HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-02-23 - AGENDA REPORTS - DENIAL OF MC 90 173 (2)PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
February 23, 1993
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager
Item to be presented by:
Lynn M. Harris
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Master Case 90.173 (Tentative
Tract Map 49756 and Oak Tree Permit 90-037) to allow for the subdividing of
three existing lots Into five single family residential lots for the properties
located at 26862, 26864 and 26866 Sand Canyon Road. Applicant: Mr. Steve
Parks, Mr. Roy Swank and Mr. Monty Fu
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
On November 10, 1992, the City Council heard this Item and continued to It to a date uncertain. The
Council directed the applicants to resolve drainage and safety issues associated with the project
and that the re -designed project be returned to the Planning Commission for their review and
comment prior to being heard again by the Council.
On September 15, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P92-34 denying Master Case
90-173. The project proposed a zone change from A-1-2 (Light Agriculture - two acre minimum lot
size) to A-1-1 (Light Agriculture - one acre minimum lot size) to allow for the subdividing of three
existing lots into five or six single family residential lots. Reasons for denial Included project
drainage, failure of the project to meet requirements for street frontage on each lot, and safety
Issues associated with the existing private driveway accessing the project. Prior to the Council
meeting of November 10, 1992, the applicants revised the project requesting that only five lots be
considered. This five lot project proposes to split both existing lots 1 and 2 with lot 3 -remaining
Intact. The project no longer requires a zone change due to the City's adoption of the Unified
Development Code (changing the zoning of the property to Residential Very Low, one dwelling unit
per gross acre).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The project was heard by the Planning Commission on January 5, 1993. Prior to this hearing, the
applicants submitted information attempting to resolve the Issues Identified by the Council. This
information included a storm water containment plan and a driveway design plan. Below staff will
summarize the proposed plans and Planning Commission comments. They are as follows:
The storm water containment system, which proposes the construction of catch and containment
basins on lots 2 and 4, would eliminate the Incremental Increase in storm water caused by the
addition of two single family residences. However, this system would only slightly Improve the
area's existing drainage situation. (The Commission did indicate that this proposal Is beneficial,
as it eliminates the Increase In storm water caused by the additional two residences, but that It
does not satisfy the Council's request to resolve the immediate area's existing drainage problem.) .
APPROVED Agenda Item:
• The driveway design plan shows three driveway schemes with each scheme showing a driveway
width of 26', but at different grades. The existing Improved driveway width varies between 15
and 20 feet and has a maximum grade of 20% (the driveway area with the 20% slope Is located
westerly of lot 1, within the flag strip accessing the development). Scheme 1 proposes to reduce
the existing driveway grade from 20% to 17%. This scheme requires the construction of a
retaining wall, with a maximum height of 10', along both sides of the driveway. Scheme 2
proposes to reduce the driveway grade from 20% to 15%. This scheme requires the construction
of a retaining wall, with a maximum height of 15', along both sides of the driveway. The final
scheme proposes to only widen the driveway to 26' In width, which requires a three foot
retaining wall on the south side of the driveway. The applicants believe that the widening of the
driveway to 26' to accommodate two-way traffic will eliminate the safety concerns associated
with the driveway. The Commission, within Resolution P92-24, Indicated that the existing
driveway grade is a safety concern. The Commission also Indicated that the other two schemes,
while proposing to reduce the driveway grade, create a new safety hazard due to the height of
the walls. Additionally, the Commission pointed out that the walls would create aesthetic
Impacts. The Commission concluded that the trade offs were not beneficial with any of the
attempts to make the access less substandard.
As a result of the Commission's comments related to drainage, the applicants' engineer has
submitted a conceptual off-site drainage plan. This plan is In addition to the two plans reviewed
by the Planning Commission. This plan proposes a system that would carry a portion of storm
water runoff from the project site across an adjacent property to the south with an outlet on the
north side of Cachuma Lane. Staff has reviewed this plan and foresees the following problems with
the system:
• The system would be a continuing maintenance Issue, specifically related to who would assume
maintenance responsibility of the system.
• The system will not resolve the area's existing drainage problems as it only carries the storm
water runoff further south to an undefined drainage course. Properties south of Cachuma Lane
would not benefit from such a system.
It is staff's opinion that this system does not satisfy the Council's request of resolving the area's
existing drainage problems. This would not be grounds for denial of the subdivision since the
California Subdivision Map Act does not require resolution of existing adjacent problems by a
subdivider. The drainage solution was viewed by staff and Commissioners as a potential benefit
to the neighborhood which might have been used to offset the substandard aspect of this
application in regards to the access.
OPTIONS
The City Council may: 1) Uphold the Planning Commission's decision, denying Master Case 90-173;
or 2) Approve Master Case 90.173, directing staff to prepare conditions and a resolution of approval
for the Council's consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: 1) Deny Master Case 90-173
(Tentative Tract Map 49756 and Oak Tree Permit 90-037); and, 2) Direct staff to prepare a resolution
of denial for the Council's consideration at the March 9, 1993 meeting.
coundha9o•171gea
?U3L:" EAR.'IC ?ROCK:U?L:
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)
a. 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
APPEALING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL
OF MASTER CASE 90-173 - ZONE CHANGE 90-011,
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 49756, AND OAK TREE PERMIT 90-037
THE APPELLANTS ARE MR. AND MRS. SWANK.
MR. AND MRS. FU, AND MR. AND MRS. PARKS
LOCATION: 26862, 26864, 26866 SAND CANYON ROAD
IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
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 appellants: Mr. and Mrs. Swank,. Mr. and
Mrs. Fu, and Mr. and Mrs. Parks, regarding the Planning Commission's denial of
Master Case 90-173-- Zone Change 90-011 - Tentative Tract Map 49756, and Oak
Tree Permit 90-037. The appellants are proposing to subdivide a gross total
of 7.11 acres into five single family residential lots. Three existing single
family residences are located on the project site. The project site contains
11 oak trees, none of which are proposed to be removed. The location of this
project is 26862, 26864, 26866 Sand Canyon Road, in the City of Santa Clarita,
California. The item was .formally denied by the Planning Commission at the
September 15, 1992, meeting and subsequentlyappealed to the City Council by
the applicants. The Council heard the item on November 10, 1992, directing
the applicants to resolve drainage and safety issues associated with the
project and that the project be returned to the Planning Commission for their
review and comment prior to being heard again by the City Council. The item
was heard by the Planning Commission on January 5, 1993.
The hearing will be held by the City Council in the -City Hall Council
Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 23rd day of
February, 1993, 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: January 26, 1993
Donna M. Grindey, CMC
City Clerk
Publish Date: February 1, 1993
MINUTES OF
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Tuesday
January 5, 1993
7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita was called to order by
Chairman Woodrow at 7:00 p.m. In the Council Chambers at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor,
Santa Clartta, California.
TRANSFER OF CHAIR
Chairman Woodrow handed overthe chairmanship of the meeting to Vice -Chairman Doughman due
to a problem with his voice.
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Cherrington led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
ROLL CALL
The secretary called the roll. Those present were Chairman Woodrow, Vice-Chalrman Doughman
and Commissioners Brathwafte, Charrington, and Modugno (who arrived at 7:03 p.m.). Also present
were Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development; Richard Henderson, City Planner; Tim
McOsker, Assistant City Attorney; Brad Therrien, Supervising Civil Engineer; Glenn Ademick,
Assistant Planner; and Lucy Lancaster, Commission Secretary.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM 7: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 49756, ZONE CHANGE 90-011, OAK TREE PERMIT 90-037
(MASTER CASE NO. 90.173) - Located at 26868, 26864 and 26666 Sand Canyon Road
Mr. Henderson reported on this request to subdivide three existing lots Into five single-family
residential lots. This hem wad denied by the Commission at the September 15,1992 meeting, and
subsequently appealed to the City Council by the applicant. The City Council heard the Item on
November 10, 1992, and directed the applicant to resolve drainage and access safety Issues
associated with the project and that the revised project be returned to the Commission for their
review and comment. Assistant Planner Glenn Adamitic presented the slides and staff report.
Commissioner Brathwa@e reminded the Commission that when the project was brought before the
Commission originally, the adjacent residents were opposed to Improvement on their properties.
Chairman Woodrow inquired about the potentiality of Incremental rain Increase to the adjacent
properties due to the subdivision. Mr. Brad Therrien, the City's Supervising Civil Engineer, stated_
that the present leach fields would accommodate the Incremental rain runoff.
Acting Chairman Doughman opened the public hearing at 6:32 p.m.:
Mr. Don Halo, Hale and Associates, 23922 Avenida Crescenta, Sams Clarita, CA. Mr. Hale spoke
as engineer for the project and stated that It Is unrealistic for time City to believe that the applicant
should bare the full responsibility for mitigating water runoff simply because he owns property on
a hili.
Mr. Stave Parks, applicant, 26884 Sand Canyon Road, Same Clarita, CA. Mr. Parks stated that he
looks forward to reaching an agreement with the Planning Commission this evening so that the
project can move forward.
Ms. Diane Wilson, 26826 Sand Canyon Road, Santa Clarlte, CA. Ms. Wilson, speaking In opposition
to the project, expressed her concerns of maintaining the rural standards of the Sand Canyon area,
as well as concerns with the drainage and street Improvements.
Ms. Marilyn Keehn, 26800 Sand Canyon Road, Santa Clartta, CA. Ms. Keehn, speaking In opposition
to the project, supports the sentiments of the previous speaker, and Is also concerned with the
drainage In particular as it Is her property the water flows directly onto.
Mr. Don Hale gave a rebuttal to the concams raised.
Acting Chairman Doughman closed the public hearing at 8:51 p.m..
Commissioner Brathwalto asked gtwstions regarding the applicant's willingness to meet with the
nearby residents, and questions relating to drainage and leach field capacities. Chairman Woodrow
asked whether an applicant Is responsible for fbdng previously existing problems. Mr. Henderson
stated that the mitigation of preexisting problems are not always made a part of subdivision
requirements. Commisalorm Modugno made comments on the driveway safety Issue and the flag
lots. Commissioner Charrington commented that the engineer's testimony relating to the mitigation
of the incremental rain runoff Is satisfactory to him. Commissloner Charrington added that the
roadway Issue is safety versus aesthetica, and that the solution which provides for retaining walls
creates a safety factor. The Planning Commisslon asked that staff report to the City Council that
the positive does not outweigh the negative in the tradeoff. The Planning Commission concurred
with Commissioner Cherrington's summarisation, and Included that they feel that this project
should not be held responsible for correcting the pre-existing problem of water runoff.
PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR
There was no one wishing to address the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:55 P.M. Commissioner Brathwahe motioned, Commissioner Modugno seconded, and It was
carried by a vote of 5-0, to adjourn the meeting to January 19, 1993.
Jack W row, Chairman
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
y? helix %�l. 9dCZ•�n�iy
LyAh M. Harris, Deputy City Manager
Community Development
PhVc6mVWn1.5.5
6
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CASE PLANNER:
APPLICANTS:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
BACKGROUND:
City of Santa Clarita
Staff Report
Master Case No. 90-173
Tentative Tract Map 49756
Zone Change 90-011
Oak Tree Permit 90-037
January 5, 1993
Chairlm dr�o�w�a�n_d_Members of the Planning Commission
Lynn
�;�o
,fyL nn IN: hector o Community Development
Glenn Adamlck, Assistant Planner 11
Mr. Steve Parks, Mr. Roy Swank, Mr. Monty Fu
26864, 26866, 26868 Sand Canyon Road, Sand Canyon area
The applicants are proposing to subdivide a total of 7.11 acres Into five
single family residential lots. Three existing single family lots exist on the
project site.
On September 15, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P92-34 formally denying
Master Case 90-173 (Zone Change 90.011, Tentative Tract Map 49756, and Oak Tree Permit 90-037).
The project proposed a zone change from A-1-2 (Light Agriculture two acre minimum lot size) to
A-1.1 (Light Agriculture - one acre minimum lot size) to allow for the subdividing of three existing
lots Into five or six lots. Encroachment within the protected zone of oak trees was proposed due
to widening of the access driveway. Reasons for denial Included drainage Issues, failure of .the
project to meet frontage requirements, and safety Issues associated with the existing private
driveway accessing the project.
The applicants subsequently appealed the Commission's action to the City Council. The applicants,
within the appeal letter, requested that the City Council only consider a five lot project. The Council
heard the Item on November 10, 1992, directing the applicant to resolve drainage and safety Issues
associated with the project and that the re -designed project be returned to the Planning
Commission for their review and comment. At this meeting the Council stressed that resolving
drainage issues Involves both the correction of the immediate area's existing drainage problems
as well as showing that the addition of two single family homes to the project site will not
compromise the corrective measures taken to fix the existing drainage problems. The Councll also
required the applicants to submit a detailed driveway design which would resolve safety Issues
associated with the grade of the existing driveway (portions of the driveway are at or near a grade
of 20%) .
The applicants have submitted Information attempting to resolve the Issues Identified by the
Council. On December 24, 1992, the City's Unified Development Code and Zoning Map went into
effect. This action resulted in the re -zoning of the project site to Residential Very Low (RVL - one
dwelling unit per acre). The re -zoning of the project site eliminates the need for the zone change
requested by the applicants.
Agenda Items 7
I-)
ANALYSIS:
The applicants submitted both a storm water containment pian and a driveway design plan. Staff
has reviewed both plans and has the following comments:
1) The proposed storm water containment system, as designed by the applicants' engineer,
will eliminate the Incremental Increase in storm water runoff caused by the construction of
the two new single family residences. The system proposes construction of catch and.
containment basins on proposed lots 2 and 4. However, the proposed system will not
alleviate any of the current drainage concerns Identified in the immediate area. In order to
eliminate these concerns, off-site improvements would need to be constructed to define a
water course which would eliminate the existing sheet flow of water across the properties
to the south of the project site.
2) The driveway design plan shows three driveway schemes. Each scheme shows a driveway
width of 26', but at different grades. The existing improved driveway width varies between
15 and 20 feet and a has maximum grade of 20% (the driveway area with a 20% grade is
located westerly of lot 1 near Sand Canyon Road). Scheme 1 shows a reduction In the
driveway grade from 20% to 17%. This reduction would require the construction of a
retaining wall on both sides of the driveway. This wall would have a maximum height of 10'.
Scheme 2 shows a reduction In the driveway grade from 20% to 15%. This reduction
requires the construction of retaining walls with a maximum height of 15'. The final scheme
shows the driveway at its existing grade, with widening, which requires a three foot high
retaining wall adjacent to the driveway. The applicants believe that the widening of the
driveway to 26' to accommodate two-way traffic will eliminate the safety concerns
associated with the driveway and that any additional modifications are unnecessary.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Receive. the new information related to the project; and,
2) Provide comments on the project and direct staff to forward these comments to the City
Council for their consideration.
pingcom149756.gea
lei
v
ey
CyN RD.
• J
�o'0 Vp FWY.
000
pig
4
N
MANDAL"
SUBJECT =717719 RD:
i' SITE
111
3
l
i
Project Proximity Map
r1
y.
a .J
' ,1 llaa •� aaa' � O
7.
/ � . .
1-
2500,
• v sa q ,
+7a 1 / i h •
_ 1 •i.•
2Y..
t -
-b
y
� 1
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented byy� �/—
PUBLIC HEARING Lynn M. Harris�i�/� 4to�
DATE: November 10, 1992
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Master Case 90.173 (Zone
Change 90-011, Tentative Tract Map 49756, and Oak Tree Permit 90-037) to
allow for the subdividing of three existing lots Into six single family
residential lots for the properties located at 26862, 26864, 26866 Sand
Canyon Road. Applicant: Mr. Steve Parks, Mr. Roy Swank, and Mr. Monty Fu
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
On September 15, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P92-34 formally denying the
above referenced project.
The project she fronts on Sand Canyon Road and contains three existing single family residences.
The site is zoned A-1-2 (Light Agriculture • two acre minimum lot size). The applicants are
requesting to change the zone from A-1.2 to A-1-1 (Light Agriculture • one acre minimum lot size)
to allow for the subdividing of three existing lots, totaling 7.11 acres, Into six lots or five lots.
The project site Is designated RVL (Residential Very Low, one dwelling unit per acre) by the City's
General Plan. The project density Is consistent with this designation.
The three existing lots each consist of approximately 2.3 acres. The project site has approximately
30' of frontage on Sand Canyon Road. The existing parcels were subdivided as flag lots, each
having a 10' wide flag strip extending to Sand Canyon. An Ingress and egress easement was
recorded over the 30' access strip for the tots served. This access strip Is paved (a minimum of
20' In width) and has a maximum slope of 200/c. A 20% slope Is the maximum slope allowed by the
City's code for a driveway and Is considered sub -standard for a new subdivision. Approval of the
project would necessitate the waiving of normally required "street frontage" for the proposed lots.
The City's Code requires that each lot have a minimum of 50' of frontage on a street or right-of-way.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The project was heard by the Planning Commission on December 3, 1991 and September 1, 1992.
At the first hearing, the Commission continued the Item to a date uncertain, directing the applicant
to submit a five and six lot project.
The Planning Commission considered both a five and six lot project at the September 1, 1992,
meeting. Issues raised by the Planning Commission at this meeting were related to the following:
1) Project drainage - (Existing drainage patterns carry water to adjacent properties to the south.
The Commission cited concern with the project worsening drainage conditions in the area.)
S
Master Case 90.173
Page 2
2) Frontage requirements - (The Commission cited the project's failure to meet minimum street
frontage requirements, per the City's code. The use of a private driveway to access the
development would not provide the minimum 50' of street frontage required by the City's code.)
3) Safety concerns - (Existing driveway grades on the project site exceed 15% and at one point
Is 20%. The Commission Indicated that the existing private driveway, Improved to 26' In width,
accessing any additional parcels would be unsatisfactory. The existing condition creates a
safety hazard that could possibly worsen with the addition of any more single family homes.)
A total of three persons spoke In opposition to the project. Staff did receive a total of three letters
citing opposition to the project. All three letters were from an adjacent property owner.
Following the last hearing on the project, the Commission voted 3-1 to deny the project (both the
five and six lot design) due to the above identified Issues.
The applicants, within the appeal letter, are now requesting that only the five lot project be
considered by the City Council.
OPTIONS
The City Council may:
1) Uphold the Planning Commission's decision, denying the Master Case 90.173;
2) Approve Master Case 90-173, directing staff to prepare a conditions and a resolution of approval
for the Council's consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
1) Deny Master Case 90.173 (Zone Change 90-011, Tentative Tract Map 49756, and Oak Tree Permit
90-037),
2) Direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the Council's consideration at the November 24,
1992 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution P92-34
Planning Commission Staff Report
Minutes
GEA:II
coundW90-173.gea
RESOLUTION NO. P92-34
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. DENYING
MASTER CASE NUMBER 90-173, ZONE CHANGE•90-011,
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 49756, AND OAK TREE PERMIT
90-037. TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVIDING OF THREE EXISTING LOTS
INTO SIX SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR THE PROPERTIES
LOCATED AT 26862, 26864, 26866 SAND CANYON ROAD
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 Zone Change (ZC 90-011), Tentative' Tract Map
(TTM 49756), and an Oak Tree Permit (OTP 90-037) for six
single-family lots was filed with the City of Santa Clarita by Roy
and Marcia Swank, James and Nancy Denneny, and Monty and Wendy Fu
(the •applicants•) on August 9, 1990. Staff was informed by letter
on April 30, 1991, that Mr. and Mrs. Denneny were no longer
applicants, .being replaced by Mr. and Mrs. Steve Parks. The
properties for which this application has been filed are located at
26862, 26864, and 26866 Sand Canyon Road (Assessor Parcel Numbers
2841-019-051, 052, 053), legal descriptions of which are an file in
the Department of Community Development.
b. This project is a request for a zone change from A-1-2 (Light
Agriculture Zone, two acre minimum lot size) to A-1-1 (Light
Agriculture; one acre minimum lot size) to allow for the subdivision
of three existing lots, totaling 7.11 acres, into six lots containing
the following acreage: lot 1 - 1.60, lot 2 - 1.03, lot 3 - 1.09, lot
4 - 1.00, lot 5. - 1.00, and lot 6 - 1.07. The oak tree permit
request is to allow for the encroachment within the protected zone of
numerous oak trees due to the possible enlargement of an existing
driveway accessing the project.
d. The subject parcel is designated Residential Very Low (RVL, 0:50
1.00 dwelling units per acre, no midpoint density). The proposed
density for the project is approximately .86 units per acre.
e. The project site contains three existing single family -residences.
The project site is moderately sloped, but does contain hillside
areas with slopes in excess of 40x. Existing drainage patterns carry
water to adjacent properties to the south. The property was
previously subdivided into three single family lots by Parcel Map
8252. The project site has 30' of frontage an Sand Canyon Road. The
existing parcels each meet minimum street frontage requirements for
flag lots (10'). An ingress and egress easement was recorded over
the 30' access strips for the existing lots. The paved portion of
the project's existing access varies.. from 20' to 30' in width. A
portion of the access strip has a slope of 20Z for approximately
150', which is the maximum allowable slope. pursuant to the City's
Zoning Code.
RESO P92-34
Page 2
f. The project site lies adjacent to Tract 47785, which contains lots
averaging one acre in size. To the south and east lie single family
residential lots ranging in size from one to three acres. To the
west is Sand Canyon Road.
g. The existing residences are each serviced. by a private septic
system. The applicant is proposing to service the additional
residences with septic systems.
h. The applicants are requesting. the removal of the existing flag strip
access, replacing it with a private driveway design. This design
will require the creation of easements over the access, to service
the six lots. This design requires the waiving of the normally
required street frontage for the six lots.
i. The City of Santa Clarity General Plan contains several goals and
policies related to the sensitivity and compatibility of new
residential development to existing residential neighborhoods and
restricting development where natural hazards are present. These
policies include, but are not limited to, Land Use Policies 6.2, and
7.3.
J. This project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
k. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on
December 3, 1991 at 7:00 P.N. at the City Council Chambers, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this public hearing, the
Planning Commission voted 3-2 to continue the item to a date
uncertain, directing the applicants to resolve issues associated with
the project (drainage and non-compliance with the City's Zoning Code)
and return to the Commission with both a five and six lot design for
the Commission's review and consideration. At this meeting the
applicant and applicant's engineer verbally agreed to suspend
processing timelines for the project. This was followed up by a
letter dated December 4, 1991, from the applicant's engineer agreeing
to the suspension of processing timelines.
1. On June 3, 1992, the applicant submitted the revised six lot map. On
August 23, 1992, the applicant submitted the revised five lot map.
M. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on
September 1, 1992 at 7:00 P.N. at the City Council Chambers, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita.
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 hearings of December 3, 1991 and September 1, 1992, the
Planning Commission considered the staff reports prepared for this
project and received testimony on this proposal. Testimony from
surrounding property owners included concerns that the project would
worsen existing drainage problems• and that the project would
negatively impact the rural qualities of Sand Canyon.
RESO P92-34
Page 3
b. The City's General Plan designation for the project site is
Residential Very Low (RVL). The project (six or five lot design) is
inconsistent with previously referenced Goals and Policies of the
City's General Plan due to the possible worsening of existing
drainage conditions and access constraints. The site zoning is A-1-2.
C. Pursuant to the State of California Subdivision Kap Act Section
66474, the project (six or five lot design) substantiates the
following finding for denial of a tentative map:
That th site +s not nhvsicall suitable for the ronose�
density of dewelonma,t. (A private.driveway, improved to 26'
Ln width, accessing six residential parcels is not
satisfactory. Driveway grades exceeding 15Z exist on-site and
would not be reduced in conjunction with the project. This
condition creates safety concerns that could possibly worsen
with the addition of any more single family residences on the
project site. Additionally, the project does not complywith
City Code Sections 21.24.290 and 21.24.300 which: require a
minimum of 50' of frontage at the right-of-vay line.
Approving this project necessitates the waiving of the street
frontage requirements. Also, Lot 5 on the six -lot proposal
lacks easily discernible front, rear, and .side yards due to
site constraints associated with the existing homes.)
d. Pursuant to Code Section 22.16:150, the project (six or five lot
design) fails to substantiate, to the satisfaction of the Planning
Commission, the folloving required finding:
change of zone . from A-1-2 to A-1- (The
th the
project, fails to substantiate this i requirement. Concerns
cited previously related to access, drainage, and the waiving
of frontage requirements are not in conformance with good
zoning practice and are not in the interest of public health,
safety and general welfare.)
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the
Planning Commission hereby determines as follows:
a• The project (five or six lot design) is not consistent with the
City's General Plan.
b• The project (five or six lot design) substantiates a finding
associated with denying a tract map.
C. The project (five or six lot design) fails to substantiate the
findings required by Code Section 22.16.150 related to recommending
approval of a zone change. .
PESO P92-34
Page 4
NOV. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Santa Clarita, California, as follows:
The'Planning Commission hereby denies Master Case 90-173 (Zone Change
90-011, Tentative Tract Map 49756, and Oak Tree Permit 90-037) to
allow .for a zone change from A-1-2 to A-1-1 to subdivide three
existing lots, totaling 7.11 acres, into six single family
residential lots.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this. 15th day of September 1992.
M. MVf rl/
Jack Woodrow, Chairman
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Lyon M. Harris
41-
Director of Community Development
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) as
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 15th day of September 1992 by the
following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Woodrow, Modugno, Cherrington, Doughman
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Brathwaite
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
i
nna M. Grindey
City Clerk
GEA: 618
10
MINUTES OF
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Tuesday
September 1, 1992
7:00 p.m.
ITEM 3: MASTER CASE NUMBER 90-173 - located at 26866 Sand Canyon Road
Principal Planner Rich Henderson introduced the item, and Assistant Planner Glenn Adamick
gave the staff report and a brief slide presentation.
Chairman Woodrow opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m.
Speaking for the applicant was the project engineer, Mr. Keith Uselding of Hale and Associates,
26017 Huntington Lane, Unit B, Valencia. Mr. Uselding discussed the project's design, oak tree
preservation, the addition of fire hydrants to the neighboring properties, and the attempt at
retaining the rural atmosphere of the area.
Mr. Don Hale, also of Hale and Associates discussed the drainage issue and their proposed
drainage plan.
Mr. Roy Swank, 26866 Sand Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, discussed the project history, the costs
of the project, the lot configuration, and requested approval of the 6 lot design. If the 6 tot design
was not acceptable, he would request that the 5 lot design be approved.
Speaking in opposition were the following:
Diane Wilson, 26826 Sand Canyon Road, Canyon Country, commented on her concerns
regarding drainage onto her property, retaining the rural atmosphere of Sand Canyon, and the
safety of. horses.
Mr. James Webb, 26826 Sand Canyon Road, Canyon Country, also had concerns regarding
drainage. Mr. Webb showed several slides showing erosion and water run off onto his property.
Marilyn Keehn, 26800 Sand Canyon Road, Canyon Country, expressed concerns regarding
drainage, and would like to seethe 2 acre zoning remain.
Mr. Don Hale was then given the opportunity for rebuttal. Mr. Hale stated that the project is within
the density shown in the General Plan, and that the engineers have been working with Public
Works on innovative drainage solutions.
There were then questions of the applicant.
At 7:46 p.m., Chairman Woodrow closed the public hearing.
Discussion ensued among the Commission
Commissioner Modugno motioned to deny the project. Commissioner Cherrington seconded.
The motion carried with a vote of 3-1, with Commissioner Brathwaite dissenting.
MINUTES OF THE
SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION
December 3, 1991
ITEM 7: ZONE CHANGE 90-011, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 49756, AND OAK TREE PERMIT
90-037 - located at 26866 Sand Canyon Road
Director Harris introduced Item 7 and Assistant Planner Glenn Adamick made .the
staff presentation.
At 9:37 p.m., Chairman Cherrington opened the public hearing.
Speaking in favor of the project were:
Keith Uselding, 26017 Huntington Lane, Unit B. Valehcia, representing the
applicant. His comments included a disagreement on the proposed number of
lots for this site. Some other comments included a willingness to pay Quimby
fees, even though they are not necessary; drainage; paving of the driveway;
the oak trees; improvements to Sand Canyon Road; the zoning is consistent with
the General Plan; and grading.
Speaking in opposition to the project were the following persons:
Diane Wilson, 26826 Sand Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, whose concerns included
drainage, oak trees, fire danger, and keeping the rural atmosphere of the area.
Mr. Uselding was then given the opportunity to address the concerns of the
previous speaker. His rebuttal addressed the oak trees, stating.they would
not be impacting the oak trees; the final drainage approval plans; zoning in
the area; and Fire Department conditions have been met.
There were questions'and discussion among the Commission and staff.
At 9:55 p.m., the public hearing was closed.
Discussion continued among the Commission regarding the special standards
district for the Sand Canyon area.
Commissioner Brathwaite motioned to give direction to the applicant to return
with a re -design of the project with 5 and 6 lots, and continue the item to a
date uncertain, at which time the applicant would return with both a 6 and a.5
lot plan, understanding that project timelines will be suspended while the
applicant prepares this.
On behalf of the applicant, Mr. Uselding stated that written correspondence
will be submitted acknowledging that timelines will be suspended.
Commissioner Do.ughman seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of
3-2 with Commissioners Modugno and Woodrow dissenting.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
Zone Change 90-011
Tentative Tract Map 49756
Oak -Tree Permit 90-037
DATE: September 1, 1992
TO: Chairman Woodrow and Members of the Planning Commission yLQ
cf`
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development�����
PROJECT PLANNER: Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II
APPLICANTS: Mr. Roy Swank, Mr. Monty Fu, Mr. Steve Parks a
LOCATION: 26866 Sand Canyon Road, Sand Canyon area, (Assessor
Parcel Numbers 2841-019-051, 52, 53)
REQUEST: A zone change from A-1-2 (Light Agriculture Zone, 2
acre minimum lot size) to A-1-1 (Light Agriculture
Zone, 1 acre minimum lot size). to allow for the
subdivision of three existing lots, totaling 7.11
acres, into six lots containing the following acreage:
lot 1 - 1.60, lot 2 - 1.03, lot 3 - 1.09, lot 4 -
1.00, lot 5 - 1.00, and lot 6 - 1.07. Additionally,
an oak tree permit is requested because the existing
private roadway may be altered. This driveway
encroaches into the protected zone of numerous oak
trees.
BACKGROUND:
On December 3, 1991, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to continue this
item to a date uncertain, directing the applicants to resolve issues
associated with the project and to return with both a five and six lot
design. Issues raised by the Commission included the project's
non-compliance with the City's Zoning Code (due to the creating .of a lot
that does not contain the required area) and project drainage, the last
being identified by a surrounding neighbor as a concern. Additionally,
the Commission directed staff to provide information related to the
project's consistency with the proposed Sand Canyon Special Standards.
The three existing lots each consist of approximately 2.3. -acres. The
subdivision requires a change in the existing zoning of "Light
Agriculture, 2 acre minimum lot size" (A-1-2) to "Light Agriculture, 1
acre minimum lot size^ (A-1-1). The density of the proposed development
is approximately .86 dwelling units per acre, which is within the density
range for the Residential Very Low land use designation of the City's it
IR
General Plan. The project site has approximately 30' of frontage on Sand
Canyon Road. The existing parcels were originally subdivided as flag
lots, each having a 10' flag extending to Sand Canyon Road. An ingress
and egress easement was recorded over the 30' access strip for the lots
served. The access strip decreases in width to 20' at a point after the
first residence's driveway. The access strip is improved (a minimum of
20' in width) throughout the project and has a maximum slope of 20Z.
The applicants are not proposing to remove any of the eleven (11) oak
trees on the project site nor is any encroachment planned with the
individual driveways or future residences. Possible encroachment may
occur if enlargement of the primaryprivatedriveway is necessary. This
encroachment is not anticipated to be significant. The existing
residences are each presently serviced by a private septic system. The
applicant is requesting the removal of the flag strip access, replacing
it with a private driveway. This will require the creation of the proper
easements (ingress and egress, utility) over the access, to service the
six proposed lots. These easements would be shown on the final map. An
approval of this configuration would waive the normally required "street
frontage" for the proposed lots.
ANALYSIS:
The applicants have submitted revised maps with project densities of both
six and five lots. The five lot design excludes existing lot 3 (the rear
lot), subdividing existing lots 1 and 2 into two additional lots.
The five lot design (proposed lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and existing lot 3)
eliminates. proposed lot 5, a lot which staff cites a concern with and
will detail in its review of the six lot design. Additionally, the
applicant has relocated the .pad area on lot 4 from its previous location
(located directly adjacent to the northern property line) southerly,
adjacent to the private driveway servicing the project. This relocation
eliminates the need of an ingress and egress easement across property
lines to access the pad for lot 4 and eliminates a previous staff concern
related to the lots meeting minimum area requirements for the A-1-1
zone. Staff ,favors this design,. believing the site is physically
suitable for a density of five lots.
The six lot design implements the pad relocation on lot 4 and adds
proposed lot 5. Staff still maintains a concern with the configuration
of proposed lot 5. The lot lacks easily discernible front, rear, and
side yards. Additionally, the lot is similar in design to a flag lot,
but does exceed the minimum lot width requirement of 501. The six lot
design also requires the use of a shared driveway to.access lots 5 and
6. This shared driveway would be utilized on a small portion of the lot
and would not reduce the net square footage of lot 5 below the minimum
40,000.
-2-
Staff has also compared the project with the proposed Special Standards
for Sand Canyon.. The project appears to be in conformance with a
majority of the standards, excluding the requirement to extend public
sewer to subdivisions containing more than four lots. A public sewer
line is located approximately 5,000 feet to the north, at the
intersection of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. The
applicant has received clearance from the Health Department to service
each lot with a private on-site sewage disposal system. Staff believes
the proposed access (private driveway - 26' in width) is satisfactory to
accommodate the. development, is consistent with the proposed Special
Standards, and could be supported by goals and policies of the City's
General Plan related to maintaining the rural qualities of Sand Canyon.
An adjacent property owner cited a concern related to existing drainage
problems and the possible negative impacts that may occur with the
additional development of three residences. This property is located,
directly to the south and is approximately five feet lower than •the
lowest part of the project site. Staff has received a preliminary
drainage concept in conjunction with the project, and the concept has
been approved by the Engineering Division. The Engineering Division
indicated that the addition of three single family residences would
produce no significant increases in runoff from the site, nor change
existing natural flow patterns of the immediate area. Additionally,
landscaping added in conjunction with residences may reduce future runoff.
As proposed,staff still has concerns with the project density of six
lot's. These concerns, which are associated with lot 5, 'include its
configuration, similarity to a flag lot, and the use of a shared access
driveway. Due to these concerns, staff believes the project fails to
substantiate all of the findings associated with approving a tract map,
specifically the finding related to the site not being physically
suitable for the proposed density of six lots.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Re -open the Public Hearing; and
2) Conceptually approve the five lot design; and
3) Continue the item to the October 6, 1992 Commission meeting,
directing staff to return to this meeting with a resolution and
conditions approving Tentative Tract Map 49756 (five lots) and -Oak
Tree Permit 90-037 and recommending approval of Zone Change 90-011
to the City Council.
GEA:596
_3_ 13
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PROJECT PLANNER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
Zone Change 90-011
Tentative Tract Map 49756
Oak Tree Permit 90-037
December 3, 1991
Chairman Cherrington and Members of the Planning
Commission
Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development
Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II
Mr. Roy Swank, Mr. Monty Fu, Mr. Steve Parks
26866 Sand Canyon Road, Sand Canyon area, (Assessor
Parcel Numbers 2841-019-051, 52, 53)
A zone change from A-1-2 (Light Agriculture Zone, 2
acre minimum lot size)` to A-1-1 (Light Agriculture
Zone, 1 acre minimum lot size) to allow for the
subdivision of three existing lots, totaling 7.11
acres, into six lots containing the following acreage:
lot 1 - .1.60, lot 2 - 1.03, lot 3 - 1.06, lot 4 -
1.04, lot 5 - 1.04, and lot 6 - 1.15. In addition, an
oak tree permit is requested because the existing
private roadway may be altered. This driveway
encroaches into the protected zone of numerous oak
trees.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject three parcels into
six parcels. Existing on-site are three lots and three single family
residences. The existing lots each consist of approximately 2.3 acres.
The subdivision requires a change in the existing zoning of "Light
Agriculture, 2 acre minimum lot size, (A-1-2) to "Light Agriculture, 1
acre minimum lot size• (A-1-1). The project site has approximately 30'
of frontage on Sand Canyon Road. The existing parcels were originally
subdivided as flag lots, each having a 10' flag extending to Sand.Canyon
Road. An. ingress and egress easement was recorded over the 30' access
strip for the lots served. The access strip decreases in width to 20' at
a point after the first residence's driveway. The access strip is
improved (20' in width) throughout the project and has a maximum slope of
20Z.
The applicant is not proposing to. remove any of the eleven (11) oak trees
on the project site nor is any encroachment planned with the individual
driveways or future residences. Enlargement of the primary private
driveway would result in additional encroachment though it would not be
significant. The existing residences are each presently serviced by a
private septic system. The applicant is requesting the removal of .the
flag strip access, replacing it with a private driveway. This will
require the creation of the proper easements (ingress and egress,
utility) over the access, to service the six proposed lots. These
easements would be shown on the final map. An approval of this
configuration would waive the normally required "street frontage" for the
proposed lots.
SURROUNDING LAND USE/ZONING/GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:
As proposed, this zone change and subdivision request for residential
development would result in a density of 0.86 dwelling units per acre.
This is consistent with the City's General Plan designation of
Residential Very Low Density (RVL) (0.5 to 1.0 dwelling units per acre).
All proposed lots exceed one .acre in size. The existing zoning, the
City's General Plan designations and the existing land uses of the
project site and adjacent properties are as follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to
evaluate the impacts of the project. It was. determined that this
proposal would have no adverse environmental impacts which could not be
avoided through project design and mitigation measures. Subsequently, a
draft mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project.
INTERDEPARTMENT/INTERAGENCY REVIEW:
The project has been distributed to the affected City departments and
agencies, and the Community Development Department has received
requirements and comments from.the following:
�s.
-2-
City 's
General Plan
Zone
Land Use
Project
Site RVL (Residential
A-1-2
Residential
Very Low)
North
RVL (Residential
A-1-1
Vacant, Tract
Very Low)
47785
East
RVL (Residential
A-1-1
Residential
Very Low)
South
RVL (Residential
A-1-1
Residential
Very Low)
Vest
RE (Residential
A-1-2
Residential
Estate)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to
evaluate the impacts of the project. It was. determined that this
proposal would have no adverse environmental impacts which could not be
avoided through project design and mitigation measures. Subsequently, a
draft mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project.
INTERDEPARTMENT/INTERAGENCY REVIEW:
The project has been distributed to the affected City departments and
agencies, and the Community Development Department has received
requirements and comments from.the following:
�s.
-2-
14
The Engineering/Traffic Division recommends that the applicant:
1) Install a left turn lane for south -bound traffic on Sand Canyon to
the project,
2) Participate on a °fair share" basis for improvements from the
project site to Soledad Canyon Road with the associated bridge
widening over the Santa Clara River and Highway 14,
3) Provide the appropriate sight distance for the project driveway
intersection with Sand Canyon road.
The Parks ,and Recreation Department recommends that the applicant provide
a 15' wide multi -use trail easement to be located adjacent to Sand Canyon
Road.
The Engineering Division recommends that the applicant offer a portion of
right-of-way (52' from centerline), on the project's frontage, as
outlined by County Survey Book 3030-1 and the City's General Plan.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed residential subdivision would not alter any present land
uses in the area, as the surrounding uses are residential. The private
driveway design would include a driveway width ranging from a minimum of
26' to 301, with 26' being improved (paved) to allow for two-way
traffic. A turn around, to the satisfaction of the Fire Department,
would be implemented at the terminus of the driveway. The Engineering
Division is indicating that this design is satisfactory to accommodate
the subdivision. proposal, with the inclusion of a condition requiring the
applicant to provide documentation illustrating the use of an easement _
for utilities, ingress and egress. In addition, an agreement for
maintenance of this common driveway and easements should be required.
The surrounding properties all have satisfactory access available to them
and the requirement that this proposal provide a dedicated street would
not be necessary. In addition, the requirement of a full right-of-way
(60' in width) and improvements would necessitate extensive grading, -oak
tree removals, and the purchase of off-site property. Staff believes
this private design is'satisfactory based on the above and the following:
1) The project design allows for one point of access off of Sand
Canyon Road. The Traffic Division is encouraging proposals to be
limited to one point of access off a major highway. Goal 1, Policy
1.10, of the Circulation Element, as summarized, states: Limit the
number of intersections and driveways on all major roadways to
promote a safe, efficient and. steady flow of traffic. The
subdivision proposal utilizes one access point off of Sand Canyon
Road to service the project.
2) The utilization of the private drive in place of a fully improved
.and dedicated street could be found consistent with the rural
character of Sand Canyon. Goal 3, Policy 3.12, of the Land Use
Element could further support this: Maintain and enhance the
desirable rural qualities found in the certain existing
neighborhoods which are rural in character, such as Placerita,
Sand, and Hasley Canyons.
-3-
The density of the proposed development is approximately .86 dwelling
units per acre. The City's adopted General Plan indicates. that all lots
should have a full acre gross, and 40,000 square feet net, in this
category.
As shown on the submitted map, the net square footage of each lot exceeds
40,000 (gross square footage minus the access driveway and utility
easement), though the net square footage of, proposed lot 3 is not
accurate due to the inclusion of the square footage contained within the
driveway accessing proposed lot 4. This driveway extends through
proposed lot 3 and would require the establishment of an easement. The
easement square footage would be subtracted from the existing net square
footage of proposed lot 3 and could possibly reduce the net below 40,000
square feet.
The project lies adjacent to recently approved Tract 47785 which utilized
an average lot size of one acre. To the south of the proposal, are one
acre lots utilizing a private driveway and flag lot design. Generally,
the proposed lot sizes would be consistent with the surrounding lots,
though the configuration of the lots would be inconsistent.
The project would not be required to pay any QUIMBY fees, due to the size
of the proposed lots exceeding one acre. The applicant has indicated a
willingness to contribute a fair dollar amount comparable to QUIMBY fees
for the proposal, if a six lot subdivision were to be approved. If
QUIMBY fees applied to this project, the fee would be approximately
$3.500. This contribution by the applicant would be to the Parks
Department for the improvement or installation of park facilities in the
Canyon Country area.
There are a total of 11 oak trees on the project site. The. proposed
enlargement of the existing 20' wide access to 26' in paved width would
cause additional encroachment into the protected zone of the affected oak
trees adjacent to Sand Canyon Road, though no removals would be
necessary. The applicant has submitted an oak tree permit for
encroachment. Staff believes that the proposed conditioning of the
applicant to submit a driveway design (to the satisfaction of the
Director) illustrating this enlargement and its effects on the trees
could be satisfactory. Permeable materials and the specific placing of
the re -designed driveway, within the existing 30' strip (where it is
adjacent to Sand Canyon Road); could be implemented to reduce the
existing impacts and possible future impacts upon the affected oak trees.
Staff does have concerns relating to the configuration of proposed lot
5. Lot 5 as proposed lacks easily discernible front,rear, and side
yards. The applicant has indicated that lot 5 is configured in this
manner due to constraints imposed by topography and the existing single
family residences located on-site. Staff also has previously cited a
concern with the access drive proposed through lot 3 to lot 4. The
locating of the pad area of proposed lot 4 closer to or adjacent to the
26' wide private driveway would eliminate the necessity of this
driveway. The applicant has indicated that the location of the pad area
on lot 4 is due to the existing flat terrain at that portion of the
proposed parcel.
-4- 11
Pursuant to Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 22.16.150, in making its
recommendation relative to a proposed zone change, the Commission shall
consider five principles and standards. Staff believes the project. as
proposed, fails to substantiate one of the five findings as follows:
Finding Number 4 requires that the proposed zone at such location
will �- in the interest of public health, safety and general
we and in conformity. with good zoning practice. Staff
believes the change of zone, in conjunction with the six -lot
proposal, does not satisfy this finding. The concerns illustrated
above with proposed parcels 4 and 5 are in conflict with this
finding and specifically with good zoning practice. In addition,
staff believes the site is not physically suited for the
development of six lots.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Open the Public Nearing; and
2) Direct the applicant to re -design the project density to five lots
and conceptually approve this design; and
2) Continue the item to a date uncertain, with the understanding that
the project timelines will be suspended while the applicant
prepares a re -designed project for evaluation. by staff. Upon
submittal of a satisfactory re -designed project, staff will return
to the Planning Commission with a resolution and conditions
approving 'Tentative Tract Map 49756 and Oak Tree Permit 90-037 and
recommending approval of Zone Change 90-011 to the City Council.
GEA: 289
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
N E G A T I V E D E C L A R
[X] Proposed [ .] F
PERMIT/PROJECT:
90-037
APPLICANT: Swank, Parks, Fu
MASTER CASE NO: 90-228
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: 26828, 26864, 26866 Sand Canyon Road (Assessor Parcel
Numbers 2841-019-051, 052, 053).
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The applicant is proposing to change the
existing zone from A-1-2 (Light Agriculture, two acre minimum lot size) to
A-1-1 (Light Agriculture, one acre minimum lot size), to subdivide a gross
total of 7.11 acres into six single family residential lots. Three existing
single family residences are located on the project site. This.project would
add an additional three single family residences. Grading is not proposed at
this time. The project site contains 11 oak trees, none of which are proposed
to be removed.
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this
project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita-
[ ] City Council
[X] Planning Commission
[ ) Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect
upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted
pursuant to Section 15070 0£ CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[ ] are not required. [X] are attached. [ ] are not attached.
.............. ............................ ...........
....................•__
LYNN°M. HARRIS
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Prepared
Reviewed
Approved by
(Signature)
Signa re) �
(Signature)
Glenn Adamick. Assistant Planner II
(Name/Title)
(Name/Title).
Public Review Period From 1[-1�-SI To=IZ=3"41=�s===a=)--i9i-Q==a====-�am@�=
Public Notice Given On li^�By:
[X] Legal advertisement. [X] Posting of properties. [X] Written notice.
CERTIFICATION DATE:
19
HALE & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Consulting Engineers _
26017 Huntington Lane, Suite B
Valencia-, California 91355
February 5, 1993
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Attn: Glenn Adamick-
Assistant City Planner
TENTATIVE
TRACT 49756
Dear Glenn,
Telephone: (805) 295-0400
Fax: (805) 2951602
RECEIVED
Ftb U 9 1993
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
CRY OF SANTA CLAHITA
As Keith Uselding discussed with you over the telephone, we have
designed an alternative system to improve the existing drainage
conditions -for Tentative Tract 49756. This design consists of a
curb along the south side of the existing private driveway to
intercept the surface flows and an onsite catch basin. The catch
basin would collect water and carry -south to Cachumma Lane in an
underground 12" corrugated metal pipe. The installation of an
inverted catch basin/energy dissipater at Cachuma Lane would ensure
that the water would exit the pipe without the kinetic energy of a
concentrated flow.
We have discussed this concept with the property owner to the south
(Ms. Wilson). We would need .their offsite approval to install this
system.
Please review the enclosed concept and contact me to discuss this
proposal. Thank you for your continued cooperation and assistance
in this matter.
Sincerely,
D. E. HALE
R. C. E.
Encl.
cc. Roy Swank
Stephen Parks
Monty Fu
File (2)
HALE & ASSOCIATES,Inc.
Consulting Engineers
December 15; 1992
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Attn: Anthony Nisich
City Engineer
Dear Mr. Nisich,
ekFEWER'
bFc 17
THIM1Rg[6Fl"t.`dAe. Suite B
Valencia. California 91355
Telephone: (805)295.0400
Fax: (805) 295-1602
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 49756
PROPOSED STORMWATER
RUNOFF CONTAINMENT PLAN
AND PRIVATE STREET PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES'
As directed by the City Council at the November 10, 1992 meeting we
have prepared a brief description and calculations for a Stormwater
Runoff Containment Plan, (S.W.R.C.P.), for Tentative Tract 49756.
Also transmitted herewith are exhibits showing the location of the
S.W.R.C.P, components, the special details required to contain the
stormwater, a section showing the percolation basin construction,
and details proposed for reducing the grade .of the existing
driveway. (proposed private street).
PROJECT PARAMETERS & OBJECTIVES:
Tentative Tract Number 49756proposes a five lot subdivision with
three existing single family residences situated on a hillside east
of Sand Canyon Road between Cachuma Lane and Mandalay.Road. The
natural drainage pattern directs storm water down hill to the south
and west, towards the Sand Canyon wash. The current problem exists
south of Lot 2 where structures have been constructed in the
channel bottom. Currently, during a rainfall event, these
structures are inundated by flood water.
In an effort to improve the existing conditions and prevent any
incremental increase in runoff as a* result of the two new proposed
buildings, we propose the following:
Design 'a retention system that would contain the runoff from the
impervious surfaces of the new structures.. This system would store
the runoff underground in percolation basins that would recharge
the groundwater in the area. This is an additional benefit to an
area that depends on wells for their water supply.
The stormwater containment plan would also consist of the planting
of native plant species within the relatively barren slopes of Lots
4 and 5. These of antz tr_' 11 sloe: the flow of :nater an -:-:courage
Percolation. The plants will also reduce the amount of silt which
flows during storms which will assist in minimizing sheet flow
volumes.
19
STORMWATER RUNOFF CONTAINMENT CALCULATIONS (Modified from 10/29/92`
letter):
DETERMINE THE ROOF AREA FOR A 3500 S.F. RESIDENCE (ASSUME 2 STORY)
WITH A 500 S.F. GARAGE:
3500/2 + 500 = 2250 S.F.
DETERMINE THE DRIVEWAY AREA:
200' X 15' = 3000 S.F.
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA = 2250 + 3000 = 5250 S.F.
DETERMINE WATER VOLUME:
ASSUME A 2" RAINFALL EVENT
2"/12 X 5200 S.F. = 875 CU; FT.
DETERMINE ROCK VOLUME (ASSUME 1/3 VOID):
VOLUME = 3 X 875 CU. FT. = 2625 CU. FT.
APPLY SAFETY FACTOR OF TWO: VOLUME = 2 X 2625 = 5250 CU. FT.
PLAN AREA OF ROCK STORAGE (ASSUME 6 FT. DEPTH):
5250/6 = 875 S.F
PLAN DIMENSIONS: 20 X 44
CONCLUSION:
The stormwater containment plan will control the impact of the
incremental increase in runoff from the proposed new construction.
This will not only allow for "no increase" in existing flood water,
but it should result in a "decrease" inasmuch as the imperious
materials will drain 100% to the storage/ recharge basins below
grade. Diversion walls would be employed to assure that the areas
to be drained are not contaminated with silt from surrounding run
off areas.
Please review our proposed plan and contact me if you have
questions.
Sincerely,
W �41L_�
D. E. HALE
R. C. E.
a� Encl.
cc. %GJ.n d mick`—
Filee {2) .3
November 18, 1992
Jill Klajic,'Mayor
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
RE: Tract 49756
Dear Ms. Klajic,
Richard D. Halverson
7640 Bluebell Ave
N Hollywood, CA 91605
818-764-8985
fi.,,_ 12-111
The City Council is currently reviewing a proposal to create (5) five
new lots; from an existing (7) seven acre lot in Sand Canyon. As the
owner of the property, which fronts this property on the west side of
Sand Canyon, I am supportive of this project. For reference, my
property is approximately 3/4 of a mile north of the project site,
just south of Valley Ranch Road.
The planned project should -have no significant effect.on the existing
oak trees. Additionally, improvements to the roadways and water system
are anticipated. This project will provide additional housing sites,
which I believe will help to stimulate the local ecomony, while creating
an acceptable residential density for the area.
I encourage the City Council to approve this proposal as it will have
only positive effects on the area. I am available at your convience,
for any discussion regarding this project, that you may find necessary.
Sincerely,
Richard D. Halverson
RDH/gt
RECEIVED
NOV 3ois.
LYNN K HARRIS
Director or commuwty Dew.
COPIES TO CITY COUNCIL,
CITY MANAGER, CITY CLERK
Date I __----
RECEIVED
NOV k 0 1992
CITY COUNCIL
CT' OF SANTA CLARRA
1 BP
October 30, 1992
The Honorable Jill Klajic
Members of the City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Nur 3 1 42 PN `32
RE0E!V_ZD
CITY CLEF; ; C; FfCE
My dear Mayor Klajic and members of the City Council:
I am a homeowner in Sand Canyon in close proximity to the proposed zone
change #90-011 at 26828-26866 Sand Canyon. I have several objections
to the zone change and I am in agreement with the Planning Commission's
Denial of this project. Please consider the following factors and vote against
the appeal by the applicants:
1. The.City Development Code has designated a Special Standards
District in our area whose purpose is to maintain, preserve and enhance
the rural and equestrian character of Sand Canyon. This proposed zone
change increases density and alters the rural character of the area.
2. Most current residents surrounding this property are on larger parcels
(2+ acres). Most of us have animals. If you continue to approve zone
changes, our animals will gradually disappear. Increased density brings
in a different type of homeowner and soon our horses, goats, chickens, etc.
will be unwelcome. We strongly object to that change in our community.
3. The proposed street configuration and lot division does not follow
good planning practices. Existing residences make the lot split awkward.
Flag lots are undesirable.
4. Although they do not state an intention to remove oak trees, there is
a heritage oak adjacent to the access road. Widening of that road for fire
safety may negatively impact the tree.
Please deny this appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
The Special Standards desired by the community must be preserved. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
IM
October 30, 1992
The Honorable Jill Klajic
Members of the City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
CITY OF SANTA CIARITA
Noy 3 1 42 PN X92
My dear Mayor Klajic and members of the City Council:
CITY
I am a homeowner in Sand Canyon in close proximity to the proposed zone
change #90-011 at 26828-26866 Sand Canyon. 1 have several objections
to the zone change and I am in agreement with the Planning Commission's
Denial of this project. Please consider the following factors and vote against
the appeal by the applicants:
1. The City Development Code has designated a Special Standards
District in our area whose purpose is to maintain, preserve and enhance
the rural and equestrian character of Sand Canyon. This proposed zone
change increases density and alters the rural character of the area.
2. Most current residents surrounding this property are on larger parcels
(2+ acres). Most of us have animals. If you continue to approve zone
changes, our animals will gradually disappear. Increased density brings
in a different type of homeowner and soon our horses, goats, chickens, etc.
will be unwelcome. We strongly object to that change in our community.
3. The proposed street configuration and lot division does not follow -
good planning practices. Existing residences make the tot split awkward.
Flag lots are undesirable.
4. Although they do not state an intention to remove oak trees, there is
a heritage oak adjacent to the access road. Widening of that road for fire
safety may negatively impact the tree.
Please deny this appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
The Special Standards desired by the.community must be preserved. Thank
you.
Sincerely
zm Q`�J
As
i
RECEIVED AND MADE A
PART OF THE RECORD AT
October 30, 1992 ITEM NO MEETING
The Honorable Jill Klajic
Members of the City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
My dear Mayor Klajic and members of the City Council:
I am a homeowner in Sand Canyon in close proximity to the proposed zone
change #90-011 at 26828-26866 Sand Canyon. I have several objections
to the zone change and I am in agreement with the Planning Commission's
Denial of this project. Please consider the following factors and vote against
the appeal by the applicants:
1. The City Development Code has designated a Special Standards
District in our area whose purpose is to maintain, preserve and enhance
the rural and equestrian character of Sand Canyon. This proposed zone
change increases density and alters the rural character of the area.
2. Most current residents surrounding this property are on larger parcels
(2+ acres). Most of us have animals. If you continue to approve zone
changes, our animals will gradually disappear. Increased density brings
in a different type of homeowner and soon our horses, goats; chickens, etc.
will be unwelcome. We strongly object to that change in our community.
3. The proposed street configuration and lot division does not follow
good planning practices. Existing residences make the lot split awkward.
Flag lots are undesirable.
4. Although they do not state an intention to remove oak trees, there is
a heritage oak adjacent to the access road. Widening of that road for fire
safety may negatively impact the tree.
Please deny this appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
The Special Standards desired by the community must be preserved. Thank
you.
Sincerely,: 7-9Z
AK- P20
. oz-( � X11'71XF&- A M o
LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE A. OELZE
15830 CACHUMA LANE
SANTA CLARITA, CA 91351
(805) 298-9373
August 27, 1992
City of Santa Clarita
Planning Commission
23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor
Santa'Clarita, CA 91355
Reference: OBJECTION TO ZONE CHANGE
RECEIVED
AUG 3 11992
COMM CITYOF SANTA CQ RIT
ITA
RECEIVED
SEP 11992
LYNN M. HARRIS
Director of Community Dmc
The project is located at 26828, 26864 and 26866 Sand Canyon
Road. The Assessor's Parcel No. is 2841-019-051, 052 and
053. The application is Zone Change 90-011, Tentative Tract
Map 49756 and Oak Tree Permit 90-037.
We object to the zone change on the ground that the addition
of, three residences at the above location will alter the exist-
ing natural drainage of water and cause water, mud and other
debris to flow upon and under Cachuma Lane, cross it and eventu-
ally end up on Sand Canyon.
This will create an unnecessary Civil Liability of the City.
Existing development along Sand Canyon has already resulted in
.road flooding and blockage.
Although grading is not proposed at this time, it is ludicrous
to believe that the addition of three residences with landscap-
ing will not alter the existing natural flow and create potential
damage or injury.
In the event you grant the application, the City of Santa Clarita
and the proponents are hereby placed on notice that the element
of "lack of notice" will not be a defense to any future civil
liability arising out of the above project.
/.
Very tr Ty"yours,
wi ence A elze
Ma rie A. Oelze
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
October 30, 1992 NOY 3 I 42 pH 131
The Honorable Jill Klajic CITY c, _ ;E
Members of the City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
My dear Mayor Klajic and members of the City Council:
I am a homeowner in Sand Canyon in close proximity to the proposed zone
change #90-011 at 26828-26866 Sand Canyon. I have several objections
to the zone change and I am in agreement with the Planning Commission's
Denial of this project. Please consider the following factors and vote against
the appeal by the applicants:
1. The City Development Code has designated a Special Standards
District in our area whose purpose is to maintain, preserve and enhance
the rural and equestrian character of Sand Canyon. This proposed zone
change increases density and alters the rural character of the area.
2. Most current residents surrounding this property are on larger parcels
(2+ acres). Most of us have animals. If you continue to approve zone
changes, our animals will gradually disappear. Increased density brings
in a different type of homeowner and soon our horses, goats, chickens, etc.
will be unwelcome. We strongly object to that change in our community. .
3. The proposed street configuration and lot division does not follow
good planning practices. Existing residences make the lot split awkward.
Flag lots are undesirable.
4. Although they do not state an intention to remove oak trees, there is
a heritage oak adjacent to the access road. Widening of that road for fire
safety may negatively impact the tree.
Please deny this appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
The Special Standards desired by the community must be preserved. Thank
you.
Sincerely,,
,'7679y9 syr crv.
NO
October 30, 1992
The Honorable Jill Klajic
Members of the City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Nov 3 1 42 P3 '92
CITY
nhCE'',-D
C,".., . . F;CE
My dear Mayor Klajic and members of the City Council:
I am a homeowner in Sand Canyon in close proximity to the proposed zone
change #90-011 at 26828-26866 Sand Canyon. I have several objections
to the zone change and I am in agreement with the Planning Commission's
Denial of this project. Please consider the following factors and vote against
the appeal by the applicants:
1. The City. Development Code has designated a Special Standards
District in our area whose purpose is to maintain, preserve and enhance
the rural and equestrian character of Sand Canyon. This proposed zone
change increases density and alters the rural character of the area.
2. Most current residents surrounding this property are on larger parcels
(2+ acres). Most of us have animals. If you continue to approve zone
changes, our animals will gradually disappear. Increased density brings
in a different type of homeowner and soon our horses, goats, chickens, etc.
will be unwelcome. We strongly object to that change in our community.
3. The proposed. street configuration and lot division does not follow
good planning practices. Existing residences make the lot split awkward.
Flag lots are undesirable.
4. Although they do not state an intention to remove oak trees, there is
a heritage oak adjacent to the access road. Widening of that road for fire
safety may negatively impact the tree.
Please deny this appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
The Special Standards desired by the community must be.preserved. Thank
Sincerely,
MR
��ie. �T!
i
October 30, 1992
The Honorable Jill Klajic
Members of the City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300
Santa Clanta, CA 91355
CITY OF SANTA CCARITA
Nor 3 1 42 PN '9Z
CITY "'I'L,
My dear Mayor Klajic and members of the City Council:
I am a homeowner in Sand Canyon in close proximity to the proposed zone
change #90-011 at 26828-26866 Sand Canyon. I have several objections
to the zone change and I am in agreement with the Planning Commission's
Denial of this project. Please consider the following factors and vote against
the appeal by the applicants:
1. The City Development Code has designated a Special Standards
District in our area whose purpose is to maintain, preserve and enhance
the rural and equestrian character of Sand Canyon. This proposed zone
change increases density and alters the rural character. of the area.
2. Most current residents surrounding this property are on larger parcels
(2+ acres). Most of us have animals. If you continue to approve zone
changes, our animals will gradually disappear. Increased density brings
in a different type of homeowner and soon our horses, goats, chickens, etc.
will be unwelcome. We. strongly object to that change in our community.
3. The proposed street configuration and lot division does not follow
good planning practices. Existing residences make the lot split awkward.
Flag lots are undesirable.
4. Although they do not state an intention to remove oak trees, there is
a heritage oak adjacent to the access road. Widening of that road for fire
safety may negatively impact the tree.
Please deny this appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
The Special Standards desired by the community must be preserved: Thank
you.
Sincerely,
K do
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Ilff 3 1 42 PM '92
October 30, 1992
The Honorable Jill Klajic CITY CLF1,
Members of the City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
My dear Mayor Klajic and members of the City Council:
I am a homeowner in Sand Canyon inclose proximity to the proposed zone
change #90-011 at 26828-26866 Sand Canyon. I have several objections
to the zone change and I am in agreement with the Planning Commission's
Denial of this project. Please consider the following factors and vote against
the appeal by the applicants:
1. The City Development Code has designated a Special Standards
District in our area whose purpose is to maintain, preserve and enhance
the rural and equestrian character of Sand Canyon. This proposed zone
change increases density and alters the rural character of the area.
2. Most current residents surrounding this property are on larger parcels
(2+ acres). Most of us have animals. If you continue to approve zone
changes; our animals will gradually disappear. Increased density brings
in a different type of homeowner and soon our horses,. goats, chickens, etc.
will be unwelcome. We strongly object to that change in our community.
3. The proposed street configuration and lot division does not follow
good planning practices. Existing residences make the lot split awkward.
Flag lots are undesirable.
4. Although they do not state an intention to remove oak trees, there is
a heritage oak adjacent to the access road. Widening of that road for fire
safety may negatively impact the tree.
Please deny this appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
The Special Standards desired by the community must be preserved. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
rql
@ afwGj� . 5.3 si
October 30, 1992
The Honorable Jill Klajic.
Members of the City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
CITY OF SARTA CLARITA
F0 41
CITY C,—
My dear Mayor Klajic and members of the City Council:
am a homeowner in Sand Canyon in close proximity to the proposed zone
change #90-011 at 26828-26866 Sand Canyon. I have several objections
to the zone change and I am in agreement with the Planning` Commission's
Denial of this project. Please consider the following factors and vote against
the appeal by the applicants:
1. The City Development Code has designated a Special Standards
District in our area whose purpose is to maintain, preserve and enhance
the rural and equestrian character of Sand Canyon. This proposed zone
change increases density and alters the rural character of the area.
2. Most current residents surrounding this property are on larger parcels
(2+ acres). Most of us have animals. If you continue to approve zone
changes, our animals will gradually disappear. Increased density brings
in a different type of homeowner and soon our horses, goats, chickens, etc.
will be unwelcome. We strongly object to that change in our community.
3. The proposed street configuration and lot division does not follow
good planning practices. Existing residences make the lot split awkward.
Flag lots are undesirable.
4. Although they do not state an intention to remove oak trees, there is
a heritage oak adjacent to the access road. Widening of that road for fire
safety may negatively impact the tree.
Please deny this appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
The Special Standards desired by the community must be preserved. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
,Y
/5 7 3
���Y/m
- ?1�!'7`�C
WE
CM OF SAUTA CLARCTA
October 30, 1992
41 '9z
The Honorable Jill Klajic CITY t,. _ F,E
Members of the City Council '
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
My dear Mayor Klajic and members of the City Council:
I am a homeowner in Sand Canyon in close proximity to the proposed zone
change #90-011 at 26828-26866 Sand Canyon. I have severalobjections
to the zone change and I am in agreement with the Planning Commission's
Denial of this project. Please consider the following factors and vote against
the appeal by the applicants:
1. The City Development Code has designated a Special Standards
District in our area whose purpose is to maintain, preserve and enhance
the rural and equestrian character of Sand Canyon.. This proposed zone
change increases density and alters the rural character of the area.
2. Most current residents surrounding this property are on larger parcels
(2+ acres). Most of us have animals. If you continue to approve zone
changes, our animals will gradually disappear. Increased density brings
in a different type of homeowner and soon our horses, goats, chickens, etc.
will be unwelcome. We stronglyobject to that change in our community.
3. The proposed street configuration and lot division does not follow
good planning practices. Existing residences make the lot split awkward.
Flag lots are undesirable.
4. Although they do not state an intention to remove oak trees, there is
a heritage oak adjacent to the access road. Widening of that road for fire
safety may negatively impact the tree.
Please deny this appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
The Special Standards desired by the community must be preserved. Thank
you.
Sincerely, 1
V
/67,j
31
October 30, 1992
The Honorable Jill Klajic
Members of the City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91351
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
May 9 1 41 FH '9Z
CIT; u;.i, Ts2c
My dear Mayor Klajic and members of the City Council:
I own a three acre. parcel immediately adjacent to the proposed subdivision
and zone change #90-011 at 26828-26866 Sand Canyon. I have several
objections to this project. I want to retain the rural flavor of the canyon and
strongly support the SPECIAL STANDARDS DISTRICT created by the, spirit
of our community. We love animals, open space, oak trees, and low density.
We object to cutting up everyone's acreage to create more lots. Higher
densities are appropriate in other areas of our fine city; please preserve the
variety of choices available to homebuyers by keeping Sand Canyon rural.
Growth will occur naturally as people build out to the current zoning. All
zone changes should be carefully reviewed according to the parameters
set by the General Plan and the Special Standards District. This zone change
request will have a negative effect on the equestrian atmosphere. Currently,
horses, goats, sheep, chickens, cats and dogs live at peace in our canyon.
Shrinking lot size will bring in people who are not animal -oriented. Eventually
animals will be squeezed out. Two of the proposed lots are immediately
adjacent to our barn and arena. Will the proposed homeowners like our
five horses? We have three acres - our five horses and two dogs don't bother
anyone. This project endangers their lifestyle. I have seen what zone changes.
did in my parent's neighborhood and horses are no longer welcome. I want
to protect the current zoning; I want Sand Canyon to remain rural.
The Planning Commission rejected this project for several reasons. Part of their
decision was based on the land plan. Due to the existing residences, the street
access and lot configuration is awkward. The site is hilly and not conducive
to proper planning, given the current home locations. Use of flag lot design
is not desirable.
My final point concerns drainage. We already receive substantial runoff from
the three existing residences. Adding more concrete and roof square footage
decreases the absorption of storm water. All of the neighbors to the south of
the site are concerned about drainage. This problem will not be minor. We
presented slides to the Planning Commission to indicate the current situation
and those photographs clearly indicated that more homes would exacerbate
the problem unless mitigated by an elaborate drain system.
3a
I am a concerned neighbor and an active homeowner in the equestrian
community of Sand Canyon. The local homeowners have regularly met to
review the various projects going into our area. We have discussed in great
detail what standards we want for our community. We all moved into Sand
Canyon because of the -Oak Trees, the open space, the lack of street lights and
sidewalks, and the atmosphere where animals are welcome. Please help us
keep that choice open to future generations. Please deny this zone change.
Thank Youl
Sincerely,
Diane C. Wilson
26826 Sand Canyon Road
Santa Clarita, CA 91351
(805) 298-2557
33
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
October 30, 1992
Nor 3 I 41 �If 92
The Honorable Jill Klajic
Members of the City Council
City of Santa Clarita y
23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300 CITY c..::
Santa Clarita; CA 91351
My dear Mayor Klajic and members of the City Council:
own a three acre parcel immediately adjacent to the proposed subdivision
and zone change #90-011 at 26828-26866 Sand Canyon. I have several
objections to the zone change and 1 am in agreement with the Planning
Commission's Denial of this project. I would be negatively impacted by this
proposal and feel it is detrimental to the character of our neighborhood.
I want to retain a rural atmosphere where animals are welcome and the density
is low. After attending several Special Standards meetings, it is clear that
Sand Canyon residents are in agreement on that subject. We know that our
animals will only be welcome if the lots are large; animals are much more
appropriate on two acres than one. Please keep our two acre zoning.
In addition, the design of the subdivision is awkward because the site is not
flat and the three existing residences are in the way of usual lot line
configurations. The flag lots and an atypical access road will have a
detrimental effect on our immediate neighborhood and negatively impact the
property values.
Finally, the increased density exacerbates the current drainage flow across our
barn area. The addition of three additional home roofs and concrete areas will
decrease the absorption of- storm water and will cause increased flooding for
all of the neighbors to the south of the site. Any subdivision, if approved, should
be required to mitigate this problem.
1 hope that you will uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. They had
several chances to examine this subdivision and they made a decision for the
benefit of the community. Thank you.
Sincerely,
�Jas C. Webb
26;26 Sand Canvon
3q-
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
October 30, 1992 Noy 3 - 1 41 rH '92
CITY
The Honorable Jill Klajic
Members of the City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91351
My dear Mayor Klajic and members of the City Council:
I live on a parcel very near to the proposed subdivision and zone
change #90-011 at 26828-26866 Sand Canyon. I have several objections
to the zone change and I am in agreement with the Planning Commission's
Denial of this project. I would be negatively impacted by this proposal.
I have a two acre parcel and I am a long-time resident of Sand Canyon.
I want to keep a low density in the canyon and retain the rural atmosphere
conducive to a healthy life for animals and people alike.
My property currently receives the run-off of storm water from the three
existing lots. Increased drainage from adding three more residences
will aggravate the flood conditions during the winter rains. Our infrastructure
is not designed for increased density; the addition of more concrete and
rooftops will decrease absorption and increase runoff.
Please deny the proposed zone change and uphold the intent of the formation
of a Special Standards district. Keep Sand Canyon rural[
Sincerely,
}
4
Marilyn Keehn
26800 Sand Canyon Road
35
HALE &.ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Consulting Engineer
October 29, 1992 26017 Huntington Lane, Suite B
Valencia, California 91355
Telephone: (805) 295-0400
Fax: (805) 295.1602
City of Santa Clarlta
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarlta. CA 91355
ATTN: Anthony.Nisich
City Engineer
TRACT NO 49756
Dear Nr. Nisichc
The City Council is scheduled to hear the appeal.for Tract
49756 on Tuesday, November 10, 1992.. The tentative map was
denied by the Planning Commission by a split vote. on
September 1, 1992.• The existing drainage condltions.at this
site were a controversial issue at'the;Planning:;Ccimaission
hearing, yet no one from .the City's ;Englneering Department .
was present to address the drainage.issue::=By;thtsletter I
am requesting your presence at the -City Counci.lthearing:In
order to have you address the drainage; issue:,;,
The City had required the submittal of a drainage; concept;.
for this project at the early stages of thedesign:.=The
drainage concept was submitted and approved. Assistant
Planner Glenn Adamlck and Assistant Engineers Chris Price
and Curtis Nay are.famillar with the project and the
drainage issue. The following is offered to assist you in
the background for this project.
As you are aware, by City Ordinance, new construction may
not increase drainage and drainage runoff onto adjacent
Properties. However, drainage calculations for runoff
areas within Los Angeles County have Incorporated
conservative design parameters to account for future
construction. Therefore, existing drainage facilities
should be sufficient for future bulldout construction as
well as for existing construction. The exception is that
this protection is not valid for existing nonpermitted,
unprotected structures occuring In flood plalns and those
nonpermltted structures which were constructed prior to the
Los Angeles County Building Ordinance.
It has never been proven that new construction results In an
Increase in drainage runoff. It is assumed that there will
be additional runoff simply due to the fact that some of the
natural hillside will be covered with Impervious materials.
^, However. It is already assumed that the soll.ls saturated in
the calculations for capital floods and no consideration is
given to percolation. Therefore, the Imperviousness of the
new construction Is irrelevant in the design of capital
floods.
Imperviousness of building materials may play a part in
slight increases In storm water runoff for storms of a
lesser magnitude than the fifty year storm. But what is the
problem If all projects are to be designed for the fifty
year storm? A twenty five year storm with a one percent
Increase in runoff should be much less of an Impact than the
runoff from the designed event (50 year storm).
A good argument can be made for the fact that additional
retention is provided In graded pads with on site planting
and landscaping. This additional retention may compensate
for any additional imperviousness resulting from building
construction and/or hardscape. Landscaping on a building
pad will most definately Increase the time of concentration
and therefore reduce the peak of the storm runoff
hydrograph:
Nevertheless,"for-areas_such.as Acton,..Los�AngeIes.County
has required'the implementatibn "of basln" 0
reduce peak flows -(or to maintain existing dralnage-.,flows)
for projects where.new construction is proposed.,i:These
storage areas have been added as a precautlon:to insure that
existing (calculated) peak flows are not -,exceeded.. It is
the belief of Los Angeles.County Staff that the'oaontribution
of "additional runoff" which they would attribute' ='to`new-
construction would be controlled by these•"Delta Go :basins. -
However, they will admit that the water diverted into these
basins will not actually reduce the peak flow Inasmuch as it
Is taken from the first stream flows of the storm runoff and
not from the stream flows at maximum flowrate.
Delta 0 basins are objectionable from a standpoint of being
an attractive nuisance for children. They are ugly, fenced
depressions which attract mosquitos and other unwanted
Insects. They emit odors. They require maintenance for
Perpetuity. They are unpopular with neighbors wherever they
are Installed.
There is a concern in the area of the subject project that
existing stormwater runoff may be detrimental to nearby
property owners. Testimony was given at the Planning
Commission hearing that barns and utility buildings
(constructed in the floodway) downstream of the project site
are flooded each time It rains. The applicants offered a
solution to this drainage Issue (as described below).
We ask you to review the following proposal and discuss any
concerns with us that may come to mind. Furthermore, we ask
that you Cor one of your staff) be present to comment on the
merits of the following proposed solution.
Provide roof gutters at all roofs of.all future
structures and conduct all rainwater runoff through
the patio. Our report of that Inspection, dated June
27, 1991 (copy attached), once again Identified the
drainage problem. Three mitigating measures were
Proposed to minimize the contributory drainage onto
the patio. A fourth mitigating measure was proposed
to preclude "standing water" on the deck, whether the
source was drainage from the parking deck or deposited
directly onto the patio via rainwater.
The crack In the stucco does not appear to represent a
structural failure. However, It should of the
anticipated rainfall volume.on the Impervious
structure during the capital storm.
SAMPLE CALCULATION FOR SIZING FOR 5000_So FT HOME
(assume two story: 1/2.up.and 1/2 down) 2500 sq ft
(garage And paved. driveway) ~1000°sq ft
total impervious: 3500;sq ft
(assume 6" ralnfa]I).:,Y
Volume required =....1.5 x 0 5- x ; 3500 2625'cu.ft
for 1/3. aIr.void'rati.o::c.•Vol -,.-3(2625)- =E7875 _cu ft
for depth of '10`ft::'area'= 7875'%<30 =' 788'sq 'ft
Provide 30 ft deep x 20 £tm x,40 ft: cistern
With such a devise in placeras'an Integral part of 4uture.:
construction; we le runoff wlrll nota;o V be
maintained, butf.that{!t*w1114bPieduced,fromahat:whlch
currently occurs•'without•such'-underground d[version.
This,.of course is owed to the fact that we.would be
removing almost 3000 cubic feet of water from a six inch
rainfall which would otherwise be available to flow over
the adjacent property.
Thank you .for your time and Interest In this project.
Please give me a call if you have any questions, or
should you require additional Information.
Sincerely,
v--
-
D. E. HALE
R. C. E.
cc: Glenn Adamick
Diane Wilson 4 -
Steve
Steve Parks
Monty Fu
City Council (5) 38
-3- �j
RECEIVED
1UG 2 5 1992
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLAPITA
Mr. Jack Woodrow, Chairman
Santa Clarita Planning Commission
City of Santa-Clarita
Dear Mr. Woodrow:
I live next to the proposed zone change and subdivision at 26828-
26866 Sand Canyon. I own a three acre parcel which I purchased
with the intent of raising and riding my Arabian horses in a rural
atmosphere. I purchased this property based on low-density zoning
in the area. I vehemently object to changing the zoning and the
character of the area. There is plenty of density elsewhere in the
City. Sand Canyon is intended to have Special Standards which the
majority of residents want. Cutting up existing lots so that
current owners may sell off a portion of their estate is short-
sighted from a planning standpoint and the only justification seems
to be greed on the part of those existing owners.
The proposed subdivision is awkward. Two of the proposed new lots
would be difficult to sell at any price in today's oversupplied
real estate market. ,The result does not seem to justify applying
for this subdivision. Regardless, I am negatively impacted by
their proposal. This subdivision would alter the rural character
of my neighborhood by surrounding my equestrian arena with three
additional residences.
Of major importance is the negative impact of storm water drainage
from these three new residences. We currently receive a torrent
of storm water through our barn/arena area from the three existing
homes. We invited the staff planner to visit the area during the
winter rains and .took slides to show that there is, indeed, a
negative impact which must be brought to the attention of the
Planning Commission. The storm water races through our property,
undermines Cachuma Lane as it moves south, and creates a lake on
our neighbor's barn area. Any new residential construction will
make this bad situation worse. If you approve this subdivision,
I would demand that the property owners devise a new storm drain
system using sump pumps in order to take their storm water down
their access road rather than across our land.
39
There are many other issues important to me as a resident of
Sand Canyon. I am worried about the large oak tree which will
be damaged if the access road is widened.. I am worried about
the lack of infrastructure to support the ever-increasing
density in the canyon. Last years rains required periodic
closure of Sand Canyon Road due to the inadequate storm drain
system. Our neighborhood children do not have a safe walkway
along Sand Canyon :Road - additional traffic increases the
hazard.'
Finally, I hope you rememberthatmost homeowners who have
purchased property in Sand Canyon did so because they wanted
open space, quality of life conducive to animals, large lots
and oak trees. Please deny this proposed zone change and
sudivision as it violates the character of the.area.and
contributes to the increased density which most homeowners
oppose. Thank you. QQ
James bb
26826 Sand Canyon Road
Santa Clarita, CA 91351
805-298-2557
qD
RECEIVED
AUG 2 5 1992
COMMUNITY 0EVELOPM_NT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
August 19, 1992
To: Mr. Jack Woodrow, Chairman
Santa Clarita Planning Commission
City of Santa Clarita
From: Diane C. Wilson
26826 Sand Canyon Road
Santa Clarita, CA 91351
I live immediately adjacent to the proposed zone change and
subdivision at 26828-26866 Sand Canyon Road. We own a three acre
parcel and we strenuously object to changing the zoning to one acre
in our'area. We want to retain our rural atmospherewhere animals
are welcome and the density is low.
The proposed subdivision is poorly designed due to the fact that
the three existing residences are in the way of usual lot. line
configurations. This requires an awkward street and land plan.
This erodes property values and alters the character of the area.
This increased density exacerbates the current drainage flow across
our property. During the rainy season we have a river, going
through our barn and arena area and it undermines Cachuma Lane as
it moves southward. If you were to approve this proposal, I would
insist that they alleviate the potential damage from storm water by
installing a new drainage system. This drainage' system must
include sump pumps capable of taking the storm water up their
street and down into Sand Canyon.
I hope you deny this request for a zone change. Thank you.
Sincerely,.
Diane C. Wilson
0
To: Planning Commission
City of Santa Clarita
From: Diane Wilson/ James Webb 1991:
26826 Sand C anyon Road, Santa Clarita 91351 ;i.'• t
Re: Zone Change 90-011; Tentative Tract Map #49756
As an immediate neighbor of this proposed project, we are disappointed
in the re -zoning of theareainto smaller lots. This project as well
as the Cloyd development (Tentative -Tract #47785) have de-emphasized
the rural/equestrian flavor of our neighborhood. Our three acre
horse property is gradually becoming an anomaly in the area. It
appears that we will also be forced to subdivide as larger equestrian
properties will eventually not be the "highest and best use" of the
land.
We cannot stop progress but we do hope all of -the oak trees will be
preserved and horse trail access will be protected.
Our major concern about this project is the drainage onto our riding
arena and barn area. Currently, all three of the existing residences
drain onto our property. The Fu's property drains into our barn area and
two inches of water stands during the rainy seasons (even under the
drought conditions of the past four years). The Swank and Parks'
properties drain into our arena creating a river which goes across
the arena southward toward Cachuma Lane and the barn area of the
lowest property in the area which is adjacent to our site.
The run-off from roofs and paved areas of these three proposed new residential
lots will have to be channeled and diverted elsewhere or our entire
equestrian area will be under water. The soil does not absorb water or
drain well so this is of major concern to us. The mitigation of this
problem needs to be a condition of this project.
VyM-1 MM*Z 11
43
E
HALE & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
26017 Huntington Lane, Suite 8
Valencia, California 91355
Telephone: (805) 295.0400
February 5, 1993 Fax: (805) 295-1602
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Attn: Glenn Adamick
Assistant City Planner
TENTATIVE
TRACT 49756
Dear Glenn,
RECEIVED
Ftti 0 9 1993
FOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT;
CRY OF SAI TA CLARITA
As Keith Uselding discussed with you over the telephone, we have
designed an alternative system to improve the existing drainage
conditions for Tentative Tract -49756. This design consists of a
curb- along. the south side of the existing private driveway to
intercept the surface flows and an onsite catch basin. The catch
basin would collect .water and carry south to Cachumma Lane in an
underground 12" corrugated metal pipe. The installation of an
inverted catch basin/energy dissipater at Cachuma Lane would ensure
that the water .would exit the pipe without the kinetic energy of a
concentrated flow.
We have discussed this concept with the property owner to the south
(Ms. Wilson). We would need their offsite -approval to install this
system.
Please review the enclosed concept and contact me to discuss this
proposal. Thank you for your continued cooperation and -assistance
in this matter.
Encl.
cc. Roy Swank
Stephen Parks
Monty Fu
File (2)
Sincerely,
�
D. E. HALE
R. C. E.
�1
HALE & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
26017 Huntington Lane, Suite B
Valencia, California 91355
Telephone: (805) 295-0400
February 59 1993 Fax: (805) 295-1602
City of Santa Clarita RECEIVED
23920 Valencia Blvd. Fttl U 9 1993
Santa Clarita, CA 91355 O
Attn: Glenn Adamick PCITY F1TY SANTAELOPMCLARI7T
Assistant City Planner
TENTATIVE
TRACT 49756
Dear Glenn,
As Keith Uselding discussed with you over the telephone, we have
designed an alternative system to improve the existing drainage
conditions for Tentative Tract 49756. This design consists of a
curb along the south side of the existing private driveway to
intercept the surface flows and an onsite catch basin. The catch
basin would collect water and carry south to Cachumma Lane in an
underground 12" corrugated metal pipe. The installation of an
inverted catch basin/energy dissipater at Cachuma Lane would ensure
that the water would exit the pipe without the kinetic energy of a
concentrated flow.
We have discussed this concept with the property owner to the south
(Ms. Wilson). We would need their offsite approval to install this
system.
Please review the enclosed concept and contact me to discuss this
proposal. Thank you for your continued cooperation and assistance
in this matter.
Sincerely,
D. E. HALE
R. C. E.
Encl.
cc. Roy Swank
Stephen Parks
Monty Fu
File (2)
r -
CITY OF sAHTA CLARiTA
ireD nary 11, 1092 FEB � � 52 193
I
f.
nonna Grindey, City Clark 1 OITY OLE -60 -
City or Santa r:taeita
23020 volrn Ola At rd.
Santa Clarlta. CA 31935 �
Rel Tract aBTde
i
Dear Me. Grindey, I
The City Council it sr.hsdu�ed to bear Tentativa Tract Mal. 4973fi at
tta luoetiug of rebruary 23t 1903. our 1'r6jAh1 wan orteinally hoard
by the Council in November. At that medius the Council direet.d
us to auxlyca apeattio 1k ew,ea and have the PIUMlrlg COMMIT -Alan
review the project again.We vent to "'a Planning Carm"14ian on
JAncary S, 1993. We WOUlh like Is request a .1WU-Werk esntim,anee
to allow us time to exniirlu. to *ark toward3 A eomuramine onlutien
With our 114ifft rs.
We participated in a meet Iing with °ur naaraet nhighbe'r, Me. J11'es
Wohh, an Monday, Feyruarj• 15, 1913. during ti,is mretiA6 At thn
prolunt alto, Mr. Webb ii,diexted that mid ittonal naiehbory would
like r0 be inaluded iv" the discussion. Ww would I00e SOMA
addltiam7 time to Meet with Mr. Wrhu's neighbors.
please rouvcy our raqu6st for tl.e proporrd extenalor, lA tl.a City
Council. We un.T►retnnd that yoU ronnnt great the extenaiUn and
that the request aluat be made to The Cauntil. We will he present '
to mate our raquest to.tha Council Ili the Scheduled meetins an '
rebruary 13, 1993.
TSnnl, you Cor your e00A4ration in this matter. -
!w�ph/r.n Pur1[e .
26064 send Canyon
Canyon CauntrY, CA 91351
Z00 E Yi NVID PINS AID --- ZE•60 E0/61/Zo
February 17, 1993
Donna Grindey, City Clerk
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita,.CA 91355
Re: Tract 49756
Dear Ms. Grindey,
The City Council is scheduled to hear Tentative Tract Map 49756 at
its meeting of February 23, 1993. Our project was originally heard
by the Council in November. At that meeting the Council directed
us to analyze specific issues and have the Planning Commission
review the project again. We went to the Planning Commission on
January 5, 1993. We would like to request a two-week continuance
to allow us time to continue to work towards a compromise solution
with our neighbors.
We participated in a meeting with our nearest neighbor, Mr. James
Webb, on Monday, February 15, 1993. During this meeting at the
project site, Mr. Webb indicated that additional neighbors would
like to be included in the discussion. We would like: some
additional time to meet with Mr. Webb's neighbors.
Please convey our request for the proposed extension to the City
Council. We understand that you cannot grant the extension and
that the request must be made to the Council. We will be present
to make our request to the Council at the scheduled meeting on
February 23, 1993.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Stephen Parks
26864 Sand Canyon
Canyon Country, CA 91351
la3
February 17, 1993 �7a3
Donna Grindey, City Clerk
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Re: Tract 49756
Dear Ms. Grindey,
The City Council is scheduled to hear Tentative Tract Map 49756 at
its meeting of February 23, 1993. Our project was originally heard
by the Council in November. At thatmeetingthe Council directed
us to analyze specific issues and have the Planning Commission
review the project again. We went to the Planning Commission on
January 5, 1993. We would like to request a two-week continuance
to allow us time to continue to work towards a compromise solution
with our neighbors.
We participated in a meeting with our nearest neighbor, Mr. James
Webb, on Monday, February 15, 1993. During this meeting at the
project site, Mr. Webb indicated that additional neighbors would
like to be included in the discussion. We would like some
additional time to meet with Mr. Webb's neighbors.
Please convey our request for the proposed extension to the City
Council. We understand that you cannot grant the extension and
that the request must be made to the Council. We will be present
to make our request to the Council at the scheduled meeting on
February 23, 1993.
Thank you for your cooperation in this
matter.
Stephen Parks
26864 Sand Canyon
Canyon Country, CA 91351
February 13, 1993
The Honorable Jan Heidt
Members of'the City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
My dear Mayor Heidt and members of the City Council:
g � � 0')
4GMMUOf SSA
Gm
I am a homeowner in Sand Canyon adjacent to the site which was
designated as Master Case 90-173, denied by the Planning Commission
and appealed to the City Council. As this case comes before you again
for final consideration, I ask that you uphold the decision of the Planning
Commission and reject the appeal.
Over a dozen letters have been submitted by nearby homeowners for the
past six months opposing this subdivision for a number of reasons.
Residents on Sand Canyon, Cachuma Lane, Millmeadow Lane and Iron
Canyon have raised several issues. I hope that you will review those letters
in the public file.
My main concerns have been cited both in correspondence and at the city
meetings. I agree with staff and Planning Commission members who
have denied this project because it does not meet the standards set by the
subdivision code in several major ways:
1. The lots do not have adequate frontage on a street - they are flag
lots accessed by a private driveway.
2. The driveway access is unsafe and substandard. The steep 20%
slope up from Sand Canyon can be altered only by building
unsightly retaining walls. The driveway design does not
follow good planning guidelines for safety.
3. The drainage from the two new lots exacerbates an already
existing problem of erosion and flooding across at least 4 properties
located south of this project. The most recent solution proposed
by the engineer attempts to resolve the problem on our property
and would further concentrate the water onto the other properties.
Water does not flow down Cachuma Lane, rather it sheets across
the lower properties to the south.
The rains this winter have emphasized how much damage flooding
can cause. New driveways and homes will add to the runoff. The
solution presented by Hale & Associates does not solve the
anticipated drainage damage on the four properties to the South.
They have failed to provide a system that will meet the needs of
the neighborhood. The engineers continued to promise that they
could design a satisfactory drainage plan and they have yet to
fulfill that promise.
In closing, I would like to ask the City Council to deny this appeal and
accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and City
Staff. The standards for creating a subdivision must not be compromised
on the significant issues of safety, drainageterosion control, and
street design without serious consideration. Thank you.
Sincerely,
T�90�vly-
Diane C. Wilson
26826 Sand Canyon Road
805-298-2557