Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-09-10 - AGENDA REPORTS - DENIAL OF DEVAGMT 91-001 (2)AGENDA RBPOHTCity ManaXApprova ��� Item to be presee`ntte®d by: PUBLIC HEARING Lynn M. Harris `� ' DATE: September 10, 1991 SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial for Development Agreement 91-001 to allow ten years for the build -out of approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 45416 for 253 homes on 121 acres.. VTTM 45416 is located west of the terminus of Canvas Street and southeasterly of Sierra Highway. DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND In April of last year, the Planning Commission approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 45416 and Conditional Use Permit 89-019. The approved project consists of 253 single family homes on 121 vacant acres. A copy of the original staff report and Conditions of Approval are included for your information. The applicants, William -S. Hart Union High School District and Sierra Heights Partnership, are requesting a development agreement for ten years to develop VTTM 45416 in accordance with standards currently in effect. The Planning Commission approved VTTM 45416 on April 3, 1990. Conditional Use Permit 89-019 was considered and approved with VTTM 45416. Since there were no legislative entitlements required, the original tentative approval was issued by the Commission. On June 18, 1991, the Planning Commission unanimously. denied the request for the development agreement. The Commission's denial was based on the belief that the public benefits associated with the project did not equal those conferred to the developer, particularly the extended period of time to record the map. In addition, the Commission felt that the Development Agreement did not increase the benefits to the School District beyond the original agreement. ANALYSIS The City Council is conducting a hearing on a proposal which offers additional money for needed off-site improvements, in exchange for an additional time -period for the build -out of an approved project. The existing approvals are vested until 1992. They were approved prior to completion of the City's General Plan and met all required zoning standards. Since the original' approvals were granted, significant ridgelines have been identified running through the project site that will be impacted when the site is developed. Agenda item:______, e The Hart High School District and a private developer have reached an agreement whereby an exchange of land will allow the construction of a junior high school at an appropriate location. The land presently owned by the school district is no longer considered to be a suitable location. If the school district were to sell the site, the money would go to the state and the acquisition of a needed junior high would be a lengthy procedure. The District and the developer have stated that they do not wish to exchange their properties without a guarantee that .their land use entitlements will remain in place. The school district is not certain they can build the school immediately, since they must wait for funds to become available. By making the land -swap for the site which has been approved through the City's public hearing and environmental process, their chances of obtaining the funding are increased. The developer of the homesites, likewise, is unsure of his timetable because of the present slack in the housing market. The second half.of the .land swap, VTTM 48108 and .Development Agreement 91-002, is the next item on the agenda. Under VTTM 45416 approval, the developers were required to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and Anne Freda Street and the installation of approximately one mile of sewer along Sierra Highway which will serve an area currently on septic systems. The project's design incorporates a direct _access to Sierra Highway thereby creating a second access from the existing neighborhoods. The development agreement includes the following additional consideration beyond that of the original tract approval: * The applicants are proposing to contribute additional Bridge and Throughfare fees to the City if the agreement is approved. These monies, $1,000 per unit, would be used by the City to fund the widening of Soledad Canyon Road east of Sand Canyon Road. When the district created for this purpose is funded by other sources, the City will not repay this money, but use it elsewhere in the City. The fee in place today for this would be $5,000 per unit. Staff has since met with the applicant to address Planning Commission concerns. In reviewing other City approvals, it is noted that conditions and fees in excess of $5,000 per unit have been imposed. However, no previous approvals have included as significant a school district contribution as this one. The City and County have been discussing the need to incorporate four lane roadways into the B&T fees instead of the existing two lanes. The City has completed a draft study that estimates a fee of $7,200 per unit is needed to provide funds to provide four lane roadways. Staff recommends the City Council consider imposing $7,200 per unit on this project to mitigate Planning Commission concerns. The fee would include a CPI inflation indexer from 1993 onward. The advantage of approving the requested Development Agreement lies in the facilitation of the exchange of land by the two parties, thereby ensuring the construction of the junior high school. Another advantage is the acquisition of $253,000 by the City for needed public works improvements. The disadvantages are that the improvements related to the project may not be constructed as quickly and the project will be exempt from any new ordinances or moratoriums. RECOMMENDATION Uphold the Planning Commission denial of Development Agreement 91-001 and direct staff to return at the next meeting with a resolution denying the project. ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION Impose. additional B&T fees to a total of $7,200 per unit to meet Planning Commission concerns and approve the Development Agreement. ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Agreement 91-001. 3. Minutes of Planning Commission dated June 18, 1991. 4. Staff Reports dated February 20, 1990, March 20, 1990 and June 18, 1991. 5. Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment. 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. P91-39. 7. Project Site Plan. LMH:FLF:336 HEPBEP,T SCHAFFER SENT BY: EMD DO TEL No.213-575-1184 . 9- 3-91 5:14-M Sep 8.91 17:29 NO -006 P.02 A19�°9�4�Sa SEP -.03-'91 TLE 16111 1DICld. =N PRI STUDIES TEL N0121U.204703 213 477 6519;# 2 21315 P02 -r--• STAN d CAIWOSM —aui"u AHO TfAM:f dRTAWN A62MCY 821rf• w13-S;Q�g DEPARTMENT. OF TRANSPORTATION WT11 r 7. 120 So. Snsao St. Los MIUL , u 0 011 -3606 tea (2111 Aftwo (21.3) 620-3674 RECEIVED.' September 3, 1991 SEP p q 1991 LYNN M. HARRIS Dir*0tr of Community DOV. Mr, George Caravalho City M&nager City of Banta Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91395 Dear Mr. Caravalho: . This is in regard to Tentative.Tract 48108, recently approved by the City of Santa Clarita and its relationship to the route location study for State Route (BR) 126. As you know the southerly alternative, as presently conceived, traverses this tract and the State approved Junior High School site No. 4 which is adjaoont to and just westerly of the traot. Tt 1r1 our understanding that the tract developer has agreea to provide the land for the school in exchange for another scnoo1 site now deemed unusable for school purposes, grade the site And Abeoss road, and make a significant financial contribution towards construction of the school facilities which are schedul©d for completion in 1994. In determining the location of a State highway, critical community facilities such as schools are avoided. Further evaluation has determined that the alignment can be shifted northerly of the 2ch00l site into a subdivision of graded, but as Yet undeveloped 10tH. Tne vertical profile of the revised alignment Can also be modified to allow grade separations at the school and tract access roads to Via Princess&, with the highway elevation below the ecnool facilities. In developing a new State highway in a growinq area such ars Santa Clarita the acquisition of some developed property will be necessary, However, I can assure you that a feasible.aoutherly alignment for SR -126 oan be developed without physically impacting the school site in question. If you have questions, please call Hr. Wallace J. Rothbart, X713) D[u-090. 61.nceruiy, VFO'COZJNELL Deputy District Director PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE 1. Mayor Opens Hearing a. States Purpose of Hearing 2. City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice 3. Staff Report (City Manager) or (City.Attorney) or (RP Staff) 4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes) 5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes) 6. Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent) a. Proponent 7. Mayor Closes Public Testimony S. Discussion by'Council 9. Council Decision 10. Mayor Announces Decision CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEALING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF RESOLUTION NO. P91-39 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-001 TO ALLOW FOR A TEN YEAR BUILD OUT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 45416 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-019 LOCATION: NORTHERLY'OF SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD AND EASTERLY OF SIERRA HIGHWAY AT THE TERMINUS OF CANVAS STREET IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Resolution No. P91-39 and Development Agreement 91-001 from the applicant, Sierra Heights Partnership and William S. Hart Union High School District, to allow for a ten year build out for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 45416 and Conditional Use Permit 89-019. The location is northerly of Soledad Canyon Road and easterly of Sierra Highway at the terminus of Canvas Street in the City of Santa Clarita. The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, .23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 10th day of September, 1991, 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 contracting the City Clerk's Office, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita. If you wish to challenge this order in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council, at, or prior to the public hearing. Date: August 19, 1991 Donna M. Grindey City Clerk Publish Date: August 20, 1991 Recording Requested By and When Recorded Return to: CITY CLERK CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, THE WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT AND SIERRA HEIGHTS PARTNERSHIP RELATIVE TO THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. 45416 THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED WITHIN TEN DAYS OF EXECUTION BY ALL PARTIES HERETO PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF GOVERNMENT CODE 565868.5 6/10/91 ; 3 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Development Agreement ("Agreement") is made this day of , 1991, by and among the City of Santa Clarita, a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the general laws of the State of California (the "City"), the William S. Hart Union High School District (the "District") and Sierra Heights, a partnership (the "Developer"). RECITALS A. The City is authorized pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 (the "Government Code") to enter into binding agreements with persons or entities having legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such property in order to establish certainty in the development process. The City further enters into this Agreement pursuant to Part 4 of Chapter 22.16 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (the "Santa Clarita Code"). B. The Developer and District are the applicants for entitlements and the co-owners of approximately 121 acres of unimproved real property located in the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, California, as shown in Exhibit A to this Agreement, which real property is the subject matter of this Agreement (the "Project Site"). Exhibit A is incorporated herein by this reference. The legal description for the Project Site is set forth in Exhibit B to this Agreement. Exhibit B is incorporated herein by this reference. A portion (approximately 20 acres, herein "District Parcel") of the above 121 acres of unimproved real property is owned by District and is an abandoned future school site. Developer is acquiring for the benefit of the District, a school site located in the City of Santa Clarita that which District is desirous of acquiring for purposes of constructing a critically needed high school (herein "Rainbow Glen School Site"). Developer and District have entered into a binding Exchange Agreement whereby the District Parcel is being exchanged for the Rainbow Glen School Site. When the exchange is consummated the District will own the Rainbow Glen School Site and Developer will be the sole owner of the District Parcel and the entire Project Site. C. The Parties desire to enter into this Agreement relating to the Project Site in conformance with -1- WPX/TBM/DDA221598 a� the Government Code and the Santa Clarita Code in order to achieve the development of land uses expressly permitted under the terms of this Agreement and the provision of public services, public uses, and urban infrastructure, all in the promotion of the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Santa Clarita and the residents of the Santa Clarita Valley. D. The Developer has applied for the following entitlements (collectively referred to as the "Project Approvals"): (1) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 45416 (the "Tract Map"). (2) Conditional Use Permit No. 89-019 (the "CUP"). (3) Development Agreement No 91-_. The development as proposed by the Developer for the Project Site will consist of 253 single family homes and -related amenities -(the "Project"). E. On April 3, 1990, following the public hearing conducted on February, 20 1990 the Planning Commission of the City adopted Resolution NO:P90-13 approving the negative declaration prepared for the Project, the Tract Map and the CUP. On , 1991, the Planning Commission of the City, held a public hearing on the Developerfs application for this Agreement. F. On , 1991, the City Council of the City adopted Ordinance No. approving this Agreement with the Developer. G. The City desires to obtain the binding agreement of the Developer for the development of the Project Site in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and the approved Project. H. The Developer desires to obtain the binding agreement of the City that the City will permit the Developer to develop the Project and Project Site in accordance with the "Applicable Rules" (as hereinafter defined), including any modifications permitted by this Agreement. The Developer further desires that it not be required to construct public improvements or make dedications or financial contributions to the City in lieu CPM WPX/TBM/DDA221598 OC .S of public improvements, except as expressly set forth in this Agreement and the conditions of the Project Approvals. I. Developer has applied to the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Santa Clarita Code for approval of this Agreement which provides for the binding agreements desired by the Parties to this Agreement. The City Council of the City has given notice of intention to consider this Agreement, has conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to the Government Code and the Santa Clarita Code, and has found that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the City's adopted plans and policies and the "Zoning Ordinance" (as hereinafter defined). The City, as a newly incorporated municipal corporation, has not yet adopted a general plan. The City is in the process of preparing, reviewing, and considering a general plan as required by California Government Code Sections 65300, et seq. In approving the Tract Map and the CUP, the City Planning Commission found, pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code, as follows: (a) There is a reasonable probability that the Project will be consistent with the City's proposed general plan under study at the present time; and (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, a future adopted general plan if the Project is ultimately inconsistent with the proposed general plan. J. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have been found by the City to be fair, just, and reasonable, and prompted by the necessities of the situation so as to provide extraordinary benefits to the City. K. This Agreement is consistent with the present public health, safety, and welfare needs of the residents of the City of Santa Clarita and the surrounding region. The City has specifically considered and approved the impact and benefits of this Project upon the regional welfare. L. This Agreement will bind the City to the terms and obligations specified in this Agreement and limits, to the degree specified in this Agreement and under State law, the future exercise of the Cityfs ability to delay, postpone, preclude or regulate development of the Project on the Project Site except as provided for herein. WPX/TBM/DDA221598 BE -3- M. A negative declaration has been prepared and approved in conjunction with the above referenced Project Approvals and the consideration set forth in this Agreement in accordance with the applicable statutes, ordinances, and regulations of the State of California and of the City of Santa Clarita. N. This Agreement eliminates uncertainty in planning and provides for the orderly development of the Project.Site. Further, this Agreement eliminates uncertainty about the validity of exactions imposed by the City, and other Federal, State and local agencies, allows installation of necessary improvements, provides for public services appropriate to the development of.the Project Site, and generally serves the public interest within the City of Santa Clarita and the surrounding region. NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the above Recitals, and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, the City and the Developer agree as follows: 1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) "Applicable Rules" means.the rules, regulations, and official policies of.the City in force as of the "Effective Date" (as hereinafter defined) governing development, density, permitted uses, growth management, environmental consideration, building codes, grading requirements, improvement -and -construction standards and specifications and design criteria applicable to the Project. (b) "Discretionary Actions; Discretionary Approvals" are actions which require the exercise of judgment or a decision, and which contemplate and authorize the imposition of revisions or conditions, by the City, including any board, commission, or department of the City and any officer or employee of the City, in the process of approving or disapproving a particular activity, as distinguished from an activity which merely requires the City, including any board, commission, or department of the City and any officer or employee of the City, to determine whether there -4- WPX/TBM/DDA221598 OL 7 has been compliance with applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, or conditions of approval. (c) "Effective Date" is the date this Agreement is executed by all Parties. In the event this Agreement is executed by the Parties on different dates, the latest date of execution shall constitute the Effective Date. In the event this Agreement is not fully executed, but substantially performed, the Effective Date is the date the Tract Map is approved by the Planning Commission of the City. (d) "Final Map" is the final approved map for any phase of Tract 45416 that is recorded following the satisfaction of the conditions imposed upon the approval of the Project, including but without limitation, Condition 18 of the conditions of approval for Tract 45416, which allows the developer to file multiple phase final maps upon notice to City Departments of Community Development and Public Works at the time Vesting Tentative Tract Map 45416 is filed. (e) "Public Improvements" means those public improvements that the Developer agrees.to construct and dedicate or alternatively, that with regard to those public improvements, the Developer agrees to the payment.of money and the dedication of land to the .City or such other public entity as the City shall lawfully designate, which improvements include by way of example, but not limitation, (i) those improvements, the provision of which are conditions to the Project.Approvals, and (ii) the acquisition, dedication and\or construction of easements and facilities described in Section 6 of this Agreement. (f) "Subsequent Applicable Rules" means the rules, regulations, and official policies of the City, as they may be adopted becoming'effective after the Effective Date of this Agreement which, other than as,provided for in this Agreement, would govern the development, building codes, grading requirements, improvement and construction standards, density, permitted uses, growth management, environmental considerations, and design criteria applicable to the Project and Project Site. The parties intend the development of the Project and the Project Site to be subject to Subsequent Applicable Rules only WPX/TBM/DDA221598 -5- to the extent specified in paragraph (a) of Section 7 of this Agreement and, provided that any Subsequent Applicable Rule can be applied to the Project Site if the City conducts public hearings and makes reasonable findings based on the record of the hearing that the failure to apply a Subsequent Applicable Rule will place residents of the City in a condition substantially dangerous to their health or safety, and that such condition, as determined by the Council in its sole discretion cannot otherwise be mitigated in a reasonable manner. (g) "Zoning ordinance" istheZoning ordinance for the City of Santa Clarita (Title 22 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code) as same exists on the Effective Date. 2. Interest of Developer. The Developer represents to the City that, as of the Effective Date, it owns or is contractually entitled to buy the Project Site in fee, subject to encumbrances, easements, covenants, conditions, restrictions, and other matters of record. 3. Binding Effect. This Agreement, and all of the terms and conditions of.this Agreement, shall run with the land comprising the Project Site and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective assigns, heirs, or other successors in interest. 4. Negation of Agency. The Parties acknowledge that, in entering into and performing under this Agreement, each is acting as an independent entity and not as an agent of the other in any respect. Nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Developer joint venturers or partners. 5. Development of the Property. The following specific restrictions shall govern the use and development of the Project and the Project Site: (a) "Permitted Uses" The Project Site may only be used for the development of no more than 253 detached, single family residences and related amenities. (b) "Development Standards" All design and development standards applicable to the development of the Project Site shall be in accordance with the am WPX/TBM/DDA221598 Applicable Rules including, by way of example, but not limitation, the Zoning Ordinance and the conditions of the Project Approvals as same may be amended or modified in the future by mutual consent, and shall also be in accordance with Subsequent Applicable Rules. If there is a conflict between any of the Applicable Rules and Subsequent Applicable Rules to be applied, the City Council in its reasonable discretion, shall determine which shall apply. 6. Acknowledgments, Agreements and Assurances on the Part of the Developer. The parties acknowledge and agree that Developer's faithful performance in developing the Project Site and in constructing and installing public improvements, making payments and providing other benefits in accordance with the Applicable Rules and Public Improvements will fulfill substantial public needs not otherwise obtainable under the Applicable Rules and Public Improvements defined above in Sections 1(a) and (e), respectively. The City acknowledges and agrees that there is good and valuable consideration to the City resulting from developer's assurances and faithful performance thereof and that same is in balance with the benefits conferred by the City on the Project and the Developer by this Agreement as more particularly described in Section 7 below. The parties further acknowledge and agree that the exchanged consideration hereunder, each as to the other, is fair, just and reasonable in that known assurances of development is, among other things, appropriate and reasonable in view of the extraordinary benefits provided to the City by this Agreement. Developer acknowledges that the consideration is reasonably related to the type and extent of the impacts of the Project on the community and the Project Site, and further acknowledges that said consideration is necessary to mitigate the direct and indirect impacts caused by the development of the Project. In consideration of the foregoing and the City's assurances set out in Section 7 below, Developer hereby agrees as follows: (a) Development of the Project Site. Developer will use reasonable efforts, in accordance with its sole business judgment in taking into consideration market conditions and other economic factors influencing the Developer's business decision to commence or to continue development, to develop the Project Site in accordance with the terms and -7- WPX/TBM/DDA221598 conditions of this Agreement, the conditions of the Project Approvals and the Applicable Rules. (b) School Fees. Concurrent with the issuance of each unit building permit for a lot within Tract No. 45416 , Developer shall pay to the applicable School District a per unit sum in accordance with existing agreements between Developer and the William S. Hart Union High School District and the Sulphur Springs Union School District. Said School Districts and the City acknowledge that the amount of such school fees in said Agreements exceed the amount of the current required fee for construction of new school facilities under SB 2926. (c) Easements. The Final Map or phased maps shall describe and depict all easements including, but not limited to, streets, public utilities, storm drains, cable television, etc, all as are necessary to facilitate the construction or installation of the infrastructure itemized in subparagraph (d) below and, by the recordation of such map or maps convey said easements to the City. Developer shall use good faith efforts to acquire and.grant to the City certain off -tract easements for streets and drainage in accordance with the Final Map and the conditions thereto approved by the City. In the event Developer is unable to acquire such easements or dedications by negotiation and upon a reasonable showing thereof, the City hereby agrees to acquire same by its power of eminent domain, provided the Developer shall pay the amount of such award and attorneys' fees and costs in the pursuit thereof. (d) Infrastructure, Fees, Dedication, Donations. This subparagraph states the time for and description of Developer performance of certain Project conditions as follows: (1) City and Developer agree that improvements need to be made to Soledad Canyon Road ("Road"). Developer agrees to defray part of the construction and improvements for the Road. The parties agree that: (a) The City will make improvements to the Road which, at its sole discretion, the City deems are necessary. The City will keep a record of all of the expenses WPX/TBM/DDA221598 3/ WPX/TBM/DDA221598 3v it incurs which are reasonably related to the construction of the Road. These expenses include, but are not limited to: direct labor costs, materials, contractors and subcontractors. (b) Interest.shall accrue upon the amount of funds expended by the City from time to time for the construction of the Road at an annual rate.of eight (8) percent. (c) At the time that Developer procures a building permit for each unit in the Project, the Developer will pay $1,000 per unit to defray the expenses of improving the Road, plus interest as set forth herein. (d) Interest shall be paid at the time of procuring a building permit on a unit by unit basis. Thus, the Developer shall reimburse the City for the amount of interest that has accrued on the $1,000 Developer owes the City for each building permit issued, which will be calculated from the date that the City expended the money -to improve the Road. (e) For purposes of determining how much interest has accrued on the $1,000 fee to be paid before issuance of each building permit, the parties to this Agreement agree to a FIFO (first in, first out) method of calculating the amount of interest due the City. Under this method, the first building permit payment will be considered to pay off the first $1,000 expended by the City to build and improve the Road, and so on. Developer will pay interest based on when that particular sum of money was expended by the City. (f) The Developer's liability for contributions for improvements to the Road is limited to the actual number of permitted units and the amount of interest that accrues -under this Agreement. Any subsequent owners of am undeveloped lots in the Project shall also be liable for the $1,000 contribution per dwelling unit plus the amount of interest pursuant to this Agreement. (2) Concurrent with the issuance of building permits on a lot -by -lot basis, Developer shall pay to the City the Bridge and Thoroughfare fee applicable at the time of permit issuance. (3) Subsequent to the commencement of construction of the first phase of Tract 45416 and prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for Tract 45416, Developer shall construct an approximate 3/4 mile section of sewer main line along Sierra Highway from Tract 45416 to Soledad Canyon Road. (4) Construction of an off-site traffic signal at the intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and Anna Freda Street approximately 1/2 mile from Tract 45416. (5) In connection with the development of the Project Site, Developer shall construct progressively and incrementally with each applicable phase -of construction, the access road depicted as "A" Street in furtherance of the public health and safety of those existing residences which presently have only one access road serving their entire tract thereby providing ease of traffic flow and emergency access for said existing residential neighborhood. Nothing herein shall preclude phased recordation of the Tentative Map, phased residential unit construction or supercede Developer's discretion as to the timing and number of units to be constructed. 7. Acknowledgements, Agreements and Assurances on the Part of the City. In order to effectuate the provisions of this Agreement, and as an inducement for the Developer to obligate itself to carry out the covenants and conditions set forth in the preceding Section 6 of this Agreement, and in consideration for the Developer doing so,.the City hereby -10- WPX/TBM/DDA221598 agrees and assures Developer that Developer will be permitted to carry out and complete the development of the Project within the Project Site, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the conditions of the Project Approvals and the Applicable Rules. In furtherance of such agreement and assurances, and pursuant to the authority and provisions set forth in the Government Code and the Santa Clarita Code, the City, in entering into this Agreement, hereby agrees and acknowledges that: (a) Entitlement to Develop. The Developer is hereby granted the vested right to develop the Project and the Project Site to the extent and in the manner provided in this Agreement, subject to the conditions of the Project Approvals and in accordance with the Applicable Rules and the Subsequent Applicable Rules upon the City making the findings set forth below in this subparagraph (a) and City hereby finds the Project consistent with the City's adopted plans and policies and the Zoning Ordinance. Any change in the Applicable Rules, including, without limitation, any change in any applicable general or specific plan, Zoning Ordinance, growth management regulations,.hillside restrictions, design standards or any subdivision regulation of the City, adopted or becoming effective after the.Effective Date, shall not be applied by the City to the Project or Project Area. Subsequent Applicable Rules can -be applied to the Project Site only if (1) the City determines that the failure of the City to apply Subsequent Applicable Rules will place residents of the City in a condition substantially dangerous to their health or safety,. which condition cannot otherwise be mitigated in a reasonable manner and (2) it is applied consistently and evenly to all other residential developments in the City. (b) Consistency With Applicable Rules. City finds, based upon all information made available to City prior to or concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, that there are no Applicable Rules that would prohibit or prevent the full completion and occupancy of the development of the Project and the Project Site in accordance with uses and densities incorporated and agreed to in this Agreement. (c) Rate and Timing of Development. The City acknowledges and agrees that the Developer cannot WPX/TBM/DDA221598 3q -11- at this time predict when the Final Map for the Project Site or any recordation phase thereof will record. Further, the City acknowledges and agrees that the Developer cannot at this time predict when, or the rate at which, the Project will be developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors including, but not limited to, general economics, housing market, financial capability, title, title insurance, interest rates, labor availability and costs, loan availability and terms, lender requirements and other factors which are not within the control of the Developer. The California Supreme Court, in Pardee Construction Company v. City of Camarillo, (1984) 37 Cal.3d. 465 held that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development allowed a later adopted initiative, which restricted the timing of development, toprevail over the agreement of the parties. In order to avoid the effects of that decision, the City acknowledges and agrees that the Developer shall have the right, but not the obligation, to develop the Project, and if developed, to do so in such order and at such rate, and at such times as the Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment, subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement -or, where not in conflict with this Agreement,.any timing or phasing requirements set forth in the Applicable Rules and Project Approvals. (d) Time of Recordation of the Final Map or Phased Maps; Start of Grading. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, the Developer has the sole right and discretion as to the time of recording the Final Map for all or any phase of the Project and the time to start grading and/or pulling permits for on and off-site works of improvement and building permits during the term of this Agreement. (e) Subsequent Discretionary Actions. With respect to any Discretionary Action or Discretionary Approval that is or may be required subsequent to the execution of this Agreement, the City agrees that it will not unreasonably withhold from Developer or unreasonably condition or delay any such Discretionary Action or Discretionary Approval which must be issued by the City in order for the development of the Project Site to proceed -12- WPX/TBM/DDA221598 3s'� to construction and occupancy in ordinary course. In addition, no condition shall preclude or otherwise limit the Developer's ability to develop the Project and the Project Site in accordance with the timing, density and intensity of use set forth in this Agreement, unless the City determines that (1) the failure of the City to impose such condition would place residents of the City in a condition substantially dangerous to their health or safety, which condition cannot otherwise be mitigated in a reasonable manner and (2) such condition is applied consistently and evenly to all other residential developments in the City. (f) No Moratoriums. In addition to, and not in limitation of, the foregoing, it is the intent of the Developer and the City that no interim, temporary or permanent moratorium (whether relating to the rate, timing, or sequencing of the development or construction of all or any part of the Project, whether imposed by ordinance, initiative, referendum, resolution,- or otherwise, and whether enacted by the City Council, electorate or any agency of the City) affecting parcel or subdivision maps (whether tentative, vesting tentative, or final), building permits, certificates of occupancy, or other entitlements to use or service (including, without limitation, water and sewer) approved, issued or granted within the City, or portions of the City, shall apply to the Project. (g) Term of Tentative Map. As authorized by California Government Code Section 66452.6(a), City shall extend the term of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map up to and including the scheduled Termination Date of this Agreement as set forth in Section 10 below. In extending the duration of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map City shall not impose any additional conditions or fees, or changes in design, density or other policies, rules or regulations -which differ from the original approval of the Project. (h) Cooperation and Implementation. The City agrees that it will cooperate with Developer to the fullest extent reasonable and feasible to implement this Agreement. Upon satisfactory performance by Developer of all required preliminary actions and payments, bonding, or delivery of Letters of Credit WPX/TBM/DDA221598 3� -13- pertaining to appropriate fees, the City will commence and in a timely manner proceed to complete all steps necessary for the implementation of this Agreement and the development of the Project and the Project Site in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the processing and checking of any and all Project approvals, agreements, covenants, applications, and related matters required by this Agreement, building plans.and specifications and any other plans necessary for the development of the Property, and the issuance of all necessary building permits, occupancy certificates, or other required permits for the construction, use, and occupancy of the Project Site. Developer will, in a timely manner, provide the City with all documents,,plansi and other information necessary for the City to carry out its obligations under this Agreement. 8. Review of Compliance. (a) Periodic Review. The City shall review this Agreement annually, on or before the anniversary of the Effective Date, in accordance with the procedure and standards set forth in this Agreement and the Santa Clarita Code in order to ascertain compliance by the Developer with the terms of this Agreement. (b) Special Review. The City Council of the City may order a special review, of compliance with this Agreement at any time. The Community Development Director or the City Council, as determined from time to time by the City Council, shall conduct such special reviews. (c) Procedure. During either a periodic review or a special review, the Developer shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The burden of proof on this issue shall be on the Developer. The parties acknowledge that failure by the Developer to demonstrate good faith compliance shall constitute grounds for termination or modification of this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Upon completion of a periodic review or a special review, the Community Development Director shall submit a report to the City Council setting forth the evidence concerning good faith -14- WPX/TBM/DDA221598 3i compliance by the Developer with the terms of this Agreements and the recommended finding on that issue. All compliance reviews shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions ofSections22.16.460, 22.16.470, and 22.16.480 of the Santa Clarita Code. However nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to impose an affirmative duty to proceed with development should Developer decide to defer or to temporarily or permanently terminate construction of the Project. If, on the basis of review of this Agreement, the Community Development Director concludes that the Developer has not complied in good faith with the terms of this Agreement, then the Community Development Director may issue a written "Notice of Non-compliance" specifying the grounds therefor and all facts demonstrating such non-compliance. The Developer's failure to cure the alleged non- compliance within thirty (30) days after receipt of said notice, shall constitute a default under this Agreement, subject to extensions of time by mutual consent in writing. If the nature of the alleged noncompliance is such that it cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty (30) day period, the commencement of the cure within a reasonable time period and a diligent prosecution to completion of cure shall be deemed a cure within such period. Subject.to the foregoing, after notice and expiration of the thirty (30) day period without cure, the City may pursue any remedy available under this Agreement. (d) Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination. If the City.determines to proceed with modification or termination of this Agreement after completing the reviews specified in Sections 22.16.460, 22.16.470, and 22.16.480 of the Santa Clarita Code, the City shall give written notice to the Developer of its intention to modify or terminate this Agreement. Notice shall be given at least sixty (60) calendar days before the scheduled hearing and shall contain such information as may be reasonably necessary to inform the Developer of the nature of the proceeding. At the time and place set for the hearing on modification or termination, the Developer shall be given an opportunity to be heard. The Developer shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. If the WPX/TBM/DDA221598 3� -15- City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence, that the Developer has not reasonably complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of this Agreement, the City Council may initiate proceedings to terminate this Agreement. 9. Modification, Amendment, or Cancellation.• Subject to meeting the notice and hearing requirements of Section 65867 of the Government Code and the applicable provisions of the Santa Clarita Code, this Agreement may be modified or amended from time to time by mutual consent of the parties.or their successors in interest in accordance with the provisions of the Santa Clarita Code and Section 65868 of the Government Code. 10. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall become operative and commence upon the Effective Date and shall remain in effect for a term of ten (10) years, unless said term is terminated, modified, or extended by circumstance set forth in this Agreement or by mutual consent of the parties hereto. Following the expiration of said term, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect; provided, such termination shall not automatically affect any right arising from City approvals on the Project Site prior to, concurrently with, or subsequent to the Effective Date of this Agreement; and provided further, that such termination shall not automatically affect any right the City may have by reason of the Developer's covenants to dedicate land,•contribute money or provide public improvements in conjunction with any portion of the Project Site which is under construction at the time of the termination. 11. Remedies For Default. It is acknowledged by the Parties.that the City would not have entered into this Agreement if it were to have unlimited liability and damages under this Agreement, or with respect to this Agreement, or the application thereof. The Parties agree and recognize that, as a practical matter, it will not be possible physically, financially, and as a matter of land use planning, to restore the Project Site to its prior state once the construction is commenced. Moreover, Developer has invested a considerable amount of time and financial resources in planning the time, location, intensity of use, improvements and structures for the development of the Project Site. For these reasons, the Parties agree that it will not be possible to determine an amount of monetary damages which would adequately compensate the Developer for this work. Therefore, the Parties agree that monetary damages will not be an adequate remedy for Developer if the -16- WPX/TBM/DDA221598 3y City fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement. The Parties further agree that the Developer's remedies under this Agreement shall be limited to the right to specifically enforce the terms of this Agreement. The City's remedies under this Agreement shall also be limited to the right to specifically enforce the terms of this Agreement. In addition to specific performance, if the Developer fails to make any payment or complete any other act or performance specified in this Agreement in a reasonable manner, the Developer shall have no further right or entitlement to any building permits or certificates of occupancy for any portion of the Project Site -until the default has been cured in accordance with due process and as provided in.this Agreement. The Parties recognize that this section may result in the limitation or cessation of the rights otherwise conferred by this Agreement upon the Developer, including any of the Developer's successors, assigns, transferees, or other persons or entities acquiring title to or otherwise acquiring an interest in the Project or any portion thereof. 12. Arbitration. In order to expedite the resolution of disputes and default, the parties have elected to submit to binding Judicial Arbitration and Mediation. If the matter in connection with any alleged breach is not resolved in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice of breach, either party shall have the right to submit the matter to expedited arbitration. Whenever any dispute over enforcement, interpretation or other arises between the parties hereto in connection with this Agreement and either party gives written notice (the "Notice") to the other that such dispute shall be determined by arbitration, then within thirty (30) days after the giving of the Notice, both parties shall agree upon and.hire one member of the panel of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. ("Judge"). The Judge shall be a retired judge experienced with land use, zoning and real estate development matters. As soon as reasonably possible, but no later than thirty (30)- days after the -Judge is selected, the Judge shall meet with the parties at a location reasonably acceptable to Developer, City and the Judge. The Judge shall determine the matter within ten (10) days after such meeting. Each party shall pay one-half the costs and expenses of the Judge. If Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. ceases to exist, and either party gives written notice to the other that a dispute shall be determined by arbitration, then, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the WPX/TBM/DDA221598 YD -17- parties, all arbitrations hereunder shall be governed by the then -current rules of the American Arbitration Association. Any determination by arbitration hereunder may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. Within ten (10) days after delivery of such notice, each party shall select an arbitrator with at least five (5) years experience in land use, zoning and real estate development matters and advise the other party of its selection in writing. The two arbitrators so named shall meet promptly and seek to reach a conclusion as to the matter to be determined, and their decision, rendered in writing and delivered to the parties hereto, shall be final and binding on the parties. If said arbitrators shall fail to reach a decision within ten (10) days after the appointment of the second arbitrator, said arbitrator shall name a third arbitrator within the succeeding period of five (5) days. Said three (3) arbitrators thereafter shall meet promptly for consideration of the matter to be determined and the decision of any two (2) of said arbitrators rendered in writing and delivered to the parties hereto shall be final and binding upon the parties. If either party fails to appoint an arbitrator within the prescribed time, and/or if either party fails to appoint an arbitrator with the qualifications specified herein, and/or if any two (2) arbitrators are unable to agree upon the appointment of a third arbitrator within the prescribed time, then the Superior Court of Los Angeles County may, upon the request of any party, appoint such arbitrators, as the case may be, and the arbitrators as a group shall have the same power and authority to render a final and binding decision as where the appointments are made pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph. All costs of any arbitration shall be borne by the party which does not prevail in that arbitration. All determinations by arbitration hereunder shall be binding upon Developer and City. 13. Administration of Agreement and Resolution of Disputes. All decisions by the City staff concerning the interpretation and administration of this Agreement and the Project which is the subject hereof are appealable to the City Council and all like decisions by the City Council shall be final but subject to the arbitration provisions set forth in Section 12 herein and shall also be subject to judicial review pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5. 14. Assignment. The rights of the Developer under this Agreement may be transferred or assigned in whole or in m WPX/TBM/DDA221598 Vf/ part by the Developer upon prior written notice to the City. Express assumption of any of the Developerfs obligations under this Agreement by any such assignee shall relieve the Developer from such obligation. 15. Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective when personally delivered or upon receipt after deposit in the United States mail as registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the following representatives of the parties at the addresses indicated below: If to City: City of Santa Clarita Attention: City -Manager 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 With a Copy to: Carl K. Newton, Esq. Burke, Williams & Sorensen 611 West Sixth Street 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 If to Developer: Mr. Zev Vered Sierra Heights 13756 Ventura Boulevard Suite 100 Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 With a copy to: and Mr. Herbert Schaffer Kensal, Inc. 10960 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2150 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Charles W. Cohen, Cohen, Alexander One Boardwalk Suite 102 Thousand Oaks, CA Esq. & Clayton 91360 16. Severability and Termination. If any provision of this Agreement should be determined by a court to be invalid or unenforceable, or if any provision of this Agreement is superseded or rendered unenforceable.according to any law which becomes effective after the Effective Date, the remainder of this Agreement shall be effective to the WPX/TBM/DDA221598 qzoe_ -19- extent the remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform, taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement. 17. Time of .Essence. Time is of the essence for each provision of this Agreement of which time is an element. 18. Amendment or Cancellation. Subject to meeting the notice and hearing requirements of Section 65867 of the Government Code, this Agreement may be amended from time to time, or cancelled in whole or in part, by mutual consent of the parties or their successors in interest in accordance with the provisions of Section 64868 of the Government Code; provided, however, that any amendment which does not relate to the term, permitted uses, density or intensity of use, height or size of buildings, provisions for reservation and dedication of land, conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements relating to Subsequent Discretionary Actions, or any conditions or covenants relating to the use of the Project Site, shall not require notice or public hearing before the parties may execute an amendment hereto. 19. Force Majeure. In the event of changed conditions, changes in local, state or federal laws or regulations, inclement weather, delays due to strikes, inability to obtain materials, civil commotion, fire, acts of god, or other circumstances which substantially interfere with carrying out the Project, as the Project has been approved by way of the existing approvals, or with the ability of either party to perform its obligations under this Agreement, the parties agree to bargain in good faith to modify such obligations to achieve the goals and preserve the original interest of this Agreement. 20. Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the Party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought and refers expressly to an occurrence or event to be deemed waived or such a waiver effect a waiver of any right or remedy in respect of any other occurrence or event. 21. Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its plain language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, The rule of construction that ambiguities are to be resolved -20- WPX/TBM/DDA221598 ��3 against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, both parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof. 22. Constructive Notice, and Acceptance. Every person who, now or hereafter, owns or acquires any right, title or interest in or to any portion of the Project Site is, and shall be, conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision contained herein, whether or not any reference to this Agreement is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in the Project Site. 23. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 24. Attorney's Fees. If either Party commences any action for the interpretation, enforcement, termination, cancellation or rescission of this Agreement, or for specific performance for the breach hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 25. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more identical counterparts each of which shall be deemed to be an original and each of which shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument when each Party signs each such counterpart. 26. Incorporation of Attachments. All attachments to this Agreement, including Exhibits A through G, and all subparts thereto, are incorporated herein by this reference. 27. Successor Statutes Incorporated. Subject to the terms of this Agreement in general and Section 28 below in particular, all references to a statute or ordinance, shall incorporate any, or all, successor statute or ordinance enacted to govern the activity now governed by the statute or ordinance, noted herein. 28. Entire Agreement; Conflicts. This Agreement consists of 17 pages and 7 Exhibits which constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the parties. the exhibits are as follows: WPX/TBM/DDA221598 -21- Exhibit "A" - Map of the Project Site. Exhibit "B" - Legal Description of the Project Site. Exhibit "C" - The Project Approvals. Exhibit "D" - Phasing Plan. Exhibit "E" - Applicable Rules. Exhibit "F" - Development Fee Schedule. Exhibit "G" - Zoning Ordinance. Shouldanyor all of the provisions of this Agreement be found to be in conflict with any other provision or provisions found in the Project Approvals, Applicable Rules, Subsequent Applicable Rules or Zoning Ordinance then the provision(s) of this Agreement shall prevail. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have each executed this Agreement of the date first written above. Dated: Dated: 1991 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA By: , Mayor 1991 WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of California By: Hamilton C. Smyth, Ed.D District Superintendent -22- WPX/TBM/DDA221598 Dated: , 1991 SIERRA HEIGHTS, a California general partnership WPX/TBM/DDA221598 V� BY: P&V Enterprises, a California corporation, general partner By: Zev Vered, President BY: Kensal, Inc., a California corporation, general partner By: Herbert Schaffer, President -23- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF ) On this day of , in the year 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, in and for said State and County, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument as of the City of Santa Clarita and acknowledged that the City of Santa Clarita executed it. WITNESS my hand and official .seal. Notary Public: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF On this day of , in the year 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, in and for said State and County, personally appeared Hamilton C. Smyth, personally known to me (or proved to me on thebasis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument as the Superintendent of the William S. Hart Union High School District and acknowledged that the William S. Hart Union High School District executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public: -24- WPX/TBM/DDA221598 V7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF ] On this day of in the year 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, in and for said State and County, personally appeared Zev Vered personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument as the President of P & V Enterprises, a general partner of Sierra Heights, a California general partnership and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument as such general partner pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF ) On this day of in the year 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, in and for said State and County, personally appeared Herbert Schaffer, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument as President of Kensal, Inc., a general partner of Sierra Heights, a California general partnership and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument as such general partner pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public: WPX/TBM/DDA221598 y0 -25- RESOLUTION NO. P91-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-001 FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 45416 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-019 LOCATED EASTERLY OF SIERRA HIGHWAY AND NORTHERLY OF SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD AT THE PRESENT TERMINUS OF CANVAS STREET. 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. Applications for a vesting tentative tract map, and related entitlements have been considered and approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita on April 3, 1990.- b. Applications for a Development Agreement were submitted to the City of Santa•Clarita on February 27, 1991. C. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at 7:00 PM on'May 21, 1991 and June 18, 1991 in the City of Santa Clarita Council Chambers, where opponents and proponents were allowed to speak. 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 hearing of June 16, 1991, the Planning Commission considered the staff report prepared for this project and received testimony on this proposal. b. The proposal cannot fully meet the required findings for the granting of a development agreement as listed in Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 22.16.280, as follows: There is a reasonable probablity that the project will not be consistent with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan hillside guidelines. The development agreement at the subject site, in conjunction with the project, will not be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare, and in conformance with good.land,use practice because: The benefits offered to the City of Santa Clarita by the project's applicant do not equal the City's liabilities associated with the vesting of project for ten years as requested in the application. SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission hereby determines as follows: a. As proposed, the project fails to substantiate all of the findings associated with the recommendation of approval for a development agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE -IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita, California, as follows: The Planning Commission hereby denies Development Agreement 91-001. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of July, 1991. 'z Jerry Cherrington, Chairman Planning Commission I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of July, 1991, by the following vote of the Commission: ATTE TY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) AYES: Brathwaite, Cherrington, NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: FLF:314 Modugno, and Woodrow L M. Harri , Director mmunity Development MINUTES OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Tuesday June 18, 1991 CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Brathwaite at 7:05 p.m., in the Council Chambers at 23920= Valencia Boulevard, First Floor, Santa Clarita, California. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Woodrow led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL The Secretary called the roll. Those present were Chairman Brathwaite, Vice -Chairman Cherrington, Commissioners Woodrow, Garasi. and Modugno. Also present were Rich Henderson, Acting Director of Community Development/Principal Planner; Tim McOsker, Assistant City Attorney; Fred Follstad, Assistant Planner; Laura Stotler, Assistant Planner; Jim Van Winkle., City Engineer; and Linda Leonard, Commission Secretary. I:iiFiik DR It was moved by Commissioner Modugno, seconded by Commission Garasi; and carried by a vote of 5-0 to approve the minutes of May 13, 1991. It was moved by Commissioner Garasi, seconded' by Vice -Chairman Cherrington, and carried by a vote of 5-0 to approve the minutes of May 21, 1991 and June 4; 1991 with corrections. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 1 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-001, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21762, ZONE CHANGE 90-008 - Located on the southern side of Copperhill Road, both easterly and westerly of Seco Canyon Road Mr. Henderson gave a brief overview of the item and introduced Assistant PIanner Fred Follstad who gave a staff report and slide presentation. Mr. Henderson summarized five letters received on the project, three in support and two in opposition. Discussion ensued between Commission and staff. Chairman Brathwaite opened the. public hearing at 7:30 p.m. and the following persons addressed the Commission: Phillip DeLao, Valencia Company, 23823 Valencia Boulevard, Valencia, spoke in favor of the project on behalf of the Valencia Company. Those in apposition were: Neal Weichel, 25906 Bellis, Valencia, stated that a petition was compiled door to door, obtaining opinions of residents regarding the project. Alan Kerschen, 28734 N. Persimmon Lane, Saugus, addressed concerns of traffic -related problems. Jeff Leivo, 27839 Santa Clarita Road, Santa Clarita, addressed discrepancies in the Negative Declaration. Bud Durbin, 27845 Santa Clarita Road, Santa Clarita, addressed concerns of quality of life of surrounding area. Kay Ogle, 27709 Santa Clarita Road, Santa Clarita, was in agreement with fellow speakers. Greg Mamishian, 22812 West Banyan Place, 16, Saugus, addressed concerns of liability insurance on the park owned by the homeowners association. Karla Fruehauf, 22621 Copperhill Drive, 1115, Saugus, was in agreement with fellow speakers. Nancy Katz, 28634 N. Avocado Place,. Saugus,addressed concerns regarding amount of landscaping, signage, and hill on site. Flynn Neilson, 28149 N. Tamarack Lane, Saugus, had concerns of the quality of life of surrounding area. John Lampignano, 22605 W. Palm Court, Saugus, was in agreement with fellow speakers. Dr. Lynne Steinman, 22114 Copper Hill Drive, Saugus, addressed concerns of circulation problems. Brian Baker, 27923 Milliken Drive, Saugus, addressed concerns of quality of life of surrounding area. Darla Weiss, 22126. Copper Hill Drive, Santa Clarita, is concerned that property will be devalued. Kelly Simpson, 28544 N. Avocado, Saugus, was in agreement with fellow speakers. Phillip DeLao then gave a rebuttal to those in opposition. Discussion ensued between Mr. DeLao and the Commission. Mr. DeLao acknowledged that a -fast-food. restaurant would be prohibited on the project. Chairman Brathwaite recommended to the homeowners that they form a delegation and that the homeowners, staff, and the developer meet to -2- discuss items of concern and arrive at meaningful considerations servicing both sides, then come back to the Commission. The applicant also agreed to waive any time -limits that may be applicable to.the City of Santa Clarita and the Planning Commission regarding the approval or denial of the project. Staff recommended that this item be set to a date uncertain and renoticed. Commissioner Garasi moved to continue this item to a date uncertain with the requirements that the public get together with the applicant as described, with the requirement that a revised Negative Declaration be done and that a traffic engineer be present at the next hearing date. Vice -Chairman Cherrington seconded the motion. The.motioa was carried 5-0. The public hearing was left open. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - ITEM 2 - OVERVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS Mr. McOsker gave an overview on the Development Agreement process. Discussion ensued among'Mr. McOsker and the Commission. RECESS Chairman Brathwaite called a recess at 8:55 p.m. RECONVENE Chairman Brathwaite reconvened the meeting at 9:15 p.m. ITEM 3 - RESOLUTION FOR THE DENIAL OF TENTATIVE .PARCEL MAP 20639 - 26103 Ravenhill Road Mr. Henderson gave a brief overview of the item. Commissioner Modugno moved for the adoption of Resolution No. P91-19, seconded by Vice -Chairman Cherrington, and was carried by a vote of 4-1, with Commissioner Garasi voting no. ITEM 4 - RESOLUTION FOR THE DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE 90-014 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-032 - Fronting on the northern side of Soledad Canyon Road, approximately 100 feet west of the northwest corner of Soledad Canyon Road and Langside Drive Mr. Henderson gave a brief overview of the item. Discussion ensued among Commission. Commissioner Garasi stated she would like to separate the Conditional Use Permit and the Zone Change approvals. Commissioner Garasi moved for the denial of Conditional Use Permit 90-032, seconded by Commissioner Modugno, and was carried by a vote of 4-1, with Vice -Chairman Cherrington voting no. -3- Commissioner Garasi then moved for the reconsideration of Resolution No. P91-37, and that Zone Change 90-014 be properly scheduled and noticed as a public hearing before the Commission for reconsideration, seconded by Commissioner Modugno. Before a vote was taken, the applicant, John Pollack, 429 Santa Monica Boulevard, Santa Monica,. spoke on the item. Mr. Pollack stated he would like the motion reconsidered in its entirety to allow the developer and the residents to meet to resolve the concerns that the residents have. Vice -Chairman Cherrington reminded Mr. Pollack that the entire item could not be reconsidered -because a motioned had already been made and approved to deny the Conditional Use Permit. Discussion then ensued among Mr. Pollack and the Commission. Commissioner Garasi withdrew her motion. Commissioner Modugno moved to adopt Commissioner Garasi, and it was vice -Chairman Cherrington voting no. Resolution No. P91-37, seconded by carried by a vote of 4-1, with ITEM 5 - RESOLUTION FOR THE DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE 90-013 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22539 - 27800 Sand Canyon Road Mr. Henderson gave a brief overview of the item. Vice -Chairman Cherrington moved to adopt Resolution No. P91-38, seconded by Commissioner Garasi, and it was carried by a vote of 4-1, with Chairman Brathwaite voting no. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEMS 6 AND 7 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-001 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-002 - Northerly of Soledad Canyon Road and easterly of Sierra Highway at the terminus of Canvas Street and P & V Enterprises and William S. Hart Union High School District Mr. Henderson gave a brief overview of Items 6 and 7. Mr. Follstad then gave a slide presentation. A brief discussion ensued among staff and Commission. Chairman Brathwaite opened the public hearing for Items 6 and 7 at 10:18 p.m. Those speaking in favor were: Dr. Clyde Smyth, 21515 Redview Drive, spoke in support of staff's recommendation to Items 6 and 7. Discussion ensued among Mr. Smyth and the Commission regarding the benefits to the developer and the City if the City were to sign the Development Agreements. Charles Cohen, 1 Boardwalk, Thousand Oaks, represented the developer. Mr. Cohen spoke in agreement with staff's recommendation. Discussion ensued among Mr. Cohen, staff, and the Commission. -4- Chairman Brathwaite closed the public hearing at 10:40 p.m. Additional discussion ensued among Commission. Vice -Chairman Cherrington stated that he felt the school district was not going to benefit from the approval of a Development Agreement and that the City would take substantial risk by the approval. of the Development Agreement. He also felt that the City would not benefit substantially from the approval of the Development Agreement. Vice -Chairman Cherrington moved to deny Development Agreements 91-001 and 91-002, seconded by Commissioner Woodrow. With a vote of 3-2 the motion was approved. The vote was as follows: Ayes - Vice -Chairman Cherrington, Commissioners Modugno and Woodrow; Noes - Chairman Brathwaite and Commissioner Garasi. ITEM 8 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 20435 - 27917 Magic Mountain Lane Commissioner Modugno moved to continue Item No. 8 to the next regularly scheduled meeting on July 2, 1991, seconded by Vice -Chairman Cherrington, and was carried by a vote of 5-0. ITEM 9 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-024 - 24729-24733 and 24737 Valley Street Commissioner Modugno moved to continue Item No. 9 to the next regularly scheduled meeting on July 2, 1991, seconded by Vice -Chairman Cherrington, and was carried by a vote of 5-0. ITEM 10 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 49771 - 17805 Scherzinger.Lane Commissioner Modugno moved to continue Item No. 10 to'the next regularly scheduled meeting on July 2, 1991, seconded by Vice -Chairman Cherrington, and was carried by a vote of 5-0. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Henderson reminded the Commission that the first order of business of the July 2, 1991 meeting, before opening the hearings, will be the election of a Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson. COMMISSION REPORT Commissioners Modugno and Garasi gave presentation on AMCAL Subcommittee Report. Discussion then ensued among Commission. Commissioner Garasi distributed to Commission a packet from the International Dark Sky Association regarding light pollution. -5- Chairman Brathwaite stated he spoke with three Councilmembers, the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager, and the Director of Community Development regarding a raise for the Planning Commission. Chairman Brathwaite gave a presentation on the design competition for the Civic Center site. Chairman Brathwaite gave direction to staff in connection with the Zoning Ordinance, that service stations that are modified be required to have restrooms for use of the public. Commissioners Modugno and Garasi asked for an excused absence from the July 2, 1991 meeting. PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR Chairman Brathwaite opened public business from the floor at 11:31 p.m. Those speaking were: Lee Schramling, 19851 W. Sandpiper Place, Santa Clarita, spoke regarding Item 5 (Hal Good) zoning denial. He felt there may have been a conflict of interest with some of the Commission members that may be in that particular area or reside within that homeowners association to be participating and/or voting on matters that would take place in that particular area. , Allan Cameron, 27612 Ennismore Avenue, Canyon Country, spoke on Items 6 and 7, regarding Commission's previous questions on property exchange agreements. Commissioner Modugno suggested that Mr. Cameron also submit this testimony to staff to be entered into the record at a later date. Chairman Brathwaite closed Public Business from the floor at 11:42 p.m. Commissioner Woodrow motioned, Commissioner Garasi seconded, and it was carried by a vote of 5-0 to adjourn the meeting at 11:45 p.m. ATTEST: Lyryfm. Harris, Director Co unity Development Department CD:lkl:84 am ouis Brathwaite,'�Chairman Planning Commission CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-001 DATE: May 21, 1991 TO: Chairman Brathwaite and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director.of Community Development -4m CASE PLANNER: Fred Follstad, Assistant Planner II APPLICANT: Sierra Heights Partnership and William S. Hart Union High School District LOCATION: Northerly of Soledad Canyon Road and easterly of Sierra Highway at the terminus of Canvas Street. . REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to enter into a formal agreement to allow for a 10 year build out for the approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 45416 and Conditional Use Permit 89-019. . BACKGROUND: In April of last year, the Planning Commission approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 45416 and Conditional Use Permit 89-019. The approved project consists of 253 single family homes on 121 vacant acres. A copy of the original staff report and Conditions of Approval are included for your information. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicants are requesting a Development Agreement with the City to gain additional time, within which to complete the project and to protect themselves from changes in development standards. The applicants are proposing to contribute additional Bridge and Throughfare fees to the City if the agreement is approved.These monies, $1,000 per unit, would be used by.the City to fund the widening of Soledad Canyon Road east of Sand Canyon Road. When the district created for this purpose is funded by' other sources, the City will not repay this "front -money", but useit elsewhere in the City. The applicants are requesting a 10 year time frame to record the approved tract map and to bond for all required off-site improvements. This agreement is identical to the Development Agreement for Tract 48108, which was the previous item on the agenda. Development Agreement No. 91-002 Page 2 STATUS: State law requires all "projects" to receive an environmental review and determination. An "Initial Study" was prepared and certified.for the approved tract map during the Public Hearings. Since there is no physical change in the project, only the extension of the time to record from two years to ten years, an identical Negative Declaration was prepared for this proposal. ANALYSIS: The Planning Commission is conducting a hearing on a proposal which offers additional money for needed off-site improvements, in exchange for an additional time -period for the build -out of an approved project. Information given in the report about the tract map and conditional use permit which have already been approved, is offered as background only. The Hart High School District and a private developer.have reached an agreement whereby an exchange of land will allow the construction of a junior high school at an appropriate location. The land presently owned by the school district is no longer considered to be a suitable site, location -wise. If the school district were to sell the site, the money would go to the state and the acquisition of a needed junior high would be a lengthy procedure.. The District and the developer have stated that they'do not wish to exchange their properties without a guarantee that their land use entitlements will remain in place. The school district is not certain they can build the school immediately, since they must wait for funds to become available. By making the land -swap for the site which has been approved through the City's public hearing and environmental process, their chances of obtaining the funding are increased. The developer of the homesites likewise, is unsure of his timetable because of the present slack in the.housing market. The advantage of approving the.requested Development Agreement lies in the facilitation of the exchange of land by the two parties, thereby ensuring the construction of the junior high school. Another advantage is the acquisition of $253,000 by the City for needed public works improvements. The disadvantages are that the improvements,related to the project may not be constructed as quickly and the project will be exempt from any new ordinances or moratoriums. Development Agreement No. 91-002 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: It is the opinion of staff that the applicant has, or can satisfy the findings and requirements associated with the Development Agreement for this project; and therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Approve the attached Negative Declaration with the finding that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and, 2) Recommend -approval to the City Council of the Development Agreement 91-001 based on the required findings; and, 3) Adopt the attached Resolution P91-23. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution P91-23 2. Staff Report for Tract 45416 3. Negative Declaration 4. Development Agreement 91-001 FLF:278 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 45416 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-019 DATE: February 20, 1990. TO: Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Planning Commission ,115 FROM: Mark Scott, Director of Community Development APPLICANT: P&V Enterprises and Villiam S. Mart School District. LOCATION: The westerly terminus of Canvas Street. REQUEST: The applicant isrequestingto subdivide ± 121 acres of land into 253 single family lots. The applicant is also requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a density controlled development. Approve the attached Negative Declaration with the finding that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 45416 and Conditional Use Permit 89-019 based on the required findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval. Adopt the attached resolution. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The site consists of six lots on +/- 121 acres of land located along Sierra highway 1/2 mile south of Sand Canyon and ± 100 feet east of Bonnie Avenue in the City of Santa Clarita. The parcel is currently zoned with numerous designations. iThe zoning includes 35 acres of A-1-10,000 light agriculture with x.10,000 square foot lot size, 21 acres of A-2-1 heavy agriculture with a one acre lot size and 30 acres of R-1-9,000 and 35 acres of R-1-11,000 single family residential 9,000 and 11,000 square foot lot size. On the Santa Clarita Valley Areawide Plan prepared by Los Angeles.County, which the city has not adopted, the site is shown as U-2 (Urban, 3.3 to 6.6 units per acre), V/M (Floodway, Manufacturing) and MM (Hillside Management). The site is -not located in either the Alquist-Priolo special study zone for earthquake faults or in a Significant Ecological Area. No archaeological sites have been found in the area. At the present time the.site is vacant. The topography of the site ranges from flat land on the southern portion of the site to steep hillside on the northern and western sections of the property. The chart below summarizes the zoning and General Plan designations for the project and adjacent properties: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAND USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN ------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROTECT vacant A-1-10,000 U-2, HM, units 52':8 A-2-1 V/M 81 acres ----------------------- 56.3 units R-1-9,000 units ------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTALS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 121 acres 256.3 R-1-11,000 320.3 units ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOUTH vacant A-2-1 U-2, HM ------------------------------------------------------------------------- NORTH vacant A-1-10,000, V/M, HM M-1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- VEST vacant, industrial- A-1-10,000 U-2, U-3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- buildings R-3, M-1 EAST single family residences R-1-11,000, U-2, R-1-9,000, HM ------------------------------------------------------------------------- RPD-40,000-1.4U Using-the General Plan categories, the chart below describes the allowable units in each category: -------------------------------------------------------------------- CATEGORY AREA MID RANGE MAXIMUM UNITS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- U-2 32 acres 160.0 units 211.2 units ------------------------------------------------------------------=------ V 8 acres 40.0 units 52':8 units ---------------------------------- HM 81 acres ----------------------- 56.3 units -----------'-__- 56.3 units ------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTALS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 121 acres 256.3 units 320.3 units Since the Hillside Management is within 1/4 mile of an existing Urban category, the density increases to 1 unit per acre on slopes less than 50Z and 1 unit per 20 acres on slopes over 50X. In addition, if the applicant can remove the Flood Hazard, the Plan category can be changed to the surrounding category (U-2). In staff's opinion, this project will be consistent with the upcoming General Plan. The site is partially located within the Hillside Management category. The staff required that the applicant submit a slope analysis. The slope analysis breakdown as provided by the applicant's engineer is as follows: Less.than 25Z slopes . 50 acres 25Z to 50Z slopes 36 acres Greater than 50Z slopes 35 acres To develop the project the applicant will have to grade approximately 1.8 million cubic yards of earth which is to be balanced on site. There will be grading on approximately 80Z of the site with a maximum cut of ±75 feet and a maximum fill of ±75 feet. The average depth of the cut and fill will be 20 feet. The proposed grading will impact the site's ridgelines. A ridgeline exhibit will be presented at the hearing. The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Density -Controlled Development which would allow the applicant greater flexibility in designing lots in a hillside area. The CUP gives the applicant the ability to create some lots with less than the required area, though the average lot size will still have to conform to limits' imposed by zoning. The average lot size will be 18,166 square feet with the smallest parcel being 5,252 square feet. Using the existing zoning, the maximum allowable units would be 457 which is 204 more than what is proposed. The Quimby (park land) fee that is required for this project equals $271,686. In order to mitigate the project's impacts on the existing school facilities, the applicant has entered into a written agreement with the Sulphur Springs Unified School District and the William S. Hart High School District to pay the.full fees as requested. The circulation of the project consists of one collector street ("A" Street) which travels from the present day westerly terminus of Canvas Street, north to Sierra Highway. Off of "A" street there is one internal "loop• street and several cul-de-sacs to create the projects street system. The project will create an access to Sierra Highway for both this tract and adjoining tracts. Some of the offsite traffic improvements include the installation of traffic signals at the corner of "A" Street and Sierra Highway and at the intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and Anne Freda Street. 16 One benefit to the surrounding area is that the -applicant will be required to construct a sever line to his project. The sever line currently terminates at the "American Beauty Condos' on Sierra Highway. Future construction along Sierra Highway will be required to use the sewer instead of the current septic systems. Some apartment buildings are currently on septic systems in this area. Several apartment projects are also proposed at the present time. Commissioners should be aware that this item relates to Tract 48108 as this land is involved in a land swap with the William S.Hart High School District. The District can not benefit by the agreed land swap unless both tracts reach approval. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 45416 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-019 DATE: March 20, 1990. TO: Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Mark Scott, Director of -Community Development /4-'`//S APPLICANT: P&V Enterprises and William S. Hart School District. LOCATION: The westerly terminus of Canvas Street. BEQUEST: The applicant is requesting to.subdivide ± 121 acres of land into 253 single family lots. The applicant is also requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a density controlled development. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Negative Declaration with the finding that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 45416 and Conditional Use Permit 89-019 based on.the required findings.and subject to the attached conditions of approval. Adopt the attached resolution. BACSGROUND.AND ANALYSIS: The Commission Continued this item in order that the 'applicant could research and provide information on the following subjects:. a. Vhat will the view be from Sierra Highway when the project is built? b. Vhat entrance enhancement could be provided.to distinguish the residential road which will tap from Sierra Highway? c. Can some concern be shown for views from existing backyards on Canvas Street? The applicant has provided exhibits which will become a permanent part of the record, demonstrating a very generous landscape plan.on the bluffs adjacent to Sierra Highway. The.entrance road will be built with a median at the entrance, and an exhibit demonstrating sensitivity to the Commilsion's concerns has been submitted. Lastly, the applicant has agreed to lessen -the elevation of the road behind Canvas Street by an additional six (6) feet (at a cost of substantial additional grading), and the pads of the new subdivision will now range between 18 feet and 28 feet below the pads of the existing houses on Canvas Street, Also the applicant has agreed to build houses of one story only where they will be directly behind existing one-story houses on Canvas Street. The staff feels that the applicant has.earnestly attempted to satisfy the concerns of the Commission and recommends approval of the project as amended. a VICINITY -M-AP CASE 1410- -W, :'M-45416 J 31 r IA FORREST. P'RK ------------- d-'4 .7 - - - - - - sc WIL 19 -# -------L--- - - - - - L ... .. .. 1 12 PINETREE abI IPROJECTI SITE: I ---- --- If 1, MINT: c YON V L '..`4 1 1* t 1 0 1 171 Tit tzIl, OIL -II, Xl 't' -Alp- I RINGS MIN- -LP U SPRINGS - - - - - - eoF -4- - - - - - - - ----- - -7 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N CERTIFICATION DATE: APPLICANT.:,P&V Enterprises, Kensal Inc. and Wm. S. Hart High Sch. Dist. TYPE OF PERMIT: Vesting Tentative Tract Man and Conditional Use Permit FILE NO.: DA 91-001 for VTTM 45416, CUP 89-019 LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: The westerly terminus of Canvas Street. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: To extend the time in which to record a map,' make certain off-site improvements, and build the following approved project: subdivison of ±121 acres into 253 single-family.residential lots. (J City Council It is the opinion of [X] Planning Commission. [ ] Director of Community Development' upon review that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. Mitigation measures Form completed by: [ ] are attached [ ] are not attached (Signature) Fred Follstad, Assistant Planner (Name and Title) Date of .Public Notice: April 29: 1991 [X] Legal advertisement. [X] Posting of properties. [X] Written notice. (R ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA VTTM 45416 & CASE NO. CUP 89-019 Prepared by: Fred Follstad Project Location: The westerly terminus of Canvas Street. Project Description and Setting: The site consists of t 143' acresof land ranging from flat to steep hillside. The project would allow construction of 253. General Plan Designation U2: HM Zoning: A-2-1. A-1-10.000, R-1-11.000, R-1-9.000 Applicant: P&V Enterprises. Kensal Inc. & Wm. S. Hart High Sch. Dist. Environmental Constraint Areas: Fire Zone 4. Floodway A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? .................. [.] [X] I ] b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? ............... [X] [ ] [ ] C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ........................... [X] [ ] [ ] d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? .................................. [ 7 [X] I ] e. Any increase in wind.or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ........... [X] [ ] [ ] f. Exposure of people or property, to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ................................... [ ] IX] I ] g. Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ................................. [ ] [X] [ ] h. Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? ........................... [X] I ] I ] 13 - 2 - YES MAYBE NO i. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? ....................... [X] [ ] [ ] j. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 252 natural grade? ............. [X] [ ] [ ] k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X] 1. other? [ ] [ ] [ I 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? .................... [XJ [ I [ ] b. The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [X] [ ] [ I C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, ] [XI [ ] f. either locally or regionally? .............. [ J [ ] [X] d. Development within a high wind hazard area? ...................................... [ ] [ ] [XI e. Other? ( ] [ ] [ ] 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: Substantial reduction in the amount of a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage water otherwise available for public patterns, or.the.rate and amount of water supplies? ............................ [ I [ I [X] surface runoff? ............................ [XI [ I [ I b. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? .............................. I l [XI ( I C. Change in the amount of surface water in any water -body? ...I ..................... [ ] [ I [XI d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ ] [X] [ ] e. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ...................... [ ] [XI [ ] f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or throughinterception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ............ [ ] (X] [ ] g. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ............................ [ I [ I [X] Iq - 3 - YES MAYBE NO h. Exposure of people or property to water related.hazards such as flooding? .......... .[ ] [X] [ J i. other? [ ] [ ] [ ] 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species ornumber of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grasses, craps, and microflora)? .. [X] [ ] [ ] b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of.plants? ..... [ ] [X] [ 1 C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal re- plenishment of existing species? [X] d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ...................................... [ l 1X1 [ l 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and insects or microfauna)? ..................... [XJ [ ] [ ] b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare.or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ] [X] [ j C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ...... [X] [ ] [ ] d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat and/or migratory routes? ........... [.] [X],' [ ] 6. Noise. Will the proposal.result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........ [X] b. Exposure of people to severe or unacceptable noise levels? ................. [X] C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [X] 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? ................. [X] [ ] [ ] 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial alteration of the present land use of an area? ....................... [X1 [ I [ l b. A substantial alteration of the Iplanned land use of an area? ............... [ ] [X] [ ] - 4 - 12. Housing. Will the proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?.. ......................... [ ] [ I [XI b. Other?' [ ] [ I L ] 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal, result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ........................ [X] [ ] [ ] 1 0 YES MAYBE NO C. A use that does not adhere to existing zoning.laws? ............................... [ ] LXI L I d. A use that does not adhere to established development criteria? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X], 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ...... ....................... .'.[X] [ ] [ ] b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources? ......................... [X] [ ] [ ] 10. Risk of Upset/Man-Made Hazards. Will the proposal: a. Involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? .......................... [ ] [ I [X] b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard- ous or toxic materials (including, but not' limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ................................ [ ] [ I AXI C. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? .................................... [ ] [ I LXI d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety hazards? ...................................... [ ] [ I LXI 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location,distribution, density, or growth rate of the human ' population of an area? ..................... [ ] [ ] [XI b. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ] 12. Housing. Will the proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?.. ......................... [ ] [ I [XI b. Other?' [ ] [ I L ] 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal, result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ........................ [X] [ ] [ ] 1 0 - 5 - YES MAYBE NO b. Effects on existing parking facilities, l [X] b. or demand for new parking? .................. [ ] C. Substantial impact upon existing Water systems? ............................. [ l [ transportation systems, including public d. Sanitary sewer transportation? ............................ I I d. Alterations to present patterns of systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [X] circulation or movement of people and/or goods? .............................. ( ] e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [ ] f. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? .............................. [ 1 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? ........................... [X] b. Police protection? ........................,. I ] C. Schools? ................................... [X] d. Parks or other recreational facilities? .... [ ] e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ........................... [ ] f. Other governmental services? ............... ( ] 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in? a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy . .................................... [X] b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? [ ] 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: [ I IXl . I ] IX] a. Power or natural gas? ...................... [ ] [ l [X] b. Communications systems? .................... [ ] I l [X] C. Water systems? ............................. [ l [ l [Xl d. Sanitary sewer systems? .................... [X] [ ] [ l e. Storm drainage systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [X] VI I YES MAYBE NO f. Solid waste and disposal systems? .......... [ ] [ ] [X] g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of delivery system improvements for any of the above? ......... [ ] [ ] [X] 17. Human Health. Will the proposalresult'in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? ... [ ] [ ] [X] b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards7................................... [ ] I ] [X] 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? ................... [ ] [X] [ ] b. Will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ....................... [ ] [X] [ ] c. Will the visual impact of the proposal be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ ] [X] [ ] 19. Recreation. Will.the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X] 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? .............. [ ] [X] [ ] b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building; structure, or object? ... [ ] [X] [ ] C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ............. [ ] [ ] [X] d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X] I - 7 - Discussion of Impacts. Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact 1 a-g,i,j There will be very extensive grading on the site; there will be up to 75 feet of cut and 75 feet of fill. There are existing landslides on the site.. There are no unique features known at this time. Erosion will be increased due to the loss of natural vegetation. The applicant will be developing on slopes over 25% and grading on 75Z of the site, totalling 1.8 million cubic yards (SCPW). 2 a,b Increased air emissions during the construction phase (SCAQMD). 3 a,b,d-f,h The project will be altering the natural drainage patterns and remove the natural watershed. No aquifers are known at this time. The site abuts the .Mint Canyon Floodway(SCPWD). 4 a -c The project will remove a large majority of the native vegetation and introduce.non-native species naturally associated with residential development.(SCCD) 5 a -d This project will remove all of the natural habitat of any species in the area(SCCD). 6 a -c Increased noise naturally associated with construction (SCCD). 7 The lights associated with residential development (SCCD). 8 a -c The site is currently vacant. The lots proposed are average to the existing lots in the area (SCCD). 9 a,b Usage of natural resources associated with residential development (SCCD). 13 a-c,e,f Vehicle trips per day would be approximately 2,500 (SCPWD). 14 a -d The site is located approximately 1.5 miles from the nearest fire station. The nearest public park is approximately 1 mile from the site. All schools within the City are impacted (LACFD, SCP&R,.VSHUHSD). 15 a The use of energy naturally associated with residential and educational uses (SCCD). 16 c The existing sewer service is located off-site on Sierra Highway near Adon Street (SCPWD). 18 a -c The -development of this site will result in the loss of natural hillsides and vegetation (SCCD). 20 a,b There are no known finds and sites at the location tCi (CDP&R). B. DISCUSSION OF WAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED The following will be incorporated into the conditions of approval:. la-g.i,j) The amount of earth work is required to develop the site. with 253 residential units. High School site. Additional geologic concerns were addressed to Public Works' satisfaction by the applicants submitted geologic study. 2a,b) This condition is associated with construction and will be short-term. 3a,b,e) Introduction of slope plantings with native drought -resistant plants will stabilize the hills. and assist in erosion control. A Hydrology Study adequately addressed surface run-off and drainage patterns. ' 4a -c) The loss of natural vegetation is unavoidable. The replanting of native vegetation may reduce this impact. 5) The area is surrounded by development which is a limiting factor on the survival of most species. 6a -c) This condition is associated with the construction phase and is, therefore, short-term. 7) The.addition of residential lighting is naturally associated with a project of this scope and of limited significance. 8a -c) The site is currently vacant. The proposed residential lots are equal to.those surrounding the site. (This item is of little significance.) 9) This is associated with residential construction and mitigated to a level of little significance. 13a-c,e,f) The applicant is proposing to construct a road that would be a through route from Sierra Highway to Soledad Canyon Road. 14a,c) The applicant is required to follow all conditions of Fire Zone 4 construction and brush clearance. The applicant will be required to pay the affected school districts appropriate mitigation fee. 15) This is associated with residential construction and mitigated to a level of little significance. 16) The applicant will be required to upgrade the sewer system. is) The development of the site is unavoidable and possibly .an upgrade to the surrounding area. 20) The site is not on the State of California List of Historic Landmarks. The applicant will be required to stop work if any archaeological specimens are found. ao C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act states, in part, that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. YES- MAYBE NO 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade . the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ................. [ ] [ ] [X] 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ........... [ ] ( ] [X] 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impactsonthe environment is significant.) .. [ ] [ ] [X] 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ......... [ ] [ ] [X] D. DETERMINATION on the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED . .................................... [ ] Although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in this Initial Study have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED ..................................... [X] The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an -ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required . .......................................... [ ] 10 - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA January 25, 1990 Date Signature Fred Follstad, Assistant Planner Name and Title aa-