Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-05-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - DENIAL OF PROPOSED VESTING (2)AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING Lynn M. Harris DATE: May 14, 1991 SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46619 and Associated Permits, for the Property Located at the Southern Terminus of La Salle Canyon Drive. Applicant: Richard P. Howe, Gaviota, Inc. DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND: This item was continued.from the City Council meeting of April 25, 1991, due to incomplete public noticing. All public notices are now in order. Vesting.Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 46619 is a request to subdivide 49.4 acres of real property into 27 single-family residential lots; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 88-281 would allow for lot -size averaging and grading of approximately 74,000 cubic yards of earth within a "hillside management" area; Oak Tree Permit (OTP) 89-045 requests removal of 419 Coast.Live Oak trees. An Environmental Impact Report (previously circulated to the City Council) was prepared for the project and examines the impacts of the proposed project. The Environmental Impact Report found that significant environmental damage would occur if the project was approved as submitted at 27 lots. The Planning Commission reviewed the Environmental Impact Report and held a public hearing on November 20, 1990. Public testimony documented strong neighborhood opposition to the project and significant concern.about the findings of the Environmental Impact Report. The issues were: o The project would require the conversion of approximately nine acres of land from dedicated open space on adjacent property not a part of this map to residential use. The Commission determined this to be unacceptable and contrary to the policies of the City. o Although the proposed land use density for the area could be found to be consistent with the Draft General Plan at 27 lots, the Commission determined this density could not be achieved without significant damage to the.substantial environmental resources in La Salle Canyon. o The project would require a new entry gate configuration to alleviate an existing hazardous condition and to mitigate project impacts. The Commission determined the new entry configuration to be unacceptable as its construction would require encroachment onto private property. d G,eGv Agenda Item: Iii ow o As identified in the Environmental Impact Report, the project would have a significant'adverse impact on the environment.' The.Commission determined that the loss, of oak trees, oak woodland habitat, stream -course and riparian habitat, natural aesthetic, and geological and paleontologic resources could not be reduced to a level of insignificance; and that such loss was unacceptable. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission directed that the project be revised between 2 and 18 lots, and that the modified project reduce all impacts to a level of insignificance. The: applicant submitted a revised.map for 18 lots and another public hearing was held on February 19, 1991. At the conclusion of the hearing, and after additional public testimony against 18 lots, the Commission found the environmental impacts of an 18 lot division unacceptable and determined a subdivision of no more than eight lots could be approved for the site. Approval of an eight lot subdivision would satisfy -the majority of neighbor concerns and mitigate all environmental impacts to a satisfactory level. Testimony was received from the neighborhood that eight lots was a reasonable compromise. An eight lot subdivision would . result in no exchange.of open space, minimal grading, minimal impact on existing drainage, minimal impact on existing riparian habitat, and removal of no more than 65 oak trees. .:Staff was.directe& to work with the.applicant and.develop conditions for a . modified eight lot subdivision and remaining neighborhood issues. The applicant declined to submit an eight lot subdivision map, requesting.that the Planning Commission take such action as would allow an appeal to the City Council. As previously noted, the Commission then denied the original project application of 27 lots as modified to 18 lots, and -the applicant subsequently appealed.the.denial. Uphold Planning Commission Resolution No. P91-15, denying Proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46619, Conditional Use Permit 88-281, and Oak Tree Permit 89-045. ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION Direct applicant to prepare a modified eight lot tract map and return to the Planning Commission for action at the earliest possible -date. ATTACHMENTS A: Resolution P91-15 B: Letter of Appeal, March 20, 1991 C: Planning Commission Staff Report of November 20, 1990 D: Planning Commission Staff Report of February 19, 1991 E: Excerpt Minutes From Planning Commission Hearings on 11/20/90, 2/19/91 and 3/19/91 F: Project Correspondence G: Map of.VTTM 46619, 27 Lots H: Map of VTTM 46619, 18 Lots KI I• . • PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE 1. Mayor Opens Hearing a. States Purpose of Hearing 2. City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice 3. Staff Report (City Manager) or (City Attorney) or (RP Staff) 4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes) 5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes) 6. Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent) a. Proponent 7. Mayor Closes PublicTestimony S. Discussion by Council 9. Council Decision 10. Mayor Announces Decision CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEALING RESOLUTION NO. P91-15, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING -PROPOSED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 46619, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-281, AND OAR TREE PERMIT 89-045, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN.TERMINUS OF LA SALLE CANYON.DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1800 FEET SOUTH OF CALGROVE BLVD. PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission Resolution No. P91-15, to deny proposed vesting Tentative Tract -Map 46619, Conditional Use Permit 88-281, and Oak Tree Permit 89-045, for the property located at the southern terminus of La Salle Canyon Drive approximately 1800 feet south of Calgrove Blvd.; applicant Richard P. Howe of Gaviota, Inc. The hearing will be heard by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., lst Floor, the 23rd day of April, 1991, at or after 6:30 p.m. Dated: March 25, 1991 Donna M. Grindey City Clerk Publish Date: April 8, 1991 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., Ste. 300, Santa Clarita, Ca. Dated: March 25, 1991 Donna M. Grindey City Clerk Publish Date: April 8, 1991 ATTACHMENT A • RESOLUTION NO. P91-15 s A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING PROPOSED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 46619, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-281, AND OAK TREE PERMIT 89-045, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF LA SALLE CANYON DRIVE, AND CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 89-002 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. Applications for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM 46619) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP 88-281) were filed originally with the County of Los Angeles for the City of Santa Clarita by Richard P. Howe of Gaviota, Inc.. (the "applicant•) on August 4, 1988. b. The applications were transferred.from Los Angeles County Regional Planning staff to City Community Development staff at the end of December 1988. After submittal of additional information and numerous changes and revisions by the applicant, the applications were determined to be substantially complete,for case processing on August 22. 1989, and were circulated for City department and agency review on that date. c. The applications relate to the proposed development of 49.4 acres of real property located at the southern terminus of La Salle Canyon Drive, approximately 1800 feet south of Calgrove Boulevard. (Assessor Parcel Number 2827-027-007, and portions of -2827-'027-012. a legal description of which are on file in the Department of CommunityDevelopment.) d. The subject property is zoned Heavy Agticultural, 1 -acre minimum lot size (A-2-1). and is designated as Very Low Residential (RVL, 0.5 - 1.0 du/ac) by the City of Santa Clarita draft General Plan. The site was previously designated as Urban 2 (U2, 3.4 - 6.6 du/ac) and Hillside Management (HM) by the County of Los Angeles Santa Clarita Areawide General Plan. RESO. NO. P91-15 Page 1 of 7 e. As originally filed, VTTN 46619 requests subdivision of 49.4 acres into 27 residential lots, and CUP 88-281 requests approximately 74,000 cubic yards of earth grading in an area designated for hillside management. An Oak Tree Permit (OTP 89-045), filed with the City in August 1989, requests removal of 336 Coast Live Oak ' trees, later revised.to 419 oaks, of the approximately 900 - 1000 oak trees on site. f. The subdivision of land proposed by applicant includes the conversion of approximately 9.4 acres, later revised to 6.5 acres, of previously dedicated open space to use for residential development. g. The project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee on September 28, 1989. h. The project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in September, 1989. The Initial Study prepared for the project on October 4, 1989, identified that an Environmental Impact Report (project EIR) would be required for the proposal. At the request of the applicant, the Initial Study was reviewed and revised on November 15, 1989, and again -required that an EIR be prepared for the project. i. Preparation of the EIR by the City's consultant, The Planning Consortium, began on February 12, 1990, and the completed draft EIR (SCHI 90010315) was circulated for public comment.from October 16, 1990 to November 15, 1990. This shortened 30 day review period was requested by the City on behalf of the applicant, and approved by the State of California. j. A duly noticed public.hearing of the Planning Commission was held on the proposed project and the EIR on November 20, 1990, at the City Council Chambers, 2392O.Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, Califarnia,.at 6:30 p.m., and was continued to a.date uncertain. k. The applicant submitted a revised 18 lot subdivision map an December 17, 1990, and the map was re -circulated to City departments for review in January 1991. The applicant also submitted a site access plan, and met with members of the La Salle Canyon Homeowners Association on November 27, 1990, and again on January 3, 1991. City staff were present and facilitated the.second meeting. 0 RESO. NO. P91-15 Page 2 of 7 I. A second duly noticed public hearing of the Planning . Commission was held on the revised project on February 19, 1991, at the City Council.Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, at 6:30 p.m., and was continued to a date uncertain. m. On February 21 and 28, 1991, staff requested that the applicant prepare VTTM 46619 as an 8 lot subdivision map so that conditions of approval could be prepared per the Commission's direction of February 19, 1991. The applicant indicated that Gaviota, Inc., did not wish to submit a.revised map,. did not believe such a map was required.by the Commission, and desired to appeal the Commission's action to the City Council. In a letter of March 1, 1991, staff again requested submittal of a revised map and. at the applicant's request, outlined two options which could be undertaken by Gaviota. Inc., if an appeal to the City Council was desired. n. On March 5, 1991, Gaviota, Inc., reached a decision not to submit a revised map, and requested that the Planning Commission deny VTTM 46619, both as originally requested at 27 lots, and as later revised to 18 lots. The applicant has further indicated his intent to appeal this requested denial to the City Council. is SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, oral and written testimony.and other evidence received at the two public hearings held for the project; and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Commission further finds as follows: a. At the hearing of November 20, 1990, the Planning Commission considered the staff report and EIR prepared for the project and received public testimony for and against.the proposal. Upon close of the public hearing, the Cosimission deliberated the salient issues of the case, which included: the proposed density of development, the use of previously established open space land for residential development, opposition of area residents, impacts on the existing community, site access, construction of a detention basin, and the significant adverse impacts to the environment posed by the project as identified in the EIR. Impacts of the project on oak trees, hillside slopes, and the existing streamcourse and riparian habitat were particularly noted. 0 RESO. NO. P91-15 Page 3 of 7 b. The final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 89-002) prepared for VTTN 46619, CUP 88-281 and OTP 89-045 (-the project') has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and was presented to, and the information contained therein reviewed and considered by, the Commission prior to reaching a decision on the project. c. As identified in the EIR (Section 5.0, page 29), the subject site contains valuable ecological and environmental resources which include, but are not Limited to, oak tree woodland, riparian habitat. geologically significant slopes, paleontological remains, and natural aesthetic qualities. d. The project, as originally proposed for 27 lots, would cause significant adverse impacts to the environment and the community that can not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. These impacts are presented in Section 8 of the project EIR (page 133) and are summarized in Section 2.3 (pages 7-11) of that document. Areas of impact include the loss of oak trees, degradation of oak tree woodland and natural aesthetics, encroachment into a 'blue -line' streamcourse and substantial loss of riparian habitat, and grading and loss of hillside slopes and paleontological resources. . e. Per the alternatives presented in the EIR (Section 6.0, page 119), these impacts can be lessened by reducing project density and by requiring project design which recognizes.environmental constraint areas and limits project encroachment into such areas. The Commission reached consensus to review a 2 to 18 lot range of subdivision scenarios with direction to the applicant that such design limit environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. 11 f. At the conclusion of deliberations, the 'Commission directed the'applicant to meet with area residents to resolve outstanding areas of -disagreement. to resolve site access design concerns, and to explore a 2 to 18 lot range of subdivision scenarios which would limit environmental impacts to those projected for an eight lot subdivision. At the request of the Commission, the applicant, agreed to.waive pertinent processing time -lines to allow these activities to occur. The Commission took action to declare that EIR 89-002 was an adequate and complete document for decision-making purposes. • RESO. NO. P91-15 Page 4 of 7 g. At the hearing of February 19, 1991, the Planning Commission considered the EIR and revised staff report prepared for the project and received additional public testimony for and against the proposal. New testimony indicated that meetings between the applicant and residents on November 27 and January 3 to resolve disagreements were unsuccessful, and included La Salle Canyon Homeowner Association support for approval of an 8 lot subdivision map. Upon close of the public hearing. the Commission continued its deliberations an the concerns previously identified at the hearing of November 20. 1990, and focused more specifically 'on the open space and environmental issues of the case. h. Upon reviev of the applicant's revision of the project to 18 lots, the Commission found that significant adverse impacts to the environment and community would continue to occur as a result of project approval and implementation. By deliberation, the Commission indicated its desire to reduce such impacts to a level of insignificance by considering for approval a map of 8 lots, and passed a motion directing staff to prepare conditions of approval for a revised submittal of VTTM 46619 as an 8 lot subdivision map. i. The Commission found that acquisition and preservation of dedicated open space is desirable to the community as . reflected in the goals and policies of the draftGeneral Plan of the City of Santa Clarita, and past actions of the Commission. J. The Commission found that the; applicant's proposal to convert at least 6.5 acres of previously dedicated open space to residential use was unacceptable. The Commission was assisted in this finding based on testimony received from the City Attorney at the hearing of February 19, 1991. The Commission further indicated its belief that approving conversion of open space acreage for residential use would be inconsistent with community values, and would likely engender similar requests in the future by other applicants. k. The Commission found that, pursuant to'subdivision (e) of Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act, the design and type of improvements proposed by VTTM 46619, either as a 27 lot or 18 lot subdivision, are .likely to cause substantial environmental impacts and loss of wildlife habitat, based on information contained in the project EIR and the facts and findings listed above. 0 RESO. NO. P91-15 Page 5 of 7 1. The Commission found that, pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act, the design and type of improvements proposed by VTTM 46619, either as a 27 lot or 18 lot subdivision, are likely to cause significant risk to the health, safety and general welfare of the public due to increases in ambient noise levels, increases in traffic hazards and access congestion, and exposure of a significant number of new residential properties to high fire hazard conditions currently present on the site. m. The Commission found that associated applications CUP 88-281 and OTP 89-045 are an integral part of the subdivision project proposed under VTTM 46619 and have been considered herein as a part of the Commission's deliberations. n. At the conclusion of deliberations, the Commission approved a motion directing staff to prepare draft conditions of approval for VTTM 46619 as a revised 8 lot subdivision. The Commission indicated to the applicant that it would entertain approval of VTTM 46619 with these conditions at such time as the case returned to the Commission for consideration, and the item was then continued to a date uncertain. . SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission hereby determines as follows: u a. As originally proposed as a 27 lot subdivision map, and as subsequently revised as an 18 lot subdivision map, the project (VTTM 46619, CUP 88-281, and OTP 89-045) is not suitable for approval because: 1) Significant environmental impacts would occur which can not be mitigated to a level of insignificance or acceptability. 1. 2) The proposed conversion of dedicated open space for residential use is unacceptable and inconsistent with the goals and policies of the draft General Plan. b. The final Environmental Impact Report CEIR 89-002) prepared for VTTM 46519, CUP 88-281 and OTP 89-045 (*the project,) has been prepared, completed and reviewed under the the .provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOV. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita, California, as follows: RESO. NO. P91-15 Page 6 of 7 a. Pursuant to Section 15090 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Commission certifies that Environmental Impact Report 89-002 has been -completed -in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and was presented to, and the information contained therein reviewed and considered by, the Commission prior to reaching a decision on the project. b. The Planning Commission hereby denies Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46619, as originally proposed as a 27 lot subdivision map and as subsequently revised as an 18 lot subdivision map, and further denies Conditional Use Permit 88-281 and Oak Tree Permit 89-045, associated project applications. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day.of March..1991. uis Braithvaite, Chairman Planning Commission I hereby certify that -the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution P91-15, adopted by the Planning Commission of.the City of Santa . Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held the -19th day of March, 1991, by the following vote of the Commission. AYES: Commissioners: Woodrow, Garasi, Modugno, Cherrington, and Chairman Brathvaite NOES: None • ABSENT: None DMW:375 RESO..NO. P91-15 Lynne H. Harris, Directo Community Development Page 7 of 7 • ATTACHMENT C CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT Vesting Tentative Tract Nap 46619 Conditional Use Permit 88-281 Oak Tree Permit 89-045 DATE: November 20, 1990 To: Chairperson Brathwaite and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lynn M. Harris Director of Community Development CASE PLANNER: Christine Kudija, Assistant Planner II APPLICANT: Gaviota, Inc. PROJECT PROPONENT: Richard Have LOCATION: Southerly terminus of La Salle Canyon Drive ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 2827-027-007 REQUEST: Vesting Tentative Tract. Map 46619 to subdivide a 49.4 -acre parcel into 27 single-family residential lots; Conditional Use Permit 88-281 for lot -size averaging and to grade approximately 74,000 cubic yards of earth within a `hillside management• area, and an Oak Tree Permit 89-045 to remove 419 Coast Live Oak trees. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located adjacent to the existing Rancho La Salle development (25 single family residences, approved 1976). The Oaks development (94 single-family residences, approved 1987) and the Hidden Valley Estates (203 single-family residences, approved 1983). The property is presently in a.natural state; historically:^it was part of the 1,000 -acre La Salle Ranch, which operated between 1908 and approximately 1948. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46619 was first proposed in mid 1988, just after incorporation of the City of Santa Clarita, when Los Angeles County staff were performing subdivision review for the City. The application was re -submitted in August of 1989 to the City. Initial environmental review determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required for complete assessment of the proposal. The report was prepared by the CMK:381 environmental consulting firm of The Planning Consortium, under contract to the City. The Draft EIR was circulated to the public, the Commission, andto responsible agencies between October 16 and November 15 of 1990. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following project description summarizes the complete project description and analysis contained in the Environmental Impact Report on pages 19-112. The subject property is a 49.4 -acre parcel, located.in upper La Salle Canyon, south of Calgrove Blvd.. and northeast of the Golden State Freeway (Interstate 5). Access to the property is proposed to be provided by La Salle Canyon Drive, a private, gated road that serves the Rancho La Salle development in the lover part of the canyon. The applicant is proposing to subdivide this property into 27 lots _for single-family residences. Upper La Salle Canyon is narrowand protected by two ridgelines that rise approximately 200 feet above the canyon floor. Elevations on the property range from approximately 1.355 feet above mean sea level at the mouth of the canyon to 1.665 feet along the southern ridge on the site. Approximately one-third of the site is gently sloping land in the bottom of the canyon, in the northerly portion of the property. The central • portion of the site consists of steep, north -facing slopes, which, along with the protected canyon bottom, supports diverse oak woodland and chaparral vegetation. The southerly portion of the site exhibits steep, south -facing slopes facing the Golden State freeway; these slopes support considerably less vegetation than is present on the north -facing slopes. Overall, the site has been estimated to contain 900 to 1000 Coast Live Oak trees; the oak woodland within the canyon is considered to be a unique resource within the City of Santa Clarita. An intermittent stream traverses the site from south to north; streamflow is present mainly during -winter and spring rains, although riparian vegetation is present along the streambed, and it is shovra..on the USGS maps as a 'blueline• stream. The proposed lots range from 0.7 acres to 1.9 acres in size, with graded pads ranging from 4,200 square feet to 15,000 square feet in size. The applicant is proposing to use (and has an option to purchase) a 6.5 -acre designated open space lot in the adjacent Hidden Valley development for residential lot development and access.He is proposing to designate 15.1 acres in the southerly portion of the site as open.space in replacement for the loss of the existing open space lot. (This is discussed in detail on pages 30 and 77-79 of the DEIR) Additionally, the applicant has designated a 2.9 acre lot in the southerly portion of the property as a flood control debris basin. There is.an existing debris basin immediately south of the Rancho La Salle development; the applicant proposes to remove this debris basin and to replace.it with another to the south of the proposed project. Development plans include grading of approximately 74,000 cubic yards of earth and placement of fill of up to 10 to 25 feet in depth (125' to 300' vide) in the canyon bottom in order to accommodate building pads and roadway. Cut slopes ranging from 85 feet to 150 feet in height would be created in order to obtain fill material. The total area of disturbance, including all graded area and cut slopes, is estimated to be 10.8 acres. The stream is proposed to be placed within a culvert below the road, which is proposed to be extended 2,075 feet from its present terminus. The applicant has requested an oak tree permit for the removal of approximately 419 Coast Live Oak trees (Quercus aerifolis) out of an estimated 1,000 trees on the entire site, (42Z) and for encroachment into the protected zones of 42 additional oaks, seven of which are heritage trees. Most of the oaks on the site form a 'closed canopy' woodland. The number of oak trees impacted by this proposal represents 451 of the trees on the site. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION. EXISTING ZONING, AND LAND USE The 1984 Santa Clarita Valley Areavide General Plan designation for the subject property is Urban 2 (3.3 to 6.6 dwelling units per acre) and HM (Hillside Management).. (This document is not adopted by the City: however. it is used as a guideline for development while the City prepares its own general plan.) The draft General Plan designation for . the property is "Residential Very Low,* which sets a residential density of 0.5 to 1 unit per acre. The property is zoned A-2-1. Agricultural (One acre minimum lot.size). The City is presently preparing hillside development guidelines. Preliminary discussion of hillside.standards suggests that all portions i property with slopes above a 501 grade would not be considered in erminidg development density. This property has approximately 26 -:es with slopes exceeding SOZ; 23 acres of the property have .slopes of 501 or less. This suggests an allowable project density range of 12-23 lots for this property. The General Plan designations, existing zoning and land use•of the surrounding properties are summarized as follows: ...................... we" ............................................ SCV Areavide Draft General General Plan Plan Zoning Land Use Site U2; HM Very Lov A-2-1 Natural and (3.3 -6.7 Residential undeveloped du/acre) (0.5 -1.0 du/acre) --------------------------------------------------------------------- North U2 Very Low A-2-1 Single family Residential residential . East HM Very Low RPD 1-4.5 Single family Residential U, A-2-1 residential, CMR:381 Cb n South HH Very Low A-2-1 Single family Residential residential Vest HH N/A A-2-1 Golden State Freeway, .................................................................... ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS The results of the environmental analysis of this proposal are summarized on pages 7-14 of the EIR. Six areas of impact were identified which could not be reduced to an insignificant level if the project is approved as proposed. These significant impacts included: a. inadequate replacement of open space b. irreversible and unavoidable changes in landform and topography C. irreversible and unavoidable changes in hydrologic patterns d. irreversible and unavoidable removal of oak tree resources and oak woodland habitat e. irreversible and unavoidable removal of existing streamcourse f. . exacerbation of existing traffic conflicts adjacent to the gate at La Salle Canyon Drive and Calgrove Blvd. INTMWEPARTHM/INTERAGENCY REYIEV All city and affected agencies have reviewed the EIR and the project proposal. The Parks and Recreation Department and.the Traffic Engineer recommend denial as proposed. The Draft EIR includes. in the Appendix, all letters received during the circulation period with responses. The applicant has entered into a mitigation agreement vith•both high school and elementary school districts. ANALYSIS The EIR identifies impacts as noted above, and also identifies mitigation measures. Imposition of all mitigation measures -will not reduce all impacts to a level of non -significance, should the project proceed at the proposed density. Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the EIR address 'a range of reasonable alternatives to the project... which could feasibly .attain the basic objectives of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.' and that an 'environmentally superior • alternative• be identified. Five residential development alternatives in detail on pages 119-129; the environmentally superior alternatives are identified on page 129. CMK:381 The residential alternatives include subdivisions of 40, 25, 18, 12, and 10 lots. The 40 -lot alternative shovs:the impacts of a project in which the theoretical maximum number of units permissible within the zone were proposed. This alternative, as well as the proposed project, applies a 'mass grading' approach, in which conventional building pads would be - graded, and the canyon filled, necessitating removal of oak trees and enclosure of the streamcourse within a culvert. The remaining alternatives are subdivisions of 25, 18. 12, and 10 lots, which are proposed to be developed.using raised foundations and architecture that would enable residences to be designed within 'development envelope' areas, avoiding oak trees as much as possible. In addition, the streamcourse is avoided in the latter four alternatives by placing the roadway on fill soil to one side of the streamcourse, and using swale crossings to access residences on the opposite side of the stream from the road. The range and number of alternatives was selected in part to determine whether the level of impact was related to solely the number of lots, to the method of development (mass grading vs. individual lot development and custom foundations, and streambed avoidance). the length of the cul-de-sac (which extends progressively further up the canyon with an increased number of lots), or to some combination of these. Tables Z. 3, and 14 of the EIR compare the relative amounts of grading, area of disturbance, and number of oaks directly or potentially affected by the . proposed project and the alternatives. Examination of these tables indicates that impacts increase substantially as the number of lots increases beyond approximately 12 lots, and that impacts are greatest when a 'mass grading' development approach is used. Additionally, the further the road penetrates into.the canyon,.enabling a greater number of lots to be developed, the potential for impacts to oak trees and oak woodland habitat is significantly increased. Both the Qno•project' and the "natural park' alternatives avoid or substantially reduce impacts to the site. Section 15126d(2) of the CEQA guidelines requires that if'the.former is the environmentally superior alternative, another environmentally superior alternative must be identified. The 'natural park' alternative vould impact the site less than would any of the residential alternatives. This alternative implies acquisition of the land by the City, and subsequent development of the site with a parking lot, interpretive center, etc. However, because the sice%is blocked from public access by a private road and gate, this alternative has limited feasibility. The impacts to nearby residences that would be caused by park visitors would also be difficult to evaluate. Finally, consultation with the Department of Parks and Recreation, as well as with other agencies (Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority) indicated little agency interest .in acquiring this land for a park. The development alternatives identified in the'EIR as environmentally superior are the 10 and 12 -lot projects, which minimize impacts by reducing overall grading and removal of oak trees, and by avoiding the CMK:381 ,� streambed. A project which proposed fever than 10 lots would reduce impacts further. For example, the 10 -Lot project is projected to impact 8Z to 9Z of the oak trees on the -property in a "worst-caseo' scenario (approximately 79 individual trees); an eight -lot project with a shorter street may conceivably reduce the oak tree "potential removals' to less. than fifty trees. In general, most of the impacts identified as "significant• can be considered to be reduced to below a significant level by reducing the number of lots to less than twelve, and by using custom foundations.instead of conventionally graded building pads. Although most of the impacts may be reduced by reducing the number of lots and by changing the method of development. City traffic engineers have stated that any additional units proposed for La Salle Canyon will exacerbate an existing hazardous condition created by the private gate at the entry of the Rancho La Salle development. The gate is designed to allow room for only one -vehicle to "stack" while.the gate opens, or the driver leaves the vehicle to operate the code box. If another vehicle approaches the gate while the first vehicle is still there, it is forced to stop in a traffic lane. Mitigation measures include redesign of the gate (or its elimination, with associated impacts to residents of the existing development), providing a deceleration lane between the northbound offramp of Interstate 5 and La Salle Canyon Drive, and providing a 24-hour attendant to operate the gate manually. Redesign.of the gate would directly impact several residents: provision of a deceleration lane and an attendant at the gate could provide adequate Smitigation. In considering this application, the Planning Commission has several options: 1. Certify the EIR and approve the project (vesting tentative tract map, oak tree permit, and conditional use permit) as proposed. Because the EIR identifies certain significant environmental impacts, the Commission would be required to adopt a 'Statement of Overriding Considerations* pursuant to Section 15093 of CEQA, stating that the benefits of this project outweigh its potential adverse impacts. 2. Certify the EIR, and approve the project for a reduced number of lots, subject to the Conditions of Approval (containing mitigation measures), with the findings that any significant environmental impacts have been mitigated to below a significant level through the conditions of approval of the project. This action would require the applicant to submit a revised map, and oak tree permit and conditional use permit (if required) documentation to the satisfaction of the Directors of Community Development and Public Vorks. 3. Certify the EIR, and deny the project, with the findings that the site is not physically suitable for the type or density of development,.or that the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial CM&:381 . environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat. Denial of this.project application would not limit the applicant or another party from submitting further development applications for this property. RECOM ENDATION CJ At this time. staff recommends that the Commission select Option 2, to certify the EIR, and to approve the project for eight residential custom lots, subject co the Conditions of Approval, which incorporate the mitigation measures asoutlined in the EIR. CMKs 381 J( 11 ATTACHMENT D CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46619 Conditional Use Permit 88-281 Oak Tree Permit 89-045 DATE: February 19, 1991 TO: Chairperson Brathvaite and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lynn M. Harris �7<- Director of Community Development CASE PLANNER: Kevin Michel, Associate Planner Donald M. Williams, Associate Planner APPLICANT: Gaviota, Inc. PROJECT PROPONENT: Richard Howe LOCATION: Southerly terminus of La Salle Canyon Drive ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 2827-027-007 REQUEST: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46619 is a request to subdivide a 49.4 -acre parcel into 27 single-family residential lots; Conditional Use Permit 88-281 would allow for lot -size averaging and grading of approximately 74,000 cubic yards of earth within a "hillside management" area; Oak Tree Permit 89-045 requests removal of 419 Coast Live Oak trees. BACKGROUND: The subject propect`y is --- Tdriated south and adjacent to the existing Rancho La Salle development (25 single-family residences, approved 1976), southwest of The Oaks development (94 single-family residences, approved 1987) and west of Midden Valley Estates (203 single-family residences, approved 1983). This portion of the canyon currently remains in a natural state and was part of the 1,000 -acre La Salle Ranch which operated circa 1908 to 1948. This project was first considered by the Planning Commission at its regularly scheduled public hearing of November 20, 1990. (The original staff report and related documents prepared for that hearing are attached for reference.) At that time, the Commission directed the applicant to 1) meet with area homeowners to resolve outstanding issues of disagreement, 2) resolve site access design concerns, and 3) to explore a 2 to 18 lot range of subdivision scenarios. The item was then continued DMV: 425 Agenda Item: E i to a date uncertain for further action by the Commission. 1) The applicant, Mr. Richard Howe of Gavigta, Inc.,: -met with members of the La Salle Canyon Homeowners Association on November 27, 1940, and again on January 3, 1991. Community Development staff attended and facilitated the second meeting: Areas of unresolved disagreement between the parties include, but are not limited to: a) Number of buildable lots to be created; b) Creation of undeveloped lots with unknown/unspecified dates of construction start or completion; c) Establishment of a second homeowner association in La Salle Canyon (as proposed by the applicant), and equitable compensation or apportionment of maintenance fees; and d) Design, location and schedule of the proposed new entry gate. 2) The applicant has submitted a proposed Entrance Reconfiguration Detail demonstrating how gated access to the site will be improved as a part of project implementation. While the plan meets with general approval of the City Traffic Engineer (see enclosed letter dated 01/30/91) and would ameliorate an existing traffic hazard at the intersection of La Salle Canyon Drive and Calgrove Boulevard, its viability would involve limited encroachment onto private property in three locations. As the existing right-of-way easement on Is Salle Canyon Drive is 60 feet, permission of the two affected property owners (existing lots 1 and 24), or further City action, would be required to accommodate the 64 -foot diameter of the proposed cul-de-sac. Additional public property would also be required to accommodate the proposed hammerhead turn -around, and access to lot 25 would be adversely affected. Area homeowners have indicated other concerns regarding the design, including safety, -security and access during construction of proposed residences in the future . 3) At'the hearing on November 20, 1990, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to explore a 2 to 18 lot range of subdivision alternatives. The Commission further directed that the environmental impacts associated with these alternatives not exceed impacts which would occur under the 8-lot.subdivision alternative recommended by Community Development staff and supported by the EIR-prepared for the project. The applicant submitted an 18 -lot subdivision map on December 17, 1990, and the map was circulated on a limited basis to other City departments for staff review. The original project and draft EIR were previously reviewed by all City departments and affected agencies prior to the November 20, 1990 hearing and their comments incorporated in the original staff report. The revised 18 -lot alternative was re -circulated to City departments in January 1991 for additional comment. The Fire department has indicated that the project may be approved as proposed subject to the imposition of standard conditions. Public Yorks has indicated that the project as proposed does not meet several existing engineering ordinances, but may be approved subject to the imposition of standard conditions. Of note, the Department has DMV: 425 requested that typical City street standard improvements (36' of paving within a 55' right-of-way) be required on La Salle Canyon Drive (currently a 26' paved private street). Both the applicant and the residents have expressed opposition to this requirement. The Commission may condition the offer of a private and future street, which would allow the existing driveway configuration to continue while giving the City the ability to requires. 'fully built" street at some future date should such be necessary. Traffic Engineering has indicated general approval of the Entrance Reconfiguration Detail proposed by the applicant. This plan would ameliorate an existing traffic hazard at the intersection of La Salle Canyon Drive and Calgrove Boulevard. As previously noted, however, the plan's viability requires encroachment onto private property in three locations, and area residents have expressed opposition to the proposed configuration. The applicant has indicated willingness to provide the necessary easement and offer of dedication of the open space for public use. The Department of Parks and Recreation has indicated that the 18 -lot alternative proposes increased open space and riparian habitat over the original submittal and, consequently, considers the site desirable for limited public use for nature hikes, outdoor education, and similar activities. The Department requests that La Salle Canyon Drive be dedicated as a public street, that a paved 12' pedestrian access be provided, and an access easement to the open space area be conditioned on the project. • ANALYSIS As stated in the previous staff report of November 20, 1990, the EIR prepared for the original 27 -lot subdivision proposal identified a number of significant adverse environmental impact areas. In response to this information, staff recommended approval of an 8 -lot subdivision, an alternative which reduces these impacts to a level of insignificance. The applicant was directed at that hearing to examine a 2 to 18 lot range of subdivision scenarios, and demonstrate to the Planning Commission an alternative which would not impact the environment more adversely than the 8 lots recommended. On December 17, 1990, the applicant submitted an 18 -lot subdivision proposal for staff review. Specific environmental areae of concern to the Commission included: removal of oak trees and irreversible loss of oak tree habitat; loss of riparian habitat due to construction of a drainage detention basin, "Arizona crossings.° and encroachment into the existiag.streambed; loss of several significant and rare slope faces in La Salle Canyon due to required grading; and exacerbation of existing traffic conflicts exterior to the gate at La Salle Canyon Drive and Calgrove Boulevard. Staff compared the applicant's proposal with the 8 -lot alternative for each of these issue areas. Oak Resources Staff and the ESR consultant have summarized the impacts on the site's surveyed oak trees resulting from the 18 -lot proposal. Trees removed for roadway improvements 1 40 Trees with impacted driplines for roadway improvements 10 Trees removed for homesite improvements 107 Trees with impacted driplines for homesite improvements 28 DNQ:425 Only a portion of the trees within the 18 development envelope areas would require removal. Approximately S01 could be saved through the loy-by-lot site plan review process supported by staff, and it is therefore assumed that the 18 -lot proposal would result in the removal of approximately 93 trees, and dripline impaction on 38 more. By comparison, the 10 -lot alternative examined in the EIR (Alternative E, upon which the 8 -lot recommendation is based) would result in the following. Trees removed for roadway improvements 14 Trees with impacted driplines for roadway improvements 22 Trees removed for homesite improvements 65 Trees with impacted driplines for homesite improvements 27 Again, assuming lot -by -lot review would preserve approximately 501 of the trees in the development envelope, the 8 -lot proposal would result in a loss of approximately 47 trees, and dripline impaction on 49 more. The applicant's proposal exceeds the Commission's threshold of 65 trees to be removed by a total 28 trees, an overage of approximately 431. The significant difference in trees removed for roadway improvements results from the applicant's proposed extension of the road approximately 40' beyond that required for the a -lot proposal. Riparian Resources The revised proposal does not propose construction of the drainage detention basin and so eliminates adverse impacts associated ® with that issue. The 18 -lot proposal leaves a natural streamcourse adjacent to the northern side of the roadway that ranges in width from 10' to 50', would require the roadway to be elevated approximately 6' to 12' above the streamcourse, and would require constriction of six "Arizona crossing" driveways for access to lots located northerly of the streamcourse. The 8 -lot proposal provides a natural streamcourse ranging from 12' to 90' in width, requires roadway elevation of approximately 61, and requires only three or four 'Arizona crossing' driveways for access. The 18 -lot proposal represents a significant encroachment into the streamcourse (ranging from 2' to 40' more in width than the 8 -lot alternative), requires higher roadway elevations, and two to three additional •Arizona crossing* driveways. Natural Slone Preservation The revised 18 -lot proposal proposes grading consistent with that required under the 8 -lot proposal,:.and retains several significant and rare elope faces within the canyon. This proposal effectively reduces associated environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. Traffic Conflicts As indicated previously, the applicant has addressed this issue with the submittal of an Entrance Reconfiguration Detail, which meets with the general approval of the City Traffic Engineer. ® Implementation of the access plan may prove problematic, however, due to the applicant's inclusion of private property not owned by the applicant into the design. DM6:425 Upon review and evaluation of the two alternatives, staff has determined that the 18 -lot proposal is inconsistent with the Planning Commission's ® direction of November 20, 1990, as it does not meet the criteria set by the Commission at that time. RECONK NDA2ION r Based upon the above considerations and previous information submitted, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46619 for eight (8) residential custom lots, and direct staff to develop appropriate Conditions of Approval implementing the Commission's intent and incorporating mitigation measures for the project as identified in the EIR 89-002 (certified November 20, 1990). DN9:425 5 • SCALE VICINITY MAP I MILE —`!s.- — 7 - ��``-- .. VTTM 46619 • • VTTM 46619 PROJECT PROXIMITY MAP • 0 U] ATTACHMENT E excerpt from Placning comadmion Minutes of November 20, 19% ITEM 2 EIR 89-o2 VESTING TENTATIVE Director of Community Development Harris reported that the item TRACT N0. 46619 was published and posted in accordance with the lav, therefore, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT the Public Hearing was in order. NO. 88-281, AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 89-045 Community Development Director Harris presented the report to the Commission stating that the project proposes to subdivide 49.4 acres into 27 residential lots with one open -space lot and one flood control lot. She further stated that a Conditional Use Permit is required to allow grading encroachment into project site hillsides and to cluster lots, along with an oak tree permit to allow the removal of approximately 419 Coast Live Oaks located adjacent to the existing Rancho La Salle development. Due to possible conflict of interest, Commissioner Modugno left the hearing at 8:45. Principal Planner Henderson gave an extensive slide presentation on the proposed project. Ms. Harris explained the analysis of her recommendation and ideas regarding the project. The following recommendation was made: To certify the EIR. and to approve the project for eight residential custom lots, subject to the Conditions of Approval. which incorporate the mitigation measures. as outlined in the EIR. LJ L� Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes of February 19, 1991 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 Community Development Director Harris reported that VESTING TENTATIVE the item was published and posted in accordance with TRACT MAP NO. 46619, the law, and therefore the hearing was in order. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-281, AND OAK Community Development Director Harris presented the TREE PERMIT NO. 89-045 report to the Commission stating that the applicant is SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF requesting to subdivide a 49.4 -acre parcel into 27 LA SALLE CANYON DRIVE single-family residential lots; Conditional Use Permit No. 88-281 would allow for lot -size averaging and grading of approximately 74, 000 cubic yards of earth within a "hillside management' area; Oak Tree Permit No. 89-045 requesting the removal of 419 Coast Live Oak trees, located at the southerly terminus of La Salle Canyon Drive. Ms. Harris also stated that written communication was received, from the ' Rancho La Salle Home Owners Association, dated February 13, 1991, comments from the City Traffic Engineer, a letter from Mr. Richard Hove, dated January 22, 1990 detailing his responses to the previous Commission's direction, a letter from Engineering Science Corporation on behalf of the project, dated January 14, 1990, a letter from the President of the Rancho La Salle Home Owners Association, Ms. Kay Lynn Smith, dated January 14, and written communication that has been on record from the previous Commission meeting including copies of existing grant deeds for the existing developed project on La Salle Avenue. All of which have been made available to the Commission and are a part of the Public Hearing. Associate Planner Don Williams addressed the Commission stating that the item was first heard by the Planning Commission at its.. regularly scheduled hearing on November 20, 1990 and at that time, the Commission took testimony from the project proponents and opponents and directed the, applicant to resolve issues, which related to the project, with area home owners so that they might resolve outstanding issues of disagreement, to resolve ` site access design concerns and to explore a two -to -eighteen lot range of subdivision scenarios. Excerpt from Planning Comission Minutes of February 19, 1991 ITEM N0. 3 Nr. Will" ams then gave a slide presentation outlining (Continued) various aspects dealing with the project; shoving vicinity map, slope analysis, 10 -lot configuration, Nr. Hove's 18 -lot configuration, 18 -lot configuration proposed in EIR, existing entry gate, proposed entry gate, biotic constraints, encroachment and habitat of oaks, and overall canyon. Nr. Williams also stated that the applicant met with members of the La Salle Canyon Home Owners Association on November 27, and on January 3, 1990 where staff was present during the second meeting. Following these meetings, it was determined that the following was unresolved: 1) Number of buildable lots to be created: 2) the creation of undeveloped lots with unknown and unspecified dates of construction start or completion; 3) establishment of a second home owners association in La Salle Canyon as proposed by the applicant and equitable compensation for a portion of the maintenance fees: and 4) design, location and schedule of the proposed new entry gate. Nr. Williams then stated staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission approve Vesting Tentative Tract Nap No. 46619 for eight (8) residential custom lots,. and direct staff to develop appropriate conditions of approval implementing the Commission's intent and incorporating mitigation measures for the project asidentified in EIR No. 89-002, previously prepared for the .project. With the conclusion of the Staff Report, Chairman Brathwaite opened the Public Hearing at 9:47 p.m. The following proponents addressing the Commission were: Nr. Richard Hove, 33100 Anthony Road, Agus Dulce. Nr. Howe commented on concerns he had regarding comments made in the Staff Report, the analysis regarding 93 trees, .roadway and riparian resources, and that he had complied with the requests Of the Commission. Ns. Lynn Wilson, Address Unknown. No. Wilson commented on alleged misconceptions regarding. her family's intentions for the property. Nr. Richard Patterson, 24349 Vista Hills Drive, Valencia. Nr. Patterson commented ori the easement rights of Ns. Wilson's property, open space, parking, • and front gate. —2— 0 Excerpt from Planning Coasnission Minutes of February 19, 1991 ITEM NO. 3 The following opponents addressing the Commission (Continued) were: Ms. Kay Lynn Smith, 23705 La Salle Canyon Drive, Newhall. Ms. Smith commented that the Association would like to see the area remain private, that the Association supports staff's recommendation for the approval of eight custom residential lots, providing La Salle Canyon Drive remains a private street; fire issues, encroachment onto property, homeowners' liability, condition of deed restrictions, and potential litigation measures. Mr. Jeff Buck, 14532 Tyler, Sylmar. Mr. Buck commented on an alleged misconception regarding the Arizona crossings, on construction remaining consistent with the existing community, slope, acquisition of land, and fire issues. Ms. Lynn Plambeck, 23149 Oakbridge Lane, Newhall. Ms. Plambeck commented on environmental resources, and. stated she supports the recommended eight lots. Ms. Dorothy Riley, 21224 Placerita Canyon Road, Newhall. Ms. Riley commented on the Heritage Oaks to be impacted. ® The following neutral person addressing the Commission was: Mr. Mike Lyons, 27362 _Garza Drive. Saugus. Mr. Lyons commented on the oak woodlands and their impaction, riparian habitat, retaining walls, open space consideration, and nontransferable neighborhood access. The following person addressing the Commission for rebuttal was: Mr. Richard Howe, 35100 Anthony Road, Ague Dulce. Mr. Hove addressed the concerns raised by the opponents. Chairman Brathvaita closed .the Public Hearing at 10:47 p.a. A discussion ensued among the.. Commission regarding their previous direction to the developer. precedent -setting ezcbange of open space parcels, site access, parking, time frame for proposed project construction, and subdivision of eight to ten lots. The Commission discussion focused primarily on the significant environmental issues of the case, but included relevant development and land use • considerations as well. -3- Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes of February 19, 1991 ITEM NO. 3 Central to their deliberations was the applicant's (Continued) inability to meet the Commission's direction of November 20, 1990, that the project not exceed recommended environmental thresholds, particularly regarding oak tree removal and loss of 'oak habitat. and stream -bed encroachment. The Commission further expressed deep reservation and reluctance to establish a precedent of allowing a previously approved open space area to be used for residential development. The applicant's inability to reach agreement with area homeowners on other issues was also discussed. Finally, in reaching a consensus for action. the Commission considered the La Salle Canyon Homeowners Association request that the Commission follow staff's recommendation for eight lots. Following this discussion, it was moved by Cherrington and seconded by Voodrov recommending that staff explore the options as defined with eight units. The motion carried with Chairman Hrathvaite in opposition. Community Development Director Harris addressed the ® audience (members of the La Salle Canyon Home Owners Association) stating that the Commission voted conceptual approval of an eight -lot subdivision. for the La Salle area which is contingent upon staff bringing back conditions of the approval for their final action at a regularly scheduled Planning Comaission meeting. • —4— ® ExCErpt frac Plasning coma+mion Mi nitee of March 19, 1991 UNPINISMiD BUSIMESS: IT= NO- 11 VESTING tIDRAlIVE TRACT yap 46619, CONDIYIOMAL USE PIM?88-281, Oa[ TEEM PnKIT 89-045, CEETIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RVORT 89-002 Director Harris opened the presentation to the Commission. Commissioner Modugno requested that he abstain from this item due to a potential conflict of interest. After discussion with Assistant City Attorney McOsker, Commissioner Modugno was excused from hearing this item. Director Harris stated that this resolution deals with the La Salle Canyon project. Previous action was to direct the applicant eo prepare a revised map for an 8 lot sub -division. the applicant has since advised staff that he wishes to go to City Council with his original application, and does not intend to prepare a revised sup. therefore, staff has prepared a resolution for denial of original application, as well as the subsequently modified 18 units. Chairman Brathwaite asked for any public testimony concerning this resolution. Director Harris informed the Commission that the public hearing is closed on this item. Commissioner Woodrow motioned to accept Resolution p91-15, as written. vice -Chairman Charrington asked to maks a comment regarding this Resolution • before seconding. He stated that this resolution appears to be a report of Commission action, rather than a declaration of Commission intent or sentiment. Assistant City Attorney McOsker stated that the intent is stated, but advised that the Commission could make a recommendation with respect to the project. Discussion followed regarding the number of lots. After discussion, Vice Chairman Charrington seconded motion. Motion was approved 5-0 at 7:19 p.m. U Commissioner Louis Braithwaite ® City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, Calif. 91355 Re: Proposed development by Gaviote Inc. Vesting Tentative Tract 46619 Dear Commissioner Braithwaite: ATTACHMENT F November 12, 1990 As homeowners on La Salle Canyon Drive whose property directly adjoins that of the existing debris -basin and the proposed development, we would like to express some of our concerns about the feasibility of said development. Over the past few months we have been involved in a remodeling project that has afforded us an interesting , albeit expensive education about this canyon's topography. Our remodeling involved expanding a single story room by extending a wall 5 feet to the south, and 5 feet to the east. We anticipated this to be a fairly simple and affordable procedure. Pursuit ® of the necessary construction permits soon revealed our site as a " restricted use property". The soil evaluation required of us by the city described inadequate stability and referred us to a report performed in 1978 by Lockwood & Singh & Associates on La Salle Canyon .This report determined the requirement of embedment of friction piles into bedrock for a depth of 5 feet to achieve the necessary stability to bring this foundation to city code. Our subsequent research revealed that although the initial geotechnical studies done for the original developer of this tract assured soil stability through the typical procedure of compaction, it was never achieved on 1 1 of the 25 lots. The developer then had to resort to the use of friction piles for the foundation of homes on those lots. It is our understanding that this developer was ultimately bankrupted by this development. In order for us to meet the requirements of the city for the foundation of our 350 ft. addition, we had to put in two friction piles at a depth of 25 feet each and an expense of $8,400.00! The Stanfield family across the street from us invested more then twice that amount for their friction pile foundation on their addition which is currently in process. The soil description provided in the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed development reads the same as our soil description, as well ® as that of our neighbors. Due to location and the some cut and fill treatment, it is very likely that the proposed development will encounter the same soil instability with inablity to achieve adequate soil ® compaction that the existing development encountered. It is our understanding that the developers plan to grade and sell building lots rather then completed homes. Since soil stability testing is required for construction, not for grading, and if the difficulties with the soil is consistent throughout the canyon, then by the time the soil stability of the lots is evaluated for building permits, it will be too late. We are concerned that the development proposed for the south end of La Salle Canyon will remove oak trees, fill the stream bed, cut canyon wells and grade building lots only to have individual buyers and potential buyers discover the requirement of friction piles or the hauling of foreign soil for compaction to be prohibitive for actual construction. We fear we may ultimately have nothing more than an unsightly 40 acres of undeveloped mudslide and flood potential as neighbors. Quoting from page 43 of the Environmental Impact Report, "the proposed grading plan will disturb and cover the natural alluvium in the canyon and significantly change the natural soil conditions... proposed cut slopes and most natural slopes adjacent to the proposed pads on the north and south side of the canyon are steep (over 50X slopes), and present the ® potential for creating geo-technicol hazards that include landslides, mudslides, minor slope failures, slippage, and settlement." We appreciate this opportunity to express these concerns and to share our recently acquired information with the Regional Planning Commission. We hope this will be of value to you as you provide leadership for responsible development and wise use of the City of Santa Clarita's lend and resources. n U Sincerely, ✓�ua�t V,,Ljx•t� Rees and K,eyLynn Smith 23705 La Salle Canyon Drive Newhall, California ]—I 23734 La Salle Canyon Drive Santa Clarita, CA 91321 ® November 13, 1990 Donald M. Williams, Associate Planner Department of Community Development City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Williams: We would like to express our concern over the Draft Environmental Impact Report submitted for the development proposed by Gaviotta Inc. The scale of the proposed project will have severe impact on the health, safety, and security of the current residents of La Salle Canyon. These items are not adequately addressed by the DEIR. We moved to the Santa Clarita Valley five years ago because of the quality of life and the schools. We chose to live in La Salle Canyon because of the security offered by the gated access, low density of traffic, and the quiet, rural atmosphere. La Salle Canyon is a narrow, box canyon and the influx of heavy construction traffic, removal of trees, and major earth movement will place us under stress, our children at risk, and deprive us of our enjoyment of life throughout the period of construction. There are no assurances that the construction activity would not extend over a period of years. An uncompleted project would have a disastrous effect on home values. we supported the.formation of the City because it was evident that County..of Los Angeles was allowing the Santa Clarita Valley to deteriorate into an unplanned hodgepodge. It was our sincere hope that the City would bring order and control to the process. At the annual meeting of the Rancho La Salle Homeowners Association on October 28, Mrs. Kaylynn Smith was elected. President. Mrs. Smith has designated Richard Kuberry to make the main presentation for the Homeowners Association before.the Planning Commission on November 20. Please register Barbara E. Kuberry as an additional speaker at the Planning Commission hearing. G' Sincerely, / y d. cc: Planning Commission, City of Santa Clarita K. Smith, Rancho La Salle Homeowners Association J5 • GaviotA, Inc Mr. Richard Howe, Principal 35100 Anthony Rd, Agua Dulce, CA 91350 November 21, 1990 Dear Mr. Howe, In accordance with the recommendation of the Regional Planning Commission, an appointment for you to meet with the Rancho La Salle Homeowners Board of Directors is herby confirmed for Tuesday, November 27, 1990, at 23705 La Salle Cyn. Drive, Newhall. At that time the Board expects to hear your revised plans for a reduced number of lots in keeping with the stipulations outlined by the Commission. Those stipulations included: No more than 18 houses, the removal of less than 65 oak trees, maintenance of the existing debris basin, and the maintenance of the natural condition of the stream. In addition, we would like to hear you address the following specific concerns of the homeowners- 1. Gaviota Inc.'s willingness to consider the completion of homes rather than individual lots. 2. Design and location of the entry gate or deceleration lane. 3. Methods of pedestrian control and safety that would be implemented during the period of construction. 4. Compensation in the form of monthly dues to Rancho La Salle Homeowners Association for inconveniences and loss of amenities throughout the period of construction 5. Manner in which Homeowners Associations will interact or merge (issues include CC&Rs, street maintenance, common areas, architectural integrity, shared amenities, etc.) 6. Compensation at replacement cost to individual homeowners for damage to real or personal property due to construction 7. A bond to guarantee replacement cost to Rancho LaSalle Homeowners Association for damage to common areas ( fountain, pond, trees, street island, gate, greenbelts, etc.) 8. Clear and realistic committment to resurface road after construction 9. Payment of expenses for the maintenance and operation of entry gate and or 24-hour guard ging Construction. • We appreciate the opportunity to discuss these matters which will greatly influence the attitudes of the present residents towards your proposed project sincerely lZ `�Smith7CGr ul C n f1AAt`e t' - 20' Y.T.T. NO. 40019 CALGRO BLVD. PROPOSED 1 HAMMIIINISAD TURN -AROUND PRIV Al fi STREET E)(19T117U BRIOOE ENTRANCE DETAIL ieeTi e m eenvmn Mr. Don'rlillinms, City Planner City of Santa Clarity Dept. of Community Development 'dalencia Blvd. =antsClarity, Ca. 91355 Cl ear Mr. 'r+i11iams, Decerriber z0, 1:9t-'1 Ori TLle :day, No v ember 27, 199C:1 at 7:30 p.rn. Mr. Richard Hove rriet. ;vi t. hi the Rancho La Salle Horneowners AssocrationBoard of Directors arld interested horneowner•s to discuss the concern; of the homeowners respect to Mr. HoWe''S proposed development. The rnajority Ilf the r"neetinq taperecorded with the ipproval of all in attendance. i have ericl l.:ed a ri1py of that tape for your us:e. The fir_:t 11.. r,iiru-rte:s sere not r r _:riled due to riperational failure. The. following is a s:yrlopsis: if treat. ',',ritten No,;.ernber 1", 199U frorn notes taken during thr- rneetinq. i'lr. Hnvir, addres=:ed the :_specific concern=; ui the hi rnerl,^rrler' t.'°r9t `iad been nutltried for hirn in a letter rnai led to hirn on No-::ernber 2! !Q91 1. A I_opq of this: letter is attached. Discus^ion of each item r-e.suited it-; denial of iters 11. a de_ia-ion for further consideration rlf detail-; 8nu in itenis12, 3, 4. and 5, and agreernent to provide for items "r ', ;_ and 1a. +It 1,wa_. ultimately made clear that Mr. Ho%A,,c -NOUld only agree'to the albry e if the horneowners ga•re hirri their approval t- I do 1n�hotever he. rv-9nted.i Follr_I;virig this discus! -'Jon, the ques:tinn rif the number (if ir,r; '-_; Cre de,:eiuped .was brought up. Mr. Howe conceded that- he did riot. {.:nu;lr at thii5 tune how many he would be able to have with the cnrc:mints placed on hirn by the Commission, but that he would try to FII -it- in.tlie rna-ItTILR-r-1 number of 16. The horneolwners expressed to Mr. Howe that tree inidji,iiliu,31 development of 16 lots: would subject the hcrneo,^mners: to traffic rla--ard, noise and dust pollution, and potential proper -ti -I damage for an inderterminate amount of time. Also, they ;^+ould tie required tri =:P6. 'u -;t - the homebuyers and negotiate traffic r'near=:Ura:_:, r-epiacernew 1_u t frit - damage to real or personal property, traffic: Control at the We, e!. I_ �- eacatof the lots is, developed. Of additional cilm_ern is: the effect of 1or,q_ term r. nstruction on the resale value of the hornes and the very real possibiltq that the disclosure of on-going lot development could jeopardi-ze home sales. The homeowners asked Mr. Holme if he 1NOUld ® consider building completed homes as had been his ex -pressed plan frorn the IN L-0. 1. 1 Ir. IIV YYe -i lllU UUC I,II llle Ulll I elll 1 C�71 H:-. I, �7 i,n IllaI F..CI OIIU IIIC re:atrictiom; of the EIR, tYi81 po;sibill,-Ij IIOU L;le I_IIOIILC ul a ?nu•;.;b 711 .r. Heli" The homeowners: then concurred that they would favor a rrinirnurn • number of lots as that would re:_ult in the rnlnlrr um amount iii dinupti in and risk, for the minimum amount of time. fir Hu.'ve ex.pre.ssed di•_:rnaY that the homeowners were not willing to gide hire their approval and support on the rriaximurn nurnber of lots he can develop in exchange for hi willingness to negotiate their concerrs The hornelowrier; expitined that our list of concerns exist= only in resporc_:e to hi!-; developrnent and it represents our efforts: to protect our emotional ano financial irve':-Ac;ent in our homes and neighborhood. It is not a "Wish List" that ,^re have beer's hoping someone 'would come and fulfill. The homeowners reiterated the vulnerable position they will Le in once h1r Home f.rlfi s his: contract with them, has =:old his lots, and is gime. r1r. Howe said he is nut going to build completed hiornes, and he is going to try to develop as rnarua lot_ to :.ell as he can ',Whin the restrictions: of the EIR arid City Ccrrnrni=.=.ior The meeting convened 'with Mr. Howe agreeing tr the suggestion tin7t he bring .rs his redesigned development prr.posal and me resume owr d1! --;C rssioris at that time. cc: Richard Howe • Respectfully 3ubrr"ite1J• kayLynn Smiths Fres, Le Salle Horneii'•r''rner3 Hscur. IOTA Rancho LaSalle Homeowners GAvAsscc 3 Jan 91 Dear Homeowners, This letter is in response to your letter of Nov. 21, 1990: 1. We are willing to consider the completion of homes rather than lots (which was our original intention), however due to the recommendations of the EIA (individually designed pads) and the present real estate and financial markets, this option is not presently feasible. However by the time we obtain our final map and construct the off-site improvements, the financial markets may have changed in order to enable us to reconsider this option. 2. Please find enclosed a proposed reconfiguration of the entry gate which addresses the city traffic engineer's concerns as well as maintains the ® integrity of our neighborhood, more specifically it allows for the Lionetti's and Wood's access not to be disturbed. 3. At our Nov.27th meeting we discussed implementing a traffic safety program during construction which could consist of 1) entry guard during construction hours,2) taped off pedestrian paths 3) meetings with parents and children regarding the increased traffic impact and safety precautions. 4. This item is already covered in the recorded " mainternance agreement and. easement dated 12/13/78 (LA County document # 78-1427175). 5. This item is already covered in the recorded " mainternance agreement " and easement dated 12/13/78 (LA County documertt a 78-1427175). There will be two separate homeowners associations with a joint committee to handle these matters. 6. Accepted. I, 7. Accepted. Gaviota, Inc. 9 35100 Anthony Rd. 9 Agua Dulce, CA 91350 • (805) 268-8120 • FAX (805) 268-0202 0 B. This item is already covered in the recorded " mainternance agreement " and easement dated 12/13/78 (LA County document a 78-1427175). 9. Accepted. We will maintain the current security of the neighborhood during construction and repair or replace the entrance gate as needed. Lastly we have submitted a revised map which complies with the Planning Commisssions stipulations and the recommendations of the EIR (i.e. no more than 18 lots, the removal of no more than 65 trees and the retention of the existing debris basin). As you can see by the above we have tried to satisfy to the best of our ability all your concerns. We hope that in return you would support our proposed plan. If you have any questions please contact me direct. • Sincerely, i Richard P. Howe President cc. Kevin Michel L� CALGROV BLVD. it - i i PROPOGED HAMMER-NSAD TURN -AROUND �4 r� EXIT OATS n U II I ENTRANCE OATS_ J!I_ il. n (Iokm V - 20' V.T.T. NO. 40010 u "r pRIV AT$ STREET EXISTING BRINGS ENTRANCE IIECONFIGURATIO14 DETAIL (hA•Al n++w tV0•y 0 CALGROVE BLVD. POOL EQUIPMENT STORAGE ENTRANCE GATE _ry i i II- it PRIVAT@ . U ORIYEVYAT A „ Q � r i 'Q �--u W :�: W 'o ExlsnwG CL // BRIDGE // ~ m / z 6 SCALE 1' - 20' EXISTING ENTRANCE DETAIL V.T.T. NO. 48819 LYJanuary 7, 1991 ES Mr. Larry Mar ESCO Engineering Service Corp. 6017 Bristol Parkway Fox Hills Business Park, CA 90230 Dear Larry: Re: V.T.T. 46619 - Oak Analysis RECEIVED JAN 8 1991 [XrINCERING O�OIUTIOY IEL As discussed, I am sending these preliminary comments of my developmental impact analysis on the oak trees at the above site. Once these items are addressed and after I receive the oak map and new revised section drawings, I will then be able to write a final tree analysis for you and the City of Santa Clarita. My comments on the sections provided to me are as follows: Section N1 - Can we place a retainer wall at 15 feet or so as that would really help this tree? This comment follows on other sections also -- retainer walls at the driplines would be best on all trees with fill soils. Section #6 - Can the road be shifted or at least place a retainer wall out towards the drive? Section N7 Foliage height is not correct here as it is one foot from the soil. When fills like this occur, will you be ensuring that drainage will not allow water to collect or stand near the oaks? Section M8 - Again, how about a retainer wall at the dripline? Section N9 - This is a heritage oak and will be looked at closely, so try to move the fill out beyond the dripline area as we will want to avoid pruning, if possible. Sections #10, #11, #13 - How about a small retainer wall at the dripline? ENVIRONMENTAL -LANDSCAPE CONSULTANTS P.O. ©OX 861. OJAI, CALIF. 93023 (805) 646.5025 • Larry Mar -2- January 7, 1991 Section #12 - This road'and the grading cut will be damaging here. If the road is needed, how about placing it over the existing grade thereby eliminating the cut? Section #14 - This fill looks deadly to the tree as it would require very heavy trimming and likely the removal of perhaps three trees ([dos. 141, 144, and 145). Perhaps this situation can be reevaluated in the field, if need be. Section #15 - Can the driveway be shifted out of the dripline area? Also, let's use a retainer wall here. Section #17 - Verify the dripline location here as I get 12 feet, not 25 feet for a southerly location. Section #19 - /. Does the driveway have to be put under this tree? Also, the slight cut would be damaging -- how about a slight fill instead? Sections #22, #23 - A retainer wall at the driplines would be best here. Also, watch out for drainage to these trees. Sections #24, #25, #26 - Can the roads be shifted further out from the trunks of these trees? Please call me if there are any questions on this, Larry. PAR:eb MEMBER: American Society of Consulting Arborists Sincerely, Paul A. Rogers Consulting Arborist I • GAVIOTA A Jan 90 Mrs- Rita Garasi Planning Commission City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., #300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Minutes of Nov. 20, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting Dear Ws. Garasi, I believe there is an error in the minutes of the Nov. 20th meeting regarding your motion on Tract 46619 (LaSalle). On page 5 (first paragraph, line 9) of the above mentioned minutes it states, "less than 60". It was my recollection, and from checking my notes, that the figure in your . motion was 65 not 60. If your notes confer with mine, could you please have the minutes ected Thank you. See you on Feb. 5th. Sincerely, Rkftd P. Howe President Gaviota. Inc. • 35100 Anthony Rd. • Agua Dulce, CA 91350 • (805) 268-8120 9 FAX (805) 268-02023 0 ENGINEERING SERVICE CORPORATIONO CONSULTANTS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING & LAND PLANNING January 14,1991 JAN 18 1991 Mr. Kevin Michel Associate Planner CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 City of Santa Clarita, California 91355 Re: Vesting Tentative Tract No. 46619 Our Work Order No. 9028-11 Dear Kevin: We are requesting clarification of several "preliminary conditions of approval" which were presented before the Planning Commission on its November 20,1990, hearing for the above referenced project. Listed below are the condition numbers of Exhibit 'B" and a brief description of what we would like clarified. No. Description 15. This condition provides for the designation of an "open space" lot, however it also states "including all areas with slopes of 50% or greater'. Please clarify how this statement relates to areas with slopes greater than 50% within residential lots. 16. This condition seems to be directed towards the applicants for the development of the lots. However, before lots can be sold, the applicant for the subdivision of the tract will request a grading permit for construction of the 'Private Drive and Fire Lane". Please specify that the condition does not apply to this applicant. 17(a). Avoidance of the intermittent streamcourse is not realistic All of the certified EUVs alternatives fail to satisfy this condition. The revised map on file with your department was based upon Alternate C of the EIR, which proposes a minor diversion of the strumcourse. 17(b). In lieu of a sump condition, all structures are typically required to be elevated above the 50 -year flood level rather than the 100 -year level as stated on the condition. Also, please state any freeboard requirement if intended. 17(c). Is this note intended to be placed on the final map? If s6, then It should be a separate condition and not subject to the issuance of a grading permit as stated. 6017 BRISTOL PARKWAY -FOX HILLS SLISINESS PARK . CULVER crm CA 90230 . (2131417-7999 -FAX: (2131410.1082 c l • 0 Mr. Kevin Michel CITY OF SANTA CLARITA January 14,1991 Page 2 17(d). This condition requests information shown on the final map which is not customary or standard. The information requested requires topography to comprehend and since final maps do not include the site's topography, this information is useless on the final map. Our position on this condition, is to request deletion of the requirements for showing the proposed driveways and swales for access across the streamcourse to individual lots. A condition for showing driveway envelopes is acceptable, but we want to avoid driveway design dictating the architectural design as much as possible or precluding a builder from constructing abridge if desired. 22 Another reference to avoidance of the streamcourse as discussed under our comment to Condition number 17(a). 32 Is this condition to "label driveways as Private Driveway & Fire Lane" on the final map in reference to driveways for each lot? .If so, how will this effect guest parking on these driveways? 53. This condition requires elaboration. It currently reads inconsistent with all other conditions which require the preservation of the streamcourse. 72. The plan proposes a 26' Private Drive and Fire Lane, not a private street. Therefore, Sections 21.28.060, 21.24.090 and 21.24.100 of the Municipal Code should not apply. The 26' Private Drive and Fire Lane's length and width was proposed to reduce the impact upon the oak trees. We have received concurrence from the Community Development Department and Fire Department as proposed. Please review these conditions with regards to our comments. We'd like to schedule a meeting some time next week to discuss these items at your convenience._ - SERVICE CORPORATION �4� Project L M:esm LM -39 E cc: . Richard Howe/Gaviota, Inc Bob Sims/ESCO Don Whatley/ESCO Fred Meyer/ESCO Chairman Louis Bnthwaite .x • CrtyOhSanta ClarftaPlanning Cotnmissidni 23920 Valencia Blvd. R300 Santa Clarita, CA. 91355 Re: Vesting Tentative Tract No. 46619, Richard Howe, Developer January 14, 1991 Dear Chairman Brathwaite, The members of the Rancho La Salle Homeowners Association voted to respectfully request the members of the Planning Commission to tour our private drive and the adjoining site of the proposed project prior to the public hearing scheduled for February 19, 1991. In addition to the impact of Mr. Howes' revised tract map on the oak woodlands and canyon, we are concerned about his reconfiguration of our privately owned and maintained gate (see attached). Mr. Howes' proposed gate and entrance encroach on Association property as well as individual homeowners' private property, eliminate bridal paths for our equestrian zoned neighborhood, expose our private pond to the public, thus creating liability for the Association, and greatly reduce and restrict the access and use of two homeowners' driveways. Please contact me if you would like to make arrangements for a 'guided tour'. To tour the site on your own, enter =5440 on the touch pad at the entrance to gain access to La Salle Canyon Drive. Thank you for taking your time to thoroughly evaluate this proposed project and.its impact on the canyon and its residents. Sincerely, KayLynn Smith President Rancho La Salle Homeowners Association 23705 La Salle Canyon Drive Newhall, California 91321 • :� _ , 805--255-10+ t r VnoPO'lLD - TON-ANOUM - • F+ n e �tll r I� [NTNANc[ GAT[ GATS PRIVATE STREET EXISTING [moo[ /ENTRANCE -- RCC®iVA-IGiURATIOI DETAIL Q 4: AlF Al (, Y.T.T. No. 466 MAW ^� - :.30 4Ji .... GAVIOTA 14 Jan 91 Mr. Kevin Michel City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., b300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE -TM 46619 Deer Mr. Michel, We respectfully request rescheduling our Planning Commission hearing date -on the above referenced tract from Feb. 5, 1991 to Feb. 19, 1991. z Thank you. Sincerely, Rictsd P. Howe Predent 7 .c._ Gaviota, inc. • 35100 Anthony Rd. Aqua Dulce, CA 91350 tJ805) 268-8120! FAX (805) 268-0202 3 8.- This Re"wis :covered fn= it, rdcorded.'' wce agreement and easement dated 12/13/78 (LA County document is 78-1427175). is 9. Accepted. We will maintain the current security of the neighborhood duripg construction and repair or replace the entrance gate as needed. Lastly we have submitted a revised map which complies with the Planning Commisssions stipulations and the recommendations of the EIR (i.e. no more than 18 lots, the removal of no more than 65 trees and the retention of the existing debris basin). -AO youu can see by the above we have tried to satisfy to the best of our aMy all your concerns. We hope that in-- return you would support our proposed plan. If- you have any questions please contact me direct. • �_ _ 'Sincerely, Richard P. Howe President t i i i PROPOSED L HAMM�R•NSAD TURN -AROUND �- ENTIIANCR GATS_ Jt J1, 0 L ro' Y a' 1 aa' 1 t EXIT GATE .� 0 PRIVATE STREET EXISTING BRIDGE Py �. ENTRANCE RECONFIGURATION UWAIL _. ���• t 'lam- :.. - _. .. _.. V.T.T. NO. 40014z- _._ 55 Z� The Rancho Le Salle Homerwner—: A-sociation met on January 9, ! -?gr rc vie,,v and discuss the revue j tract Map for'•.lestinq Tentative Troct No 46r and Mr. Ho;� e' propo_ed reconf!guration of the pri,.,ate.ly owned and maintained entrance and gate. The folloming objections and concern:: �.`T Tii� r� n:�r, pr_pmsed tract i3 not in keeoing with the Planning [_,rrirn 53iiin''s iUidellne that 'the pri jhr! r1ot. take any rnore cak5 ili5ri that :^ P,i[h , ould have teen an v ironrnentally sciuno ties:: th sn ^C The prop! sed tract nerncrde5 47 oak tree_; f r the Corntr-!.n_t,-.r t the road !only, ,vith')Ut consideration of oak tree removal that 'r,!ill oe required to provide driveways snd pads. The removal of a' clsk trees for this purpose alone forbodes a much greater loss of oak trees than do to complete the project. . The reconfiguration of the gate and entrance: a. Encroaches on Association property as ,yell as individual homeowners' private property. b. Eliminate=; bridal paths for our equestrian -zoned neighborhood. c. Exposes our private pond to the public, thus creating liability for the Association. • d. Greatly reduces and restricts the access and use of two homeowner_' driveways. According to the revised map, the developer will make use of his easement by expanding the current 20 foot wide road into a new 26 foot wide " private drive and fire road" with retaining walls Thore additional 6 * feet will be gained by either encroaching on the private property of Lot 10 to the west, or the reconstruction of the boundaries, fencing, etc. of. the debris basin to the east of the road. Either approach is perceived as far too broad of an interpretation of "ingress and egress easement' by the Homeowners Association. Note: An informal investigation found that the majority of homeowners had no easement across their portion of La Salle Canyon recorded on their Grant Deed, nor on theirTitie Policy. Most properties were purchased with the understanding that the canyon belonged to the Association and would not be developed. 4. The revised proposed tract map shows the inclusion of two parcels of acreage that were designated as private open space as part of the approval process for the Hidden valley residential project. Housing density of the Hidden Valley development was based on this total available acreage. Mr. Howe proposes to purchase this designated greenbelt area to achieve his development's total acreage requirement . The Homeowners question the legality of this precedent -setting policy. Z� C� 5. The Homeowners would like clarification from the Cite Staff that trip reai:ed tract for 18 home= diles not. req,lire a d,arri or debri's tasin abc,ve rt. ^re .lnder^tpod the i_ommiss:ioners:' direction ti be that the present debris u5;ui ,^ id not be removed, but did not understand that no new rneis.ure of tht5 . -j ! i f fluff d control 'i;iu.11d be required. If this I4 the Case, then 'ri'v'e a_ si.rrrie the developer r'ntr_a folio,^ the requirerrent_, described for r.ie eighteen lot alternative In the E.I.P which includes tl'uat the Irourio fluor ..f all hornes a%r'ollld be °ley5ted a rnintrnurn of rest co the le, el of the intermittent -stream co.lrse....to minimi -,e the t,otertral r,r flooding .0 LA slopes ,and retaining walls forhome construction wiu.11d ,j1=. i tie required." (Alternative 1 • 18 lilts, p. 120 ;and 1241if EIR). In aj rnu h t Nr Howe intends only to build a road to unimproved, ungraded lot.-., the Homeowners ',vould like to know: a. ',^there will the future homeowners get their fill'"• Will there be more grading of the slopes, or do we brace for 18 different homes h,ners trucking in foreign soil .up the street? b. In as much as soil cannot be heaped upon. nor compacted around nak trees without destroying them, will those lots with oak trees be given a "restricted use " designation requiring their owners to use expensive friction pile foundations as has been required by the City for 1 i of the lots on'c-A,er La Salle Canyon' c ''Hill this fill impact the water supply for the oak trees living_ downstream on the property of the current homeowners of La Salle Canyon? d. 'vlill the developer be required to make a full disclosure of the EIR's requirements for grading, fill, foundations, etc. to prospective lot owners ? 6. The homeowners had numerous other questions and concerns about the proposed development and its impact on their homes and neighborhood that have yet to be worked out with the developer. A few examples are: When does "construction" end and resurfacing of the road begin? Is it when Mr. Howe is through with his road, or is it when the last lot has a completed home on it? Will we have to negotiate terms for compensation for property losses and damage, gate removal, traffic hazards, etc. with each lot owner as the lots are sold? How is the lot sales program going to be handled? Will there be a sales office on site? Will we be subjected to weekend "open house" when the -advertisement billboards are rolled out and the gates left open for anyone to walk through the neighborhood? etc. etc. 22 Jan 90 Ms. Lynn Harris Community Development City of Santa Clarita 23920 W. Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Tract 46619 Dear Ms. Harris, GAVIOTA Director 3rd ff RECEIDEDJAN24 c?, 1 Pursuant to your request I am stating the reasons why our proposed revisions to the above referenced tract map meet all the criteria set forth by the Planning Commission on Nov. 20, 1990, by the Environmental Impact Report prepared by an impartial consultant, and staff's conditions for approval as outlined in exhibit "B" to the staff report dated, Nov. 20, 1990. ® On Nov. 20,1990 the Planning Commission directed the applicant to further revise the map taking into account the following parameters: 1. No more than 18 units; 2. No new debris basin; 3. That it allow for the natural condition of the streamcourse; 4. That staff discuss alternatives made by Mike , Lyons (natural recharge of aquifer by saving streamcourse and preserving more trees); S. That staff look into the grading; 6. That no more than 65 trees be removed; 7. That the applicant meet with homeowners again to .review a revised plan. Our revised map meets all of these conditions. 1. We've redesigned the project with 18 units; 2. We propose no new debris basin;3 & 4. We've preserved the streamcourse and the oak trees; 5. we've reduced the grading significantly (61%) and can reduce it further in the final grading (by lowering the road); 6. We've revised our oak tree permit for the removal of 31 trees initially and will accept a condition limiting the total removal of trees to not more than 65 trees overall. 7. And finally we have met with the homeowners for the sixth time. Although we have successfully resolved most of the design concerns, unfortunately we have had little progress with the homeowners. At the Gavfota. Inc. a 35100 Anthony Rd. a Agua Dulce, CA 91350 a (805) 268-8120 a FAX (805) 268-0202 C5?,I 2 ® two most recent meetings we offered acceptance of most of their requirements (see attached letter) but when asked if they could support our development even if it met all their written requirements, their response was "No". The owners of this tract simply don't want any development on our property. The only option they now purport to favor. (a substantially reduced density), is economically unfeasible and they know it. Our revised plan of 18 lots meets or exceeds the requirements outlined in the Environmental Impact Report. The consultant, hired by the city, states on page 83 of the report, "To lessen impacts. to a level of in ignificance, the following mitigation would have to be incorporated into the project: 1) reduce the area of disturbance (We have reduced it 73% from 9 acres to 2.6 acres out of approx. 50 acres ! ]; 2) do not remove and relocate the debris basin [ We are not removing or relocating it]; 3) design units and lot improvements to minimize intrusions into oak tree resourses [ We have followed the consultants direction to utilize raised foundations and individually designed lots]; 4) transplant removed trees in suitable habitat within the project site or within the city (We will follow this direction if a condition of the map); 5) purchase and set aside for perpetuity twice the ® amount of lost habitat with similar oak woodland habitat [With no need now for a new debris basin, all this land plus the rest of the undisturbed Oak Woodland identified in the report can be dedicated (hopefully in lieu of any fees) to the city- this represents far in excess of twice the amount]. Essentially we have closely followed the consultants Alternative "C" which in the consultants words, ."lessens the impacts] to the greatest extent feasible". With. regard to the entrance gate I met with Mr. .Ed Cline, City Traffic Et!gineer, and based on his suggestions we.have come up with a proposed redesign which improves the safety of the entrance, preserves the integrity of the neighborhood and enhances the security ofthe neighborhood .(see attached). The original tract dedicated a 60 foot right of way for the roadway and their C C & R's state the following, "It is hereby expressly acknowledged that said La Salle Canyon Drive - a Private and Future Street - was . offered for public use ...and shall remain subject to such offer of dedication and any right of the County of Los Angeles to require the removal of all entrance structures and other improvements within said right of way...". In staff's response to comments to the EIR,, the 3 following was pertinent to the entrance gates, " The Santa Clarita Traffic Division has indicated the current configuration of the gate controlling access into La Salle Canyon is sub -standard inad �� ate and incwfn and should be reconfi ured even if the oro co project is not contr acted. Clearly this situation at the entrance gate exists with or without our project and needs to be corrected. We have met with the city's traffic engineer and our traffic consultant in order to offer a solution which benefits everyone. The residents cannot ignore the unsafe situation nor can they dismiss our reconfiguration without offering an alternative. With respect to our use of La Salle Canyon Road, I have enclosed a copy' of our Maintenance Agreement which was recorded on the La Salle development over 12 years ago which is a written binding document between us and the La Salle Homeowners Association outlining in detail how we will interact regarding most of the traffic issues raised in the association's letter. The remainder of staff's conditions for approval(as stated in their_ Nov. 20, 1990 report) are satisfactory with some minor changes, (e.g. I don't see the need for street trees in the middle of the forest. I also believe we should receive credit for the oak woodlands dedication in lieu of fees and ® also there were some minor changes discussed with staff which can be worked out in the final map.). . I would like to take another few minutes to further address the .oak trees. As I mentioned above we will accept a condition of approval that not more than 65 oak trees be removed. In our permit there are an additional 37 trees which will be encroached upon. We agree to further redesign the drives to accomodate the comments of our arborist, Paul Rogers, (see attached letter) to better protect these trees as well. What we now call encroachment in a few years will be called "enviromentally sensitive landscaping'. And lastly all of the heritage• oak trees are being preserved as well over 900 oak trees! I would also like to state that we've been working, on this project for over three years to come up with a design that we can all be proud of. When we started our design work the high threshhold for density allowed in excess of 100 units on the site, but we opted to be enviromentally sensitive. We rejected even low density housing and chose instead a rural type density of approx. 1 house per two acres (27 lots). Since then we have spent a i ,.Z�> 4 considerable amount of time and money to make the project even more 10 environmentally sensitive and feel that this final revision exemplifies responsible development. We have also signed an agreement with the schools regarding payment of their requested school fees. Finally the net result will be that the city planning staff and Planning Commission, through it's planning process, will have been instrumental in preserving one of the finest examples of Oak Woodlands in our city. Every one of the Heritage Oaks and over 900 oak trees will be preserved for generations to come. The homeowners will enjoy a quality subdivision with extremely low density compared to that allowed under the new General Plan, and we will have a project which, if the market makes a reasonable recovery, will be economically viable. For all of the above reasons we respectfully request staff's recommendation of approval of tract 46619 as revised. Sincerely, Richard P. Howe President cc. Richard Patterson Esq.. GAVIOTA 18 Mar 91 Mr. Don Williams City of Santa Clarita 23920 W. Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Draft Resolution P91-15 Dear Mr. Williams, ® Regarding the above referenced draft resolution I would like to correct one of the many errors stated therein, specifically Section 1. n. • I have never requested the Planning Commission to deny either the 27 lot or 18 lot applications. Sincerely; Richard P. Howe President cc: Richard Patterson FAXED 18 Mar 91 Gaviota, Inc. a 35100 Anthony Rd. a Agua Dulce, CA 91350 a (805) 268-8120 e FAX (805) 268-0202 • • jo Chairman Louis Brothwaite City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission 23920 Ualencia Blvd. 0300 Santa Clarita, CR. 91355 +�a. March 20, 1991 Beer Chairmen Brothwaite, On behalf of the Rancho Le Salle Homeowners Rssociation 1 would like to empress our appreciation to the members of the Planning Commission for their thorough evaluation of the proposed development of La Salle Canyon and its impact on the current residents of the City of Santa Clarita. Throughout the hearing process, we were impressed with the Commission's effort to insure informed and responsible development. We thank you for the many hours you devoted to the analysis of this proposed development and for providing us with the heartening emperience of having our voices heard in the decision-making process. Our belief in the bright future of our young City of Santa Clarita was greatly strengthened as a result of our observations of the diligence of the City Staff and our -participation in the public hearing process with the Planning Commission. SinFerely, .1 Kann Smith President Rancho Le Salle Homeowners Rssoc. • Cl 1 N< slog : rn0 aT :ii: .o;f n � )A i i.4is o i, tom ATTACHMENT G N -0-0 ~ m m 000 :., .. v m cn RECEIVED MAY 13 1991 DQUA �mm� 5-12-91 Lynne A. P1ambecx 23149 Oakbrioqe Lane Newhall, Ca. 91321 Carl Boyer Mayor City of Santa Clarita Dear Sir: I am writing to you today because l wish to comment on an agenda item scheduled for Tuesday May 14th, but will he unable to attend that Council meeting. The item concerns Richard Howe and his proposed LaSalle Canyon Development. Although 1 am not an immediate neighbor of this project, it concerns me because my neighborhood is in the immediate vicinity `about a mile away, and is similar in character. My neighbors and l agree that the number of oaks which Mr. Howe proposes to remove and the adjustments that would be required of the c"rrent residents respecting their access gate are out of line with City Planning philosophy and unfair to the current residents. We also do not concur with the suggestion that open space can be swapped or moved around as Mr. Howe has proposed as this could lead to the future development of any open space now presently preserved. We therefore respectfully request that you allow only very minimal development, perhaps two lots, or at the very most, not exceed the 8 lots recommended by your Planning Dept^ and approved by the Planning Commission, as this is what is best suited to the narrow and rugged terrain of La Salle Canyon. I greatly regret not being able to present this to you in person, but am confident l can rely on the Council's rigorous efforts to review all comments relating to each case, l thank you for your time. E�yie A: 'I a 102 c k