Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1990-04-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - ZONE CHANGE AT GILBERT DR (2)
AGENDA REPORT... City Manager Approval Item to be presented b PUBLIC HEARING Ken Pulskamp DATE: April 24, 1990 SUBJECT: Zone Change at the southerly terminus of Gilbert Drive. DEPARTMENT: Community Developmefit� BACKGROUND The applicant, American Beauty Homes, Inc., is requesting a zone. change on the subject.property from A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural) to RPD -1-6U for a Residential Planned Development. The two principal agents for American Beauty Homes, Inc. are Jack Shine and Greg P. Medeiros. The applicants have received Planning Commission approval to develop the 47.4 acre site into 14 condominium lots to allow for 187 single family detached.condominiums. The project extends to the southerly extension of Via Princessa.. The undeveloped site consists of approximately 29 acres of fairly level areas and the remainder consisting of moderately steep slopes and localized ravines. The Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing for this proposal and has determined the change of -zone to be appropriate and consistent with the surrounding uses. Vesting Tentative Tract Map (44359) and Conditional Use Permit (85-503) for this project were approved by the Planning Commission under Resolution 90-08. That Resolution also recommends approval of Zone Change 85-503. RECOMMENDATION 1. Recommend the attached Negative Declaration with the finding that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. Approve Zone Change 85-503 based on the required findings. 3. Introduce the attached ordinance, waive further reading, and pass to the second reading. ATTACHMENTS Zone Change Ordinance Staff Reports Negative Declaration Agenda Item: _ CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REQUESTING APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 85-503 FROM A-2-1 TO RPD -1-6U AT THE TERMINUS OF GILBERT DRIVE IN THE RAINBOW GLEN AREA, JUST NORTHERLY OF VIA PRINCESSA 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 85-503, from A-2-1 (Light Agricultural) to RPD -1-6U (Residential Planned Development) for a residential development at the terminus of Gilbert Drive in the Rainbow Glen area, just Northerly of Via Princessa. This zone change would allow the development of Tract 44359, which consists of 157 single .family detached condominiums on 47.4 acres. The hearing will. be heard by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st floor, the 24th of April, 1990, at or after 6:30 p.m. Proponents, opponents, .and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter at that time, or .submit written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. Further information may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's Office, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd.floor. Dated: March 20, 19.90 George Caravalho City Clerk Publish date: March 31, 1990 I f1E:ns; AN 65 '90 1655 FT FINANCIAL(; V Pi;rtnuri hip 11 46 Stern Electra V At.tn: Gcruf f !'i, inter 11311 Burtrand St. 11740 Sari Vicente Blvd. Granada Hills, CA 91,344 Los Angeles, CA 90049 20158 Gi ;,wrp.�Ir CilrIYOn Country, Chi 9131, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 27 32 106 41 Dunham Jeffrey A and American Sav and Loan Assn First Nationwide Savings c/o First Financial Group Jane E 20162,Gilbert Or 509 W Webber CA Ave 2 95203 16633 Ventura Blvd #711 Canyon Country, CA 913E Stockton, Encino, CA 91436 0 0 12 Southwest National Bank Thomas Heath 4100 Osuna Rd. N.E. Albuquerque, NM 87109 13 Sheldon Elfie and Furst Ann 6926 Clinton St. Los Angeles, CA 90036 14 17 19 21 L A City Dept of Water and Power PO Box 111 Term Annex Los Angeles, CA 28 29 30 31 42 Cakden David B and American Beauty Classics I Kathleen M First Financial Group 20168 Gilbert Or 16633 Ventura Blvd #711 Canyon Country, CA 913E Encino, CA 91436 33 Ponce Enrique D and 43 Dismukes James F and Clara R Caroline K 20132 Gilbert Or 20172 Gilbert Or Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon'Country, CA 913` 34 De Chellis Richard M 44 Norris Andrew G and and Kathleen S Maria A 20136 Gilbert Drive 20176 Gilbert Or Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 913 15 Arklin Henry and Louise 35 Hutchison Kenneth W and 45 Sorensen Pamela 10550 Sepulveda Blvd Patti M 20184 Gilbert Or Mission Hills, CA 91346 20140 Gilbert Or Canyon Country, CA 913: Canyon Country, CA 91351 16 Harvest Corporation and Isenhouer Violet J 24520 Hawthorne Blvd #208 Torrance, CA 90505 18 LA City - c/o Dept of Air- ports Acct Bureau 1 World Way Los Angeles, CA 90009 20 Colwell Santa Clarita Dev Co 2535 Maricopa St Torrance, CA 90503 36 Peterson Christopher J 46 Arnone Edward J and and Christine A Linda A 20144 Gilbert Or 20177 Gilbert Or Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 913 37 Schneider Christopher F 47 Viacava Gino A and and Mary T Viacava Luis 20148 Gilbert Dr 20173 Gilbert Or Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 913 38 Craig Douglas G and 48 Desmond William Jr and Judie A Laura M 20152 Gilbert Or 20171 Gilbert Or Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 913 22 Tomal Development 39 Ford Charles B and 49 Herwer Thomas G and 16300 Lindbergh St Joan E . Janet L Van Nuys, CA 91406 20154 Gilbert Or 20165 Gilbert Or Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91_ VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 44359 HO Andr:JaN ©S '98 i5 �o INTI=L:ytun true i t ane Marian C „� r Nancy L • 11JU23 Gilbert Dr Canyon Country, CA 9135 ii 26929 Terri Dr 26920 Terri or CA 913 95 Eichner Lawrence E and 105 Muir Steven N and. Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, 81 Wachs Neil J 93 Harling Michael P and A 103 Parisi Jim V and Hibbard Cheryl F 20019 Gilbert Or CA Lillian 91351 26941 Terri Or 26916 Terri Or Canyon Country, Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91: 82 Clavijo Jaime and Miryam 20015 Gilbert Or Canyon Country, CA 91351 83 Almendares Jorge A and Gloria C 26901 Terri Or Canyon Country, CA 91351 94 Dawson Philip A and 104 Casquejo ithington D Laura 26943 Terri Or 26912 Terri Or Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91; 95 Eichner Lawrence E and 105 Muir Steven N and. Catherine Doreen G 26942 Terri Or 26908 Terri Or Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91 84 Ballesteros Jose C Sr and 96 Aldrich Richard D 107 Shama Mohamed M and Linda S and Santos_ 26940 Terri Or Sohair M Praxedes M Canyon Country, CA 91351 26902 Terri Or 26905 Terri Or Canyon Country, CA 91 .Canyon Country, CA 91351 85 Frizzell Gregory C and 97 Naranjo Mario 108 Swearingen Geoff P and Barbara L 26938 Terri Or Jeanne M . 26911 Terri Or Canyon Country, CA 91351 20058 Gilbert Or Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91 86 Buckler Richard P and 98 Tiznado Raul.Maria R 109 Fuess Thomas F and Mary H and Buckler Paul 26934 Terri Or Diane K and Jean M Canyon Country, CA 91351 23445 Gilbert Or 26913 Terri Or Canyon Country, CA 91 Canyon Country, CA 91351 87. La Salle Gregory J and .99 Stirling Donald A and 110.Shapiro Charles D and Judith I Jill E Suzanne D 26919 Terri Or 26932 Terri Or 20048 Gilbert Or Canyon Country, CA 9135.1 Canyon Country, CA 91351— Canyon Country, CA 9 88 0 Connell Sandra J 26921 Terri Or Canyon.Country, CA ;91351 89 Acevedo Harold and Osanna 26925 Terri Dr Canyon Country, CA 91351 W. 100 Michaelis Richard A and Wu Margaret H 26928 Terri Or Canyon Country, CA 91351 101 Brund Ralph A and Roni 26924 Terri Or Canyon Country, CA 91351 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 44359 111 Richards John 20044 Gilbert Dr Canyon Country, CA 112 Kay Julian and Robin 20040 Gilbert Or Canyon Country, CA 9 113 Sch jBN ©5, '90, 1657 FIFOr INAr'CIALIordan gay ++ arG nL I I T .20034 Gilbert Dr 19953 Terri.Dr Canyon Country, CA 913 Canyon Country, CA 91,E 114 Wright John W and Rose M 20030 Gilbert Dr Canyon Country, CA 91351 115 Fogelman Jeffrey C 20026 Gilbert Or Canyon Coountry, CA 91351 116 Kotrba John J and Lori J 20024 Gilbert Or Canyon Country, CA 91351 117 Amodeo Francisco and Amelia N 20020 Gilbert Or Canyon Country, CA 91351 118 Perry Ronald A and Helen W and Green Herman and Florence 20016 Gilbert Dr Canyon Country, CA 91351 119 Logan Gary L and Nancy E 20012 Gilbert Dr - Canyon Country, CA 91351 120 Packler Mitchell B and Sylvia R and Packler Lee R . 20008 Gilbert Dr Canyon Country, CA 91351 121 Porter Bruce E and Pamela,S 19978 Terri Or Canyon Country, CA 91351 122 Elder Ronald H and Connie J 19974 Terri Or Canyon Country, CA 91351 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 44359 bO P6rrJAN 05 '90"16:55 FI FINANCIAL'x ' IIhul."y " 20163 Gilbert Av �liinot Frederic D Canfun Country, CA 9.13 20123 Gilbert Ur . Canyon Cuunlry, CA 91351 Blavat hUlr..; 1,1_004b Gilbert Ur Canyon Country, CA 91351 51 Conrad Clark A 61 Braswell Mary K 71 Desai Prafu] Rand 20159 Gilbert Or 201.19 Gilbert Or Hansa P Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91351 20043CanyoGilbert Or 9135 h Jo1an P Deitch 52 Synegard Ronald S and 62' Lang Michael F and 72 D20039 eitcGilbert Or Derby R Karen Canyon Country, CA 9135 20155 Gilbert Or 20115 Gilbert Dr Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91351 53 Walls Curry and Mary M 20151 Gilbert Dr Canyon Country, CA 91351 63 Mejia Carlos R and Paula 20113 Gilbert Canyon Country, CA 91351 54 Jenkins Robert L and 64 Mounce Howard W and Roberta F Coleman Jeffrey L 20145 Gilbert Dr 20109 Gilbert Dr Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91351 73 Johnson Buzz F and Carole Y 26917 Podd Ct Canyon Country, CA 9135 74 Christianson Charles D and Johnson Randall 26919 Podd Ct Canyon Country, CA 913 55 Siegel Jeffrey H and 65 Hayward John L and Kaye Harold and Louise 75 26820 prod Ct Haydee C Or Joette M 20061 Gilbert Dr Canyon Country, CA 913' 20143 Gilbert Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91351 56 Kiner Kevin D and 66 Smith Harry J and Martinez Abran J 76 Kathleen S and Marcisa C 20139 Gilbert Or Rosalie M 20059 Gilbert Dr 91351 26918 Podd Ct Canyon Country, CA 913 Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 57 Meadows Adrian L 67 Hilborn Kenneth J and 77 McGrath Brian K Sheila W and and Ruth C 20135 Gilbert Or Audrey.G 20055 Gilbert Or CA 9135 1 26916 Podd Ct Canyon Country, CA 91: Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, 58 91 92 106 68 Naeole Alan C and 78 Tolentino Henry Bonnie -M A and First H'Itionwide Savings 16633 Ventura Blvd X711 Laurie K 20053 Gilbert Or 26914 Podd Ct Encino, CA 91316 Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, CA 91 59 Russell Thomas S and 69 Landefeld George T and 79 Uscio Stephen M Sheri and Theresa K 20127 Gilbert Or Teresa A 20049 Gilbert Or CA 91351 20027 Gilbert Dr Can on Country, Y CA 91 Canyon Country, CA 91351 Canyon Country, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 44359 0 ORDINANCE NO. 90- 10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP (Zone Change Case No. 85-503) 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 County of Los Angeles Department of Community Development on October 8, 1985, by American Beauty Homes ("the applicant").. The purpose of the zone change application is to facilitate the establishment of 187 single family detached condominium units on 14 lots at the southerly terminus of Gilbert Drive, and further described in the attached Legal Description (Exhibit "A") and shown on the attached map (Exhibit "B"), which was approved by the Planning Commission (Ordinance 90-08). b. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the application on February 6, 1990 at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 90-08 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 April 24, 1990 at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and the City Council and on their behalf, the City Council further finds and determines as follows: a. The subject property is a 47.4 acre parcel.located at the southerly terminus of Gilbert Drive. b. The request is for a change of zone from A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural) to RPD -1-6U (Residential) for 187 single family detached condominium units 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. 0 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 -1-6U 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 e e"7I `' RPD -1-6U. n 4,e n SECTION "V4 The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner prescribed by law. 0 PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1990. • MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA) I, , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No.90-10- 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 i 5387 r , EXHIBIT A ZONE CHANCE DESCRIPTIO14 FOR COUNTY TRACT No. 44359 FVZOjeGT K0. 85-503 That portion of -the southeast quarter of Section 19, Township 4 North, Range 15 {Jest, San Bernardino Meridian, in the unincorporated territory of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, according to the official plat thereof, described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said southeast quarter, of said Section 19; thence along the northerly line of said southeast quarter, N.89 -36-19-E. 1228.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning: thence continuing along said last mentioned northerly line, N.89 -36-19-E. 825.01 feet to the westerly line of the east half, of the northeast quarter, of said southeast quarter, as shown on map of Tract No. 34367, filed in Book 1044 Pages 5 to 15 inclusive, in the office of the County Recorder of said County; thence along said last mentioned wester:y line, and along the westerly line of the east half, of the southeast quarter, of said southeast quarter, as shown on said map of said Tract No. 34367, 5.00-15-04-E. 2150.76 feet to the centerline of Via Princessa (100 feet wide) as shown on C.S.B. 5187; thence along said last mentioned centerline, 5.76-06-27-W. 472.43 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave southeasterly and having a radius of 1500.00 feet; thence southwesterly along said last mentioned curve through a central angle of 8-54-55, an arc distance of 233.40 feet to the easterly line of the southwest quarter of said southeast quarter; thence along said last mentioned easterly line, N.00 -20-22-W. 1018.77 feet to the northeast corner of said southwest quarter of said southeast quarter; thence along the northerly line of said southwest quarter of said southeast quarter, 5.89-34-40-u. 759.00 feet; thence N.24 -30-00-E. 505.00 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave southeasterly and having a radius of 795.00 feet; thence northeasterly along said last mentioned curve through a central angle of 12-12-20, an arc distance of 169.36 feet; thence tangent,to sa.id last mentioned curve, N.36 -42-20-E. 451.31 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northwesterly and having a radius of 200.00 feet; thence northeasterly along said last mentioned curve through a central angle of 35-19-39, an arc distance of 123.32 feet; thence tangent to said last mentioned curve, N.01 -22-41-E. 237.22 feet to the True Point of Beginning. iftINITY MAP C'A S E N 10. VTTM 44359 ZC/CUP 85-503 °"7�i1 Jam' • � f �� � �•y. � , n,. a 7 1 fnl.-`_i.4; 7Z-7,=�- w �^!��a•My�«�v�r.�"-*yy,� ..7 .�.� � CANYON I ;' -=:; ,a;, CANYON - 1_—f -,'—• C O U NTR Y P C- I NT - LCA 4Y Project Site _ .o �% 4 X �_=; , • r _ :,: • 4 RIENDLY — C LA R S i A- VALLEY 71 NEWHALL ♦ ....: , (� ` •'1 y ._ .'.. a C` �. �-� ,. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 44359 .CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-503 ZONE CHANGE 85-503 DATE: February 20, 1990. TO: Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Mark Scott, Director of Community Development Ats APPLICANT: American Beauty Homes Inc. LOCATION: The southerly terminus of Gilbert Drive. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to subdivide + 47.4 acres of land into 14 condominium lots consisting of 187. single family detached condominiums. The applicant is also requesting a Conditional Use Permit and a Zone Change from A-2-1 to RPD -1-6U for a Residential Planned Development. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Negative Declaration with the finding that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 44359 and Conditional Use Permit 85-503 based on the required findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval. Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 85-503 based on the required findings. Adopt the attached resolution. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: This item was first heard by the Planning Commission on October 3, 1989. The item was continued..to-a...date..uncertain to allow the applicant and staff time to address the Commission's concerns, which are addressed below: Schools At the previous hearing, the applicant and the school districts had not yet --reached a mitigation agreement. Since that time, the applicant has reached a mitigation agreement with each of the school districts. Density: The map that the Commission first reviewed depicted a total of 203 units. The applicant has reduced the project to 187 units, which staff supports. Flag Lots: Staff had concerns with the previous design because it included flag lots and small lot widths on street corners. The applicant has redesigned the project to remove all of the flag lots and eliminate all of the narrow lots on street corners. Street Design: The Public Works Department asked that the intersection of Gilbert Drive and Isabella Parkway be redesigned to remove the 4 way intersection. The revised map incorporates this request. Construction Traffic: The Commission directed the applicant to mitigate the construction traffic. The applicant stated that the heavy grading equipment will be moved in within a 48 hour period and that homeowners along Gilbert Drive will be notified prior to the movement (see condition 197). Via Princessa• As part of the conditions, staff reccnmends that no Certificate of Occupancy be issued until Via Princessa is completed from the project to Sierra Highway. The applicant has requested that they be allowed to start construction 7 months prior to completion since that is the approximate time frame to construct the first phase of houses. Staff feels that this is a reasonable request (see condition 152). The applicant has addressed all of to concerns of both the Commission and staff. Therefore staff recommends approval of Tract 44359. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT Vesting Tentative Tract Map 44359 Zone Change/Conditional Use Permit 85-503 DATE: October 3, 1989 T0: 2f-XC�hrwomWa?c i and Members the Planning Commission KFROH: u sti rector of Community Development APPLICANT: American Beauty Homes, Incorporated LOCATION: Southwesterly of the terminus of Gilbert Drive REQUEST: The applicants are requesting approval of a change of zone, conditional use permit, and vesting tentative tract map to allow construction of 203 single family detached condominiums on an approximately 47.4 acre site. 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 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 44359 and Conditional Use Permit 85-503, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit "A"). The conditions attached for the CUP include a requirement to maize modifications to the layout which may necessitate a slight reduction in the number of dwelling units. 3. Recommend approval of Zone Change 85-503 to the City Council, based on the required findings. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The project site is an approximately.47.4 acre property which is situated southwesterly of the terminus of Gilbert Drive. The site extends southerly to the extension of Via Princessa and is currently undeveloped. The site consists of approximately 29 acres of fairly level areas with the remainder of the'site consisting of moderately steep slopes and localized ravines. The vegetation on the site consists of scattered tree species and native chapparal plants. The site has been altered through the presence of dirt service roads and other maintenance activities. The condition of the site is best described as semi -natural. The proposed project would develop the site with 203 .single family detached condominiums and 1 recreational facility on a total of 13 lots. The project is referred to by the applicants as the Meadows II tract. The project was originally submitted to Los Angeles County in October 1985 as part of a General Plan Amendment and included a i commercial development at the southerly end of the site. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project, in conjunction with an adjacent project which has now become inactive (Tract 44360). Discussions between City staff and the applicant have led tc the deletion of the commercial portion of the proposal and the preparation of an updated Traffic Impact Study (Thomas S. Montgomery and Associates, July.1989). The project site is currently classified as being situated in the A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural Zone) and the applicants are requesting a change of zone to reclassify the property as RPD -1-6U (Residential Planned Development 6 units per acre). The Los Angeles County Santa Clarita Valley Area Wide General Plan land use designations for the property are U2 (Urban Residential 2/3.4 to 6.6 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 23.4 acres and HM (Hillside Management) for the remaining 24 acres. A maximum of 176 dwelling units would have been allowed under the County's General Plan; however, the applicants have illustrated that the County's General Plan land use designation does not accurately assess the conditions on the site. Approximately 14.6 acres of the site are designated as HM, though it has natural slopes of less than 25:. The proposed 203 units represent the maximum number of units that would be allowed if the HM land use designation accurately delineated the 25Z slope boundaries. The project proposes the grading and movement of approximately 1 million cubic yards of dirt which would reconfigure the existing terrain and redistribute all of the dirt onsite. The site does not contain any prominent ridgelires and does not appear to be part of a sensitive natural environment. Although the project would substantially alter the existing site, -the finished project should be visually compatible with the adjacent residential developments. The project has a gross density of approximately 4.3 dwelling units per acre (du/pa) which is averaged over the entire 47.4 acres. This density figure includes credit for an area which is designated as a "restricted use area" and must remain as natural open space. This density is lower than the adjacent developed areas, which have densities ranging from 5 du/ac to 16 du/ac. The project consists of approximately 11.85 acres of open space (25Z) excluding the restricted use or manufactured slope areas. The development of .the site with single family residences is a compatible land use proposal; however, certain features of the site plan could be improved upon with minor modifications. Approximately...eight of .the condominium units are situated on the cul de sac and street elbows in a manner that would give them minimal street frontages. These units would have minimum frontages of approximately 10 feet which would give those units the appearance of being situated on flag lots. These units could be eliminated to reduce the overall density of the project and increase the average area of each remaining unit. The two condominium units with side frontage on Via Princessa should be eliminated to give the project more open space and increased landscaped setback from Via Princessa. The Public Works Department has recommended that the four-way intersection of Isabella Parkway, Gilbert Drive, and Ellen Court (Dixon Court) be eliminated. This could be accomplished by extending Ellen Court through to Jayme Court (Barbara Lane) and creating a cul-de-sac terminus. The placement of the garage for some of the units is as close as 14 feet to the sidewalk. A minimum front yard building setback of 20 feet from the sidewalk would give the tract a more open and spacious appearance and allow vehicles to park outside of the garages but having no sidewalk overhang. Thus, the CUP has been conditioned to show a new plot plan demonstrating off-street parking capabilities. Additionally, the --uniform placement of. the.individual.units.on Isabella Parkway should be modified to provide a staggered front building setback of 20-25 feet to give the project a less monotonous streetscape. Five separate floor plans are currently anticipated with Table 1 illustrating the various characteristics of each type. Distribution of each unit has not been indicated, and the applicants have indicated that a sixth floor plan has been conceptually proposed. TABLE 1 The applicant has submitted an updated Traffic Impact Study which assumes that the project would be fully occupied by the year 1995. The project also assumes that 38 other known planned developments will be constructed in the area. The Study forecasts that 1,970 daily vehicle trips would be generated by the development, with 151 trips during the morning peak hour and 209 during the afternoon peak..hour. The Study assumes that Plum Canyon Road would be extended from Whites Canyon Road to Bouquet Canyon Road and that Whites Canyon Road/Via Princessa would be extended from Soledad Canyon Road to Route 14. The Study also assumes that Via Princessa would be extended..westerly..of_Whites.Canyon Road to connect with Rainbow Glen Drive. The Study indicates that traffic conditions at a number of nearby intersections would be substantially impacted at the 1995 level, due to the cumulative effect of the 38 other known projects. The predicted future volume/capacity ratios at these critical intersections are shown in Table 2. Table 2 also shows the relative impact that this project would have on these volume/capacity values. For the most part, the project contributes very little to the already impacted conditions. Therefore, the project impact can be generally considered insignificant. I of i of # of Units Floor Plan Unit Area Rooms Stories in Tract 1 1,200 sq. ft. 3 bd,2 bth 1 20 2 1,423 sq. ft. 3 bd,2 bth 1 20 3 1,653 sq. ft. 3 bd,2-1/2 bth 2 56 4 1,842 sq. ft. 4 bd,3 bth 2 56 5 2,217 sq. ft. 4 bd,3 bth 2 51 The applicant has submitted an updated Traffic Impact Study which assumes that the project would be fully occupied by the year 1995. The project also assumes that 38 other known planned developments will be constructed in the area. The Study forecasts that 1,970 daily vehicle trips would be generated by the development, with 151 trips during the morning peak hour and 209 during the afternoon peak..hour. The Study assumes that Plum Canyon Road would be extended from Whites Canyon Road to Bouquet Canyon Road and that Whites Canyon Road/Via Princessa would be extended from Soledad Canyon Road to Route 14. The Study also assumes that Via Princessa would be extended..westerly..of_Whites.Canyon Road to connect with Rainbow Glen Drive. The Study indicates that traffic conditions at a number of nearby intersections would be substantially impacted at the 1995 level, due to the cumulative effect of the 38 other known projects. The predicted future volume/capacity ratios at these critical intersections are shown in Table 2. Table 2 also shows the relative impact that this project would have on these volume/capacity values. For the most part, the project contributes very little to the already impacted conditions. Therefore, the project impact can be generally considered insignificant. l f TABLE 2 FUTURE VOLUME/CAPACITY RELATIONSHIPS ICU/LOS Values Study Intersection along.Soledad Cyn. Road at: Bouquet Canyon Road Rainbow Glen Drive Whites Canyon Road Sierra Highway Peak Time Without I With Period Site Traffic Site Traffic AM 1.16-F 1.17-F PM 1.93-F 1.94-F AM 0.79-C 0.80-C PM 0.86-D 0.90-D AM 1.41-F' 1.41-F PM 1.77-F 1.77-F AM 1.02-F 1.02-F PM 1.09-F 1.09-F (Thomas S. Montgomery and Associates, July 1989) Table 2 indicates a four percentage point change at the intersection of Soledad Canyon and Rainbow Glen Drive. This relatively significant impact can be mitigated by the planned improvements currently scheduled for the intersection. Table 2 shows that three critical intersections are well beyond their theoretical capacity at the 1995 level with and without this project. While it is foreseeable that other roadway improvements would be in place by 1995, the study does not, and as a practical matter, cannot address those improvements. Therefore, the future traffic impact from this project can be measured in the context of an already over capacity situation and viewed as relatively insignificant, due to the small incremental change in the critical volume/capacity value. The recordation of this tract map will be contingent upon the completion of the Whites Canyon Bridge to Via Princessa and Via Princessa through to Sierra Highway. This critical transportation route should be completed prior to recordation of this map to alleviate already impacted intersections and to direct this project's construction related traffic around occupied residential developments. Access for grading activity, allowed prior to recordation of the map, would be allowed via temporary routes, with these routes being subject to City approval. To summarize, the staff is recommending approval of the project even though it exceeds the density allowed by the Santa Clarita Plan because the Plan appears to have been mis-plotted in terms of the boundaries of the hillsides. Per the applicant's calculations, the project is at the high end of the density range allowable using his refined boundaries of the hillsides. The absolute high end of the "hillside formula" range is normally discouraged, but this project is of an infill nature and is at a lesser density than the existing projects which surround it. Staff's concerns are that the homes plotted on the "Exhibit A" for CUP 85-503 should be conditioned to allow a minimum of twenty feet between the garages and sidewalks, thus allowing for automobile parking outside .of the garage without compromising pedestrian safety; also that the flag lot situation be eliminated; elimination of the units with side frontage on Via Princessa; and that no grading activity take place which uses the residential streets to move heavy equipment. Per the Public Works Department's recommendation, one four-way intersection would be eliminated. Also, that no recordation, and -therefore no construction, take place until the stated road improvements all take place. Without these improvements in place, the residents of this community would be forced to endure continued construction activity and possible population increase in -an area which developed without the benefit of a second means of access. The City recognizes that this pattern of development as permitted by Los Angeles County isnot in conformance with the Code and not to acceptable planning standards. Therefore, no furtherance of development or development activity should be promoted until that second means of access is available to the current residents. KP.P /KU / s k RESOLUTION NO. P90-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 44359 AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 85-503 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 was filed with the County of Los Angeles, October 8, 1985, by American Beauty Homes. ("the applicant"). The property for which this entitlement has been filed is a 47.4 -acre parcel located at the southwest terminus of Gilbert Drive. The site is zoned A-2-1. The purpose of the vesting tentative tract map application is to create 14 lots within the subject site for 187 single family residential units . Assessor Parcel No. 2836-018-034, 039. b. The County of Los Angeles Development Review Committee (DRC) met on November 1, 1985 and reviewed the project. C. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 20, 1990 at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing, and upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Commission further finds and determines as follows: a. The City of Santa Clarita is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of a general plan. There is a reasonable probability that this project, 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-way 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. d. The applicant has submitted a vesting tentative tract map which depicts the area proposed for the 14 lots with 187 dwelling units 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 educational uses. 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 and conditional use permit subject to following conditions attached hereto as "Exhibit 1" and incorporated herein by reference allowing the creation of 14 lots for 187 additional single family residential dwelling. SECTION 5. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval to the City Council of the request for a zone change form A-2-1 to RPD -1-6U 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 20th day of February, 1990. 7 Louis Brathw—d# e, Vibe Chairman 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 20th day of February, 1990, by the following vote of the Commission: i AYES: Commissioners: Modugno, Worden and Vice Chairman Brathwaite NOES: EXCUSED: Commissioner Sharar and Chairwoman Garasi 111L-14 i41� Mark Scott, Director Community Development Tentative Tract Map 44359 Zone Change and Conditional Use Permit 85-503 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General 1. The approval of this tentative map shall expire two (2) years from the date of conditional approval. 2. The applicant may file for an extension of the conditionally approved tentative map prior to the date of expiration for a period of time not to exceed one (1) 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 Community Development Department in writing in the event of any change of ownership, designation of new engineer, or a change in the status of the permittee, within 30 days of said change. 4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this permit. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or 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 brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant and shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this Condition prohibits the. City from participating -in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both 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 settlement is approved by the applicant. Public Works Department 5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the RPD zone. 6. Details and notes shown on the tentative map are not necessarily approved. Any details or notes which may be inconsistent with requirements of ordinances, general conditions of approval, or City policies must be specifically approved in other conditions, or ordinance requirements are modified to those shown on the tentative map upon approval by the Advisory agency. 7. Easements are tentatively required, subject to review by the City Engineer to determine the final locations and requirements. 8. Easements shall not be granted or recorded within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets, highways, access rights, buildings restriction rights, or other easements until after the final map is filed with the County Recorder. If easements are granted after the date of tentative approval, a subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing of the final map. 9. In lieu of establishing the final specific locations of structures on each lot/parcel at this time, the owner, at the time of issuance of a grading or 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, 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. 10. All easements existing at the time of final map approval must be accounted for on the approved tentative map. This includes the location, owner, purpose, and recording reference for all existing easements. If an easement is blanket or indeterminate in nature, a statement to that effect must be shown on the tentative map in lieu of its location. If all easements have not been accounted for, submit a corrected tentative map to the Planning Department for approval. 11. A final tract map must be processed through the City Engineer prior to being filed with the County Recorder. 12. Prior to. final approval, arrangements will be made for the City to accept future Gilbert Drive as offered on Tract No. 34367 filed in M.B. 1044-5-15. 13...It__appears .that off-site improvements -are-necessary-to.. adequately serve this development. If off-site easements are required, this tentative map approval is subject to the applicant's acceptance of the following conditions for acquisition of these easements: a. Applicant shall secure at the applicant's expense sufficient title or interest in land to permit any off-site improvements to be made. b. If the applicant is unable to acquire sufficient title or interest to permit the off-site improvements to be made the applicant shall notify the City of this inability and request the City to use its powers of condemnation to acquire the easement. The applicant shall pay all acquisition costs including those incurred by the City. The final map(s) shall not be submitted to the City for approval until the easements are acquired or an order of immediate possession is received by the City. 14. The final map shall designate the "Not A Part" lot on the south side of Via Princessa and the property within the boundaries of Tract 44360 as "Remainder Parcels." 15. Prior to issuance of a permit or other grant of approval for development of the designated remainder parcel. comply with the following• a. The owner at the time of issuance of a permit or other grant of approval for development over the designated remainder parcel, shall develop the property in conformance with the City Municipal Code and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Ordinance, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Zoning Ordinance, Undergrounding or Utilities Ordinance, Water Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance,.Electrical Code, and Fire Code. b. Provide drainage facilities to eliminate the flood hazard to the satisfaction of the Department. c. Connect to a mainline sanitary sewer to the -satisfaction of the Department. d. Provide water facilities to the satisfaction of the Department. e. Provide road right of way and construct street improvements to the satisfaction of the Department. f. Provide easements to the satisfaction of the Department. 9-1 Eliminate any geologic and soil hazards to the satisfaction of the Department. 16. Prior to final approval of the tract map submit a notarized _affidavit to the Director of Public Works, signed by all owners of record at the time of filing of the map with the County Recorder, stating that any proposed condominium building has not constructed or that all buildings have not been occupied or rented an that said building will not be occupied or rented until after the filing of the map with the County Recorder. 17. Furnish the City with a list of street names acceptable to the applicant. These names must not be duplicated within a radius of 20 miles. 0 18. Place standard condominium/residential planned development/Landscape Maintenance District notes on the final map to the satisfaction of the City. 19. If the applicant intends to file multiple final maps, he must so inform the City at the time the tentative map is filed. The boundaries of the unit final maps shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City. 20. Show the remainder of the last legally created parcel as a "Remainder Parcel" on any final map to the satisfaction of the City. 21. If signatures of record title interests appear on the final map, a preliminary guarantee is needed. A final guarantee will be required. If said signatures do not appear on the final map, a title report/guarantee is needed showing all fee owners and interest holders and this account must remain open until the final parcel map is filed with the County Recorder. 22. The applicant shall document the reservation of an easement for ingress and egress over lots 2, 3, and 7 to provide access to the water tank site. 23. The applicant shall prepare signing and striping plans for all multi -lane streets and highways within or abutting this land division to the satisfaction of the City. 24. The centerlines of all local streets shall be aligned without creating jogs of less than 150 feet. A one foot jog may be used where a street changes width from 60 feet to a 58 feet right of way. 25. The minimum centerline radius is 350 feet on all local streets with 40 feet between curbs and on all streets where grades exceed 1OZ. 26. The minimum centerline radius is 500 feet on a local street with an intersecting street on the concave side. 27. Design local streets to have minimum centerline curve radii which will provide centerline curves of 100 feet minimum length. Reversing curves need not exceed a radius of 1,500 feet and any .curve need not exceed a radius of 3,000 feet. The length of curve outside of the BCR is used to satisfy the 100 foot minimum requirement. _28...Compound-•curves---are -pre ferred ,over- broken -back curves. Broken -back curves must be separated by a minimum of 200 feet of tangent. 29. The central angles of the right of way radius returns shall not differ by more then 10 degrees on local streets. 30. 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. 31. Construct drainage improvements and offer easements needed for street drainage or slopes. 32. Driveways to be abandoned shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter, and sidewalk. 33. Repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavement on streets within or abutting the subdivision. 34. Construct additional pavement on partially improved highways to provide a striped left -turn lane at entrance street intersection(s.) 35. Driveways will not be permitted within 25 feet upstream of any catch basins when street grades exceed 6Z. 36. Construct full width sidewalks at all walk returns. 37. Construct a slough wall outside the street right of way when the height of slope is grater then five feet above the sidewalk and the sidewalk is adjacent to the street right of way. 38. Provide and install street name signs prior to occupancy of buildings(s.) 39. Existing trees in dedicated right-of-way or right-of-way to be dedicated shall be removed if they are not acceptable as street trees. 40. Prior to final approval, enter into a written agreement with the City of Santa Clarita whereby the subdivider agrees to pay to the City of Santa Clarita a sum to be determined by the City Council, times the factor per development unit for the purpose of contributing to a proposed Bridge and Thoroughfare Benefit District to implement the highway element of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impacts of this and other subdivisions in the area. The form,of security for performance of said agreement shall be negotiable. 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 up to a maximum of $1,000 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 by 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 a follows: Development Unit Factor Single family residential 1.0 *Slopes grater than 10' vertical in height may be deducted from net lot acreage. 41. Postal delivery receptacles shall be located behind the sidewalk and installed in groups to serve two or more residential units. 42. Prior to final approval, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the cable TV operator to permit the installation of cable in a common utility trench. 43. Dedicate right-of-way 40 feet from centerline on Via Princessa. 44. Dedicate right-of-way 32 feet from centerline on Isabella Parkway and Gilbert Drive. 45. Dedicate right-of-way 30 feet from centerline on Barbara Drive and Eddie Drive. 46. Dedicate right of way 29 feet from centerline on all cul-de-sac streets. 47. Design the intersections of local streets with -General Plan Highways to provide a 55 mph sight distance along the highway. Additional right of way dedication and/or grading may be required. 48. Dedicate vehicular access rights on north side of Via Princessa, unless the City requires the construction of a wall. In such cases, complete access rights shall be dedicated. 49. Plant street trees on all streets and highways. 50. Construct curb, gutter, base, pavement, sidewalks and street lights on all streets and highways. 51. Construct..Gilbert Drive off site to join the existing standard width improvement in Tract 34367. The existing cul-de-sac terminus of Gilbert Drive shall be removed to the satisfaction of the City. 52.. At. the -Applicant's request, and with his consent, the following shall apply: "The applicant shall not be entitled to receive any building permits for this project unless, and until, the City receives from the County of Los Angeles written assurances that (1)the improvements now under construction for the completion of Via Princessa through Sierra Highway to a point 1200 feet ..west of Rainbow Glen has been begun, and (2)completion of those improvements, acceptance thereof by the appropriate jurisdiction, and opening of Via Princessa is expected by the County to occur within seven months of the date of the written assurance to the City from the Director of Los Angeles County Department of Public Works; the foregoing notwithstanding, the Developer shall not be entitled to, nor granted, Certificates of Occupancy for any residential unit in this project unless or until the improvements to Via Princessa and Whites Canyon have been completed, accepted by the appropriate jurisdiction, and opened for public use." 53. Contribute a fair share -.toward the cost of traffic signals at the intersections of Soledad Canyon Road/Golden Valley Road and Via Princessa/Rainbow Glen Drive. 54. Provide 225 feet sight distance from Grommon Way onto Gilbert Drive. 55. The applicant shall install separate house laterals to serve each _ building/lot/parcel in the land division. Installation and dedication of main line sewers is necessary to meet this requirement. 56. The applicant shall submit an area study to the City to determine whether capacity is available in the sewerage system to be used as the outlet for the sewers in this land division. If the system is found to have insufficient capacity, the problem must be resolved to the satisfaction of the City. 57. The applicant shall send a print of the land division map to the County Sanitation District, with a request for annexation. Such annexation must be assured in writing. 58. Off-site improvements are tentatively required. 59. Easements are tentatively required, subject to review by the Director of Public Works to determine the final locations and requirements. 60. A deposit is required to review documents and plans for final map clearance in accordance with Section 21.36.010(c) for the Subdivision Ordinance. 61. The discharge of sewage from this land division into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the .Water Code. 62. Portions of the property (lying in and adjacent to) natural drainage courses are subject to flood hazard because of mudflows from steep . hillsides. 63. Portions of the property are subject to sheet overflow and mudflows from steep hillsides. 64. Drainage plans and necessary support documents to comply with the following requirements must be approved to the satisfaction of the City prior to filing of the final map. 65. Provide drainage facilities to remove the flood hazard and dedicate and show necessary easements and/or rights-of-way on the final map. 66. Provide for the proper distribution of drainage. 67. Show and label all natural drainage courses. 68. No building permits will be issued for lots/parcels subject to flood hazard until the buildings are adequately protected. 69. Provide for road drainage. 70. Notify the State Department of Fish and Game prior to commencement of work within any natural drainage course. 71. Contact the Corps of Engineers to determine if a 404 permit is required for proposed work within the major watercourse. 72. A deposit is required to review documents and plans for final map clearance in accordance with Section 21.36.010(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance. 73. Comply with the requirements of the approved Drainage Concept dated September 1, 1987 to the satisfaction of the City. 74. A grading plan must be submitted and approved prior to approval of the final map. 75. A preliminary soil report must be submitted prior to approval of the final map. The report, based upon adequate test borings or excavations, shall (1) describe any soil or geologic condition(s) which, if not corrected might lead to structural damage or slope failure, and (2) recommend action likely to prevent structural damage or slope failure. A soil _expansion index test is required and shall be done in accordance with the procedures of UBC Std. No. 29-2. 76. Off site grading covenants will be required for the off site grading that is indicated on the tentative map. 77. A water system with appurtenant facilities to serve all lot/parcels in the land division must be provided. The system shall include fire hydrants of the type and location as determined by the Fire Chief. The water mains shall be sized to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows. 78. Easements shall be granted to the City, appropriate agency or entity for the purpose of ingress, egress, construction and maintenance of all infrastructure constructed for this land division to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 79. There shall be filed with the Department a statement from the water purveyor indicating that the water system will be operated by the purveyor and that under normal operating conditions, the system will meet the requirements for the land division, and.that.-water service will be provided to each lot/parcel. 80. A deposit is required to review documents and plans for final map clearance in accordance with Section 21.36.010(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance. 81. Thp final map must be approved by the City to assure that all geologic factors have been properly evaluated. 82. A grading plan must be approved by the City. This grading plan must be based on a detailed engineering geology report and/or soils engineering report and must be specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer and show all recommendations submitted by them. It must also agree with the tentative map and conditions as approved by the City all buttresses over 25 feet high must be accompanied by calculations. 83. All geologic hazards associated with this proposed development must be eliminated or delineate a restricted use area approved by the consultant geologist to the satisfaction of the City and dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within the restricted use areas. 84. Comply with the Geologic Review sheet dated July 16, 1987 which was developed by Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Fire Department 85. Provide water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flows as required by the County Forester and Fire Warden forall land shown on the map to be recorded. 86. Provide Fire Department and City approved street signs, and building address numbers prior to occupancy. 87. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. 88. This property is located within the area described by the Forester and Fire Warden as Fire Zone 4 and future construction must comply with applicable code requirements. 89. Brush clearance shall comply with the Los Angeles County Fire Code, Division V. Section 11.501 through Section 11.529. 90. Fire -Department access shall extend to within 150 feet 'distance of any portion of structures to be built. Parks Department 91. Since the subdivision contains fifty or less lots, the subdivider has the option of either -providing approximately 2.07 acres of land suitable for a park site or pay a park in -lieu fee equal to the fair market value of an equivalent amount of land as established by ordinance. 92. If a fee is paid in -lieu of suitable land dedication, the fee will be based on the average fair market value per acre for the planning area as contained in the Subdivision Ordinance at the time the in -lieu fee is paid. The present average fair market value for this planning area is $105,280/acre. Therefore, your fee would be $200,811. at the present time. School Districts 93. The applicants shall maintain an agreement acceptable to the William S. Hart and Saugus School Districts which will provide adequate compensation for the -,impact of- this project -on the existing educational facilities. Community Development Department 94. Approval of this tentative map and conditional use permit is contingent upon the approval of the zone change request by the City Council. No work authorized by this tentative map and conditional use permit shall commence until the ordinance adopting the zone change is approved by the City Council. 95. Landscape plans for all open space and slope areas shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and are subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. 96. The applicant shall --submit a revised Exhibit "A", the conditional use permit site plan which includes the following changes and shall be subject to the satisfaction of the Department of Community Development. a. All buildings shall be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the sidewalk. Actual setback shall fluctuate between 20-25 feet. 97. No traffic for heavy construction equipment shall be allowed via the existing residential streets except on the initial move -in. During the initial move -in the applicant shall notify all home owners along Gilbert Drive west of Rainbow Glen Drive. This is to be done 72 hours in advance of the first truck arriving. The applicant will complete this movement within 48 hours. 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: American Beauty Homes Inc. Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Zone TYPE OF PERMIT: Change. Conditional Use Permit FILE NO.:.VTTM 44359, ZC/CUP 85-503 xxaaaxaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammaaaaaaaaaxxaaxaaaaaaaaaaaxacaaaaaaaaaaaaaxaaxaaaa LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Southwesterly of the terminus of Gilbert Drive. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The proposed project is a request to construct 203 detached single-family condominiums on an approximately 47.4 acre site. It is the opinion of [ J City Council [ ] Planning Commission [X] Director upon review that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. Mitigation measures Form completed by: [X] are attached [ ] are not attached (Signature) ' -- Keith Uselding. •Assistant Planner (Name and Title) Date of Public Notice: September 13. 1989 [X] Legal advertisement. [ ] Posting of properties. [ ] Written notice. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA VTTM 44359 CASE NO. ZC/CUP 85-503 Prepared by: Keith Uselding Project Location: Southwesterly of the terminus of Gilbert Drive. Project Description and Setting: The project is a request to construct 203 detached single-family condominiums on an approximately 47.4 acre site. The site is undeveloped and consists of moderately steep slopes, scattered tree species, and native chaparral plants. The surrounding area consists of undeveloped land and residential tracts. Santa Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan Designation Urban 2. Hillside Management Zoning: A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural) Applicant: American Beauty Homes Environmental Constraint Areas: Hillside Management Area, Fire Zone 4 A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Vill the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? .................. ( ] [X] [ J b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? ............... [X] [ ] [ ] C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ........................... [X] [ ] [ J d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? .................................. [ ] [X] [ ] e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the -site? .......... [X1 [ ] [ ] f. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ................................... [ ] [X] [ ] g. Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ................................. [ ] [ ] [X] h. Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? ........................... [ ] [ ] [XJ 2 - YES MAYBE NO i. Earth mcvement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? ....................... [X] [ ] [ J j. Development and/or grading on a slope • greater than 25Z natural grade? ............ [X] [ ] [ ] k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ] [ J (X] 1. Other? [ ] [ J [ J 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? .................... [ ] [XJ [ J b. The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [ ] [ J [X] C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? .............. [ ] [ ] [X] d. Development within a high wind hazard area? ...................................... [ ] [ ] [X] e. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ] 3. Yater. Will the proposal result in: a. _.Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ............................ [X] [ ] [ ] b. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? .............................. [ ] [XJ [ ] C. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ......................... [ ] [ ] [X] d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ ] [ ] [X] e. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ..................... [ [X] [ ] f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an --aquifer-by cuts or excavations? ............ [ ] [ ] [X] g. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ............................ [ ] [ ] [X] l 3 YES MAYBE NO h. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? .......... ( ] [X] [ ] i. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ] 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ... [ ] [XJ [ J b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? ...... [ ] ( ] [X] C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal re- plenishment of existing species? ........... [ ] ( ] [XJ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ...................................... [ ] [ ] [X] S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and insects or microfauna)? .................... [X] [ ] [ ] b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or -endangered -species of animals? ..... [ ] [ ] [X] C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ...... [ ] [ ] [X] d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat and/or migratory routes? ........... ( ] [X] [ ] 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [X] [ ] [ ] b. Exposure of people to severe or unacceptab.le..noise ..levels?_-..._. J [XJ C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [ ] [ ] [X] 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? ................. [X] [ J [ ] 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial alteration of the present land use of an area? ....................... [X] [ ] [ ] b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of an area? ............... [ ] ( J [X] 4 - YES MAYBE NO C. A use that does not adhere to existing zoning laws? ............................... [ l [ l (Xl d. A use that does not adhere to established • development criteria? ...................... [ l [ J [X] 9. Natural Resources.... Will.the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ................................. [ ] [ l [Xl b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources? ......................... [ ] [ J [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? .......................... [ ] [ ] [XJ b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard- ous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ................................ [ l [ l [Xl C. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ...................................... [ l [ l [Xl d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety hazards? ................................... [ l [ l [Xl 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? ..................... [ l [X] [ l b. Other? [ l [ l [ l 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] [ ] [ •r 4L 5 - YES MAYBE NO b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ................. [ ] [XI [ I C. Substantial impact upon existing • transportation systems, including public transportation? ............................ [XI [ I [ l d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? .............................. [ ] ( I [XI e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... (X) [ ] [ ] f. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? .............................. [ ] [ l [XI 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? ........................... [ I [X] [ I b. Police protection? ......................... [ ) [X) [ ] C. Schools? ................................... (XI [ I ( I d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .... [ ] [XJ [ I e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ........................... [ J [XJ [ ) f. Other governmental services? ............... [ ] [ I [X] 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in? a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy. .................................... [ l ( I [XI b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? .. [ ] [ ] [X] 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ...................... [ I (XI [ l b. Communications systems? .................... [ ] [X] [ I C. Water systems? ............................. [ I (XI [ I d. Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [ I [X) [ I e. Storm drainage systems? .................... [ ] [X] [ I 6 _ YES MAYBE NO f. Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... ( J ( ] [XJ 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? ................................... [ J [ ] [X] 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? ................... [ ] [X] [ ] b. Will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ....................... [ ] [ ] [X] C. Will the visual impact of the proposal be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ ] [X] [ ] 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X] 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? .............. [ ] [ ] [X] b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? ... [ ] [ J [XJ C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? [ ] [ ] [X] d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X] 7 Discussion of Impacts. Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact 1 a.b.c.d.e. The proiect involves the grading of approximately f.i.i one million cubic yards of earth. 2 a The proiect could impact air quality in the imme- diate area. 3 a.b.e.h Absorption rates, drainage patterns and run-off would be altered. 4 a Plant specimens will be removed. 5 a.d Semi-natural animal habitat will be altered. 6 a The nroiect will increase the amount of noise. 7 The project will increase light and glare. 8 a The development of the site with a residential tract is a substantial alteration from its present vacant status. 11 a The nroiect will encourage nonulation growth in the immed4ate area. 13 a,b,c,e, The nroiect will generate a substantial amount of traffic. 14 a,b,d,e Public services may be affected. 14 c School systems will be impacted. 16 a,b,c,d,e The expansion of utility services is required for this nronosal. 18 a.c The nronosal would alter the view from the sur- rounding area. i 8 B. DISCUSSION OF WAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED la,b,c,d,e,f,i,j) The proposed project would require substantial grading and movement of earth, which could result in unstable earth conditions. The grading would substantially alter the existing topography and would increase erosion on the site during the construction period. The project could be exposed to geologic hazards as some of the grading and development would occur on slopes with natural grades in excess of 25Z. Mitigation measures which address these geologic conditions will help to reduce potentially significant impacts to acceptable levels. The potentially unstable earth conditions will be assessed by the City's Public Works Department through a grading plan which must be submitted prior to the recordation of a final map. Compaction and displacement of soil is an expected impact of a development of this size and type. The development of sloping vacant land with residential housing tracts requires earth movement and the covering of the soil with pavement, building foundations, and ornamental landscaping. The grading will change the topography of the site and could modify some unique geologic features; however, the project is adjacent to projects which have substantially altered the area's topography and the site does not contain any prominent ridgelines. The view from surrounding locations already includes some developed areas and this project would represent an extension of that developed appearance. The project will significantly increase on-site erosion during the construction period; however, the completed project would actually reduce the overall amount of erosion by covering the natural terrain with pavement, buildings and landscaped areas. Erosion during the construction period will be controlled through the use of water trucks, temporary sandbag levees and the covering of exposed slopes with plastic tarps. The potential exposure of people and property to landslide and mudslide hazards will be addressed by the City's Public Works Depar-tment .through the required grading plan. The potential for geologic hazards from earthquakes and ground failures is not considered to be excessive in this area of the Santa Clarita Valley. The proposed grading of approximately one.million cubic yards of earth would be balanced between cut and fill areas on-site. The grading and the proposed development would include areas that have natural grades exceeding 25Z. The site is currently undeveloped, but has been modified through the presence of numerous dirt service roads and human activity. The project appears to represent an extension of development into an area that has been undergoing a transition towards an urban environment. The site does not appear to be part of a sensitive natural environment. 2a) The project would add 203 residential units to the area which would generate a substantial amount of vehicular traffic and could decrease air quality. It is unlikely that the project itself would attract people from outside of the region and the overall air quality impacts should be minimal. 3a,b,e,h) The development of a vacant site with pavement and buildings will alter the drainage patterns and amount of run-off, and could alter the direction of ground water flows because of the required grading. A drainage concept for the project has been reviewed, and complete mitigation plans for __._the potential flood impacts will-be'required prior to final map clearance. 4a) The project proposed to remove all of the existing plants on the site, but no oak trees or other unique species appear to be present. The numbers of -,some -species -will be reduced, 'but significant impacts on any particular species is unlikely. -9- B. DISCUSSION OF WAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED - CONTINUED 5a,d) The development of this semi -natural site will reduce the habitat for certain bird and animal species; however, the area consists of other adjacent areas of potential habitat and no unique or endangered species are known'to occupy the site. 6a,7) The proposal..will.increase.the amount -of noise, light and.glare in the immediate area, but the site is planned for residential development and is situated in a developing urban setting. The amount of noise during the construction period will be mitigated through the restriction of construction activity to daytime hours. 8a) The project would result in a substantial alteration from the site's present undeveloped status. This impact is inherent in the development of vacant property and the new land use would be compatible with the adjacent residential projects. lla) The completed project would increase the population of the immediate area, but it is not likely that this project alone would encourage people from outside the Santa Clarita Valley to relocate. The overall impact of this project on population should be minimal. 13a,b,c,e,) The proposed project will generate a substantial amount of traffic in the immediate area. A Traffic Study was prepared for the project which addresses the potential impacts and suggests mitigation measures. The Traffic Study forecasts that 1,970 daily vehicle trips would be generated by the development, with 151 trips during the morning peak hours - and 209 during the afternoon peak hours. The Traffic Study assumes that the 203 units would be fully occupied by the year of 1995. The Study further assumes that Plum Canyon Road would be extended from Whites Canyon Road to Bouquet Canyon Road and that Whites Canyon Road/Via Princessa would be extended from Soledad Canyon Road to Route 14. The Study also assumes that Via Princessa would be extended westerly of Whites Canyon Road to connect with Rainbow Glen Drive. These extensions would help to mitigate the impacts of the increased traffic. In addition to the.subject project, the Study considers traffic generated by 38 other known planned developments in the area. The Study assumes that the 38 projects would be completed by 1995 and that this project would contribute insignificantly to the total future traffic volume. The intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon Road is projected to operate at approximately 1942 of capacity if all 38 projects are completed. This project could help mitigate the future traffic conditions through the required improvements. The overall impacts of this project are not regionally significant when all of the planned projects are considered; however, the impacts of this project on Soledad Canyon Road at Rainbow Glen Drive are locally significant. The _ _..p.ro,j,ect..will-be required -to --construct orr=site-road improvements to Via Princessa and interior streets, pay Bridge and Thoroughfare District Fees, and the project cannot be commenced until Via Princessa is fully constructed and open to public travel. Access for grading activity will not be allowed via..- the •-residential--streets;- a temporary--secondary•-ac cess road -will be -the mitigation measure to reduce the potential impacts of construction related traffic. -10- B. DISCUSSION OF WAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED - CONTINUED 14a,b,d,e) The project will require the extension of public services for fire and police protection, park facilities, and road maintenance; however, these services are already provided residents in the immediate area and this project should not significantly impact these services. Park lands and/or fees are a required mitigation measure and the approximately $422,017.00 or Z.07 -acres -of park land -should -mitigate any potentially negative impacts on parks and recreational services. 14c) The school districts servicing this project site are presently over capacity and will be significantly impacted by this project. The applicant shall mitigate these impacts by reaching a contractual agreement with the school districts. This agreement has not been reached as of September 11, 1989; however, verbal contact with representatives of the districts indicates that agreement may be reached prior to the Planning Commission Hearing of October 3, 1989. 16a,b,c,d,e) The project will require the extension of all utilities into the project site to service the additional 203 residences. The responsible agencies have responded to the project by stating that expansion of these utilities is possible as they currently serve adjacent developments. 18a,c) The project would substantially alter the view from the surrounding area, especially the view from north and east of the site. The site presently consists of semi -natural hillsides and spur ridgelines. The views of the site are already interrupted by developed areas and the required slope landscaping and maintenance should make the project visually acceptable. C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act states, in part, that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Envir6nmental 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.) .. [ ] [ J [X] 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ......... [ ] [ J [X] D. DETERMINATION On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that: I 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. ......................................... [ ] - 12 - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA September 12, 1989 �L Date Signature Keith Uselding, Assistant Planner Name and Title ATTACHMENTS Please see the April 24, 1990 City Council Agenda Packet for: Tentative Tract Map No. 44359