HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-09-10 - AGENDA REPORTS - DENIAL OF DEVAGMT 91-002 (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Man4_}6r Approv-di.�
Item to be presented by:
PUBLIC HEARING Lvnn M. Harris .�75*
DATE: September 10, 1991
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial for Development
Agreement 91-002 to allow ten years for the build -out of
approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 48108 for 161 homes
and a junior high school. site on 80 acres. VTTM 48108 is
located southerly of Via Princessa, easterly of Rainbow
Glen Drive and south of the terminus of May Way.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
In February of last year, the Planning Commission approved Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 48108 and Conditional Use Permit 89-020. The
approved project consists of 161 single family homes and a junior high
school site on 80 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 48108 in accordance with standards currently in effect.
The Planning Commission -approved VTTM 48108 on February 27, 1990. 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.
Recently, information has been transmitted to the staff that one proposed
alignment for State Route 126 Freeway would be inconsistent with this
project. Staff has had several meetings with all parties since then.
The attached 9-3-91 letter from Cal Trans says the southerly alignment
for 126 can be developed with no impact to the s�choo�l% site.
Item
N
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.
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 other half of the land
swap, VTTM 45416 and Development Agreement 91-001, was the previous item
on the agenda.
Under VTTM 48108 approval, the developers were required to install a
traffic signal at the intersection of Via Princessa and May Way -which
would serve the needs of .both the proposed tract and the junior high
school.
The development agreement included 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 with this would be $5,000 per unit.
Staff has since met with the applicant to address Planning Commission
concerns. In reviewingother 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 Bridge and Thoroughfare 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.
One item of concern by the Planning Commission has been addressed. Namely,
the developer has: guaranteed the school district that all infrastructure
necessary for the construction of the junior high school will be in place in
accordance with the District's timetable, regardless as to whether
construction of the homes ever takes place.
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 $161,000 (or more at the higher fee) 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. In addition, the adoption of the Development Agreement would
place an entitlement on the land for ten years as opposed to the maximum of
three years allowed through the Tentative Tract Map approval.
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 BST fees to a total of $7,200 per unit to meet Planning
Commission concerns and approve the Development Agreement.
Staff recommends the alternate recommendation.
1. Development Agreement 91-001
3. Minutes of Planning Commission dated June 18, 1991
4. Staff Reports dated February 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:337
HERBERT SCHAFFER TEL No.213-575-1184 Sep 3,91 17:29 No_006 P.02
SENT BY:EMD Do 1 9- 3-91 5:14PM Al334ace.--A c
-5 5. 213 477 C151'3,;1 2
. SEP -03-'91 TLE 16111 IDICAL IRAN PRI STUDIES TEL N0120S2124703 k715 P02 -�t-
AND 17AFCAORTATICN A01 KY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
W=1110 7. 130 to. 1/,'K4 at.
ew ANosui: CA 0601!-3608
"a (21]I AUSM
(213) 610-3874
September 3, 1991
Mr, (iaor90 Caravalho
City Manager
City of Banta Clarita
73910 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
SAhta Clsrita, California 91395
Dear Mr, Caravalho:
0
SEP 0 p 1991
LYNN M. HARRIS
Dimo a of Communly I
This is in regard to 'Tentative Tract 48109, 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 pro®ently conceived, traverses -this
tract and the State approved Junior High School site No. 4 which
is adjacent to and just westerly of the tract.
Tt is our.i3nderstandinq that the tract developer has agreac
to provide the land for the school in exchange for another school
site now deemed unusable for school purposes, grade the site and
access road, and make a significant financial contribution
towards construction of the school facilities which are scheduled
for cOmpiation 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 achool site into a subdivision of graded, but as
Yet undeveloped lots. The vertical profile of the revised
alignment can also be modified to allow grade separation* at the
school and tract access roads to Via princess&, with the highway
elevation below the sonool facilities.
In developing a new State highway in a growing ares such as
Santa Clarita the acquisition of some developed property will be
necessary, However, I can assure you that a Passible southerly
alignment for SR -126 can be developed without physically
impacting the school site in question.
If you have questions, please call Mr. Wallace J, Rothbart,
6incerely,
VF C 0I;
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
8. Discussion by Council
9. Council Decision
10. Mayor Announces Decision
N
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEALING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL
OF RESOLUTION NO. P91-40 AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-002
TO ALLOW FOR A TEN YEAR BUILD OUT FOR
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 48108 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-020
LOCATION:
SOUTHERLY OF VIA PRINCESSA AND EASTERLY OF
RAINBOW GLEN DRIVE AT THE'TERMINUS OF MAY WAY
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. P91-40 and Development Agreement 91-002,
from. the applicant, P&V Development Inc. and William S. Hart Union
High School District, to allow for a ten year build out for vesting
Tentative Tract Map 48108 and Conditional Use Permit 89-020. The
location is southerly of Via Princessa and easterly of Rainbow Glen
Drive at the terminus of May Way, 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 contacting the City Clerk's Office, Santa Clarita City
Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita.
If you wish to challenge this order in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City Council, at, or prior to the public hearing.
Date: 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 P & V ENTERPRISES
RELATIVE TO THE SUBDIVISION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY WHICH IS THE SUBJECT
OF VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. 48108
THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED WITHIN TEN DAYS
OF EXECUTION BY ALL PARTIES'HERETO PURSUANT TO
THE REQUIREMENTS OF GOVERNMENT CODE §65868.5
06/10/91
� /
C
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 P & V Enterprises, a
California corporation (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 Developer is the owner of approximately
80 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 27 acres, herein the
"Rainbow Glen School Site"), of the above 80 acres of
unimproved real property now owned by the Developer is
intended for dedication.to the District for the purpose of
constructing a critically needed high school. Developer and
District have entered into a binding Exchange Agreement
whereby the Rainbow Glen School Site is being exchanged for
an approximately 20 acre site located within Tentative Tract
No. 45416 (herein the "District Parcel") and when the
exchange is consummated the District will own the Rainbow
Glen School Site and the Sierra Heights Partnership will be
the sole owner of the District Site.
C. The Parties desire to enter into this
Agreement relating to the Project Site in conformance with
the Government Code and the Santa Clarita Code in order to
achieve the development of land uses expressly permitted
-2-
WPX/TBM/DDA416080£ DRAFT 06/10/91
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. 48108
(the "Tract Map").
(2) Conditional Use Permit No. 89-020 (the
"CUP").
(3) Development Agreement No 91-_.
The development as proposed by the Developer for the.Project
Site will consist of 161 single family homes, donation of a
school site 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.P90-14 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 Developer's
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
of public improvements, except as expressly set forth in
this Agreement and the conditions of the Project Approvals.
-3-
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f
DRAFT 06/10/91
ZM
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 City's ability to delay,
postpone, preclude or regulate development of the Project on
the Project Site except as provided for herein.
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
-4-
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f DRAFT 06/10/91
91
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
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
-5-
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f DRAFT 06/10/91
4?-
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 48108 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 48108, 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 48108 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
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
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f
Q�
DRAFT 06/10/91
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" is the Zoning 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 the
terms, conditions and provisions contained herein shall run
with the land comprising the Project Site and shall be
binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto
and any subsequent owners of all or any portion of the
Project Site and their respective heirs, successors and
assigns. Any successors in interest to the City shall be
subject to the provisions set forth in Section 64865.4 and
64868.5 of the.Government Code.
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
Applicable Rules including, by way of example, but
-7-
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f DRAFT 06/10/91
7
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
conditions of this Agreement, the conditions of the
Project Approvals and the Applicable Rules.
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f
Lel'
J
DRAFT 06/10/91
(b) School Fees. Concurrent with the issuance of
each unit building permit for a lot within Tract
No. 48108, 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 it incurs which
are reasonably related to the construction of
the Road. These expenses include, but are not
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f
DRAFT 06/10/91
2�
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 contribu-
tions 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
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.
-10-
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f DRAFT 06/10/91
30
Nothing herein shall preclude phased recordation of
the Tentative Map, phased residential unit construction or
supersede Developer's discretion as to the timing and number
of units to be constructed.
7. Acknowledgments, 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
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.
-11-
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f
DRAFT 06/10/91
3
(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
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, to prevail 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 FinalMapor 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
-12-
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f DRAFT 06/10/91
3-2�
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
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
-13-
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f DRAFT 06/10/91
33
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
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, plans, 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.
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f
3�
-14-
DRAFT 06/10/91
(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
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 of Sections 22.16.460,
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 Termina-
tion. If the City determines to proceed with
modification or termination of this Agreement after
completing the reviews specified in Sections
-15-
WPX/TBM/DDA4160aOf DRAFT 06/10/91
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. The
burden of proof on the issue shall be on the
Developer. If the 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.
The decision of 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.
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
-16-
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f DRAFT 06/10/91
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 amountofmonetary
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
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
-17-
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f DRAFT 06/10/91
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 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
-18-
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f DRAFT 06/10/91
31
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
part by the Developer upon prior written notice to the
City. Express assumption of any of the Developer's
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
Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
If to Developer: Mr. Zev Vered
P&V Enterprises
13756 Ventura Blvd.
Suite 100
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
-19-
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f DRAFT 06/10/91
With a copy to:
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
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 Maieure. 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
-20-
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f DRAFT 06/10/91
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
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. Attornevfs 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 attorneys 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.
-21-
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f DRAFT 06/10/91
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 16.pages and 7 Exhibits which constitute the
entire understanding and agreement of the parties. the
exhibits.are as follows:
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.
Should any or all of the provisions of this Agree-
ment 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: , 1991
Dated: , 1991
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f
'CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
By:
, Mayor
WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH
SCHOOL DISTRICT, a political
subdivision of the State of
California
By:
Hamilton C. Smyth, Ed.D
District Superintendent
-22-
DRAFT 06/10/91
Dated: , 1991 P & V ENTERPRISES, a California
corporation
By:
Zev Vered, President
-23-
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f DRAFT 06/10/91
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.the basis 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:
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, and acknowledged to me
that such corporation executed the within instrument
-24-
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f DRAFT 06/10/91
pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of its board of
directors.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public:
-25-
WPX/TBM/DDA416080f
DRAFT 06/10/91
�s
RESOLUTION NO. P91-40
A RESOLUTION OF.THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA,
DENYING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-002 FOR
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 48108 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-020
LOCATED SOUTHERLY OF VIA PRINCESSA AND
EASTERLY OF RAINBOW GLEN DRIVE AT THE TERMINUS OF MAY WAY.
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 February 20, 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 vere.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 vesting the 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:
b. 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 91-002.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th dayof July, 1991.
Jerry C errington, 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:
L
ITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
AYES: Brathwaite, Cherrington, Modugno, and Woodrow
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
L M. Harri Director
ommunity Development
FLF:316
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.
MINUTES
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 9I-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
Planner 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 opposition 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 engineerbe present at the next hearing date.
Vice -Chairman Cherrington seconded the motion. The motion was carried 5-0.
The public hearing was left open.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - ITEM 2 - OVERVIEV 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. ,
Mr
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:Villiam 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
CommissionersModugno 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 fromthe
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 themeeting at 11:45 p.m.
ATTEST:
Ly M. Harris, Director
Co unity Development Department
CD: lkl:84
10
ouis Brathwaite, Chairman
Planning Commission
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-002
DATE: May 21, 1991
TO: Chairman Brathwaite-and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development
CASE PLANNER: Fred Follstad, Assistant Planner II
APPLICANT: P&V Development Inc. and William S. Hart Union High School
District
LOCATION: Southerly of Via Princessa and easterly of Rainbow Glen Drive at
the terminus of May Way.
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 48108 and Conditional Use Permit 89-020.
BACKGROUND:
In February of last year the Planning Commission approved Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 48108 and Conditional Use Permit 89-020. The approved project
consists of 161 single family homes and a Junior High School site on 80 vacant
acres. A copy of the original staff report and Conditions of Approval are
included for your information.
PROJECT
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 use it
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 45416, which was the
previous item on the agenda.
Development Agreement No. 91-002
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL 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 o£ land by the two parties, thereby ensuring the
construction of the junior high school. Another advantage is the acquisition
of $161,000 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.
T
Development Agreement No. 91-002
Page 3
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
91-002 based on the required findings; and,
3) Adopt the attached Resolution P91-24..
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution P91-24
2. Staff Report and Conditions of Approval for Tract 48108
3. Negative Declaration
4. Development Agreement 91-002
FLF:287
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 48108
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-020
DATE: February 20, 1990.
TO: Chairwoman Garasi and Members of the Planning Commission
lireFROM: Mark�cott, Director of Community Development
APPLICANT: P&V Enterprises and William S. Hart School District.
LOCATION: The southerly terminus of May Way, 200 feet south of
Via Princessa.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to subdivide ± 80 acres of
land into 161 single family lots and one public
facility lot (Jr. High School site). 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 48108 and
Conditional Use Permit 89-020 based on the required
findings and subject to the attached conditions of
approval.
Adopt the attached resolution.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
The site consists of three lots on +/- 80 acres of land located south of
Via Princessa and east of the future Rainbow Glen Drive in the City of
Santa Clarita. The parcel is currently zoned with numerous
designations. The property includes ±34 acres zoned (A-2-1 heavy
agriculture with a 1 acre minimum lot size) ±26 acres zoned R-1-8,000
and ± 20 acres R-1-15,000 (single family residential 8,000 and 15,000
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), U-3 (Urban, 6.7 to
15 units per acre) and HM (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 project and surrounding
land uses are summarized in the chart below:
------------------------------------
LAND USE
------------------------------------
PROJECT vacant
-------------------------------------
SOUTH vacant, multiple
family residences
-------------------------------------
NORTH vacant, single family
residences, multiple
family residences
---------------------------------
ZONING GENERAL PLAN
---------------------------------
A-2-1 U-2; U-3,
R-1-8,000 H/M
R -1-15,000
---------------------------------
A-2-1
RPD -5,000-15U
--------------
RPD-1-6U
RPD -8,000-4.2U
U-3, HM
----------------
U-2, HM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEST multiple family RPD -8,000-4:2U U-2, HM
residences
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAST multiple family A-2-1 U-2, U-3,
residences, vacant RPD -5,000-15U HM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the General Plan categories, the chart below describes the
adjusted allowable units in each category on the entire site:
CATEGORY
27.3
AREA
MID
RANGE
MAXIMUM UNITS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
U-2
11.0
acres
57.1
units
75.4 units
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
U-3
7.7
acres
83.9
units
116.O.units
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
HM
60.8
acres
49.7
units
49.7 units
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS * 79.5 acres 190.7 units 241.1 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 (49 acres for 49 units) but remains at only 1 unit per 20 acres on
slopes over 50Z (11 acres for .5 units). 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
27.3
acres
34Z
of
the
site
25Z to 50Z slopes
41.5
acres
52Z
of
the
site
Greater than 50Z slopes
11.1
acres
14Z
of
the
site
11
To develop the project, the applicant will have to grade approximately
1.7 million cubic yards of earth; 500,000 of which is for the school
site, to be balanced on site. There will be grading on approximately
971 of the site with a maximum cut of ±80 feet and a maximum fill of ±50
feet. The average depth of the cut is 40 feet and fill will be 20
feet. The proposed grading will impact the hillsides. The applicant
will be presenting a ridgeline exhibit 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 the zoning. The average lot size on the project will be
11,477 square feet with a minimum lot size of 5,325 square feet. Using
the existing zoning, the maximum allowable number of units would be 194
which is 33 more than proposed.
In addition to the school site, the required Quimby (park land) fee that
is being is equal to $172,891. -
In order to mitigate the projects' impacts on the existing school
facilities, the applicant has entered into a written agreement with the
Saugus Unified School District and the William S. Hart High School
District to pay the full fees as requested.
Because the 27 acre Junior High School site fronts on a residential
street, staff has conditioned that the school district provide.off
street bus turnarounds to keep the bus traffic through the residential
area to a minimum.
The circulation of the project consists of one loop street ("A" Street)
which extends from the present May Way in a circular direction back to a
second access off of Via Princessa. There are several cul-de-sacs off
of "A" Street as well.
Traffic improvements include a slope easement to allow the completion of
Via Princessa and the funding for a traffic signal at the corner of Via
Princessa and May Way. Staff has conditioned this project that there be
no occupancy until such time as Via Princessa is open to the public from
the site to Sierra Highway. This condition is identical to that of
Tract 44359.
Commissioners should be aware that this item relates to Tract 45416 as
this land is involved in a land swap with the William S Hart School
District. The Junior High School site being offered on this site is
superior to the site now owned by the district (on Tract 45416). The
District can not benefit by the agreed land swap unless both tracts
reach approval.
VICINITY MAP
CASE N o . VTTM 48108
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 & Wm. S. Hart Sch. Dist.
TYPE OF PERMIT: DA 91-002 for VTTM 48108 & CUP 89-020
FILE NO.:
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: At the terminus of May Way, 200' south of Via
Princessa.
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 t80 acres into 161 residential lots plus 1 public
facility lot (Jr. High School Site).
[ ] 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 [X] are attached
[ ] are not attached
Form completed by:
(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.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT „r
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
44
VTTM 48108 &
CASE NO. CUP 89-020 Prepared by: Fred Follstad
Project Location: The southerly terminus of May Way. 200' south of Via
Princessa.
Project Description and Setting: 161 single-family residential lots and
1 Tublic service lot (Jr. High School).!
General Plan Designation U2. U3, HM
Zoning: R-1-8:000, R-1-15.000
Applicant% P and V Enterprises
Environmental Constraint Areas:
A.
EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? .................. [ ] [X] [ ]
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? .................................. [ J [X] [ J
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? ................................... [X] I l [ ]
g.. Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? ................................. [ J [XJ [ ]
h. Other modification of a wash,.channel,
creek, or river? ........................... [ J [ ] [XJ
10
2.
3.
2 -
YES MAY
i. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? ....................... [X] L ] L ]
j. Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25Z natural grade? ............ [X] [ ] [ ]
k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X]
1. Other? [ ] [ ] I ]
Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? .................... [X] I ] [ ]
b. The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [X] I ] [ ]
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? [ ] [ ] IX]
d. Development within a high wind hazard
area? ...................................... [ ] [ ] IX]
e. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ]
Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................ [X] J ] [ ]
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? .............................. I ] LX] I ]
C. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ......................... [
] I ] LX]
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? ..................... [
] [X] [ ]
f.
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? ............. [
] [X] [ ]
g.
substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ............................ [
] I ] IX]
a
3 - DRAFT
YES MAYBE NO
h. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazard's such as flooding? [ ] [XJ [ ]
i. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ]
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ... [X] [ ] [ ]
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangeredspecies of plants? ...... [ ] [X] [ ]'
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? ...................................... [ ] [ ] [X]
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)? .................... [X] [ ] [ ]
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ] [XJ [ ]
C. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ...... [X] [ ] [ J
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] [ ] [ J
b. Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? ................. [X] [ J [ ]
C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ... [X] [ ] [ ]
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? ................. [X] [ ] [ J
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial alteration of the present
land use of an area? [X] [ ] [ ]
b. A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of .an area? ............... [ ] [X] [ ]
r
t k� 4
�Y�
YES MAYBE NO
C. A use.that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? ............................... [ 1 1X1 [ 1
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? ................................. [X1 [ 1 [ ]
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? ......................... [X] [ ] [ ]
lo. Risk of Upset/Han-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? .......................... [ 1 [ ] [X]
b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ................................ [ 1 [ ] [X]
C. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ...................................... [ l [ ] 1X1
d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? ................................... [ ] [ ] 1X1
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of.an area? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ]
12. Housing. Will the proposal:
a. Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ........................ [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Other? [ ] [ ] [ ]
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................ [X] [ ] [ ]
13
D�RA FT
5 -
YES MAYBE NO
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? ................. [ ] [X] [ ]
C. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ............................ [ I [X] [ l
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? [ ] I l [X]
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... [ ] [X] [ ]
f. A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? .......:...................... [ ] [X] [ ]
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 arease
a. Fire protection? ........................... [X] [ ] [ ]
b. Police protection? ......................... [ ] [X] [ ]
C. schools? ................................... [XI [ l [ l
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ••• [ ] [X] [ ]
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? [ ] I'] [Xl
f. Other governmental services? ............... [ ] [ ] [X]
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy . ...................................• [ ] [ ] [Xl
b. _ Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or_require
the development of new sources of energy? [ ] [ ] [X]
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural.gas? [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Communications systems? .................... [ ] [ ] [X]
C. Water systems? ............................. '[X] [ l [ l
d. Sanitary sewer systems? [ ] [ ] [X]
(� e. Storm drainage systems? [ ] [ ] [X]
I1
Y +�
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
YES' MAYBE NO
f.
Solid waste and disposal systems? ..........
[ ] [ ) [X]
g.
Will the proposal result in a disjointed
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
historic archaeological site? .............. [
improvements for any of the above? .........
[ ) [ ] [X]
17. Human Health. .Will the proposal result in:
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
a.
Creation of any health hazard or potential
] [X] [ ]
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ...
[ ] [ ] [X]
b.
Exposure of people to potential health
] [ ] [X]
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
hazards? ...................................
[ ] [ ) [X]
18. Aesthetics.
Will the proposal result in:
] [ ] [X]
a.
The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open tothepublic? ...................
[ ] [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]
IS
Discussion of Impacts.
Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact (Source)
1 a-g,i,j There will be very extensive grading on the site;
there will be up to 80 feet of cut and 50 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 251 and grading on 96Z of the site,
totalling 1.7 million cubic yards (SCPWD).
2 a,b Increased air emissions.during the construction
phase. Also, auto emissions associated with school
activities (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 (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. Also, increased noise associated with a
Jr. High School and the transportation systems (SCCD).
7 The lights associated with residential development
(SCCD).
8 a -c The site is currently vacant. The lots proposed are
larger than existing lots in the area (SCCD).
9 a,b Usage of natural resources associated with residential
development (SCCD).
13 a-c,e,f The Jr. High School will create an increase in
vehicular traffic. Vehicle trips per day would be
approximately 2,600. Pedestrian traffic will be
increased before and after school. The site is
currently serviced by a single access (SCPWD).
14 a -d The site is located approximately 2.5 miles from the
nearest fire station. The nearest public park is
approximately 2 miles from the site.. A possible need
for school crossing guards and increased need for
police protection. All schools within the -City are
impacted (LACFD, LASD, SCP&R, WSHHSD).
8 -
Discussion of Impacts. D R A F
Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact
15 a The use of energy naturally associated with
residential and educational uses (SCCD).
16 c The water company cannot supply water above the 1565
foot elevation (SCWC).
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
(CDP&R).
17
DRA-FT
9-
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 161 residential units and 1 Sr. 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 residential 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 larger.than 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) No residences will be allowed to take certificates of
occupancy prior to the completion of Via Princessa, a main
artery to Highway 14. The applicant will also provide a
signalized intersection at Via Princessa and May Way. There
will be an on-site turnaround for the school buses.
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 an
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 water system.
18) 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.
- 10 - 'DRAFT
C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
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 projecthave 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 impacts on the 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
WILLBE PREPARED ..................................... [X]
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required . ......................................... [ ]
1R
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
January 25, 1990
Date
Signature
Fred Follstad. Assistant Planner
Name and Title
i
HERBERT SCHRFFER TEL No.213-575-1184 Sep 3,91 17:29 No.006 P.02
SENT BY:EMD Do : 9- 3-91 5:14PM t 01835SS4V54
213 477 8519:# 2
SEP-O�-'91 TLr= 16111 IDtCAL 7RAN PRJ STUDIES TEL NM 21362224'703 M315 P02 -r-•-
SU" 00 CA W0b"—W3MRt3 AND TRAWWAIAT" AatHV VV= wi%sott. OWZD toat
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ou"KI A 120 M ON4 V. Q
toe AMNU& a M12-3605
"a (?I-% AMM
(213) 620-3874
September 3, 1991
Mr, George Caravalho
City Manager
City of Santa Clarita
73920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Banta Clarita, California 91355
bear Mr. Caravalho:
This is in regard to Tentative Tract 48108, recenti
approved by the City of Santa Clarita and its relationship to the
route location study for state Route (QR) 176. As you know the
southerly alternative, as presently conceived, traverses this
tract and the State approved ,junior High School site No. 4 which
is adjacent to and just westerly of the tract.
Tt to our anderstandinq that the tract developer has agreed
to provide the land for the school in exchange for another school
site now deemed unusable for school purposes, grads the site and
access road, and make a significant financial contribution
towards construction of the school facilities which are scheduled
for completion in 1994.
In determining the location of a state highway, critical
community facilities such as schools are avoided. Purther
evaluation has determined that the alignment can be shifted
northerly of the achool site into a subdivision of graded, but as
Yet undeveloped.lots. The vertical profile of the revised
alignment can also be modified to allow grade separations at the
school and tract access roads to Via Frinessaa, with the highway
elevation below the sonool facilities.
In developing a new State highway in a growing area such as
Santa Clarita the acquisition of Some developed property will be
necessary. However, 1 can assure you that a feasible southerly
alignment for 6R-126 can be developad without physically
impacting the school site in question.
If you have questions, please Cali Mr, Wallace J. Rothbart,
Sinceruiy,
VF C 0'x
Deputy District Director
William S. Hart Union High School District
August 23, 1991
Mr. Hunt Braly
office of Senator Ed Davis
11145 Tampa Avenue, Suite 21B
Northridge, CA 91326
Dear Hunt:
Mr. Martin Petrasek has -just made me aware of the fact that one of
the proposed alignments of Highway 126 may not be in the best
interest of the school district.
Our initial reading of the proposal appears to indicate the
following:
1. the route goes through the new continuation high school that
ispresentlyunder construction, and
2. the route transverses the newly acquired site of Junior High
School No. 4.
It is possible that I an not reading the map accurately, but if I
am, the District must take the strongest stand possible in
opposition to the proposed route.
Your assistance in this matter will be most appreciated. I am
leaving on vacation and will not return until September 3. I will
call you immediately upon my return to determine what action we
should take.
As always, your support of our school district and young people is -
most appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Ha t C. Smyth,
Sm Ed.D.
District Superintendent
HCS:gct
cc: Mr. Petrasek
21515 Redmevv Drive. Santa Clarita. Cahlmmm .91350 805 259.0033 FAX 805 254.8653