HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-05-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - ZC 90 007 FROM A 2 1 (2)UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DATE: May 14, 1991
AGENDA REPORT
City nager royal
Item to be presented by•(�c��.
Lynn M. HarrisRhhGdJ
SUBJECT: Zone Change Case No. 90-007 from A-2-1 (Heavy -Agriculture ui:::,
minimum lot size one acre) to R-1 6,000 (Single -Family Residential,
minimum lot size 6,000 square feet) over a portion of a 32 -acre
parcel located in the Via Princessa area, approximately 1,000 feet.
west of Rainbow Glen Drive, north of Via Princessa Road. Ordinance
No. 91-17
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND:
On April 23, 1991, Community Development Department staff presented the
proposed project to City Council. City Council opened the Public Hearing and
asked the following questions:
1) How many units the Council is approving;
2) Hou many units per year Council is projecting;
3) What the water situation would be;
4) What the impact is on the roads;
5) Is 550 feet of Via Princessa an extraordinary amount of road for the
number of houses involved, or is it an average amount?
6) Some kind of a schedule that we might discuss to indicate how we might
come about meeting our figures by the year 2010 under the present plan
that has been produced by the County and also under our General Plan;
7) How close would the nearest house be to the transmission lines?
8) Are we still going forward with our water ordinance for conservation of
water? And, what is the reduction that we are expecting from residents?
We are expecting an overall 25 percent. So, what would that come to per
gallon per person in the Santa Clarita Valley at this time?
In response to these questions:
1. Since January of 1991, the total number of units that the City Council
will have approved is 55 residential units in conjunction with a zone
change, if this project Zone Change Case No. 90-002 is approved.
Agenda Item.
2. A projection of the total number of residential units that would be
approved in 1991 is 1,691 units. This projection is based on the current
projects in the development review process with the exception of the
larger proposed projects such as Tick Canyon, Santa Fe and North .Hills
which have environmental impact reports pending.
3. There would be no significant impact on the water supply as a result of
this project according to the Santa Clarita Water Company which would
supply this tract.
4. There would be no significant impact on the roads as a result of this
project per the traffic report.
5. The 550 -foot length of Via Princessa is neither an extraordinary amount
nor is it an average amount of required road improvements for the number
of houses involved. The criteria for the required amount of road
improvement is the length of the tract frontage, in this case 550 feet,
not the number of houses.
6. At the City Council meeting, the Council requested that a comparative
schedule might be prepared to show projections to the year 2010 as
proposed under both the County and City draft general plans. It is
assumed that such a schedule would be used to track City and County
actions, compare these actions with projected "averages" in order to
determine if approvals were exceeding the projected growth rates.
At the present time, the City's draft General Plan does not contain annual
growth rate figures. Rather, growth is tied to the provision of adequate
infrastructure. The Planning Commission, however, is currently involved
in discussions regarding the relationship between growth management and
the Land Use Element. These discussions are still ongoing and no
conclusion has been made.
The County Areawide General Plan for the Santa Clarita Valley is, however,
based on population and housing growth rates and trends. Although there
is no limiting factor within the .Plan, the projected population in the
year 2010 of 270,000 persons and a dwelling unit- count of 93,400 is based
on an assumed population.and annual growth rate as follows:
PERCENT ANNUAL
YEAR POPULATION CHANGE CHANGE GROWTH RATE
1990 140,000 60,986 77.18% 5.72$
2000 210,000 70,000 50.00% 4.05%
2010 270,000 60,000 28.572 2.51%
The Community Development Department is now preparing regular quarterly
reports which display a variety of information, including building permit
activity and status of current planning cases. In addition, an annual
report is planned immediately following each year end which would provide
combined totals for the year. It would appear' that these reports would
largely fulfill the City Council's requests.
The Community Development staff will evaluate the content and manner of
display of this information in order to determine if ongoing comparisons
tied to future projected growth can be included for ongoing monitoring
purposes.
7. The nearest house is approximately 340 feet from the transmission lines.
8. The City is still going forward with the water conservation ordinance.
The citywide goal is a 25 percent reduction from residents. With a
25 percent reduction from residents the gallons per person amount would be:
Santa Clarita Water Company- 115.gallons per day per person
25% reduction equals 86.25 gallons per day per person
Newhall Water Company: 890 gallons per day per family of four or
approximately 222 gallons per day per person
252 reduction equals 667.50 gallons per day per family of four, or
approximately 166.5 gallons per day per person
Valencia Water Company: Approximately 250 gallons per day per person
25% reduction equals 187.5 gallons per day per person
RECOMMENDATION•
Review the information requested at the April 23, 1991 City Council meeting,
approve the Negative Declaration, and introduce Ordinance No. 91-17, waive
further reading and pass to second reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
April 23, 1991 City Council Agenda Report
BCA: 61
PUBLIC BEARING PROCEDURE
1. Mayor.Opens Hearing
a. States Purpose of Hearing
2. City Clerk Reports or Hearing Notice
3. Staff Report
(City Manager)
or
(City Attorney)
or
(RP Staff)
4. Proponent Argument
S. ' Opponent Argument
6. Three-minute Rebuttal
a. Proponent
7. Mayor Closes Public Testimony
8. Discussion by Council
• 9. Council Decision
'10. Mayor Announces Decision
. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ZONE CHANGE -90-007 FROM A-2-1 (HEAVY AGRICULTURAL,
MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 1 ACRE) TO R-1-6000
(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MINIMUM LOT SIZE
6,000 SQUARE FEET) AND A SUBDIVISION OF
32 ACRES TO CREATE 55 SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS, A PUBLIC UTILITY LOT, THREE
OPEN SPACE LOTS, AND A 1.57 ACRE REMAINDER PARCEL
LOCATED IN THE VIA PRINCESSA AREA,
APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET WEST OF
RAINB0W GLEN DRIVE
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City
of Santa Clarita to consider a change of zone from A-2-1 (Heavy
Agricultural, minimum lot size of 1 acre) to R-1-6000
(Single-family Residential, minimum lot size 6,000 square feet) and
a subdivision of 32 acres to create 55 single-family residential
lots, a public utility lot, three open space lots, and a 1.57 acre
remainder parcel. The Project site is.located in the Via Princessa
area, approximately 1,000 feet west of Rainbow Glen Drive.
iThe hearing will be heard by the City Council in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, the 23rd day of
April, 1991, at or after 6:30 p.m.
Proponents, opponents, and nay 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: April 1, 1991
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk
Publish Dates April 3, 1991
. Y
ORDINANCE N0. 91-17
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLAN TA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING NAP
(ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-007)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOVS
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine as follows:
a. An application for a Zone Change was filed on May 30, 1990, by Newcomb
Development, Inc. (the •applicant'). -The property is located
approximately 1,000 feet west of Rainbow Glen Drive, to the north of Via
Princessa Road. The Assessor Parcel Number for this site is 2836-018-036.
b. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the
application on Tuesday, March 5, 1991. At that time, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution P91-01 approving 55 single-family
residential lots, three (3) open space lots, a public facility lot, and a
remainder parcel, contingent on City Council approval of the zone change,
excluding the designated remainder parcel.
c. The City Council held a duly noticed.public hearing to consider this
ordinance on Tuesday, April 23, 1991, at .the City of Santa Clarita City
Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the
public hearing, and upon the study and investigation made by the Planning
Commission and the City Council.." and on their behalf, the City Council further
finds and determines as follows:
a. The recommended zone change of the 30 acre portion will not result in a
significant negative environmental effect. Implementation of this
proposal,vill cause no adverse effects in the environment which cannot be
adequatily mitigated through the application of available controls. The
change in zone will not cause substantial environmental damage or
substantial.and avoidable injury to fish or wild life -on their habitat,
since the project site is not located in a significant ecological area.
b. Modified conditions warrant a change of zone in the Via Princessa area
because the applicant will construct a portion of Via Princessa Road and
initiate and contribute to a funding mechanism ensuring that the
construction of Via Princessa Road from the project site to San Fernando
Road occurs in a timely manner.
c. The need for the proposed zone change exists within the Via Princessa area
because of the developmental benefits the project is contributing to the
City of Santa Clarita (i.e., a natural running trail through Open Space
Lot 57, and natural.hillside preservation).
• d. The property is a proper location for the R-1-6000 Zone (Single-family
residential, minimum lot size 6,000 square feet) within the Via Princessa
area because the project is proposing traditional single-family zoning in
conformance to the draft General Plan designation of RL (Residential Low:
1.1 - 3.3 units per acre) for a portion of the site.
e. The placement of the R-1-6000 Zone at the project location will be in the
interest of public health, safety, and general welfare, and in conformity
with good zoning practice because all necessary utilities will provide
service and all applicable development standards will be applied to the
project.
f. The proposed zone change to R-1-6000 over the 30.20 acre portion of the 32
acre site and subsequent development are anticipated to be consistent with
the intent and objectives of the City's Draft General Plan. A change of
zone over the remainder parcel is anticipated to be inconsistent with the
General Plan Business Park land use designation, and therefore, will be
excluded from Zone Change 90-007.
g. In taking this action, the City Council has considered the effects of the
decision on the housing needs of the region in which the City is located
and balanced those needs against the public service needs of the City
residents and available fiscal and environmental resources.
SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarita City Council has reviewed and
considered the environmental information contained in the Initial Study, which
was approved by the Planning Commission,.and determines that it is in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and that the proposed
project will not have a significant impact on the environment. A Negative
Declaration was prepared for this project. Based upon the findings stated
above, the City Council hereby &pproves the Negative Declaration.
SECTION 4. Based upon the forgoing, the City Council does hereby
ordain that the application for a zone change, excluding the designated
reminder parcel, from A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture, 1 acre minimum lot size) to
R-1-6000 (Single-family Residential, 6,000 square feet minimum lot size) is
approved. The zoning boundaries; excluding the 1.57 acre remainder parcel,
..'shall conform to Exhibit 'A,• which is the site plan for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 49549.
ATTEST:
11
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS _ DAY OF , 1991.
City Clerk
Carl Boyer, MAYOR
. STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
0
DRAFT
I, , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 91-17 was regularly introduced
and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on
the _ day of 1991, that thereafter, said ordinance was duly
adapted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _ day
of 1991, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
In order for members of the Planning Commissicn or City Councl.l to
adequately assess the potential for conflict of interest in rendering decisions
on land use matters, the following information is required. Should the .
applicant(s) in the requested action be or include a partnership, the name of
the partnership and of all partners shall be printed below. Should the
applicant be a corporation, the name of the corporation and of all officers of
said corporation shall be printed below. Ir there are env other business or
joint venture parties, property cwners, or individuals which have a financial
interest in this action not otherwise covered as a partnership or corporation,
then their names shall be printed bolcw.
Newcomb Group
PARTMERallP w. ;E
PcaPcaT( O'dNER(S1
Elfie J. Sheldbn
Ann Furst
Newcomb Develorment Inc_/aPnaral partner
CORPORATION WiJE
John T. Newcomb
President
Jeffrey Miller
VIGe President
Lizbeth Corallo
Secrotary/Assistant
Other
I HERESY CERTIFY THAT TF;E FCREGOINC INFOPVATION IS ACCURATEAND CC1aPLETE 1'O THE
BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.
SttuF
ZAQ
Printed Name of 1
S -
Oate
Case File No. TTK41Y4
licant, or Agent for Applicant
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: March 5, 1991
TO: Chairman Brathwaite and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development'— \ tL�rP,
SUBJECT: Master Case No. 90-107: Zone Change 90-007, Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 49549
The project site is located within the Via Princessa area,
approximately 1,000 feet west of Rainbow Glen Drive, north
of the Via Princessa Road alignment.
This item was continued from the regularly scheduled meeting of February
19, 1991, to tonight's meeting, due to public hearing time constraints.
The staff report from the previous February 19th meeting is attached.
Please refer to the previous Planning Commission packet for the project
exhibit.
LMH:DDP:402 Agenda Item: `'
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
Master Case No. 90-107
Zone Change 90-007
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 49549
DATE: February 19, 1991
TO: Chairman Brathwaite and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development
APPLICANT: Newcomb Development�J/
CASE PLANNERS: Daniel D. Powers, Assistant Planner
Fred Follstad, Assistant Planner II
LOCATION: The project is located north of proposed Via Princessa Road,
1,000 feet west of Rainbow Glen Drive..
REQUEST: 1. Zone change of the vacant parcel from A-2-1 (Heavy
Agricultural, minimum lot size of 1 acre) to R-1-6000
(Single-family Residential, minimum lot size 6,000 square
feet), and;
2. Subdivision comprising 55 single-family residential lots,
one (1) public utility lot, three (3) open space lots,
and. a remainder parcel consisting of 1.57 acres over
approximately 32 acres.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project is a single-family development on .gentle- to steep -sloping terrain
consisting of 55 residential lots, three (3) open space lots, and a remainder
parcel over the 32 acre site. The applicant has requested a change of zone
from A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture, minimum 1 acre lot size) to R -1 -6000 -
(Single -family residential, minimum 6,000 square foot lot size). The project
is designed as a standard single-family subdivision with no common areas other
than the open space lots.
The site is currently undeveloped with scrub vegetation over a majority of the
site, excluding the water tank at the northeast corner. The applicant is
proposing 300,000 cubic yards of grading balanced on-site for the proposed
single-family lots and required public works improvements. This accounts for
approximately 5,500 cubic yards of earth material per residential unit.
Grading will occur off-site directly to the north and south project
boundaries. Off-site owners' permission would be required from the applicant
prior to any proposed grading activities.
J
Access to the project site would occur from the construction of Via Princessa
Road, a major highway with 100 feet of right-of-way, extending 550 feet
throughout the project area. Three (3) residential collector streets are
proposed from Via Princessa: "A" Street which is 60 feet in width, and "B"
and "C" Streets, both 58 feet in width. "B" and "C" Streets are cul-de-sacs
extending from proposed "A".Street.
Three (3) --proposed open spacelots comprise 15.64 acres of the total site
area. All three (3) lots are proposed to be preserved as open space lots and
maintained by a future established Homeowners' Association. The proposed
single-family lots range in size from 6,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet
and the average lot size is 7,200 square feet. Lots fronting on the easterly
side of "A" Street (lots 1-18) are proposed at average lot widths of 60 feet
and lot depths of 115 feet. The average lot size would be 6,900 square feet
at this location. Lots on the westerly side of "A" and "C" Streets (lots
23-35 and lots 39-42) are proposed at lot widths of approximately 60 feet and
lot depths of approximately 100 feet, the minimum required lot sizes for the
proposed R-1-6000 zoning designation. View lots approximately 12,000 square
feet in lot size are proposed at the end of the three (3) cul-de-sacs (lots
19-22, 36-38, and 48-50). These lots have 40 feet of frontage which is
standard width for single-family lots situated on cul-de-sacs.
Five (5) acres of the 30.20 acre portion contain hillsides exceeding 50
percent sloping terrain. The 50 percent slopes are distributed throughout the
site, with a majority occurring in the proposed Open Space Lot 57, a portion
of proposed Open Space Lot 58, and at the southeasterly portion of the site
which is at the project entrance. Approximately one-third of the slopes
exceeding 50 percent would be graded for the extension of Via Princessa,
portions of "A" and "B" Streets, proposed Lots 43-45, and proposed Lots
51-55. Additionally, proposed Lots 27-31 would be located within slope areas
exceeding 50 percent.
SURROUNDING LAND USES, GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS, AND ZONING:
The following table illustrates surrounding land uses, zoning, and Draft
General Plan designations.for the vicinity:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future Existing
Zoning Designation Land Use
Project A-2-1 RL,BP vacant,
water tank
North A-2-1, RS vacant
RPD -1-6U
South A-2-1 RL vacant
East RPD -1-6U RS vacant
Vest M-1.5 BP vacant
Key:
BP = Business Park
RL = Residential Low (1.1 - 3.3 du/ac)
RS = Residential Suburban (3.4 -6.6 du/ac)
RPD = Residential Planned Development
R-3 = Limited Multiple Residential
M-1.5 = Restricted Heavy Manufacturing
A Department of Water and Power property, approximately 330 feet wide and
1,370 feet long, with four (4) electrical transmission lines, crosses the
westerly portion of the site. The City of Los Angeles, Department of Water
and Power, has fee ownership over the easement area and this area is not part
of the proposed zone change. The easement will remain with its existing
zoning of A-2-1.
Overall, the project density is less than all other projects (both approved
and proposed) in the area and is compatible with surrounding residential
uses. The following table illustrates residential project densities in the
Via Princessa area:
--------------------------------------------------------
Proiect
Units Per Acre
Subject Site (proposed
single-family)
1.8
Tract
44360
(proposed
condominiums)
4.3
Tract
44359
(approved
condominiums)
4.2
Tract
48108
(approved
single-family)
2.0
Tract
-------------------
49647
(proposed
------------------------------------
single-family)
2.3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
An initial study has been completed for the proposed project. The
environmental constraint areas include land use, traffic, erosion, fire
hazard, hillside management, and public services (i.e. schools). At the
request of staff at the Development Review Committee meeting, the applicant
submitted a noise study, biota report, traffic study, and cultural resources
report. It has been determined that this project would have no significant
adverse environmental impacts due to project design, standard City
requirements, and conditions that would be added to the project if it received
approval. Subsequently, a Negative Declaration was prepared for this project
pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California .Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines.
INTERDEPARTMENT/INTERAGENCY REVIEW:
Comments and recommendations were solicited from departments and agencies
which would be affected by this project. The Traffic Division recommended
that Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 49549 and 49647 (a 29 single-family
residential project to the south of the site currently under Community
Development Staff review) prepare a comprehensive traffic study of the Via
Princessa area. Based on this study, the traffic division has recommended
that the applicant participate in the funding and establishment of appropriate
mechanisms whereby the City is assured of the construction of the extension of
Via Princessa from the project site to San Fernando Road in a timely manner.
Further, the Traffic Division is also requiring the applicant to initiate and
participate in a funding mechanism whereby the City is assured of the widening
of Soledad Canyon Road bridge over the Santa Clara River. These funding
mechanisms would be in place prior to the issuance of any building permits.
The applicants have entered into agreements with the Hart Union School
District and the Saugus Union School District. No comments or letters have
been received by the public regarding the proposal as of the date this staff
report was prepared.
ANALYSIS:
Based upon a comprehensive review of this project, staff -has reviewed several
issues regarding this proposal, including a reduction in project density, a
reduction of grading activities, ridgeline preservation practices, and the
potential zone change of the designated remainder parcel.'
Project. Density: The Draft General Plan designations for the site are: RL
(Residential Low .1.1 - 3.3 du/ac) over approximately 30 acres, and BP
(Business Park) over the 1.57 acre remainder parcel which is designated in the
southwesterly area of the site. The density range for the project is between
33 and 99 units over the 30 acre portion, not including the remainder
parcel. This 30 acre portion consists of hillside area with the following
slope calculations:
----------------------------
Slopes Area
0 - 25Z 11.1 acres
25 - 502 14.1 acres
Over 50Z 5.0 acres
The applicant revised the original project density from 84 units to 55 units
based on the following information:
1. 2.2 units per acre is the midrange of the Residential Low (RL)
designation, which permits 1.1 - 3.3 units per acre.
2. Twenty-five acres of the site consists of hillsides with slopes of less
than 50 percent. Five (5) acres of the site contain hillsides over 50
percent and were excluded from the density calculation.
Therefore, 2.2 units per acre x 25 acres = 55 residential units.
Grading Activities: Although the applicant excluded five (5) acres of the
project site from the density calculations due to slopes exceeding 50 percent,
approximately .one-third of the slope area is proposed for development in the
area at the project entrance. Although some slopes exceeding 50 percent are
proposed to be graded for single-family lots (Lots 51-55, 43-45), a majority
of the grading would be required for the extension of Via Princessa through
the project. The proposed development requires minimal grading to accommodate
the 55 lot development and is sensitive to other areas with slopes exceeding
50 percent. (These areas include proposed Open Space Lot 57 and the northerly
portion of proposed Open Space Lot 58). Two and one-half acres of contour
grading on proposed Open Space Lot 58 would result in a three -to -one (3:1)
slope approximately 80 feet in height visible from the proposed business park
to the west. This is a desirably gentle slope which will allow contour
grading to minimize the use of unsightly drainage benches required for proper
drainage and the slopes could be easily re -vegetated after grading activity.
Ridgeline Preservation Practices: The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC)
has identified the north -south ridge as significant in the southeasterly area
of the project site. A portion of "A" and ".B" Streets and proposed Lots 51
through 55 would extend through this ridgeline. Although the Via Princessa
alignment through the project area will not extend through the mapped ridge,
grading is necessary in the ridgeline area to facilitate the extension. The
terminal segment of the Significant Ridgeline is located in proposed open
Space Lot 57. This ridgeline portion will remain as natural open space to be
owned and maintained by a future Homeowners' Association. Staff feels that
ridgeline preservation through proposed Lot 57 is beneficial because it
maintains the site's natural landform, reduces the potential adverse effects
of grading, and preserves an existing natural foot trail used for passive
recreational use. Further, the project will be limited to access from Via
Princessa Road and proposed "A" Street will not extend to the developments
north of the site, thereby preserving hillsides and open spaces in the
vicinity.
Staff feels this traditional single-family tract in the Via Princessa area is
appropriate. Open space areas will be maintained by the Homeowners'
Association. This would ensure that accessory structures, such as patios and
pools, will not be situated in hillside areas, thus avoiding inappropriate
hillside development practices. The Homeowners' Association would guarantee
the permanent maintenance of slopes and open space areas.
Potential Zone Change of the Designated Remainder Parcel: Although not
included in the density calculations for the site, the 1.57 acre parcel at the
southwest portion of the site is designated as.a remainder parcel. The
applicant would be required to provide legal access to this parcel when
building permits are issued for development. Staff feels that a zone change
over the remainder parcel will be inconsistent with the Business Park.land use
designation and recommends that the remainder parcel keep the current A-2-1
zoning until the adoption of the General Plan.
Staff recommends that the. Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration
and approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 49549 subject to the conditions of
approval, and recommend approval of Zone Change 90-007, excluding the
remainder parcel, through the adoption of the attached Resolution P91-01.
LMH:DDP:338
RESOLUTION NO. P91-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 49549
AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL ZONE CHANGE 90-007,
EXCLUDING THE DESIGNATED REMAINDER PARCEL
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine as follows:
a. Applications for a vesting tentative tract map and zone change
were filed with the City of Santa Clarita on May 30, 1990, by
Newcomb Development ("the applicant"). The property for which
these entitlements have been filed is located at the west of
Rainbow Glen Drive, to the north of proposed Via Princessa Road.
The project site is approximately 32 acres in gross area,
including a 30.20 acre portion proposed for development and .a
1.57 acre portion designated as a remainder parcel. The Water
and Power property separates the two parcels from one another,
however, the parcels'are held together as one single parcel. The
Assessor Parcel Number for the site is 2836-018-036. The site is
zoned A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture, 1 acre lot size) and the
applicant is requesting R-1-6000 (Single-family Residential,
6,000 square foot lot size). The purpose of the vesting
tentative tract .map application is to create 55 single-family
homes, three (3) open space lots, a public facility lot, and a
designated remainder parcel.
b. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee (DRC) met
on July 12, 1990, and reviewed the project.
c. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission
on February 19, 1991, at the City Council Chambers, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. The item .was
continued to March 5, 1991.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received
at the public hearing, and upon the study and investigation made by the
Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Commission further finds and
determines as follows:
a. The City of Santa Clarita is proceeding in a timely fashion with
the preparation of a general plan. There is a reasonable
probability that this subdivision and recommended change of zone
over the 30.20 acre portion will be consistent with the general
plan proposal currently being considered or studied, that there
.is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed
project is ultimately inconsistent with that plan.
b. The designated remainder parcel is anticipated to in inconsistent
with the future adopted General Plan and is not part of the
recommended zone change approval. The proposed project complies
with all other applicable requirements of state law and local
ordinances.
Reso P91-01
c. The division and development of the property in the manner set
forth on the subject tentative tract map will not unreasonably
interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public
entity and/or public utility, right-of-way and/or easements
within the vesting tentative tract map. Neither the design .of
the subdivision nor the type of improvements will conflict with
public easements for access through the use of property within
the proposed subdivision, since the design and development as set
forth in the conditions of approval and on the tentative map,
provides adequate protection for easements.
d. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will
not cause serious public health problems, since sewage disposal,
storm drainage, fire protection, and geological and soils factors
are addressed in the recommended Conditions of Approval. The
connection fees required by the Los Angeles County Sanitation
District will mitigate the project's impact on the existing
sewage system.
e. Based upon review of the submitted plan, the subject property is
adequate in size and shape to accommodate the development
features prescribed in the City's Municipal Code and otherwise
required in order to integrate the proposed use of the subject
property with the uses in the surrounding area.
f. Implementation of this proposal will cause no adverse effects in
the environment which cannot be adequately mitigated through the
application of available controls. The design of the subdivision
and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial
environmental damage or substantial and avoidable injury to fish
or wild life or, their habitat, since the project site is not
located within a significant ecological area. The proposed
subdivision does not contain or front upon any public waterway,
river, stream, coastline, shoreline, lake or reservoir.
g. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible,
for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities
given the size and shape of the lots and their intended use.
SECTION 3. Based upon testimony and other evidence received at
the public hearing, and upon studies and investigation made by the Planning
Commission and on its behalf, the Commission further finds and determines as
follows:
a. Modified conditions warrant a change of zone in the Via Princessa
area because the applicant will construct a portion of Via
Princessa Road and initiate and contribute to a funding mechanism
ensuring that the construction of Via Princessa Road from the
project site to San Fernando Road occurs in a timely manner.
Reso P91-01
b. The need for the proposed zone change exists within the Via
Princessa area because of the regional benefits the project is
contributing to the City of Santa Clarita (i.e., a natural
running trail through Open Space Lot .57, and natural hillside
preservation).
c. The property is a proper location for the R-1-6000 Zone
(Single-family residential, minimum lot size 6,000 square feet)
within the Via Princessa area because the project is proposing
traditional single-family zoning which is in conformance to the
draft General Plan designation of RL (Residential Low) for a
portion of the site. ,
d. The placement of the R-1-6000 Zone at the project location will
be in the interest of public health, safety, and general welfare,
and in conformity with good zoning practice because all necessary
utilities will provide service and all applicable development
standards will be applied to the project.
e. The proposed zone change to R-1-6000 over the 30.20 acre portion
of the 32 acre site and subsequent development are anticipated to
be consistent with the intent and objectives of the City's Draft
General Plan. The proposed land use designation of Business Park
over the remainder parcel is anticipated to be inconsistent with
the General Plan, and therefore, will not involve a change of
zone.
SECTION 4. Based upon previous findings, the Planning Commission
hereby adopts the Negative Declaration filed for this project. Pursuant to
this, the Planning Commission grants approval to the requested vesting
tentative tract map (Exhibit A) subject to the attached conditions (Exhibit B).
SECTION 5. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission
hereby recommends approval to the City Council of the request for a zone
change from A-2-1 to R-1-6000 over the 30.20 acre portion, thus keeping the
current A-2-1 zoning for the 1.57 acre designated remainder parcel.
SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution and shall transmit a copy to the applicant, the Fire Department,
the Department of Public Works and the City Engineer.
Reso P91-01
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5th day of/ rch, 1991.
ouis Brathwaite, Chairman
Planning Commission
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting
thereof, held on the 5th day of March, 1991, by the. following vote of the
Commission:
AYES: Commissioners: Cherrington, Modugno, Garasi, Woodrow, and
Chairman Brathwaite.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
L , M. Marri Director
C mmunity Development
DDP:381
Reso P91-01
EXHIBIT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 49549
ZONE CHANGE 90-007
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. The approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map shall expire two
years from the date of Planning Commission approval.
2. The subdivider may file for an extension of the conditionally
approved map prior to the date of expiration for a period of time
not to exceed one year. If such an extension is requested, it must
be filed no later than 60 days prior to expiration.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Department of
Community Development in writing of any change in ownership,
designation of a new engineer, or a change in the status of the
developer, within 30 days of said change.
4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant"
shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or
other entity making use of this grant. The applicant shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents,
officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack,
set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Subdivision by the
City, which action is provided for in the Government Code Section
66499.37. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim,
action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant,
or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify,
or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this Condition
prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim,
action, or proceeding, if both the following occur: (1) the City
bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and (2) the City defends
the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to
pay or perform any settlement unless the entitlement is approved by
the applicant.
5. Details shown on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map are not necessarily
approved. Any details which are inconsistent with requirements of
ordinances, general conditions of approval, or City policies must be
specifically approved.
6. Easements shall not be granted or recorded within areas proposed to
be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets
or highways, access rights, building restriction rights, or other
easements, until after the final map is filed with the County
Recorder unless such easements are subordinated to the proposed
grant or dedication. If easements are granted after the date of the
tentative approval, a subordination must be executed by the easement
holder prior to the filing of the final map.
Reso P91-01
- 1 -
7. The Applicant is hereby advised that this project is subject to fees
at the time of building permit issuance which may include, but not
limited to, the following as applicable: (1) Los Angeles County
Residential Sewer Connection Fee; (2) Interim School Facilities
Financing Fee; (3) Installation or Upgrade of Traffic Signals Fees
and/or Road Improvement Fees; and (4) Planned Local Drainage
Facilities Fee.
8. In lieu of establishing the final specific locations of structures
on each lot at this time, the owner, at the time of issuance of a
building permit, agrees to develop the property in conformance with
the City Code and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building
Code, Plumbing Code,. Grading Ordinance, Highway Permit Ordinance,
Mechanical Code, Zoning Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities
Ordinance, Water Ordinance, Oak Tree Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and
Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and Fire Code.
Improvements and other requirements may be imposed pursuant to such
codes and ordinances.
9. A final tract map must be processed through the City Engineer prior
to being filed with the County Recorder.
10. A grading permit shall be required for any and all off-site grading
to occur for the purposes of this project.
PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING
MAP REQUIREMENTS
11. The owner, at the time of issuance of permits or other grants of
approval agrees to develop the property in accordance with City
Codes and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code,
Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical
Code, Zoning Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance,
Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code and
Fire Code.
12. The applicant shall note all offers of dedication by certificate on
the face of the final map.
13. The applicant shall provide proof of access to the remainder parcel
prior to final approval and delineate on the.final map or resolve to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
14. The applicant shall quitclaim or relocate easements running through
proposed structures.
15. The applicant shall show the remainder of the last legally created
parcel as a "Remainder Parcel" on final map to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
Reso P91-01
- 2 -
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
16. The applicant shall design intersections with a tangent section from
"beginning of curb return" (BCR) to BCR.
17. Where applicable, the applicant shall pay fees for signing and
striping of streets as determined by the City. Traffic Engineer or
shall prepare signing and striping plans for all multi -lane highways
within or abutting the subdivision to the satisfaction of the
Department.
18. The subdivider is required to install distribution lines and
individual service lines for community antenna television service
(CATV) for all new development.
19. The applicant shall place above ground utilities including, but not
limited to, fire hydrants, junction boxes and street lights outside
sidewalk.'
20. The applicant shall install mailboxes and posts per City standards.
Secure approval of U.S. Postal Service prior to installation.
21. The applicant shall letter(s) of slope easement(s) and drainage
acceptance as directed by the City Engineer or Director of Public
Works.
22. The applicant shall obtain approval of the Director of Community
Development and the City Attorney for proposed homeowners
association maintenance agreements prior to recordation of the final
map or a phase thereof. Homeowner's Association documents and CC&RS
must be recorded prior to recordation of the final map.
23. The applicant shall include a disclosure in the CC&RS to comply with
the Geologist's recommendations in the Geology Report for
restrictions of watering, irrigation, planting, and recommended
types of plants.
24. The applicant shall design the intersections of local streets with
General Plan Highways to provide sight distance from the local
street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Traffic
Engineer. Additional right-of-way dedication and/or grading may be
required.
25. The applicant shall design the central angles of the right-of-way
radius returns to differ by not more than 10 degrees on local
streets.
26. The. applicant shall provide standard property line return radii of
13 feet at all local street intersections, including intersection of
local streets with general Plan Highways, and 27 feet where all
General Plan Highways intersect, or to the satisfaction of the
Department.
Reso P91-01
- 3 -
27. The applicant shall construct drainage improvements and offer
easements needed for street drainage or slopes.
28. The applicant shall not construct driveways within 25 feet upstream
of any catch basins when street grades exceed 6X.
29. The applicant shall construct full -width sidewalks at all walk
returns.
30. The applicant shall construct a slough wall outside the street
right-of-way when the height of slope is greater than five (5) feet
above the sidewalk and the sidewalk is adjacent to the street
right-of-way.
31. The applicant shall provide and install street name signs prior to
occupancy'of building(s).
32. The applicant shall dedicate vehicular access rights on Via
Princessa Road.
33. The applicant
shall
construct
the
following
required
road
improvements:
Street
Curb &
Base
& Street
Street
Name
Width
Gutter
Paving Lights
Trees Sidewalk
Via Princessa
100
FT X
X
X
X
X
"A" Street
58 & 60
FT X
X
X
X
X
"B" Street
58
FT X
X
X
X
X
"C" Street
58
FT X
X
X
X
X
WATER
34
35
The applicant shall file with the City Engineer a statement from the
water purveyor indicating that the water system will be operated by
the purveyor and that under normal operating conditions, the
necessary quantities of water will be available, the system will
meet the requirements for the land division, and that water service
will be provided to each lot.
The applicant shall serve all lots with adequately sized water
system facilities, including fire hydrants, of sufficient size to
accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for the land
division. Domestic flows required for the land division are to be
determined by the City Engineer or Director of Public Works. Fire
flows required are to be determined by the Fire Chief.
Reso P91-01
- 4 -
SEVER
36. The subdivider shall install separate house laterals to serve each
lot with a separate house lateral or have approved and bonded sewer
plans on file with the Department of Public Works.
37. The applicant shall pay sewer reimbursement charges as determined by
the Director of Public Works to the County of Los Angeles before the
filing of this land division map (if applicable).
38,. The subdivider shall send a print of the land division map to the
county Sanitation District, with request for annexation. If
applicable, such annexation request must be assured in writing.
GRADING. DRAINAGE S GEOLOGY
39. The applicant shall submit a grading plan which must be approved
prior to approval of the final map.
40. The applicant shall eliminate all geologic hazards associated with
this proposed development, or delineate a restricted use area
approved by the consultant geologist to the satisfaction of the
Geology and Soils Section and dedicate to the. City the right to
prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within the
restricted use areas.
41. The applicant shall submit a grading plan which shall be based on a
detailed engineering Geotechnical report which must be specifically
approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer and show all
recommendations submitted by them. It must also agree with the
tentative map and conditions as approved by the Advisory Agency.
All buttresses over 25 feet high must be accompanied by calculations.
42. The applicant shall provide drainage facilities to remove the flood
hazard and dedicate and show necessary easements and/or
rights-of-way on the final map.
43. The applicant shall place a note of flood hazard on the final amp
and delineate the areas subject to flood hazard. Dedicate to the
City the right to restrict the erection of buildings in the flood
hazard areas.
44. The applicant shall show on the final map the City's/Flood Control
District's right-of-way for storm drain facilities. A permit will
be required for. any construction affecting the right-of-way or
facilities.
45. The applicant shall provide for the proper distribution of drainage.
46. The applicant shall show and label all natural drainage courses on
lots where a note of flood hazard is allowed if there is a blueline
stream on the property.
Reso P91-01
- 5 -
a. No building permits will be issued for lots subject to flood
hazard until the buildings are adequately protected.
b. The applicant shall notify the State Department of Fish and
Game prior to commencement of work within any natural drainage
course.'
O
C. The applicant shall contact the Corps of Engineers to determine
if a 404 permit is required for any proposed work within the
major watercourse.
47. The applicant shall provide for contributory drainage from adjoining
properties and return drainage to its natural conditions or secure
off-site drainage acceptance letters from affected property owners.
A hydrology study shall be submitted and approved prior to the
filing of the final map.
48. The applicant shall submit a detailed engineering Geotechnical and
Soil Report which must be approved prior to approval of the final
map. The report, based on adequate test borings or excavations,
shall (1) describe any soil or geologic condition(s) which, if not
corrected might lead to structural damage or slope failure. A soil
expansion index test is required and shall be done in accordance
with the procedures of UBC Std. No. 29-2.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/ REQUIREMENTS
49. Prior to final approval, enter into a written agreement with the
City of Santa Clarita whereby the subdivider agrees to pay to the
City a sum (to be determined by the City Council) times the factor
per development unit for the purpose of contributing to a proposed
Bridge and Thoroughfare Benefit _District to implement the highway
element of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic
impact of this and other subdivisions in' the area. The form of
security for performance of said agreement shall be as approved by
the City.
The agreement shall include the following provisions:
a. Upon establishment of the District and the area of benefit, the
fee shall be paid to a special Department of Public Works fund.
b. In the event funds are required for work prior to formation of
the District, the Director of Public Works may demand a sum of
$1,000 (or greater as determined by the City Council), times
the factor per development unit to be credited toward the final
fee established under the District.
C. The subdivider may construct improvements of equivalent value
in lieu of paying fees established for the District subject to
approval of the Director of Public Works.
Reso P91-01
S�
d. The Director of Public Works may require the developer to
submit a traffic report periodically that addresses traffic
congestion and the need to mitigate the problems prior to
issuing building permits.
Factors for development units are as follows:
Development Unit
Factor
Single Family per unit 1.0
The project is in the Route 126 Bridge and Thoroughfare District.
50. Applicant shall provide for the maintenance of slopes by the
Homeowners Association in the CC4R's. The CC&R's must be approved
by the City Attorney prior to approval of the Final Map. Access is
required to slopes which are to be maintained by the Homeowners
Association.
51. The design of the landscape plans and irrigation systems (The number
of meters and location of meters and location of the systems within
the lot lines); shall lend itself to the method established for
maintenance.
52. The applicant shall form a Landscape Assessment District to provide
for the maintenance of medians. The Landscape District must be
approved by the City Council at the same meeting or prior to
approval of the Final Map. The formation of a Landscape Assessment
District must be disclosed in Real Estate documents to Homeowners.
53. Where there are slopes greater than five (5) feet in height which
the Building Code requires to be planted, planting and irrigation
plans shall be submitted and approved prior to approval of grading
plans. Irrigation systems shall be designed to provide for proper
maintenance of the plants and systems.
54. The applicant shall record a deferred improvement on the remainder
parcel which states that improvement for that parcel will not be
required until a permit or other grant of 'approval is issued.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
55. This property is located within the area described by the Forester
and Fire Warden as Fire Zone 4 and future construction must comply
with applicable Code requirements.
56. Provide water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flows as required by
the County Forester and Fire Warden for all land shown on the map to
be recorded.
Reso P91-01
- 7 -
57. Provide Fire Department and City approved street signs, and building
address numbers prior to occupancy.
58. Fire Department access shall extend to within 150 feet distance of
any portion of structures to be built.
59. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted
prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and
maintained serviceable throughout construction.
60. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is
1,250 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a duration of 2 hours, over
and above maximum daily domestic demand.
61. Fire Hydrant requirements are as follows: Install 6 public fire
hydrants.
62. All hydrants shall measure 6"x4"x2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming
to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal. All hydrants shall
be installed a minimum of 25 feet from a structure or protected by a
two (2) hour fire wall. Location is as per map on file with this
office.
63. All required fire .hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted
prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and
maintained serviceable throughout construction.
64. The applicant shall pay fees, if established by the City, to provide
funds for fire protection facilities which are required by new
commercial, industrial or residential development prior to final map
approval or issuance of building permits.
TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT
65. Assure that appropriate sight distance for motorists is provided at
all street intersections within the project. Of specific concern is
the intersection of "C" street with "A" street. It is suggested
that a speed of 30 m.p.h. for traffic on "A" street be considered in
the proximity of "A" street.
66. Driveway access to lot 1 shall be located as far from Via Princessa
as practical.
67. The applicant shall participate in a funding and establishment of
appropriate mechanisms whereby the City is assured of the
construction of the extension of Via Princessa from the proximity of
the project site to San Fernando,Road in a timely manner.
Reso P91-01
- 8 -
68. The applicant shall participate in the funding and establishment of
appropriate mechanisms .whereby the City is assured of the
implementation of the widening of Soledad Canyon Road bridge project
in a timely manner.
DEPARTMENT OF PARRS AND RECREATION
69. The applicant will be required to pay an in -lieu fee to fulfill the
Quimby requirement. The fee will be based on the 'average fair
market value per acre for the planning area as contained in the
Subdivision Ordinance at the time the in -lieu fee is paid. This fee
is to be paid to the City of Santa Clarita Parks and Recreation
Department prior to final map recordation.
70. A homeowner's association (HOA) shall be formed to have
responsibility and authority of all slope maintenance, including,
but not limited to, landscaping, irrigation, and street trees.
71. Street trees shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Parks and
Recreation Department. Use trees from the Master Street Tree List,
which can be obtained from the City arborist, Ray Miramontez.
72. Provide final landscape and irrigation plans for review and to the
satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Department and Community
Development Department.
73. Median landscaping improvements
adjacent to the tract frontage
of Parks and Recreation.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
shall be made to the medians
to the satisfaction of the Director
74. This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the
permittee and the owner of the property involved (if other than the
permittee) have filed with the Director of Community Development
their affidavit stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept,
all of the conditions of this grant.
75. All requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the specific zoning
of subject property must be complied with unless set forth in. the
permit and/or as shown on the approved plot plan.
76. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the tentative map.
Reso P91-01
- 9 -
77. Three copies of a landscape plan shall be submitted to, and approved
by, the Director of Community Development and the Director of Parks
and Recreation prior to the issuance of building permits. The
revegetation of the cut slopes shall use local, native plant
species, with holes drilled throughout the compacted dirt to allow
for proper penetration of the root systems of the plant species.
78. Within one year of the approval of this project, the applicant shall
pay a Transit Impact Fee of $200.00 per residential unit; provided
that the City has its Transit Impact Program in effect. These fees
shall be paid to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works..
79. The applicant shall obtain the proper zoning for the site prior to
the recordation of the map.
80. The applicant shall stop all work if any archaeological,
paleontological, or cultural resources are detected. The applicant
shall hire a qualified archaeologist, acceptable by the City, who
shall inspect the site and prepare a report and recommended
mitigation to the satisfaction of the City.
81. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures as
recommended by the noise consultant.
82. Prior to occupancy, the portion of Via Princessa Road within the
tract boundaries shall be constructed, accepted by the proper
jurisdiction, and opened to public use.
83. Within six months after the commencement of grading activities, all
graded areas not covered by impervious surface shall be stabilized
with landscaping.
84. Landscaping coverage and stabilization of graded slopes shall be
selected and designed to be compatible with surrounding natural
vegetation or to replace removed natural vegetation and should
recognize climatic, soil, and ecologic characteristics of the region.
85. Where two cut or fill slopes intersect the natural grade, the
intersection of each slope shall be vertically and/or horizontally
rounded and blended with natural contours so as to present a natural
slope appearance.
86. Where any cut or fill slope exceeds one hundred feet in horizontal
length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be developed in
concert with existing natural contours. .
87. All cut or fill slopes, except slopes.less than five (5) feet in
vertical height shall be planted with adequate plant materials to
protect the slope against erosion.
Reso P91-01
- 10 -
88. The applicant shall record a covenant and restriction, satisfactory
to the Director of Community Development, against any or all of lots
1 through 10, 43, 44, and 50 through 55 inclusive, which will be
graded within 30 feet of the ridgeline. The covenant and
restriction shall be substantially as follows: No building permits
shall be issued for.buildings greater than one story nor exceeding
20 feet in total height measured from the ground to the highest
point of the roof. The CC&R'S applicable to the project shall
reflect this restriction on the appropriate lots and the CC&R'S
shall explicitly allow the City to enforce such provision. An
appropriate note to this effect shall be placed on the final map to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public works.
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL DATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - LOS ANGELES REGION
89. The project must demonstrate that wastewaters from the project will
be adequately collected, transported, and that the receiving
treatment plant will have adequate capacity to treat, and dispose of
the wastewaters in a satisfactory manner.
90. The applicant shall prepare an analysis of the cumulative flows
generated by, all proposed, pending and approved projects within the
service area of the designated treatment plant. If expansion of the
treatment plant facilities will be required to meet projected
wastewater demand, the applicant must demonstrate that additional
capacity at the time of connection will be available prior to new
connections for proposed development.
DDP:347
Reso P91-01
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
---------------
•'PERMIT/PRO"JtGr._VTTM 49549. ZC 90-007
APPLICANT: Newcomb Development MASTER CASE NO: 90-107
y
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: The project is in the Rainbow Glen area, 1,000
feet to the west of Rainbow Glen Drive, along the alignment of Via
Princessa Road.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The applicant is proposing a zone change from
A-2-1 to R-1-6000 and a 55 single-family lot subdivision over 30.20 acres.
Three (3) open space lots and a remainder parcel will be created as a
result of the project.
Based on the. information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this
project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)., the City of.Santa Clarita
[ ] City Council
[X] Planning Commission
[ ] Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant
effect upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be
adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[ ] are not required. [X] are attached. [ ] are not attached.
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Prepared by: i0kQt JQ Daniel D. Powers, Assistant Planner
(Signature) (Name/Title)
Approved by
Signature)
le)
Public Review Period Froml - 3o -`I (To 7_-19-1 1 .
Public Notice Given On 1- 3o -°TI By:
[X] Legal advertisement. [X] Posting of properties. [X] Written notice.
aaaaaaaaaxavaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasaaaaaaaasaaaaaaaaaaaavaavaavaaaaa2 n
J
CERTIFICATION DATE:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
MASTER CASE NO: 90-107 Case Planner: Daniel D. Powers
Project Location: North of Via Princessa. approximately 1.000 feet west
of Rainbow Glen Drive.
Project Description and Setting: Zone change from A-2-1 to R-1-6000 and
55 single-family lot subdivision over 30.20 acres. Three (3) open space
lots and a remainder parcel will be created as a result of the project.
General Plan Designation: RL (Residential Low. 1.1 - 3.3 DU/acre).
Zoning: A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture Zone. 1 acre minimum lot size).
Applicant: Newcomb Development
Environmental Constraint Areas: Flood Zone C. Fire Zone 4. Hillsides
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic,substructures? .................. (X] ( ] [ ]
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? ............... [X] [ ] [ ]
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ........................... [XI [ I [ I
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features? .................................. [ 1 [ l [X1
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? .......... [X] [ ] [ ]
f. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards? .................................... [X1 [ I [ ]
g. Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? ................................. [XI [ I [ ]
h. Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ........................... [ ] [ ] [X1
3.
- 2 -
YES
MAYBE NO
i.
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? .......................
[X]
( ] [ ]
j.
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25Z natural grade? ............
[X]
( ] [ ]
k.
Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ......................
[ l
[ ] [X]
1.
Other?
[ ]
[ ] [X]
Air.
Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? ....................
[X]
I ] I ]
b.
The creation of objectionable odors? .......
[ ]
[ l (XI
C.
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? ..............
[ ]
[ ] [X]
d.
Other?
[ ]
[ ] [X]
Yater. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of .
surface runoff? ............................
[X]
I l I 1
b.
Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? ..............................
I 1
I I IXl
C.
Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? .........................
[ l
[ I [XI
d.
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? .............
[ ]
[.I [X]
e.
Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? ......... :...........
[ ]
[ ] [X]
f.
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? ............
[ .]
[ ] [X]
g.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ............................
I )
[ I [XI
3 -
YES MAYBE NO
h. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? .......... }-- [ ] [X]
i. Other? [ j' [ ] [Xj
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
b. A substantial alteration of the r
planned land use of an area? ............... [ ] [ ] ['X]
a.
Change in the diversity of species or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ...
[X] (
] [ ]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ......
[ J [
] [X]
C.
Introductionof new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal re-
plenishment of existing species? ...........
[X] [
) [ ]
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? ......................................
[ ] [
] [X1
S.
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
insects or microfauna)? ....................
[ ] [
J [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? .....
,[ ] [
] (X]
C.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ......
( ] (
] [XJ
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? ...........
_[ ] [
] [X]
6.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Increases in existing noise levels? ........
[X] [
] [ ]
b.
Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? .................
[X] [
] [ ]
C.
Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ...
[ ] [
] [X]
7.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? .................
[ ] (
J [X]
8.
Land
Use. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial alteration of the present
land use of an area? .......................
•[X] [
] [ ]
b. A substantial alteration of the r
planned land use of an area? ............... [ ] [ ] ['X]
- 4 -
YES MAYBE NO
C. A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? ............................... '[X] I 1 I 1
d. A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X]
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? ................................. [ J I ] [X]
b.
Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? ......................... ( l
[ 1 [X]
10. Risk
of Upset/Man-Made Hazards. Will the proposal:
a.
Involve a risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? .......................... [ ]
[ ] [Xj
b.
Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ................................ 17
[ 1 [X]
C.
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ...................................... [ ]
[ ] [X]
d..
Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? ................................... I 1
I 1 IX]
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a.
Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ...................... [,]
[ 1 IX]
b.
Other? [ ]
[ ] [XJ
12. Housing. Will the proposal:
a. Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
.additional housing? ........................ [ ]. [ ] [X]
b. Other? [ ] [ ] [X]
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ................ [X] .I 1 1 1 f
- 5 -
YES MAYBE NO
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? [ ] [ ] (]{]
C. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? .... . ................ ... (XJ I I [ I
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? .............................. [ ]
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [ I
f. A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? .............................. [ 1
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? ........................... [X]
b. Police protection? [ ]
C. Schools? ................................... (X]
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .... [X]
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? ........................... [X]
f. Other governmental services? ...............
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy . ....................................
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
[I II
I I IXI
a.
Power or natural gas? ...................... I 1 I
I IXI
b.
Communications
systems? .................... [ I (
I (X]
C.
Water systems?
........... ................ [ I (
I IXI
d.
Sanitary sewer
systems? ..................... (X] (
I [ j
e.
Storm drainage
systems? .................... [ I (
I (X]
23
- 6 -
YES MAYBE NO
f. Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [ ] [ ] [XI
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or inefficient pattern of delivery.system
improvements for any of the above? ......... [ ] [ ] [XI
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ... [ ] [ ] [XI
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ................................... [ I [ I (XI
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ................... [ ] [X] [ ]
b. Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? ....................... [ ] [X] [ ]
C. Will the visual impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ I [ I. [X]
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ] ( ] [X]
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? .............. [ ] [ ] [XI
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure. or object? [.]
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ I
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ..................... [ I
L_ 23
d
- 7 -
Discussion of Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact
1 a, b, c, i, The applicants are proposing to grade 300,000 cubic
yards of earth material balanced on-site to create
building pads for 55 proposed single-family lots and a
portion of Via Princessa Road, an alignment which
extends along the southerly portion of the development
area.
MITIGATION MEASURE: The applicant has received
approval for the preliminary geology and soils report
and drainage concept from the Building and Safety
Department. If approved, the project will be required
to mitigate identified impacts, as recommended by the
submitted geotechnical report, both short-term and
long-term,.from grading activities.
1 d There are no unique geologic features found on the
project site. The project proposes to set aside
approximately 15 acres of the site as open space lots
to be maintained by the homeowner's association.
1 e Short-term water and wind erosion is expected to
result from construction on a temporary basis only.
MITIGATION MEASURE: The applicants will be required
to adhere to all City codes regarding soil erosion
during all construction phases; therefore, no adverse
significant effects are anticipated.
1 f According to 1975 Seismic Safety section of the North
Los Angeles County General Plan, the project site is
located within Seismic Shaking Zone I (Severe Shaking).
MITIGATION MEASURE: To minimize hazards to people
occupying an area with these characteristics, the City
Public Works Department requires that all construction
comply with building codes pertaining to earthquake
safety standards. This will be implemented through
compliance with building and grading permits and
monitored by City Building Inspectors and Code
Enforcement Officers.
1 g See l.e. Future short-term construction impacts have
the potential to create erosion on site. Drainage
descending from the pad areas will be controlled by
drainage facilities to be constructed during grading
for the proposed pads. With the following mitigation
measure incorporated into this project, no significant
impacts are anticipated.
.f) 0
- 8 -
MITIGATION MEASURE: The Department of Public Works,
will require that the applicants adhere to the
approved drainage concept for .the project. This
condition will be monitored duringdevelopment of the
property by City Building inspectors and Code
Enforcement Officers.
1 h No modifications of a channel, creek, or river are
proposed by this project.
1 k The site is not within the San Gabriel Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone.
2 a,b Short-term impacts to air quality are expected to
occur as a result of this project, primarily from
construction activity and vehicle trips to the site.
According to the Air Quality Management District, site
construction related traffic is a major source of
mobile air pollutants.
MITIGATION MEASURE: The project will be ,required to
abide by all City and AQMD regulations.
2 c Changes in .air movement, moisture, climate, or
temperature from this development are not anticipated
to be significant.
3 a,e,f Although changes in surface runoff will result from
the project, requirements imposed by the Department of
Public Works will address any standard requirements
related to hydrology.
The City Department of Public Works has reviewed and
accepted a drainage concept as submitted by the
applicant. This project is not expected to have
significant impacts upon the drainage system for the
site and adjoining properties because of the
conditions that will be added to the grading permit
for any development on this site.
3 c,d This project will not change the amounts of surface
water nor discharge any substance into a body of water.
3 b,h According to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps published
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Community
Panel Number 060729 0480 C), the site is located
within Flood Hazard Zone C, a minimal flood hazard
area. Development of this site will not interfere
with the movement of flood waters.
3 g The Santa Clarita Water Company has stated that there
are adequate water services to accommodate the
proposed project. Moreover, the applicants are
dedicating proposed, Lot 56 (a lot for water services
proposed at the northeasterly comer of the site) for
the benefit of the Santa Clarita Water Company.
4 a,b,d According to "Biological Resources of Tentative Tract
49549 - City of Santa Clarita,I prepared by
Independent Environmental Consultants, a total of 65
species of vascular plants were observed on the site
visit. According to the report, none of the plant
species on-site are listed as rare, endangered, or
otherwise protected on State or Federal listings.
MITIGATION MEASURE: The applicant's consultant has
recommended that the revegetation of the cut slopes
should use local, native species. Also, drip -hose
irrigation should be used to establish these species,
with holes drilled throughout the compacted dirt to
allow for proper penetration of the root systems of
these species. The effect is the overall reduction on
water use and establishment of compatible species
forming a buffer between the project and the native
habitats. Additionally, the applicant is required to
submit a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the
City.
4 c The project can be expected to introduce new plant
species in the form of ornamental landscaping. No
significant impacts are anticipated.
5 a -d . Per the applicant's biological consultant, both the.
Cooper's Hawk and Sharp-spined Hawk, species common to
the project vicinity, are regarded as sensitive
species by the State of California. Both species have
been located throughout the mountain areas of the
Santa Clarita Valley region. However, the site is not
a prime habitat for these species due to the lack of a
well developed woodland habitat. No other species of
concern have been found on the project site.
6 a,b,c A preliminary noise analysis was conducted for the
project on September 17, 1990. According to the
report, exterior noise mitigation may be accomplished
by constructing five (5) feet minimum noise barrier
walls along proposed lots 1, 54, and 55.
Homes built on proposed lots 1, 54, and 55 in the
project will be exposed to interior noise levels which
are greater than 57 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent
Level). In order to assume that windows can remain
closed, air conditioning must be provided per Uniform
Building Code.
MITIGATION MEASURE: Interior noise mitigation may be
accomplished for the project area with mechanical
ventilation to provide fresh air. This system must
supply two (2) air changes per hour to each habitable
room including 20 percent fresh air make-up obtained
- 10 -
directly from the outside. Air conditioning is an
adequate substitution for mechanical ventilation.
Additionally, Santa Clarita Municipal Code-- Section
12.12.030 prohibits construction noise between the
hours of 8:00 P.M. and 6:30 A.M., Monday through
Saturday (Construction related noise on Sundays is
prohibited.) The Sheriff's Department and City Code
Enforcement are responsible for compliance with the
Municipal Code.
7 Although this project will create new light and glare
in the vicinity, future construction will consist of
55 proposed single-family residential units and this
is not considered to be significant as the project
site is located in a developing area for residential
neighborhoods.
8 a The project site is currently vacant except for a
water tank in the northeasterly area of the site. If
the project is approved, the site would be graded for
the construction of a portion of Via Princessa Road
(approximately 530 feet in length) to its ultimate 100
foot right-of-way width, and the construction of 55
single-family homes.
8 b The proposed future General Plan designations for the
project site are RL (Residential Low: 1.1 - 3.3
DU/acre) and BP (Business Park). The proposed project
density is 1.8 DU/acre.
8 c The property is currently .zoned A-2-1 (Meavy
Agriculture, minimum 1 acre net lot size). The
applicants are proposing a zone change to R-1-6000
(Single -Family Residential, minimum 6,000 square foot
lot size). The density, as proposed, is 0.8 units per
acre greater than allowed by the current zoning
designation.
8 d All responsible agencies have reviewed the proposed
project and have submitted comments and conditions for
the tentative map. At the time building permits are
issued for construction, the applicants will be
required to meet all applicable municipal codes.
9 a -b This residential subdivision is not antiripated to
reduce the rate of natural resources signifi"cantly.
33
10 a -d Typical household materials associated with
single-family residences are anticxpa�d to --be stored
on-site. Transmission lines, owned and maintained by
the City of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power
are not expected to create any hazardods effects upon
persons residing in the ar8a. According to
information provided by the applicants, the closest
lot line to the center of the transmission line is 265
feet away. At this distance, the exposure of
electrical currents to humans would be 2 milliGaus, a
level of exposure equivalent for a human approximately
one (1) foot -.away. from a typical;, household appliance.
-_The project is not anticipated to create hazardous
conditions within the project area, and therefore, is
not considered a significant effect.
11 a According to population statistics used by the City,
theproject could be expected to generate 3.1 persons
per household. This project could be expected to
generate 171 persons.
12 a The proposed project is proposing 55 single-family
lots in the .Rainbow Glen area. The project is not
expected £o create a demand' -for new housing, yet will
provide housing units.
13 a,b,d,e,f According to the Public Works Department - Traffic
Division, the project has the potential to create
substantial additional vehicular movement, and a
traffic study was completed for the project to analyze
possible impacts associated with the project.
MITIGATION MEASURES: If the project is approved, the
following traffic requirements will be incorporated
into the project:
1. The applicant shall participate in the funding
and establishment of appropriate mechanisms
whereby the City is assured of the construction
of the extension of Via Princessa from the
proximity of the project site to San Fernando
road in a timely manner.
2. The applicants shall participate in the funding
and establishment of appropriate mechanisms
whereby the City is assured of the implementation
of the..Sole4ad, Canyon Road bridge project in
timely manner.
These .conditions are considered sufficient to mitigate
any environmental effects associated with traffic
issues in the Rainbow Glen area.
• - s
- 12 -
13 c The introduction of 55 proposed single-family. homes
within the Santa Clarita Valley is not expected to
create a significant demand for new parking.
This project may contribute to cumulative circulation
and transit impacts which may be significant.'
Participation in funding to create new transit
facilities and services will mitigate associated
impacts to below a level of significance.
MITIGATION MEASURE: Within one year of the approval
of this project, the applicant shall pay a Transit
Impact Fee of $200.00 per residential unit; provided
that the City has its Transit Impact Program in
effect. These fees shall be paid to the satisfaction
of the Director of Public Works.
14 a The site is located within Fire Zone 4. If approved,
standard requirements will be imposed on the project.
14 b The Sheriff's Department has not commented on the
project, as of today's date. Therefore, no
significant effects are anticipated.
14 c The school districts have stated that facilities in
the area cannot. accommodate the growth in the area and.'
are currently operating in overcapacity situations.
MITIGATION MEASURE: The applicants have entered into
mitigation agreements with the school districts as a
way of reducing any negative impacts upon services.
Copies of the draft mitigation agreements are on file
with the Department of Community Development.
14 d,e Appropriate in -lieu fees for the bridge and
thoroughfare districts are required prior to the
issuance of building permits. This is considered an
acceptable mitigation measure for the project,
according to the Public Works Department.
15 a;b The utility companies have indicated that they will be
able to serve these parcels, and no significant
impacts are expected. The applicant, in the Initial
Study Form "A", stated that all future construction
will comply with California energy conservation
standards.
16 a The utility companies have not responded as of today's
date. Therefore, it' is anticipated that no
significant impacts will result due to the size of the
proposed project.
16 b Pacific Bell has stated that they have no comments or
suggestions for the proposed project, as of June 18,
1990.
33
` - 13 -
16 c The Santa Clarita Water Company has stated that
adequate services can be provided to accommodate the
project.
16 d No comments have been received by the Sanitation
District as of today's date. However, comments
received from adjacent Vesting Tentative Tract Map
49647 to the south indicate that the project would
need to be annexed if sewerage service is to be
provided. This is not considered .to be a significant
effect.
17 a -b See 10 a -d. This proposed residential subdivision is
not anticipated to create human health hazards.
18 a -c Hillside development is viewed as an important
planning issue within the City of Santa Clarita. The
applicants have agreed to restrict construction on the
ridgelines surrounding the development site to the
east. Three (3) open space lots will be created and
maintained by the homeowner's association.
19 See 14b above. The required amount of Quimby fees
will be paid to the City of Santa Clarita.
20 a -d According to "Cultural Resource Survey Report -
Tentative Tract 49549," a field inspection of the
project area was conducted on July 8, 1990, by Louis
James Tartaglia, Ph.D. The entire project was
surveyed physically for surface indications of
cultural resources. According to the report, no
buried remains exist within the area, but unknown
archaeological and/or historical materials could exist
beneath the present land surface.
MITIGATION MEASURE: An archaeological "hold" shall be
placed upon the project, should archaeological remains
be found on the project site,. until a qualified
archaeologist has inspected the site. This
requirement has been incorporated into the project and
would be monitored by City Building Inspectors and
Code Enforcement Officers.
33
14 -
C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act states, in
part, that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the
project may have a significant effect on the environment and an,
Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared.
YES MAYBE NO
1. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self sus-
taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory? ................. [ ] [ ] [X]
2. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well into the future.) ........... [ ] [ ] [X]
3. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the total
of those impacts on the environment is significant.) .. [ ] [ ] [X]
4. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or.indirectly? ......... [ ] [ ] [X]
- 15 -
D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED . .................................... [ ]
Although the proposed project COULD have a significant
effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described in this Initial Study
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED . .................................... [X]
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
isrequired . ......................................... [ ]
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared By:
�
(Signature)
Approved By:
Daniel D. Powers, Assistant Planner
(Name/Title) (Date)
�,� Bruce Abbott. Associate Planner / �� /
(Signatuam
re) ( e/Title) Dat
33
b,
D w a
s is
000
... m i
T R «360
v
f n0\
]6686
�
1
}
qSL .11
9 '
LI
}
qSL .11
♦1
N
00'
ADIU
67
•I
J
- LRAC1
f
R0 '9
SOO'
T
RA
33