HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-09-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - DEVAGMT 91-004 VTTM 47863 (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be'presented
PUBLIC HEARING Lynn M. Harris6�.
DATE: September 24, 1991
SUBJECT: Request for Development Agreement 91-004 to allow ten years
for the build -out of American Landmark's approved Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 47863 for 80 homes on 32 acres... VTTM
47863 is located north of Whites Canyon Road between Nadal
Street and Wildwind Road.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
The applicant,. American Landmark, is requesting a development- agreement
for ten years to develop. VTTM 47863 in accordance with standards
currently in effect. The .City Council approved VTTM 47863 'on May 22,
1990. On August 6, 1991, the Planning Commission unanimously approved
Resolution P91-35 certifying. the negative declaration and - recommending
approval of this development agreement, with modifications, to the
Council.
ANALYSIS
Under_ VTTM 47863 approval, American Landmark was conditioned to pay
double the Bridge and Thoroughfare District fees ($5,300 per unit), and
pay 50X of the cost of a traffic signal at the intersection of "A" Street
and Whites Canyon Road. American Landmark together with Weston,' the
applicant for VTTM 46626, proposed to satisfy the park. obligation for
both projects by donating a 28 acre park site and $700,000 to the City.
These developers also agreed to try and obtain an additional 7 acres of
land adjoining the 28 acres for dedication to the City as a possible
library site. On July 16, 1991, the Planning Commission approved
Tentative Parcel Map 22398 which includes the donation of the ;7
additional acres to the City. The.costs of processing the parcel map are
being paid by American Landmark and Weston.
The development -agreement includes the following additional consideration
beyond that of the original tract approval:
* The 28 acre park site and the 7 acre library site would be given to the
City by December 31, 1991, regardless of whether or not the American
Landmark or Weston tracts record. The 35 acre park/library site is valued
at $510,000.
Continued To; lo- V Z/
Agenda Item:
t
* $199,500 (American Landmark's share of the $700,000) would be given to the
City upon the issuance of the first building permit for VTTM 47863. This
cash donation would now be increased yearly based on the January CPI from
the date of original tract approval, so Ithe actual amount is - already
greater than $199,500.
* The $5,300 per unit BTD fees would now be increased yearly based on the
January CPI from the date .of original tract approval, so this. amount is
already greater also.
* A new fee of $1,067.62 per unit for development of bicycle lanes in the
City is proposed and .would be increased yearly by the January CPI from the
effective date of the Development, Agreement. The Development Agreements
for American Landmark and Weston would result in $300,000 plus CPI for
bicycle lane development in the City.
The advantages of approving the requested Development Agreement are that the
dedication of the park/library site would occur regardless of whether or not
VTTM 47836. or VTTM 46626 record. The City would receive $700,000 plus CPI for
park/library site grading. The City mould receive $300,000 plus CPI to design
and construct new bicycle trails, removing the.need for a bicycle lane on
Soledad Canyon Road. Additional traffic lanes could be added to Soledad
Canyon Road within the existing right-of-way, providing circulation benefits
for the community.
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.
Since publication of the public hearing notice for this project, the applicant
has requested that the project be continued to the next available meeting.
This request is based on the following: (1) The Assistant City Manager
Pulskamp has been the lead staff person for this project from the time that he
was the acting Community Development Director; (2) Mayor Boyer has also
requested that the project be continued.in order that he may participate in
the hearing. Staff recommends the project be continued until October 8
meeting.
1. Ordinance 91-41
2. Development Agreement 91-004.
3. Minutes of Planning Commission dated August 6, 1991, and July 16, 1991.
4. Staff Reports dated August 6, 1991, and July 16, 1991.
5. Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment.
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. P91-35.
7. Project Site Plan.
LMH:LHS:343
- 2 -
1
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE
1.
Mayor Opens Hearing
a. States Purpose of 'Hearing
Z.
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
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC•HEARING
AMERICAN LANDMARK DEVELOPMENT, INC. IS
REQUESTING TO ENTER INTO A FORMAL
AGREEMENT TO ALLOW FOR A TEN YEAR BUILD OUT FOR
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 47863
LOCATION:
NORTH OF WHITES CANYON ROAD BETWEEN
NADAL STREET AND WILDWIND ROAD
IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City
of Santa Clarita to consider a request by American Landmark
Development, Inc. to enter into a formal agreement to allow for a
ten year build out for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47863. The
location is north of Whites Canyon Road between Nadal Street and
Wildwind Road in the City of Santa Clarita.
The hearing will be held by- the City Council in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita,
the 24th 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: September 3, 1991
ORDINANCE NO. 91-41
A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-004 FOR
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 47863
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find:
a. An application for a development agreement was filed with the City
of Santa Clarita on March 4, 1991, by American. Landmark ("the
applicant"). The property for which this entitlement has been filed
is 32 acres located north of Whites Canyon Road between Nadal Street
and Wildwind Road. The Assessor's Parcel Numbers are 2802-38-136
and 137.
b. The request is for a development agreement to allow ten years for
the build -out of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47863 ("the Development
Agreement").. VTTM 47863 consists of 80 single-family residences and
the site is currently vacant. The General Plan designation of the
site is RL.
C. On March 20, 1990, following the public hearings conducted on
December 19, 1989, January 16, 1990, and February 20, 1990, the
Planning Commission of the City adopted Resolution P90-16
conditionally approving VTTM 47863 and the negative declaration
prepared for the project.
d. On May 22, 1990, the City Council adopted Resolution 90-74,
approving VTTM 47863 and the negative declaration prepared in
connection therewith.
e. The applicant is proposing to provide public benefits, as part of
the Development Agreement, in addition to' those proposed under the
original VTTM 47863 approval including the following:
1. The 28 acre park site and the 7 acre library site would be given
to the City by December 31, 1991, regardless of whether or not
the American Landmark or Weston tracts record. American
Landmark and Weston have also paid for the cost of a parcel map
(TPM 22398) which included donation of an additional 7 acres for
a library site adjacent to the park site. The 35 acre
park/library site is valued at $510,000.
2. The $199,500 (American Landmark's share of the $700,000) would
be given to the City upon issuance of the first building permit
for VTTM 47863. This cash donation would be increased yearly
based on the January CPI from the date of VTTM 47863 tract
approval.
3. The $5,300 per unit BTD fees would be increased yearly based on
the January CPI from the date of VTTM 47863 approval.
4. A new fee of $1,067.62 per unit for development of bicycle lanes
in the City would be paid and would be increased yearly based on
the January CPI from the effective date of the Development
Agreement.
f. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the
Development Agreement application on Tuesday, July 16, 1991 at the
City of Santa Clarita City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. At that time, the Planning
Commission received testimony, closed the public hearing and
directed staff to return to the meeting on Apgust 8, 1991, with a
resolution certifying the negative declaration and recommending
approval of the Development Agreement to the City Council. On
August 8, 1991, the Commission adopted Resolution P91-35, certifying
the negative declaration and recommending approval of the
Development Agreement to the City Council.
g. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider this
ordinance on Tuesday, September 24, 1991, at the City of Santa
Clarita City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa
Clarita, at 6:30 p.m.
SECTION 2. Based upon the above facts, oral and written testimony and
other evidence presented at the public hearing, and upon the study and
investigation made by the Planning Commission and City Council, the City
Council finds as follows:
a. The Initial Study prepared for VTTM 47863 is applicable to this
project. The Development Agreement does not alter the environmental
factors previously considered for VTTM 47863 and will have a de
minimus impact on the environment.
b. The Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan RL
designation.
C. The Development Agreement complies with zoning, subdivision and
other applicable ordinances and regulations.
d. The Development Agreement is consistent with the public convenience,
general welfare and good land use .practice, making it in the public
interest to enter into the development agreement with the applicant.
e. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect .the health,
peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in the
surrounding area.
f. The Development Agreement will not be materially detrimental to the
use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in
the vicinity of the site.
g. The Development Agreement will not jeopardize, endanger or otherwise
constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare.
SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarita City Council has reviewed and
considered the environmental information contained in the Initial study, which
was approved by the Planning Commission, and determines that it is in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and that the
Development Agreement will not have a significant effect on the environment
and will have a de minimus impact upon:wildlife. A Negative Declaration has
been prepared for this project. Based upon the findings stated above, the
City Council hereby approved the Negative Declaration.
SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council does hereby
ordain, that the Development Agreement is approved and shall be executed by the
Mayor on behalf of the City.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on the
thirty-first day after adoption, or. upon the recordation of a notice of
agreement, whichever occurs last.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this
Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner prescribed by law and is
hereby directed to cause a.copy of the fully executed Development Agreement to
be recorded with the County Recorder not more than 10 days following the
execution by the City.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of , 1991.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I, Donna M. Grindev, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 91-41 was regularly introduced
and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on
the day of 1991. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly
adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day
of 1991, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
LHS: 347
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 BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
AMERICAN LANDMARK DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND
WHITE'S CANYON.ASSOCIATES
RELATIVE TO THE SUBDIVISION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY WHICH IS THE SUBJECT
OF VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. 47863
Y l � �' *
M
a.9
THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED WITHIN TEN DAYS
OF EXECUTION BY ALL PARTIES HERETO PURSUANT TO
THE REQUIREMENTS OF GOVERNMENT CODE §65868.5
8/26/91
R
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Development Agreement ("Agreement") is made
this day of , 1991, by and among
the City of Santa Clarita, a municipal corporation,
organized and existing under the general laws of the State
of California (the "City"), White's Canyon Associates, Ltd.,
a California Limited Partnership and American Landmark
Development, Inc., a California corporation (collectively,
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 is the applicant for
entitlements and the owner of approximately 32 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.
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
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") �y
a
NPX/TBM/AGR132461f
(1) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47863
(the "Tract Map").
(2) Development Agreement No. 91 ---
The development as proposed by the Developer for
the Project Site will consist of 80 single family homes and
related amenities (the "Project").
E. On March 20, 1990, following the public
hearings conducted on December 19, 1989, January 16, 1990
and February 20, 1990, the Planning Commission of the City
adopted Resolution No. P90-16 approving the Tract Map and
the negative declaration prepared in connection therewith.
On , 1991, the Planning Commission of the
City, held a public hearing on the Developer's application
for this Agreement.
F. On May 22, 1990, following the public hearing
conducted on April 24, 1990, the City Council of the City
adopted Resolution No. 90-74, approving the Tract Map and
the negative declaration prepared in connection therewith.
On , 1991, the City Council of the City
adopted ordinance No. approving this Agreement with
the Developer. The second reading of Ordinance
No. was approved on , 1991, and
became effective on , 1991.
G. The City desires to obtain the binding
agreement of the Developer to dedicate its share of the
proposed twenty eight (28) acre park/library site,
Developer's donative payment of $199,500.00 in cash, which
sum is Developer's share of the total of $700,000.,00 cash
donation to be made by Developer and the balance of said
cash donation is to be made by Weston to the City for said
park/library improvements and facilities, and Developer's
donative payment of $1,067.62 per unit for the development
of bicycle trail improvements in the City.
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
ra fd t.
—2— . % W
NPX/TBM/AGR 732467f
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
hearingsthereon 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 Project, the City
Council and 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 Fwm
Approvals and the consideration set forth in this Agrjpment y,
NPX/TBM/AGR132461f
in accordance with the applicable statutes, ordinances, and
regulations of the State of California and of the City of
Santa Clarita.
N. This Agreement eliminates uncertainty in
planning and provides for the orderly development of the
Project Site. Further, this Agreement eliminates
uncertainty about the validity of exactions imposed by the
City, and other Federal, State and local agencies, allows
installation of necessary improvements,.provides for public
services appropriate to the development of the Project Site,
and generally serves the public interest within the City of
Santa Clarita and the surrounding region.
AGREEMENT
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) "Consumer Price Index" or "CPI" is the
Consumer Price Index (all items) prepared by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Los Angeles -
Anaheim -Riverside area relating to all urban
consumers (1967=100).
(c) "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-. ya
requires the City, including any board, commissi&, st
-4-�qta, �,.�
OX/TSM/AGR132461f
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.
(d) "Effective Date" is the date this Agreement is
executed by all Parties. In the event this
Agreement is executed by the Parties on different
dates, the latest date of execution shall
constitute the Effective Date. In the event this
Agreement is not fully executed,.but substantially
performed, the Effective Date is the date the Tract
Map is approved by the City.
(e) "Final Map" is the final approved map for any
phase of Tract 47863 that is recorded following the
satisfaction of the conditions imposed upon the
approval of the Project, including but without
limitation, Condition 16 of the conditions of
approval for Tract 47863, 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 47863 is filed.
(f) "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.
(g) "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 intens--^ 5-
the developmentProject of the Pro 5
jnd,\the^_lzroj� S `e
WPX/TBM/AGR132461f
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
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.
(h) "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 the Project Site in fee, subject to encumbrances,
easements, covenants, conditions, restrictions, and other
matters of record.
3. Binding Effect. This Agreement, and all of
the terms and conditions of this Agreement, shall run with
the land comprising the Project Site and shall be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their
respective assigns, heirs, or other successors in interest.
4. Negation of Agency. The Parties acknowledge
that, in entering into and performing under this. Agreement,
each is acting as an independent entity and not as an agent
of the other in any respect. Nothing contained herein or in
any document executed in connection herewith shall be
construed as making the City and Developer joint venturers
or partners nor principal and agent.
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 So
detached, single family residences and related
amenities.
(b) "Development Standards" All design and
development standards applicable to the develo meat,
33
WPX/T8M/AGR132461f -6
U-zz
of the Project Site shall be in accordance with the
Applicable Rules including, by way of example, but
not limitation, the Zoning Ordinance and the
conditions of the Project Approvals as same may be
amended or modified in the future by mutual
consent, and shall also be in accordance with
Subsequent Applicable Rules. If`there is a
conflict between any of the Applicable Rules and
Subsequent Applicable Rules to be applied, the City
Council, in its reasonable discretion, shall
determine which shall apply.
6. Acknowledgments, Agreements and Assurances on
the Part of the Developer. The parties acknowledge and
agree that Developer's faithful performance in developing
the Project Site and in constructing and installing public
improvements, making payments and providing other benefits
in accordance with the Applicable Rules and Public
Improvements will fulfill substantial public needs not
otherwise obtainable under the Applicable Rules and Public
Improvements defined above in Sections 1(a) and (e),
respectively. The City acknowledges and agrees that there
is good and valuable consideration to the City resulting
from developer's assurances and faithful performance thereof
and that same is in balance with the benefits conferred by
the City on the Project and the Developer by this Agreement
as more particularly described in Section 7 below. The
parties further acknowledge and agree that the exchanged
consideration hereunder, each as to the other, is fair, just
and reasonable in that known assurances of development is,
among other things, appropriate and reasonable in view of
the extraordinary benefits provided to the City by this
Agreement. Developer acknowledges that the consideration is
reasonably related tothetype 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 ,a3
�r
GP%/TBN/AGR132461f
C. f
L
conditions of this Agreement, the conditions of the
Project Approvals and the Applicable Rules.
(b) .School Fees. Concurrent with the issuance of
each unit.building permit for a lot within Tract
No. 47863, American Landmark shall pay to the
applicable School District a per unit sum in
accordance with existing agreements between
American Landmark 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,
drainage, sewers and public utilities 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) Subsequent to the commencement of
construction of the first phase of Tract 47863 and
prior to issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy for American Landmark Tract No. 47863,
American Landmark shall have constructed its
portion of the access road depicted on Tract 47863
as "A" Street, in furtherance of.the public health
and safety of those existing residences which
presently have only one access road serving their-�"�3
a 5
1 j .
NPX/TBM/AGR132461f
�� Yy
WP%/TBM/AGR132661f
entire tract thereby providing emergency secondary
access for said existing residential neighborhood
in addition to providing access to the new
dedicated park described in subparagraph (d) (3) of
this Section 6 and conditioned upon Developer's
decision to undertake construction of the Project,
American Landmark shall perform as follows:
(a) During the first construction phase
of Tract No. 47863, American Landmark
shall construct "A" Street as shown on
the Tract Map through the Project.
(b) Pursuant to Condition No. 68(b) of
said Tract Map, American Landmark shall
construct "A" Street from White's Canyon
Road through its tract to the southwest
boundary of Weston Tract No. 46626
located within an existing easement for
road and utilities purposes reserved by
the City over a portion of the common
area of White's Canyon Homeowners'
Association. Should the final alignment
of said street eventuate in the right of
way exceeding the City's said easement,
City agrees to cooperate with Weston and
American Landmark in acquiring the
necessary property interest to allow for
construction and maintenance of said
street, which shall provide direct access
to White's Canyon Road.
(c) If Weston starts residential
construction prior to American Landmark,
it will also construct a further part of
said street completing the access link
across American Landmark property to
White's Canyon Road as shown on Tract No.
47863. Prior to the issuance of building
permits for its first residential
construction phase, American Landmark
will reimburse Weston for the actual cost
of said street construction done by
Weston within Tract No. 47863 plus
interest at the Prime Rate of interest as
established and changed from time to time
by City National Bank, per year on the
total cost expended by Weston for said
street construction from the date Weston
substantially completed said road to the
VPX/T8M/AGR132461f
date of final payment of reimbursement.
The reimbursement obligation provided for
in this subparagraph shall be enforced
and administered through a separate
reimbursement agreement to be prepared by
the City and.subject'to the mutual review
and approval of Weston and American
Landmark.
(2) Prior to the first.recordation of final
Tract Maps No. 46626 and 47863 or any subphase of
either of said Projects, but in no event later than
December 31, 1991, Weston and American Landmark,
acting together, will dedicate to the City or its
designated public agency approximately 28 acres of
land, described in Exhibit."H" attached hereto,
located west of White's Canyon Road for a public
park and potential library. This land dedication
is acknowledged by the City to exceed, and thereby
satisfy in full, Quimby Act requirements for Tract
Map Nos. 46626 and 47863 and existing City park
standards and policies.
(3) Upon issuance of Building.Permits, for
the first for -sale residences (excepting model
homes), for Tract Map No. 47863 or any subphase
thereof, American Landmark shall donate and pay to
the City the sum of $199,500.00, plus a sum equal
to the increase, if any, in the Consumer Price
Index calculated for the period from the date the
tentative map was approved by the City to the
January prior to the issuance of the Building
Permits, in cash, which sum is Developer's share of
the total of $700,000.00 cash donation to be made
by Developer and Weston to be used for the
improvement and purchase of equipment and facil-
ities for the park and library site referred to in
subparagraph (2) above. The City acknowledges that
said sum is not a requirement of any City ordin-
ance, resolution, policy or Tract Map condition of
approval.
(4) Concurrent with the construction of the
intersection of "A" Street and White's Canyon Road,
Weston and American Landmark, shall, pay for the
cost of construction and installation of the
traffic signal at said intersection.
(5) Concurrent with the issuance of building
permits on a lot by lot basis for each phase of
C" �'A
Cg=
-10-
Do�
F
/
Cas
W\
Tract No. 47863, American Landmark shall pay to the
City the sum of $5,300.00, plus a sum equal to the
increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index
calculated for the period from the date the
tentative map was approved by the City to the
January prior to -the issuance of the Building
Permits, for each residential unit permitted. The
City acknowledges that said per unit sum exceeds
the existing District fee and said amount shall not
be subject to increase as long as this Agreement is
in effect.
(6) City acknowledges that Developer has
contributed the cost to process and record a 3 lot
parcel map on property currently owned by Mark and
Renee Ostrove of which the Ostroves have agreed to
donate to the City Lot 3 of said parcel map
containing approximately 7 acres in addition to the
28 acre park/library site, described in Exhibit "H"
attached hereto and by this reference incorporated
herein. City and Developer agree that if the
approximately 7 acre site is not dedicated to City
by December 31, 1991, this Agreement shall be null
and void.
(7) Developer shall pay to City the sum of
$1,067.62, plus a sum equal to the increase, if
any, in the Consumer Price Index calculated for the
period from the Effective Date to the January prior
to the issuance of the Building Permits, per unit
at the time of building permit issuance, to be used
by City for development construction and mainten-
ance of bicycle trails.
Nothing herein shall preclude phased recordation of
the Tentative Map, phased residential.unit construction or
supercede Developer's discretion as to the timing and number
of units to be.constructed.
7. 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 4 ...
° is s �'
VPX/TBM/AGR132461f+s I '
a ;ilr s r
agreement and assurances, and pursuant to the authority and
provisions set forth in the Government Code and the Santa
Clarita Code, the City, in entering into this Agreement,
hereby agrees and acknowledges that:
(a) Entitlement to Develop. The Developer is
hereby granted the vested right to develop the
Project and the Project Site to the extent and in
the manner provided in this Agreement, subject to
the conditions of the Project Approvals and in
accordance with the Applicable Rules and the
Subsequent Applicable Rules upon the City making
the findings set forth below in this subparagraph
(a) and City hereby finds the Project consistent
with the City's adopted plans and policies and the
Zoning Ordinance. Any change in the Applicable
Rules, including, without limitation, any change in
any applicable general or specific plan, Zoning
Ordinance, growth management regulations, hillside
restrictions, design standards or any subdivision
regulation of the City, adopted or becoming
effective after the Effective Date, shall not be
applied by the City to the Project or Project
Area. Subsequent Applicable Rules can be applied
to the Project Site only if '(1) the City determines
that the failure of the City to apply Subsequent
Applicable Rules will place residents of the City
in a condition substantially dangerous to their
health or safety, which condition cannot otherwise
be mitigated in a reasonable manner and (2) it is
applied consistently and evenly to all other
residential developments in the City.
(b) Consistency With Applicable Rules. City
finds, based upon all information made available to
City prior to or concurrently with the execution of
this Agreement, that there are no Applicable Rules
that would prohibit or prevent the full completion
and occupancy of the development of the Project and
the Project Site in accordance with uses and
densities incorporated and agreed to in this
Agreement.
(c) Rate and Timing of Development. The City
acknowledges and agrees that the Developer cannot
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 bg�
.
�^e
F� e
-12-
WPX/T8M/AGR132461f
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 Final Map or -Phased
Maps; Start of Grading. Notwithstanding, the
provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, the
Developer has the sole right and discretion as to
the time of recording the Final Map for all or any
phase of the Project and the time to start grading
and/or pulling permits for on and off-site works of
improvement and building permits during the term of
this Agreement.
(e) Subsequent Discretionary Actions. with
respect to any Discretionary Action or
Discretionary Approval that is or may be required
subsequent to the execution of this Agreement, the
City agrees that it will not unreasonably withhold
from Developer or unreasonably condition or.delay
any such Discretionary Action or Discretionary
Approval which must be issued by the City in order
for the development of the Project Site to proceed
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,;,.,mr`-7,�
u
-13-
r
UP%/TBM/AGR 132G61f
w-
in this Agreement, unless the City determines that
(1) the failure of the City to impose such
condition would place residents of the City in a
condition substantially dangerous to their health
or safety, which condition cannot otherwise be
mitigated in a reasonable manner and (2) such
condition is applied consistently and evenly to all
other residential developments in the City.
(f) No Moratoriums. In addition to, and not in
limitation of, the foregoing, it is the intent of
the Developer and the City that no interim,
temporary or permanent moratorium (whether relating
to the rate, timing, or sequencing of the
development or construction of all or any part of
the Project, whether imposed by ordinance,
initiative, referendum, resolution, or otherwise,
and whether enacted by the City Council, electorate
or any agency of the City) affecting parcel or
subdivision maps (whether tentative, vesting
tentative, or final), building permits,
certificates of occupancy, or other entitlements to
use or service (including, without limitation,
water and sewer).approved, issued or granted within
the City, or portions of the City, shall apply to
the Project.
(g) Term of Tentative Map. As authorized by
California Government Code Section 66452.6(a), City
shall extend the term of the Vesting Tentative
Tract Map up to and including the scheduled
Termination Date of this Agreement as set forth in
Section 10 below. In extending the duration of the
Vesting Tentative Tract Map City shall not impose
any additional conditions or fees, or changes in
design, density or other policies, rules or .
regulations which differ from the original approval
of the Project.
(h) Cooperation and Implementation. The City.
agrees that it will cooperate with Developer to the
fullest extent reasonable and feasible to implement
this Agreement. Upon satisfactory performance by
Developer of all required preliminary actions and
payments, bonding, or delivery of Letters of Credit
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
-14-
NPX/TBM/AGR132461f
v-rrna..
r
NPX/TBM/AGR132461f
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.
(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. However, once Developer has performed
its obligations under Sections 6(E)(2) and 6(E)(3)
it shall not be under any further obligation to
proceed with development or Final Map
recordation. 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
-15- a t
�4PA�VA
�i
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
Termination. If the City determines to proceed
with modification or termination of this Agreement
after completing the reviews specified in Sections
22.16.460, 22.16.470, and 22.16.480 of the Santa
Clarita Code, the City shall give written notice to
the Developer of its intention to modify or
terminate this Agreement. Notice shall'be given at
least sixty (60) calendar days before.the scheduled
hearing and shall contain such information as may
be reasonably necessary to inform the Developer of
the nature of the proceeding. At the time and
place set for the hearing on modification or
termination, the Developer shall be given an
opportunity to be heard. The. Developer shall be
required to demonstrate good faith compliance wit
the terms and conditions of this Agreement t�
City Council finds based upon sa nW.>
o
W'
UP%/TBM/AGR732461f
evidence, that the Developer has not reasonably
complied in good faith with the terms or conditions
of this Agreement, the City Council may initiate
proceedings to terminate this Agreement.
9. Modification, Amendment, or Cancellation.
Subject to meeting the notice and hearing requirements of
Section 65867 of the Government Code and the applicable
provisions.of the Santa Clarita Code, this Agreement may be
modified or amended from.time to time by mutual consent of
the parties to their successors in interest in accordance
with the provisions of the Santa Clarita Code and Section
65868 of the Government Code.
10. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall
become operative and commence upon the Effective Date and
shall remain in effect for a term of ten (10) years, unless
said term is terminated, modified, or extended by --
circumstance set forth in this Agreement or by mutual
consent of the parties hereto. Following the expiration of
said term, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of
no further force and effect; provided, such termination
shall not automatically affect any right arising from City
approvals on the Project Site prior to, concurrently with,
or subsequent to the Effective Date of this Agreement; and
provided further, that such termination shall not
automatically affect any right the City may have by reason
of the Developer's covenants to dedicate land, contribute
money or provide public improvements in conjunction with any
portion of the Project Site which is under construction at
the time of the.termination.
11. Remedies For Default. It is acknowledgedby
the Parties that the City would not have entered into this
Agreement.if it were to have unlimited liability and damages
under this Agreement, or with respect to this Agreement, or
the application thereof. The Parties agree and recognize
that, as a practical matter, it will not be possible
physically, financially, and as a matter of land use
planning, to restore the Project Site to its prior state
once the construction is commenced. Moreover, Developer has
invested a considerable amount of time and financial
resources in planning the time, location, intensity of use,
improvements and structures for the development of the
Project Site. For these reasons, the Parties agree that it
will not be possible to determine an amount of monetary
damages which.would adequately compensate the Developer for
this work. Therefore, the Parties agree that monetary
damages will not be an adequate remedy for Developer -if
City fails to carry out its obligationsrwundpr EC
b
-17-
4 IP%/TBM/AGR132G61f
Agreement. The Parties further agree that the Developer's
remedies under this Agreement shall be limited to the right
to specifically enforce the terms of this Agreement.
The City's remedies under this Agreement shall also
be limited to the right to specifically enforce the terms of
this Agreement. In addition to specific performance, if the
Developer fails to make any payment or complete any other
act or performance specified in this Agreement in a
reasonable manner, the Developer shall have no further right
or entitlement to any building permits or certificates of
occupancy for any portion of the Project Site until the
default has been cured in accordance with due process and as
provided in this Agreement. The Parties recognize that this
section may result in the limitation or cessation of the
rights otherwise conferred by this Agreement upon the
Developer, including any of the Developer's successors,
assigns, transferees, or other persons or entities acquiring
title to or otherwise acquiring an interest in the Project
or any portion thereof.
12. Arbitration. In order to expedite the
resolution of disputes and default, the parties have elected
to submit to binding Judicial Arbitration and Mediation. If
the matter in connection with any alleged breach is not
resolved in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of
notice of breach, either party shall have the right to
submit the matter to expedited arbitration. Whenever any
dispute over enforcement, interpretation or other arises
between the parties hereto in connection with this Agreement
and either party gives written notice (the "Notice") to the
other that such dispute shall be determined by arbitration,
then.within thirty (30) days after the giving of the Notice,
both parties shall agree upon and hire one member of the
panel of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc.
("Judge"). The Judge shall be a retired judge experienced
with land use, zoning and real estate development matters.
As soon as reasonably possible, but no later than thirty
(30) days after the Judge is selected, the Judge shall meet
with the parties at a location reasonably acceptable to
Developer, City and the Judge. The Judge shall determine
the matter within ten (10) days after such meeting. Each
party shall pay one-half the costs and expenses of the
Judge.
If
Inc. ceases.
to the other
arbitration,
parties, all
WPX/TBM/AGR132461f
Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services,
to exist,and either party gives written notice
that a dispute shall be determined by
then, unless agreed otherwise in writing by tab's""
arbitrations hereunder shall be governeh�31 3
i �.
then -current rules of the American Arbitration Association.
Any determination by arbitration hereunder may be entered in
any court having jurisdiction. Within ten (10) days after
delivery of such notice, each party shall select an
arbitrator with at least five (5) years experience in land
use, zoning and real estate development matters and advise
the other party of its selection in writing. The two
arbitrators so named shall meet promptly and seek to reach a
conclusion as to the matter to be determined, and their
decision, rendered in writing and delivered to the parties
hereto, shall be final and binding on the parties. If said
arbitrators shall fail to reach a decision within ten (10)
days after the appointment of the second arbitrator, said
arbitrator shall name a third arbitrator within the
succeeding period of five (5) days. Said three (3)
arbitrators thereafter shall meet promptly for consideration
of.the matter to be determined and the.decision of any two
(2) of said arbitrators rendered in writing and delivered to
the parties hereto shall be final and binding upon the
parties.
If either party fails to appoint an arbitrator
within the prescribed time, and/or if either party fails to
appoint an arbitrator with the qualifications specified
herein, and/or if any two (2) arbitrators are unable to
agree upon the appointment of a third arbitrator within the
prescribed time, then the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County may, upon the request of any party, appoint such
arbitrators, as the case may be, and the arbitrators as a
group shall have the same power and authority to render a
final and binding decision as where the appointments are
made pursuant to the provisions of the preceding
paragraph. All costs of any arbitration shall be borne by
the party which does not prevail in that arbitration. All
determinations by arbitration hereunder shall be binding
upon Developer and City.
13. Administration of Agreement and Resolution of
Disputes. All decisions.by the City staff concerning the
interpretation and administration of this Agreement and the
Project which is the subject hereof are appealable to the
City Council and all like decisions by the City Council
shall be final but subject to the arbitration provisions set
forth in Section 12 herein and shall also be subject to
judicial review pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section
1094.5.
14. Assignment. The rights of the Developer under
this Agreement may be transferred or assigned in whole or in
part by the Developer upon prior written notice to the
-19-
UP%/TBM/AGR132461fCt. f E,� .� > C ` t,• � y "p.
rr`.
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: L. Thomas Mc Fadden
American Landmark Development, Inc.
White's Canyon Associates
232. East Canon Perdido Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
With a copy to: Charles W. Cohen, Esq.
Cohen, Alexander & Clayton
One Boardwalk
Suite 102
Thousand Oaks, CA 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.
_20_
WP%/T8M/AGR132461f
18. Amendment or Cancellation. Subject to meeting
the notice and hearing.requirements of Section 65867 of the
Government Code, this Agreement may be amended from time to
time, or cancelled in whole or in part, by mutual consent of
the parties or their successors in interest in accordance
with the provisions of Section 64868 of the Government Code;
provided, however, that any amendment which does not relate
to the term, permitted uses, density or intensity of.use,
height or size of buildings, provisions for reservation and
dedication of land, conditions, terms, restrictions and
requirements relating to Subsequent Discretionary Actions,
or any conditions or covenants relating to the use of the
Project Site, shall not require notice or public hearing
before the parties may execute an amendment hereto.
19. Force Majeure. In the event of changed
conditions, changes in local, state or federal laws or
regulations, inclement weather, delays due to strikes,
inability to obtain materials, civil commotion, fire, acts
of god, or -other circumstances which substantially interfere
with carrying out the Project, as the Project has been
approved by way of the existing approvals, or with the
ability of either party to perform its obligations under
this Agreement, the parties agree to bargain in good faith
to modify such obligations to achieve the goals and preserve
the original interest of this Agreement.
20. Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this
Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by
a duly authorized representative of the Party against whom
enforcement of a waiver is sought and refers expressly to an
occurrence or event to be deemed waived or such a waiver
effect a waiver of any right or remedy in respect of any
other occurrence or event.
21. Successors and Assigns. The provisions of
this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the Parties, and subsequent owner of all or any
portion of the Project Site and their respective successors
and assigns. Any successors in interestto the City shall
be subject to the provisions set forth in Section 64865.4
and 64868.5 of the Government Code.
22. Interpretation and Governing Law. This
Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shallbe
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�
UP%/TBM/AGR132461f,,
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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Attorney's Fees. If either Party commences
any action for the.interpretation, enforcement, termination,
cancellation or rescission of this Agreement, or for
specific performance for the breach hereof, the prevailing
party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees
and costs.
26. 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.
27. Incorporation of Attachments. All attachments
to this Agreement, including Exhibits A through H, and all
subparts thereto, are incorporated herein by this reference.
28. Successor Statutes Incorporated. Subject to
the terms of this Agreement in general and Section 29 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.
=
IJ I
—22— s
NPX/TBM/AGR132461f
29. Entire Agreement; Conflicts. This Agreement
consists of 18 pages and 8 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.
Exhibit "H" - Park/Library site Legal Description
Should any or all of the provisions of this
Agreement be found tobe 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, we affix any signatures hereto
the date first written above.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Dated: , 1991
By:
, Mayor
AMERICAN LANDMARK DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
A California corporation
Dated: , 1991
By:
Mark Holland, President
a
vl
a
VP%/T6M/AGR132651f �y,y�
WHITE'S CANYON ASSOCIATES, LTD.,
A California limited partnership
Dated: 1 1991
BY: American Landmark Development, Inc.,
General Partner
By:
Mark Holland, President
4PX/TBM/AGR132461f
"'n Z!7=
-24-
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 j
On this day of in the year 1991,
before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, in and for said
State and County, personally appeared Mark Holland,
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 American Landmark Development
Corporation and acknowledged to me that such corporation
executed the within instrument pursuant to its bylaws or a
resolution of its board of directors.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public:
15T
-25-;.ya
WPX/TBM/AGR132461t
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 Mark Holland,
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 American Landmark Development
Corporation as General Partner of White's Canyon Associates,
the partnership that executed the within instrument and
acknowledged to me.that such corporation executed.the within
instrument as such General Partner pursuant to its bylaws or
a resolution of its board of directors.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public:
WPX/TBM/AGR132461f
_771
a1717TJ
-26-
p ,P �'' F
4r
i
MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday
August 6, 1991
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman
Cherrington at 7:07 p.m., in the Council Chambers at 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, First Floor, Santa Clarita, California.
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Modugno led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
ROLL CALL
The Secretary called the roll. Those present were Chairman Cherrington,
Vice -Chairman Woodrow, Commissioners Modugno and Brathwaite.
Also present were Kenneth Pulskamp, Acting Director of Community
Development; Timothy McOsker, Assistant City Attorney; Richard Henderson,
Principal Planner; Donald Williams, Senior Planner; Mike Rubin, Associate
Planner; Fred Follstad, Associate Planner; Glenn Adamick, Assistant
Planner; Laura Stotler, Assistant Planner; Dick Kopecki, Deputy City
Engineer; and Linda Leonard, Commission Secretary.
MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Modugno, seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite,
and carried by a vote of 4-0 to approve the minutes of July 16, 1991.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - ITEM 1 - RESOLUTION. FOR APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT
Located North, of Whites
Canyon Road, north of t e existing terminus of Foxlane Drive, Tambora
Drive and Bakerton Avenue
ITEM 2 - RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-004 MASTER
CASE NUMBER 91-029 located north of Whites Canyon Road between Nadal
treet and W 1 v nd Road
Acting Director Kenneth Pulskamp introduced Items 1 and 2 concurrently.
Items 1 and 2 were heard at the last Planning Commission Meeting of
July 16, 1991 with the Commission having passed the motion to recommend
approval of the Development Agreements with modification.
Discussion and questions ensued among Commission and staff.
Commissioner Modugno motioned and Commissioner Brathwaite seconded, to
approve the Negative Declaration, Development Agreement 91-003 and adopt
Resolution No. P91-34 as amended.
Discussion continued among Commission and staff.
Motion was passed with a vote of 4-0.
L
issioner Modugno motioned and Commissioner Brathwaite seconded, to
ove the Negative Declaration, Development Agreement 91-004 and adopt
lution No. P91-35 as amended. Motion was passed with a vote of 4-0.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 3 - ZONE CHANGE 90-009, TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 49647, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-008, MASTER CASE NUMBER 90-145 -
Located on the future extension of Via Princessa, approximately 1,500 feet
west of Rainbow Glen Drive
Richard Henderson, Principal Planner took the chair as the Acting Director
of Community Development. Mr. Henderson introduced and gave a brief
presentation of Item 3. He then introduced Fred Follstad, Associate
Planner, who gave a staff.presentation and slide show.
At 8:00 p.m., Chairman Cherrington opened the public hearing.
Speaking in favor was the applicant, Sam Schaefer, 25035 Salford Street,
Laguna Hills, California, speaking for the project.
Speaking in a neutral vein was Robert Lathrop, 25105 Highspring, Newhall,
California. Mr. Lathrop addressed his concerns as to how the project
relates to the General Plan.
Discussion and questions ensued among Commission and staff.
Mr. Schaefer was given the opportunity for rebuttal and addressed the
concerns of the Commission.
Discussion ensued among Commissic., Cr. Schaefer and staff.
At 8:36 p.m., Chairman Cherrington closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Modugno motioned and Commissioner Woodrow seconded, to
approve Tentative Tract Map 49467, Zone Change 90-009, and Conditional Use
Permit 91-008, with an amendment regarding the proposed landfill and haul
route, and for staff to return to Commission with a resolution at the next
regularly scheduled meeting of August 20, 1991. The motion was passed
.with a vote of 4-0.
RECESS
At 8:47 p.m., Chairman Cherrington called for a recess.
RECONVENE
At 9:00 p.m., Chairman Cherrington reconvened the meeting.
-2-
T.
PIa��►��'�n_W�) Co��►���Ss��, Ftp 11�
Commissioner odugno moved for approval of the project with the deletion of
condition 33 for street improvements. Commissioner Woodrow seconded. With a
vote of 4-0, the motion was passed, with Resolution P91-36 being adopted.
ITEM 10 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 47785 - Located at Mandalay Road, on the
easterly side of Sand Canyon Road
Assistant Planner Ales Vasquez made the staff presentation.
There was discussion among the Commission and Staff.
At 10:25 p.m., Chairman Cherrington opened the public hearing.
Those speaking in favor were the applicant, William Cloyd, 15656 Iron Canyon
Road, Santa Clarita, who stated that he agreed with the conditions and was
available for any questions.
Speaking both neutrally and in opposition was Lawrence Oelze, 15830 Cachuma
Lane, Santa Clarita; with questions about an existing dirt road right behind a
lot on Cachuma Lane that accesses the subject property.
Chairman Cherrington closed the public hearing at 10:27 p.m.
Commissioner Brathwaite moved for approval of the project. Commissioner
Modugno seconded. Motion was passed with a vote of 4-0, with Resolution
P91-21 being adopted.
ITEM 11 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22398 - Located at 19449 Nadal Street, north of
Canyon High School in Canyon Country
Assistant Planner Laura Stotler made the staff presentation.
Discussion ensued among the Commission and Staff.
At 10:40 p.m., Chairman Cherrington opened the public hearing.
Those speaking in favor were the applicant Mark Ostrava, 19449 Nadal Street,
Canyon Country, stating that he was available for any questions.
Chairman Cherrington closed the public hearing at 10:41 p.m.
Commissioner Modugno moved for approval. Commissioner Woodrow seconded. With
a 4-0 vote, the project was approved, with Resolution P91-33 being adopted.
ITEM 12 - MASTER CASE NUMBER 91-028, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NUMBER 91-003 -
Weston Development Corporation Weston Co. Locatea nor
Road, north of the existing. terminus of Foxlane Drive, Tambora Drive and
Bakerton Avenue
ITEM 13 - MASTER CASE NUMBER 91-029 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-004 -
American Landmark Development, locatea nortu at i es Canyon Roaa oetween
Nadal Street and Wildwind Road
Mil
Director Harris introduced Item 12 and Item 13, stating that they can be
considered concurrently. She gave a brief background of the projects and the
Development Agreements.
Principal Planner Richard Henderson and Assistant Planner Laura Stotler made
the staff presentation.
Discussion and questions ensued among the Commission and Staff.
At 11:03 p.m., Chairman Cherrington opened the public hearing.
Speaking in favor were the applicant, Sohn Ashkar, 10960 Wilshire Blvd., Suite
2150, Los Angeles, who made a presentation on behalf of Weston Development;
Mr. Tom McFadden, 232 E. Canon Perdido, Santa Barbara, who made a presentation
on behalf of American Landmark Development; and Chris Connelly, 26819
Florabunda, Canyon Country, speaking on the need for public facilities in the
Canyon Country area.
Speaking in opposition were Frederick Coleman, 19348 Old Friend Road, Canyon
Country, representing the White's Canyon Homeowners' Association, stating that
the Homeowners' Association has not met with the developers. He also
expressed concerns over clauses 6b and 6c in the agreement.
Assistant City Attorney McOsker clarified the language in the agreement
regarding eminent domain. Some discussion ensued, including a discussion on
the public noticing of this hearing. This will be researched by Staff.
Also speaking in opposition were Robyn Davidson, 28153 N. Haxton Drive, Canyon
Country, addressing concerns on the amount of time it will take to complete
the development, grading, and land slides.
Robert Holder, 28149 Foxlane Drive, Canyon Country, stated his concerns about
the Development Agreements and the park site agreement.
Karen Holder, 28149 Foxlane Drive, Canyon Country, who is concerned about the
possibility of empty lots sitting for years, grading, fault lines, hillside
preservation, and land slides.
Glenn Reeves., 28222 Bakerton Avenue, Canyon Country, who stated concerns about
the Development Agreements, fees, the lack of cost indexing, lack of growth
control, and felt that the Agreements are not in the best interest to the City.
George Stigile, 18921 Ermine Street, Canyon Country, stating that his concerns
were the same as those previously stated, and the bike trails that will be
financed with the money from the Agreement.
Mr. Ashkar was given the opportunity for rebuttal
At 12:00 midnight, Chairman Cherrington closed the public hearing, and
discussion ensued among the Commission and Staff.
Commissioner Modugno motioned to approve the Development Agreement 91-003 and
Development Agreement 91-004 subject to a final approval by the Commission on
-6-
A , ,
the assumption that the commission finds the modifications worded
appropriately, and then forwarding to Council. Commissioner Brathwaite
seconded. Discussion continued.
Motion was passed with a vote of 3-1, with the no vote being Vice -Chairman
Woodrow.
Staff was directed to return with past Staff Reports, and documentation at the
next regularly scheduled meeting of August 6, 1991.
ITEM 15 - IMPTY TATION PROGRAM
Item continued to special study session on July 25, 1991.
DIRECTOR`S REPORT
Director Harris discussed the special study session schedule for the
implementation program of the General Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
Commissioner Brathwaite asked about the increase in the Commissioners
compensation. He requested that documentation be sent to the Commission.
Chairman Cherrington made several corrections to the verbatim transcription of
his General Plan speech.
Commissioner Modugno stated that Mrs. Garasi will be missed.on the Commission.
Commissioner Brathwaite stated that he enjoyed being Chairman for the past
year, and commended Chairman Cherrington on his part as General Plan Chairman.
PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR
Mr. Glenn Reeves, 28222 Bakerton Avenue, Canyon Country, discussed the
Development Agreements for Whites Canyon and that he recently found out that
the park sites were not part of the tract maps.
At 12:58 a.m., Commissioner Modugno motioned to adjourn to the special study
session on July 25, 1991. Commissioner Brathwaite sec; a Motion was
passed with a 4-0 vote. /
Jerry Cherrington, Chairman
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
LYPIP. Harris, Di ector
Cc=unity Development Department
CD:jcg:79
-7-
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
T0: Chairman Jerry Cherrington and Members of the Planning Commission
F
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development V r V�ti 4-'
DATE: August 6, 1991 /77VVV
SUBJECT: DA 91-003 and DA 91-004 Material for Final Action
At the meeting of July 16, 1991, the Planning Commission heard the
Development Agreements for Weston (DA 91-003) and American Landmark
(91-004) and passed a motion to recommend approval of these development
agreements, with modifications, to. the City Council. Staff was directed
to return to the Planning Commission on August 6,. 1991, with the
development agreements as modified, with the original tentative tract
approval documents and a resolution for final action on these agreements.
At the previous hearing the Commission reserved the right to reopen the
public hearing and reconsider these development agreements.
The Commission directed staff to revise the agreements so all fees would
be adjusted yearly to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the effective
date of the agreements. Weston and American Landmark also agreed to give
the City the 28 acre park site and the Ostrove property to the City by May
31, 1993, or earlier. These changes have been added to the Development
Agreements which are attached.
Chairman Cherrington also requested an opportunity to listen tothepublic
hearing tapes of the last hearing on the original approval of both
Weston's project VTTM 46626 and American Landmark's project VTTM 47863.
The last Planning Commission hearings for both Weston and American
Landmark were held February 20, 1990, and the last City Council hearings
were held on April 24, 1990. The tapes for both of these projects were
made available for review by the Chairman prior to this hearing.
The Planning Commission also requested a case history of the Weston and
American Landmark projects. The original project approvals including
staff reports, resolutions and conditions of approval are attached.
According to the original staff reports for these projects, both dated
December 19, 1989, a development agreement was to be considered for these
oil,". Item:
projects at a later date. The staff reports also mention the proposed
dedication of the.park site and $700,000; however, this was never made a
condition of the tentative tract map approvals because they were to. be
included in the projects through the development agreements.
Commission concerns over grading issues (seismic, hydrologic and
landscaping) were also expressed and are covered by the conditions of
approval of the tentative tract maps as follows:
Condition Number
Weston Landmark
VTTM 46626 VTTM 47863
41 44
Subject Matter
Street drainage improvements
60 59 Grading plan
61 60 Detailed geotechnical report
and approval by City's geologist
62 61 Special geologic provisions due to
local landslide conditions
63
62
Drainage plans
64
63
Additional geotechnical and soils
report, tests and monitoring
64
Establishment of a drainage
benefit assessment district
66
65
Special notice to purchasers by
CC&Rs
66
Construction to comply with- the
approved drainage plan
78
78
Slope and street tree provisions,
landscaping, irrigaion and
maintenance by LMAD or HOA
79
79
Special access for slope
maintenance
80-81
81-82
Landscaping requirements
84
Preservation of Oak Tree
a
90-91
90
Special protection of neighboring
homes; landscaping and fencing
requirements
93
92
Inspection of adjacent residences
and complete.notice to residents
95
98
Safety of adjacent residences and
complete notice to residents
96-98
93,94
Monitoring system for ground
movement, pre- and post- grading
with notification
101
96
Limit to small equipment only when
grading within 500 feet of
existing residences
97
Correction of slide on neighboring
property
101
Additional monitoring along
southern tract boundaries
102
102
Liability. insurance
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-004
DATE: July 16,. 1991
TO: Chairman Brathwaite and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development
CASE PLANNER: Laura Stotler, Assistant Planner
APPLICANT: American Landmark
LOCATION: North of Whites Canyon Road between Nadal Street and Wildwind
Road.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to enter into a formal development
agreement to allow ten (10) years in which to record Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 47863 and ensure the City will allow
development of the project in accordance with standards
currently in effect. No other project approvals are considered
with VTTM 47863
BACKGROUND:
On March 20, 1990, the Planning Commission conditionally approved Vesting
Tentative Tract Map. 47863 and the negative declaration prepared for this
project. The City Council subsequently approved the project on May 22, 1990.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant, American Landmark, is requesting a development agreement for a
term of ten (10) years to complete VTTM 47863 and to protect themselves from
changes in development standards. The project consists of 80 single family
housing units on 32 acres in Canyon Country.
Under VTTM 47863 approval, American Landmark was conditioned to pay $5,300 in
Bridge and Thoroughfare fees per residential unit, and pay 50X of the cost for
a traffic signal at the intersection of "A" Street and Whites Canyon Road.
American Landmark together with Weston, the applicant for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 46626, proposed to satisfy the park obligation for both projects by
donating a 28 acre park site and $700,000 to the City, although this was never
made a condition of approval for either project.
9
In consideration for the additional time requested, American Landmark would
make the contribution of its share of the .park site and $199,500 of the
proposed $700,000 a condition of the Development Agreement. American Landmark
would also agree to pay an additional $720 per unit to be used by the City for
construction of bicycle trails. This development agreement is similar to
Development Agreement 91-003 for Weston's VTTM 46626.
STATUS:
State law requires all 'projects" receive an environmental review and
determination. An "Initial Study° was prepared and certified for this project
during the public hearings for the. tentative tract. Since no changes are
proposed in the project, a negative declaration .was .prepared based on the
earlier Initial Study.
ANALYSIS:
The approval of VTTM 47863 was given with the understanding by the applicant'
and by the City that a development agreement would follow as stated in the
staff report for VTTM 47863 dated December 19, 1989. The Development
Agreement provides an additional time -period for the build -out of VTTM 47863
in exchange for funding toward development of bicycle trails in the City. It
also provides for the donation of a park site and money for park development
to satisfy a park obligation condition of approval for VTTM 47863.
Information given in the report about VTTM 47863 is offered as backgroundonly.
The project density of 2.5 units per acre is within the General Plan RL
designation for the area (Low Density Residential, 1.1 - 3.3 dwelling units
per acre, midpoint 2.2). With 81 units -on 32 acres, the project exceeds the
midpoint density of the RL designation by ten units. Because VTTM 47863 does,
not include construction of.roadways with regional benefits, the applicant was
conditioned to pay $5,300 per unit, or double the standard Bridge -and
Thoroughfare District fee in effect at the time.
The donation of the park site and $700,000 proposed by American Landmark and
Weston was never made a condition of approval for either VTTM 47863 or VTTM
46626 because it was to be used as consideration for development agreements
for both projects. The combined costs of the park dedication and cash
donation would be 3 to 4 times the amount of the park obligation for these
projects under the City code. American Landmark and Weston have also
contributed the cost to process and record a parcel map (TPM 22398) on the
Ostrove property adjacent to the park site, upon the understanding that one
lot, Parcel 3 with 6.9 acres, would be donated to the City for a library site.
The proposed park/library site is approximately 34 acres in area, or twice the
size of the 17 -acre Canyon Country Park. The park would have a usable area of
12 acres. By comparison, the usable area of Canyon Country Park is 9 -acres,
or 25% smaller than the proposed park. The library would have a 2.5 acre pad
fronting Nadal Street and would be large enough to accommodate
Reso. P91-35
- 2 -
development of a 15;000 square foot library and a parking lot. In addition to
adequate parking for the library, an additional 100 spaces would be provided
for use by Canyon High School, which has a shortage of off-street parking.
The $700,000 cash donation proposed by American Landmark and Weston would be
used for the grading of the park/library site.
As additional consideration for a development agreement, American Landmark has
agreed to pay an additional $720 per dwelling unit for development of bicycle
trails. Weston has also agreed -to pay the same additional fee which, when
combined, would provide the City with over $200,000 for bicycle trail
development within the City. Eventually, these bicycle trails would replace
the existing bicycle lane on Soledad Canyon Road between Whites Canyon Road
and Bouquet Canyon Road and allow a third traffic lane to be added each way on
Soledad Canyon Road.
The advantages of approving the requested Development Agreement are that the
dedication of the 28 acre park site and accompanying funds would be
finalized. The contribution for bicycle trails would allow the City to design
and construct new bicycle trails, removing the need for a bicycle lane on
Soledad Canyon Road. Additional traffic lanes could be added to Soledad
Canyon Road within the existing right-of-way providing circulation benefits
for the community.
The disadvantages are that the project.may.not be constructed as quickly and
would be exempt from any new ordinances or moratoriums.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is the opinion of staff that the applicant has or can satisfy the
findings and requirements associated with the Development Agreement for
this project; and, therefore, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
1) Approve the attached Negative Declaration with the finding that the
proposed project will not have a significant effect on the
environment; and,
2) Recommend approval to the City Council of the Development Agreement
91-004 based on the required findings; and,
3) Adopt the attached Resolution P91-35.
LHS:232
Reso. P91-35
- 3 -
TIMELINE OF CONDITION PERFORMANCE
American Landmark Development Agreement
MCI 91-029, DA# 91-004
TIMELINE
Prior to Recordation of Any Phase of either VTTM 46626 or VTTM 47863
* Dedication of 28 acre park site
At Buildine Permit Issuance
* School fees shall be paid with the issuance of permits for each unit
* $199,500 shall be given to the City upon issuance ofpermits for TT 47863
* $5,300 shall be paid per residential unit for BTD fees
* $720 shall be paid per residential unit for development of bicycle trails
within the City.
At Commencement of First Phase and Prior to Occupancy
* Traffic signal at "A" Street and White's Canyon (to be built concurrently
with construction of:the intersection)
LHS:228
t�1
RESOLUTION NO. P91-35
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CO S
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CAL Q -RAFT
RECOMMENDING TO THE.CITY COUNCIiw-`T
THE CITY ENTER INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-004 FOR
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 47863
WHEREAS, application for a vesting tentative tract map has been
considered and approved by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita on
May 22, 1990; and
WHEREAS, determination has been made by the City Council that a
mitigated Negative Declaration be certified for the application; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Development Agreement does not alter the
environmental factors previously considered for the approved application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the existing
certified mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the proposed
Development Agreement for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47863
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of.' the
City of Santa Clarita does hereby certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and recommends to the City Council approval of Development Agreement 91-004,
subject to non -substantive revisions approved by the City Attorney or his
designee.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of August, 1991.
Jerry Cherrington
Chairman of the Planning Commission
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of 'the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting
thereof, held on the 6th day of August, 1991, by the following vote:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Lynn M. Harris
Deputy City Manager/
Community Development
LHS:233
9
TT 47863
VAGU-00th
O'
z
TT 4662E
DA qt -W3
PDXLANE DR.
NADAL ST.
SOLEDAD CYN. RD.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
PERMIT/PROJECT: Development Agreement 91-004
APPLICANT: American Landmark Development, Inc, MASTER CASE NO: 91-029
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: North of Whites Canyon Road between Nadal Street
and Wildwind Road.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The applicant is requesting to enter into a
formal agreement to altow for a 10 yearbuildout for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 47863 consisting of 80 single family homes on 32 acres. This
negative declaration is based upon the Initial Study prepared for VTTM 47863
on November 29, 1989.
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this
project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita
[ ] City Council
[X] Planning Commission
[ ] Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant
effect upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be
adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[ ] are not required
LYNN M. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DE
Prepared by
Si atureT'
Approved b
(Signa ure)
[X] are attached
(Name/Title)
[ ] are not attached.
Donald M. Williams, Associate Planner
(Name/Title)
Public Review Period.From June 25, 1991 To July 16, 1991.
Public Notice Given On June 25, 1991 by:
[X] Legal advertisement. [X] Posting of properties. [X] Written notice.
aaaaa=aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaac===aaaeaaaa.=-aaaaaa
CERTIFICATION DATE:
RESOLUTION NO. P91-35
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY.OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
THE CITY ENTER INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-004.FOR
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 47863
WHEREAS, application for a vesting tentative tract map has been
considered and approved by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita on
May 22, 1990; and
WHEREAS, determination has been made by, the City Council that a
mitigated Negative Declaration be certified for the application; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Development Agreement does not alter the
environmental factors previously considered for the approved application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the existing
certified mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the proposed
Development Agreement for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47863
NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the
City of Santa Clarita does hereby certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and recommends to the City Council approval of Development Agreement 91-004,
subject to non -substantive revisions approved by the City Attorney or. his
designee.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED tris 6th da7%f/August, 1991.
fj/
Jerry Cherrington
Chairman of the Planning Commission
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting
thereof, held on the 6th day of August, 1991, by the following vote:
_
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Cherrington, Iloodrow, Brathwaite and Modugno
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
nM
Harris
eputy City Manager/
Community Development
LHS:233
September 13, 1991
Mr. Carl Boyer, Mayor
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor
Valencia, CA 91355
Dear Mr. Boyer:
The Wm. S. Hart Union High School District has entered into a
mitigation agreement with.the owners of Tract Nos. 47385 and 46626.
Based upon the agreement, the district will receive a minimum of
$3,439 per dwelling unit. This is significantly more than the state -
required -fee. In addition, the owner will be bound to the agreement
even if a valley -wide mitigation fee is developed and agreed upon.
It is my understanding that the developer has agreed to make land
available for public use, including park land, a library site, and
approximately 175 spaces for off-street parking. The parking space
and the field space that could be developed in the proposed park
would be of _significant value to .the school district.
Because of the benefits to the school district, we would support the
developer request for a development agreement.
Very trulWent ours
HamiltonFd. D.
Superint
HCS:af
cc: Mr. John A. Ashkar, Weston Development
Mr. Alex Bowie, Bowie, Arneson, Kadi & Dixon
Mr. George Caravalho, City Manager
Mr. Jeff Kolin, Director, Parks and Recreation
City of Santa Clarita
Wm. S. Hart UHSD Board of -Trustees
RECEIVED
SEP 1 ()'1991
CITY COL NCIL
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
', 21515 Redview Drive, Santa Clarita, California 91350 805 259-0033 FAX 805 254-8653
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
CASE NO. VTTM No. 47863 Prepared by: Michael A. Rubin
Project Location: Whites Canyon Road east side. approximately 600 feet
north of the intersection of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street.
Project Description and Setting: Vacant hillside land proposed to be
subdivided into 80 lots for single family residences.
General Plan Designation Hillside Management (HM)
Zoning: Light Agricultural A-1-10,000
Applicant: American Landmark Development, Inc.
Environmental Constraint Areas: Hillside terrain. traffic. aesthetics
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? [XJ [ ] [ ]
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? .................................. [ l [ ] [X]
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? ................................... [ ] [XJ* [ J
g. Changes in deposition, erosion or
siltation? ........ [ J [ J [X]
h. Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ........................... [ l [X] [ J
=�Vt. 040-
1
2
- 2 -
YES MAYBE. NO
i. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? ....................... [X] [ ] [ ]
j. Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 252 natural grade? ............ [X] [ ] [ ]
k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X]
3. Vater. will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................ [X] [ ] [ ]
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? ............................... [ l [ l (XI
C. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? .......................... [ J
d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ ]
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? ............................ [ ] [ l [Xl
Development proposed in a mapped
Other? landslide area [X] [
] [ ]
Air.
Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? .................... [ ] [
] [X]
b.
The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [ .] [
] [X]
C.
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? .............. [ ] [
] [X]
d.
Development within a high wind hazard
area? ...................................... [Xl [
l [ l
e.
other? [ ] [
] [X]
3. Vater. will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ............................ [X] [ ] [ ]
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? ............................... [ l [ l (XI
C. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? .......................... [ J
d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ ]
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? ............................ [ ] [ l [Xl
- 3 -
YES
MAYBE NO
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? ..........
( ]
[ ] [X]
i.
Other?
[ ]
[ ] [X]
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 endangered species 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? .................................. •
[ ]
[ ] [XJ
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?
[ ]
[ ] [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ......
[ J
[ ] [X]
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? ...........
( ]
( ] [X]
6.
Noise., Will the proposal result in:
a.
Increases in existing noise levels? ........
[X]
[ J [ ]
b.
Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? .................
[ J
[ ] [X]
C.
Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ...
[ ]
[ ] [X]
7.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial new light or glare? .................
[XJ
[ ] [ ]
8.
Land
Use. Will .the proposal result in:
a.
substantial alteration of the present
(/►1t
land use of an area? .......................
[X]
[ ] [ ]
�w
b,
A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of.an area? ...............
[X]
[ ]_ [ ]
- 4 -
YES MAYBE NO
C. A usethat does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? ............................... [ ) [ ) [X)
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? ................................. [ l [
] [X]
b.
Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? ......................... [ ] [
] [X]
10. Risk
of Upset/Man-Made Hazards. Will the proposal:
a.
Involve a risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? ....................... [ ] [
] [X]
b.
Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ............................. [ ] [
] [X]
C.
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? ...................................... [ ] [
] [Xl
d.
Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? ................................... [ ) [
] [X]
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a.
Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ..................... [X] [
] [ ]
b.
Other? [ I. F]
[X]
12. Housing. Will the proposal:
a. Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? .......................
b. Other?
[ ) [ I [X]
[ ] [ ] [Xl
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result.in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ........................ [ ] [ ] [X]
40
0
- 5 -
b. Effects on existing parking facilities.
or demand for new parking? .................
C. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including public
transportation? ............................
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people.
and/or goods? ..............................
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? .......
f. A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? ..............................
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need'for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? ...........................
b. Police protection? .........................
YES MAYBE NO
[X] [
I I I
IXI [
I I I
I ] I
I IXI
C. Schools? ................................... I 1
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? [X]
e. Maintenance of -public facilities,
including roads? ........................... [ ]
f. Other governmental services? ............... [ ]
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy . .................................... I ]
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? [ ]
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a.
Power or natural gas? ...................... I I.
( ] [X]
b.
Communications
systems? .................... ( ]
I I [X]
C.
Water systems?
............................. I ]
I I [X]
d.
Sanitary sewer
systems? .................... [ I
[ ] [X],
e.
Storm drainage
systems? .................... [ ]
[ I [X]
f. Solid waste and disposal systems? ..........
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or inefficient pattern of delivery system
improvements for any of the above? .........
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ...
YES MAYBE NO
[ ] [ ] [X]
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ... [ ] [ ] [X]
18. Aesthetics. Will the.proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ................... [ ] [X] [ ]
b. Will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? ....................... [ ] [X] [ ]
C. Will the visual impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ ] [X] [ ]
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? ..................... [ ] [ ] [X]
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? .............. [ J [.] [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]
- 7 -
Discussion of Impacts.
The following is a discussion of the "yes" and "maybe" responses in the
Initial Study. Responses to "no" items are. optional.
1 a. Changes in geologic substructures will occur. As a result,, major
geologic corrective measures are need such as, but not limited to,
shear keys, buttress fills, stabilization fills, subdrain systems, and
removal and recompaction.
1 b. These impacts are inherent in grading operations. Compaction and fill
will be required.
1 c. A major change in topography will occur as a result of this project
proposal. An area of gentle to moderately rolling hills will be graded
to accommodate a housing development. An estimated 85% of the surface
area of the site is proposed to be graded.
1 d. Landslide hazards are known to exist within the project site. Standard
engineering practices such as the recommendations in the preliminary
geotechnical report for this project will reduce these potential
hazards to an insignificant level.
l i. Cut and fill in the amount of approximately 580,000 cubic yards will be
required to accommodate the proposed project. Construction impacts,
though short term, will generate temporary nuisance impacts. Noise and
exhaust from grading equipment, as well as truck traffic to and from
the site will pose an inconvenience to residents in the immediate
vicinity.
1 j. Approximately 50% of the site is located on terrain of greater than 25i
slope.
1 1. The project site is located within a mapped landslide area as per the
Mint Canyon quadrangle of the Geology Maps of the California Department.
of Mines and Geology.
Standard engineering practices for earthwork design as well as state and
municipal code requirements for grading operations can reduce these impacts
to insignificant levels.
3 a. The site is presently in a vacant condition. Any development would
increase the amountof surface area impervious to water, thus
increasing the rate and amount of runoff. Existing storm drains in the
vicinity are expected to accommodate the increased runoff.
3 e: In the vicinity of lot 65, an intermittent spring exists. Water from
the spring presently flows off-site to the east. Standard grading and
engineering practices, including the recommendations for subdrains
contained in the Preliminary Geotechnical Review, dated October 16,
1989, by Leighton Associates, shall be incorporated into the grading
plan.
4 a. One Valley Oak tree (Quercus lobata) exists on the project site within
lot 65 and may be 'adversely impacted by grading and/or the future
location of a residence within that lot.
See attached Mitigation Measures: Plant Life
- 7a -
6 a. Since the site is presently vacant, any new development will increase
existing noise levels. Noise sources are likely to emanate from
construction equipment and traffic, and after occupancy of the tract
from vehicular traffic and typical ambient residential noise sources
such as stereos, power tools, household appliances, barking dogs, etc.
Since the project is proposed only for residential uses and is located
.adjacent to existing residences, no significant impacts from noise are
anticipated.
7. Because development is proposed where none presently exists, new light
and glare will be created. Headlight glare from vehicular traffic will
be the primary source. Other sources will include street lights and
interior lighting of the individual residences. No significant impacts
from light and glare are expected.
8 a. A substantial alteration of the present land use of the area will
occur. Due to the presently vacant condition of the site, the change
to an 80 -lot single family residential subdivision will entirely change
the existing land use.
8 b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of the area will
occur. The 1984 Santa Clarita Valley Areawide General Plan, classifies
the vicinity as Hillside Management, therefore, Nonurban, by
definition. A density formula normally applied to the nonurban
category for this site would allow a minimum of 3.6 units and a maximum
of 24 units with •a preferred limit of 14 units (representing the
midrange). The referenced general plan has been adopted by the City of
Santa Clarita as a policy guide only, and is not a regulatory document.
It is noted that the existing zoning of the site is Light Agricultural
A-1-10,000. This allows development of single family residences of a
minimum 10,000 square foot lot sizes. A provision exists in the City's
subdivision ordinance to permit a reduction in the required area to a
minimum 7,000 square foot lot size for up to 43% of this proposed
subdivision. Only 18 lots are proposed to have a reduced area. The
existing zoning would permit approximately 113 lots. The average lot.size
for this project is 14,157 square feet.
8 d. The proposed use doe's not conform to established development criteria
in that it is in an area designated by the General Plan as Hillside
Management (HM). In this designation the intent is to develop
residential lots in cluster form, thus avoiding grading in steep sloped
areas; lots would then be developed in the shallower areas 0-25Z
slopes. The proposed project shows lots evenly distributed throughout
the site. Again, an estimated 85Z of the surface area will require
grading.
Ila. The project will alter the location, distribution, density, and growth
rate of the area. Since new development is proposedwhere none
presently exists, these impacts are inevitable. The impacts generated
are addressed elsewhere in this Environmental Assessment primarily
within sections Al, A13, A14, and A18.
13a. The number of vehicular trips generated per day by this. project. is
estimated to be 828, with a morning peak hour of 66 trips and and
afternoon peak of 89. These figures alone represent a negligible
impact on the local street system. However, when considered with the
cumulative impacts of other proposed developments that will be
utilizing the same street system, the impact is considered significant.
YLf
7b
13c. The cumulative impacts of this project and others proposed that will be
located on the existing and future planned extensions of Antelope
Valley Freeway (State Highway 14). Only mimimal improvements to this
freeway are budgeted in the near' future (one to three years). A
widening is planned from Via Princessa to Sand Canyon Road from the two
existing lanes each direction to three lanes total each direction.
Since freeway traffic generated by this tract will enter.the freeway at
Via Princessa, and the primary travel direction is west (toward Los
Angeles), this improvement will not directly improve traffic conditions
generated by this project. No improvements are contemplated within the
State Transporation Improvement Plan (STIP) within the next five
-years. The true cumulative impacts of this and other projects
affecting the Antelope Valley Freeway are difficult to quantify at this
time since much of the development which would impact the freeway is
expected to occur outside of the City's jurisdiction. The cities of
Palmdale, Lancaster, and the County of Los Angeles are other
jurisdictions whose land use decisions impact the freeway.
13d. The design of the proposed project will alter present patterns of
circulation. The project proposes a new collector street that will
intersect Whites Canyon Road. This will create a new turning movement
that does not presently exist, thereby altering circulation in this
segment of Whites Canyon Road.
13e. Inherent in new development is the potential for increased traffic
hazardsto motorists, bicyclists, and pedistrians. Mitigation measures
identified for this project will alleviate additional traffic hazards.
See attached Mitigation Measures: Transportation/Circulation
14b. Police services will be further utilized by the additional population
of this project creating additional demands for services.
14c. Schools are all ready at or above .capacity levels at all levels serving
this project site.
14d. Park and recreation services in this portion of the City are at a
minimum level. The additional population generated by this project
will additionally burden these services.
See attached Mitigation Measures: Public Services.
18a.
The area in which the site is located consists of rolling hills. Many
homes to the northwest of the site and some to the east have a view of
this area. Grading of these hills will come within close proximity to
these existing homes, and will change the view that these homes
presently enjoy. Subsequent construction of homes within the site will
change the character of the view of the open space now afforded by the
homes presently above and below this site. The impact of this
development is that the close range view that both areas to the east
and northwest of this site have will be dramatically changed. The
distant views that the homes to the northwest have will be unaffected;
however the homes to the east may possibly have distant views blocked
to the northwest.
_ 7c _
18b. The change in view from open space, chapparral covered. hills, to a
housing development could be considered offensive by those most
affected by the changes in new described in No. 18a above.
18c. Those who perceive the view to be offensive, could consider the visual
impact detrimental.
See attached. Mitigation Measures: Aesthetics
In general, changes in views that presently exist wiLl be unavoidable. The
degree of significance in these changes will vary on an individual basis,
and is a difficult subject to 'assess in terms environmental impacts. '
B. DISCUSSION OF PAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED
4. Plant Life
The existing oak tree on the site shall be incorporated into future
landscaping of the tract. During grading and construction, the tree
shall be appropriately protected. No work shall be permitted within
the protected -zone (five feet from the dripline).
13. Transportation/Circulation
b. A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Whites
Canyon Road and "A" Street.
C. Parking restrictions on Whites Canyon Road shall be installed and
restriping of Nadal and Whites Canyon Road.
14. Public Service
Park land shall be dedicated to improve the existing public park
availability in the vicinity.
18. Aesthetics
Uniform landscaping and fencing shall be required. The City shall have
the authority to review and .approve both. A.landscape maintenance
assessment district shall be formed to ensure continued maintenance.
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.
- B -
YES MAYBE NO
1. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self sus-
taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory? ................. [ ] [ ] [X]
2. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well into the future.) ........... ( ] ( ] [X]
3. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the total
of those 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 . ......................................... [ l
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
November 29. 1989
Date Signature
.y Michael A. Rubin; Associate Planner
4 1 Name and Title
LIST OF SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
Initial Study
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47863
Environmental
Subject Source of Information
1. EARTH City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Public Works and
Preliminary
Geotechnical Review,
Oct. 16, 1989, by
Leighton Associates
2. AIR South Coast Air
Quality Mgmt.
District Air Quality
Handbook
3. WATER Santa Clarita Water
Co., Geotechnical
Review, and Drainage
Analysis, Aug., 3,
1989, by Sikand
Engineering
Associates
4. PLANT LIFE City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community
Development Maps of
Significant
Ecological Areas and
OakTree Survey,
July 19, 1989 by
James Henrickson,
Ph.D.
5. ANIMAL LIFE City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community
Development Maps of
Significant
Ecological Areas
6. NOISE Traffic Analysis,
Aug., 1989, by Crain
& Associates.
7. LIGHT & GLARE Traffic Analysis,
Aug., 1989.
8. LAND USE City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development fy�•
" :& '
9.. NATURAL RESOURCES City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
10.
RISK OF UPSET/HAZARDS
County of Los
Angeles Fire Dept.
11.
POPULATION
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
12.
HOUSING
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Community Development
13.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Traffic Analysis,
Aug., 1989.
14.
PUBLIC SERVICES
City of Santa
Clarita Depts. of
Parks and
Recreation, and
Public Works.
County of Los
Angeles Depts. of
Fire and Sheriff,
Saugus Union,
Sulphur Springs
Union and Wm. S.
Hart High School
Districts
15. ENERGY So. Calif. Edison and So. Calif. Gas
16. UTILITIES So. Calif. Edison,
So. Calif. Gas,
Santa Clarita Water
Co.
17. HEALTH Los Angeles Co. Health Dept. and Sanitation District
18. AESTHETICS
19. RECREATION
20. .CULTURAL RESOURCES
City of Santa
Clarita Depts. of
Community
Development, and
Parks and Recreation
City of Santa
Clarita Dept. of
Parks and Recreation
State of California
Dept. of Parks and
Recreation office of
Historic Preservation
4n
rf[_os
ri 4