The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992-02-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - PLANNING CMSN RESO P91 53 (2)AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 11, 1992 City Manager ApprovalVoLl Item to be presented by: SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission decision (Resolution No. P91-53) denying Master Case Number 90-102 (Zone Change 90-006, Tentative Tract Map 47601, Conditional Use Permit 90-012, and Oak Tree Permit 90-027). The project site is approximately 102 acres fronting on the south side of Cross Street at the intersection of Wildwood Road. DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND The City Clerk'soffice received an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision of November 5, 1991 denying Master Case Number 90-102. The appellant is Hemsminack Development Company, the applicant. The proposal included requests for the following: Rezoning of the site for residential planned development; a conditional use permit. to allow on-site grading of 1,020,000 cubic yards of earth; an oak tree permit; and tentative tract map to.subdivide the project site into 114 single family lots with open space areas. The Planning Commission voted (5-0) to deny this application at the October 15, 1991 public meeting. This decision was•formally adopted by resolution at the November 5, 1991 public meeting. The Planning Commission denied the request because the applicant has not acquired an adequate primary or secondary access; the project exceeds the developable density allowed under the General Plan; the proposed grading includes abrupt cuts -and fills on hillsides and significant ridgelines; geological hazards exist; and the project oak tree report is inadequate. ANALYSIS This application was not complete due to several unresolved issues, including access, oak trees, density, and grading. The applicant chose to proceed with a public hearing prior to spending time and money preparing additional documents for staff review. The Planning Commission's primary concern is access to the site. The project site shares a single means of access with approximately 161 other existing lots in the immediate vicinity. The single access is substandard, also. Subdivision Code requirements limit the total number of dwellings on a single means of access to no more than 150. The Planning Commission found that no subdivision should be allowed until the access issue is resolved. znda Item: APHR-00WED e64-4�ca Three people, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the project, and acknowledged that several items remained unresolved. The applicants requested that this hearing be continued to allow additional time for them.to address the unresolved issues. Land owners adjacent to the site expressed concern that this project would not be consistent with the rural character of the neighborhood. Ten people spoke in opposition to this project. Their concerns included increased erosion and runoff, geological instability, emergency vehicle access, water availability, and oak tree removals. The Planning Commission found that further staff review should take place only after .the access is resolved and a new application and fees are submitted. 1. Receive the staff presentation; 2. Open the public hearing and receive testimony; 3. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision for denial of Master Case Number 90-102 requesting a Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, and an Oak Tree Permit. ATTACHMENTS 1. Appeal request from Rubin M. Turner on behalf of the Hemsminack Development Company, the applicant. 2. Minutes of the October 15, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. P91-53. 4. Planning Commission staff report dated October 15, 1991. 5. Project site plan. JC/481 PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE 1. Mayor Opens Hearing a. States Purpose of Hearing 2. City.Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice 3. Staff Report (City Manager) or (City Attorney) or (RP Staff) 4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes) S. Opponent Argument (30 minutes) 6. Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent) a. Proponent 7. Mayor Closes Public Testimony a., Discussion by Council 9. Council Decision 10. Mayor Announces Decision CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEALING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM "HEAVY AGRICULTURAL, ONE ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE" TO "RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (7500 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE MINIMUM WITH 1.2 DWELLING UNITS MAXIMUM DENSITY)". LOCATION: APPROXIMATELY 102 ACRES FRONTING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CROSS STREET AT THE INTERSECTION OF WILDWOOD ROAD, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 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 from the applicants, Hemsminack Development Company, regarding the Planning Commission's denial to rezone property. from "Heavy Agricultural, one acre minimum lot size: to "residential planned development (7500 square foot lot size minimum with 1.2 dwelling units maximum density)". The applicants are the Hemsminack Corporation. The .property is approximately 102 acres fronting on the south side of Cross Street at the intersection of Wildwood Road, in the City of Santa Clarita. The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 11th day of February, 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. Dated: January 14, 1992 Donna M: Grindey City Clerk Publish Date: January 17, 1992 LAW OFFICES TURNER GERSTENFELD WILK TIGERMAN HELLER & YOUNG 6353 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD. SUITE 510 BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90211.2486 TELEPHONE (213) 657-3100 • FACSIMILE (213) 6533021 RUBIN M TURNER GERALD F. GERSTENFELD BARRY R. WILK BEST Z. TIGERMAN STEVEN E. YOUNG - EDWARD FRIEDMAN LAWRENCE E. HELLER MARK L. EDWARDS LINDA WIGHT MAZUR OORTHA LARENE PYLES STEVEN A, MORRIS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS November 25, 1991 The Honorable City Council of the City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 300 City of Santa Clarita, California 91355 Re: Master Case No. 90-102 Hemsminack Land Development Gentlemen: OF COUNSEL SEARS AND KRAINES LONDON.ENGLAND JOSE MARIA ABASCAL , MEXICO CITY, MEXICO ABADEE. ORESONER & FREEMAN SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA t Enclosed herewith is an original and two (2) copies of Appeal of Hemsminack-Land Development Co. from the denial by the Planning Commission of Applicant's submission. Please cause the original to be filed and stamp file the remaining copies. and return them to me in the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided for your convenience. We would be grateful if you would kindly call the undersigned collect upon receipt of the subject appeal. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Very t y yours, �RUBIN M. TURNER RMT: ss s\L\citycounA tr cc: A.C. Warnack APPEAL TO THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF.THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SANTA CLARITA OF MASTER CASE NO. 90-102 (ZONE CHANGE 90-006; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 47691; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-012; OAK TREE PERMIT 90-027) FOR REZONING TO RPD 7500 (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, 7,500 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM); 114 (sic) 118 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS; GRADING OF 1,020,000 CUBIC YARDS OF EARTH; REMOVAL OR ENCROACHMENT OF 550 OAK TREES, AS PER RESOLUTION NO. P91-53 HEMSMINACK LAND DEVELOPMENT (Applicant) hereby appeals from the denial by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa,Clarita of Applicant's above-mentioned submissions. Applicant submits it response by references to the sections and subsections of the reference resolution as follows: t Section 1. a-1. No comment. a-2. Applicant's tentative tract map to. subdivide the project site reflected 118 single family lots instead of the referenced 114 single family lots. a-3. No comment. a-4. Applicant has no intention of removing encroaching or impacting 550 oak trees. Applicant has carefully presented a plan which would permit the orderly development of the subject property and have an impact on not more than ten percent (10%) of the existing oak trees. b. Subsequent to Applicant's submission, it appears that a proposed general plan is pending pursuant to which the zoning density would be reduced from 150 units which were originally allowed to a density of 70 units. C. No comment. d. No comment. e. No comment. f. Maps were prepared which showed possible access alternatives both primary and secondary; grading plans were provided and oak trees were done and a map was prepared showing a possible impacted areas. The newly proposed density and hillside ordinance restrictions was presented to applicant the day before the Planning Commission hearing. Section 2. a. No comment. b. The proposed density. not being consistent with the prescribed density and policies, of the City's proposed general plan was raised for the first time by the Planning Commission the day before the Planning Commission meeting. Land Use Element Policies: 1.10 Applicant sees no reason why Applicant "contribute" a buffer zone with respect to adjacent property. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that this position'is inappropriate. 2.12 on any ridgelines (significant or secondary) This grading plan also showed how:Applicant intended to avoid the existing oak trees. Nevertheless, some impact on existing oak trees appears to be unavoidable; however the magnitude thereof is anticipated to be less than ten percent (10%) of the existing trees. Area maps were provided which showed alternate access possibilities and Applicant indicated. that Applicant would provide adequate access if this was a condition of approval. It should further be noted that no heritage trees will be removed or impacted with respect to the proposed development. It appears that the grading criteria referred to is based upon proposed grading ordinances not yet adopted and therefore it is difficult for Applicant to attempt to comply with such proposed ordinances. Nevertheless, Applicant submits that Applicant will, if necessary as a condition of approval, provide grading which would coincide with the proposed grading ordinance except for the hillside density reduction part thereof. It should be noted that in Applicant's drainage study, Applicant would be helping the existing runoff situation on and off the project site. s\agmts\smith\appeal —2 — 4.1 Although this was not a part of the criteria of the project originally, if such a condition is imposed upon Applicant for purposes of enabling it to develop the property, Applicant would be agreeable to such reasonable conditions. 4.2 Applicant's grading plan was sensitive to exiting topography. The statement relating to ridgeline encroachment is simply incorrect. 4.6 An oak tree study was prepared by Lee Newman & Associates pursuant to the city's criteria. Applicant's consultants met with the city's oak tree consultant, Kay Werle, and all parties toured the site. The city's oak tree consultant and applicant's consultant met and conferred on how a report would be prepared concerning which trees would be impacted once the exact location of the streets and lots were established and the final map and final improvement drawing were prepared. The city's oak tree consultant and Applicant's consultant agreed with this approach and Applicant has been prepared to submit such a report reflecting a minimal impact on existing oak trees. 5.3 when Applicant originally submitted its application existing zoning would have permitted the development of approximately.150 units. Applicant's proposed 118 units falls well within the original zoning. It appears that the Planning Commission has cited a proposed general plan (which citation was only presented to Applicant the day before the hearing on this matter) whereby new density limitations were to be imposed. It is interesting to note that the citation of Subdivision Code Section 21.24.020 which requires that if the street or street system is restricted to a single means of access, then the street or street system shall not serve more than 150 dwelling units.. It appears that there is existing at this time 161 units. In light of the violation of this code section, Applicant not only has presented plan in order to comply therewith but a plan which would also help resolve the existing violation of said subdivision code section by the existence 161 units. Applicant's proposal would in fact permit the existing 161 units to conform to the subdivision code section and would also improve existing circulation system as well as other community facilities. Community Design Element Policies: 5.1 Ridgelines and the majority of the oak trees would not s\agmts\smith\appeal —3— be effected. Alteration of the natural integrity of the site was to be protected and controlled through Applicant's design criteria. 5.3 Same as 5.1, above. 6.7 Same as 5.1, above. Open Space Element Policies: 1.1 The street and lot layout as well as the grading plan was done with the physical site features as the criteria. Slopes on the internal streets do follow existing grades. 1.5 There was no proposed grading of natural open space areas in Applicant's development plan. 1.10 The proposed grading plan benched pads parallel the natural topography and utilized natural grades as Applicant's design criteria. 2.1 The Planning Commission's comments with respect to this matter appear to refer to.an ordinance which has not yet been adopted and therefore it is difficult fof Applicant to comment upon proposed ordinances. 2.2 Applicant is unaware of what this comment refers to. 2.4 Applicant's criteria have been the same as the Planning Commission comments in this section. Circulation Element Issue Statement: Applicant's plans show the right of way for cross street as a proposed 60 -foot street and the houses that would be impacted are proposed.to be removed. Both cross street and the houses are owned by the Applicant. Applicant hasoffered to improve existing and future accesses if such was a condition for approval. Circulation Element Policies: 2.6 Applicant has demonstrated that an access could be provided if such is required as a condition of approval. A second access to the site has also been provided to the Planning Commission. C. No comment. d. Applicant's design has taken these matters into consideration and have resolved them or they just did s\agmts\smith\appeal —4— not exist as of the date of the report e. Applicant has used the natural characteristics of the site and will not eliminate natural characteristics. f. Applicant respectfully submits that this statement is simply not true. h. Applicant submits that this statement is also not true. in fact, the opposite is true. This development would improve many existing substandard city provided facilities such as streets, traffic circulation, flood protection, police and fire protection, water and sewer facilities and the like. Section 3. a.& b. The Commission's findings are erroneously based upon a, general plan changing zoning after Applicant submitted its plan. It is referring to ordinance(s) which have not yet been adopted and it further makes incorrect statements about ridgelines, drainage and oak tree removal. C. Applicant has minimized the concerns by clustering padEj and leaving the natural features of the site intact. d. As referred to in Section 2h, above, the opposite is true. e. Any such impact would be minimal. f. Adequate access would be provided is this were a condition of approval. g. It is apparent that the Planning Commission either inadvertently or intentionally has misconstrued Applicant's application. The number of inconsistent findings and conclusions as well as raising issues one day before the Planning Commission hearing reflect an arbitrary, capricious and biased view of the Planning Commission with respect to Applicant. Applicant has devoted considerable time, money and resources in preparing an application for the development of the proposed. site consistent with existing statutes, ordinances and regulations and in cooperation with the legitimate and reasonable requests and views of. the City of Santa Clarita's officials. The present finding by the Planning Commission, however, renders Applicant's site unbuildable, undevelopable or unusable. It is Applicant's view that the City of Santa Clarita's ordinances and regulations s\agmts\smith\appeal —5 — as well as the State of California subdivision's laws and the rulings of the State and Federal Courts permit Applicant to develop the project site and that Applicant is committed to coordinating with the City of Santa Clarita and all of its staff and development officials to the end that a development plan can be presented, which does not render Applicant's site unbuildable, undevelopable or unusable. Respectfully submitted, LAND DEVELOPMENT By s\agmts\smith\appeal -6 — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 15, 1991 HEMSMINACK ITEM 5: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 47691, ZONE CHANGE 90-006, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-012, AND OAK TREE PERMIT 90-023 - located on the south side of Cross Street at the intersection of Wildwood'Road Acting Director Henderson introduced Item 5 and Assistant Planner Jeff Chaffin gave the staff report and made a slide presentation. Commissioner Modugno stated that after previous conversations with the City Attorney, and in light of his understanding of what was and was not a conflict of interest, he felt there would be no problem with him participating in this item. At 10:26 p.m., Chairman Cherrington opened the public hearing. Speaking in favor of the project was Scott Smith, 5555 California Avenue,' 1301, Bakersfield, whose comments included that they were informed of possible. General Plan inconsistency the day before the hearing, the process of the paperwork, and requested a continuance in order to meet with neighbors opposing the project. A.C. Warnack 1226 W. Lancaster Blvd., Lancaster, stated that he is one of the principals involved in this project. His comments included the receipt of 21 pages of the staff report, and that he was unaware of any changes which were to occur; the possibility of rezoning the property; and the hillside ordinance. Mike Maxwell, 9654 La Colina, Alta Loma, stated he.was the engineer for the project. He commented on the zoning letter received, the neighbor's concerns, and that access off Cross Street will be necessary, due to the fact that the adjacent property owner had withdrawn their offer of access. There was discussion among the Commission. Speaking in opposition of the project were the following persons. Linda deRoo, 23975 Wildwood Canyon, Newhall, whose concerns included wildlife, fault lines, traffic, geology, and water access. Gary Peterson, 24203 Cross Street, Newhall, commented on safety and access to the project. Cynthia Harris, P.O. Box 800520, Saugus, commented on the oak trees, and possible illegal removal of these trees. E.J. Allensworth, 23220 Haskell Vista Lane, Newhall, commented on access, oak trees, and safety. Hemsminack Minutes; 10/15/91 Planning Commission meeting. Page 2 Howard Buck, 24233 Crosswinds Street, Newhall, commented on access, and the distinct personality of the area. Lynn Plambeck, 23149 Oakbridge, Newhall, commented on access, grading, oak trees, traffic, density,.and environmental impact. Julie Grant, 24221 Cross Street, Newhall, commented on increased traffic. Mike Milligan, 24120 Cross Street, Newhall, commented on grading, and the effect rain may have on the property. Mike Maxwell made a rebuttal statement, addressing the following: water, traffic, access, safety, geology, lot size and density. Mr. Warnack then made additional rebuttal statements, addressing oaks, traffic, access, and requested that they be given additional time to address these concerns. At 11:08 p.m., the public hearing was closed. Discussion ensued among the Commission. Commissioner Doughman motioned for denial. Commissioner Modugno seconded. Motion for denial was approved 5-0. JC/473 t RESOLUTION NO. P91-53 A RESOLUTION OF.THE PLANNING COMMISSION,OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING MASTER CASE NO. 90-102 (ZONE CHANGE 90-006; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 47691; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-012; OAR TREE PERMIT 90-027) FOR REZONING TO RPD 7500 (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, 7,500 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM); 114 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS; GRADING OF 1,020,000 CUBIC YARDS OF EARTH; REMOVAL OR ENCROACHMENT OF 550 OAR TREES. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. An application for a tentative tract map was filed on May 7, 1990, by the Hemsminack Development Company ("the applicant,). The property for which this entitlement has been filed is located fronting on the south side of Cross Street at the intersection of Wildwood Road. The Assessor's Parcel Numbers for the site are 2827-026-11, 12,. 13, 14,E 23, 24, and 2827-.016-21, 22, 23, 24. The project site is approximately 102 acres in total area, and consists of an undulating[ hillside with rugged mountain terrain. The average slope of the property is 39.5X, and approximately 39 acres of the project site is occupied by slopes of 50Z or greater. The south,- east, and west sides of the project site are bordered by "significant ridgelines". At least 550 oak. trees exist on the site. Access to the site is taken from Cross Street, and on-site circulation is provided by dirt roads. The site is currently vacant, but has been used as a livestock ranch in the past. The applicant's proposal includes the following: 1. Rezoning of 90 acres zoned "A-2-1" (Heavy Agricultural, one acre minimum lot size) and 12 acres zoned "A-1-7500' (Light Agricultural, 7500 square foot minimum lot size), to "RPD 7500-1.2 DU" (Residential Planned Development; 7500 square foot minimum lot size; 1.2 dwelling units per acre). 2. A tentative tract map to subdivide the project site into 114 single family lots with open space areas. 3. A conditional use permit to allow residential planned development and on-site grading of 1,020,000 cubic yards of earth for proposed roads and building pads. 4. An oak tree permit for the removal or encroachment of 550 oak trees. b. The applicable zoning for this property is A-1-7500 (Light - Agricultural, 7500 square foot minimum lot size zone) and A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural, one acre minimum lot size zone). Three of. the City's General Plan land use designations have been applied to this property: Approximately two acres of the project site fronting on the south side of Cross Street is designated "Residential Low (1.1 -3.3 -dwelling units per acre)". Approximately 50, acres of the northern half of the project site is designated "Residential Very Low (0.5-1.0 dwelling units per acre)". Approximately 50 acres of the southern half of the project site with the steepest slopes is designated "Residential Estate (0.0-0.5 dwelling units per acre)". This project has also been reviewed for compliance with the draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. C. The application was circulated for City Department and agency review upon receipt. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee (DRC) met on June 14, 1990 to discuss the project and additional information and revisions needed from the applicant. City staff also supplied the applicant with preliminary recommended conditions. d. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 15, 1991 at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. e. The surrounding uses are residential. f. This project was reviewed pursuant to the. provisions of the California Environmental Quality. Act (CEQA). Staff prepared an InitialEnvironmental Assessment for this proposal .and determined that specific issues (regarding primary and secondary access, grading, drainage, oak tree removal and encroachment, residential density, and hillside development) must be resolved prior to the adoption of any environmental document for this project. SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing held for the project, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Planning Commission further finds as follows: a. At the public hearing held for this project, the Planning Commission considered the staff report prepared for this project and received testimony on this proposal. b. The City's General Plan Land Use designations for the project site are RL "Residential Low (1.1-3.3 dwelling units per acre)", RVL "Residential Very Low (0.5-1.0 dwelling units per acre)", and RE "Residential Estate (0.0-0.5 dwelling units per acre)". The proposed use of the property for residential development is consistent with this land use designation. However, the proposed project density of 1.2 dwelling units per acre is not consistent with the prescribed densities and policies of the City's General Plan. This proposal is not consistent with the Land Use, Community Design, Open Space, and Circulation elements of the City's General Plan. -2- t Specifically, this proposal is in conflict with the following General Plan components: Land Use Element Policies: 1.10 "Consider the establishment of additional Significant Ecological Areas where unique environmental or geological conditions exist or may be created by future land uses." The .undeveloped acreage of this project site is adjacent to existing open space areas, 'including La Salle Canyon to the south, which provide habitat value to biological communities, including oak trees on and adjacent to the project site. This proposal would eliminate approximately 100 undeveloped acres, through grading and placement of structures, from providing habitat area and physical buffering between existing open space and residential land uses. 2.12 "Promote the retention of open space to preserve significant ridgelines, to provide land use buffers, and .to provide for both public safety and oak tree preservation." As proposed, this project and associated grading would encroach upon a primary significant ridgeline and two secondary significant. ridgelines, as well as requiring the encroachment or removal of the 550 existing oak trees at the project site. The applicant has not[ provided adequate documentation that an adequate primary access to the project can be obtained. The proposed subdivision design and 1,020,00 cubic yards of grading is insensitive to the natural topography, major landforms,and oak trees on and adjacent to the project site. The size, shape, and location of the proposed lots does .not incorporate the natural topography into the project design. The applicant has not incorporated contour grading into the plan, which would minimize grading impacts by providing physical continuity with the natural topography. The changes in the existing natural topography will create disruptions to drainage flow and direction on and off the project site due to the massive grading, excessive bench -cuts, and construction of artificial slopes for the proposed roads, driveways, and building pads of this project. 4.1 "Establish a land use pattern that is constructed around a framework of established greenbelts and a linear system of equestrian, pedestrian and bike .trails tied to the primary network of the river corridor." The applicant has not included any equestrian trails or bike paths in the design of this project. Large developments such as this would be required to participate in implementing this network of trails and openspace as a condition of approval. 4.2 "Ensure that new development, grading, and landscaping are sensitive to the natural topography and major landforms in the planning area." -3- As shown on the applicant's grading plan, several areas of the site would require excavation and emplacement of earth to accommodate the proposed building pads, driveways, and internal access roads. Landform grading has not been included in the design of this project to provide continuity with existing site topography. Proposed grading includes abrupt landform modification which would disrupt the natural topography across the entire site. Grading is proposed on slopes which exceed. 502_ in grade, and -on the three significant ridgelines which border the west, east and south of the project site. The project grading plan shows earth work which would create abrupt broad and flat surfaces, truncated cuts and fills, bulky and obtrusive artificial slopes, and a profile of angular terraces on 'the hillsides and ridgelines. 4.6 "Preserve and protect oak and mature specimen size trees and other endangered indigenous plant and animal communities, from excessive and incompatible development." The applicant has not provided adequate information to determine the impacts that this project may have on the 550 oak trees or'existing botanical community present -at the project site. It is anticipated that 1,020,000 cubic yards of grading on this property will have an adverse effect upon the biotic community present at the project. site. Without this information the character of the plant and animal community at the site, and the appropriate recommendations fort project site design cannot.be made. 5.3 "Provide for the retention and maintenance of existing residential neighborhoods which are primarily developed with single-family homes and ensure that new development is compatible with and complementary to existing development in terms of scale, architecture, and density." The proposed project at this site exceeds the appropriate density for hillside and ridgeline.development. The proposed 114 building sites is too many for this property, given the topography and limited access to the site, and maybe inconsistent with the existing development in the immediate vicinity. This would exceed the recommended dwelling density for residential development within and upon hillsides and significant ridgelines. This would be incompatible with the adjacent existing residential neighborhood, and inconsistent with the General Plan. Because the average slope of. the project site is 39.5x, and significant ridgelines with slopes greater than 50Z are present, the density reduction specified by the draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance would allow a maximum of 13 building sites -to be placed upon the project site. Currently, the project site shares a single means of access with 160 other lots in the immediate vicinity. Subdivision Code Section 21.24.020 requires that if a street or street system is restricted to a single means of access, then the street or street system shall not serve more than 150 dwelling units. This proposed subdivision would also impact the adjacent neighborhood by diminishing its rural character through increasing traffic flow volumes, grading natural landforms, and encroachment onto a significant ridgeline. -4- Community Design Element Policies: 5.1 "Retain designated major landforms, such as ridgelines, natural drainage ways, streams, rivers, valleys, and significant vegetation, especially where these features contribute to the overall community identity." The community in which this property is located is characterized by the presence of significant ridgelines, hillsides, and oak woodland. This proposed project would not retain the existing topography, significant ridgelines,, and the 550 oak trees present at the project site due to the size, shape and location of the .proposed new lots. Grading for access roads, driveways, and -building pads would result in the abrupt modification of these major land forms and significant vegetation. A significant primary ridgeline traverses the southern portion of the property, and significant secondary ridgelines traverse the eastern and western portions of the property. The existing significant ridgelines provide a visual and physical buffer, and aesthetic relief between the project site and adjacent residential properties. This proposed subdivision would impact the adjacent neighborhood by diminishing its rural character through increasing traffic flow volumes, grading natural landforms, oak tree removal, alteration of natural drainage patterns, disrupting open. space and eliminating natural habitat areas, and encroachment onto significant ridgelines. [ 5.3 "Where possible, incorporate attractive natural amenities, such as rock outcroppings, vegetation, streams and drainage areas, into the development of future projects to protect the environment and provide landscape opportunities, visual interest, scale and/or recreational opportunities." The applicant's proposal does not incorporate any of the natural amenities of the project site into.its design. The design of the proposed subdivision and associated grading requires the removal of these natural amenities. Excavation and emplacement of earth will remove vegetation and landforms, including 550 oak trees and the significant ridgelines at the project site. Grading activities will also alter the site drainage pattern. A drainage concept has not been approved for this project. 6.7 "Promote visual and physical buffers, where appropriate, by use of easements, roadways, trails, ridgelines, and other features, to delineate various communities in the valley." The proposed development would result in the encroachment upon the significant ridgelines present at the project site, thereby eliminating existing visual and physical buffers. The existing ridgelines on the east and west portions of the project site provide a visual and physical buffer between the project site and adjacent residential development. The significant ridgeline on the southern portion of the project site provides a visual and physical buffer between La Salle Canyon and the project site. This major feature must be utilized as open space to preserve the rural character of -5- this planning area, and to provide residential areas and undeveloped the available existing open space viable natural ecosystems. Open Space Element policies: a transition between the existing open space areas. Preservation of would also help maintain existing 1.1 "Utilize major environmental features (significant landforms, significant ridgelines, significant vegetation, ecologically significant areas, other natural resources) as openspace within the planning area." The project as designed, does not incorporate the natural features available at the site into the proposed development. The proposed internal access roads do not follow any natural contour line of the existing hillside. The proposed roads, driveways, and building pads are located in such a way;that bench cuts into the hillsides would be needed to implement this development. This would require the manufacturing of artificial slopes which do not conform to the size, shape, and continuity of the site topography. Lots and roads on the periphery of the development encroach upon significant ridgelines, and would require. profile modification of these significant ridgelines in order to allow the proposed residential development.. The project design does not preserve these feature or utilize hillsides or ridgelines as physical or aesthetic amenities of thist project. 1.5 "Investigate, develop and prepare a long-term plan to consolidate and acquire open space using one or more of the following options to maintain viable natural ecosystems in conjunction with the orderly development of the planning area: open space easements; dedication of development rights; joint powers authority; open space district; City ownership and management by the Parks and Recreation Department; Homeowners Associations; and/or Landscape Maintenance Districts." The open space areas -designed into this project provide buffer areas between the residential lots within the project development, along an identified earthquake fault zone, and between the residential area and the unstable hillside along the southern portion of the project site. These open spaces would be graded areas used to control on-site drainage, and would not preserve or maintain the viability of existing oak woodland habitat or related ecosystems. 1.10 "Establish and implement landform grading standards which minimize the impact of grading operations and foster replication of naturally recurring landforms." The applicant's proposed grading concept does not provide any continuity to the existing topography at the project site. The project grading plan indicates that 1,020,000 cubic yards' of earth shall be moved. As shown on the grading plan, the finished grading would result in abrupt, truncated and obtrusive artificial landforms disrupting the existing topography at the project site. Landform' grading and avoidance of the significant ridgeline should be incorporated into the project design to soften these impacts. 2.1 "Adopt a ridgeline preservation ordinance that identifies prominent primary and secondary ridgelines, which shall be preserved as open space and which should not be modified, incorporating sensitive slope and grading regulations to interface with such primary and secondary ridgelines, including identification and standards. for other significant physiographic features." This proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with the City's draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. This ordinance will implement the General Plan goals and policies regarding ridgeline and hillside. development. To achieve this, density reductions are recommended for development on hillsides with average slopes ranging from 1OZ to 49Z, precluding any development upon slopes of 5OZ or greater. The average slope of the project site is 39.5X, and approximately 39 acres is occupied by slopes exceeding 50Z. The strict application of this.draft ordinance indicates that this property could only be developed with a maximum of 13 dwelling units. The project design would- require ridgelines modification to accommodate several of the proposed lots and streets ontheperiphery of the development. As designed, this project doest not comply with the recommended density reductions of the City's draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. 2.2 "Establish and require a slope rating system (steep, moderate, low) to identify development suitability and to establish guidelines for grading and development practices." The- grading required to accommodate the proposed nine residential lots, driveways, and site access, is not consistent with the General Plan policies regarding preservation of significant ridgelines, natural landforms, or significant vegetation. Even without a defined slope rating system, this project has not been designed with sensitivity to the existing natural landforms or oak trees at the project site, due to the volume and design of the grading proposed for the project. 2.4 "Protect and provide for scenic vista points, where consistent with other policies of this plan, for protection of ridgelines and sensitive development techniques." This proposal includes development upon significant ridgelines. Protection to these significant ridgelines are not being provided due to the size, shape, and location .of roads, driveways, and building pads. , Landform grading has been identified as a sensitive, development technique, but has not been incorporated into the design of this project. -7- circulation Element Issue Statement (page C-30, City of Santa Clarita General Plan): "Make sure that the pace of development matches the pace of required roadway infrastructure improvements." The applicant is proposing. to have access to the project site directly from Cross Street which currently does not meet the Subdivision Code design standards (specified in Chapter 21.24 -- LOCAL STREETS AND WAYS). This existing road has a width of 40 feet and would need to be widened to 60 feet. Such widening would impact existing residences and oak trees existing along Cross Street. Currently, adequate access is not available to the project site. The project site shares a single means of access with approximately 161 other existing lots in the immediate vicinity (from the intersection of Maple and Cross Street south to the terminus of Wildwood Canyon Road). Subdivision Code Section 21.24.020 requires that if a street or street system is restricted to a single means of access, then the street or street system shall not serve more than 150 dwelling units. Therefore, the street system serving the project is currently over capacity. Circulation Element Policies: 2.6 Require right-of-way dedication and/or construction of_ appropriate facilities in support of a public transportation system in new and redeveloped projects. "In the event that( adequate access and circulation cannot be provided or properly mitigated- due to constraints, impediments or timing delays, proposed development as designated in this Plan may need to be correspondingly impeded, delayed, or modified." (Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element, page C-2). The applicant has not acquired an adequate primary access, nor provided evidence to assure that adequate accesses will, be available to serve the project site. Furthermore, this project would require a secondary access which has not been demonstrated. Therefore the access to this property is such that development of new residential lots is inappropriate at the present time. C. This proposal is defined as a "project" according to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) As such, staff prepared an Initial Environmental Assessment to determine the potential environmental impacts associated with this project. d. This project will have a significant effect on the environment, due to drainage pattern disruption, oak tree encroachment and removal, grading upon hillsides and ridgelines, and inadequate access. e. Implementation of this proposal will cause adverse effects on the environment which cannot be adequately mitigated through the application of available controls. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will cause substantial environmental damage and substantial and avoidable injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat, due to substantial loss of oak woodland habitat and erosion associated with proposed grading. U f. The design of the subdivision does not provide for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities given the size, shape, and topography of the lots and their intended use. h. This project as designed would adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the surrounding area; be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the subject property; jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare because this project does not conform to the development standards of the subdivision and zoning ordinance, is incompatible with the surrounding land uses, has no viable primary and -secondary access available, does not preserve oak trees, hillsides, or ridgelines, and is inconsistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City General Plan. SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission hereby determines as follows: a. The design of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City General Plan and does not comply with the draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. The density exceeds. that allowed per the General Plan Land Use designations applicable to the project site. Adequate primary and secondary access does nott exist and has not been obtained. Project grading of 1,020,00 Cubic yards of earth is not sensitive to the hillsides, significant ridgelines, drainage patterns, and other natural landforms present at the site. A -significant number of the 550 oak trees present would be severely impacted by soil and drainage disruptions; the applicant has not indicated how many oak trees would be removed to implement this project. b. The site is not physically suitable for the type and density of development due to the rugged terrain. The average slope of the project site is 39.51. The draft Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance specifies dwelling density reductions for slopes equal to or greater than 101; dwelling densities are reduced to zero for slopes at or greater than 501, and development on significant ridgelines is prohibited. For this project, approximately 39 acres is occupied by slopes of 501 or greater and significant ridgelines, and must be preserved as open space. Eliminating this area will leave 63 acres (102 acres minus 39 acres) available for residential development. The density reduction required for the average slope of 39.51 for this project is as follows: 0.5 dwelling units per acre for the "Residential Low" land use designation; 0.2 dwelling units per acre for the "Residential Very Low" land use designation; 0.05 dwelling units per acre for the "Residential Estate" land use designation. Per these reduced densities, the maximum residential development for this property is as follows: 2 acres at 0.5 units per acre, plus 50 acres at 0.20 units per acre, plus 50 acres at 0.05 units per acre, equals 13.5 total units. -9- c. That the design of the proposed project is likely to cause substantial environmental damage, and substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat due to the excessive grading, and resulting erosion and surface runoff. d. That the design of the project is likely to cause serious public health problems due toan increased demand on the local water system, and potential disruption to slope stability and geological safety. e. Adverse environmental impacts associated with this proposed project are expected due to the increase in overall dwelling density for the area, and due to project grading. Anticipated impacts include: Increased erosion; alteration of the existing natural drainage pattern; abrupt cuts and fills disrupting the natural topography; adverse aesthetic impacts; oak tree removal. f. Adequate access has not been established or assured for this project. THEREFORE, THE. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. does resolve as follows: The Planning Commission hereby denies Master Case No. 90-102 (Zone Change 90-006; Tentative Tract Map 47691; Conditional Use Permit 90-012; Oak tree Permit 90-027) for a rezoning to allow the subdivision of the subjectr property into 114 new lots for planned residential development with grading of 1,020,000 cubic yards of earth, and encroachment or removal of 550 oak trees at the 102 +/- acre property located fronting on the south side of Cross Street at the intersection of Vildwood=Road, and identified by Assessor's Parcel Numbers 2827-026-11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, and 2827-016-21, 22, 23, 24. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ATTESTS Lynn M. Harris' Director of Community Development 5th day/of Noveq;b, 1991. Jerry D. Cherrington, Chairman Planning Commission -10- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA) 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 5th day of November, 1991 .by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Cherrington, Doughman, Modugno, Brathwaite, Woodrow NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: D nna M. Grindey City Clerk JC/424 -11- r CITY OF SANTA.CLARITA STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract Map 47691; Zone Change 90-006; Conditional Use Permit 90-012; Oak Tree Permit 90-023 DATE: October 15, 1991 TO: Chairman Cherrington and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development APPLICANT: Hemsminack Development Company. CASE PLANNER: Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner II LOCATION: The project site is approximately 102 acres fronting on theme south side of Cross Street at the intersection of Wildvood Road.' [ REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract map, a zone change, a conditional use permit, and an oak tree permit, to allow single family residential hillside development and 1,020,000 cubic yards of grading for_114 single.family lots. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The. applicant is proposing the development of this vacant property to create 114 single family lots with open space areas, private roads, driveways, and building pads. The site consists of undulating hills and rugged mountain terrain,.approximately 550 mature oak trees, and unimproved dirt roads. BACKGROUND: The project site is currently vacant and has been used as a`livestock ranch in the past. Existing access to the site consists of a gated dirt road which intersects with Cross Street. This application was submitted to the City on May 7. 1990. A Development Review Committee meeting was held with the applicant's engineer on.June 14, 1990 where City staff presented.the comments and recommendations resulting from the initial review of this application. Several items were outstanding at that time. The applicant's engineer subsequently requested a suspension of processing in order to provide the City with the information needed to complete the review of the application. Agep.'a 1',,,~. Zone Change 90-006, et.al. Page 2 of 5 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION; ZONING; LAND.USE: The City of Santa Clarita General Plan, Zoning, and existing land use of the project site and adjacent properties: City Zone General Plan Project RL (2 acres), A-1-7500 (12 ac.) RVL (50 ac.); A-2-1 (90 ac.) RE (50 ac.) North RS A-1-7500 South RE A-2-1 East RE, RVL A-1-7500; A-2-1 West RVL, RL, RS RPD 1.0-4.15U Existing Land Use Vacant; open space Single family residential Single family residential; - vacant; open space Single family residential -,t vacant; open space Single family residential; open space KEY: A-1-7500 Light Agricultural, 7500 square feet minimum A-2-1 Heavy Agricultural, one acre minimum RE Residential Estate, 0.0-0.5 units per acre RVL Residential Very Low, 0.5-1.0 unit per acre RL Residential Low, 1.1-3.3 units per acre RS Residential Suburban, 3.4-6.6 units per acre RPD 1.0-4.15U Residential Planned Development. 1.0-4.15 units per acre ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The environmental evaluation of this project included an Initial Study of Environmental Effect, which indicated that additional information and project revisions are needed from the applicant to adequately address the environmental impacts associated with this project. Staff is concerned that the project could have an adverse environmental impact, and may be found to be inconsistent with the City's General Plan and the Subdivision Map Act. Should the Commission desire to approve the project, staff would return with conditions of approval, including measures to mitigate the environmental impacts. Zone Change 90-006, et.al. Page 3 of 5 INTERDEPARTMENT/INTERAGENCY REVIEW: Comments and recommendations were requested- from departments and agencies which would be affected by this project. Comments received were considered by the Community Development Department as part of the project review. These comments indicated that significant adverse impacts were anticipated concerning access, traffic, school facilities, and oak trees. ANALYSIS: The General Plan designation for this site is divided between three residential designations. Along Cross Street there. is a small area of approximately 2 acres designated as RL (Residential Low, 1.1-3.3 dwelling units per acre). The northern half of the site is RVL (Residential Very Low, 0.5-1.0 dwelling units per acre), and the southern half of the site is RE (Residential Estate, 0.0-0.5 dwelling units per acre). The proposed zone change from Meavy and Light Agricultural to RPD 7,500 (Residential Planned Development 7,500 square foot minimum lot size), may be. found to be inconsistent with the City's General Plan. The proposed density (at 1.2 dwelling units per acre) exceeds the developable density as calculated( from the Land Use Map of the General Plan. Without considering any density reduction for hillsides, 79 single-family lots is the maximum number which could be considered for this property. Subtracting the 10 acres of SOX or greater slope, 70 lots would be the maximum density for this .property. It should be noted that the average slope of the project site is 39.5X. Although only 10 acres are greater than SOX in slope, 49 acres are greater than 251 but less than SOX slope. Most of the property is rather steep. The ridgelines along the western and southern and eastern property lines are shown as significant ridgelines on the preliminary draft City Ridgeline Map. Significant ridgelines are primarily those that are silhouetted by the open sky from behind when viewed from key vantage points, such as nearby roads. Any structures placed upon them would become part of the silhouette, thereby disrupting the continuity of the natural ridgeline. If the ridgeline slopes and .the areas greater than SOX were to be left untouched, approximately 40 acres of land would be affected. The proposed project is characterized mainly by steep terrain. The Land Use Element of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan specifies land use designations and development standards. According to the Plan, ft -lower densities and intensities will be appropriate and should be anticipated when constraints to development are present on property proposed for development. Such constraints may include the topographical relief and slope, presence of seismic or flood hazards, impact to a significant ecological area, presence of oak trees or other valuable biotic resources, significant ridgelines, need for fire protective greenbelts, erosion and landslide -protection, as well as constraints upon the infrastructure system, especially roads, and the 3 Zone Change 90-006, et.al. Page 4.of 5 - uncertainty of future water availability." Given these guidelines, the appropriate density for the subject property is probably closer to the low end of the xange than the maximum allowable under our normal calculations. Although the applicant has attempted to design around some of these constraints, staff feels the tentative tract map before the Commission does not fully meet the intent of the City's General Plan in the area of hillside preservation. The applicant has indicated that 1,020,000 cubic yards of grading is required to .construct on-site roads, driveways, building pads and proposed structures. Project grading impacts are anticipated due to the volume of earth proposed to be moved on the steep slopes of the site. The proposed grading plan indicates that roads and building pads would be created by terracing the earth into several levels over the majority of the site. All earth work quantities would be balanced on site. A detailed geological report would be required at the time of grading plan check to determine any necessary geologic mitigation measures. The final drainage plan would also be reviewed at the grading plan check stage. The cuts and fills. are abrupt and not congruous with the existing landform. - Staff feels that the project as designed would adversely impact the visual 'quality of the hillside by substantially altering natural landforms andt vegetation.. The most extreme impacts would occur on the steeper slopes. The City's: Oak Tree Consultant has determined that additional information should be submitted. in order to complete her review of the project. Due to the site's topography and proposed project grading, encroachment and removal of several oak trees would occur. The additional oak tree information needed includes the size and location of each tree in relation to cut and fill areas, encroachments and removals, and building pad locations. Access The project site shares a single means of access with approximately 161 other existing lots in the immediate vicinity (from the intersection of Maple and Crass Street south to the terminus of Wildwood Canyon Road). Subdivision Code Section 21.24:020 requires that if a street or street system is restricted to a single means of access, then the street or street system shall not serve more than 150 dwelling units. Therefore, the. street system serving the project is currently over capacity. Proposed project site access is taken directly from Cross Street which currently does not meet the Subdivision Code design standards (specified in Chapter 21.24 -- LOCAL STREETS AND WAYS). This existing road has a width of 40 feet and would need to be widened to 60 feet. Such widening would impact existing residences and oak trees existing along Cross Street. The applicant has not acquired an adequate primary access, nor, provided evidence to assure that adequate accesses will be available to serve the project site. Furthermore, this project would require a .secondary access which has not been demonstrated. Therefore the access to this property is such that development of new residential lots is inappropriate at the present time. :J Zone Change 90-006, et.al. Page 5 of 5 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the applicant's request for a Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, and an Oak Tree Permit. JC:289 r 0 VICINITY MAP MC 90-102 .RADIUS MAP MC 90-102 )EVELCPERS =K DEVELOPMENT CO. DIVISION ST. I h R CA. 93534 l 3-2664 /ELOPMENT CCRP. ' LANCASTER BLVD. R, CA. 93535 3-5499 /ELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. ST 163rd STREET CA. 90650 a u 0-2311 x, :SCRIPTIC N: r , A PORTION OF 57 l 1. 2703, MB 28 26 3TATE OF CALI RNIA 3 MORE OR LE y � I c2/ i rl V KrT A C H EHNA 1 I V E L O P 1�Y1� N T u o s EXISTING 8' SEWER�a SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING 40' R -❑-W SANTA CLARITA, CA. NOTE: 69EASEMENTS IN CROSS STREET 7H A S K E L L VISTA LIN rr�" \'� , 1� Q0= EDISBOOK 49042, PAGE 3. 9 4212 23 55 r,A \s E X I S F I N G 4 0' -❑- W EDIS❑N - 10' INST. NO, 2595 1-20-76 CROSS S T R T ; GAS CO. - 10' INST. NO, 1615 12-23-49 LA CO, SAN, SEWER INST. NO. 2155 2 ° ��F BOOK D6340, PAGE 777 N53°-13'-00" 4 00' 21AC. \ PROPOSED TRACT ��1190°,��0�� EXISTIN STRIP ❑F .�` 13 �A�c`' UNIMPR❑ D & UNDEDICATED `' N❑ 50045�� 0 4r- c�° �� 8 O° `��6 LAND USED A CROSS STREET � f��IMINARYGRADING f�� q oR R7AC. / ,,.� �� 10 �O- Apy 7 EXISTING 40' R -❑-W �s h I ° h° ,' , r.�y �' ��• �Z' 15 +" ./ + 2'ACF d�- o WILDW❑❑D CANYON ROAD CONTF]URSI., III\\. 7 I y �`°'\°9. �" 1�J0' wo® /. �' ,R�tl o ,2 + c+O- ,h 22A � VICINITY MAP °h .q 04. bp S ti 9 , / \ / mss. \ °o \ o ,w 1 5 C. ❑NS AVE _ _ _ __ o° ° . _ _ _ a ;__b , �h. °o s - - r , `= `e - - as j /V ,y �t 0 J Q S 9N Q 1P°/ o° \ °4 \ o�►�h,�i ; ° ,° 9 r �° S45° -01'-00"w 10 0 0 + 2oac, , , CA , ° 1 1 +" h+"0o ° ` /''Awl°O w 1 .24 c o' ' 1 " 004° �\ A c. °" o° 4 0.4 1 ' LGR�.9"y° ''/ h 2 b30 °�� ° �J�v� VE \, + + , q 1 X50 o p + \ Q h + i + ° 1352 C. ,"� ° ^. 1 + ,oo°° I} �7 mow° `� 37 Jr , I ° S,lN' Z S ❑C A L E w0 ° /° b�13 , .21 A SCO 0 1 2 3 % 41 116 }l� +,�P° ✓�'° C'0< Rq�C 1000' oo /+ 9pbo°O i' jd� 28HC 0 + + 06 � 23 .28AC. o°� U W v 5 +,ham Q 4 0 �/1 s> S 2 N❑RTH r' 1 .r „f. oz arE wb 25 o 3AC o .h Q scale 1"=100' cla"te: May, 1990 OCDb ol + 2lfl h4°� 5A o LEGAL DESCRIPTION: , b CD 25 37 z1°° o LOT 41 & A PROTI❑N OF LOT 57, OPEN S 6 28AC + ~' i- + 0 0 2 c,,w° + " �N h° co w + ;'o TRACT NO, 2703, MB 28-20-26, °o o° + 00.- \�� r cU L,A, COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ,a O .32A ., o y oo " Q w1y. \�P °°o w�h°° o CD 05O nj CONTAINING 102 ACRES MORE OR LESS. CD CDr4, ,27AC, b- 8 + sar'-,, Cu 29° + ,w�f"A •'h° ° OWNER- DEVELOPER: TYPICAL LOCAL STREET ,ham ,24AC. c°� X q°°8 o' +,�°' ° + wh°"h� �. i r I-1 c c , r- I T T > 0 0 ° �4�°o h°o ❑ N ,� 25AC. , �� ° ° , HEMSMINACK DEVELOPMENT CO, �T 1� o'+ 45730 NORTH DIVISION ST, S w { /++� ° ` b °�°h9° LANCASTER; CA, 93534 z �Th wh ,L 32�A .* 1-805-948-2664 + � ` ' .31A 90 ' 1 1 12' cz R 15 L LJ �O + 200 2' S o I �81Ac. ° N `s14 9 ,28A + 51 28AC. ° F„ + r�6 5 \ LID =R 410 6 C ' + -,28AC. Io p F 6 4 ° °37 28AC. i 5; 1.31 + I ; h°° p1°°° 5 3 q�o�0' + o0o i ' q + 17 AC. 0 i PIC o I cu + \ ".28AC.+ *� - • + .1 \ s -AC, 54 . F'Ij -1,&, �.� ° ad w1 $ ° °-'.28AC. w 6 $� 6 D \ g j 400' I h`` `h `w1h°+ , Q Q' + Q' + .17AC. p 17 A \ + NC ; + + ° °° 6 0 6 r° % + � 0 � t .y 9390 + qo � .17AC. ,. X68 .17 ApC, CD �� . °"� o� o P° +c�o�' p' + 17AC 10 '� t qh. 58 6 ° + ��78 CD I bol , `�,h' �. h�°:--`' •i l °° + r .17 A 1° 17A .�� -� li O r 17 A C� 6,'W_A`T.ER TYP.� -„ - - " y 13 7 ro 1 7 to .24.4C. er .17 A oO L(7 ' + 1 ,w0 �O - o f 72 Q ; .�w° • ' 17 A hyhoo KINKI DEVELOPMENT CORP, 5011 655 3/4 LANCASTER BLVD, 'hho� LANCASTER, CA. 93535 1-805-273-5499 h"ho0 OSCA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC, _ hob°o° 11829 EAST -163rd STREET NORWALK, CA, 90650 1-213-926-2311 ° hbh° `� 7 N h hbh\ 368t h `c5! 19 J,O- S0- Z❑KING AND LANDUSE: ISTING--_LA.NDUSE._. - .-V.A.0ANT - EXISTING ZONING - A-2-1(90 AC.) A-1-7500 (12 AC.) PROPOSED LANDUSE - SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENCES. PROPOSED ZONING - R -P -D -7500-1,2U UTSIDE CONSULTANTS: HE GEOLOGIST IS ALLAN E, SEWARD 24523 CHESTNUT ST, NEWHALL, CA, 91321 ERIAL MAPPING: PICTORIAL SCIENCES INC, 1097 WEST BASE LINE SAN BERNARDINO)' CA, 92411 PREPARED MAY, 1989 IAK TREE REPORT: LEE NEWMAN & ASSOC,, INC. 31320 VIA C❑LINAS, SUITE 108 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA, 91362 ENGINEER: M, L, MAXWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC, 9654 LA COLINA DR, ALTA L❑MA, CA, 91701 1-714-987-8347 REVISED JUNE 12.1991 REVISED SEP T.1 1990 HE NACK DEVELOPMENT CO. EXISTING 8' SEWER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 769 EXISTING 40' R -❑-w �� SANTA CLARITA, CA. NOTE: A H A S K E VISTA L N a• rc�_ '`, EASEMENTS IN CR❑SS STREET EDIS❑N - 6' INST. N❑. 4212 \� `�SOO ACE 319, 9-23-55 EXISTING 40' —❑-W EDIIS❑N —BOOK O'INST• NO. 2595 1-20-76 CRESS STRE 1_ GAS CO. — 10' INST. NO. 1615 12-23-49 ` LA CO. SAN. SEWER INST. NO. 2155 BOOK D6340, PAGE 777 N530-13'-00" 4 00' CXISTINE (UPHUR PHY PROPOSED .f1\ACT ��' °/ >;>, ��A EXISTIN STRIP E 0 1 UNIMPR❑ D & UNDEDICATED NO. SOO45�, �� AC. g r�o- `�0.LAND USED A CRESS STREET 501 .27 571 EXISTING 40' R -❑-W \� i''`��' 2, % ` • `��'- o WILDW❑❑D CANYON ROAD S' C[INT[IURS ' VICINITY MAP L Al I CALGR r' O �vE . � r SqN NORTH SCALE C NCISCO R , 0 C< jjC� �NCyO . 1000' �J� S TYPICAL LOCAL STREET CRESS SECTI❑N ALL STREETS s� z z �� ) J 60' R -❑-W J 30/ 3 0' > 12 1 18' 18' 12' o W W O CL 0 21 2, 0 24,E CL A.C. PAVEMENT , 8' P•C•C• CURB & GUTTER 0 4' P,C•C• SIDEWALK W I, E 0 0 0 z �b' W 6 I T RIM D ED READ 40.41/ r► r!,`` i . offil All MEW moi■ u�`...s ��j'��; ��J!■�.•�� . � r'�,� � ,fir �� , s NORTH1 date: May, 1990 0 'cl- I •- i'il+li�t1��'�r NO � o .455AC• c 40, I 4- o LEGAL DESCRIPTION: o LOT 41 & A PR❑TI❑N OF LOT 57, i TRACT NO, 2703, MB 28-20-26, of nv L,A, COUNTY, CALIFORNIA nv in CONTAINING 102 ACRES MORE OR LESS. OWNER -DEVELOPER: HEMSMINACK DEVELOPMENT CO, g 45730 NORTH DIVISION ST, LANCASTER, CA, 93534 1-805--948--2664 KINKI DEVELOPMENT CORP, 655 3/4 LANCASTER BLVD, LANCASTER, CA, 93535 1-805-273-5499 0 / _ ❑SCA_DE\/_EL❑P.MENT_ COMPANY, INC, r 11829 EAST 163rd STREET Y _ NORWALK, CA. 90650 r 1-213-926-2311 O O ZONING AND LANDUSE: —EXISTING LANDUSE--__ VACANT - EXISTING ZONING — A-2-1(90 AC.) A-1-7500 (12 AC.) PROPOSED LANDUSE -- SINCA._E FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENCES PROPOSED ZONING — R—P—D-7500-1,2U OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS: THE GEOLOGIST IS ALLAN E, SEWARD 24523 CHESTNUT ST, NEWHALL, CA, 91321 AERIAL MAPPING: PICTORIAL . SCIENCES INC, 1097 WEST BASE LINE SAN BERNARDINO) CA, 92411 PREPARED MAY, 1989 OAK TREE REPORT; LEE NEWMAN & ASSOC., INC, 31320 VIA COLINAS, SUITE 108 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA, 91362 ENGINEER: M. L, MAXWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC, 9654 LA C❑LINA DR, ALTA LOMA, CA, 91701 1-714-987-8347 REVISED JUNE I1991 REVISED SEPT. 11 1990