HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-08 - AGENDA REPORTS - COMMISSION DENIAL TM MC 94 006 (2)AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: November 8, 1994
City Manager Approval --
Item to be presented y:
lh Henderson
SUBJECT: An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a vesting tentative
tract map to create eight single family residential lots on a 31.8 acre
property, a hillside review to allow for development on two identified
ridgelines and a property with an average cross slope in excess of 10%,
and an oak tree permit to allow for grading within 200' of an oak tree
(Master Case 94-006). The property is located southeasterly of the
intersection of La Rochelle Drive and Santa Clarita Road, northwesterly
of Cataro Drive and adjacent to the proposed Pamplico Park. Project
Applicant: Saugus Development Company.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
The project site was first included as a part of a 1987 subdivision request exceeding 500
units. Prior to approval, the subject site was removed from the subdivision request.
On April 7, 1992, the Planning Commission considered Master Case 91-107 (Zone Change 91-
004, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50488, Conditional Use Permit 91-016, and Oak Tree
Permit 91-037) to subdivide the site into 45 single family residential lots and two open space
lots. Four oak trees located near or on the site were proposed for removal. The Planning
Commission denied Master Case 91-107, citing concerns with the project's density,
inconsistency with the General Plan, incompatibility with surrounding properties, visual
impacts, and impacts to oak trees. The applicant subsequently appealed the denial to the
Council, who upheld the Commission's decision.
On January 10, 1994, the applicant submitted Master Case 94-006 to subdivide the subject
site into 13 single family residential lots and two open space lots. The applicant later revised
the plan, reducing the density to eight units, in an attempt to resolve concerns cited by the
Commission.
On July 21, 1994, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P94-10, denying Master Case
94-006 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51772, Hillside Review 94-002, and Oak Tree Permit
Llppo 9[� Agenda Item:
The project proposes the subdivision of the subject site into eight single family residential
lots. The average cross slope of the site, per the Hillside Ordinance, is approximately 45%.
Based upon this average cross slope, the maximum number of units that could be considered
for the project site is 21. The site contains both a primary ridgeline and secondary ridgeline.
The primary ridgeline runs nortb/south and is presently developed with single family homes.
The secondary ridgeline is undisturbed. The project proposes development on both the
primary and secondary ridgelines. Lots 1-4 are proposed to be constructed on the primary
ridgeline and lots 5-8 would be constructed on the secondary ridgeline. The project would
alter approximately 500' linear feet of the secondary ridgeline. The remaining 1,800 linear
feet of this ridgeline would remain undisturbed.
The project proposes access from two public streets, Taryn Drive and Cataro Drive, Taryn
would be extended approximately 950' and Cataro would be extended approximately 100'.
Both streets would be constructed to public street standards.
In conjunction with the project, the applicant is also proposing to haul approximately 13,000
cubic yards of dirt from approved Tract 47626 (located off of Ron Ridge Drive) to the project
site. The dirt hauled to the site would be used to repair an existing manufactured slope and
rebuild this slope at a 2.5:1 gradient.
The project site is zoned RS (Residential Suburban). Based upon this zoning, and excluding
development constraints, the site could accommodate a maximum of 159 units.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The project was heard by the Planning Commission on May 17, 1994 and June 21, 1994. At
the first meeting a total of 10 persons spoke in opposition of the project. Upon hearing
concerns and after deliberation, the Planning Commission continued the item to the June 21,
1994 meeting, directing the applicant to redesign the project and directing staff to schedule
a meeting between staff, the developer and surrounding property owners. The concerns cited
by the Commission with the project were associated with the following: presence of flag lots,
hauling of dirt to the project site, development on a secondary ridgeline, project density, slope
gradients and heights, use of a private driveway to access five lots, repair of an off-site slope,
and use of two story homes off of Cataro Drive.
In response to the Commission's concerns, the applicant redesigned the proposed project as
follows: reduced the density from 13 to eight lots, decreased the amount of dirt being hauled
to the site from 25,000 to 13,000 cubic yards, decreased the total amount of project grading
from 48,000 cubic yards of cut and 73,000 cubic yards of fill to 22,000 cubic yards of cut and
35,000 cubic yards of fill, reduced the height of one slope from 90 to 60', reduced the
development on a secondary ridgeline from 650 linear feet to 500 linear feet, redesigned the
dwelling units on lots 1-4 (off of Cataro Drive) from a two-story design to a one-story design,
and upgraded the proposed Taryn Drive extension from a private drive to public street
standards.
Per the Commission's direction, staff, the applicant, and surrounding property owners met
regarding the redesigned project on June 13, 1994. Eight property owners were present at
the meeting with seven of these persons expressing opposition to the revised project.
At the meeting of June 21, 1994, the Planning Commission heard the item, directing staff to
prepare a resolution of denial for the Commission's consideration at the July 19, 1994
meeting. The Commission found that the revised project was inconsistent with the City's
Hillside Ordinance and General Plan policies concerning hillside development primarily due
to development on identified ridgelines. A total of 10 persons spoke in opposition of the
revised project at this meeting.
On October 21, 1994, the applicant submitted a letter to the City Clerk requesting a
continuance to late February or early March to allow the applicant time to meet with
surrounding property owners in an attempt to address their concerns. Staff informed the
applicant that the item had already been noticed and that the Council would have to act upon
their request.
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
1) Deny Master Case 94-006; and,
2) Direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the Council's consideration at the
November 22, 1994, Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. P94-10
Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Commission Staff Reports
Correspondence and Petitions
GAC:LMH:GEA
wuncit\ar94006.gea
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDING AN APPEAL OF MASTER CASE NUMBER 94-006 (VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51772, OAK TREE PERMIT 94-001 AND HILLSIDE
REVIEW 94-002 - LOCATED SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE INTERSECTION OF LA
ROCHELLE DRIVE AND SANTA CLARITA ROAD, NORTHWESTERLY OF
CATARO DRIVE AND ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED PAMPLICO PARK -
PROJECT APPLICANT - SAUGUS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A vesting tentative tract map to allow for the subdivision of 31.8 acres into 8 single
family lots. The applicant is requesting a hillside review to allow for the development
of a site with an average cross slope in excess of 10%. The Oak Tree Permit is to allow
for grading within 200 feet of an oak tree. Access to the proposed project would be
from Cataro Drive and Taryn Drive, both of which would be cul-de-sacs. The Project
applicant is the Saugus Development Company.
The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 8th day of November, 1994, 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 Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita,
California.
If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter 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 of Santa Clarita at, or prior
to, the public hearing.
Dated: October 11, 1994
Donna M. Grindey, CMC
City Clerk
Publish Date: October 14, 1994
cones.phsaugus.gmd
� ~ a HLLL pR a
H pp PER ` 23
22 ' �s OR t -
0
STON Z20ppfp �,\L�- 50\.IVA CT �� _ -
g t? T+7rmh y0.t£I 9 Ci I �0 c C f� LL o
COWA AY PL ~FH P1�6 CM cl
T�� z
P AC>OK ; V �C 0V' iY
El- �� yI
DR
I c3 C
`TE- 4I� S
r ' \ CS I N( OI` r Ri N SO e
t COVIr• 'R� %WDN L ..
0
�EffER
~ yl'• \ S AFP i `• F K I I �( I J. O, 1 YISlt't[ I„ •.
5 s G $a n I w 4c�If t6c ' A
Ic
\ c, ■�
C L
hN A/tA �p " u �•
� i' z OR �tL
U g1,RC00,P 1 a 9KkRD PL krEY
Fes ` PWLI
z O� c
PAMPL\cO % Av 1 LH S EP PICE TCT
U w
Et LE Oq % d� rUL']SON OR
�� ♦ ERIC C7
\ o CT '. r _. UTM
w R E
MA R.O CCF F\
v, TE>SOr
L o 'Q �P KJ C7�.,�• S LUT CT ala
0
P F1' CT Gyl
'. GU LLF o S CPPERC0 3 ��i m C
e>
STAR
""+DTA �Qj• Ch, �P -tr 1
C� �O !!
CORD 2700 _ G � J$
RIO D ❑ _: FD. p
< EW
o OR `' • I IRO S `
o
BA AN P a \Z5 LW
ARRIBA
22600 CC > < o UTE a
GAR20TA pR W4 0 OJ \JO
VICINITY MAP
•� 3 � � o
i 'O i vA D� 'Nw r.
Source: Thomas Llu,de
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 51777
TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS' _
y _ TRACT No 35 II7 I 1144-- t
1,I
' Lz' ,e' ,a• 1401 ,Y _ jl 1305.5 139a5 FiO.- • - :�
`j •392.5
6.5' S. s' 2' 1/2. 2 ISI 1, 111 1385%• ��_ �s -- � � .1• 14og '1 ,�C. � �•� 6`\61, 1q��
9 w• , 6• C.i.' UNE . 6• GI. ray w 2:, �/ _ ,{Q� 42¢c EXlS7•'
LEVEL 9ope ®� �\ 13"!8 _r� --b rIN "_� 1 III SEWER ,.�..� ,n..
\
60' R YW
14t+ny 1L1� , EXiS%rmcmES�`FS I ,8f �' 1 LOCA 02lVE ED 14PAMPLrCO %I and IRr✓HOL6
� 1\ \ / y I 5EN/ER Myh ,
If
. _ ,°j / / - ` I \/ \.\� J1.�`/> ^r-�Jt/,Qnc o / � �-' ",I�-F,ar I •rPs lAp .4�\ . =I
17 If
NOT TO SCALE
5.' � Ex/sr. 57O21N aArN-
N / myon ERSEAIENT° R' / til ," fib'r_ 2Sp\� I
I J ��: M� � / /,- ' (/ .. ._PM• NO. `11403
/
o 22.5 t _ 0 \ / / 10 $E RG9-
y9\ y
IT /P'0•9� .hy p�;// �/' r i I 1]7♦ r----__� %'' `\ \ _-
2:, 6`'GI. • ( ''e• p
LEVEL rT1 - \,orV
E Slept ,..o . . in /liII I�Ir::J"1II,
E.P L/N
- -
: ?4
9°po��'
R-410.`JO:
I'•$I(' I �, ll� °� ,C,�I� a,. - "iP j /4"f4'r�T E �, -
e
d= ' 45L - - �,: i. f' ,.1• j J• w - -•:rte �
! t Q 3 52.
- - , I •, y h'c _ I ', / - /:,..,.J P,eOFosaO
fJ CORD: I
TARYN COURT / / D I / b �' ..r \ E SEMENTS. OF/QE
m
,,pp / / S4N7,4 CZAR/TA W.4rE.P CO.V,04NY /S TNS HOLOER
NOT TO SCALE / / /\\ /..E1 i -il
1 _ \ \ I G .=1 � i . (-�MeIVTS FORf1/ATEP L/NE PURPOSES
yyl. /OF BLAH ET EAS
` Q •.+k ':�'>9'o i� I; / PER 46850 PAGES 422 4Z4 O.R.
SAN FRANC/SQU/TO LANOS /NC. NoZOE P OF O/L (Y!/NERAL
I x I \ - -- '- - G TSP Z30 B30 D O Z74 70/ ..
/SON EASEMENTS R/ N EPO 6/ C 9/
22s t °` cfJL/F. EO 72 o./e _
SD. J2/ O.R. AN/0445/713 I r.._.. 1 \ lT r -_ O P
/ f
56068/. / ; �' "f q /. ,r F
Ir r as , \ t 2+ « Z`� / 3. BONELL/ C,47TLE COMPANY, NOLOER OFD/L y M/NERAL
3/P `\ \\ �� , `v.. J_.•" PER 03P7///ZSR,P., 0204//2050,P {'S34Z8//o20.P
2:, Nb - 6• GF. LE LEVEL 6- 2:1
,
Slope
&A)-
_4372 -3
t ,q F'��- I \�/ \,> \\?__\_ \\\ _, i �C•�� O� ', � ,+r '° �./�.CJ ti�/-C ����•��/ h., ` QWr rOf \a"/ }r//' S°� /' •� 1 - �.,I
t 0 3 /142 I /346 /352 /3s6• �0
/330 /3.34 /� � , , o \. %� � / r,/ ,J�\, ri f/ � ��• _ 'r - au ..,/
'.. ' . 1323 /�,/
/309 14,
}1'•, 2Y 0D>./
TARYN COURT /304 I -- '1 �_. _. J �_.,--1 :p I
i
• I -; . I ,_ _ ,. I ..J
IOPE
NOT TO SCALE .. r -I It - --� I .
, -, _._ _� -V„_ I �ib / �9 / _ \ ;� ( (/ �✓ ", , _ � PROPOSED SLOAF
I r •I` �DIEE\l1.4f1/L'/AGE �-�EME/�'% °`C / ( .•.. ,./.-/y ,. �%,,J/` ';I t otE.' ,.. T/QNG1?!JO/��L�QA�e - 1 -
_� '_ I T R9 90 a �J � / \ ��1J9) ^•'I pvN11 ,1�''LOSA/GELES � N e•, �� -
O7 cors,ftucr <• ma _ /.93 „ 'i L !aj , i. • i' ;l,t4`�J. / ,: , O'•. ?./' '>• r �` �1•1E4M1' WfYft\YRUGUS GYN 2 ° a _
C. StOCt S¢ No,L u 1 / .�,- / E
r 7 I 4_, 64 - Ot /✓� / k TayGT 4. S' r h, ,,e
/.y.I ,��0/ 3 _ 256.! / �.>%' N -r '' �' - �E59RATE
2 wrsnwtt S' wa aw•r. rs-a-.Boo \ I ----...- '-" 23' , `� - / / /., _ �'..,, . (,�0'7 pY• , , : i) n :X :. �'� r /
O
ON e]- 0u9,Lo Aoo+eua g65e (s<e won u7 N TRACT_
/ ��o r - c \" � / t% / , -/r/ / . J > f/NFL GQADIA/G \ MPK
® QI - • , ./" )/. I `' n/ ryJ '4,q r' -J . / r. iF ' '. �.: / 7.i...7D BE K� , 4"
3^^+oT ►.cc a,Ae • wmti - BOUNDARY' �'�
O ve n-• Deft ,.Pati SM. ,09-0 �. \ `
b . � s � O.' c/ MEN
(See mon %2)
- //% //: i- ?./ .•/,,o."i��.: •:\''�C' ,.. ^'•e �� i 1` T °e I
"'*' - v s- / '.f.�,, �J~ , •� In ' / .) J-/ TRAGI NDS/J7�vu.
I
1
e
f
65
TYP/CAL M/NIM111 ! LOT
o pP PSP I 69 'd,
5o
�tl P�� a[� . t.a•� / / 1 � � dtTt. \ .J/ _
\ .Q 1 1_ - - \ /! ''� ` /r cc f:1 T i'�' f ./� / 1 E \_ \ ♦ \ �'�-� \�� `� I :I',1 1
.� - I - J " _ - \ - '1; /; 'Cc <. , $ �(`(�/ �I , 7 jf•,��..r %•d' (N . 0, . ' 0`��•.�1,,
1_ i \- _ J J' ''�! __.' N/TED {l_f -•'' I '�/ ,. 'J / / :%� S/' ��^ •l1! '` � €,.eJ �e, ��1 `s�•v(t , ,u+K //.I u: a .,
I `� \ ( _ (( ��r` 1 `r' •'t, �� y � 0• / ♦ 1i •`1•' J I`4 n' � ^/ _f / ,'•v„ 159„ •
`
`y v I - ' I \� � \ CJ % , / /`-! I '. ��(IU� '•r!' a7y.G / r
'L ''� �1 �n 0.. `\ \\�\."`,
PROPOSE, IO��/.ppE ) 1PR - ,�/ .. 1 I J:
6 VAI \ ` .�WER._B EhiEl�rti '✓ , f l/,>A P!¢7S. eL�Osc5f:1t� 20>� 'IIlit
IO N I - - /C T D-r,�/ / l l • /,'. :,: RA
,
I. ,a9Dn
Ip°& W • 1!89°69 36"E\�`�',� /; tY�wrAcAerr6>% -�F2 / ,1 'i I_ I :i I / \ a i 1
•
1J
7
V) N
NfJi 1 s
� 3553 /� .k: �. � � .r .Lli°tRsS �� � �Ji. _ �y'< � //,/��//�/�"' � �'`+„`� _ :i >e ;, 1i...v I •�/;° e° �'r � ; E w
5 I \i Z � ,_,�'JJ� %/ � \ � I � I ' '�.. '•3- a�:.i �. / oSo�. -Le �C %// � ` A /ji/// � �� sw.J •,>vv, �\ J
01 • e
/\�_ �\ ,`.t.w� , `�� r•rll t � >. A' �V l � - -- l � �! , 1`
V• t1. � � I\ .] -\J � I \\L/. ! �1 � . �. 'BPR / `� - \<p) 3
OL OR
1 ^� p z_
Al
^� 1 : ' . !` I � ,'I/ PER IjILL �z DR
cy..1 0 2 x CC L lVA CT -
_ y, PP
sTDN E Lbn _
/VBG cLAREJ z20DD R , GE o c
'�Q� _ , l Ems-.� - N , \'I ����• _._ - m _ = C7
9I "� • /' THE U Y dICLbS\ i���/ 1 ~< '•J= `' \ �" 1 \ L i . 1 •,a - S c�' ``1m� va E q I CON -AN PL ^ v CT �_ n
..f ( ' I,I, �` T'. 4^ .\. `^,. , r / e� I [Y .jJ •YH/
NATE SECT/ON I IY� 2 0 ti� OR
,., q.��f a�� pQ� r q,. N.,p;
0 _
4 48 y
I 52 /156 \� �x qLp o0. '�
U z < i
p/
vl I Al •� � I ., r. WA
L_._ ,•, --- . � �S<
- ..• `:i �` .,
n
�1 �'® C/tFS d��'•��'- � � yy 1
I / � - I - �/ '.l � � % : - 3.46 / ,�� ;i,i IJ' _ � ]ro. .r _ _"_ � �..• � \`] °`� F V� I '� cr` �4 �
c Q Ir WE c Vic,
tw'
,� �! / ✓/ �d,•d l --�\ r ' ,� ,ra. ..1. ;-`l-"-iM1� C � TTA N IN= D
I I i'. o•' r r / / ,f �,:1.^J',� �'1 Q I �`, 09 �2S a ��ILUJCY PL LyEY `
0 0
Lj
" - \
PiJJPLl
' `�. ,.1: x:90%. I/�I -� �-e� ;�/ :.,\. ,,.e ,C4'. �'< o � ��t-' .. - .. - } � c0 •c �LS� \•H SCE- DIC "4 J I
/ E,. .�= n< � 9f I � �.• /°/� ,,, r' ; , . - � ( PAM 1 �, w
3' //\b� � �`� ,y' _ -J. ! ` �.. .. EI LES 04 fey � ,y'O� � I \• ` TUeL ERIN DR i
- -
. / RIiCT� ' >•]� / i �.>9 /Y 1 �`. k I y \ <.
GENERAL NOTES:7" -' '� _ 11
-��-�-���`\1. '\r,�i� ` ,:[:�- ,1 �--t• />a,s�pt\ /��-,�� „>xw b � �f � 4 '.,• • � 'r W,� <<T''': 'P+� �R F� E
t .. f / /BDUN•C�.., '.L� ___� i 1�1;F .\ ,.r �.'. ` 1 'o\; ..\1 /_ ry q�:;- ,F- 4 II -/+t--,,' .. ,� - M ., �, ` � Ctt Y %16 ViM..fR,'.� � C F'
1. 'AREA . . . . . ......�......_....... ..... ..I.. .. .. ...... 3I.A.AC. .GROSS i !// �"r l /+`. "�` -..�1` '--.`-✓ -r _-----�--luO° (k' "l' --- _,.c°-'�- /� �-' \���.\\�' t_e,`. ,I I�A'\�1AE! i `'., Y; I / I.I� �{.\'.,\'-e\�`; \\i\",`,�E, ��\�-k•I, \ '. .\\ I\. . ,,r'��`\;I\ '�.•-'��\ /\ �//J'F" \�a`%`=-,�',',ee�'� /, - /`*�'%' - . o-. ,.>` Y\G ���p�r • 0(ip'5(tJ�kU-p/r•'�a�T\ma1'.
�F
.. .... RS2. EXISTING SANTA CLARlTA GENERAL ALAN CATEGORY ...... 5
3. DasTING ZONING .......... \..... .J .... .. ... ...... . .. .... 038
J' R
RS
4. PROPOSED ZONING .. .
i/ ,7e"sa- , L LRO� 1• V7 J{1 ir,.n
\}a\
aYGl/7
.yCd�
t/_
5. EXISTING SITE USE ............... VACANT � �-I r \\ -"� / � II ' ' au, ` O ` R
}•/fir. �• 8 s', t" lG ��E•� P S[A0.
r..� \ A •4- l I /ve. ,'Grr .s S z t , C ,�J V, p0. �9!! `i, <c .O LN
% , `D'\,' } . i ft., } i' ( / f / t - S , Q ,- . �P "`'IOTA 7 \�" /'�• ? \,
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
' 6. DEVELOPMENT TYPE �.. ...... ............. .. ... ...
7. NUMBER OF LOTS ... ..... .... .. ... .... .. \. D 1 ✓/ ` j..(F, C '!'. (� „t1 . \\/^\\�� tr
..... 0.25D.U./AC. I gx 7\SLPb F \(
\ mow. `�-v`\ 1s \ /\� � � 'y \ PROPOSED � CORD
' - - 8. NET DENSITY ...................... ........................ � ® '•
9. NO. OF SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ......... . .! .............. ..................... 8 - - . .
/(1 •�' 1 r M\\ , �R 7 r� 5j .h / \� SEN/ER •r 1. ` aOV� ` ❑ lJ, �j
\• "t 9.000 S.F. J ` ISESFi I"J ",..1 ., . JO/,✓ EXCSl' v
-77
10. MINIMUMLbTSIZE . ....... .... ..... ....... ... F r ./ \ q /, 0.10
�. h �`'�'-..-. � � Np�dOf% '. , l7� / % �''ll\ `,�% • `l {>P i ..` � � SEWER L/NE u l � �. I a FM1N0 SHS ■ \ \ 1� `
11. STREET MAINTENANCE ..... ... ... -.-.. PUBLIC t1� pp�� _ l
Y ( Il,; , . , / / 1 ` A / .� �. `• �..�� N ! O > r D R a �7.- LM
RIGHT TO MERGE LOTS ON FINAL MAP. _ 0'&�--->i`
12. THE DEVELOPER RESERVES THE _ - ��rE l ,1 / 4 O/� X15T '/ J , • 6 ~ F ' t l 'I 1, BARSA O p °.� J I 5 U`� �•pyc�
' %,;,- , - o `•,.. ,r SEWER _
13. TOPOGRAPHY IS CONTROLLED WITH CONTOUR INTERVALS OF 2 AND 10 FEET 6' W/OF ORA/N plEAlJ' 1 i i .�
Of TlYE cDUlvrY of1.. P �YLSr ESN 51?A21!7UQN9
OU D I „` - I' $ ' \P < NE• 1/ h (7tNE
14.' BOUNDARY IS PER RECORD AND SURVEY DATA. - _ TRAl7 /VD, ?QOSy . �"•MAMIT. INb4RlAlAS6 `\„ I• -
-. `�. uY>:e 0%Ti�'� / / _. ° \i „ '1 1_.- \ \ , O z2600 C. Q< t Z GfE
15. SUBDIVIDER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FILE MULTIPLE FINAL MAP UNITS PER SECTION 66456.1 OF THE STATE MAP ACL - - + 1 _ P
//�, L- off° GARZOTA OR o w J�
16. SUBDIVIDE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADJUST STREET AND BUILDING PAD ELEVATIONS 3 FEET ON THE FINAL GRADING � -_ -'�- 1
PLANS. PQTD2/3/nf,9GE�% ''- i ' / i` ° I ,•' - {; ti i' .�k•,J ,33 �V' ..y
} , �•
17. SLOPES (CUT B FILL) ARE 1.5.1 AND 2 1 GRADIENTS AS SHOWN ON MAP' TOP AND TOE,OF SLOPES ARE SUBJECT TO �-�p\ `
E FINAL GRADING PLANS. -./ \ \• \ \ "'T���°,p--' ` !`r `eO,1 L VICINITY MAP
CHANGE ON THE i , . ;:'/ \ \ T. ,;,CeJ:n' _. _ I: li••NO
Ce �D7 ppJ .vnt to aa/c•
_
F IN HEIGHT ARE TO BE LANDSCAPED AND IRRIGATED WITH COUNTY APPROVED PLANS.
18. ALL SCOPES OVER 5 FEET \ � J
f9. THE RIGHTIS RESERVED TO ADJUST LOT LINES AND MERGE LOTS ON THE FINAL MAP.: _ Snurce: rl,°mac L;u�r!e
r- BOUNDARY DEVELOPMENT.
D OUTSIDE DEVELO
.R AND ARE O
20. OAK TREES IX15T WITHIN PROJE„ r BOJN.,A Y A _
21. THE PhOJECT DENSITY IS BELOW THE MID-RANGE THRESHOLD OF ME RS PLAN CATEGORY.
22- SUBDIVIDER REQUESTS ALTERNATIVE STREET SECTION PER CITY CODE.
I "
23. PERCENTAGE OF OPEN SPACE ... .... - .. (25.2 ACJ 75.3%
24. -PERCENTAGE OF LANDSCAPED AREA .. -._ .. .. t ....... ...... .. (3.1 AC.) 9.7%
UTILITIES AND SERVICES:
WATER'.. r ... ............. ........ SANTA CLARITA WATER C07VPAM'
SEWER .. .... ... ... ...... ... .... .............. LA. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 26
GAS .. .. ... .... _, • • .... • • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
.ELECTRIC ... .. .. ..... ...... ........... SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
' . TELEPHONE ....:.. . ............. ........... .. . .. - PACIFIC BELL
WILLIAM S. HART SCHOOL DISTRICT
LOT AND PAD SCHEDULE
LOTAREA
LOTAREA
PAD AREA
LOT
(S.F.)
(AC.)
(S.F.)
1
9,000
0.21
6,400
2
10.500
0.24
6,800
3
68,400
1.57
12,400
4
156,500
3.59
9,500
5
201,000
4.61
10,500
6
18,400
0.42
14,100
7
85,300
1.96
12,500
8
774,100
17.77
12,200
STREET AREA
62,000
1.42
-
TOTAL
1,365,200
31.80
84,400
1� VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT} j
/ ^ - ,, (/ I i. \ ,aP c ,.'r,/ I 1, -I MAP_NO. 51772
,
l J
/
,
wN
,
r /
I
I 1 -
I / t
, I
/.'
lJ'oIYJ'r;Ul rU�lU11J'
r26`s Lake Aveniic,'Suitc 506,`1lIasadena, CA `91101 ;: '
(818) 578=1759 Fax: (818) 578 1724
SAGUS DEVELOPMENT CO.
j - Owned A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
Subdivider: 2 civic Plaza, Suite 250, Newport Beach, California 92660
11h.: (714) 759-7770
-' WE CHANGED
REVISION
- CHANGED BY ! L ega /
"Description: Portion of Parcel lof Parcel Map No. 11403 P.M.H. 1134 513-63
_, ft /994 S.H.. REVISED ckADi/JG CO�FiGUQAnOs EVMiJF>� ✓E Lo7S
6 l31/�PX S H. ADD 5UILPIOLE Ae&9 TD LOr A108.
RESOLUTION NO. P94-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING
MASTER CASE 94-006, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51772, HII.LSIDE
REVIEW 94-002, AND OAK TREE PERMIT 94-001 TO SUBDIVIDE
A 31.8 ACRE PROPERTY INTO EIGHT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE INTERSECTION
OF LA ROCHELLE DRIVE AND SANTA CLARITA ROAD, NORTHWESTERLY OF
CATARO DRIVE AND ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED PAMPLICO PARK
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. The project site was first included as part of a 1987 subdivision request
exceeding 500 units. Prior to approval of that project, the subject site was
removed from the subdivision request.
b. On April 7, 1992, the Planning Commission considered Master Case 91-107
(Zone Change 91-004, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50488, Conditional Use
Permit 91-016, and Oak Tree Permit 91-037) to subdivide the subject site into
45 single family residential lots and two open space lots. Four oak trees
located near or on the site were proposed for removal. The .Planning
Commission denied Master Case 91-107, citing concerns with the project's
density, inconsistency with the General Plan, incompatibility with surrounding
properties, visual impacts, and impacts to oak trees. The applicant
subsequently appealed the denial to the City Council, who upheld the
Commission's decision.
C. An application for Master Case 94-006 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51772,
Hillside Review 94-002, and Oak Tree Permit 94-001) was filed by the Saugus
Development Company (the "applicant") with the City of Santa Clarita on
January 10, 1994. The application proposed: A vesting tentative tract map to
subdivide a 31.8 acre property into 13 single family residential lots; a hillside
permit to allow for the development of slopes in excess of 10%; and an oak tree
permit to allow for grading within 200' of an oak tree. Seven of the 13
proposed lots were flag lots. In conjunction with the project, the applicant was
proposing to haul approximately 25,000 cubic yards of dirt from approved Tract
47626 (located off of Ron Ridge Drive) to the project site. The site is located
southeasterly of the intersection of La Rochelle Drive and Santa Clarita Road,
northwesterly Cataro Drive and adjacent to the proposed Pamplico Park. The
assessor's parcel number for the project site is 2807-023-037.
d. The site is vacant and contains hillsides. The average cross slope of the
subject site is 45%. The site contains bother primary ridgeline and secondary
ridgeline. The primary ridgeline runs north/south and is presently developed
with single family homes. The secondary ridgeline is undisturbed.
Master Case Number 94-006
Resolution Number P94-10
Page 2
e. A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project
pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
£ The project site is zoned RS (Residential Suburban). The RS zone typically
corresponds to the single family tract home at a maximum density of five units
per acre. Under the City's Hillside Ordinance Density Chart the maximum
number of units that could be considered for the project site is 21.
g. Excluding Pamplico Park, the surrounding properties are all zoned Residential
Suburban (RS).
h. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May
17, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this meeting the Commission continued the item
to the June 21,'1994, meeting directing the applicant to redesign the project
in an effort to resolve concerns associated with the development. These
concerns were related to project design, earth movement, development on
significant ridgelines, project density, slope gradients and heights, and the use
of a private driveway. The Commission also directed the applicant, staff, and
surrounding property owners to meet regarding the project in an attempt to
resolve concerns cited by surrounding property owners.
i. The project was revised to include the subdivision of the 31.8 acre site into
eight single family residential lots. The redesign reduced development along
an identified secondary ridgeline and changed the slope gradient of a 120' high
fill slope from 1.5:1 to 2.5:1. The revised project also included a reduction in
the amount of dirt proposed to be hauled to the site from 25,000 to 13,000
cubic yards. Total grading proposed with the revision consists of 35,000 cubic
yards of cut and 22,000 cubic yards of fill. The project proposed access from
two public streets, Taryn Drive and Cataro Drive. Taryn Drive would be
extended from its present terminus approximately 950' and Cataro Drive would
be extended approximately 100'.
j. Staff, the applicant's engineer, and surrounding property owners met on June
13, 1994, to discuss the revised project. A majority of the residents present at
this meeting were in opposition to the revised project.
k. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June
21, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the
public hearing, and upon the study and investigation made by the Planning Commission and
on its behalf, the Commission further finds as follows:
Master Case Number 94-006
Resolution Number P94-10
Page 3
a. At the hearings of May 17, 1994, and June 21, 1994, the Planning Commission
considered the staff reports prepared for this project, received public testimony,
and reviewed all correspondence received on this proposal. The Community
Development Department received four letters and a petition containing
approximately 200 signatures in opposition to the project.
b. The City's General Plan designation for the project site (RS) has a minimum
lot size of 5,000 square feet. The project density of .25 units per acre is
consistent with the RS designation. The average slope of the subject parcel
has been calculated to be 45%.
C. Based upon review of the submitted plan and testimony from surrounding
property owners at the hearings, the subject property is not suitable for the
type of development proposed because the project is inconsistent with the City's
General Plan policies limiting development on ridgelines, promoting
development consistent with the existing topography and requiring new
development to be compatible with existing residential neighborhoods.
d. The subject property contains two significant ridgelines per the City's
Significant Ridgelines Map. The primary ridgeline runs north/south. Lots 1-4
10 are proposed to be constructed on this ridgeline. The secondary ridgeline runs
east/west. Lots 5-8 are proposed to be constructed on this ridgeline.
e. The Hillside Ordinance applies to development proposals on properties with an
average cross slope in excess of 10% and the purpose of the Hillside Ordinance
is to implement the hillside policies of the General Plan. Due to the average
slope on this property, review for consistency under the Hillside Ordinance is
required. The Density and Building Floor Area Ratio Change with Percentage
of Slope chart of the Hillside Ordinance (Section 17.80.0401, Figure 3) states
that the maximum allowable density for properties in the RS zone with an
average cross slope of 45% is .63 units per acre, provided that the project
complies with the development standards of the Hillside Ordinance. Section
17.80.040, D. states "... No engineered slopes, housing construction, streets,
utilities, or other man-made features shall be permitted within primary
ridgeline areas." Furthermore, this section states that " ... Secondary
ridgelines shall also be considered for hillside development proposals." The
project proposes development on both a primary and secondary ridgeline.
f. The Hillside Ordinance and Guidelines encourage grading to be balanced on
site ( Section 17.80.040.j.5). The applicant is proposing to import approximately
13,000 cubic yards of dirt from approved Tract 47626 to the project site. This
is inconsistent with balanced grading procedures called for under the City's
Hillside Ordinance and Guidelines.
g. Land Use Element policy 5.2 states that it is the City's duty to "ensure that
new development, grading, and landscaping are sensitive to the natura
Master Case Number 94-006
Resolution Number P94-10
Page 4
topography and major landforms in the planning area." Other General Plan
policies relating to hillside development include, but are not limited to:
Community Design Element policies 5.1 and 7.4, Open Space and Conservation
Element policies 1.1, 1.10, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4.
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning
Commission hereby determines as follows:
a. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with
the City's General Plan hillside policies since it is not consistent with the
Hillside Ordinance. The project is not consistent with the Hillside Ordinance
because the project proposes development on both a primary and secondary
ridgeline. Likewise, the proposed grading is not in accordance with the Hillside
Ordinance balanced grading requirements.
b. The site is not physically suitable for the density of development proposed due
to constraints associated with two identified significant ridgelines located on
the subject site.
C. The site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed and the
design of the subdivision may jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a
menace to the public health, safety or general welfare because the project is
not consistent with the City's Hillside Ordinance and General Plan policies
concerning hillside development.
SECTION 4. The Planning Commission hereby denies (Master Case 94-006) Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 51772 to create eight single family residential lots on 31.8 acres, denies
Hillside Review 94-002 to allow for development on a property with an average cross slope
in excess of 10%, and denies Oak Tree Permit 94-001 to allow for grading within 200' of an
oak tree. The Planning Commission also denies the request to haul approximately 13,000
cubic yards of dirt from approved Tract 47626 to the project site.
PASSED;, APPROVED AND
1994.
ATTEST:
r
Lynn . Harris
Secretary, Planning Commission
ADOPTED this
Dave Doi
Planning
,day of
L.
Master Case Number 94-006
Resolution Number P94-10
Page 5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk, 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 21st day of July, 1994 by the following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DOUGHMAN, WOODROW, MODUGNO, CHERRINGTON
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BRATHWAITE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
4�L I // / &Opr'l
.
i y Clerk
GEA:Iep
pm�m�rom��o.e.,
ITEM 5: MASTER CASE NUMBER 94-006 (VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 51772, HILLSIDE REVIEW PERMIT 94.002, and Oak Tree
Permit 94-001)
Mr. Henderson introduced the item. It is before the Commission as a revised map
incorporating changes which the Commission suggested and some added by staff.
Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner gave a slide presentation. He went over the conditions
which have been added and revised.
Commissioner Woodrow had a question regarding the adjustment of lot lines which Glenn
Adamick answered.
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:25 p.m.
The applicant, Steve Hunter, discussed the project and went over the modifications that
have been made. Changes were made regarding the ridgeline development, the hauling of
the dirt, impacts to City streets, sewers, pest control, future sub -division of the property,
dust control, visual impact, secondary ridge, repairs of the slope, density, the extension of
Taryn Street and the elimination of the flag lots.
Mr. Hunter stated that he had reviewed the conditions that staff prepared and basically
they agreed and accepted all the conditions. He asked that the Commission allow the
addition of one other condition. The developer had met with the Saugus Canyon
Homeowners Association and the association agreed that this project may be able to be
brought into that association. The developer is asking that an open space lot be dedicated
to the Saugus Canyon HOA. The upkeep of the open space lot would be taken care of by
the HOA. Mr. Hunter showed the Commissioners where the open space lot was located
on a map.. There would be a future sub -division restriction regarding the lot.
Richard Callison, 27445 Santa Clarita Rd., Saugus. Mr. Callison wishes this whole issue
could be "put to bed". He questioned who the Saugus Canyon Homeowners Association
was. He suspected it was the developer's HOA and is self-serving. Mr. Callison felt that
lots 7 and 8 were flag lots. He is still concerned with the dump truck travel route.
Tracey Staples, 22445 Los Rogues Drive, Saugus. Every homeowner she has spoken with
is opposed to this project. She stated she bought their home because of the natural rustic
beauty surrounding them. She does not want houses built one on top of the other nor do
they want the mountain tops graded off..
Bonnie Deagon, 27545 Santa Clarita Rd., Saugus. Her main concern is the children at
Foster Elementary School. She said the dirt and dust within 200 yards of the playground
will affect the children and their health.
Bill Whitbread, 27376 Santa Clarita Rd., Saugus. He has talked to many homeowners
and not one has been in favor of this project. He feels that the area is already well
developed.
Peter Waschak, 27547 Catala Ave., Saugus. He is concerned about the impact of the
development on the secondary ridgeline. He does not support any development coming off
of Taryn Drive. He said Mr. Hunter did not inform anyone of putting in the open lot.
John Strain, 22301 Cataro Dr., Saugus. His home is the only one on Cataro. He wants
to protect what he has. He is concerned about the pests and dust and the truck traffic.
Raymond O'Connor, 22550 La Rochelle Dr., Saugus. His major concern is trucks and how
they could endanger the children in the area. He read from the City's Statement of
Philosophy.
Cary Talbot, 27539 Catala Ave., Santa Clarita. He was surprised by the new plan
outlined by the applicant. He wanted to know how the HOA people were going to access
the open space. He is concerned about the trucks hauling the dirt and for the children.
He said views would be blocked.
Daniel Staples, 22445 Los Rogues Dr., Saugus. He is concerned about how this will affect
the school children and access to the open lot. This project would have a visual impact on
the residents.
Laura Cheesebrough, 22465 Los Rogues Dr., Saugus. A few of her neighbors who are
opposed to this project were unable to attend the meeting due to prior commitments. She
is concerned about the visual impact this project will have on the rustic setting in the
area. She feels the gunite concrete ditches are unsightly.
Bob Miller, 22000 Pamplico Dr., Saugus.. He is an elected/appointed officer of the Saugus
Canyon Homeowners Association. The association consists of 411 homes. The purpose of
his attendance at the meeting was to let the other homeowners know that the open space
lot will be kept in its natural state. He said the HOA is willing to assume the landscape
watering and maintenance of the property to ensure the slopes are visually maintained on
an ongoing basis. He stated the HOA is managed by Crown Management.
Steve Hunter spoke again to address the concerns of the homeowners. He feels that the
developer has tried to work with the homeowners to resolve any problems they have
regarding this project.
Commissioner Brathwaite had a question regarding the rehabilitation of the slopes. Mr.
Hunter answered that the slope would be entirely removed and rebuilt. He said
landscaping would be put in along with erosion control measures.
The Public Hearing was closed at 11:25 p.m.
Commissioner Cherrington said he does not think this project meets the conditions of
health and safety. He was disappointed by the pad layout on Taryn and the extended
driveways.
Commissioner Brathwaite felt the applicant made good progress in requesting only eight
units. He felt the open space lot and the other homeowners' association could be a
problem. Looking at the total situation, Commissioner Brathwaite said the developer has
put forth a good effort and he would vote in favor of it except for the homeowners'
association situation.
Commissioner Woodrow asked staff when they first heard about lot number 8 being given
to the homeowners association. Glenn Adamick replied staff became aware of it that
afternoon. Commissioner Woodrow felt this was a hard project to get enthusiastic about.
Commissioner Modugno commented he had a hard time warming up to this project. He
said the alternative to the project would be to do nothing and there would be the
possibility of someone else coming in again with another project. The dirt movement is
not appealing to him and the matter of the open space lot could create neighbor problems.
Chairman Doughman stated he was disappointed with the four lots to the north end of
the project. He felt two of them were flag lots. He does not like all of the dirt movement.
He said there were only two excellent lots for development.
A motion to deny was made by Commissioner Cherrington and seconded by Commissioner
Woodrow. Said motion was carried on a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Brathwaite
dissenting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM 2: MASTER CASE NO. 94-006 (VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
51772, HILLSIDE REVIEW PERMIT 94-002, AND OAK TREE
PERMIT 94-001) - located southerly of the intersection of La Rochelle
Drive and Santa Clarita Road, northwesterly of Cataro Drive and adjacent
to the proposed Pamplico Park.
City Planner Rich Henderson introduced the item, a request for a vesting tentative tract
map to subdivide a 31.8 acre parcel into 13 single family lots and one open space lot. The
hillside review permit would allow for the development of a site with an average cross
slope in excess of 10%. In conjunction with the development proposal, the applicant
requested to haul approximately 25,000 cubic yards of dirt from approved Tract 47626
(located at the extension of Ron Ridge Drive) to the project site.
Assistant Planner Glenn Adamick gave a slide presentation. He also presented the
Commissioners with a petition with 170 signatures opposing the project.
Associate Planner Robert Newman responded to questions by the Commissioners
regarding the number of truckloads of dirt to be hauled to the project site and for what
period of time, possible damage to City streets and the responsibility for street repairs if
damage did occur.
Chairman Doughman opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m.
Steve Hunter, Land Design Consultants, 201 S. Lake Avenue, #500, Pasadena 91101,
principal speaker for the applicant, discussed the project and responded to questions by
the Commissioners. He stated the developer had agreed to leave undisturbed the
encroachment of adjoining property owners and would make lot line adjustments. He also
stated the developer was agreeable to reducing the number of homes, and requested that
some two story homes be permitted.
The following persons spoke in opposition to the item:
Peter Waschak, 27547 Catala Avenue, Saugus 91350. Mr. Waschak expressed concerns
about impact on a significant secondary ridge.
Ron Sumner, 27494 Catala Avenue, Santa Clarita 91350. Mr. Sumner expressed concerns
about air pollution created by hauling the 25,000 cubic yards of dirt to the development
site. He also expressed concerns about safety to the children as a result of the number of
trucks on residential streets.
Eileen Keating, 27464 Seco Canyon Road, Saugus 91350. Ms. Keating stated there was
an ordinance against more than a 10% grade, and that the ordinance should be enforced.
She also expressed concerns about the safety of fill lots in the event of an earthquake.
Richard Keating, 27464 Seco Canyon Road, Santa Clarita 91350. Mr. Keating stated the
primary purpose for the application was to allow the developer to move the 25,000 cubic
feet of dirt in order to build another project.
Richard Callison, 27445 Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita 91350. Mr. Callison explained how
small projects for the subdivision were brought before the County and City for approval
over a period of years, with statements by the developer that no more applications would
be made. He expressed a desire to have the developer stop, bringing subsequent requests
for development before the Planning Commission.
Dusty Osmanson, 27332 Santa Clarita Road, Saugus 91350. Mr. Osmanson expressed
concerns for the safety of children who play in the residential area, and who are walking
to and from school, when the trucks are involved in hauling the dirt.
Donna Osmanson, 27332 Santa Clarita Road, Saugus 91350. Ms. Osmanson stated the
developer had indicated previously it would not be asking for further development on this
site.
Lou Cohn, 27367 Santa Clarita Road, Saugus 91350. Mr.. Cohn expressed concerns that
the streets would not accommodate the heavy use by large trucks without sustaining
damage.
Mike Bray, 27553 Catala Avenue, Saugus 91350. Mr. Bray stated the roads were not set
up for hauling by large trucks.
Cary Talbot, 27539 Catala Avenue, Santa Clarita 91350. Mr. Talbot referenced the
petition with 140+ signatures as an indicator of the concerns of the residents of the
community about this project..
Chairman Doughman asked the applicant to respond to any statements made by persons
in opposition to the item or to make any further informational statements he desired. Mr.
Hunter stated the developer would abide by any conditions the Planning Commission
placed upon the project.
Chairman Doughman closed the public hearing at 8:50 p.m.
Commissioner Cherrington stated that it did not appear sufficient meetings to obtain a
consensus had been held by the applicant and the residents of the area. He suggested
that those meetings beheld and the item brought back to the Commission at the next
regularly scheduled meeting.
Following discussion by the Commissioners the public hearing was reopened at 9:25 p.m.,
and a motion made by Commissioner Cherrington to continue the hearing to June 21,
1994. Commissioner Woodrow seconded the motion, and it was approved 5.0.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
MASTER CASE NO. 94-006
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51772
HILLSIDE REVIEW 94-002
OAK TREE PERMIT 94-001
DATE: June 21, 1994
TO: Chairma/n�D�ugh�m(n and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lynn M. Hhiris, Deput City manager, Communty Development
CASE PLANNER: Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II
Fred Follstad, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: Saugus Development Company
LOCATION: Southeasterly of the intersection of La Rochelle Drive and Santa Clarita
Road, northwesterly of Cataro Drive and adjacent to the proposed
Pamplico Park.
REQUEST: A revised project including the following:
A vesting tentative tract map to allow for the subdivision of 31.8 acres
into eight single family residential lots. -
A hillside permit to allow for the development of a site with an average
cross slope in excess of 10%u.
An oak tree permit to allow for grading within 200' of an oak tree.
In conjunction with the tract map, the applicant is requesting to haul
approximately 13,000 cubic yards of dirt from approved Tract 47626
(located at the extension of Ron Ridge Drive) to the project site.
BACKGROUND
The item was heard by the Planning Commission at the May 17, 1994, meeting. At that
meeting, the Commission continued the item to the June 21, 1994, meeting, directing the
applicant to redesign the project in an effort to resolve concerns associated with the following:
1) Presence of seven flag lots in the project;
2) Hauling of 25,000 cubic yards of dirt to the project site;
3) Development on an identified secondary ridgeline;
4) Project density;
5) Slope gradients and heights;
6) Use of a private driveway to access five lots located off of Taryn Drive;
AGENDA ITEM!
Page 2
7) The repair of an off-site slope (under the water tanks); and,
8) The construction of two-story homes off of Cataro Drive.
The Commission also directed staff, the applicant, and surrounding property owners to meet
in an attempt to resolve concerns associated with the project. The applicant has since
redesigned the project in an attempt to resolve the concerns brought forth by the
Commission, staff, and surrounding property owners.
ANALYSIS
The applicant has redesigned the project as follows:
1) Decreased the number of single family residential lots on the 31.8 acre site from 13
to eight. The project's density has decreased from .43 units per acre, to .25 units per
acre. Four of the lots would take access from Cataro Drive, with the remaining four
lots accessing from the extension of Taryn Drive. The RS zone (Residential Suburban)
allows for a maximum density of five units per acre.
2) Decreased the amount of dirt that would be hauled from Tract 47626 to the project
site from 25,000 cubic yards to 13,000 cubic yards. The revised project proposes only
one haul route from the tract to the project site, via Cataro Drive. The dirt hauled to
the site would be used to repair the existing manufactured slope and rebuild this slope
at a 2.5:1 gradient (staff previously recommended a 2:1 gradient). The height of the
slope (120') would remain the same. The elimination of the second haul route,
accessing the site from Taryn Drive, would reduce the impacts associated with the
hauling of dirt in close proximity to James Foster Elementary School.
The Commission, at the previous meeting, directed staff to analyze possible
alternatives to the haul routes proposed by the applicant, including the use of another
site. The applicant's engineer has stated that the dirt could be moved to a site that
the applicant owns in the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County, north of
Copperhill Drive. This route would be considerably longer than the one proposed and
would also require travelling through residential neighborhoods. Any additional
routes would be longer than the one proposed and would necessitate the hauling of
dirt through residential neighborhoods.
3) Decreased the amount of project grading from 48,000 cubic yards of cut and 73,000
cubic yards of fill to 35,000 cubic yards of cut and 22,000 cubic yards of fill. The
applicant would also reduce the height of the 1.5:1, cut slope located on the new lot
5, from 90' to approximately 60'. The revised project would alter approximately 500'
of the secondary ridgeline to accommodate lots 5, 7, and 8.
The previous proposal included development along 650' of this ridgeline, with the
remaining 1,650' remaining undisturbed.
4) Redesigned the type of dwelling units proposed on lots 1-4 (off of Cataro Drive) from
a two-story design to a one-story design.. The maximum height of the one-story homes
would be 23'. The applicant is requesting that the Commission consider allowing a
F�
Page 3
loft within these homes. The loft would not increase the maximum height of the
proposed homes.
5) The redesigned project would extend Taryn Drive approximately 950' from its
intersection with Pamplico Drive to access lots 5, 6, 7 and 8.Each of these lots would
meet frontagerequirements established in the Unified Development Code. Due to
topographical constraints, the applicant would use a common driveway to access both
lots 5 and 6 and lots 7 and 8.
The previous project proposed an extension of Taryn Drive approximately 500' from
its present terminus. From that point, the applicant was proposing to extend a 26'
wide private driveway approximately 500' to access the development area.
6) In conjunction with the grading of the project site, the applicant is proposing to repair
the slope located below the water tanks and above Taryn Drive. Staff has added a
condition requiring this action.
Staff has included draft conditions of approval within the Commission's packet. Condition
nos. 67 and 68 would prohibit future subdivision of the proposed lots and dedicate building
rights on ungraded portions of the project site, preserving them as open space. Condition
no.. 66 allows for the construction of only one-story homes on lots 1-4. Condition no. 69 is
related to the hauling of dirt to the project site and condition no. 64 requires the applicant
to repair the off-site manufactured slope above Taryn Drive.
Staff, the applicant's engineer and surrounding property owners met regarding the
redesigned project on June 13, 1994. Eight property owners attended this meeting with
seven of these owners in opposition to the redesigned project. The property' owners also
indicated that numerous residents, not in attendance at this meeting, were also in opposition
to any development on the site.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Approve the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project; and,
2) Adopt Resolution P94-08, approving Master Case 94-006 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map
51772, Hillside Review 94-002, Oak Tree Permit 94-001), as revised, subject to the
attached conditions of approval.
vnoc«n"WSITMg.
3
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
PERMIT/PROJECT: MASTER CASE NUMBER 94-006 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51772, Oak
Tree Permit 94-001 and Hillside Review 94-002)
APPLICANT: Saugus Development Company
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: A vesting tentative tract map to allow for the subdivision of 3
acres into 8 single family lots. The single family lots range in size from 9,000 to 774,100 square fe1.8
et.
The applicant is requesting a hillside review to allow for the development of a site with an average
cross slope in excess of 100/6. The oak tree permit is to allow for grading within 200' of an oak tree.
Access to the proposed project would be from Cataro Drive and Taryn Drive, both of which would
be cul-de-sacs. Four of the proposed lots would access from Cataro Drive and four of the lots
would access from Taryn Drive. A majority of the area between Los Rogues Drive and La Rochelle
Drive would remain undeveloped and designated as permanent open space. In conjunction with
the development proposal, the applicant is requesting to haul approximately 13,000 cubic yards of
dirt from approved Tract 47626 (located at the extension of Ron Ridge Drive) to the project site.
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to
the requirements of Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of
Santa Clarita
[ ] City Council
[X] Planning Commission
[ ] Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment,
and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[ ] are not required. [ X ] are attached.
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOFWENT
Prepared by:
(Signature)
Reviewed by:� )
(Signature)
are not attached.
Wenn Adamick Accictant Plann r II
(Name/Title)
Fred Follstad A o -late planner
(Name/Title)
R3- ;
October 21, 1994
Donna Grindey
City Clerk
City of Santa
23920 Valencia
Santa Clarita,
SAUGUS DEVELOPMENT CO.
VIA FACISIMLE
Clarita ORIGINAL BY FEDERAL EXPRESS
Blvd., Suite 300
CA 91335-2175
RE: CITY COUNCIL APPEAL OF MASTER CASE 194-006
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #51772
HILLSIDE REVIEW 94-002 AND
OAKTREE PERMIT 94-001
Dear Ms. Grindey:
There is a hearing set on November 8, 1994 with respect to the
above referenced project. This is an additional request to
reschedule the hearing until late February or early March 1995.
A review of the file will reveal that on July 19, 1994 the
Planning Commission ("Commission") denied our above referenced
project. Three major determinations were made supporting the
denial. They are:
1. That the proposed project would be developing on a
significant primary ridgeline;
2. That the project would be developing on an existing
significant secondary ridgeline; and,
3. That the project was inconsistent with the general plan due
to the fact that it calls for the importation of dirt.
We sent a letter of appeal dated August 3, 1994 stating our
position with respect to each of the above determinations. The
hearing on that appeal is scheduled for November S.
#2 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 250
NEWPORT BEACH,
CALIFORNIA 92660-5915
714/759-7770
Donna Grindey
October 21, 1994
Page Two
After filing the appeal, other pressing business matters required
our full attention and we have not had the opportunity to meet
with the adjacent neighbors and other interested groups, and we
will not have the opportunity to do so prior to the scheduled
hearing. We believe that in order to provide the most fair input
with respect to the neighbor's issues and to most effectively
address their concerns, it is necessary that we have the
opportunity to meet with the neighboring homeowners before the
hearing. With the holidays and the year end rush quickly
approaching, we feel a postponement of the hearing is in order.
We apologize for not having requested this rescheduling earlier
and trust that a continuance until late February or early March
will be compatible with your schedule.
Sincerely,
SAUGUS DEVELOPMENT CO.,
a California Limited Partnership
By: R&K Construction Co., Inc.,
a California Corporation,
Its General Partner
By:
Executive Vice
cc: 1285 Entitlement
Ken Battram
Steve Hunter
Glen Adamick (via fax & Federal Express)
August 3, 1994
City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91335-2175
IAUC?J�$ jIEVEIQPME
RE: APPEAL OF JULY 19, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION P94-10 MASTER CASE #94-006
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51772
HILLSIDE REVIEW 94-002
OAKTREE PERMIT 94-001
Dear Council Members:
Enclosed is our check number #13864 in the amount of $465 which
is the fee required for the above referenced appeal.
This letter is intended to set forth the basic grounds for our
appeal. It is our understanding that we may present details
supporting our appeal in writing prior to the time the appeal is
considered. It is our .intention to provide additional General
Plan policies with which the project is consistent and to
demonstrate a balance between the General Plan policies and
reasonable development.
On July 19, 1994, the Planning Commission ("Commission") denied
the above referenced project. There were three major
determinations made by the Commission which underlie its denial.
Although the Commission did not state its determinations in quite
this way, the grounds for denial, and the basis for our appeal,
are fairly summarized as follows:
L. The Commission determined the proposed project would be
developing on a significant primary ridyeline. We appeal
because the project should not be considered developing
on a "significant primary ridgeline". The ridgeline in
question was graded and developed prior to adoption of
the General Plan and Development Code. The ridgeline was
decimated years ago. Although it may appear on the
city's ridgeline maps, it does not exist in reality. In
addition, the four lots in question are already graded
and sit in the midst of an existing mature, established
residential neighborhood with a top street that was
previously designed, approved and built (Cataro Drive).
Building well designed, quality houses on the already
graded area in an existing residential neighborhood will
have no adverse impact on the assumed, though
nonexistent, ridgeline.
#2 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 250
NEWPORT BEACH,
CALIFORNIA 92660.5915
714/759-7770
i li
J
RE: APPEAL OF JULY 19, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION P94-10 MASTER CASE #94-006
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51772
HILLSIDE REVIEW 94-002
OAKTREE PERMIT 94-001
Dear Council Members:
Enclosed is our check number #13864 in the amount of $465 which
is the fee required for the above referenced appeal.
This letter is intended to set forth the basic grounds for our
appeal. It is our understanding that we may present details
supporting our appeal in writing prior to the time the appeal is
considered. It is our .intention to provide additional General
Plan policies with which the project is consistent and to
demonstrate a balance between the General Plan policies and
reasonable development.
On July 19, 1994, the Planning Commission ("Commission") denied
the above referenced project. There were three major
determinations made by the Commission which underlie its denial.
Although the Commission did not state its determinations in quite
this way, the grounds for denial, and the basis for our appeal,
are fairly summarized as follows:
L. The Commission determined the proposed project would be
developing on a significant primary ridyeline. We appeal
because the project should not be considered developing
on a "significant primary ridgeline". The ridgeline in
question was graded and developed prior to adoption of
the General Plan and Development Code. The ridgeline was
decimated years ago. Although it may appear on the
city's ridgeline maps, it does not exist in reality. In
addition, the four lots in question are already graded
and sit in the midst of an existing mature, established
residential neighborhood with a top street that was
previously designed, approved and built (Cataro Drive).
Building well designed, quality houses on the already
graded area in an existing residential neighborhood will
have no adverse impact on the assumed, though
nonexistent, ridgeline.
#2 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 250
NEWPORT BEACH,
CALIFORNIA 92660.5915
714/759-7770
City Council
August 3, 1994
Page Two
2. The Commission determined the proposed project would be
developing on an existing significant secondary
ridgeline. We appeal because the project should not be
considered to be developed on a "significant secondary
ridgeline". The secondary ridgeline in question is not
"significant" by definition. Even if it was
"significant", our project should not be denied because
the project has an insignificant impact on the ridgeline,
is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and
preserves in perpetuity rather than destroys about 85% of
the remaining ridgeline.
3. The Commission determined the project is inconsistent
with the General Plan because it calls for importation of
dirt. We are appealing because importation of dirt is
not inconsistent with the General Plan or Development
Code policies relating to the balancing of sites.
Balancing is encouraged "...whenever possible..." but is
not absolutely required. All previous staff
recommedendat ions were made approving the proposed
importation. The Commission previously impliied
acceptace of the importation (with other conditions
specified). Even if importation were strictly
prohibited, this project, as known to the staff and the
Commission, can be balanced if required.
Primary Ridgeline
The first basis for our appeal is because the Commission's denial
of our plan was based on a finding that our project is on a
"pri ary ridgeline" and, therefore, approval would not be
cons,°stent with the General Plan and the Development Code
including the Hillside ordinance. The "primary ridgeline"
referred to is a ridgeline running in a generally north -south
direction.
What is left of the original ridgeline cannot, in reality, be a
"primary ridgeline" as specified in Section 17.80.040.A and
17.80.040.B.1 of the Hillside ordinance inasmuch as the ridgeline
in question was already obliterated, graded, developed and built
on well before the General Plan and the Development Code were
adopted. In effect, it did not exist when the General Plan was
adopted and does not exist today. It is impossible to violate a
nonexistent ridgeline.
City Council
August 3, 1994
Page Three
In addition, the four southerly lots of our project, Lots 1-4,
which are located on the purported "primary ridgeline", are
already graded. They were developed in conjunction with adjacent
developments. It is our understanding the Cataro and Garza
properties, including the lots in question, were all graded at
about the same time. Construction of homes on those lots will,
obviously, have no further adverse impact on the ridgeline than
already exists by virtue of the previous grading of those lots.
Other than our property, the surrounding area is fully developed
with single family detached homes. The four homes we designed
are completely compatible with the existing surrounding
residential neighborhoods and consistent with the existing
topography. The General Plan, with inclusion of the Hillside
Ordinance, would allow up to 21 units. No significant change in
the topography is needed to complete construction of the homes
with the exception of our proposed mitigation of the existing 120
foot high slope which has been damaged by erosion and lack of
maintenance.
Secondary Ridgeline
The second ground of our appeal relates to the Commission's
finding that the project cannot be built on a "significant
secondary ridgeline". The reference here is to our northerly
lots, Lots 5-8. The secondary ridgeline runs generally east and
west.
First, contrary to the findings, only three of our proposed lots
would be on the ridgeline. The fourth lot is adjacent to it.
In addition, this should not be considered a "significant
secofdary ridgeline" by definition. To be "significant" in
accordance with Section 17.80.040.A of the Hillside Ordinance,
the ridgeline would have to "...visually dominate the valley
landscape...". The specific secondary ridgeline in question can
only be seen from a very limited area in its own immediate
vicinity and in the immediate vicinity of our proposed project.
It cannot possibly have either valley wide visibility nor valley
wide significance. By no stretch of the imagination could it
"...visually dominate the valley landscape...".
In addition, even if it were determined that the ridgeline was
"significant", neither the General Plan nor the Development Code
prohibit development on a "significant secondary ridgeline".
Indeed, Section 17.80.040 of the Hillside Ordinance provides
City Council
August 3, 1994
Page Four
specific standards for development of such areas. We do not
argue that certain policies of the General Plan discourage
development on secondary ridgelines where it would be appropriate
to do so. However, our project is not one where it would be
appropriate to discourage development. We are preserving, not
interfering with, 80% - 85% of the ridVeline. Our plan is to
develop only about 15% - 20% of it. The ridgeline is
approximately 2,600 feet long and we are going to develop a mere
450 feet of it. Even if this were a "significant" secondary
ridgeline, which it is not, our development should in no way be
unconditionally denied. With appropriate conditions, as required
by the staff in the past, any impact on the ridgeline can be
mitigated to less than significance. With appropriate
development standards, this project should be approved.
Finally, this particular secondary ridgeline has already been the
sub)ect of significant development at its easterly end, in the
vicinity of catala.
Grading Balance
_Our third_ ground for appeal has to do with the Commission's
finding that the project does not balance from a grading stand
point. The General Plan and Development Code, through the
Hillside Ordinace, discourage importation or exportation in
Hillside Projects "...whenever possible...". Because of our
desire to import dirt, the Commission found our project
inconsistent with the General Plan.
However, our project is not inconsistent with the General Plan
nor with the Development Code. Neither the General Plan nor the
Development Code prohibit projects that do not balance. They
merely encourage balance where possible as implemented by
Hillside Ordinance Section 17.80.040j,5. Although projects that
y i
do not balance may be discouraged, t would clearly be an abuse
of discretion to flatly deny any project that requires import.
The City staff twice recommended approval of our project, with
the importation of dirt, 'including recommendations of findings
that our, project was consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code. Those staff recommendations are attached to
this letter as Enclosure #1 and Enclosure 12. At the first
Commission Hearing on this subject, the members polled themselves
and indicated approval of our project, with importation, provided
we complied with certain additional requirements. The commission
clearly agreed in concept to the import of dirt, merely requiring
City Council
August 3, 1994
Page Five
a reduction of, the quantity down to 10,000 to 15,000 cubic yards.
We complied. We came back before the Commission with a staff
finding that we had complied with all of the previous conditions
including the Commission imposed importation limit. In fact, the
Commission directed the staff to prepare a resolution for
approval of our project. A copy is attached as Enclosure #3.
Then, for unknown reasons, the Commission changed its mind and,
apparently, its understanding of the grading balance policy.
Without warning, it determined that this project was not
approvable because it was inconsistent with the General Plan
policy regarding the importation of dirt. This was a new concept
to us and is incorrect.
However, even if the General Plan and Development Code strictly
prohibited importing dirt (which they do not), all the Commission
needed to do was make balance of the site a condition of
approval. The staff and Commission, at the May 17, 1994 hearing,
were aware that this project could be balanced. (See Enclosure
#l, page 2, second to last paragraph.) Even with that knowledge
before it, the Commission's requirement was not balance, but
simply a reduction of the import quantity, thus clearly implying
approval -of the importation of dirt. However, if approval is in
fact conditional upon balance, then, we reiterate, balance can be
attained.
We appreciate your consideration with respect to this appeal. As
previously stated, it is our expectation to provide additional
information prior to the date of the hearing on the Appeal.
Sincerely,
SAUGUS DEVELOPMENT CO.,
a California Limited Partnership
By: R&K Construction Co., Inc
a California Corporation,
It5XG�erab Partner A „,
By:
Executive Vice
cc: 1285 Entitlement (w/o encl.)
Ken Battram (w/o encl.)
Steve Hunter (w/o encl.)
rn749
July 13, 1994
ECEIVED
David Doughman
j 11 1 319941
Chairman 6hoFTY
SANTA CL RITA
Santa Clarita Planning Commissiiili
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91335-2175
RE: PROJECT 192-039-002
CA,7 4ONGA DEVELOPMENT CO,
VIA FACSIMILE
ORIGINAL BY MAIL
Dear Chairman Doughman:
We hereby respectfully request that you reopen the hearing and
reconsider your denial of the above referenced project.
There are many reasons for this request. We have put
great
at
deal of time, expense and effort into creatingdevelopment
will be an enhancement to the community. The city staff and the
Planning Commission have also put in considerable time and effort
analyzing this project. Based on all of the input we have
received, we believe there is some plan that is acceptable to the
community and to the City of Santa Clarita.
We have carefully listened to the opposition of the adjacent
owners and neighbors. When we critically analyze their points,
it is our belief that the majority of them are arguing for no
development whatsoever. However, no development ie not an
acceptable alternative and no development is not a legal
alternative for this property since development is specifically
provided for and authorized under the General Plan and applicable
zoning ordinances.
At the hearing before last, the Planning Commissioners polled
themselves individually. Each Commissioner expressed his opinion
about the development. The Commission then directed the staff
and the developer to make a variety of adjustments to the plan as
presented at that hearing. At the last hearing we presented a
Plan that we believe addressed every issue, answered every
question and complied in every way with the directions we had
been given at the previous meeting. We believe the last plan we
presented accomplished the Commission's purposes.
*2 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 250
NEWPORT BEACH,
CALIFORNIA 92660-5915
7141759.7770
2 /E #:5919 629 509 N3loAws : Wdzc:e : %-E1-L
7
:A9 1N3S
C7
David Doughman
July 13, 1994
Page Two
At the last meeting, before our project came up on the agenda,
the hour had become quite late. We believe at that late hour
there was great confusion among the adjacent owners and neighbors
caused by our introduction of the Saugus Canyon Homeowener's
Association as our intended owner of the area outside of the lots
to be developed. Our suggestion that the Saugus Canyon
Homeowner's Association might assume ownership of those open
areas appeared to have created not only confusion, but some
hostility from the adjacent owners and neighbors. We had the
impression they thought we were attempting to pull some sort of
underhanded maneuver or trick them in some way. Nothing could be
further from the truth. Our intention in suggesting that we deed
the open areas to the Saugus Canyon Homeowner's Association (or
some other entity) is simply to accom lis h the purposes the
adjacent owners and neighbors are str wing for including the
certainty that there will be no more development hearings on this
property and that there will be some accountable entity
responsible for the maintenance of those open areas in the
condition they are presently in.
Therefore, I believe the circumstances at the last meeting got
somewhat out of control and the denial of our project was a
mistake for everyone: the City, the adjacent owners and
neighbors, and us. Consistent with the General Plan and zoning
ordinances, we feel certain that a project on this land is
approvable. If not approved now, the problem we are faced with
will continue to recur and haunt the City and the adjacent owners
and neighbors.
our project as proposed offers many positive contributions to the
community. For example, we will complete the improvement of
Taryn from Pamplico to its southerly terminus. This will provide
the community with a complete and improved street adjacent to the
proposed park. If it is not completed as part of our
development, then most likely it would have to be completed later
at public expense. In addition, our development calls for
remediation of the existing slope on the southerly lots. Once
completed, the issue of that slope will not plague the City or
the adjacent owners and neighbors again. Perhaps most
importantly, approval of our project and deeding the open areas
to the Saugus Canyon Homeowner's Association or some other
acceptable entity will and, once and for all, future
applications, hearings, costs and controversy regarding this
property.
S /t #:SZTB GSZ 209 -NT19MMS • WdZe:£ '• %-ET-L :A9 Dss
David Doughman
July 13, 1994
Page Three
For all of the above reasons, we respectfully request the hearing
be reopened so that we have an opportunity to discuss with the
adjacent owners and neighbors the positive results that approval
of our project and conveyance of the common area to an entity
such as the Saugus Canyon Homeowner's Association, or some other
acceptable entity would entail. we would like an opportunity to
make the adjacent owners and neighbors more familiar with our
plans and with the Saugus Canyon homeowner's Association and to
develop a project that will positively impact the community and
eliminate any future action regarding this property for us, the
City and the adjacent owners and neighbors.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
CUCAMONGA DEVELOPMENT CO.,
a California Limited Partnership
By: Simi Residential Investments, Ltd.,
a California Limited Partnership,
Its General Partner
By: Miraleste Pines, Inc.,
a California Corporation,
Its General Partner
By: L�r�
Kenneth Battram
President
cc: 1323 Entitlement
Commissioner Jerry Cherrington
Commissioner Luis Braithwaite
Commissioner Pat Modungo
Commissioner Jack Woodrow
Scott Crawford
Steve Hunter
Glen Admamick
rn717
S /8 #!8918 659 508 N910AW3 : i4d££:£ : i6 -£1-L
:A8 1N3S
SENT BY: 9- 1-94 : 4:02PM SUNNYGLEN 805 259 8125:* 2/ 2
September 1, 1994
Ms. Donna Grindey, City Clerk
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91335-2175
SAUGUS DEVELOPMENT CO.
Via Fax 6 Hail
REt City Council Appeal of Master Case 94-006,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51772
Hillside Review 94-002 and Oak Tree Permit 94-001
Dear Ms. Grindey:
Please consider this letter a formal request to reschedule the
City Council appeal hearing net for September 27, 1994, to
November 8, 1994.
If you need additional information or should you have any
questions regarding this request to reschedule the hearing,
please contact the undersigned at (714) 759-7770.
Sincerely,
SAUGUS DEVELOPMENT CO.,
a California Limited Partnership
By: R & K Construction Co., Inc.,
a California Corporation,
Its General Partner
By:
ScottZ4�9-ore
o
Vice Presideft of Development
JSC/ko
C: Ken Battram
Steve Hunter, Land Design Consultants
1285-00/Entitlement
1N? CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 250
NEWPORT BEACH,
CALIFORNIA 92660.5915
714/759-7770
1285.sc006
_ CITY Of SANTA CLARI7A
-
4� CgL� Xr-2 y
r,_GE ! _ r.
0
— CiiY C:_FFJr ' "FICE
tcf�sIE¢[�Prr1�.—��p� hit—LP�iL^ Cvr7 e, a
.--
ckorlpo eons
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Lynn Harris & Fred Follstad
FROM: Donna Grindey�
DATE: September 6, 1994
SUBJECT:. SAUGUS DEVELOPMENT
Attached are copies of letters from Scott Crawford, Vice President of Development with
Saugus Development Company.
The letter is requesting the appeal hearing set for September 27th be re -scheduled to
November 8th, 1994. I received this letter on September 1, 1994, therefore, I did not
advertise the public hearing for September 27th.
coaes.saugdev.dmg
City Of
Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Suite 300
City of Santa Clarita
California 91355
Phone
(805) 259-2489
Fax
(805)259-8125
TRANSMITTAL SHEET
a
TO: DATE: l LD
PAZ NUMBER:
FROM:
PAGES (INCLUDING TRANSMITTAL SHEET)
REMARKS:
� 1041"l -
ease@sasses@ea@@e��ees@sasses@@see@see@@ee@see@eeeaaseeeeee
TRANSMITTED BY: Geri Miller -Davis Deputy City Clerk
PHONE: (805) 255-4390
DEPARTMENT: City Clerk Department
July 13, 1994
RECEIVED
David Doughman 111il 1 319941
chairman COMM NIL RRAS
Santa Clarita Planning CommissibB SANTA
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91335-2175
RE: PROJECT 192-039-002
Dear Chairman Doughman:
CUI,..AONGA DEVELOPMENT CO,
VIA FACSIMILE
ORIGINAL BY MAIL
We hereby respectfully request that you reopen the hearing and
reconsider your denial of the above referenced project.
There are many reasons for this request. We have put a great
deal of time, expense and effort into creating a development that
will be an enhancement to the community. The city staff and the
Planning Commission have also put in considerable time and effort
analyzing this project. Based an all of the input we have
received, we believe there is some plan that is acceptable to the
community and to the City of Santa Clarita.
We have carefully listened to the opposition of the adjacent
owners and neighbors. When we criticallyy analyze their points,
it is our belief that the majority of tham are arguing for no
development whatsoever. However, no development in not an
acceptable alternative and no development is not a legal
alternative for this property since development in specifically
provided for and authorized under the General Plan and applicable
zoning ordinances.,
At the hearing before last, the Planning Commissioners polled
themselves individual)y. Each Commissioner expressed his opinion
about the development. The Commission then directed the staff
and the developer to make a variety of adjustments to the plan as
presented at that hearing. At the last hearing we presented a
plan that we believe addressed every issue answered every
question and complied in every way with the directions we had
been given at the previous meetingq. We believe the last plan we
prasented accomplished the CommissionOs purposes.
i
*2 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 250 i
NEWPORT BEACH,
CALIFORNIA 92660-5915
7141759-7770
S /C #:29I9 69Z S09 SAWS : WdZB:e : K -M -L :A9 .Ly3S
City Council
August 3, 1994
Page Five
a reduction of the quantity down to 10,000 to 15,000 cubic yards.
We complied. We came back before the Commission with a staff
finding that we had complied with all of the previous conditions
including the Commission imposed importation limit. In fact, the
Commission directed the staff to prepare a resolution for
approval of our project. A copy is attached as Enclosure #3.
Then, for unknown reasons, the Commission changed its mind and,
apparently, its understanding of the grading balance policy.
Without warning, it determined that this project was not
approvable because it was inconsistent with the General Plan
policy regarding the importation of dirt. This was a new concept
to us and is incorrect.
However, even if the General Plan and Development Code strictly
prohibited importing dirt (which they do not), all the Commission
needed to do was make balance of the site a condition of
approval. The staff and Commission, at the May 17, 1994 hearing,
were aware that this project could be balanced. (See Enclosure
#1, page 2, second to last paragraph.) Even with that knowledge
before it, the Commission's requirement was not balance, but
simply a reduction of the import quantity, thus clearly implying
approval .of the importation of dirt. However, if approval is in
fact conditional upon balance, then, we reiterate, balance can be
�. attained.
We appreciate your consideration with respect to this appeal. As
previously stated, it is our expectation to provide additional
information prior to the date of the hearing on the Appeal.
Sincerely,
SAUGUS DEVELOPMENT CO.,
a Cafiifornia Limited Partnership
By: R&K Construction Co., Inc.,
a 1�.fornia Corporation,
ItCa�G=rab Partner A 1 /
By:
Executive Vice
cc: 1285 Entitlement (w/o encl.)
Ken Battram (w/o encl.)
Steve Hunter (w/o encl.)
rn749
City Council t
August 3, 1994
Page Four
specific standards for development of such areas. We do not
argue that certain policies of the General Plan discourage
development on secondary ridgelines where it would be appropriate
to do so. However, our project is not one where it would be
appropriate to discourage development. We are preserving, not
interfering with, 80$ - 85% of the ridggeline. Our plan is to
develop only about. 15% - 20% of it. The ridgeline is
approximately 2,600 feet long and we are going to develop a mere
450 feet of it. Even if this were a "significant" secondary
ridgeline, which it is not, our development should in no way be
unconditionally denied. With appropriate conditions, as required
by the staff in the past, any impact on the ridgeline can be
mitigated to less than significance. With appropriate
development standards, this project should be approved.
Finally, this particular secondary ridgeline has already been the
sub)ect of significant development at its easterly end, in the
vicinity of catala.
Grading Balance
our third_ ground for appeal has to do with the Commission's
finding that the project does not balance from a grading stand
point. The General Plan and Development Code, through the ( J
Hillside Ordinace, discourage importation or exportation in
Hillside Projects "...whenever possible...". Because of our
desire to import dirt, the Commission found our project
inconsistent with the General Plan.
However, our project is not inconsistent with the General Plan
nor with the Development Code. Neither the General Plan nor the
Development Code prohibit projects that do not balance. They
mer+ encourage balance where possible as implemented by
Hillside Ordinance Section 17.80.040.j.5. Although projects that
do not balance may be discouraged, it would clearly be an abuse
of discretion to flatly deny any project that requires import.
The City staff twice recommended approval of our project, with
the importation of dirt, including recommendations of findings
that our_ project was consistent with the General Plan and the
Developmel[C Code. Those staff recommendations are attached to
this letfsr as Enclosure 01 and Enclosure #2. At the first
CommissioigHearing on this subject, the members polled themselves
and indicated approval of our pproject, with importation, provided
we complied with certain -additional requirements. The commission
clearly agreed in concept to the import of dirt, merely requiring
City Council
August 3, 1994
Page Three
In addition, the four southerly lots of our project, Lots 1-4,
which are located on the purported "primary ridgeline", are
already graded. They were developed in conjunction with adjacent
developments. It is our understanding the Cataro and Garza
properties, including the lots in question, were all graded at
about the same -time. Construction of homes on those lots will,
obviously, have no further adverse impact on the ridgeline than
already exists by virtue of the previous grading of those lots.
Other than our property, the surrounding area is fully developed
with single family detached homes. The four homes we designed
are completely compatible with the existing surrounding
residential neighborhoods and consistent with the existing
topography. The General Plan, with inclusion of the Hillside
ordinance, would allow up to 21 units. No significant change in
the topography is needed to complete construction of the homes
with the exception of our proposed mitigation of the existing 120
foot high slope which has been damaged by erosion and lack of
maintenance.
Secondary Ridaeline
-� The second ground of our appeal relates to the Commission's
finding that the project cannot be built on a "significant
secondary ridgeline". The reference here is to our northerly
lots, Lots 5-8. The secondary ridgeline runs generally east and
west.
First, contrary to the findings, only three of our proposed lots
would be on the ridgeline. The fourth lot is adjacent to it.
In addition, this should not be considered a "significant
secondary ridgeline" by definition. To be "significant" in
accordance with Section 17.80.040.A of the Hillside Ordinance,
the ridgeline would have to "...visually dominate the valley
landscape...". The specific secondary ridgeline in question can
only be seen from a very limited area in its own immediate
vicinity and in the immediate vicinity of our proposed project.
It cannot possibly have either valley wide visibility nor valley
wide significance. By no stretch of the imagination could it
"...visually dominate the valley landscape...".
In addition, even if it were determined that the ridgeline was
"significant", neither the General Plan nor the Development Code
prohibit development on a "significant secondary ridgeline".
Indeed, Section 17.80.040 of the Hillside Ordinance provides
City Council
August 3, 1994
Page Two
2. The Commission determined the proposed project would be
developing on an existing significant secondary
ridgeline. We appeal because the project should not be
considered to be developed on a "significant secondary
ridgeline". The secondary ridgeline in question is not
"significant" by definition. Even if it was
"significant", our project should not be denied because
the project has an insignificant impact on the ridgeline,
is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and
preserves in perpetuity rather than destroys about 85% of
the remaining ridgeline.
3. The Commission determined the prosect is inconsistent
with the General Plan because it calls for importation of
dirt. we are appealing because importation of dirt is
not inconsistent with the General Plan or` Development
Code policies relating to the balancing of sites.
Balancing is encouraged "...whenever possible..." but is
not absolutely required. All previous staff
recommedendations were made approving the proposed
importation. The Commission previously lmpliied
acceptace of the importation (with other conditions
specified). Even if importation were strictly ^i
prohibited, this project, as known to the staff and the
Commission, can be balanced if required.
Primary Ridaeline
The first basis for our appeal is because the Commission's denial
of our plan was based on a finding that our project is on a
"pri ary ridgeline" and, therefore, approval would not be
consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code
including the Hillside Ordinance. The "primary ridgeline"
referred to is a ridgeline running in a generally north -south
direction.
What is left of the original ridgeline cannot, in reality, be a
"primary ridgeline" as specified in Section 17.80.040.A and
17.80.04*eR.l of the Hillside Ordinance inasmuch as the ridgeline
in question was already obliterated, graded, developed and built
on well 'before the General Plan and the Development Code were
adopted. In effect, it did not exist when the General Plan was
adopted and does not exist today. It is impossible to violate a
nonexistent ridgeline.
r�
August 3, 1994
City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91335-2175
RE: APPEAL OF JULY 19, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION P94-10 MASTER CASE #94-006
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51772
HILLSIDE REVIEW 94-002
OAKTREE PERMIT 94-001
Dear Council Members:
Enclosed is our check number #13864 in the amount of $465 which
is the fee required for the above referenced appeal.
This letter is intended to set forth the basic grounds for our
appeal. It is our understanding that we may present details
supporting our appeal in writing prior to the time the appeal .is
considered. It is our intention to provide additional General
Plan policies with which the project is consistent and to
demonstrate a balance between the General Plan policies and
reasonable development.
On July 19, 1994, the Planning Commission ("Commission") denied
the above referenced project. There were three major
determinations made by the Commission which underlie its denial.
Although the Commission did not state its determinations in quite
this way, the grounds for denial, and the basis for our appeal,
are fairly summarized as follows:
L. The Commission determined the proposed project would be
developing on a significant primary ridgeline. We appeal
because the project should not be considered developing
on a "significant primary ridgeline". The ridgeline in
question was graded and developed prior to adoption of
the General Plan and Development Code. The ridgeline was
decimated years ago. Although it may appear on the
city's ridgeline maps, it does not exist in reality. In
addition, the four lots in question are already graded
and sit in the midst of an existing mature, established
residential neighborhood with a tap street that was
previously designed, approved and built (Cataro Drive).
Building well designed, quality houses on the already
graded area in an existing residential neighborhood will
have no adverse impact on the assumed, though
nonexistent, ridgeline.
#2 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 250
NEWPORT BEACH,
CALIFORNIA 92660-5915
714/759.7770
Donna Grindey
October 21, 1994
Page Two
After filing the appeal, other pressing business matters required
our full attention and we have not had the opportunity to meet
with the adjacent neighbors and other interested groups, and we
will not have the opportunity to do so prior to the scheduled
hearing. We believe that in order to provide the most fair input
with respect to the neighbor's issues and to most effectively
address their concerns, it is necessary that we have the
opportunity to meet with the neighboring homeowners before the
hearing. With the holidays and the year end rush quickly
approaching, we feel a postponement of the hearing is in order.
We apologize for -not having requested this rescheduling earlier
and trust that a continuance until late February or early March
will be compatible with your schedule.
Sincerely,
SAUGUS DEVELOPMENT CO.,
a California Limited Partnership
By: R&K Construction Co., Inc.,
a California Corporation,
Its General Partner
By
Executive
cc: 1285 Entitlement
Ken Battram
Steve Hunter
Glen Adamick (via fax & Federal Express)
SAUGUS DEVELOPMENT CO,
October 21, 1994
Donna Grindey VIA FACISIMLE
City Clerk ORIGINAL BY FEDERAL EXPRESS
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91335-2175
RE: CITY COUNCIL APPEAL OF MASTER CASE #94-006
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 051772
HILLSIDE REVIEW 94-002 AND
OAKTREE PERMIT 94-001
Dear Ms. Grindey:
There is a hearing set on November 8, 1994 with respect to the
above referenced project. This is an additional request to
reschedule the hearing until late February or early March 1995.
A review of the file will reveal that on July 19, 1994 the
Planning Commission ("Commission") denied our above referenced
project. Three major determinations were made supporting the
denial. They are:
1. That the proposed project would be developing on a
significant primary ridgeline;
2. That the project would be developing on an existing
significant secondary ridgeline; and,
3. That the project was inconsistent with the general plan due
to the fact that it calls for the importation of dirt.
We sent a letter of appeal dated August 3, 1994 stating our
position with respect to each of the above determinations. The
hearing on that appeal is scheduled for November 8.
1
—�
42 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 250
NEWPORT BEACH,
CALIFORNIA 92660-5915
7141759-7770
Public Hearing Procedure
1. Mayor opens hearing
*States purpose of hearing
2. City Clerk reports on hearing notice
3. Staff report
4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes)
S. Opponent Argument (30 minutes)
6. Five-minute rebuttal (Proponent)
•Proponent
7. Mayor closes public testimony
8. Discussion by Council
9. Council decision
10. Mayor announces decision
ENCLOSURE #1
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
MASTER CASE NO. 94.006
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51772
HILLSIDE REVIEW 94.002
OAK TREE PERMIT 94-001
DATE:
May 17, 1994
TO:
Chairmanoughman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:
Lynn M. Harris, Deputy City
Manager, Community Development
CASE PLANNER:
Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II
Fred Follstad, Associate Planner
APPLICANT:
Saugus Development Company
LOCATION:
Southeasterly of the intersection of La Rochelle Drive and Santa Clarita
Road, northwesterly of Cataro Drive and adjacent to the proposed Pamplico
Park.
REQUEST:
A vesting tentative tract map to allow for the subdivision of 31.8 acres into
13 single family residential lots.
A hillside permit to allow for the development of a site with an average
cross
slope in excess of 1W%,.
An oak tree permit to allow for grading within 200' of an oak tree.
In conjunction with the tract map, the applicant is requesting to haul
approximately 25,000 cubic yards of dirt from approved Tract
47626 (located
- at the extension of Ron Ridge Drive) to the project site.
BACKGRO ND
The project sit: was first included as a part of a 1987 subdivision request exceeding 500 units
(Tentative Tract No. 34430 under the County of Los Angeles). Prior to approval of this map, the
County Regional Planning Commission omitted the subject site from the subdivision request.
Approximately 100 units were proposed on the subject site at that time.
On April 7, 1992, the Planning Commission considered Master Case 91-107 (Zone Change 91-004,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50488, Conditional Use Permit 91-016, Oak Tree Permit 91.037) to
subdivide the subject site into 45 single family residential lots and two open space lots. Grading
of 295,000 cubic yards of dirt, balanced on-site, was proposed with this project. Four oak trees
located in the project area were proposed to be removed and a majority of the undisturbed,
identified secondary ridgeline was proposed to be developed. The Commission received over 40
letters and a petition containing 225 signatures in opposition to the project. The Planning
Commission denied the project citing concerns with the project's density, inconsistency with the
City's General Plan, incompatibility with surrounding properties, visual impacts, and removal of oak
trees.
ENCLOSURE #1
PAGE 1 OF 6
AGENDA ITEM 4?
Master Case No. 94-006
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51772
Page 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site is Vacant and is surrounded by single family residences, the proposed Pamplico Park, and
an elementary school. There are two oak" trees located on the project site. Another oak tree is
located adjacent to the project site on an open space lot for Tract 45284. None of the oak trees are
proposed to be removed by the project.
The applicant is proposing to develop the 31.8 acre site with 13 single family residential lots. The
submitted map shows a total of 14 lots (including the open space lot). The applicant has requested
that this open space lot be combined with lot 13, due to the City's unwillingness to accept the open
space lot. Also, the applicant is not proposing to form a Homeowners association for the
development. An Association would typically maintain open space lots. The lot sizes would range
in size from 6,000 square feet to 20 acres. Approximately one-half of the project site would remain
as permanent open space. The applicant is proposing to utilize flatter portions of the project site
for construction.
The site contains two identified ridgelines per the Hillside Ordinance. The primary ridgeline runs
north/south and is presently developed with single family residences. Lots 1 - 8 are proposed to
be constructed along this ridgeline. The secondary ridgeline runs east/west and is presently'
undisturbed. This ridgeline is proposed to be altered by lots 9 though 13. Approximately 600' linear
feet of this ridgeline would be graded to accommodate the project. The remaining portions of the
ridgeline (approximately 1,400' linear feet) would remain undisturbed. The average cross slope of
the subject site is 45%. `
The applicant is proposing to construct two-story units on each of the residential lots. The
applicant has not submitted proposed building heights for the units. The RS zone allows for a
maximum height of 35'.
In conjunction with the project, the applicant is proposing to haul approximately 25,000 cubic yards
of dirt from approved Tract 47626 (located at the terminus of Ron Ridge Drive) to the project site.
Approximately 18,000 cubic yards would be transported from the tract to the project site as follows:
Ron Ridge Drive at Pamplico Drive southerly along Ron Ridge to Grove Park, westerly to
Catala Avenue and then northerly to Garza Drive and then south to Cataeo Drive.
Approximately 7,000 cubic yards of dirt would be transported from the tract to the project site as
follows:
Ron Ridge Drive at Pamplico westerly to the intersection of Pamplico and Taryn Drive. The
site will be accessed from Taryn Drive.
The applicantis indicating that this haul could be completed within a two-week period. The
applicant is proposing to initiate this action immediately, if project approval is granted. If the haul
route is not approved, the project grading could be balanced on-site. Additionally, the applicant is
indicating that the dirt from approved Tract 47626 would still have to be moved off of that site.
Tract 47626 is located approximately 1/4 of a mile from the project site.
Cut and fill grading would be utilized to repair an existing manufactured slope located between
Cataro Drive and Guadilamar Drive. Portions of this slope are eroded, with culverts undermined and
ENCLOSURE 111
PAGE 2 OF 6
Master Case No. 94.006
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51772
Page 3
inoperable. The applicant is proposing to rebuild this slope at a ratio of 1,5:1: The height of this
fill slope would be approximately 120'. The highest proposed cut slope is located on proposed lot
9 and is approximately 90'. The ratio of this slope would also be 1.5:1. Total project grading,
including the proposed export from Tract 47626, would consist of 48,000 cubic yards of cut and
73,000 cubic yards of fill. The project proposes a maximum depth of cut of 50' and fill of 40'.
The project proposes access from two public streets, Cataro Drive and Taryn Drive. Cataro Drive
would be extended from its present terminus 120' to provide access to lots 1 - 8. Cataro Drive is
presently a substandard cul-de-sac. Taryn Drive is proposed to be extended approximately 500'
from its terminus. From this point the applicant is proposing to extend a 26' wide private driveway
approximately 500' to access lots 9 - 13. The development proposes a total of seven flag lots,
though lots 9-13 would take.access from a shared private driveway. .,
All services and utilities are available and would be extended by the applicant to serve the project.
GENERAL PLAN DE51GNATI0N SURRQUNDING LAND UL ZONING
The site is presently zoned RS (Residential Suburban, a maximum of five dwelling units per acre).
The following table sets forth information as it pertains to the project site and surrounding areas,
including planning categories, zoning, and land use designations:
General Plan Zoning Land Use
Project RS RS Vacant
North RS/OS RS/OS Single Family Residences, School,
and an undeveloped Park.
South RS RS Single Family Residences
West RS RS Single Family Residences
East RS RS Single Family Residences
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to evaluate the impacts of
the project. It was determined that the adverse environmental impacts could be avoided through
mitigation measures. Subsequently, a draft mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the
project. '
11111:4151:17THTu 5it ►
The project has been distributed to the affected City Departments and agencies, and the Community
Development Department has received recommended requirements and conditions. Certain
requirements and conditions have been included as mitigation measures to environmental impacts.
The 31.8 acre project site is zoned RS and designated RS by the City's General Plan. The RS zone
typically corresponds to the single-family detached tract home at a density of up to five units per
acre. The standard lot area for each unit is 5,000 square feet. Excluding site constraints, the
ENCLOSURE #1
PAGE 3 OF 6
Master Case No. 94-006
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51772
Page 4
property could accommodate a maximum of 159 units. The project's density is .43 units per acre,
well below the five units per acre permitted in the RS zone.
The proposed residential lots range in size from a minimum of 6,000 square feet to a maximum of
approximately 20 acres. Surrounding lot sizes range in size from a minimum of approximately 5,500
square feet to a maximum of 20,000 square feet. The average lot size of surrounding properties is
approximately 7,500 square feet. Proposed lots 1 (7,000 square feet), 7 (6,400 square feet), and 8
(6,000 square feet) would be below 7,500 square feet.
Residences located in the immediate area of Cataro Drive are predominatly one-story. Surrounding
property owners have cited a concern with loss of views and incompatibility, due to the
construction of two-story homes on lots 1 8. Staff would recommend that lots 1, 2, and 3, be
conditioned to be one-story homes with a maximum height of 20'. This may eliminate neighborhood
concerns associated with loss of views. Lots 1, 2 and 3 are at a finished grade of 1543' - 1545',
approximately 10' lower than the finished grade of the first view lot on Catala Drive.
The project does not propose to remove any of the oak trees located on or adjacent to the project
site. The applicant is requesting a permit to allow for grading within 200' of an oak tree. Impacts
associated with this grading are anticipated to be minimal.
The applicant is proposing to utilize a flag lot design on seven of the 13 lots. In the past the
Commission has cited a concern with flag lots. As a result, staff would recommend that lots 3 and
4 be combined and the street frontage increased to 40' to eliminate the use of flag lots on that
portion of the site.
The applicant is also proposing five flag lots off of Taryn Drive. In this case the design may be
justified as a private driveway (shared commonly by the lot owners) would be utilized to access the
lots in lieu of five different driveways. The flag lot design would provide each lot with the minimum
street frontage requirements, eliminating the need to waive frontage requirements for the lots.
s;D
The hillside property has steep terrain with an average cross slope of 45%,. Under the City's
Hillside Ordinance a maximum of 21 units could be placed on the site.
The project proposes development on the primary ridgeline (lots 1-8). A majority of this primary
ridge has been developed on in the past. To develop lots 1-8 the applicant is proposing to "fill up"
the area off of Cataro Drive and rebuild the existing manufactured slope. Portions of the
manufactured slope are at a present slope ratio of 1.5:1. The "filling up" of this area would result
in a 120', 1.5:1, fill slope. To provide additional stability to the slope, the applicant is proposing
to utilize geo-textile fabric and construct new drainage swales. The fill slope would be highly visible
to properties located west of the project site. The City's Hillside Ordinance encourages maximum
slope gradients of 2:1 (especially when adjacent to public rights-of-way). Additional staff concerns
are related to the stability of the proposed 1.5:1 fill slope and the ability to maintain landscaping on
the slope. If approval is considered, staff would recommend that this slope be re -designed to a 2:1
gradient to be consistent with the City's Hillside Ordinance and to eliminate stability concerns
associated with the fill slope. This re -design may result in the elimination of one to three lots off
of Cataro Drive.
ENCLOSURE ill
PAGE 4 OF 6
Master Case No. 94-006
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51772
Page 5
The project proposes development on the secondary ridgeline with lots 9-13. This ridgeline is
presently undisturbed and is a finger of the primary ridgeline. The applicant is proposing to cut a
maximum of 40' off of this ridgeline to accommodate the proposed lots. In addition, a 1.5:1, 90' high
maximum, cut slope would be constructed on lot 9. The remaining portions of this ridgeline would
remain undisturbed. The City's Hillside Ordinance prohibits development or altering of any
identified ridgeline unless a hillside review permit is approved. The ordinance also requires that
all or part of the ridgeline be retained in its natural state. Development on this ridgeline, as
proposed by the project, may be justified due to the preservation of a majority of the ridge by the
project. Staff would recommend that the proposed 1.5:1, 90' high, cut slope be reduced to a
maximum height of 60', and that lot 9 be eliminated. Staff also believes that this re -design will result
in a more stable slope. Requiring the applicant to construct the slope at a 2:1 ratio would likely
eliminate lots 9-13.
In an effort to eliminate concerns associated with open space preservation, staff would recommend
that building rights be dedicated to the City on all ungraded portions of the property. This could
be accomplished through conditioning of the project, resulting in the placement of a note on the
final map. Staff would also recommend that a note be placed on each lot prohibiting any future
subdivision of the parcels.
HAUL ROUTE/GRADIN
Total project grading consists of 48,000 cubic yards of cut and 73,000 cubic yards of fill. As stated
Previously, the applicant is proposing to haul approximately 25,000 cubic yards of dirt from
approved Tract 47626 to the project site. Two different routes are proposed to access two separate
areas of the project site.
City streets would be used to haul the dirt from the tract to the project site. The hauling of this dirt
will generate approximately 5,000 vehicle trips to and from the project site. This portion of the
project grading would be completed within a two week period. This action is expected to impact
the local collector streets and surrounding property owners. The haul route accessing the project
at Taryn Drive is also located within close proximity to James Foster Elementary School.
Because of the above cited impacts, staff would recommend that hauling of the dirt be conducted
during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays only (hauling would be prohibited on
Saturday, Sunday, and holidays). Additionally, staff would recommend that the hauling of dirt not
be conducted during hours when children are walking to and from school. The applicant would be
responsible for repairing damage to any street caused by the hauling of the dirt.
f1S.Q Qn ATI nu
In an effort to respond to concerns cited by adjacent residents on the previous project, the applicant
is not proposing to connect Cataro and Taryn Drive. The subject project proposes to extend Cataro
Drive approximately 120' and Taryn Drive approximately 500'. The extension of Taryn Drive will be
a future benefit when Pamplico Park is built because it will provide additional on -street parking for
the park.
Staff has met with surrounding property owners on two separate occasions. A majority of the
residents contacted are in opposition to the project. Staff has also received correspondence on the
ENCLOSURE #1
PAGE 5 OF 6
i
Master Case No. 94-006
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51772
Page 6
project which has been included within the Commission's packet. The surrounding property
owners' concerns are related to the loss of open space, slope instability and soil slippage, drainage,
grading and hauling impacts, loss of views, destruction of ridgelines, future subdividing of the
property, slope heights and gradients and the elimination of a valuable wildlife area. These
concerns are summarized in more detail within the letter from Mr. Peter Waschak representing
Saugus Residents in Opposition to Tract 51772..
SUMMARY
If approval of the project is considered, staff recommends that the following changes aridior
conditions be in.cludeu as a part of tha project:
1) Re -design the 120', 1.5:1, fill slope to a 2:1 fill slope. This re -design may further reduce the
project's density.
2) Re -design the 90', 1.5:1, cut slope to a maximum height of 60'. Also eliminate lot 9, reducing
the number of homes accessing of Taryn Drive from five to four. The elimination of lot 9
will further reduce impacts to the secondary ridgeline.
3) Combine lots 3 and 4, eliminating two flag lots and creating one standard lot.
4) Require that the homes built on lots 1, 2, and 3 be one-story units with a maximum height
of 20'
5) Limit hauling hours from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m on weekdays only. Also prohibit hauling
when children are walking to and from school (Staff would contact the school to get exact
hours).
6) Require a note be placed on open space areas dedicating building rights to the City.
7) Require a note on each lot prohibiting future subdividing of the property.
8) Increase the paved width of the private driveway from 26' to 34', per Fire Department
requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Conceptually approve Master Case 94-006 (maximum density of 11 units and subject to the
changes cited within the staff report); and,
2) Direct the applicant to re -design the map to reflect the changes cited within the staff report;
and,
3) Direct staff to prepare a resolution and conditions of approval for the Commission's
consideration at the June 21, 1994, Commission meeting.
Pm9..m�sinz.y..
ENCLOSURE
PAGE 6 OF 6 6
ENCLOSURE #2
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
MASTER CASE NO, 94-006
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51772
HILLSIDE REVIEW 94-002
OAK TREE PERMIT 94-001
DATE: June 21, 1994
TO; Chairman D ughman and Members of the Planning Commission
1 ctt L fnt!
FROM: Lynn M. s, eputy City Manager, Community Development
CASE PLANNER: Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II
Fred Follstad, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: Saugus Development Company
LOCATION: Southeasterly of the intersection of La Rochelle Drive and Santa Clarita
Road, northwesterly of Cataro Drive and adjacent to the proposed
Pamplico Park.
REQUEST: A revised project including the following:.
A vesting tentative tract map to allow for the subdivision of 31.8 acres
into eight single family residential lots.
A hillside permit to allow for the development of a site with an average
cross slope in excess of 10%.
An oak tree permit to allow for grading within 200' of an oak tree.
In conjunction with the tract map, the applicant is requesting to haul
approximately 13,000 cubic yards of dirt from approved Tract 47626
(located at the extension of Ron Ridge Drive) to the project site.
• i I 1►II,
The item was heard by the Planning Commission at the May 17, 1994, meeting. At that
meeting, the Commission continued the item to the June 21, 1994, meeting, directing the
applicant to redesign the project in an effort to resolve concerns associated with the following:
1) Presence of seven flag lots in the project;
2) Hauling of 25,000 cubic yards of dirt to the project site;
3) Development on an identified secondary ridgeline;
4) Project density;
5) Slope gradients and heights;
6) Use of a private driveway to access five lots located off of Taryn Drive;
ENCLOSURE 3 AGENDA ITEM
PAGE 1 OF 3
Page 2
7) The repair of an off-site slope (under the water tanks); and,
8) The construction of two-story homes off of Cataro Drive.
The Commission also directed staff, the applicant, and surrounding property owners to meet
in an attempt to resolve concerns associated with the project. The applicant has since
redesigned the project in an attempt to resolve the concerns brought forth by the
Commission, staff, and surrounding property owners.
ANALYSIS
The applicant has redesigned the project as follows:
1) Decreased the number of single family residential lots on the 31.8 acre site from 13
to eight. The project's density has decreased from .43 units per acre, to _25 units per
acre. Four of the lots would take access from Cataro Drive, with the remaining four
lots accessing from the extension of Taryn Drive. The RS zone (Residential Suburban)
allows for a maximum density of five units per acre.
2) Decreased the amount of dirt that would be hauled from Tract 47626 to the project
site from 25,000 cubic yards to 13,000 cubic yards. The revised project proposes only
one haul route from the tract to the project site, via Cataro Drive. The dirt hauled to
the site would be used to repair the existing manufactured slope and rebuild this slope
at a 2.5:1 gradient (staff previously recommended a 2:1 gradient). The height of the
slope (120') would remain the same. The elimination of the second haul route,
accessing the site from Taryn Drive, would reduce the impacts associated with the
hauling of dirt in close proximity to James Foster Elementary School,
The Commission, at the previous meeting, directed staff to analyze possible
alternatives to the haul routes proposed by the applicant, including the use of another
site. The applicant's engineer has stated that the dirt could be moved to a site that
the applicant owns in the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County, north of
Copperhill Drive. This route would be considerably longer than the one proposed and
would also require travelling through residential neighborhoods. Any additional
routes would be longer than the one proposed and would necessitate the hauling of
dirt through residential neighborhoods.
3) Decreased the amount of project grading from 48,000 cubic yards of cut and 73,000
cubic yards of fill to 35,000 cubic yards of cut and 22,000 cubic yards of fill. The
applicant would also reduce the height of the 1.5:1, cut slope located on the new lot
5, from 90' to approximately 60'. The revised project would alter approximately 500'
of the secondary ridgeline to accommodate lots 5, 7, and 8.
The previous proposal included development along 650' of this ridgeline, with the
remaining 1,650' remaining undisturbed.
4) Redesigned the type of dwelling units proposed on lots 1-4 (off of Cataro Drive) from
a two-story design to a one-story design. The maximum height of the one-story homes
would be 23'. The applicant is requesting that the Commission consider allowing a
ENCLOSURE #2
ao PAGE 2 OF 3
Page 3
loft within these homes. The loft would not increase the maximum height of the
proposed homes.
5) The redesigned project would extend Taryn Drive approximately 950' from its
intersection with Pamplico Drive to access lots 5, 6, 7 and 8. Each of these lots would
meet frontage requirements established in the Unified Development Code. Due to
topographical constraints, the applicant would use a common driveway to access both
lots 5 and 6 and lots 7 and 8.
The previous project proposed an extension of Taryn Drive approximately 500' from
its present terminus. From that point, the applicant was proposing to extend a 26'
wide private driveway approximately 500' to access the development area.
6) In conjunction with the grading of the project site, the applicant is proposing to repair
the slope located below the water tanks and above Taryn Drive. Staff has added a
condition requiring this action.
Staff has included draft conditions of approval within the Commission's packet. Condition
nos. 67 and 68 would prohibit future subdivision of the proposed lots and dedicate building
rights on ungraded portions of the project site, preserving them as open space. Condition
no. 66 allows for the construction of only one-story homes on lots 1-4. Condition no. 69 is
related to the hauling of dirt to the project site and condition no. 64 requires the applicant
to repair the off-site manufactured slope above Taryn Drive.
Staff, the applicant's engineer and surrounding property owners met regarding the
redesigned project on June 13, 1994. Eight property owners attended this meeting with
seven of these owners in opposition to the redesigned project. The property owners also
indicated that numerous residents, not in attendance at this meeting; were also in opposition
to any development on the site.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Approve the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project; and,
2) Adopt Resolution P94-08, approving Master Case 94-006 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map
51772, Hillside Review 94-002, Oak Tree Permit 94-001), as revised, subject to the
attached conditions of approval,
pingcom�17Md
ENCLOSURE lit
PAGE 3 OF 3
i
ENCLOSURE #3
RESOLUTION NO. P94-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING MASTER CASE 94.006,
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51772, HILLSIDE REVIEW 94-002
AND OAK TREE PERMIT 94.001 TO SUBDIVIDE A 31.8 ACRE PARCEL
INTO EIGHT SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE INTERSECTION
OF LA ROCHELLE DRIVE AND SANTA CLARITA ROAD,
NORTHWESTERLY OF CATARO DRIVE
AND ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED PAMPLICO PARK
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby make the fallowing
findings of fact:
a. The project site was first included as a part of a 1987 subdivision request
exceeding 500 units. Prior to approval of that project, the subject site was
omitted from the subdivision request.
b. On April 7, 1992, the Planning Commission considered Master Case 91-107
(Zone Change 91-004, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50488, Conditional Use
Permit 91-016, and Oak Tree Permit 91-037) to subdivide the subject site into
45 single family residential lots and two open space lots. Four oak trees
located near or on the subject site were proposed for removal. The Planning
Commission denied Master Case 91-107, citing concerns with the project's
density, inconsistency with the General Plan, incompatibility with surrounding
properties, visual impacts, and impacts to oak trees.
C. An application for Master Case 94-006 was filed by the Saugus Development
Company with the City of Santa Clarita on January 10, 1994. The application
proposed: A vesting tentative tract map to subdivide a 31.8 acre property into
thirteen single family lots; a hillside permit to allow for development on slopes
exceeding ten percent; and an oak tree permit to allow for grading within 200
feet of an oak tree. Seven of the 13 proposed lots were flag lots. In
conjunction with the project, the applicant was proposing to haul
approximately 25,000 cubic yards of dirt from approved Tract 47626 (located
off of Ron Ridge Drive) to the project site. The site is located southeasterly of
the intersection of La Rochelle Drive and Santa Clarita Road, northwesterly
of Cataro Drive and adjacent to the proposed Pamplico park. The assessor's
parcel number for the project is 2807-023-037.
d. The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the project which
determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the
environment.
ENCLOSURE #3 411
PAGE 1 OF 16
RESO NO. P94.08
Page 2
e. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the proposed project
pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
f The City of Santa Clarita's Development Review Committee met and supplied
the applicant with draft conditions of approval.
9. The project has since been redesigned to include the subdivision of the 31.8
acre property into eight single family residential lots.. The redesign also
reduces development along an identified secondary ridgeline and changes the
slope gradient of a 120' high fill slope from 1.5;1 to 2.5:1. Each of the proposed
lots satisfies minimum street frontage requirements in the Unified
Development Code. The revised project includes the use of two shared
driveways off of Taryn Street. One driveway is proposed as an access to lots
5 and 6, while the other proposes to access lots 7 and 8. The revised project
also includes a reduction in the amount of dirt proposed to be hauled to the
site from 25,000 to 13,000 cubic yards. Total grading proposed with the
revised project consists of 35,000 cubic yards of cut and 22,000 cubic yards of
fill, with the import of an additional 13,000 cubic yards of fill.
h. The site is vacant and contains hillsides. The site contains an identified
Peary ridgeline and secondary ridgeline. The primary ridgeline runs
north/south and is presently developed with single family residences. The
secondary ridgeline is presently undisturbed.
i. The project proposes the extension of water and sewer service to the project
site.
j. The project site is zoned RS (Residential Suburban). The RS zone typically
corresponds to the single family detached tract home at a density of up to five
units per acre. Based on the zoning of the site and excluding development
constraints, the site could accommodate a maximum of 159 units.
k. The average cross slope of the project site is 45%. Under the City's Hillside
Ordinance a maximum of 21 units could be constructed on the site. If
considered under the Innovative Project Section of the Hillside Ordinance, the
site could accommodate 111 units. The applicant is not requesting to use the
Innovative Project Section of the Hillside Ordinance.
1. The project proposes access from two public streets, Taryn Drive and Cataro
Drive. The project would extend Taryn Drive approximately 950' from its
present terminus to access lots 5 - 8. Cataro Drive would be extended
approximately 100' from its present terminus to access lots 1-4.
in. The project site contains two oak trees, neither of which are proposed to be
removed.
ENCLOSURE #3
PAGE 2 OF 16
RESO NO. P94-08
Page 3
n. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May
17, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard,
Santa Clarita. At this meeting the Commission continued the item to the June
21, 1994, meeting and directed the applicant to meet with the surrounding
property owners, analyze possible alternative haul routes, and redesign the
project to reduce impacts related to hillside development, grading, density, and
access.
o. On May 25, 1994 the applicant submitted a revised project which reduced the
project density to eight units. A Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration has
been prepared for the project.
P_ A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June
21, 1994, at 7:00 p.m, 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 conducted on the project, the Planning Commission considered
the staff reports prepared for the project and received testimony on the
proposal.
b. At the meeting of May 17, 1994, the Planning Commission directed the
applicant to redesign the project to address hillside and grading concerns.
C. The applicant redesigned the project as follows: Decreased the number of units
from 13 to eight; decreased the amount of dirt that would be hauled to the site
from 25,000 cubic yards to 13,000 cubic yards; decreased the amount of project
grading from 48,000 cubic yards of cut and 73,000 cubic yards of fill to 35,000
cubic yards of cut and 22,000 cubic yards of fill; reduced the height of the 1.5:1
cut slope from 90' to 60'; reduced the slope gradient of the 12V high fill slope
from 1.5:1 to 2.5:1; reduced development along the secondary ridgeline from
650' to 509; increased the length of the extension of Taryn Drive from 500' to
950' to provide public street access to lots 5-8; and eliminated the request to
construct two-story homes on lots 1-4.
d. The project complies with the City's Unified Development Code with the
inclusion of an approved hillside review and oak tree permit. The City's
Hillside Ordinance permits encroachments on secondary ridgelines provided
that a hillside review permit is granted.
e. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan. The City's General Plan
designation for the site is Residential Suburban (RS) and the zoning category
for the site is Residential Suburban (RS). The RS zone allows for a maximum
ENCLOSURE f
PAGE 3 OF 1
'16 (((CCC//1^1111
RESO NO. P94-08
Page 4
density of five units per acre. The project's density is .25 units per acre.
f_ Goal 5, Policy 5.1 reads as follows: Retain designated major landforms; such
as ridgelines, streams, rivers, valleys, and significant vegetation, especially
where these features contribute to the overall community identity. The project
proposes to retain 1,800' linear feet of an identified secondaryridgeline as
permanent open space.
g. Conditions of approval have been added that prohibit the future subdivision of
the created lots (lots 1-8) and preserve the ungraded portions of the project site
as permanent open space.
h. In conjunction with development of the site, the applicant is proposing to
repair two manufactured slopes.. One slope is located on-site and the other is
located off-site, above the extension of Taryn Drive. Conditions of approval
require both actions.
i. The project's density is consistent with the City's Hillside Preservation
Ordinance. The Hillside Ordinance would allow a maximum of 21 units on the
site.
j. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A Revised
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. The
identified mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of
approval.
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning
Commission hereby determines as follows:
a. This project will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of
persons residing in the area; nor be materially detrimental to the use,
enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the project site; nor
jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health,
safety, or general welfare as the project conforms with the zoning ordinance
and is compatible with surrounding land uses. One-story units will be
constructed on lots 1-4 which is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
The project proposes to repair two existing manufactured slopes.
Approximately 75% of the project site will be retained as permanent open
space.
b. The project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards,
fences, parking, and loading facilities, landscaping and other development
features.
c. The project is compatible with existing development in the area, consistent
with the City's General Plan, and complies with the standards of the RS zone
with the inclusion of a hillside review and oak tree permit. The applicant has
ENCLOSURE #3
PAGE 4 OF '16
RESO NO. P94-08
Page 5
substantiated the findings for approving a vesting tentative tract map, hillside
review, and oak tree permit.
SECTION 4. The Planning Commission hereby approves Master Case 94-006
(Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51772, Hillside Review 94-002, and Oak Tree Permit 94.001)
subject to the attached conditions of approval, to create eight single family residential lots
on a 31.8 acre property.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of June, 1994.
ATTEST:
David Doughman, Chairman
Planning Commission
Lynn M. Harris
Deputy City Manger/Community Development
ENCLOSURE #3
PAGE 5 OF 16
RESO NO, P94-08
Page 6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk, 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 21st day of June, 1994 by the following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
w+v..mv..a -Mfli
ENCLOSURE #3
PAGE 6 OF 16
City Clerk
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
MASTER CASE NUMBER 94.006
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51772
HILLSIDE REVIEW 94-002
OAK TREE PERMIT 94-001
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. The approval of this Vesting Tentative Tract Map shall expire if not put into use
within two years from the date of conditional approval.
2. The applicant may file for an extension of the conditionally approved Tentative Tract
Map prior to the date of expiration; for a period of time not to exceed one year. If
such an extension is requested, it must be filed no later than 60 days prior to
expiration.
3.. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Department of Community
Development, in writing, of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer,
or a change in the status of the developer, within 30 days of said change.
4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the
applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant.
The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita,
its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the
City or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul the
approval of this Permit by the City, which action is provided for in Government Code
Section 66499.37. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or
proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant, or if the City fails to
cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to
defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this Condition
prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding,
if both the following occur: 1) The City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and 2)
the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay
or perform any settlement unless the entitlement is approved by the applicant.
5. Details shown on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map are not necessarily approved. Any
details which are inconsistent with requirements of ordinances, general conditions of
approval, or City policies must be specifically approved.
6. At any point in the development process, a stop -work order shall be considered in
effect upon the discovery of any historic artifacts and/or remains, at which time the
City shall be notified. The applicant shall hire a qualified consultant that the City
approves to study the site and recommend a course of action, to the satisfaction of the
City.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The applicant shall provide water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flows as required by
the County Forester and Fire Warden for all land shown on the map to be recorded.
ENCLOSURE #3 0
PAGE 7 OF 16
RESO NO. P94-08
The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 1,250 gallons per
minute at 20 psi for a duration of two hours, over and above maximum daily domestic
demand.
8. All hydrants shall measure 6" x 4" x 2-1/2 " brass or bronze, conforming to current
AWWA standard C503 or approved equal. All hydrants shall be installed a minimum
of 25' from a structure or protected by a (2) two hour fire wall.
Hydrant requirements will be set prior to map recordation. The applicant shall
comply with all applicable Fire Department requirements.
10. The applicant shall provide Fire Department and City approved street signs and
building address numbers prior to occupancy.
11. Where driveways extend further than 300 feet and are of single access design,
turnarounds suitable for fire protection shall be provided and shown on the final map.
Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed and maintained to insure their integrity
for Fire Department use, Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided
for driveways which extend over 150 feet.
12. Access shall comply with Section 10.207 of the Fire Code which requires all weather
access. All weather access may require paving.
13. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested, and accepted prior to construction.
Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout
construction.
14. All Private Driveway/Firelanes shall be posted "Fire Lane No Parking."
ENGINEERING
15, The owner, at the time of issuance of permits or other grants of approval agrees to
develop the property in accordance with City codes and other appropriate ordinances
including the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit
Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Unified Development Code, Undergrounding of Utilities
Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, Fire
Code and all City, State and Federal requirements.
16. The applicant shall file a map which shall be prepared by or under the direction of a
licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer. The map shall be processed
through the City Engineer prior to being filed with the County Recorder. The
applicant shall note all offers of dedication by certificate on the face of the map.
17. The applicant shall label driveways as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" on the map
ENCLOSURE #3
PAGE 8 OF 1.6
RESO NO. P94.08
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
18: The applicant shall not grant or record easements within areas proposed to be
granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets or highways, access
rights, building restriction rights, or other easements until after the final map is filed
with the County Recorder unless such easements are subordinated to the proposed
grant or dedication. If easements are granted after the date of tentative approval, a
subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing of the final
parcel map.
19. Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall pay the applicable Bridge
and Thoroughfare District Fee to implement the circulation element of the General
Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this subdivision. The applicant
may construct off-site improvements of equivalent value in lieu of paying fees
established for the District subject to approval of the City Engineer, The project is in
the Bouquet Canyon Bridge and Thoroughfare District. Factors for development units
are as follows:
Development Units Factors
Single -Family Per Unit 1.0
20. The applicant shall pay all applicable plan check fees as required to review all
documents, improvement plans, phasing plans, final maps and all clearances required
for the project in accordance with the City Municipal Code,
21. The applicant, by agreement with the City Engineer, may guarantee installation of
improvements as conditioned through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or
any other acceptable means prior to the recordation of the final map.
22. The applicant shall install mailboxes and posts per City standards. Secure approval
of U.S. Postal Service prior to installation.
ROAD
23. The applicant shall repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk and
pavement on streets within or abutting the subdivision.
24. During the course of construction of the project the applicant shall guarantee that
existing City roadways will not be damaged by construction activity to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer. Reasonable access to existing residences shall be maintained
at all times.
25. The applicant shall plant street trees along all roads constructed by this project. The
3
ENCLOSURE #3
PAGE 9 OF 16
lz
RESO NO. P94-08
type and location shall be to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Department and Parks and Recreation Department. An approved method of irrigation
shall be provided by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation
Department.
26. The applicant shall construct wheelchair ramps on each corner to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer at the intersections of Pamplico/Taryn and Cataro/Garza.
27. The applicant shall construct all public streets within the development to provide for
drainage facilities, a structural section meeting the traffic index and soil parameters,
gutters, curbs, parkways, sidewalks, street lighting, landscaping, and street trees.
28. The applicant shall dedicate and construct the following required road improvements:
Street
R/W Curb &
Base &
Street
Street 5'-0"
Name
Width Gutter
Paving
Lights
Trees Sidewalk
Cataro
60 ft x
x
x
x x
Taryn
48 ft x
x
x
x W/side
29. The applicant shall provide and install street name signs prior to occupancy of any
building(s) or the acceptance of the public streets to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Department.
30. The applicant shall design and install all traffic control, regulatory, guide and street
signs for all public roadways constructed as a part of this project to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer. This shall include the prohibition of parking on the easterly side
of Taryn Drive.
31. The applicant shall design all roadways with the following criteria:
a. Provide minimum stopping sight distances on all public roadways to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
b. The central angles of the right-of-way radius returns shall not differ by more
than ten degrees on local streets.
C. Provide standard curb return radii of 25 feet at all local street intersections.
d. The applicant shall construct full -width sidewalk at all walk returns.
e. The applicant shall construct a slough wall outside the street right-of-way
where slopes extend above right-of-way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
where sidewalk is constructed adjacent to the street right-of-way.. Slough walls
3 ENCLOSURE /13
PAGE 10 OF 16
RESO NO. P94.O8
constructed shall be stuccoed or satisfactorily constructed to be aesthetically
pleasing to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.
Provide sufficient drainage facilities to eliminate the need for cross -gutters on
all public streets to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The top/toe of slopes adjacent to roadways shall be set back from the public
right-of-way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
h. All streets shall be founded upon firm natural materials or properly compacted
fill. Any existing loose fill, loose soil, or organic material shall be removed
prior to placement of engineered fill.
32. The applicant shall design, construct and dedicate street lights along all public
roadways to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All street lights installed as a part
of the project shall be included in a lighting and landscape maintenance district to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. All lighting shall be shielded and directed onto the
roadway so as not to be seen directly from the adjacent residential areas.
RIGHT OF WAY
33. The applicant shall dedicate slope easements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
where required for public improvements prior to the recordation of the final map.
34. The applicant shall grant easements to the City, appropriate agency or entity for the
purpose of ingress, egress, construction and maintenance of all infrastructure
constructed for this project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,
SEWER
35. The applicant shall submit a sewer area study to the City Engineer for review and
approval for the project prior to the recordation of the final map.
36. The subdivider shall install and dedicate main line sewers and serve each lot/parcel
with a separate house lateral or have approved and bonded sewer plans on file with
the City Engineer prior to approval of the final map.
37. The applicant shall pay applicable reimbursement charges/ordinance frontage charges
for proposed sewer lines prior to the recordation of the final map.
38. The applicant shall send a print of the land division map to the County Sanitation
District, with the request for annexation prior to the recordation of the final map. If
applicable, such annexation must be assured in writing.
ENLCLOSURE #3
PACE11 OF 16
/Y
RESO NO. P94-08
39. The discharge of sewage from this land division into the public sewer system will not
violate the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board
pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code.
GRADING DRAINAGE & GEOLOGY
40. That prior to any grading plans being approved by the Department of Building and
Safety, the Advisory Agency shall review them for intent of tract conditions. The
grading plans shall demonstrate:
a. That the open space areas that will remain as natural slopes be protected
during grading operations.
b:That grading activities are phased so that the exposure of unprotected areas
is limited to the areas where work is immediately undertaken, especially
during the rainy season.
C. That areas which are not being built upon shall not be cleared of vegetative
cover until actual grading is to be started.
d. Thatareaswhich have been cleared and could potentially be exposed to a
storm event shall be protected by adequate source Control Best Management
Practices.
41. That during and prior to any demolition or grading on the subject property, a pest
control firm shall be retained to conduct a rodent control program to prevent the
migration of any rodents or pests to neighboring properties. Evidence shall be
provided to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of any
permit that this condition has been satisfied.
42. The applicant shall design the grading plans for the project so that the overall shape,
height and grade of any cut/fill slope shall be graded to appear similar to the existing
natural contours in scale with the terrain of the project site. Where any cut or fill
slopes intersect the natural grade, the intersection of each slope shall be rounded
and/or blended with the natural contour so as to present a natural appearance.
43. The applicant shall promptly replant areas that are graded to control erosion. The
grading plans for this project shall reflect this to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
44. The applicant shall construct catch basins in the roadway were depth and velocity of
the water in the roadway exceed accepted practices as approved by the City Engineer.
M
ENCLOSURE #3
PAGE 12 OF 16
RESO NO. P94-08
45. The applicant shall submit a geotechnical report and grading plan for the project to
the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the recordation of the final map.
The applicant grading plan shall be based on a detailed engineering
geotechnical report which must be specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils
engineer and show all recommendations submitted by them. It must also agree with
the tentative map and conditions as approved by the Community Development
Department.
46, The applicant shall submit a drainage plan for review and approval prior to the
s to
recordation of the final map. The drainage plan shall provide sufficient facilitie
prevent drainage problems downstream of road right -of --ways to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer,
47. The applicant shall construct drainage improvements and offer easements needed for
street drainage or slopes to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
48. The applicant shall provide letters) of slope easement(s) and drainage acceptance as
directed by the City Engineer prior to the recordation of the final map.
49. The applicant shall eliminate all geologic hazards associated with this proposed
development, or delineate a restricted use area approved by the consultant geologist
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The applicant shall dedicate to the City the
right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within the restricted use
areas to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
50. The applicant shall submit drainage plans and necessary support documents to comply
with Engineering requirements. These must be approved to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer prior to filing of the map,
51. The applicant shall provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties and
return drainage to its natural conditions or secure off-site drainage acceptance letters
from affected property owners, The project may require down stream improvements
to eliminate the impacts to down stream property owners. The applicant shall
construct sufficient on-site improvements to reduce the downstream impacts with
construction.
52. The geologist and soil engineer shall inspect all excavations to determine that
conditions anticipated in the report have been encountered and to provide
recommendations for the correction of hazards found during grading.
53. The tentative map shows that proposed slopes will cross lot/parcel lines. Prior to
approval of grading plans phase, the applicant shall adjust these lot lines so that they
are, located at or near the top of the slopes, along drainage terraces, or at similar
locations acceptable for establishment of slope maintenance responsibilities.
7
ENCLOSURE 1/ 3
PAGE 13 OF 16.
RESO NO. P94-08
54. That arrangements be made with the Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works prior to recordation of the final map for any necessary permits with respect to
discharge, construction and reconstruction within or adjacent to their existing storm
drain facilities in this area.
55. All slide,, slump and creep debris shall be removed unless approved individually by the
geologist, soils engineer and the City Engineer.
56. All existing uncertified fill and/or creep prone soils shall be removed and recompacted
under the geotechnical supervision of the soils engineer.
57, Periodic inspection of drainage control structures and devices on-site shall he
performed by a registered civil engineer prior to the start of each rainy season and
thence at intervals deemed necessary by maintenance conditions.
MISCELLANEOUS
58. The applicant shall design and construct applicable water systems for the project to
meet the potable drinking water and fire flow requirements.
59. Prior to obtaining a grading permit, the applicant shall provide a certified copy of a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general construction
permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to provide evidence
that any storm water discharge is being mitigated.
60. The applicant shall install all utility services within the development underground
61. The applicant is required to install distribution lines and individual service lines for
community antenna television service (CATV) for all new development to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide sufficient proof that the
property can be served prior to the recordation of the final map.
62. The applicant shall provide at least 40 feet of frontage at the property line and
approximately radial lot lines for all lots fronting on cul-de-sacs or knuckles.
63. The applicant shall provide reciprocal access and maintenance agreements to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer for all parcels which share common uses along
common property lines.
64. The applicant shall submit plans for and, once approval is granted, carry out the
clean-up and repair of the off-site slopes above and adjacent to the extension of Taryn
Drive to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
65. Any graded pads left unused for a period of 180 days shall be planted to prevent
17 ENCLOSURE #3
PAGE 14 OF 16
RESO NO. P94.08
blowing dust and to screen the pads from adjacent property owners.
PLANNING DIVISION
66. Single family homes constructed on lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall be one-story (with a loft),
with a maximum height of 23'. This requirement shall be evidenced by the
recordation of a covenant on each of the above listed lots.
67. The applicant shall record a deed restriction on thepropertyrestricting further
subdivision of the created lots (lots 1 through 8). Furthermore, a note reflecting this
restriction shall be placed on the final map. Both actions shall be to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
68. The applicant shall record a deed restriction on all ungraded portions of the subject
tract dedicating building rights to the City of Santa Clarita. Furthermore, a note
reflecting this restriction shall be placed on the final map. Both actions shall be to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
69. Hauling of dirt shall be limited to the following days and hours: Weekdays - 9:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Hauling shall be prohibited on Saturday, Sunday, and holidays. The
applicant shall strictly adhere to the approved haul route. Any damage to public or
private property caused by the off-site hauling of dirt shall be the responsibility of the
developer.
70. This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and the owner of
the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, with the Director of
Community Development, their affidavit stating that they are aware of, and agree to
accept, all of the conditions of this grant.
71. The applicant shall include a statement in the sale documents for lot 8 explaining the
lot owner's responsibilities related to maintenance of the parcel (specifically regarding
brush clearing per Fire Department requirements).
PARKS AND RECREATION
72. The applicant shall be required to pay an in -lieu fee to fulfill the Quimby requirement..
The fee will be based on the fee structure identified in the Subdivision Ordinance at
the time the in -lieu fee is paid. The fee is to be paid to the City of Santa Clarita
Parks and Recreation Departmentpriorto map recordation..
73. The applicant shall provide street trees to the satisfaction of the parks and recreation
Department. Trees shall be used from the City's approved master street tree list,
which can be obtain from the City arborized. The irrigation and maintenance of these
trees shall be per City ordinance 90-15.
ENCLOSURE 113
PAGE 15 OF .16 18
RESO NO. P94-08
74. The applicant shall provide final landscape and irrigation plans to the satisfaction of
the Parks and Recreation Department. ,Drought resistant plant material and water
efficient irrigation systems shall be utilized.
GEA:lep
cvrent151665.gen
10
ENCLOSURE 113
PAGE 16 OF 16
NOV 2W4 27dzID
L!� 0,1',
N INGC6ACL 810N �� 0 C/ C�i �S C�
Y O: 3:W CLARRA
d 9 g z1-
t,QZ/ �
.2 3 9 0 ��a
S ai,,& G , � GA . 9 i scs"
LA�. az--r
0Z : ata
G� a� -# si
Dob
Ce 06 /��r rye J-�� r/L� S-/ 7 7,2
i%c/J /(,til/L2 ./LL19 �1 /(xeC�Z Glij
� �w a �� �
Z=ed cf
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
MASTER CASE NO. 94-006
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51772
HILLSIDE REVIEW 94.002
OAK TREE PERMIT 94-001
DATE: May 17, 1994
TO: Chalrm7ap/�oughlnan and Members of the Planning Commission
M. �2cLGac,d.+� �r� 11 vY9 is
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Deputy Ci Manager, Community Development
CASE PLANNER: Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner 11
Fred Failstad, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: Saugus Development Company
LOCATION: Southeasterly of the intersection of La Rochelle Drive and Santa Clarita
Road, northwesterly of Cataro Drive and adjacent to the proposed Pamplico
Park.
REQUEST: A vesting tentative tract map to allow for the subdivision of 31.8 acres into
13 single family residential lots.
A hillside permit to allow for the development of a site with an average cross
slope in excess of 10%.
An oak tree permit to allow for grading within 200' of an oak tree.
In conjunction with the tract map, the ,applicant is requesting to haul
approximately 25,000 cubic yards of dirt from approved Tract 47626 (located
at the extension of Ron Ridge Drive) to the project site.
BACKGROUND
The project site was first included as a part of a 1987 subdivision request exceeding 500 units
(Tentative Tract No. 34430 under the County of Los Angeles). Prior to approval of this map, the
County Regional Planning Commission omitted the subject site from the subdivision request.
Approximately 100 units were proposed on the subject site at that time.
On April 7, 1992, the Planning Commission considered Master Case 91.107 (Zone Change 91-004,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50489, Conditional Use Permit 91-016, Oak Tree Permit 91-037) to
subdivide the subject site Into 45 single family residential lots and two open space lots. Grading
of 295,000 cubic yards of dirt, balanced on-site, was proposed with this project. Four oak trees
located in the project area were proposed to be removed and a majority of the undisturbed,
identified secondary ridgel Ins was proposed to be developed. The Commission received over 40
letters and a petition containing 225 signatures in opposition to the project. The Planning
Commission denied the project citing concerns with the project's density, inconsistency with the
City's General Plan, incompatibility with surrounding properties, visual impacts, and removal of oak
trees.
AGENDA ITEM a,
Master Case No. 94-006
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51772
Page 2
u
The site is vacant and is surrounded by single family residences, the proposed Pamplico Park, and
an elementary school. There are two oak treeslocated on the project site. Another oak tree is
located adjacent to the project site on an open space lot for Tract 45284. None of the oak trees are
proposed to be removed by the project.
The applicant is proposing to develop the 31.8 acre site with 13 single family residential lots. The
submitted map shows a total of 14 lots (including the open space lot). The applicant has requested
that this open space lot be combined with lot 13, due to the City's unwillingness to accept the open
space lot. Also, the applicant is not proposing to form a Homeowners Association for the
development. An Association would typically maintain open space lots. The lot sizes would range
in size from 6,000 square feet to 20 acres. Approximately one-half of the project site would remain
as permanent open space. The applicant is proposing to utilize flatter portions of the project site
for construction.
The site contains two identified ridgelines per the Hillside Ordinance. The primary ridgeline runs
north/south and is presently developed with single family residences. Lots 1 - 8 are proposed to
be constructed along this ridgeline. The secondary ridgeline runs east/west and is presently'
undisturbed. This ridgeline is proposed to be altered by lots 9 though 13. Approximately 600' linear
feet of this ridgeline would be graded to accommodate the project. The remaining portions of the
ridgeline (approximately 1,400' linear feet) would remain undisturbed. The average cross slope of
the subject site is 45%.
The applicant is proposing to construct two-story units on each of the residential lots. The
applicant has not submitted proposed building heights for the units. The RS zone allows for a
maximum height of 35'.
In conjunction with the project, the applicant is proposing to haul approximately 25,000 cubic yards
of dirt from approved Tract 47626 (located at the terminus of Ran Ridge Drive) to the project site.
Approximately 18,000 cubic yards would be transported from the tract to the project site as follows:
Ron Ridge Drive at Pamplico Drive southerly along Ron Ridge to Grove Park, westerly to
Catala Avenue and then northerly to Garza Drive and then south to Cataro Drive.
Approximately 7,0W cubic yards of dirt would be transported from the tract to the project site as
follows:
Ron Ridge Drive at Pamplico westerly to the intersection of Pamplico and Taryn Drive. The
site will be accessed from Taryn Drive.
The applicant Is indicating that this haul could be completed within a two-week period. The
applicant is proposing to Initiate this action immediately, if project approval Is granted. If the haul
route is not approved, the project grading could be balanced on-site. Additionally, the applicant is
indicating that the dirt from approved Tract 47626 would still have to be moved off of that site.
Tract 47626 is located approximately 114 of a mile from the project site.
Cut and fill grading would be utilized to repair an existing manufactured slope located between
Cataro Drive and Guadilamar Drive. Portions of this slope are eroded, with culverts undermined and
OWN
Master Case No. 94-006
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51772
Page 3
inoperable. The applicant is proposing to rebuild this slope at a ratio of 1.5:1. The height of this
fill slope would be approximately 120'. The highest proposed cut slope is located on proposed lot
9 and is approximately 90'. The ratio of this slope would also be 1.5:1. Total project grading,
including the proposed export from Tract 47626, would consist of 48,000 cubic yards of cut and
73,000 cubic yards of fill. The project proposes a maximum depth of cut of 50' and fill of 40'.
The project proposes access from two public streets, Cataro Drive and Taryn Drive. Cataro Drive
would be extended from its present terminus 120' to provide access to lots 1 - 8. Cataro Drive is
presently a substandard cul-de-sac. Taryn Drive is proposed to be extended approximately 500'
from its terminus. From this point the applicant is proposing to extend a 26' wide private driveway
approximately 500' to access lots 9 - 13. The development proposes a total of seven flag lots,
though lots 9.13 would take access from a shared private driveway.
All services and utilities are available and would be extended by the applicant to serve the project,
GENERAL PLAN 12E51GNATION SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING
The site is presently zoned RS (Residential Suburban, a maximum of five dwelling units per acre).
The following table sets forth information as it pertains to the project site and surrounding areas,
including planning categories, zoning, and land use designations:
General Plan
Project
RS
North
RS/OS
South
RS
West
RS
East
RS
Zoning
Land Use
RS
Vacant
RS/OS
Single Family Residences, School,
and an undeveloped Park.
RS
Single Family Residences
RS
Single Family Residences
RS
Single Family Residences
As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to evaluate the impacts of
the project. It was determined that the adverse environmental impacts could be avoided through
mitigation measures. Subsequently, a draft mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the
project.
The project has been distributed to the affected City Departments and agencies, and the Community
Development Department has received recommended requirements and conditions. Certain
requirements and conditions have been Included as mitigation measures to environmental Impacts.
The 31.8 acre project site is zoned RS and designated RS by the City's General Plan. The RS zone
typically corresponds to the single-family detached tract home at a density of up to five units per
acre. The standard lot area for each unit is 5,000 square feet. Excluding site constraints, the
Master Case No. 94.006
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51772
Page 4
property could accommodate a maximum of 159 units. The project's density is .43 units per acre,
well below the five units per acre permitted in the RS zone.
The proposed residential lots range in size from a minimum of 6,000 square feet to a maximum of
approximately 20 acres. Surrounding lot sizes range in size from a minimum of approximately 5,500
square feet to a maximum of 20,000 square feet. The average lot size of surrounding properties is
approximately 7,500 square feet. Proposed lots 1 (7,000 square feet), 7 (6,400 square feet), and 8
(6,000 square feet) would be below 7,500 square feet.
Residences located in the immediate area of Cataro Drive are predominatly one-story. Surrounding
property owners have cited.a concern with loss of views and incompatibility, due to the
construction of two-story homes on lots 1-8. Staff would recommend that lots 1, 2, and 3, be
conditioned to be one-story homes with a maximum height of 20'. This may eliminate neighborhood
concerns associated with loss of views. Lots 1, 2 and 3 are at a finished grade of 1543' - 1545',
approximately 10' lower than the finished grade of the first view lot on Catala Drive.
The project does not propose to remove any of the oak trees located on or adjacent to the project
site. The applicant is requesting a permit to allow for grading within 200' of an oak tree. Impacts
associated with this grading are anticipated to be minimal.
The applicant is proposing to utilize a flag lot design on seven of the 13 lots. In the past the
Commission has cited a concern with flag lots. As a result, staff would recommend that lots 3 and
4 be combined and the street frontage increased to 40' to eliminate the use of flag lots on that
portion of the site.
The applicant is also proposing five flag lots off of Taryn Drive. In this case the design may be
justified as a private driveway (shared commonly by the lot owners) would be utilized to access the
lots in lieu of five different driveways. The flag lot design would provide each lot with the minimum
street, frontage requirements, eliminating the need to waive frontage requirements for the lots.
The hillside property has steep terrain with an average cross slope of 45%. Under the City's
Hillside Ordinance a maximum of 21 units could be placed on the site.
The project proposes development on the primary ridgeline (lots 1-8). A majority of this primary
ridge has been developed on In the past. To develop lots 1-8 the applicant Is proposing to "fill up"
the area off of Cataro Drive and rebuild the existing manufactured slope. Portions of the
manufactured slope are ata present slope ratio of 1.5:1. The "filling up" of this area would result
in a 120', 1.5:1, fill slope. To provide additional stability to the slope, the applicant is proposing
to utilize geo-textile fabric and construct new drainage swales. The fill slope would be highly visible
to properties located west of the project site. The City s Hillside Ordinance encourages maximum
slope gradients of 2:1 (especially when adjacent to public rights-of-way). Additional staff concerns
are related to the stability of the proposed 1.5:1 fill slope and the ability to maintain landscaping on
the slope. If approval is considered, staff would recommend that this slope be re -designed to a 21
gradient to be consistent with the City's Hillside Ordinance and to eliminate stability concerns
associated with the fill slope. This re -design may result In the elimination of one to three lots off
of Cataro Drive.
Master Case No. 94-006
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51772
Page 5
The project proposes development on the secondary ridgeline with lots 9-13. This ridgeline is
presently undisturbed and is a finger of the primary ridgeline. The applicant is proposing to cut a
maximum of 40' off of this ridgeline to accommodate the proposed lots. In addition, a 1.5:1, 90' high
maximum, cut slope would be constructed on 1019. The remaining portions of this ridgeline would
remain undisturbed. The City's Hillside Ordinance prohibits development or altering of any
identified ridgeline unless a hillside review permit is approved. The ordinance also requires that
all or part of the ridgeline be retained in its natural state. Development on this ridgeline, as
proposed by the project, may be justified due to the preservation of a majority of the ridge by the
project. Staff would recommend that the proposed 1.5:1, 90' high, cut slope be reduced to a
maximum height of 60', and that lot 9 be eliminated. Staff also believes that this re -design will result
in a more stable slope. Requiring the applicant to construct the slope at a 2:1 ratio would likely
eliminate lots 9-13.
In an effort to eliminate concerns associated with open space preservation, staff would recommend
that building rights be dedicated to the City on all ungraded portions of the property. This could
be accomplished through conditioning of the project, resulting in the placement of a note on the
final map. Staff would also recommend that a note be placed on each lot prohibiting any future
subdivision of the parcels.
HAUL ROUTE/GRADING
Total project grading consists of 46,000 cubic yards of cut and 73,000 cubic yards of fill. As stated
previously, the applicant is proposing to haul approximately 25,000 cubic yards of dirt from
approved Tract 47626 to the project site. Two different routes are proposed to access two separate
areas of the project site.
City streets would be used to haul the dirt from the tract to the project site. The hauling of this dirt
will generate approximately 5,000 vehicle trips to and from the project site. This portion of the
project grading would be completed within a two week period. This action is expected to impact
the local collector streets and surrounding property owners. The haul route accessing the project
at Taryn Drive is also located within close proximity to James Foster Elementary School.
Because of the above cited impacts, staff would recommend that hauling of the dirt be conducted
during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays only (hauling would be prohibited on
Saturday, Sunday, and holidays). Additionally, staff would recommend that the hauling of dirt not
be conducted during hours when children are walking to and from school. The applicant would be
responsible for repairing damage to any street caused by the hauling of the dirt.
CIRCULATION
In an effort to respond to concerns cited by adjacent residents on the previous project, the applicant
is not proposing to connect Cataro and Taryn Drive. The subject project proposes to extend Cataro
Drive approximately 120' and Taryn Drive approximately 500'. The extension of Taryn Drive will be
a future benefit when Pamplico Park Is built because It will provide additional on -street parking for
the park..
RESIDENTS' CONCERNS
Staff has met with surrounding property owners on two separate occasions. A majority of the
residents contacted are in opposition to the project. Staff has also received correspondence on the
5
Master Case No. 94.006
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51772
Page 6
project which has been included within the Commission's packet. The surrounding property
owners' concerns are related to the loss of open space, slope instability and soil slippage, drainage,
grading and hauling impacts, loss of views, destruction of ridgelines, future subdividing of the
property, slope heights and gradients and the elimination of a valuable wildlife area. These
concerns are summarized in more detail within the letter from Mr. Peter Waschak representing
Saugus Residents in Opposition to Tract 51772.
If approval of the project is considered, staff recommends that the following changes and/or
conditions be included as a part of the project:
1) Re -design the 120', 1.51, fill slope to a 2:1 fill slope. This re -design may further reduce the
project's density.
2) Re -design the 90', 1.5:1, cut slope to a maximum height of 60'. Also eliminate lot 9, reducing
the number of homes accessing of Taryn Drive from five to four. The elimination of lot 9
will further reduce impacts to the secondary ridgeline.
3) Combine lots 3 and 4, eliminating two flag lots and creating one standard lot.
4) Require that the homes built on lots 1, 2, and 3 be one-story units with a maximum height
of 20'
5) Limit hauling hours from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m on weekdays only. Also prohibit hauling
when children are walking to and from school (Staff would contact the school to get exact
hours).
6) Require a note be placed on open space areas dedicating building rights to the City.
7) Require a note on each lot prohibiting future subdividing of the property.
8) Increase the paved width of the private driveway from 26' to 34', per Fire Department
requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Conceptually approve Master Case 94006 (maximum density of 11 units and subject to the
changes cited within the staff report); and,
2) Direct the applicant to re -design the map to reflect the changes cited within the staff report;
and,
3) Direct staff to prepare a resolution and conditions of approval for the Commission's
consideration at the June 21, 1994, Commission meeting.
pMgeon4r51772.poo
d
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman Doouuggghhman and M4e�mbers�of the Pl /an�ning Commission
FROM: Richard Hehaeison'8Gity Planner �`"�-' 7 %
DATE: June 21, 1994
SUBJECT: PETITION AGAINST MASTER CASE 94-006
Attached is one page of a petition of opposition to the above referenced case. This petition
was distributed to the Commission at the May 17, 1994, Commission meeting. The petition
contains a total of 200 signatures in opposition to the project.
RAH:GEA
current\kmrpet.gea
as
Saugus Residents vs Saugus DevelC,�'nent Company
Signer please fill in all information by hand in ink.
Print NameClearly ; ^, `(7�l ! `
i SO
Cly
. )ah4it
zq
Signature.- ,��
aa537 /�.: /�>i c.c� P� l
Print Name Clearly r
Cly
Zip .
Signature 1 � `G * -
11 J'
1 / l
Address 24 )?W , D
LL C r!r �
Ph one
Prick Name Cleary e- 61111A
C� A (.f �..4 �,
Zip 1 ./ 5 `.5„ C)
Signature
Address
% Z
Prick N 9 C rty . i1 C ' �c / �. L>
Cly
zip
Sig _
Address
Z z So Q o C
Phone
Prink Name Cr `. / /� -
City ` Ju
ZIP l�/ ) •.
Signature
Address
Phone
Prick Name Clearly J&k( tom✓ to
MJ0
City ZZ� !-- I" #-4U,( Pv�
zq Gr i
Signature �5 A ' '_
Address
phone
Print Nam Clearly ajjjS V 1 Q(��
City Clr�
Zip /
Signtureme
Address . , j 0
p �
Prink NaClearly r�/'
G W
city/�'
zip
Slgnstrre
v dG✓
Address
Phone '
70
Prot Name Cleary
City
zip
Signature
Address
Phone
Name ClearlyCity
zip
EPdm
anue
Address
Phan
We are against the tentative tract #51772 construction. (Master Case No. 94-006). Location: Southeasterly
of the intersection of La Rochelle Drive and Santa Clarita Road, Northwesterly of Cataro Drive and adjacent
to the proposed Pamplico Park.
WE ARE CONCERN] ABOUT THE HAULING OF FILL Ln T PAST RESIDENTIAL HOMES.
THERE IS POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO HOMES AND PERSONAL PROPERTY DUE TO SOIL
AND DUST:AND NOISE FROM HAULING AND GRADING.
26,000 CUBIC YARDS OF DIRT IS MANY, MANY TRUCKLOADS. THE POTENTIAL
DAMAGE TO THE CITY STREETS DUE TO THIS WEAR AND TEAR IS HIGH, AND THE
DEVELOPER HAS NOT RESERVED FUNDS FOR THE COMPLETE RESTORATION OF THE
STREETS.
ADDITIONAL STREET DAMAGE WILL OCCUR WHEN SEWER TRENCHING AND
CONNECTIONS ARE INSTALLED.
WE WOULD THINK THE CITY WOULD MANDATE A BOND FOR THIS REPAIR, WHICH WILL
HAVE TO BE DONE.
THE DIRT HAULING WILL EXPOSE MANY CHILDREN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO DANGER.
THERE ARE NO PARKS OR PLAYGROUNDS NEARBY, SO THE CHILDREN PLAY NEAR THE
STREETS. SAFETY ENROUTE TO AND FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS SHOULD DICTATE THE
HOURS THAT ANY HAULING COULD OCCUR. EARLY MORNING, EVENING AND WEEKEND
HOURS MUST BE AVOIDED.
DUST AND NOISE POLLUTION MUST BE HELD TO LESS THAN EPA AND OSHA SAFE
LEVELS. WE DO NOT SEE ANY PROVISIONS MANDATED TO CONTROL THESE POLLUTION
SOURCES. POTENTIAL FOR RELEASE OF 'VALLEY FEVER', SPORES EXISTS. WE WANT
TO HEAR WHAT THE CITY HAS PLANNED TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTS FROM THESE
DANGERS.;,:,_
ANOTHER FEAR 13 DISPLACEMENT OF RODENTS AND REPTILES DUE TO THE DISTURBING
OF SOIL.- THE POTENTIAL HEALTH THREAT TO PUBLIC CITIZENS IS NOT ADDRESSED.
LASTLY, IF ALL OF THE CONCERNS CAN BE ANSWERED AND THIS PROJECT IS
APPROVED, THE CITY MUST PLACE TIME LIMITS ON THE DURATION OF ANY POTENTIAL
EXPOSURE. NO SCHEDULE HAS BEEN DICTATED OR REMEDIES DEFINED IF A
SCHEDULE PLAN IS NOT ADHERED TO.
d
1RECF.dYEL)
MAY 10 1994
Mav 7, 1994 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission
23920 Valencia Blvd
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Re: Tentative Tract•No. 51772
Master Case Number 90-006 Hillside review 94-002
Vacant Property East of Santa Clarita Road
Between La Rochelle Drive and Los Rogues Drive
Dear Commissioners,
The proposed Tentative Tract No. 51772 development will have
a substantially negative impact on Saugus residents and will
be particularly troublesome to the Saugus residents
bordering the proposed development. This proposed
development will cause damage to Saugus roads and homes,
destroy natural ridgelines that should be preserved,
endanger Saugus children, destroy an animal wildlife area,
and create an additional hazard zone during future
earthquakes.
The Saugus residents in the area urge you to diaapp..r.oy.e. the
proposed plan. A list of 28 concerns that the Saugus
residents of the area have vocalized thus far is enclosed
for your review. By voting against the proposed development
you will be preserving the quality of life in the Saugus
area.
To present some of our concerns, I would like to request an
opportunity to speak at the May 17, 1994 meeting of City of
Santa Clarita Planning Commission. If you have any
questions prior to the meeting I can be contacted at home in
the evenings at (805) 297-3074 or at work during the day
(818) 845-6243.
Thank you for your concern in this matter.
Sincerely,
Peter
Concerned Saugus Resident
cc: Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner
ATTACHMENT ...._#-I.
C.Q. nu.e. r.n.5.....-0.1-....k.h.e.._..5.a..ug«.5.......R.e..sd,.d..e.nta ...Ag.a.in..s..t.
Pro.P..na..sed_...Tract ..N:o........... 5..1..7.72
May 3, 1994
Re: Tentative Tract No.51772
Master Case Number 90-006 Hillside review 94-002
Vacant Property East of Santa Clarita Road
Between La Rochelle Drive and Los Rogues Drive
The Unified Saugus Residents are opposed to the
construction of proposed tract number 51772 because of the
following concerns:
1. Instability of slope behind Lots 3 thru 6.
2. Potential soil slippage from existing Catala lots
threatening lots 1 thru 3.
3. Potential damage during grading to developed
property along Catala Ridge.
4;. Potential damage to homes and personal property
due to soil and dust from hauling and grading.
5. Safety of children en route to and from school
during hauling of soil on public roads.
6. Noise from construction and grading during morning
hours, dusk hours, and weekends.
7. Duration of disruption caused by hauling, grading,
and construction.
8. High density of lots 1 thru 8 on Cataro Drive.
9. Earthquake safety of pads placed on fill dirt.
10. Height and 'location of homes on lots 1 thru 8 on
Cataro Drive obstructing view of existing homes on
Catala Ridge and Garza Drive.
11. Homes on Cataro Drive may not be comparable in
size to neighboring homes on view lots on Catala
Avenue (1800 square feet minimum).
sk
d
a
Re: Tentative Tract No. 51772 May 3, 1994
12. Height of homes on Taryn Drive, Lots 9 thru 13,
will prominently show above the secondary
ridgeline.
13. Damage to secondary ridge due to possible
construction of a dirt road connecting Taryn Drive
and Cataro Drive Building sites.
14. Soil slippage on slope previously graded by
current builder on tract number 45284 between
water towers and proposed extension of Taryn
Drive.
15. Potential additional subdivision of lots 1 thru
13.
16. Potential future subdivision and development of
lot 14.
17. Safety of extending Taryn Drive beneath graded
slope suffering from severe soil slippage.
18. Displacement of birds, specifically migratory
eagles and owls.
19. Development of a previously undeveloped prominent
secondary ridge.
20. The soil samples referenced by the geologic report
funded by the developer were generally shallow
samples and are at least four years old.
21. Added public and private lighting may create a
harsh and irritating glare into homes on developed
private property.
22. Builder previously promised to leave the 32 acre
lot as undisturbed open space in trade for a
concession permitting development of 15 lots in
tract 45284.
23. Displacement of rodents during construction will
pose a health threat to surrounding residents.
24. Maintenance of drainage slopes and drainage
channels by new home owners.
25. Drainage channels on slope adjacent to lot 9 drain
onto lots rather than to a flood control basin.
26. Geological report states that proximal faults may
exist under lot 14.
Re: Tentative Tract No. 51772 May 3, 1994
27. Adequacy of planting and irrigation on graded
slopes.
28. The highly expansive nature of the red soil beds
common throughout the development site.
From the Desk of
Larry D. Westin
27457 North Catala Avenue
Saugus, California U.S.A. 91350
Home (805) 296-1172, Work (909) 468-0383
City of Santa Clarita
Department of Community Development
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, California 91355
Dear Sirs,
RECEIVED
�J
MAY 1 0 1994
Co""""' uc VELOPMENT
CITY OF SAN'TA ri ARITA
May 7, 1994
This letter is a comment to the proposed development of a tract of homes designated Master
Case Number 94-006, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51772, Oak Tree Permit 94-001 and
Hillside Review 94-002. I request this letter be considered as part of the official records as
the City of Santa Clarita conducts hearings on this proposal.
As a long time resident, my children were born and raised here, and I have seen this
community change through growth. Today my most serious concern is the significant
reduction of undeveloped open land through excessive development. Previous City approvals
have already taken much of the undeveloped open area and transformed it into streets and
houses. Once lost, undeveloped land is virtually impossible to regain. Viewing Santa
Clarita from above is an eye opening education.
Children of this community are the real losers if this, and other developments proceed. The
need for close by, open land, for use by our children, is acute. Open land provides not only
a place for children to play, but is essential to preserve the local ecosystem. The changing
family pattern in America, where frequently both parents work, limits the use of the
centralized parks system advocated by the city of Santa Clarita. Most children simply do nol
have transportation to use these centralized parks on a daily basis.
Several years ago my son, on his Boy Scout path to Eagle Scout, completed Environmental
merit badge. Among the requirements, the Scout must view a wild life habitat over a period
of weeks. My son accomplished this in a canyon by walking about a quarter mile from our
home. Today that is impossible, the canyon does not exist. After a developer dumped
thousands of cubic yards of dirt, graded it, and built streets and houses, there is no wild life,
no ecosystem.
Certainly there is both a desire and a need to build houses, but not to the exclusion of all
undeveloped land. The city of Santa Clarita exists in large part because of the rampant over
development in this valley which occurred during the 1980's. Yet the city of Santa Clarita
has, so far, failed to seize the opportunity to retain open undeveloped land for the benefit of
future generations. Only token reductions in development have occurred, and the window of
opportunity is closing fast, and forever. Santa Clarita has adopted the motto of the city of
trees, but a more accurate motto may be the city of traffic lights.
I ask the city of Santa Clarita to deny the request for development of this tract. My
name, address and telephone number are at the top of the page. Thank you for your time.