2842-004-023, 024. b. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee (DRC) met on March 15, 1990 and reviewed the project. C. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 19, 1990 and a decision was made on July 3, 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, including the density=controlled development, will be consistent with the general plan proposal currently being considered or studied, that there is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed resolution.is ultimately inconsistent with that plan, and that the proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. b. The division and development of the property in the manner set forth on the.subject tract map will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity and/or public utility right -of -wap and/or easements within the tract map. C. Approval of this vesting tentative tract map will expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval. RESO P90-25 J--� d. The applicant has submitted a vesting tentative tract map which depicts the area proposed for 161 single family residential lots, 5 open space lots and 1 park site within the subject site. e. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems, since sewage disposal, storm drainage, fire protection, and geological and soils factors are addressed in the recommended conditions of approval. The discharge of sewage from the subdivision into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements prescribed by the California Regional water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of -the water Code. f. The subject property is of a size and shape which lends itself to the proposed use. g. The recommended subdivision will not result in a significant environmental effect. h. Implementation of this proposal will cause no adverse effects in the environment which cannot be adequately mitigated through the application of available controls. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable injury to fish or wild life or their habitat, since the project site is not located in a mapped significant ecological area. i. The proposed lot sizes are consistent with surrounding lot sizes. j. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision given the size and shape of the lots and their intended use. k. The proposed subdivision does not contain or front upon any public waterway, river, stream, coastline, shoreline,. lake or reservoir. 1. The housing needs of the region were considered and balanced against the public service needs of local residents. M. Neither the design of the subdivision nor the type of improvements will conflict with public easements for access through the use of property within the proposed subdivision, since the design and development as set forth in the conditions of approval and on the tentative map, provides adequate protection for easements. n. The subject property is in a proper location for single family residential and public park uses. o. The removal of the eight oak trees is necessary to provide the required public street and park improvements. p. The design of the subdivision has allowed for a Residential Planned Development which allows reduced lot area. q. The design of this subdivision and will improve the underlying geologic conditions of the existing residences to the east. RESO P90-25 / F SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Initial Study, and determines that it is in compliance with CEQA and that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. A negative declaration was prepared for this project. Based upon the findings stated above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the negative declaration. SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the application for the vesting tentative tract map oak tree permit and conditional use permit subject to following conditions attached hereto as "Exhibit B" and incorporated herein by reference allowing the creation of 163 additional single family residential dwellings. SECTION 5. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval to the City Council of the request for a zone change from A-2-1 to RPD -9,000-2U zone classification. SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and shall transmit a copy to the applicant, the Departments of Public Works, Fire, and Parks and Recreation. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of July, 1990. Rita Garasi, airwoman Planning Commission I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the.City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 3rd day of July, 1990, by the following vote of the Commission: FM **T NOES: EXCUSED: L M. Harris, Director C mm.t" Development RESO P90-25 /�� EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NAP 48893 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-003 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 90-007 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. The approval of this Vesting 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 Cade 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 Vesting 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 the tentative approval, a subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing of the final map. RESO P90-25 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 which may include, 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 1. The owner, at the time of issuance of permits or other grants of approval agrees to develop the property in accordance with City Codes and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Zoning Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code and Fire Code. 2. The applicant shall file a final map which shall be prepared by or under the direction of a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer. The applicant shall process a final tract or parcel map through the City Engineer prior to being filed with the County Recorder. The applicant shall note all offers of dedication by certificate on the face of the final map. 3. The applicant shall extend lot/parcel lines to the center of private and future streets. 4. The applicant shall provide at least 40 feet of frontage at the property line and approximately radial lot lines for all lots fronting on the cul-de-sacs or knuckles. RESO P90-25 5. The applicant shall note all offers of dedication by certificate on the face of the final map. 6. The applicant shall. quitclaim or relocate easements running through proposed structures. 7. If signatures of record title interests appear on the final map, prior to final map requirements 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. ROAD IMPROVEMENTS S. Applicant's street and grading plans and all construction permitted by such plans shall comply with the requirements of the approved oak tree report. 9. The applicant shall provide at least 40 feet of frontage at the property line and approximately radial lot lines for all lots fronting on the cul-de-sacs or knuckles. 10. The applicant shall provide temporary turnarounds at the terminus of streets within the right-of-way with a radius of 24 feet. 11. The applicant shall dedicate future streets beyond the turnarounds on all streets to the tract boundary or extend the turnarounds beyond the tract boundaries within the adjacent ownerships. 12. The subdivider is required to install distribution lines and individual service lines for community antenna television service (CATV) for all new development. 13. The applicant shall place above ground utilities including, but not limited to, fire hydrants, junction boxes and street lights outside sidewalk. 14. The applicant shall install mailboxes and posts per City standards. Secure approval of U.S. Postal Service prior to installation. 15. The applicant shall provide letter(s) of slope easement(s) and drainage acceptance as directed by the City Engineer or Director of Public Works. 16. The applicant shall include a disclosure in the CC&R's or record a covenant and agreement to comply with the Geologist's recommendations in the Geology Report for restrictions on watering, irrigation, planting and recommend types of plants. 17. Applicant shall construct off-site improvements for Mountain Pass Rd. which are tentatively required to adequately serve this development. It is the sole. responsibility of the developer to acquire the necessary right-of-way and/or easements. RESO P90-25 .8. The applicant shall provide a horizontal and vertical alignment to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and.the Traffic Engineer. 19. The applicant shall provide for sight distance along extreme slopes or curves to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 20. This tentative map approval is subject to the subdivider's acceptance of the following conditions for acquisition of offsite easements and right-of-way for Mountain Pass Road: a. Subdivider shall secure at the subdivider's expense sufficient title or interest in land to permit any off-site improvements to be made. b. If the .subdivider is unable to acquire sufficient title or interest to permit the off-site improvements to be made, the subdivider shall notify the City.of this inability not less than six months prior to approval of the final map. c. In such case, the City may thereafter acquire sufficient interest in the land which will permit the off-site improvements to be made by subdivider. d. Subdivider shall pay all of the City's costs of acquiring said off-site property interests pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5. Subdivider shall pay such costs irrespective of whether the final map is recorded or whether a reversion occurs. The cost of acquisition may include, but is not limited to, acquisition prices, damages, engineering services, expert fees, title examination, appraisal costs, acquisition services, relocation assistance services and payments, legal services and fees, mapping services, document preparation, expenses and/or damages as provided under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1268.510-.620 and overhead. e. At the time subdivider notifies City as provided in b. hereinabove, the subdivider shall simultaneously submit to the City in a form acceptable to the City all appropriate appraisals, engineering specifications, legal land descriptions, plans, pleadings and other documents deemed necessary by City to commence its acquisition proceedings. Said documents must be submitted to City for preliminary review and comment at least thrity days prior to subdivider's notice described hereinabove at b. f. Subdivider agrees to deposit with City, within five days of request by City, such sums of money as City estimates to be required for the costs of acquisition. County may require additional deposits from time to time. g. Subdivider agrees that City will have satisfied the one hundred and twenty day limitation of Government Code Section 66462.5 and the foregoing conditions relating thereto when it files its eminent domain action in superior court within said time period. h. Subdivider shall not sell any lot/parcel/unit shown on the final map until City has acquired said sufficient land interest. RESO P90-25 i. If=the superior court thereafter rules in a final judgement that the City may not acquire .said sufficient land interest, the subdivider agrees that the City may initiate proceedings for reversion to acreage. j. Subdivider shall execute any agreement or agreements mutually agreeable prior to approval of the final map as may be necessary to assure compliance with the foregoing conditions. k. Failure by the subdivider to notify city, as required by b. hereinabove, or simultaneously submit the required and approved documents specified in e. hereinabove, or make the deposits specified in f. hereinabove shall constitute subdivider's waiver of the requirements otherwise imposed upon City to acquire necessary interests in land pursuant to Section 66462.5. In such event, subdivider shall meet all conditions for installing or constructing off-site improvements notwithstanding Section 66462.5. 21. The applicant shall design the minimum centerline radius on a local street with an intersecting street on the concave side to comply with design speeds per Road/Sewer/Water Section's "Requirements for Street Plans' and sight distances per the current AASHTO. 22. The applicant shall provide standard property line return radii of 13 feet at all local street intersections, including intersection of local streets with General Plan Highways, and 27 feet where all General Plan Highways intersect, or to the satisfaction of the Department. 23. The applicant shall construct drainage improvements and offer easements needed for street drainage or slopes. 24. The applicant shall not construct driveways within 25 feet upstream of any catch basins when street grades exceed 6Z. 25. The applicant shall construct full -width sidewalk at all walk returns. 26. The applicant shall provide and install street name signs prior to occupancy of building(s). 27. The applicant shall offer future right-of-way: feet from centerline on 28. The applicant shall dedicate slope easements If Required For Golden Valley Road _to.the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 29. The applicant is granted permission for street grades as shown on map: up to 14 Z on 'A' Street street. up to 14 Z on 'G' Street street. up to 12 Z on Mountain Pass Road street. RESO P90-25 30. The applicant shall construct the following required road improvements: Street Curb & Street Street Name Width Gutter Paving Lights Trees Sidewalk A Street 64 FT X X X X X B.K Streets 58 FT X X X X X C.F.G.J.H.D.E Sts. 60 FT X X X X X Mountain Pass Rd. 60 FT X X X X X 'J' Street must be 60' wide. It is shown incorrectly on the tentative map as 58' wide. WATER 31. The applicant shall file 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 necessary quantities of water will be available, the system will meet the requirements for the land division, and that water service will be provided to each lot/parcel. 32. The applicant shall serve all lots with 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 33. The subdivider shall install and dedicate main line sewers and serve each lot/parcel with a separate house lateral or have approved and bonded sewer plans on file with the Department of Public Works. 34. The subdivider shall send a print of the land division map to the .County Sanitation District, with the request for annexation. If applicable, such annexation must be assured in writing. 35. The applicant shall grant easements 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. 36. The applicant shall pay a. deposit as required to review documents and plans for final map clearance in accordance with Section 21.36.010(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance. RESO P90-25 GRADING. DRAINAGE & GEOLOGY 37. The applicant shall submit a grading plan which must be approved prior to approval of the final map. 38. The applicant shall base grading plan on a detailed engineering Geotechnical report which 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. 39. The applicant shall eliminate all geologic hazards associated with this proposed development, 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. 40. The applicant shall submit drainage plans and necessary support documents to comply with the following requirements. These must be approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to filing of the final map. - Portions of the property are subject to sheet overflow and ponding and high velocity scouring action. 41. The applicant shall provide drainage facilities and dedicate and show necessary easements and/or rights -of -wap on the final map. 42. The applicant shall show on the final map the City's/Flood Control District's right-of-way for Storm Drains as Required. A permit will be required for any construction affecting the right-of-way or facilities. 43. The applicant shall establish a Drainage Benefit Assessment District which must be ratified prior to recordation of the final map to insure the continued maintenance of any subdrains, observation wells and drainage improvements. The first years maintenance costs shall be paid by the subdivider prior to approval of the final map. 44. The applicant shall provide for the proper distribution of drainage. 45. The applicant shall 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. 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, top -of -curb to tap -of -curb, the anticipated flow through the subdivision. 46. The applicant shall comply. with the requirements of the approved drainage concept to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. RESO P90-25 47. The applicant shall submit a detailed engineering Geotechnical and Soil Report which must be approved prior to approval of the final map. The report, based upon adequate test borings or excavations, shall. (1) describe any soil or geologic condition(s) which, if not corrected might lead to structural damage or slope failure, and (2) recommend action likely to prevent structural damage or -slope failure. A soil expansion index test is required and shall be done in accordance with the procedures of UBC Std. No. 29-2. 48. The applicant shall adjust, relocate, and/or eliminate lot lines, lots, streets, easements, grading, geotechnical protective devices, and/or physical improvementstocomply with ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the City determined the application to be complete all to the satisfaction of this Department. 49. Prior to final approval, enter into a written agreement with the City of Santa Clarita whereby the subdivider agrees to pay to the City a sum (to be determined by the City Council) times the factor per development unit for the purpose of contributing to a proposed Bridge and Thoroughfare Benefit District to implement the highway element of the -General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this and other subdivisions in the area. The form of security for performance of said agreement shall be as approved by the City. The agreement shall include the following provisions: Upon establishment of the District and the area of benefit, the fee shall be paid to a special Department of Public Works fund. In the event funds are required for work prior to formation of the District, the Director of Public Works may demand a sum of $1,000 (or greater as determined by the City Council), times the factor per development unit to be credited toward.the final fee established under the District. The. subdivider may construct improvements of equivalent value in lieu of paying fees established for the District subject to approval of the Director of Public Works. The Director of Public Works may require the developer to submit a traffic report periodically that addresses traffic congestion and the need to mitigate the problems prior to issuing building permits. Factors for development units are as follows: Development Unit Single Family per unit Townhouse per unit Apartment per unit Commercial per acre Industry per acre The project is in the: [ ] Route 126 Bridge and Thoroughfare District RESO P90-25 Factor 1.0 0.8 0.7 5.0 3.0 50. Applicant shall delineate a geologic hazard/restricted use area on the final map over the fault zone and as required by the geologist. 51. Prior to issuance of grading permits, applicant shall submit information to verify the proper abandonment of existing oil wells. 52. Landscaping, planting and irrigation plan must be approved prior to approval of grading plan. 53. Applicant shall provide planting and bike trails and easements along Golden Valley Road as required by Golden Valley Road Plans and Design Concept. 54. Developer shall initiate and/or participate in establishment of a funding mechanism and associated agreements whereby the City is assured of mitigation as follows: a. Improve Golden Valley Road to a minimum of four through traffic lanes, two in each direction, between Sierra Highway and the Antelope Valley -Freeway. b. Install a traffic signal system at the intersection of Sierra Highway and Golden Valley Road. c. The aforementioned mitigation measures shall be in place and operational not more .than one year subsequent to occupancy of this development or within three years of City Council approval of the final map, whichever occurs first. 55. Applicant shall review geologic reports of adjacent tract to be sure that this project will not affect stability of adjacent property. A written report from the geologist will be required on this. 56. Applicant shall submit a plan or schedule on times and routes for construction equipment entering and leaving the project. 57. Applicant shall provide pedestrian access and easements from Green Mountain Drive to the park to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation. FIRE DEPARTMENT 58. This property is located within the area described by the Forester and Fire Varden as Fire Zone 4 and .future construction must. comply with applicable Code requirements. 59. Provide water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flows as required by the County Forester and Fire Varden for all land shown on the map to be recorded. 60. Provide Fire Department and City -approved street signs, and building address numbers prior to occupancy. RESO P90-25 61. Fire Department access shall extend to within 150 feet distance of any portion of structures to be.built. 62. Access shall comply with Section 10.207 of the Fire Code which requires all weather access. All weather access may require paving. 63. Where driveways extend further than 300 feet and are of single access design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final map. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed and maintained to insure their integrity for Fire Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways which extend over 150 feet. 64. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. 65. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 1250 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a duration of 2 hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. 66. Fire hydrant requirements are as follows; Install 12 public fire hydrant(s); Install private on-site fire hydrant(s). 67. All hydrants shall measure 6"x4"x21s" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWVA 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. Location: As per man on file with this office 68. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and.accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. 69. Provide fire flow data. 70. 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. 71. "The permittee.shall participate in an appropriate financing mechanism to provide funds for fire protection facilities which are required by new commercial, industrial or residential development in an amount proportionate to the demand created by this project.' TRAFFIC 72. All proposed mitigation measures identified with Sierra Highway are subject to the approval of Caltrans. RESO P90-25 DEPARTMENT OF COHNUNI TY 73. All sections of Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance 89-10 apply to this permit. 74. 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. 75. There is to be no storage of materials or parking of any vehicles under any of the oaks on or off site. 76. The applicant is to follow all mitigation measures and.conditions set forth in the Oak Tree Report prepared by The Lee Newman and Associates dated February 21, 1990. 77. The applicant is to remove 8 oak trees with a total economic value of $21,229. 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. 78. The applicant shall install organic material such as crushed walnut hulls to a depth of 3" under all oak trees. This is to be shown on the required landscape plan. 79. All encroachments into the protected zones of any oaks for roads, grading, construction or any activites will be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. 80. A licensed arborist is to be on-site during all construction. within the protected zones of any of the oak trees. 81. All work done within the protected zone of the oak trees is to be done using small hand tools. 82. 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. 83. Pursuant to approval and agreement of the applicant, final map approval shall not be granted until the applicant enters into an _agreement for shool mitigation with the William S. Hart Union High School District, and the Newhall Union School District. 84. It is further declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof is violated, or if any law, stature, 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 failed to do so for a period of 30 days. RESO P90-25 85. All requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the specific zoning of subject property must be complied with unless set forth in the permit and/or shown on the approved plot plan. 86. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the tentative map. 87. 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. 88. The applicant shall install a three foot high masonry wall capped with a three foot high wrought iron.fence along the rear property lines on lots 141 through 151. This wall shall have landscaping on side fronting the freeway, making the wall screen go from traffic on the freeway. 89. The applicant shall install a three foot high wall capped with a three foot high wrought iron fence on the.rear property line lots 1 through 13, and lots 73 and 74. From view on the wall shall be screened with landscaping to Golden Valley Road. PARKS AND RECREATION 90. Proposed park site must adhere to the City of Santa.Clarita's adopted guideline for Park Dedication. 91. Applicant to provide a building pad, approximately 9,500 square feet, outside the fault zone and situated on the park site which is suitable to the City of Santa Clarita Parks and Recreation Department. 92. Park construction materials and components subject to approval by the Cities Parks and Recreation and Public Works Department prior to recordation. 93. Developer is to provide street trees throughout the project using the Cities adopted Master Tree List. 94. Landscape concept along Golden Valley Road subject to approval by the Cities Parks and Recreation and Public Works Department prior to map recordation. 95. The Park design and layout is subject to approval by the City of Santa Clarita. 96. The applicant shall have Parks and Recreation approval of. all landscape and irrigation plans. The use of drought tolerant species on slope planting shall be incorporated into the landscpe plans. RESO P90-25 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 97. The applicant shall install increased landscaping along the slopes of the water storage tanks.This is to be included on the applicants required landscape plans. 98. The applicant shall develop lots 1-13, 73-74, 127-130 and 141-151 with the enhanced rear elevations as depicted the approved elevations. 99. The applicant shall form a Homeowners Association in the CC&R's to provide for the maintenance of slopes and open space. The HOA articles of incorporation must be provided by the City Attorney prior to the FInal Map Approval. RESO P90-25