HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-08-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC 90-185 (2)AGENDA REPORT ,
City Manager:Approdal
Item. to be,presente•d y a
PUBLIC HEARING i hard Henderson
t
DATE:, 4 Au ust 25,'1992
g .
SUBJECT:. Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval 'ofMaster 'Case
90-185: (Tentative Tract Map, 49334, Conditional- Use 'Permit
90-031 and Oak Tree Permit.90-039).based on non=conformance
with: .the _hillside ' .ordinance, ' non=conformance .,` with_'- the .
General Plan minimum lot -size, and violation of, the,ispirit
G
of the Oak Tree Ordinance.,. The project"is..located east -,of
Triumph. Avenue, 600 feet 'south -.of::Sultus`Street-and 1,300 _
feet west of:San& Canyon, Road in the Sand.Canyon area.
r
Appellant: ;- Mr:: Robert Lyn"
Applicant: - Sand`Canyon'Ranch Estates "•
i'
DEPARTMENT:Community:Development
BACKGROUND
On June 2' 1992, the PlanningCommission voted 5-0' to+.ado adopt, P
'?
P92-15 approving:the above. referenced project `.Mr. Robert, Lyn appealed
thee, Planning,, Commission decision and Mr..Hal.Good later; filed,'a'
support of. this appeal.
r
The 76 'acre project site is 'presently; vacant,_ contains hillside.'areas,
borders Sand Canyon Wash and has over 700 oak.'trees. -A°, secondary
'
ridgeline crosses a portion of�the'southeastern,portion of the site and
no , development is proposed. on this ridgeline. .:The.::applicant is
'requesting", -.a ' conditional use permit;. to . cluster '32 -,.single .family
residential lots to minimize, impacts to oak trees. and preserve open'space
and. ridgelines.-, An 'oak tree. permit has been requested to remove" a
maximum of 39 non -heritage size oak trees and. encroach':'. into, the, protected.',..
zone of a maximum of 60 oak trees for the purpose of roadway improvements
,
The.'project site is designated RE (Residential Estate,',2 acre minimum lot
size)`by the:.City's.General Plan and is 'zoned A=1.4 (Light Agricultural,
..two acre minimum lot size.) The:project.'s density'is,'.42 dwelling units
per.acre.- Of.the lots below two -acres, six lots have 1.8 acres'(Lots 4,
9, 17, 21,, 22, and 23) and one has 1.9 acres (Lot,24)..The remaining -25,
lots have a minimum of two acres.or greater.
jPLANNING
COMMISSION ACTION
s
• rvl
t
The project was heard by the Planning Commission on April 22,,-1992 where
a 38 lot design was considered. The hearing ,was, continued. to May :19,
1992 to allow"the applicant to redesign the project..` On May, 19, 1992, a
"I
ublic
second hearing was held on a. 33 lot redesign. :`Following .the public—
hearing, on May. 19, 1992, the Commission tentatively approved the project
hearing
for 32 lots.
Continued To:j.-9-1g— Agenda
Item.
Page 2
r
The Planning. Commission required roadways to, be public and, built to City
standards..•:Bridges are _required over 'Iron Canyon:, Wash ,and,, Sand :Canyon, ;
4^^
°
Wash. :The..applicant.;was conditioned to'install' a'waterline;,to the': site
prior%to recording.,.of- the final map. ''Twoequestrian':trails through'the
property would.be:provided and would connect torthe City,;trail system..,,
ere
4
DISCUSSION'OF.THE THREE APPEAL POINTS.
+
,
1
4'
* ,Hillside Ordinance
The. newly 'adopted Hillside Ordinance and, Guidelines do, not,:apply to•this' ' 4r:,
'">•Ne
e.
project's since•, the application..was deemed' complete ;before.;'ithey were �z
r
;adopted.. The:only grading; proposed is :to construct roadways, and correct
existing:.landslide> areas.. No, grading is proposed .,oil`'ridgelines :_;:The ,
Commission found. that, the -.project' is ; -'consistentwith, General•. Plan
hillside policies %which limit ;development require balanced
+
.on,ridgelines,':
grading; and, seek:, to minimize: topographic changes
ep
* . Hinimum.Lot.Size and Clustering
The General Plan allows for clustering of lots,for creation of:;lots below
the minimum„ in instances: where-.smaller. lots:,can, be•.`justified.'to^ preserve
natural resources. The, Commission unanimously,';agreed:that clusteringwas
justified-':for-this project because it allows: the ';applicant ^toi keep
development off a'significant ridgeline,,.minimizes 'impacts^.to'oak:trees
'.and preserves:' open 'space. The,. Sand Canyon:Homeowners ::Association
endorsed clustering.for;this,project.,"
4
* • -Oak Tree Preservation
'-.The Planning found that-removal and encroachment of the oak
.Commission
';.trees ;as proposed is consistent.-with' the. Oak Tree::: Ordinance.; Project , "
roadways have been located in: areas to minimize impacts"io'oak�trees and 'i.
no heritage oaks will.be removed. "'Conditions`-of approval have. been added
to protect,oak..trees to be.preserved during grading and^construction....:
A total of ten persons spoke in favor of'the project and nine spoke
opposition..- Staff has`:received_-28-letters-:-in favor .of, the- project, ,four
-::
letters" inopposition and 12 neutral letters with general ;`comments' about,,
r
the project.:.:.The Sand. Canyon Oaks',Property,:Owners' Association and >the
?N
Sand Canyon Homeowners Association 'submitted ••letters.;in support"of, this
project.. A'
RECOMMENDATION '-,
F
'
''Staff recommends that the City Council:
Fl
1) Uphold the PlanningCommissiondecision and approve Master Case No.
90-185 (Tentative Tract Map 49334, Conditional :Use: Permit, 90-031,^'and '
.-Oak Tree Permit.907039) and,'c
'2) Direct staff. to prepare a resolution of approval for the;Council's
consideration at the September 8,: 1992• meeting
f
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution P92-15'
Planning Commission Staff Reports and Minutes
Correspondence
PUBLIC HEARIING 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)
S. Opponent Argument (30 minutes)
6. Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent)
a. Proponent
7. Mayor Closes Public Testimony
8. Discussion by'Council
9. Council Decision
10. Mayor Announces Decision
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
APPROVAL OF MASTER CASE NUMBER 90-185
(TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 49334, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-031
AND OAK TREE PERMIT'90-039)
TO SUBDIVIDE 76 ACRES INTO 32 LOTS FOR
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.
THE LOCATION IS EAST OF TRIUMPH AVENUE,
600 FEET SOUTH OF SULTUS STREET AND
1,300 FEET WEST OF SAND CANYON ROAD IN THE
SAND CANYON AREA IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
THE APPLICANT FOR'THE PROJECT IS SAND CANYON RANCH ESTATES
ROBERT LYN, A HOMEOWNER IS APPEALING THE COMMISSION'S
APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT.
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's approval of Master
Case Number 90-185 (Tentative Tract Map 49334, Conditional Use Permit 90-031
and Oak Tree Permit 90-039) to subdivide 76 acres into 32 lots for single
family residences. The site is presently vacant, contains hillside areas,
borders Sand Canyon Wash and has over 700 Oak trees. A Conditional Use Permit
has been requested to allow for the clustering of the lots to preserve open
space and.reduce impacts .to Oak trees. An Oak tree permit has been requested
for the removal of a maximum of 39 non -heritage size Oak trees in order to
construct roadways and driveways.
All roadways in this project would be public. The Waterline would be extended
to serve this site and a bridge over both Sand Canyon and Iron Canyon Wash
would be constructed to serve these lots. Equestrian trails are proposed
through this property. The location of the project is east of Triumph Avenue,
600 feet south of Sultus Street and 1,300 feet west of Sand Canyon Road in the
Sand Canyon area. The applicant for the project is Sand Canyon Ranch
Estates. Robert Lyn, a homeowner is appealing the Commission's approval of
the project.
The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 25th day of
August, 1992, at or after 6:30 p.m.
Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on
this matter at that.time. Further information may be obtained.by contacting
the City Clerk's office, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., .3rd
Floor, Santa Clarita.
If you wish to challenge this order in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described
in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council,
at, or prior to the public hearing.
Date: July 28, 1992
Donna M. Grindey, CMC
City Clerk
Publish Date: August 3, 1992
PROJECT PROX.I'MITYMAP
GATE
VICINITY MAP
MC 90-185
11f
,RESOLUTION NO. P92-15'
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY.OF SANTA CLARITA, APPROVING
MASTERCASE NUMBER 90-185
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 49334,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-031.,
.AND OAR TREE.PERMIT 90 -039 -TO ALLOW FOR -THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
76 ACRE.SITE INTO 32 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED`EAST-.OF TRIUMPH,:600 FEET SOUTH OF,SULTUS
STREET AND,1,300 FEET WEST.'OF SAND; CANYON ROAD.
THE PLANNING-COMMISSIONOF THE. CITY OF, SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
'RESOLVE -'AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission—."does he make the following
findings of,fact=
a ..An.application :for.Tentative Tract Map.(TT 49334) ,t 'create 38 single
family lots and an application; Conditional Use Permit to alloy for
the clustering of the lots was filed"with'""the City 'of`;Santa Clarita
by,.: Sand. Canyon Ranch=Estates:`(the applicant")'on" August -110,' 1990.
The property_,for which this application has been filed'is located
east of:Triumph,.600 south of Sultus'Street and 1,3007 feet west of
Sand Canyon Road in Sand Canyon. _ (Assessor.': Parcel Numbers
2841-018-035 and 2848-008-007, a legal description of which is on
file in the 'Department of Community`' Development.) A'' revised
application%..proposing 33 single ;family. lots was ;submitted by the'
applicant on January 31, 1992.
b. This project is a request for a 'subdivision of 76 acres into 33
single family residential parcels. An Oak Tree Permit. has been
requested to remove a maximum of 39 non -heritage oak trees and to
allow encroachment upon the protected zone- of a maximum of 60 oak .
trees (as identified on Exhibit 'A') for -the purposes of roadway
improvements.' Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 will be; subject to plot plan and
oak tree permit review prior to the construction of single family
residences.
C . Clustering of lots has been requested.; to preserve oak trees and
ridgelines. .The City's General Plan contains policies to encourage
clustering if the development is consistent with the- character of
existing surrounding neighborhoods (Community Design Element, GOAL 1,
Policy 1.2). The General Plan also promotes. the. retention of
ridgelines and oak trees.
d. The property was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within
the previous two �2).years.
PESO N0: P92-15
Page 2
t.
e. The subject parcel is zoned A-1-2 (Light Agricultural, -two acre
minimum .lot size) 'and 'is.designated as RE (Residential Estate,'2..acre
minimum lot size) by the City.. of Santa-Clarita'General Plan:` The
proposed density for the project is .44 dwelling units
acre.
f• The property has hillside areas, is vacant and is in a predominantly
natural state: The site .has an average cross:slope of approximately
20X• 'This project is exempt from the Hillside Ordinance since the
application was deemed complete prior:, to. -its : adoption Three
historic landslides have -been identified`on the 'c site''.. and: the site
contains over'700 oak trees:
g• All surrounding -parcels have A-1-2 zoning,
.are designated RE on `the
City's. General: Plan, and are either vacant or developed`withsingle
family;' residences. 'Equestrian uses .,the'r'Sand
Canyon area. All the are _predominant -in.
-proposed lots would be. conducive, to equestrian
uses
h•. Access to the proposed development would be over public' treeta.from:
Sand Canyon ;Road ,Bridges would be -constructed over" Canyon Vash
and..Sand Canyon Wash 'as .part of this project. Al . 11streets within the
subdivision shall'be:offered for'dedication'.aa publica reet9 and all
bFidgsatisfaction
roadway improvements shall '.',be Cons£ructed `'tor..the-
eatisfaction of the City.Engineer. The location of,:improvementsrmay
be varied topreserve and minimize -impacts _to the ,oaks..treea on'the`.'
Project site:;. The;,applicant . would also` make -•fair;''. share•
contributions -to. funding: -,mechanisms .relating , ,the improvement of
the,Sand Canyon'Road bridge over the Santa'Clara River and SR 14.
i• The applicant would grade and balance on-site 120,000 cubic yards of
cut ,and fill in order 'to eliminate landslidei:hazard',and ::create
roadway and pad areas.
j• The applicant would provide equestrian trails r,-hrough'the-project
site which will connect to the City trail system The applicant
would provide tamps at the bridge crossing
'.at Iron. and Sand 'Canyon
Wash to provide equestrian access from the wash to the roadway level
and back in order to provide a continuous trail,system.
k• The .City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee (DRC) met.on
January 31, 1992, to review this project.
1. Public services and utilities are available and the applicant will be
required to extend services to all parcels. The applicant. shall
provide for adequately sized water system facilities*, including fire
hydrants, of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and
fire flows required to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the
Fire Chief. The applicant shall extend .the waterline from its
present terminus in Sand Canyon Road to serve the project site.
project would be served by septic -systema The
I
RESO NO. P92-15
Page 3
M. This project was. reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial, Study -has
been completed for this project and a Negative+Declaration, has been
prepared. The Initial Study and Negative Declaration was prepared on
March 10, 1992 and was available for public review and comments from
April -2, 1992 to April 22, 1992.
n. A duly noticed public hearing.was held by the Planning Commission on
April 22, 1992 at 4:00 P.M. at the City Council- Chambers, 23920;
ValenciaBoulevard, Santa Clarita. .The.Planning Commission directed
the applicant'to:modify-the plan and continued the public hearing to,-.
May 19, 1942."`,0n'May-19, 1992,`..the Commission tentatively approved
this project and -:directed 'staff ;to return to the .Commission with` a '
resolution and conditions for approval on June,2, 1992..
SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, -oral and written
testimony and?.other, ,evidence, received', at the public hearing,.heldr,for ''the
project,- and' upon studies and' investigations - made', by the ; Planning�'Commisslon
and on its behalf; the Planning Commission further finds as follows: '
a. Atrthe"hearings of ..April 22,::1992 •and, May 19, 1992, the", Planning..
mi
Comssion.considered;the staff'reports -p rep ared.for'this"project-and,
received'tesiimony;on this, proposal.
b. The: City' Genera
q 1 Plan designationfor the project>site .is•
Residential- Estate (RE), minimum lot. size of 2 -acres .,The"s ite
zoning is'A-1-2 ;(Light Agricultural_ . -Zone, 2 acre miaimum_'lot size)',;
The ,site,density is ..44'DU/acre. With approval of. a`- Conditional: Use
Permit the project ;would be consistent with lots size requirements:?of
the'zoning code:
C. At,the hearing,.of May.;19,.1992,.the Planning Commis a ion, directed, the ;-
applicant to 'revise the project-- for 32 single family residential
lots. The 76-acie'.parcel is suitable for division into, 32'lots 'for
single family';:residential and equestrian uses9l .This project.: is
compatible .with ' residential .land uses and densities in- the
surrounding Sand.Canyon area.
d. Offers of dedication shall be given for all roadways in this project
as public roads.. The applicant shall contribute" on `a ,fair=share
basis ''to funding mechanisms related to the improvement of Sand Canyon
bridge over the Santa Clara River and State Route 14. These
improvements would be compatible with surrounding improvements and
adequate paved access would exist to all lots.
e. The applicant shall provide on-site equestrian trails to connect to
the City's trail network in Sand Canyon. The applicant shall provide
ramps at the access road crossings of the bridge at Iron Canyon and
Sand Canyon in order to provide a continuous trail system in_the wash.
f. 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 tentative,
parcel map. Neither the design of the subdivision nor the type of. '
improvements will, conflict with public easements for access through
RESO NO. P92-15
Page 4
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..
g. The design of the subdivision and. the type of improvements will. not
cause serious public health problems, since sewage disposal,
drainage, emergency access and fire protection are addressed in the
recommended Conditions of Approval.
h. This major land division will not adversely affect the.health, peace,
comfort, or welfare: of persons residing in the surrounding., area; nor
be materially detrimental'to the- use, enjoyment or valuation 'of'
property of other persons located in the vicinity .of the 'subject
property; nor jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace
to the public health,:safety .or general welfare since this project
conforms to' standards' the, subdivision and 'zoning ordinance and:is
compatible with 'surrounding'. landuses. ':Housing,needs oftheregion
were considered, and ('balaneed ` against the <; public service' `needs' `of
local residents. _
i. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for ..this project pursuant to
the�. California,Environmental ;Quility--Act''(Public 'Resources Code
Section'21000`et seq.).
SECTION 3. Based upon .the foregoing facts., and findings, the' -
Planning Commission hereby'determinss,is follows:
a. This proposed.major`land division will not have a significant effect
upon the environment':under the California Environmental Quality Act.
b. This project will' have adequate legal- and physical access to each
lot.- Vith the Conditions of Approval added, this project will :be
adequately served by highways and streets of sufficient width, and ,
improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic
generated by 32 single family residences. All uf3lities and services
would be extended :and/or :contructed by the applicant as necessary to
adequately serve the project site.
C. The project, is, compatible with approved .single family residential
land uses and lot sizes in the surrounding Sand Canyon area, is
consistent with the City's General Plan, complies with. the standards
of the A-1-2 Zone with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, and
complies with the Oak Tree Preservation ordinance with the approval
of an Oak Tree Permit. .
d. This proposal'will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or
welfare -of persons residing or working in the surrounding area, or be
materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property
of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, or jeopardize,,
-
endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health,
safety or general welfare.
e. The site is adequate in size and, shape to accommodate the yards,
walls,'. fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other
-
required development features. Lots may be subject to the provisions
of the Hillside Ordinance at building permit stage.
RESO NO. P92-15
Page 5
NOV. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the. City
of Santa Clarita, California, as follows:
a. The Planning Commission hereby adopts .the prepared Negative
Declaration and approves Tentative Tract Map 49334 to create
thirty-two (32) lots, and approves Conditional Use Permit 90-031 to
allow for clustering of the lots, and approves Oak Tree Permit 90-039
to allow removal of up to 39 oak trees and to allow encroachment into
the. protected zone of up to 60 additional oak trees subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit "B").
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day/of June, 1992.
Jerry D. Cherrington, Chairman
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
l % ,
t / .
Ly M. Harris
Director of Community Development
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS,
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
0!
I, Donna M. Grindey, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was
duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa.Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the '2nd day of June, 1992 by the following
vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
LHS :518
COMMISSIONERS: Brathwaite, Doughman, Modugno, Cherrington, and Woodrow
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
/2
onna M. Gr' de
City Clerk
EXHIBIT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 49334
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-031
OAK TREE PERMIT 90-039
(MASTER CASE 90-185)
[�7�1�17ili( • kP 4 IF.
1. The approval of the Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit and Oak
Tree Permit 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 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, buildingrestriction 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.
7. The Applicant is hereby advised that this project is subject to fees
at the time of building permit issuance which may include, but are
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. The Applicant is hereby advised that lots created in this project
may be subject to additional review under the Oak Tree Ordinance and
the Hillside Ordinance at building permit.
9. 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, Sever and
Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and Fire 'Code.
Improvements and other, requirements may be imposed pursuant to such
codes and ordinances.
10. A final tract map must be processed through *the City Engineer prior
to being filed with the County Recorder.
11. A grading permit shall be required for any and -all off-site grading
to occur for the purposes of this project.
MAP REOUIREMENTS
12. 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 Sever, and
Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code and Fire Code.
13. The applicant shall file a map which shall be prepared by or under the
direction of a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer. The
map shall be processed through the City Engineer prior to being filed
with the County Recorder. The applicant shall note all offers of
dedication by certificate on the face of the map.
14. 'If signatures of record title interests appear on the map, the applicant
shall submit a preliminary guarantee. If said signatures do not appear
on the map, a title report/final guarantee is needed showing all fee
owners and interest holders.
15. The applicant shall pay a deposit as required to review documents and
plans for final map clearance in accordance with Section. 21.36.010(c)'of
the Subdivision Ordinance.
- 2 -
RESO P92-15
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
16. Applicant's street and grading plans and all construction permitted by
such plans shall comply with the requirements of the approved oak tree
report.
17. The applicant shall offer for dedication future streets beyond the
turnarounds on all streets to the tract boundary if required .to serve
adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, or extend
the turnarounds beyond the tract boundaries within the adjacent
ownerships.
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 install mailboxes and posts per City standards.
Secure approval of U.S. Postal Service prior'to installation. .
20. The applicant shall provide letter(s) of slope easement(s) and drainage,.
acceptance as directed by the City Engineer.
21. The applicant shall obtain approval of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney for proposed homeowners association maintenance agreements
prior to recordation of the final map or a phase thereof.
22. The applicant shall include a disclosure in the CC&R's to comply with
the Geologist's recommendations in the Geology Report for restrictions
on watering, irrigation; planting and recommend types of plants to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
23. The subdivider, by agreement with the City Engineer, may guarantee
installation of improvements as determined by the City Engineer through
faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or any other acceptable
means.
24. Applicant shall dedicate right of way and construct off-site
improvements for the access road and the bridges (across Sand and Iron
Canyon Wash) which are required to adequately servethis development.
It is the sole responsibility of the developer to acquire the necessary
right-of-way and/or easements. The applicant shall construct the access
road at an angle of intersection with Tannahill to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer. Subdivider shall secure at the subdividers. expense
sufficient title or interest in land to permit any off-site improvements
to be made. The Bridge, shall be designed to meet public safety and
maintenance standards and shall be constructed to the satisfaction, of
the City Engineer. Possible materials used may be steel, concrete, wood
or other material, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Building
Official. A pedestrian walkway shall be provided on at least one side
of each Bridge.
3 _
RESO P92-15
25. The applicant shall provide and install street name signs prior to
occupancy -of building(s).
26. The .applicant shall construct pavement and, inverted shoulder '18 feet
* or as approved by the City Engineer
WATER
28. The applicant shall file a statement with the City Engineer 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 or parcel.. This condition, requires the extension
of the water service mainline from its.present terminus to the project.
29. The applicant shall serve all. lots or parcels with adequately sized
water system facilities, including fire hydrants, of sufficient size to
accommodate the total _domestic and fire flows required for the land
division. Domestic flows required for the' land division are to be
determined by the City Engineer or Director .of Public Works. Fire flows
required are to be determined by the Fire Chief.
SEWERS
30. The subdivider shall install and dedicate main line DRY sewers and serve
each lot/parcel with a separate house lateral or have approved and
bonded sewer plans on file with the City Engineer. The health
department has authorized the usage of septic tanks and leach lines
until such time as the project can be connected to the public sewer
system.
- 4 -
from centerline on all streets including
the access road to the
satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
27.
The applicant shall dedicate (no gates shall be allowed on the below .
listed streets) and
construct the following
required road improvements: '
Street
R/W
Paving and
Name
Width
Inverted Shoulder
'A'
Street
60-0 FT
XX
'B'
Street
60-0 FT
XX
'C'
Street
60-0 FT
XX
'D'
Street
58-0 FT
XX
'E'
Street
60-0 FT
XX
'F'
Street Access Road
64-0*FT
XX
Tannahill Road
32=0*FT from centerline
XX
Triumph Avenue
32-0*FT from`centerline
XX
* or as approved by the City Engineer
WATER
28. The applicant shall file a statement with the City Engineer 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 or parcel.. This condition, requires the extension
of the water service mainline from its.present terminus to the project.
29. The applicant shall serve all. lots or parcels with adequately sized
water system facilities, including fire hydrants, of sufficient size to
accommodate the total _domestic and fire flows required for the land
division. Domestic flows required for the' land division are to be
determined by the City Engineer or Director .of Public Works. Fire flows
required are to be determined by the Fire Chief.
SEWERS
30. The subdivider shall install and dedicate main line DRY sewers and serve
each lot/parcel with a separate house lateral or have approved and
bonded sewer plans on file with the City Engineer. The health
department has authorized the usage of septic tanks and leach lines
until such time as the project can be connected to the public sewer
system.
- 4 -
RESO P92-15
GRADING. DRAINAGE & GEOLOGY
31. The applicant shall submit a grading plan which must be approved prior
to approval of the final map. The applicants grading plan 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.
32. 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 City Engineer and
dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or
other structures within the restricted use areas. The geologist has
recommended building setbacks in certain areas and these shall be
designated on the final map.
33. The applicant shall submit drainage plans and necessary support
documents to comply with Engineering requirements. These must be
approved to thesatisfactionof the City Engineer prior to filing of the
map. Portions of the property lying adjacent to the Sand Canyon Wash
are subject to flood hazard because of overflow, inundation, and debris
flows. A determination shall be made prior to approval of the final map
that all lots contain sufficient area for an adequate building ,pad.,.
outside of the flood setback area.
34. The applicant shall provide drainage facilities to remove the flood
hazard and dedicate and show necessary future easements for flood
control purposes and drainage facilities and rights-of-way for the Sand
Canyon Wash and Iron Canyon Wash on the final map to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
35. The applicant. shall place a note of flood hazard on final map and
delineate the areas subject to flood hazard and shall show and label all
natural drainage courses. Dedicate to the City the right to restrict
the erection of buildings in the flood hazard areas.
36. Applicant shall comply with the requirements for the Sand and Iron
Canyon Flood Protection setback districts. structures within the flood
fringe areas must be elevated 1' - 0" above the elevation of the surface
of the water. No structures will be allowed in the floodway. Applicant
shall submit cross sections to determine the exact extent of the flood
limits. This must be submitted and approved prior to approval of the
final map.
37. Applicant shall record an instrument or indicate by note on the final
map that the lot owners in said subdivision shall not interfere with the
established drainage of said subdivision. The note shall state that
each owner of a lot in said subdivision shall not erect concrete block
walls or similar solid obstructions except as approved by the City
Engineer.
5 _
RESO P92-15
38. 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.
39. The applicant shall adjust, relocate, and/or eliminate lot lines, lots,
streets, easements, grading, geotechnical protective devices, and/or
physical improvements to comply with ordinances, policies, and standards
in effect at the date the City determined the application to be complete
all to the satisfaction of this Department.
40. Prior to final approval, enter into a written agreement with the City of
Santa Clarita whereby the subdivider agrees to pay to the City a sum (to
be determined by the City Council) times the factor per development unit
for the purpose of contributing to a 'proposed Bridge and Thoroughfare
Benefit District to.implement .the highway element of the General Plan as
a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this and other subdivisions;
in the area. The form of security for performance of said agreement
shall be as approved by the City.
The agreement shall include the following provisions:
Upon establishment of the District and the area of benefit, the fee
shall be paid to a special Community Development Department fund.
In the event funds are required for work prior to formation of the
District, the City Engineer may demand a sum.of $4,800 (or greater as
determined by the City -Council), times the factor per development unit.
to be credited toward the final fee established under the District.
The subdivider may construct improvements of equivalent value in lieu of
paying fees established for the District subject to approval of the City
Engineer.
The City Engineer 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
41. Applicant shall acquire permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and the
Fish & Game Department prior to issuance of grading permits or the
commencement of any work within any natural drainage course.
FIRE DEPARTMEW
42. This property is located within the area described by the Forester and
Fire Varden as Fire Zone 4 and future construction must comply with
applicable Code requirements. The required number of fire hydrants and
their locations,shall be established prior to recordation of the map.
6 _
RESO P92-15
43. 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.
44. Provide Fire Department and City approved street signs, and building
address numbers prior to occupancy.
45. Fire Department access shall extend to within 150 feet distance of any,
portion of structures to be built.
46. Access shall comply with Section 10.207 of the Fire Code which requires
all weather access. All weather access may require paving.
47. Where driveways extend further than 300 feet and are of single access
design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be
provided and shown on the final map. .Turnarounds shall be designed,
constructed and maintained to insure their integrity for Fire Department
use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for
driveways which extend over 150 feet.
48. The private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "FIRE
LANES" and shall_be maintained in accordance with the Las Angeles County
Fire Code.
49. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and.accepted prior
to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained
serviceable throughout construction.
50. Grades for all driveways shall not exceed 15Z grade, unless modified by.
the Fire Department.
51. The applicant shall provide fire hydrants in a number, location,` and
type and shall provide for fire flows as determined by and to the
satisfaction of the Fire Chief.
52. 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. This fee shall not exceed
nineteen cents per square foot.
TRAFFIC DIVISION
53. The applicant shall install a left -turn lane complete with appropriate
transitions for northbound traffic on Sand Canyon Road turning left onto
the project access road. This shall be operational to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer prior to occupancy.
54. The applicant shall contribute on a "fair share basis" to the funding
mechanism(s) (existing/proposed/under development) related to roadway
improvements and signalization as follows:
Sand Canyon Road bridge over the Santa Clara River.
- 7 -
m
RESO P92-15
Sand Canyon Road bridge over the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR 14).
55. The applicant shall provide the City with documentation which assures
that the appropriate sight distance is provided for motorists at all
project-driveway/street and street/street intersections, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. -
DEPARTMENT OF PARRS AND RECREATION
56. The applicant shall provide final landscape and irrigation plans for
review to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation.
57. The applicant shall provide trail easements in a location, width,', and
type to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation. These
trail easements shall include at a minimum a north/south and east/west
trail. The applicant shall provide an alternate trail route around the
project bridge for the Sand Canyon Wash equestrian trail.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
58. 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.
59. 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 tentative tract map.
60. The property shall be 'developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the tentative tract map.
61. 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.
62. 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.
63. Within nine months after the completion of grading activities (provided
water is available), all graded areas not covered by impervious surface
shall be stabilized with landscaping. This requirement shall not
include graded pad areas.
64. 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.
- 8 -
RESO P92-15
65. Where the 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.
66. 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. The cut slope on lot 2 shall
contain additional landscaping .to the satisfaction of ,the Director
of Community Development:
67. The applicant shall provide a grading plan at a scale of 1:20 with
the surveyed locations of oak trees to the satisfaction of the
City's Oak Tree Consultant prior to final map.
68. No removals or encroachment. of oak -trees shall be authorized until
the grading plan at 1:20 has been completed and approved by the
City's Oak Tree Consultant prior to final map. -
69. The applicant shall pay or plant oak trees in a number equal to the
ISA value of all oak trees to be removed. ISA values and the values
of any replacement trees shall be established by the applicant and
approved by the City's Oak Tree Consultant prior to final map.
Permitted removals and encroachments are identified within the table
below:
TABLE I
OAK TREE IMPACTS
A. Encroachment
1, 10, 17,,
21,
23, 24, 25,
26,
28,
29, 30, 163, 164,
166,
167,
168,
190,
209,
210,
250,
252,
253,
254,
255, 256, 257,
272,
273,
275,
276,
277,
278,
279,
280,
284,
285,
286, 288, 289,
294,
296,
297,
298,
336,
368,
369,
410,
411,
432,
437, 473, 477,
497,
498,
499,
500,
500A,.501,
502,
503.
B. Removal
2, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 161, 162, 165, 242, 243, 244,'245,
246, 247, 248, 249, 251, 290, 367, 402, 415, 416, 417, 418, 433,
434, 435, 436, 474, 475, 476, 504, 508.
70. where possible, removed oaks shall be transplanted on the site. The
applicant shall provide a transportation and monitoring plan for oak
tree transplanting to the satisfaction of the City's Oak Tree
Consultant prior to final map.
71. The applicant shall follow all construction procedures in the Oak
Tree Protection and Preservation Guidelines, including fencing and
use of hand tools within the protected zone of the oak trees.
72. All impacted oak trees (includes encroachments, replacements; and
relocated trees) shall. be monitored by the applicant's oak 'tree
- 9 -
RESO P92-15
consultant for a period of five years, to commence at recordation of
the map. Said monitoring shall include, at 'a minimum, an annual
report by the applicant's oak tree consultant submitted to the
Director of community Development for review and approval.
73. The applicant shall modify the proposed roadway to avoid removal of
Oak Tree 1258.
74. The.. applicant shall record a deed restriction on the property
restricting further subdivision of the created lots (Lots 1 through
32). Furthermore, a note reflecting this restriction- shall be
placed on the final map. Both actions shall be to the satisfaction.
of the City Engineer.
75. The pad location for lot 18 shall be option 2 (the lower pad
location).
76. The applicant shall provide to the City the Declaration of
Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions for the project for review
prior to recordation which shall state that the applicant on behalf "
of itself, its successors and assignors and purchasers of the lots
agrees not to protest or otherwise contest the formation of any
assessment district or method of assessmentapplicable to the
development which may be established by the City for the purpose of
financing and constructing road improvements in the Sand Canyon
area. The appropriate document is to be -recorded and to run with.
the land. The document is to be reviewed and approved by the City .
Attorney. However, nothing.in this condition is intended to limit:
(1) the applicant's right under state law to protest the manner in
which any assessment is spread over parcels within the boundaries of
any district which may be formed; (2) applicant's right to vote in
any elections required for imposition of any tax; -or (3) applicant's
right to participate in any public hearing related to the formation
of such district or other method of assessment.
77. Prior; to first construction on lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, the applicant,
or the applicant's respective successors and assignors and
purchasers of lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, shall submit a site plan and gain
oak tree permit approval from the. Planning Commission at an
administrative hearing. This condition is in addition to any
requirements which may be lawfully imposed pursuant to the existing
Ordinance 89-10 (Oak Tree Ordinance) and regulations of the City.
This map shall indicate notes evidencing this requirement for lots
4, 5, 6, and 7.
78. The applicant shall pave Ravenhill Road and construct associated
cul-de-sac improvements to provide paved access to lot 32. This
action shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
LHS:485
- 10 -
MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Tuesday
May 19, 1992
7:00 p.m.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM 5: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 49334, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-031, and OAK
TREE PERMIT 90-053 (MASTER CASE NO. 90-185) - Located east of.Triumph Avenue,
600 feet south of Sultus Street, and 1,300 feet west of Sand Canyon Road.
Director Harris introduced the item, a subdivision of 76 acres into 33
single-family residential lots, and a Conditional Use Permit and Oak Tree
Permit to remove 26 oak trees, none of which are heritage oaks. The item was
continued from the Apri1.22. 1992, Planning Commission meeting.
Assistant Planner Glenn Adamick gave the staff report and slide presentation.
Chairman Cherrington re -opened the public participation portion of the
continued public hearing at 7:35 p.m..
The following persons gave testimony.
Mr. Gary L. Kaiser, Project Engineer, 2307 W. Olive Avenue, Burbank, CA. Mr.
Kaiser spoke with relation to the secondary ridgeline, the neighboring support
for the project, the floodways, and the oak trees.
Mr. Dennis Ostrom, representing Sand Canyon Homeowners Association, 16430
Sultus Street, Canyon Country, CA. Mr. Ostrom spoke in favor of the project,
as he feels it is a quality development.
Mr. Bill Fredrick, 15636 Live Oak Springs, Sand Canyon, CA. Mr. Fredrick'.
spoke in favor of gated communities and of this project.
Mr. Stan Vath, representing Sand Canyon.Oak Property Owners Association, 16760
Radclay Street, Canyon Country, CA. Mr..Vath spoke in favor of the project.
Mr. Dennis Thompson, 16310 Sultus Street, Canyon Country, CA. Mr. Thompson
spoke.in favor of the project.
Mr. Richard H. Christensen, 26915 Tannahill Avenue, Canyon Country, CA. Mr.
Christensen spoke in favor of gated communities.
Ms. Diane C. Wilson, 26826 Sand Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, CA. Ms. Wilson
spoke in opposition to the project as a gated community.
Ms. Linda Lambroun, Raven Hill, Santa Clarita, CA. Ms. Lambroun spoke in
opposition to gates with respect to their interfering with the local trails
system.
Mr. Hal Good, 27800 Sand Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, CA. Mr. Good spoke in
opposition to the project.
Ms. Judith J. Mosier, 16324 Sultus Street, Santa Clarita, CA. Ms. Mosier
spoke in opposition to the project.
Questions of -staff followed relating to the trails system.
Mr. Dan Holmes, agent for the applicant, 2710 V. Kelly Road, Newbury Park,
CA. Mr. Holmes gave a rebuttal to the issues relating to the trails system
and the oak trees.
Mr. Greg Adalian, 15770 Sandy Oak Lane, Santa Clarita, CA. Mr. Adalian gave a
rebuttal in favor of the project.
Chairman Cherrington closed the public hearing at 8r50 p.m..
A discussion by the Commission followed relating to the secondary ridgeline,
the issue of access, oak trees, the trails system, flag lots; and the
circulation issue.
The Planning Commission conducted a discussion and reached consensus on
favoring that the project include public roads, the construction of a suitable
bridge to accommodate traffic, Conditions on Lots 4 and 5 to preserve oak
trees, trail access with major northsouth and eastwest trails, the elimination
of one lot, and the creation of an assessment district to handle road fees.
Commissioner Brathwaite motioned to l) Adopt the attached Negative Declaration
with the finding that the project will not have a significant effect upon the
environment; 2) Approve Tentative Tract Map 49334 (Exhibit_A) subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B), Conditional Use Permit .90-031,
and Oak Tree Permit 90-053; and 3) Direct staff to bring back a Resolution for
final action by the Commission, Commissioner Doughman seconded the motion, and
the item was passed by a vote of 5-0 with modifications to the Conditions of
Approval.
MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Wednesday
April 22, 1992
7:00 p.m.
ITEM 4: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 49334, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-031, OAK TREE
PERMIT 90-053 - located east of Triumph Avenue, 600' south of Sultus Street,
and 1,300' west of Sand Canyon Road
Director Harris introduced Item 4.and Assistant Planner Glenn Adamick made the
staff report and presented a brief slide presentation.
There were questions of the staff -regarding circulation, access, the ,Hillside
Ordinance and the proposed bridges.
At 7:29 p.m., Chairman Cherrington opened the public hearing.
Speaking in favor of the project were the following:
Mr. Gary Kaiser, 2307 W. Olive Avenue, 1B, Burbank, California, stated he was
the engineer for the project. His presentation included discussion of the lot
using Ravenhill as the access, and line of sight for the project.
Dan Holmes, 2710 W. Kelly Road, Newbury Park, applicant, questioned the
secondary ridgeline designation on the property, and discussed the line of
sight, oak trees, height restrictions, the desire to keep the road private,
and the proposed wooden bridge.
Greg Adalian, 15770 Sandy Oak, Santa Clarita, applicant, stated that he is
available to answer any questions.
Barbara Werth, 26810 Triumph Avenue, Canyon Country, expressed support for the
project. However, stated concern over the time frame for the water line to be
installed. Other concerns included gates, roads, and the retention of the
knoll on lot 1.
John Jordan, 26837 Sand Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, commented on the
willingness of the applicant .to take the homeowners'- concerns into account in
the design of the project.
Speaking in opposition to the project were the following:
Diane Wilson, 26826 Sand Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, whose concerns included
lack of notice, oak trees, and horse trails.
Hal Good, 27800 Sand Canyon road, Santa Clarita, expressed concerns regarding
lack of dedicated public roads, easements, and circulation.
Robert Mosier, 16324 Sultus Street, Santa Clarita, expressed concerns
regarding lack og- notice, grading, density, and requested to continue the
hearing.
Dominick Rivetti, 26505 Ravenhill Road, Canyon Country, commented on access,
traffic, oak trees, and the ridgeline lots.
Cynthia Neal Harris,- P.O. Box 800520, Saugus, representing the Santa Clarita
Oak Conservancy, expressed concern regarding the oak trees on the site,
grading, and replacement of.trees that are removed.
The applicant, Greg Adalian, was then allowed to rebut the concerns
expressed. He addressed concerns regarding bridges, trails, private roads,
easements, density, oak trees, and access.
There were questions of Mr. Adalian from the Commission.
At 8:20 p.m., Chairman.Cherrington closed the public hearing.
Discussion ensued among the Commission.
Staff was directed to take the comments into consideration for re -submittal to
the Commission at a later date.
Commissioner Modugno.motioned to direct the applicant to re -design the project
and continue the item to May 19, 1992. Commissioner Brathwaite seconded.
With a 4-0 vote, the motion carried.
The applicant stated that he waives the timelines.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N
Proposed [ ] Final
PERMIT/PROJECT:_TTM 49334, CUP 90-031, OTP 90-039
APPLICANT: Sand Canyon Ranch Estates MASTER CASE NO: 90-185
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: East of Triumph Avenue, 600. feet south of Sultus
Street and 1,300 feet,west of Sand Canyon Road in the Sand Canyon area.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The applicant is requesting a subdivision of 76
acres 'into 32. lots for single family residences and a conditional use .permit
tq,4allowfor clustering of those lots. An oak tree permit has been requested
torall41 ow the removal and encroachment upon up to 60 oak trees, none of which
are heritage size. The proposed density of the project is .42 dwelling units
per acre.
.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
[X] City Council
[ ] 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( �� }.Laura Stotler. Assistant Planner
(Signature)/ (Name/Title)
.Approved by: �/�Kevin Michel, Senior Planner
(Signature) (Name/Title)
cccaacaaacaacc==ccacc=-accaac==acssacccvaacaaacacacaaacc==aaaaaa-------aasac
Public Review Period From 4/2 92 'To4/22/92
s/3 qa . g
Public Notice Given On 4/2/92 for PC and 8/3/92 for CC By:
[X] Legal advertisement. [X] Posting of properties. [X] Written notice.
CERTIFICATION DATE:
LHS:472
CITY OP SANTA CLARITA
�� 16 1126 x'92
a "`• ..� `iGE
City of Santa Clarita City Hall -
23920 hest Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, CA
Attention: City Clerk
16335 Sultus Street
Canyon Country, CA 91351
,lune 16, 1992
Dear City Council;
I would like -to appeal the approval of -the development project,
#-_91D_4d' ,.,for the following reasons:
1. The development project does not conform.to.the
SantayClarita hillside ordinance, ruling and/or
zoning..
2. The,,proposed development does not conform to.the
tw6,:(2).acre minimum as established by the City .
of Santa Clarita.
3.:,The:ldevelopment�would eventually create the.de
struction of; approximately 120 Oak trees:which -.
would _seem to.-Violate.the spirit if not the oak,
tr!ejgrdinance.
For the above reasons I feel this appeal is necessary and I am re-
.questing the,,City,Council to take a much closer -look -at -this proposed,,
development. , ,
Thank you. very much for your time in this matter.
Since el , _
Robert L n
Homeowner
13:x.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY.OF.SANTA CLARITA
23920'W. Valencia Blvd.
Santa.Clarita, CA 91355
RECEIVED.
"IV 17 19921
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
CITY OF SANTA CLAR116'
HAL GOOD
27800 Sand Canyon Road
Santa Clarita, CA 91351
(805) 252-2028
16 June 1992
RE: :MASTER CASE 90-185 AND RESOLUTION NO. P92-15
Dear Mayor Klajic and Councilmembers:
Itt.wasfmy intention to appeal to the Council the. June 2,,:1992
Res.olut'lon. Na P92=15 approval of the' plalining'Commissi'on' for'
several reasons: I now find that this Resolution has been appealed
to you on June 16, 1992; therefore, I now wishto add to the
Appellant's case the weight of all the information that 'I will
preseht,.to you.
Yourt.careful attention is invited .to the "General .Plan" as it
relates to Oak Trees', Ridge Lines and 2 -acre minimum sized lots:'.
The Developer was able to.generate considerable community support
by.'promises to create.deeded access and water company water, to..the
adjoining area. The Planning Commission paid much attention to
the needs for water and access and, I:believe,,voted.for,,approval
only after being convinced that both water and access problems were
solved to the adjoining properties by approval of this project.
The requirement to "offer for dedication" and the requirement to
"dedicate" do not seem to insure "paved dedicated road access" from
SandCanyonroad to Tannahill 'and Triumph Streets (property line
to property line).
The water requirement apparently only requires service to the
Developer's.subdivision.
The support of the neighborhood property owners was obtained
through promises, promises (water 6 access).
I believe the support of neighbors and the .vote of the Planning
Commission was obtained because they really believed that the ,
Developer was within a few.months of installing a waterline from
Sand Canyon Road to the present end of Tannahill Street and legal
access to adjoining properties -would be solved with the requirement
foi dedicated streets.
I
Page 2
Two or three years from now the streets may or may not be built and
dedicated, nothing requires an easement for ingress and egress
completely through the subdivision to the surrounding property. As
of this date I see no action of the subdivider or water company to
bring water to this. adjoining area.
Normally the problems of surrounding neighbors would not become the
problems of a subdivider but when the subdivider's neighbors wells
are going dry and he obtains their support by making promises to
bring water through his subdivision for their access immediately,
I believe that he should be .required to fulfill those promises.
It would seem appropriate under these circumstances for you to
consult with one or more Planning Commissioners to determine
whether their view of this situation is the same as mine.
Sand Canyon needs your help, please study this subdivision very
carefully and reject it, under the circumstances stated I believe
the cause is sufficient.
Sincerrelly,
J 0d"
NG:af
cc: City Clerk
City Planning
Robert Lyn
Enclosure: My 05 -13 -92 -Letter to Planning Commission