The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992-03-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - APPEAL PLANNING CMSN 90 112 (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approve Item to be preslen�te�iy� ' PUBLIC HEARING Lynn M. Harris DATE: March 24, 1992 SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Plot Plan 90-112 to allow for the development of a 39,500 (two-story, 35' in height) square foot retail commercial center with 207 parking spaces on 4.75 acres located at the northeast corner of Lost and Sand Canyon Road (16463 Lost Canyon Road). Applicant: Harvest Corporation DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND On December 3, 1991, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P91-62 denying the above referenced project. The commercial center would have a maximum -height of 35 feet. The 4.75 acre site consists of two zones, C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) and A-1-10,000 (Light Agriculture, 10,000 square feet required area). A two acre portion of the site would remain undeveloped. The proposed building would be constructed on the southernmost lot which •is zoned C-2, while the project would utilize approximately 80' of the lot zoned A-1-10,000 for parking. Approximately 100' of the area zoned A-1-10,000 and a contiguous 15' portion of the C-2 zoned area are located within the floodway limits for the Santa Clara River. As part of the project the applicant expressed a desire to donate or dedicate the un -utilized two acre river area to the City, in addition to forming a "Sand Canyon Special Standards Entryway Beautification and Redevelopment Committee". The committee would form a mechanism for the revitalization of the entryway of Sand Canyon. The project site is designated Residential Low (RL) on the General Plan, and within a Significant Ecological Area established for the Santa Clara River. In connection with' the deliberations on the General Plan, the Planning Commission considered the specific request for a commercial designation on the property. It was the determination of the Commission that there should be no commercial designations south of the Santa Clara River along Sand Canyon Road. The Council, acting upon this recommendation, approved the locating of the RL designation on the project site as well as adjacent areas. The applicant has since submitted a revised plan that indicates a total building area of 39,380 square_ feet. with 203 parking spaces. The origiinal submittal included an allowance for 30' of right-of-way for Lost Agenda Item: Page 2 Canyon Road. The revised submittal includes a right-of-way width of 40', which is consistent with the circulation element of the General Plan. The applicant has also illustrated trail easements, a pavilion area with hitching posts, and levee improvements on this revised plan. The project proponent has submitted the following written materials on behalf of the project: The Benefits the Project Provides to the Sand Canyon Community, Sand Canyon Community Survey (regarding .the project), and A Study in Consistency (between the City's General Plan and the project). These materials have been included within the. information provided to the Council: The applicant has indicated that he will ask for a continuance. Staff has attached a chronology of events related to the case. This chronology includes a list of delays and continuances requested by the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The project was heard by the Commission on .November 19, 1991. The applicant had requested and received numerous continuances prior to this meeting. During the Planning Commission's public hearing on the project issues were raised regarding compatibility of the use with nearby residential uses, inconsistency with the general plan, inconsistency with the Santa Clara River Plan '(encroachment within the floodway), and inconsistency with good zoning practice. Five area residents spoke in opposition to the project. One of the residents indicated that he spoke for .numerous residents who signed a petition against the project. The concerns of the residents focused on the inconsistency of the project with rural uses .in the area, negative financial impacts to their properties, and.the negative effect. of the project on the Sand Canyon community. Staff received a total of four letters and one petition (consisting of 97 signatures) in opposition to the project. One letter of. support was submitted. One of the project proponents spoke in favor of the project, stating that the property owner was unable to attend the hearing and that therefore a continuance should be granted. Following the public hearing, the Commission found that the project was inconsistent with the General Plan, inconsistent with the Santa Clara River Plan, and did not satisfy the principles and standards used for considering a plot plan. The Planning Commission unanimously denied the plot plan. OPTIONS The City Council may: 1) Deny the project, or; 2) Refer the project back to the Planning Commission with a conceptual approval and request that the Planning Commission initiate a General Plan Amendment for the site, or; 3) Refer the revised project to the Planning Commission for further review. Page 3 Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Deny Plot Plan 90-112; and, 2) Direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial - for the Council's consideration at the April 21, 1992 meeting. - Resolution P91-62 Chronology of Events Planning Commission Staff Report Minutes November 19, 1991 Commission meeting Negative Declaration Correspondence GEA:494 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEALING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF PLOT PLAN 90-112, TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 39,500 SQUARE FOOT (TWO STORIES - 35' HIGH) RETAIL COMMERCIAL CENTER ON TWO LOTS CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 4.75 ACRES. THE PROPOSED CENTER WOULD CONSIST OF 207 PARKING SPACES WITH 14 PERCENT OF THE BUILDING SITE BEING LANDSCAPED. A PORTION OF THE PROJECT'S PARKING LOT ENCROACHES WITHIN THE FLOODWAY BOUNDARY LINES ESTABLISHED FOR THE SANTA CLARA RIVER. THE LOCATION IS AT 16463 LOST CANYON ROAD, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. THE PROJECT PROPONENT IS THE HARVEST CORPORATION PUBLIC NOTICE.IS HEREBY GIVEN: A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita to consider an appeal from the applicants, the Harvest Corporation, regarding the Planning Commission's denial of plot plan 90-112, to allow for the. construction of an approximately 39,500 square foot (two stories - 35' high) retail commercial center on two lots consisting of approximately 4.75 acres. The proposed center would consist of.207 parking spaces with 14 percent of the building site being landscaped. A portion of the project's parking lot encroaches within the.floodway boundary lines established for the Santa Clara River. The location is at 16463 Lost Canyon 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 March, 1992, 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. DATED: February 27, 1992 Donna H. Grindey City Clerk PUBLISH DATE: March 2, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE 1. Mayor Opens Hearing a. States Purpose of Hearing 2. City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice 3. Staff Report (City Manager) or (City Attorney) or (RP Staff). 4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes) 5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes) 6. five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent) a. Proponent . 7. Mayor Closes Public Testimony 8. Discussion by Council 9. Council Decision 10. Mayor Announces Decision RESOLUTION NO. P91-62 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING MASTER CASE NO. 90-228, PLOT PLAN 90-112 TO ALLOY FOR A 39,500 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL RETAIL CENTER AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOST CANYON ROAD AND SAND CANYON ROAD (APN 2840-008-029,030) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings: a. An application for a plot plan was filed on November 8, 1990, by an representative of the Harvest Corporation (the "applicant"). The property for which this entitlement has been filed is located at the northeast corner of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road (Assessor Parcel Number 2840-008-029, 30) (the "site"). The project site consists of two zones, C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) and A-1-10,000 (Light Agriculture, 10,000 square feet required area). b. Plot Plan 90-112 proposes to construct a two-story, 39,500 square foot retail commercial center (35' in height). The property consists of two lots. The proposed building would be constructed on the southern lot zoned C-2, ,while approximately 100 feet of the contiguous area zoned A-1-10,000 would be -used for parking. c. The site is relatively flat with a single family residence on the property. The entire lot zoned A-1-10,000 and a contiguous 15'; portion of the C-2 lot are within the floodway limits for the Santa Clara River. The remainder area of the site lies within a flood hazard area. No oak trees are present on-site. d. During the initial 30 day review period of the project, the applicant was informed that an initial environmental review would be conducted on the project. On December 13, 1990. the applicant was again notified concerning this requirement. e. On January 17, 1991, the applicant was sent a letter indicating that the initial project submittal did not contain sufficient information to process the request. The applicant was given 30 days to respond to this letter or the application would be removed from active case processing. f. On February 7, 1991, the applicant's architect responded to the January 17, 1991 letter. The applicant's architect requested an additional 30 days to submit the required information. g. On March 6, 1991, the applicant submitted the required initial environmental review application and fee. h. On June 6, 1991, the applicant was informed that the submitted plot plan request for a 39,500 square foot, two-story (35' in height), retail commercial center had been denied by the Director of Community Development. The reasons for denial included the project's inconsistency with the then draft General Plan land use designation of Residential Low (RL) and the project's incompatibility with the significant ecological overlay area established for the Santa Clara River. Pursuant to the conditions established by the State Office of Planning and Research, in conjunction with the granting of a time extension for the City's General Plan, the City may not approve a project that is inconsistent with the draft General Plan after adoption by the Planning Commission. The Commission formally adopted. the draft General Plan on May 21, 1991. i. On.June 19, 1991, the applicant's architect formally requested an appeal of the Community Development Director's denial of the project. j. On June 25,. 1991, the General Plan was adopted by the City Council. The land use designation corresponding to the project site was identified as RL (Residential Low, 1.1 to 3.3 residential dwelling units per acre). k. The applicant requested that the item be scheduled for the September 17, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. On August 26, 1991; the applicant requested to the Director that the item not be scheduled for the September meeting but for. the second Commission meeting in October or the first meeting in November. 1. The appeal'of the Director's denial was heard by the Planning. Commission on November 5, 1991, at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. At this meeting the applicant requested that the item be continued to the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting on November 19, 1991. m. On November 14, 1991, the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the Planning Commission continue the item to the December 17, 1991, Commission meeting. n. The appeal of the Director's denial was heard by the Planning Commission on November 19, 1991, at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing, and upon the study and investigation made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Commission further finds as follows: a. The City's General Plan designation for the, project site is Residential .Low (RL). The project is not consistent with the intent of the designation regarding laad'use. b. The -project is inconsistent with the Santa Clara River Plan. The Plan indicates as an objective, under flood control, that the City prohibit human made structures within the floodway and Reso P91-62 Page 2 adjacent riparian and wetland areas, unless it can be demonstrated to significantly benefit the public's health, safety, and welfare. The project proposes encroachment within the Santa Clara River to accommodate a parking area. c. The Commission finds that approving the project, as proposed, does not satisfy the following principles and standards for consideration of a plot plan: That the use, development of land and/or application of development standards, when considered on the basis of the suitability of the site for the particular use or development intended, is so arranged as to avoid traffic congestion, insure the protection of public health, safety and general welfare, prevent adverse effects on neighboring property and is conformity with good zoning practice. (The inconsistency of the project with the City's General Plan is in conflict with this required finding.) d. The following policies of the General Plan support the denial of the project: 1) Goal 4, Policy 4.12 of the Land Use Element states: Maintain and enhance the desirable rural qualities found in the certain existing neighborhoods which are rural in character, such as Placerita, Sand, and Hasley Canyons. (The addition of a retail commercial center is inconsistent with this policy.) 2) Goal 5, Policy 5.3 of. the Land Use Element states: New development must be sensitive to the significant ecological areas (SEA'S) through utilization of creative site planning techniques to avoid and minimize disturbance of these and other sensitive areas. (The project's proposed encroachment and altering of the Santa Clara .River is inconsistent with this policy.) 3) Goal 5, Policy 5.5 of the Land Use Element states: Follow the recommendations of the Santa Clara River ,study. (The project's proposed encroachment within the Santa Clara River is in direct conflict with the River study.) SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission hereby determines as follows: a. The project is not consistent with the City's General Plan. b. The project does notsatisfy the required findings for granting approval of a plot plan. Reso P91-62 Page 3 SECTION 4. The Planning Commission hereby denies Plot Plan 90-112 (39,500 square foot, two-story, 35' in height, retail commercial center). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3r day of Dmh r�, 1991. 1 jl Jerry D. Chezrington Chairman Planning Commission ATTEST: Lein M. Marrid erector of Community Development STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss CITY OFSANTACLARITA) I, Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the Ird day of naramhar 1991 by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Brathwaite, Doughman, Modugno, Woodrow, and Cherrington NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: GEA: 416 Reso P91-62 Page 4 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 1 4 T0: George -A. Caravalho, City Manager FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director. of Community Development DATE: March 17, 1992 SUBJECT: Chronology of Applicant Requested Delays and Continuances (Plot Plan 90-112 - Harvest Corporation) The staff has researched the files on the above and prepared the following for City Council information: 1. November 8, 1990 Applicant submits plot plan application. Applicant is verbally informed that an initial study is required two weeks after the submittal .date. Applicant indicates he will discuss this decision with the Director. Two notices from City sent with same requirements. 2. February 7, 1991 A letter from the applicant is submitted indicating that the owner has been out of state and unable to respond to staff's requirement (Initial Study). The applicant indicates he ' will respond but needs additional time. 3. -February 11, 1991 The Director approves an additional 30 day deadline period to submit the required information. This extends the deadline date to March 8, 1991. Applicant fee received in time. 4. March 26, 1991 Traffic study.is required. 5. April 24, 1991 Second notice, traffic study required. 6. May 6, 1991 The required traffic study is submitted. 7. May 21, 1991 The Planning Commission adopts the General Plan, recommending adoption to the Council. The land use designation established for the project site is Residential Low, after specific discussion in a study session about commercial uses south of the river. 8. June 6, 1991 The applicant is sent a letter from the Director denying the project. 9. June 19, 1991 The applicant submits a letter requesting an appeal of the Director's action to the Planning Commission. At staff level, appeal not scheduled at applicant's request. 10. August 26, 1991 The applicant submits a letter to the Director requesting that the appeal item scheduled for September 17, 1991 be moved to the final meeting in October. This move is granted by the Assistant City Manager. George A.-Caravalho March 17, 1992 Page 2 11. September 20, 1991 Applicant sends letter confirming the appeal hearing date as being November 5, 1991. This date is agreed upon by Director of Community Development, again after personal requests from applicant's agent. The applicant assures us that he will be ready by November 5, 1991. 12. October 28, 1992 The applicant submits a letter to. the Planning Commission requesting a continuance to the November 19, 1991 meeting. The applicant cites a scheduling conflict and a heavy Commission meeting as the reasons for the request. 13. November 5, 1991 The Commission grants the applicant's ,request, continuing the item to the November 19, 1991 meeting. This is the date the applicant specifically requests. 14. November 14, 1991 The applicant submits a letter requesting a continuance to the Commission meeting of December 17, 1991, citing schedule conflicts. Staff verbally advises applicant to be prepared for the hearing. 15. December 3, 1991 The applicant submits a letter to the Planning Commission requesting reconsideration of the item. The Commission reviews this letter and denies the reconsideration request. 16.. December 18, 1991 The applicant submits an appeal letter to the Clerk's office with the applicable fee. March 10, 1991 is the meeting date selected for the item. 17. February 13, 1992 Applicant requests March 10 date be moved to March 24. Assistant City Manager approves request. Follow-up letter indicates that the applicant will be "fully able to proceed" at the March 24, 1992 meeting. 18. February 17, 1992 Public notice is sent to the paper. The applicant is informed to change the sign on the property to reflect the March 24, 1992 Council meeting. 19. March 16, 1992 The applicant verbally indicates that he will most likely request a continuance due to new information related to flood control improvements. Community Development director advises him to be fully prepared for hearing. 20. November 19, 1991 The Commission hears and denies the item directing staff to bring a resolution of denial at the December 3, 1991 meeting. Applicant and architect were present at. Planning Commission this meeting and verbally requested that the item be continued, and refuse to • make presentation to planning commission after they note to hold hearing. GEA: 501 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 TO: Chairman Cherrington and Members of.the Planning Commission FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development 0 ° �n DATE: November 19, 1991 SUBJECT: Continued Item for Master Case 90-228, Plot Plan 90-112 An appeal of the Director's denial of a proposal to allow for a two-story, 35' high, 39,500 .square foot retail commercial center proposed to be located at the northeast corner of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. On November 5, 1991, this item was continued, at the request of the applicant, by the Planning Commission to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on November 19, 1991, and was announced as such. AGENDA 20, CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN 90-112 DATE: November 5, 1991 T0: Chairman Cherrington and Members of the Planning commission FROM: Lynn Harris, Direc or of Community Development PROJECT PLANNER: Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II APPLICANT: Harvest Corporation Money Purchase, Mr. Dorn Schmidt LOCATION: Fronting on the northeast comer of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road (Assessor Parcel Numbers 2840-008-029, 030). REQUEST: The applicant is appealing the Director's denial of a plot plan to allow for the construction of a 39,500 square foot, 2 -story retail commercial building (35 feet tall). BACKGROUND: On November 8,. 1990, the applicant filed a plot plan with the Community Development_ Department requesting approval for the construction of a 39,500 (2 -story, 35 feet in height) square foot retail commercial building at the property referenced above. The property (containing two lots) consists of two zones, C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) and A-1-10,000 (Light Agriculture - 10,000 square feet required area). The proposed building would be constructed on the southernmost lot which is zoned C-2, while the applicant would utilize approximately 100 feet -of the lot zoned A-1-10,000 for parking. Approximately 100 feet of the area zoned A-1-10,000 and a contiguous 15' portion of the C-2 zoned area are within the floodway limitsforthe Santa Clara River. The remainder of the site is within a flood hazard area. During the initial 30 day review period of the project, the applicant was informed that an initial environmental review would be conducted on the project. On March 6, 1991, the applicant submitted the initial environmental review application and fee. In connection with the deliberations on the General Plan, the Planning Commission considered the specific request for a commercial designation on this property. It was the determination of the Commission that there should be no commercial designations south of .the Santa Clara River along Sand Canyon Road. On May 21, 1991, the draft General Plan map and text was formally adopted by the Planning .Commission, with the land use designation generally corresponding to the site being Residential Low (RL). On June 6, 1991, a letter was forwarded to the applicant indicating the Director had denied the request to construct the commercial center. The reasons for denial included the project's inconsistency with the then draft General Plan and its incompatibility with the significant ecological area overlay established for the Santa Clara River. On June 20, 1991, staff received a letter from the applicant's architect appealing the Director's decision of Plot Plan 90-112. Staff has received additional correspondence from the applicant's agent requesting that the hearing .date be scheduled for November 5, 1991. The agent requested this date to allow sufficient time for the applicant to prepare written materials to distribute to area residents and to also schedule meetings between the applicant and area residents regarding the proposal. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposal is to allow for the development of an approximately 4.75 acre site with a two-story (35' high), 39,500 square foot retail commercial center. The proposed center would consist of 207 parking spaces with approximately 14 percent of the buildable site being landscaped. The site would be serviced by public sewage disposal. In addition, approximately two acres of the site would lie within the river bed (after proposed river improvements) and would not be developed. The project site is located both within the floodway and Flood Zone AO (3) (Flood Insurance rate map, produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency), which designates a flood hazard with an average depth of three feet in a capital storm. The building, as proposed, does not encroach within the floodway limits for the Santa Clara River. Approximately 115' of parking lot area does encroach into the floodway, lines as presently designated. The applicant proposes to alter the floodway through the raising of the building pad area, and the installation of levee improvements adjacent to the river. This would provide the project site with additional usable area, through the utilization of floodway land and the altering of the river. Approvals would have to be obtained from the City's Engineering Division and the Army Corps of Engineers. Proposed access to the project would be from three driveways, two located on Lost Canyon Road and the other on Sand Canyon Road. Approximately 2,900 square feet of the 39,500 square foot center would be utilized for restaurant uses. The project as proposed provides sufficient parking to accommodate these restaurant uses. A tot lot would also be implemented within the center. Contained within this tot lot would be amenities such as swings, jungle gym, and play modules in addition to park benches. Proposed hours of operation for the center would be from approximately 9:00 a.m, to 12 midnight. As a part of the project the applicant has expressed a desire to donate or dedicate the un -utilized two acre river area to the. City. In addition, the applicant is intending to form a "Sand Canyon Special Standards Entryway Beautification and Redevelopment Committee". This committee would form a mechanism for the revitalization of the entryway area to Sand Canyon. Upon the forming of the mechanism, the applicant intends to contribute a fair share into the funding mechanism for this beautification. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The City's General Plan designation for the project site is Residential Low (RL) (1.1 to 3.3 dwelling units per acre).' In addition, the site is within a Significant Ecological Area established for the Santa Clara River. As indicated before, the proposed parking lot does encroach within the Santa Clara River. Generally, a project could be found to be consistent with the above designation and overlay -area if the project were to be residential and not encroach within the floodway boundaries for the river. LAND USE/ZONING: The zoning for the project site is C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) and A-1-10,000 (Light Agriculture - 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. The project as proposed conforms to the zoning requirements of both zones. Parking as a.transitional use is allowed in the A-1-10,000 where it abuts a commercial zone. However, a parking buffer is limited to 100 feet from the boundary of the commercial *zone. The proposed project complies with this requirement. The following table sets forth information as it pertains to the project site and surrounding areas including General Plan categories, zoning and present land.uses. General Plan Zoning Land Use PROJECT Residential Low 6-2, A-1-10,000 Single Family Residential SURROUNDING AREA North Community Commercial C-3 Single Family Residential East Residential Low A-1-10,000 Single Family Residential, Nursery South Residential Low A-1-10,000 Single.Family Residential West Residential Low A-1-10,000 Vacant ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEV: As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to evaluate the impacts of the project. The environmental areas of concern for the project include: water, animal life, land use, and circulation. It was determined this proposal would have no adverse environmental impacts which could not be avoided through project re -design and mitigation measures. A proposed draft negative declaration has been prepared for the project. INTERDEPARTMENT/INTERAGENCY REVIEW: Comments and recommendations were solicited from departments and agencies which would be affected by the project. Comments received were considered by staff as part of the project review. ANALYSIS: The project site lies within an area designated Residential. Low (1.1 to 3.3 dwelling units per acre) and within a Significant Ecological Overlay established for the Santa Clara River. The project does not appear to be consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation of RL. The General Plan is not parcel specific.and the project site has agricultural as well as commercial zoning. The proposed project does not appear to be consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: 1) Goal 4, Policy 4.12 of the Land Use Element states: Maintain and enhance the desirable rural qualities found in the certain existing neighborhoods which are rural -in character, such as .Placerita, Sand, and Hasley Canyons. (Staff believes the intrusion of a retail commercial center within the Sand Canyon area would negatively impact adjacent rural residential areas.) 2) Goal 5, Policy 5.3 of the Land Use Element states: New development must be sensitive to the.significant ecological areas (SEAS) through utilization of creative site planning techniques to avoid and minimize disturbance of these and other sensitive areas. (Staff believes that the encroachment of the project within the Santa Clara River could be in direct conflict with this policy.) 3) Goal 5, Policy 5.5 of the Land Use Element states: Follow the recommendations of the Santa Clara River study. (The project's encroachment within the floodway could be in conflict with the River Plan.) 4) Goal 3, Policy 3.5 of the Open Space and Conservation Element states: Promote only compatible and, where appropriate, passive recreational uses in areas designated as Significant Ecological Areas (SEA)• consistent with the particular needs and characteristics of each SEA, as determined by field investigation. (The project's encroachment within the floodway and this action's effect upon the river area could be inconsistent and not compatible with this policy.) In addition, the Santa Clara River Plan indicates as an objective, under flood control, that the City prohibit human made structures within the floodway and adjacent riparian and wetland areas, unless it can be demonstrated to significantly benefit the public's health, safety, and welfare. Staff believes the construction of a parking lot is included within the intent of this objective. It is also staff's understanding that the river should remain as natural as possible. The project site is located within an area designated as. a Significant Ecological Overlay pursuant to the City's General Plan. The intent of this overlay is to designate areas of prime importance within the City for protection and preservation.: Development in these areas is severely limited. This proposal intends to encroach into the Santa Clara River and within this SEA. Staff believes the Santa Clara River is of considerable importance to the City and valley. The applicant, in accommodating the project, would raise the site above the level of floodwaters during a capital storm. This would be done through the import of 12,000 cubic yards of fill to the site. Levee improvements would have to be implemented at the terminus of the buildable area. The applicant has indicated to staff that they would use a material such as rip -rap in this levee. Staff would be unable to confirm this without the availability of final construction drawings, which would be completed upon approval of a project and subject to the review of the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Fish and Game, and the City's Engineering Division. The applicant has included trail easements on the site plan in locations satisfactory to the Parks and Recreation Department. The design as illustrated would require improvements beneath the bridge spanning across the Santa Clara River. These improvements would be required to accommodate a hard surfaced multi-purpose trail. The equestrian trail would lie within a portion of the river. The Parks and Recreation Department has commented on the dedication of a portion of the river stating that the Department would, as with all land offers to the City, evaluate its potential uses and the possible ways to accept the land, if appropriate. Goals and Policies within the plan identify the City's need to possibly acquire these river lands and retain them as open space. The Traffic Division has reviewed the site plan and' has identified a concern with the access driveway on Sand Canyon Road. This driveway, as illustrated on the site plan, lacks the appropriate on-site "stacking" distance clear of aisles and stalls. In addition, the project height is proposed to be 35' to accommodate two stories. The raising of the site and the building's height could possibly be out of scale with and intrude upon adjacent rural residential land uses. The floor area ratio of the proposed project would be approximately .13:1, though this F.A.R. is not applicable due to the residential land use designation. The applicant has recently received comments regarding a survey form mailed to all the property owners within the Sand Canyonarea. The applicant has also conducted meetings, available to all residents, relating to information on the proposal. As of the time this report was produced, the applicant had not yet submitted the results of this survey. The applicant has indicated to staff that these results will be available to the Commission on the hearing date at the latest. RECOMMENDATION Uphold the Director's denial of Plot Plan 90-112, and direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the Planning Commission's consideration at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Should the Commission wish 'to permit commercial use of the property the applicant should be directed to file for a General Plan Amendment. GEA:358 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 19, 1991 APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S ACTION ITEM 2: PLOT PLAN 90-112 (MASTER CASE 90-228) - Fronting on the northeast corner of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. Principal Planner Richard Henderson introduced the item, Appeal of Director's denial of a Plot Plan, to allow for the construction of a 39,500 square foot, two-story retail commercial center in an area of SandCanyon shown as residential in the newly adopted General Plan. He also stated that all notices have been provided as required by law. The applicant is the Harvest Corporation. Mr. Henderson stated that the applicant has requested a second continuance of this item. Director Harris advised the Commission that the applicant of record is Mr. Jeffrey J. Kipp on behalf of Dorn Schmidt. Mr. Kipp is listed as the project architect, his signature is on the application form, and Mr. Kipp is in the audience this evening. Chairman Cherrington added that the applicant has signed in to speak before the Commission. After much deliberation and discussion, the Commission unanimously decided to deny the request for continuance and proceed with the item. Assistant Planner Glenn Adamick gave the. staff report and slide presentation. Chairman Cherrington opened the public hearing at 9:05 p.m.. The following persons gave testimony. Mr. Allan Cameron, agent for the applicant, 27612 Ennismore Avenue, Santa Clarita, CA. Mr. Cameron spoke in favor of the project giving information relating to the reason the applicant was unable to attend the .hearing and, therefore, requesting a continuance. Mr. Jeff Kipp, architect, 116 Broadway, Glendale, CA. Hr. Kipp, speaking in favor of the project, requested that the Commission take public testimony and continue the item. Ms. Jami Kennedy, 18910 Galton Drive, Saugus, CA. Ms. Kennedy spoke in opposition to the project citing ,that the single-family residences adjacent to the proposed project would be adversely affected. She stated that previously a hay and feed store had been promised as a use for the property. Mr. Scott Gretencord, 28104 La Veda Avenue, Canyon Country, CA. Mr. Gretencord spoke in opposition to the project as he feels it is not consistent with the rural environment of the community. Ms. Charmaine Posten, 16442 Lost Canyon Road, Canyon Country, CA. Ms. Posten spoke in opposition to the project as a commercial development. Ms. Lorraine Bame, 16452 Lost Canyon Road, Canyon Country, CA. Ms. Bame spoke in opposition to the project due to the unknown financial impacts this project might have on her as an adjacent homeowner. Mr. Tom Maydeck, 16417 Lost Canyon Road, Canyon Country, CA. Mr. Maydeck reminded the Commission of the numerous petitions signed by those in opposition to the project. - 3 - Mr. Jack Ancona, 29552 Abelia, Canyon Country, CA. Mr. Ancona spoke in a neutral vein and made some comments relating to traffic. Assistant City Attorney Tim McOsker asked the Commission to please give some indication to the applicant, as a process issue, whether or not the item will be continued or decided tonight. If it is to be decided tonight, the applicant would have an opportunity during this rebuttal portion to actually raise substantive issues. Mr. Cameron added that they still are not at liberty to discuss the project. Director Harris also stated that the item has been continued by staff several times previously by request of the applicant and in efforts to accommodate him. Assistant City Attorney Tim McOsker outlined options the Commission can consider in making a determination this evening. Following a discussion, the Commission decided to act on the item this evening. Director Harris stated that staff received two letters in opposition to the project from: 1) Robert R. Chaldu, 16428 Lost Canyon Road, Canyon Country, listing five reasons for denial of the project; and 2) A letter from the Law Offices of Early, Maslick E Price, assigned by Lawrence A. Oelze, Cachuma Lane, Santa Clarita, listing .an additional nine reasons for recommending denial of the project. The letters were entered into the public record. Chairman Cherrington closed the public hearing at 9:39 p.m.. Commissioner Modugno made a motion to uphold the Director's denial and direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the Planning Commission's . consideration at the next regularly scheduled meeting, Commissioner Woodrow seconded the motion, and the motion was passed. by a .vote of 3-2 with Commissioners Srathwaite-and Doughman casting the dissenting votes. - 4 - ti CITY OF SANTA CLARIT�?x,: N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I N`y�^ I � [X] Proposed [ ] Final PERMIT/PROJECT.: Plot Plan 90-112 APPLICANT: Harvest Corporation MASTER CASE N0: 90-228 LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Fronting on the northeast corner of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road and Lost Canyon Road (Assessor Parcel Numbers 2840-008-029, 030). DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: A plot plan to allow for the construction of an approximately 39,500 square foot (two stories) retail commercial center on two parcels consisting of approximately 4.75 acres. The center consists of 207 parking spaces with 14 percent of the site being landscaped or open space. A portion of the project's parking encroaches within the Santa Clara River. 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 [ J City Council [ ] Planning Commission [X) Director of Community Development finds that the project as proposed or revised will have .no significant effect upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA. Mitigation measures for this project [ ] are not required. [X] are attached. [ ] are not attached. LYNN M. HARRIS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Prepared by: 5� Glenn Adamick. Assistant Planner II (Si nature) (Name/Title) Approved by: 4� Kevin Michel, Associate Planner (Signature) (Name/Title) Public Review Period From Gr -12-11 To _1-7_-111 Public Notice Given On 6—M -g1 By: [X] Legal advertisement. [.] Posting of properties. [,] Written notice. CERTIFICATION DATE: 761 VICINITY MAP MC 90-228 Project Proximity Map SHERMAN L. STACEY Attorney at Law 1632 Fifth Street, #210 Santa Monica, California 90401 c �' TEL (310) 394-1163 FAX (310) 394-7841 LnN f December 18,1991 Q1 CM) -o r m — n City Council City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard,.#300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Appeal from Planning Commission Decision of December 3, 1991; Plot Plan No. 91-112 Dear Councilpersons: On behalf of the Harvest Corporation, the applicant in connection with a project review for development of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade at Sand Canyon Road and Lost Canyon Road, I hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita upholding the denial of the project by the Director. The Planning Commission decision took place on December 3, 1991, and written notice of the decision was sent on December 6, 1991. The reasons for the appeal are set forth below. In addition, I incorporate those reasons set forth in Alan Cameron's letter dated December 3, 1991, a copy of which is.attached hereto. 1. The Planning Commission denied a request -to continue the hearing made on November 19, 1991. As a result, the Planning Commission proceeded with a public -hearing and decision in the absence of the applicant and various witnesses which the applicant intended -to present to the Commission at the requested continued hearing date of December 17, 1991. A request to reconsider its determination on the project was made on December 3, 1991, and the Planning Commission denied that request. The hearing before the Planning Commission was not a fair hearing.as anticipated by the Code. There was no prejudice to the City if the City had granted the Applicant's request. There was severe. prejudice.to the Applicant from the denial of the request. City Council City of Santa Clarita December 18, 1991 Page 2 Among the reasons for the request for continuance was that Dorn Schmidt, the President of the Harvest Corporation, the developer, was in Utah and his attorney, Sherman L. Stacey, was also engaged in previously scheduled hearings before the Santa Monica City Council. The reasons why the appeal should be granted are to provide a fair hearing at which the witnesses which are outlined in Alan Cameron's letter to the Planning Commission of .December 3, 1991, can appear and testify. 2. The determination of the Planning Director should be overturned. The Planning Director denied plot plan approval of this project although it was appropriate for the C-2 Zone in which this property is located. When filed, there was no general plan adopted for the area. When the general plan was adopted, there were continuing representations by the City staff that the plan would not be parcel specific and that all policies of the plan would be taken into account in determining appropriate uses of property. Denial of the plot plan approval was based upon a" claim of inconsistency of the project with the plan which claims to require residential -uses only on this property although many other provisions of the general plan would require no residential uses and find commercial uses appropriate. Under the general plan, noise, traffic patterns, availability of services and other issues are important to the determination of appropriate.land use decisions. Relevant issues, among others, include the fact that the subject property is at the intersection of two planned major highways, Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. -See Pages C-39, C-40. Low density residential use at such an intersection is not as desirable as commercial in such locations. Indeed, residential units should not'take direct access from such street. Page C-46. This policy includes Limited Secondary Highways which include Lost Canyon Road east of Sand Canyon Road. Residential zoning and use would be inconsistent with these policies where the existing commercial zoning is consistent. The Noise Element maps identify this property as within zones in which residential use is not desirable. The existing commercial zoning is more compatible with the Noise Element. These are but two examples of general plan consistency for the City Council City of Santa Clarita December 18, 1991 Page 3 project and inconsistency for the alternative uses for which the project was denied. In addition, there are many policies which support the creation of neighborhood commercial centers of the type and design proposed by the Applicant. On page L-48, H-58 and H-69 there are policies which support locating neighborhood commercial centers near housing. However, the City does not want to proliferate strip centers. Therefore, design requirements on page C-12, Policy 1.3, Policy 1.4, Policy 2.5, Policy 2.8, Policy 3.1, Policy 3.3, Policy 3.5, Policy 3.6 and Policy 3.7 all call for -careful regulation of design and uses to prevent undesirable development. The Applicant is pleased to be tested by these standards because he has designed a project which meets those standards. However, he cannot even be heard as to his consistency with the General Plan because the supposedly "not parcel specific" land use map is being applied to him in a parcel specific manner. There are numerous other policies and statements in the General Plan with which the project is consistent. The Applicant believes that a thorough examination of such policies will support a conclusion that the project is consistent with the General Plan. 3. The project has substantial community support. At the Planning Commission there seemed to be an assumption that the residents of Sand Canyon were inextricably opposed to the development of the project. This is simply not the case. Numerous homeowners associations and individuals have communicated their support of the project to the City. These persons would have been present on November 19, 1991 except that the applicant, expecting that the matter would be continued, indicated that they should not come. The Planning Commission was unable to hear from the residents. The residents who desire that this project go forward..are entitled to be heard. There seems to be an issue as to whether or not the City Council can entertain an appeal. The.City Council has the inherent power to act on an appeal from one of its boards or commissions. Alan Cameron has had conversations with Ken Pulskamp who indicates that an appeal can be made. Determining the content of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code is a difficult task. Copies of the code have only now become available even at City Hall The City had adopted the County Code on procedures. City Council City of Santa Clarita December 18, 1991 Page 4 Code §22.20.210 provides that "Any interested person dissatisfied with'the action of the [planning] commission may file an appeal from such action." A check in the amount of $465.00.in payment of the appeal filing fee is enclosed. The City Council should entertain and grant.this appeal. It should hold the appropriate public hearing, weigh the evidence and ultimately approve the project. This project is'an asset to the City. It has been designed in the manner that the City wants a developer to design and it is located in a location which is appropriate. very C'truly yours, 1' SHERMAN L. STACEY SLS/sh Enclosure cc: Mr. Dorn L. Schmidt Mr. Alan Cameron City of Santa Clarita Carl Boyer, 3rd Mayor JIII Klapc Mayor Pro -Tem Jo Anne Darcy Councilmember 23920 Valencia Blvd. Phone Suite 300 (805) 259.2489 City of Santa Clarita Fax California 91355 (805) 259-8125 October 8, 1991 Mr. Dorn L. Schmidt, President Harvest Corporation P.O. Box 4265 Malibu, California 90265 Subject: Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade - Plot Plan 90-112 Northeast Corner of Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Road Dear Mr. Schmidt: The Community Development Department has received an information packet for residents regarding the Sand Canyon Gateway project proposed to be located at the northeast Corner of Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Road. We understand the need to provide residents with positive information regarding the proposed project. In scanning .the material, we noticed one significant area that is inaccurate. Jan Heidt On page thirteen of the Facts, Questions and Answers pamphlet, Councilmember it is stated that the project in its entirety is in complete conformance with the new City of Santa Clarita General Plan. Howard "Buck" McKeon This statement is simply -incorrect and is highly misleading to Councilmember residents reading the information about your project. The City's new General Plan Map clearly identifies the land use for the project site as RL, Residential Low. The General Plan Map indicates generalized land useand is not intended to be parcel specific, however, the City Council indicated at public hearings for the General Plan that this particular property was to be designated as residential. The information that is being sent to residents regarding the proposed project, indicates that the General Plan Land Use for the site is commercial. Commercial designation for the site is not in compliance with the General Plan Map. We appreciate your concern to inform residents of the positive aspects of your proposed project.. However, they should be given accurate information on land use. The fact that the General Plan Map Land Use designation for the property is residential and not commercial, is very important. We would appreciate efforts on your part to provide the correct land use information for your proposed project in -the future. We thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, --4— ' i Lyr M. Harris Deputy City Manager/Community Development BCA:175 ��' City of Santa Clarita 23920 Vatencia Blvd. Suite 300 City of Santa Clarita California 91355 June 6, 1991 Phone (805) 259-2489 Fax (805( 2598125 Mr. Dorn Schmidt Harvest Corporation Money Purchase Pension Plan P.O. Box 4265 Malibu, California 90265 RE: Master Case 90-228 Plot Plan 90-112 Location: Northeast corner of Sand Canyon Road and Lost Canyon Road (Assessor Parcel Numbers 2840-008-029, 030) Dear Mr. Schmidt: Your plot plan request for a 39,500 square foot, two story (35' high), commercial center located 'at the above referenced location has been denied. The project is not consistent with the City's draft General Plan Designation of RL (Residential Low - 1.1 to 3.3 dwelling units per acre) nor is it compatible with the significant ecological area overlay established for the Santa Clara River. Pursuant to the conditions established by the State Office of Planning and Research, in conjunction with the granting of a time extension for the City's General Plan, the City may not approve a project that is inconsistent with the draft General Plan after adoption by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission formally adopted the draft General Plan on May 21, 1991. If you wish to appeal this decision to the Planning Commission, please contact the Community, Development Department in writing within fifteen (15) days from the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Glenn Adamick, the case planner, at (805) 255-4330. Sincerely, LYNN, M. HARRIS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LMH:GEA:279 cc: Mr. Jeff Kipp Mr. Allan Cameron uV o�ye�o°�t►� C,O of C, Mr. Jerry Cherrington Santa Clarita Planning Commission 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 0302 Santa Clarita, CA Dear Mr. Cherrington: Thomas J. Maydeck Kim M. Maydeck 16417 Lost Cyn. Rd. Canyon Country, CA October 28, 1991 We do not approve of the proposed "Sand Canyon Promenade" shopping center at the northeast corner of Sand Canyon Road and Lost Canyon Road. To allow such a development in our neighborhood would be contrary to the quiet rural atmosphere that has made the Sand Canyon area one of the most desirable areas to live in. This development would cause excessive traffic and noise, decrease property values along Lost Canyon Road and the surrounding area, threaten our children's safety as they walk to nearby schools and expose the nearby homes and families to potential security risks. This is not in the best interest of the Sand Canyon community. What we would like, however, is for the Commission to conduct a study to consider re -zoning the property site as either residential or agricultural. The Sand Canyon Community, which includes Lost Canyon Road, is residential in nature and a commercial development here would certainly be "out -of - character". Please keep commercial development north of the Santa -Clara River. Sincere y yo rs, Thomas ."Maydeck )-tl( A///p(,W Kim M. Maydeck 3/ Dennis W. Posten Charmaine R. Posten 16442 Lost Canyon Rd. Canyon Country, Ca. Members of the Planning Commission October 21. 1991 Santa Clarita, California Dear members: Regarding the proposed Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade Community Shopping Center at the northeast corner of Lost Canyon and Sand Canyon Roads We object to this proposed Center because it is contrary to the Master Plan for this area. Sand Canyon, south of the river bed, should remain residential and suitable for equestrian activities. We request a study for down zoning this property to conform to the rest of Lost Canyon Road and the general Sand Canyon area. Please deny this proposed shopping center. �Q Thank you, &,,.,&.A Dennis W. Posten Charmaine R: Posten Ovi 3;� P E T I T I O N UCi 2 9 19911 OOMMUNITYV "" CWTS We the undersigned homeowners living in the Sand Canyoft area hereby Petition against the development of Harvest Corporation's proposed "Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade Community Shopping Center" to be built at the Northeast corner -of Lost Canyon Road & Sand Canyon Road, in the.city of. Santa Clarita. we feel this development would not only upset the aesthetic quality of the area, but would also create unwanted traffic and noise. ADDRESS o --------------------- --- a� i ca _hrh y_2635_r P P h, T I T I 0 N We the undersigned homeowners living in the Sand Canyon area, hereby petition against the development of Harvest Corporation's proposed "Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade Community Shopping Center" to.be built at the Northeast corner of Lost Canyon Road 6 Sand Canyon Road, in the city of Santa Clarita. We feel this development would not only upset the aesthetic quality of the area, but would also create unwanted traffic and noise. NAME WdM ADDRESS --------- �L—------- �.S �J� 6 w ,ti r�-rLng � -�ez, v � �oy_�7.V- r,_n----- V 310) ----------------- rVhr--- VA /!� �%✓ vS� _lam^ yc�-� �d. � .�� .. �,-:_._u op---- ---- -- - - ------------------ -- -�°-- C� --- g� - -----JeA— c —i ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PETITION UCT2919911 �� c um �' we the undersigned homeowners living in the Sand Cany"on area, hereby petition against the development of Harvest Corporation's proposed "Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade Community Shopping Center" to be builtatthe Northeast corner of Lost Canyon Road s Sand Canyon Road, in the city of Santa Clari.ta. We feel this development would not only upset the aesthetic quality of the area, but would also create unwanted traffic and noise. NAME ADDRESS A2 �--I- �` �v -- n t `;, 1�Mt: L-3 1.P1 c -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------- ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- --------- ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ------------ -------------------------------- ----------------- -- -=----------------------------------------------- --------------------=----- ------------------------------------------------- ----------- -------------------------- ------------------ ---------------------------- -------------------------- - -- --------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------3-7 1 O N OC1 2 91991, i M Q UO tAAC�IiA We the undersigned homeowners living in the Sand Canyon area, hereby petition against the development of Harvest.Corporationls proposed "Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade Community Shopping Center" to be built at the - Northeast corner of Lost Canyon Road 6 Sand Canyon Road, in the city of Santa Clarita. We feel this development would not only upset the aesthetic i quality of the area, but would also create unwanted traffic and noise. i NAME ADDRESS -- TJ--�-cr------ J T- --------------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------------------- 1 -------------------------- ----------------------------=-------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ------------- ------------ -------------------------- --------------------------- ---------- ------------ -------------------- ------- ------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------------- -------------------- j -------------------------- -------- ----------------- ------------------------ -------------------------- ----- --------------------- ------------- --------- --------------------- - ------------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------- L — � a L 1 V lY We the undersigned homeowners living in the Sand Canyon area, hereby petition against the development of Harvest Corporation's proposed "Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade Community Shopping Center" to be built at the Northeast corner of Lost Canyon Road s Sand Canyon Road, in the city of Santa Clarita. We feel this development would not only .upset the aesthetic quality of the area, but would also create unwanted traffic and noise. NAME ADDRESS/ -r ---1--'-�-------------------2--------q -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- -----------=------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- . PETITION �+ 9 1991 ,�S 2 We the undersigned homeowners living in the Sand CanyoEbM 0A0Vx% Vby of petition against the development of Harvest Corporation's proposed "Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade Community Shopping Center" to be built at the Northeast corner -of Lost Canyon Road a Sand Canyon Road, in the city of Santa Clarita. We feel.this development would not only upset the aesthetic quality of the area, but would also create ur:wanted traffic and noise. NAME ADDRESS J ___ --- a-7I>%S %�c- 6Zp __________ '_______ f T______ ___ 3 03 '�/iJ.0 ( 4 4j __ NCAA_________ _ . _____-____-_______________ __________________ I__________________________ ___----------------- -------------------------- ----------------------------- ___________________________________________________________________________ _--- _____________________________________________ ---------------------------- --------------------- -------------------------- ___________________________________________________________________________ L ___..______________________--- _______..___________________r___----------- --------------------------- ____ ______-__-____________________ ______-------- ------------- _____________________ OCT 2 9 19911 rpy6NNMY oma' LOPMEN We the undersigned homeowners living. in the Sand'694ijiMNEa, hereby petition against the development of Harvest Corporation's proposed "Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade Community Shopping Center" to be built at the Northeast corner of Lost Canyon Road & Sand Canyon Road, in the city of Santa Clarita. We feel this development would not only upset the aesthetic quality of the areapbut would also create unwanted traffic and noise. NAMP ADDRESS - (6 `(/ DP A1C 1 -- --==-- --- 1�------��rf---------6��---- - ---- ------------------ ►rt�d `��.�-rip--- !l/_G�_1�sf___�� x�%��,a��l.�tv�lr�� _ L,1.f.1P_r.h__ �1_S=i! �t�_t_c nA_.43�__ --- ---------- ------�1---------- �Lp - V&7 <<Z--v�L-1V,f11}9_G __-eV 3_E- L----- r' -=---- --L=------1---=-----=-----== ---------- ---------- ------ ---- ------------------ ----- -------- ---- -- a � _T -_ �-_ Lez&l__ _ r_�f� i 33 P E T I T I O N OCT 2 9 19911 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENL We the undersigned homeowners living in the Sand Canycf"af a, hereby petition against the development of Harvest Corporation's proposed "Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade Community Shopping Center" to be built at the Northeast corner of Lost Canyon Road s Sand Canyon Road,.in the city of Santa Clarita. We feel this development would not only upset the aesthetic quality of the. area, but would also create unwanted traffic and noise. NAME ADDRESS ----------'----- -------- ------------------ t4ril---------`----------------bI�-7(4:X[�L : - �i- -------------- - ---------------------------------- --------------- 2o,yo2---- --- ------ --- -- ----------------------------------- -------------- --------------------------------- __ u )Vq.N K.— x ZZIAje-5 - ------------------- �6�J_'y __ �ti, ___ N o C _ 4135/ ----------- dZU2Z-------�' Y�1 --------�siJ-------- Jj February 11, 1991 fid' & Community Development Department �r°e-X City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. 6� Santa Clarita, California 91355 v° o� ATTENTION: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dear City Officials: On Sunday, February 10, 19911 I met with Maurice Ungar and Allan. Cameron regarding the Plot Plan Approval of the proposed high end Community Retail Shopping Center located at the corner of Lost Canyon Road -and. Sand Canyon Road. The project is owned by. Mr. Dorn Schmidt. The meeting took place at my home. Oak Springs Canyon area Homeowners have long expressed a desire for a high-quality local restaurant, a luxurious health spa and work-out center and other community services sadly lacking In the Immediate area of Sand Canyon. This project appears to fulfill these needs. The above-mentioned services would definitely have to be located in a retail complex completely compatible with the overall character of -our community. The project appears to have been very carefully designed . to be in harmony with the aesthetic concerns of the majority of our residents. Upon careful examination of .the proposed center, I proposed the following improvements: 1. Additional landscaping should be installed to further enhance the appearance of the project as viewed from the direction of the river. 2. Access to the river as an equestrian trail should be provided as part of the project. 3. A decorative wall along the lines of river rock should be placed around the parking.lot in addition to the proposed landscaping to further beautify the center. /0O Page 2 4. All project lighting should Include decorative light standards and be of current downward - directed low -intensity technology. 5. Decorative lighting should be Included in the project landscaping. G. The tenant mix should be carefully designed to minimize any potential security problems, and a security service should be considered, If some of the tenants, such as a high end restaurant, would warrant It. Mr. Cameron indicated that many of these suggestions were already Incorporated In the project, and that Mr. Schmidt would certainly agree to include the rest of them. On the basis of my suggestions being Included In the final design of the project, I support the addition of this much needed, beautifully designed retail community service center to our community. The project will go a long way towards Improving the beauty, aesthetic quality and convenience of living In the Oaks Springs Canyon area of Sand Canyon. Sincerely, Q John Higby, Oak Springs Canyon Homeowner JASON L. KATZ EDWARD A. MORRIS STEPHEN S. PRICE STANFORD A. ORFILA, JR. ANDREW M. P. RUDNICKI THOMAS M. PHILLIPS MAURICE N. BLAKE GEROLD von PAHLEN-FEDOROFF RAJ C. PATRAO DEBORAH A. CORRELL EDWARD M. COFFMAN LAWRENCE A. OELZE JACK I. ADLER MEREDITH J. MANKER HERBERT R. WELLS CHRISTOPHER ). OSBORN SUZANNE M. LEFEVRE JOHN R. O'ROURKE LAW OFFICES OF TRACY C. Mc DONALD MARY T. DYBENS EARLY MASLACH & PRICE LARRY B. CARR STEVEN E. GARFINKLE 4700 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD • LOS ANGELES,. CALIFORNIA 90010 BENJAMIN F. COATS HARRY N. KANE TELEPHONE (213) 934-0916 ELLEN M. SHAVELSON MARK R. SNYDER FAX (213) 931.4844 VINCENT R CICONE CRAIG E. MUNSON - ANDREW M. WEITZ RALPH A. VAN DUECK SHELDON G. SHUFF Direct Line: (213) 932-3695 BARRY M. RANDALL G. SALTER STEVE S. CHRISTENSEN PHILIP G. DORN ROBERT E. EARLY (1917-1976) GEORGE MASLACH (1915-1979) November 13, 1991 City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission City Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Attn: Jerry Chettington RECEIVED sTWf 141991 0b)y gIIINITY DEVELOPMENT I RE: Plot Plan 90-112 Applicant - Harvest Corporation, Mr. Dorn Schmidt Project Location - Fronting on the northeast corner of Los Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road (Api12840-008-029,030). Dear Mr. Chettington: I request that the appeal of the Directors denial of a plot plan to allow for the construction of a 39,500 square foot, two story retail commercial center (35 feet tall) be upheld. I am opposed to the proposed construction for the following reasons: 1. There is no need for another mini- (strip) mall, particularly at the proposed location. 2. There will be increased traffic congestion at an already uncontrolled and dangerous intersection, thereby potentially increasing the liability of the City of Santa Clarita. 3. The new regional mall will adequately serve the needs of the City of Santa Clarita. 4. The construction of a mini (strip) mall will not discourage residents from shopping in the larger malls within the San Fernando Valley. S. Air and traffic pollution will be increased at an already bottlenecked location. 5. Local employment opportunities will. not be significantly impacted. 6. The.construction of a 35 foot high building will not enhance the aesthetic character of the entry way to Sand Canyon. 7. The potential for increased criminal activity also. increases the cost to the City of Santa Clarita by way of additional law enforcement personnel. 8. The artificial diversion of water at this location will increase the likelihood of additional flooding and potential liabilities on the part of City of Santa Clarita. 9. Deeding the riverbed back to the Santa Clarita will only serve to relieve the developer of tax responsibilities and will increase the potential liabilities of the City of Santa Clarita. I would suggest that the sole motive of the developer is for personal financial gain and that the long range consequence to the residents of the City of Santa Clarita will be nothing but headaches as set forth above. Your Very Tr�tt�{{��]]]]jjjj��yy ,,'LAWRENCE A. rOELZE/ 15830 Cachuma Lane Santa Clarita, Ca 91351 October 25, 1991 Mr. Jerry Chettington R E C E IV E D 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 302 `pCj-31 1991 Santa Clarita, Ca 91355 COCITI ()SFS ANNTAC ARM AT I am writing in regards to.the proposed Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade.. The Harvest Corp. has released a costly brochure indicating how the Sand Canyon area needs a neighborhood shopping mail 2/10 of a mile from the Von's Shopping Center at Sand Canyon and Soledad Canyon. The fact of the matter is: 1) Sand Canyon does not need a new mini mall, nor does Santa Clarita Valley with the larger Regional Mall being erected. 2) Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads need no more congestion. Our children already have enough peril going to school (crossing Sand Canyon). Plus the records will show the numerous traffic accidents at this intersection in the past 10 yrs. 3) Sewage at this location is at capacity ( Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon ), I am told, by building and safety. This is the reason I cannot connect to it. 4) We are in the midst of a drought. Where is this extra water coming from? 5) Sand- Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads flood during every heavy rain and I believe this project will only slow down our already poor drainage of rain water. Most of all Lost Canyon Road is a family neighborhood, a __dead _end road that basically only residdnts and their guests use. Our kids can still ride.horses, bicycles and play on the street. The commission has previously; ruled against the "Promenade" and I strongly urge you to do so again. Thank you, Robert R. Chaldu 16428 Ldst Canyon Road Canyon.Country, Ca 91351 SHERMAN L. STACEY Attorney at Law 1632 Fifth Street, #210 Santa Monica, California 90401 0 S' TEL (310) 394-1163 FAX (310) 394-7841 n CD� y December 18,. 1991 n 'm — a City Council City of Santa Clarita 23920 .Valencia Boulevard, #300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Appeal from Planning Commission Decision of December 3, 1991; Plot Plan No. 91-112 Dear Councilpersons: On behalf of the Harvest Corporation,.the applicant in , connection with a project review for development of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade at Sand Canyon Road and Lost Canyon Road, I hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita upholding the denial of the project by the Director. The Planning Commission decision took place on December 3, 1991, and written notice of the decision was sent on December 6, 1991. The reasons for the appeal are set forth below. In addition,.2 incorporate those reasons set forth in Alan Cameron's letter dated December 3, 1991, a copy of which is attached hereto. 1. The Planning Commission denied a request to continue the hearing made on November 19, 1991. As a result, the Planning Commission proceeded with a public hearing and decision in the absence.of the applicant and various witnesses which the applicant intended to present to the Commission at the requested continued hearing date of December 17, 1991. A request to reconsider its determination on the project was made on December 3, 1991, and the Planning Commission denied that request. The hearing before the Planning Commission was not a fair hearing as anticipated by the Code. There was no prejudice to the City if the City had granted the Applicant's request. There was severe prejudice to the Applicant from the denial of the request. City Council City of Santa Clarita December 18, 1991 Page 2 Among the reasons for the request for continuance was that Dorn Schmidt, the President of the Harvest Corporation, the developer, was in Utah and his attorney, Sherman L. Stacey, was also engaged in previously scheduled hearings before the Santa Monica City Council. The reasons why the appeal should be granted are to provide a fair hearing at which the witnesses which are outlined in Alan Cameron's letter to the Planning Commission of December 3, 1991, can appear and testify. 2. The determination of the Planning Director should be overturned. The Planning Director denied plot plan approval of this project although it was appropriate for the C-2 Zone in which this property is located. When filed, there was no general plan adopted for the area. When the general plan was adopted, there were continuing representations by.the City staff that the plan would not be parcel specific and that all policies of the plan would be taken into account in determining appropriate uses of property. Denial of the plot plan approval was based upon a claim of inconsistency of the project with the plan which claims to require residential uses.only on this property although many other provisions of the general plan would require no residential uses and find commercial uses appropriate. Under the general plan, noise, traffic patterns, availability of services and other issues are important to the determination of appropriate land use decisions. Relevant issues, among others, include the fact that the subject property is at the intersection of two planned major highways, Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. See Pages C-39, C-40. Low density residential use at such an intersection is not as desirable as commercial in such locations. Indeed, residential units should not take direct access from such street. Page C-46. This policy includes Limited Secondary Highways which include Lost Canyon Road east of Sand Canyon Road. Residential zoning and use would be inconsistent with these policies where the existing commercial zoning is consistent. The Noise Element maps identify this property as within zones in which residential use is not desirable. The existing commercial zoning is more compatible with the Noise Element. These are but two examples.of,general plan consistency for the City Council City of Santa Clarita December 18, 1991 Page 3 project and inconsistency for the alternative uses for which the project was denied. In addition, there are many policies which support the creation of neighborhood commercial centers of the type and design proposed by the Applicant. On page L-48, H-58 and H-69 there.are policies which support locating neighborhood commercial centers near housing. However, the City does not want to 'proliferate strip centers. Therefore, design requirements on page C-12, Policy 1.3, Policy 1.4, Policy 2.5, Policy 2.8, Policy 3.1, Policy 3.3, Policy 3.5, Policy 3.6 and Policy 3.7 all call for careful regulation of design and uses to prevent undesirable development. The Applicant is pleased to be tested by these standards because he has designed a project which meets those standards. However, he cannot even be heard as to his consistency with the General Plan because the supposedly "not parcel specific" land use map is being applied to..him in a parcel specific manner. There are numerous other policies and statements in the General Plan with which the project is consistent. The Applicant believes that a thorough examination of such policies will support a conclusion that the project is consistent with the General Plan. 3. The project has substantial community support. At the Planning Commission there seemed to be an assumption that the residents of Sand Canyon were inextricably opposed to the development of the project. This is simply not the case. Numerous homeowners associations and individuals have communicated their support of the project to the City. These persons would have been present on November 19, 1991 except that the applicant, expecting that the matter would be continued, indicated that they should not come. The Planning Commission was unable to hear from the residents. The residents who desire that this project go forward are entitled to be heard. There seems to be an issue as to whether or not the City Council can entertain an appeal. The City Council has the inherent power to act on an appeal from one of its boards or commissions. Alan Cameron -has had conversations with Ken Pulskamp who indicates that an appeal can be made. Determining the content of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code is a difficult task. Copies of the code have only now become available even at City Hall. The City had adopted the County Code on procedures. City Council City of Santa Clarita December 18, 1991 Page 4 Code §22.20.210 provides that "Any interested person dissatisfied with the action of the [planning] commission may file an appeal from such action." A check in the amount of $465.00 in payment of the appeal filing fee is enclosed. The City Council should entertain and grant this appeal. It should hold the appropriate public -hearing, weigh the evidence and ultimately approve the project. This project is an asset to the City. It has been.designed in the manner that the City wants a developer to design and it is located in a location which -is appropriate. Ve ruly yours, SHERMAN L..ISTACEY SLS/sh Enclosure cc: Mr. Dorn L. Schmidt Mr. Alan Cameron SAND CANYON GATEWAY PROMENADE A Harvest Corporation Project December 3, 1991 Jerry Cherrington Chairman, Planning Commission City of Santa Ciarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Chairman Cherrington: This letter.serves as the formal request by the Harvest Corporation that a member of the prevailing 3-2 majority put forth a motion for reconsideration on the vote taken regarding our Plot Plan Appeal. The reasons in support for our request are as follows: . 1. No prejudice or harm to the City of Santa Clarita would have occurred had our continuance request been granted. Considerable harm to the interests of the Harvest Corporation and the citizens interested in our project will occur if our case is not reconsidered. 2. No request for a continuance has ever been denied in the history of the City of Santa Clarita, by either the Planning Commission or the City Council. The holding of a hearing in the absence of the applicant or any presentation of the facts of the case establishes an unworthy precedent for the City. 3. The City of Santa Clarita was itself not "prepared for a full and fair hearing of all the issues on November 19th: The hearing was held despite this lack of preparation. Examples of this significant flaw are: Page 2 a) The proposed project denial is based upon a question of General Plan consistency. The best authorities on the General Plan, principal planner Chris Trinkley, General Plan consultant Barry Hogan, or Planner David Hogan were all absent from the hearing. The most accurate discussion about the contention that we are in compliance with the General Plan could therefore not have taken place. b) Part of the proposed reason for our denial has to do with our relationship to the Santa. Clara River, The City's best experts on the river, City Engineer Dick Kopecky, or Parks. and Recreation, Director Jeff Kolin were not present for our hearing. Therefore, no meaningful discussion or accurate determination of our relationship to the river could have occurred. c) This City's traffic engineers, Michael Murphy and Ed Cline were also not present, preventing any meaningful discussion of our traffic situation. 4. The decision was reached without benefit of a full airing of the following critical facts and exhibits: a) A booklet entitled 'The Santa Clarita City General Plan And The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade, A Study In Consistency'. This document proves the consistency of the project with the City's General Plan. b) The results of a direct mail opinion survey of all 1,662 adults in Sand Canyon, demonstrating overwhelming support for the proposed project. C) Photographs of the land uses which surround the project; showing the complete compatibility of the project with it's surroundings. d) Artists renderings showing the actual project superimposed on a photo- graph of the site, showing it's enhancement of the Sand Canyon char- acter. e) Photographs of other unique shopping centers located in communities comparable. to Sand Canyon. . 5. The decision on the project was also flawed, because the following critical participants were not present: a) The president of the Harvest Corporation, Dr. Dorn Schmidt. b) The vice-president of the Harvest Corporation, Sherman Stacey. c) The project's civil engineers, J & K Engineering. d) The project's traffic engineer, The Barton, Aschmann Company. e) Robert Carley, the supervising project architect. 6. In addition, the residents of The City were prevented from participating in this decision, since they. were informed by the .Harvest Corporation that our item would be continued. Missing from the hearing for this reason were the following: a) The officers and members of the Sand Canyon Homeowner's Association. b) The officers and members of the Crystal Springs Homeowner's Association. C) The officers and members of the Oak Springs Canyon Home- owner's Association. Page 3 d) The officers and members of the Comet Way Homeowner's Assoc- iation. e) In addition, many members of the Sand Canyon Community who are not members of these homeowner's associations intended to participate, but were not present, because of the continuance request. In addition, there were numerous errors of fact and procedure. The colored slide renderings shown were not of the Harvest Corporation project A critical letter from the Deputy City Manager in charge of Parks and Recreation regarding our river bed property donation was missing from the agenda packet No discussion of the reasons for the Harvest Corporations continuance request took place with the applicant's representatives, before the hearing itself was. opened. The signed notification of the hearing on the property did not indicate that there was to be any hearing on November 19th. Part of the reason for suggesting that the Harvest Corporation project be denied is based upon the General Plan. The final version of the General Plan was not made available until the middle of October, 1991, subsequent to the June adoption. For this reason there was no document available upon which to base our project denial, therefore rendering such a denial factually impossible. For these and additional reasons, we respectfully request that a motion for reconsideration be introduced and adopted, and that a full and fair, public hearing be scheduled on all the merits and facts of this case at the earliest opportunity. Sincerely, Allan Cameron Project Consultant AC/pe cc: George Caravalho, City Manager Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager Lynn Harris, Deputy City Manager, Community Development Dept. Tim MCOsker, Assistant City Attorney Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff TOTAL P.03 ------------------------------•---•-----------------------•--------•-------------------------------------- 1 1I . .. 1. x _• - I -I _ /. %, � r I • i 1 1I . .. 1. x _• - I -I _ /. %, � r I-. ... :. � . VL.V L I --LV .0 1 --1 •Ir11 1 Y LV , .- •. - ,, a .'. �. ..- ... ,. . .' I r SAND - CANYON GATEWAY PROMENADE A HARVEST CORPORATION PROJECT March 18, 1992 Mayor Jill Klajic City of Santa Clarita Suite # 300 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, Calif. 91355 Dear Mayor Klajic, This letter.is our request that Plot Plan Hearing M 90-112, notice scheduled for the very first time on March 24, be continued to April 21, 1992. We had planned at long last to complete the approval of the project at the March 24, 1992 meeting. Nature has intervened e During the.last 60 days, and as recently as 9 days ago, a series of storms has caused major flood damage to the property. This damage is caused by water draining down Sand Canyon Road from poorly engineered projects of the past. We had originally budgeted between $ 50,000 and $ 100,000 to adequately drain the water that falls on the property. The engineering estimate instead is now at $ 500,000 and will certainly rise if another storm, as predicted,.hits the weekend of March 21, 1992. We must perform additional technical studies on this problem before we are able to stand.before you and pledge that we will build what has become a major public works benefit for the area. The additional time this requires due to the recent flooding is the reason we will not be able to proceed with the original hearing date of March 24, 1992. We were presented a series of challenges by the surrounding community and City Staff. These included questions about the crrarrsistenCy with the General Plan, whether or not we were of be ppfit or detriment to the river, whether we were an enhance- c� meirt or detraction to the rural characterofSand Canyon, how F LD O � r m � v Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade Page two the majority of Sand Canyon residents felt about the project, what effect the project would have on area traffic, and more. We have successfully resolved all of these questions in favor of our project. Only the issue of being able to keep the commitment regarding the now major public works improvement to the Sand Canyon area remains. We could not have know that such a significant issue would occur when the hearing was tentatively scheduled and -then noticed for March 24, 1992. The Staff may inform you that the project has been the subject of delays. These have been necessitated, with one exception, because of the unprecedented scope of the challenges presented to us: We have overcome these challenges. It is important to note that we have never requested a contin- uance of a legally noticed hearing before the City Council, and have had only a single legally noticed continuance before the Planning Commission. Contrary to any popular misconception, we are thus not a "frequently.continued" case. We are notifying our many supporters in Sand Canyon of our continuance request and that we will not be presenting the case to you on March 24. We are notifying those people who may still express opposition to the project as well. We will thus be insuring a minimum of inconvenience to all parties who have expressed interest in the project. We are happy to do so since many of our most enthusiastic supporters are elderly, long term residents of Sand Canyon who we wish to treat with great consideration. Lastly, we submitted a report- to the City Staff on March 9 entitled "The City of Santa Clarita General Plan and the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade: A Study in Consistency". We have not yet received from the Staff any written response to the important issues this document resolves. Thank you again for your cooperation. We will pot be present for the March 24th hearing. No one but the President of the Harvest Corporation has authority to proceed with a Presentation of the case at a hearing. Best 9, regards . �, • Dorn L. Schmidt President cc: City Council City Staff .SANT) CANYON GATEWAY PROMENADE A HARVEST CORPORATION PROJECT 19425 Soledad Canyon Road, #313 Canyon Country, Santa Ctanta Califomia 91351 September 18, 1991 SUSAN S. BAKER 15195 IRON CNYN. RD. CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 Dear Ms. Baker: Harvest Corporation is a Pacific area building and development company specializing in unique "pride of ownership" "area landmark" commercial and residential projects, coupled with environmental improvements. We. are writing to share with you detailed information about one of our newest projects located in your general Sand Canyon area neighborhood. We are proposing to build a 40,000 square foot retail center quite unlike - anything else in the north Los. Angeles County area. In addition, as a companion to our project, we are announcing an important first step towards public acquisition of the Santa Clara River, and the "Sand Canyon Special Standards Entryway Beautification and Redevelopment Committee". With the enclosed material we hope to fully inform you about our project and programs, and to obtain your thoughts and feelings aboutthemas well. Enclosed is the following: - Map of the project site - Color copies of the architect's rendering of the project. - A summary of effects and benefits. of the project. - A map showing the approved but not yet built residential development projects in Sand Canyon. A two-page meeting RSVP/opinion questionnaire response form. An addressed and stamped return envelope for the RSVP/Opinion form. A highly detailed question and answer format report covering the project, and the companion benefit programs. A map showing the location of a meeting you may wish to attend."' Page Two We encourage your careful scrutiny of all the enclosed information. After reviewing this material, you may still wish more information. For just this reason, we have established a local Sand Canyon/Santa Clarita area message hotline, which we invite you to call any time, seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day, for any question. Our phone number is: 805/253-4701. You may still want further clarification of some issues. For this express purpose, we are pleased to invite you to a meeting so that we may share as much information with you as you wish. Food and refreshments will be served; and should you require it, child care will be provided. The meeting is to be held on Saturday, October 5, 1991, at 2:00 p.m. The location is the First Christian Church, 27421 Homyr Place, Canyon Country. (Enclosed is a map with clear directions.) (If you would like to attend, and find that the date and time.is not convenient for you, please call us. We will make every effort to accommodate your schedule.) Enclosed for two family members are two combination RSVP/Opinion Questionnaire Forms with a stamped, addressed, return envelope. Please return them to us. Your thoughts and feelings are very important to us. We must also plan our space, refreshments and child care requirements. For these reasons, please study our project, and mail us your RSVP/Opinion Form so that we receive it no later than Saturday, October 5, 1991. This is the final day for us to be able. to include your opinions in our survey results. If you will be meeting with us, you may certainly send in just the RSVP section, and complete another opinion form at the meeting. We are pleased to share our new project and programs with you. There are many beautiful and valuable properties in the Sand Canyon area. It is our intention to help enhance that beauty.and value. This letter will hopefully begin a long, friendly, and mutually beneficial relationship. Very best regards, Dorn.Schmidt DS/cb 9,. Srj z Q J W).k rb 1. Z O c a UJ Fa a O W ¢o 0 Z ULL �' QJu > OVa w Z Lu Vlz�m a w w Q� O w w 0 SAND CANYON COMMERCIAL CENTER SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA SAND CANYON COMMERCIAL CENTER SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA Benefits to the Sand Canyon Community From The Harvest Corporation Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade 1. Property Values Increased Having easily available goods and services near the Sand Canyon residential community will help to increase the desirability of the area even more, thereby increasing property values. 2. Precious Time Saved By providing goods and services close to home that are presently missing from the immediate Sand Canyon area, time amounting to minutes and even hours will be saved for everyone. 3. Air Pollution Reduced Less driving means less pollution. 4. Aesthetic Values Improved The aesthetic character of the entryway to Sand Canyon has long been a contradiction to the beauty of the residential community. The addition of an outstanding architecturally themed Promenade center will be a substantial step in the right direction to improving the appearance of Sand Canyon. 5. Adds Elegance To The Community The residential portion of Sand Canyon is quite elegant. The entryway will eventually have an elegant note added to the rustic country charm of the area, once the center is built. 6. Traffic Congestion Reduced The heavy traffic congestion present on the Santa Clara River bridge, the bridge over Highway 14, and at the intersection of Soledad and Sand Canyon Roads will benefit from a reduction in traffic with every car that is able to stop at the new Promenade center for needed goods and services. 7. Community Focal Area Created At present, nothing along the entry corridor to Sand Canyon hints at or defines the beautiful character of the community further down the canyon. When our center is built, a meeting place, themed -entry statement and architectural landmark will go a long way towards establishing an entry identity for Sand Canyon that is in keeping with the rural, rustic, elegant ambiance of the entire area. 8. Local Employment Opportunities For Sand Canyon Youth Employment at the projected restaurant and other high quality retail shops will provide safe job opportunities very close to home for Sand Canyon youth that must presently drive many miles away. 9. Traffic Safety Increased By re -striping, contributing to the signalization and by keeping Sand Canyon residents much closer to home, the overall traffic safety for residents in the area will be enhanced. 10. Riverbed Protection As part of the project, The Harvest Corporation will donate two acres of its property located in the riverbed, thereby helping the City launch its new program of public ownership of the River. 11. Beautification Of The Entire Sand Canyon Entryway As part of its project, The Harvest Corporation will help to create the mechanism for the complete remodeling of the Sand Canyon entryway, and pay for its fair share of the cost. tu4 c? is& cr J a OAK SrRINC$ 17 >•' 7 L,; . t 7 ' • +� C.tMYON IAA.K �;1. r;Kim o• i rstro 1 , �1 L r . s ' c cl pAO^ �" .•'" AMERICAN BEAUTY HOMES 188 ACRES G f ALAND 299 UNITS I'OAK SPRINGS ESTATI AVANTE PROJECT N �✓ I.z .° �.. tl.._ 45UNIT5 UNITED INVEST. JFh ••i•'••• JIRDRpR 18ACRES ' _ IOUNITS G 4j<I ,•., c. • � zj I �'11z rA ; I of .1 � PRIME WEST BATTA PROJECT "00 ISOACRES 140UNM —I — — — �,,;.�c; ;OAK PARK ESTATES I SOP HUNTERS GREEN _ I ,• \ � p °NE° �- I ;PACIFIC CREST I RRI rl 1 O lm oe /aa i DEVELOP140 ACRES "gyp 11 70 UNITS < 27 I ;'•irlr - IESN RD ` FAI CONRIA{ Oa 0 r r I � ,IGRIFFEN HOMES I I ? t, 1 co v nn y, �? OOH I j CRYSTAL SPRINGS "• ,1 140ACRES — — — — :—.egCtt•1 _ 3L� ° __ _.` 75 UNITS . Z I" I '• , a - I YIDNER JJI ZII �. ' Tn .x+ i I 011x 'V — Ol REOCV+Y I s r'�.j Kv ;� I TR.47785 n �n % '2n .v� o -- aIACRES IIAIirk F10 cF•._�rAI.ttR sl _c � �.., „�c"`�. 12 UNITS ZIT � I 1 T ��• 1 lk -lir, 'fN I :rr;p,Ow ANON/ OR _ I. _ _ , PARCEL MAP •r 1 z �� — ..21953 A 2 UNITS lt7a; 34 I 135 : ,I`z^.T `."' "TR. 41812 R 10 ACRES 1 C D I 35 UNITS CnrLrl IS 7J `tiP I I I 5", t*`` PENDING -- —- -- -- -- �' — — '-- -- -,:TR. 49334 °AKWL RD -BEAVER RVNRD I 80 ACRES .•.'�-•l.1 1 ; 38 UNITS ' 1 APPROVED AND PENDING NEW HOMES IN SAND CANYON TOTAL.726 (CURRENT TO 8-1-91) MEETING RSVP/OPINION OUESTIONNIARE Page One of TWO Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade: Entryway Beautification and River Ownership Program Name street Can State, Zip: Prone: Yee, l VA attend the meeting to which you have Invited am 1 would appreciate child care during the meeting It yes, Please Indicate number and ages of children. No, I will not be attending are meeting -------------------------------------------------------------------- OPINIONIFACT QUESTIONNAIRE (there am 9 Sections on 2 Pages) (a you wleh, and it ars followbq applies to you, please feel free to cheek this spa-. You may area avoid the balance of a& qussdornWw) 1 do not especially feel concerned about what you aro dohV and therefore do not feet it necessary to participate further or to oanplele Oft questionnaire. 1. 1 hate owned property In the Sand Canyon area for. (please cheek only one) "Years 25 years 5.10 years 1415 years 1520 yens Momaun29yers 2 Durtrg the last ninety days, 1 left Sand Canyon to purchase the %Uowhg goods and srvioes: (Please list ares) 1. 2, 3 & Durbg the last ninety days, 1 lea Sant CWha Valley to purchase the following goads and services; pan" Net aves) 1. 2 3 4. My favorite three restaurants In Santa Claraa Valley are: Name Type of Food 5. My favorite three restaurants (Including; the SCV) In Southern California area: Name Type of Food i MEETING RSVP/OPINION QUESTIONNIARE Page One of Two t Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade: Entryway Beautification and River Ownership Program Namx street City, State, 23P: Phone: res, 1 will attend the meeting to which you have Invited ma. 1 would appreciate child care during the meeting. It yes, Please indicate number and ages of chadraa No, l Will not be anend'mg the meeting. -------------------------------------------------------------------- OPINIOWFACT OUESriONNAME (Frere aro g Sections on 2 Pages) (It you wish, and It the following applies to you, Please feel fres to check thie apses. You may than avoid the balance of this quesdo.eufrs.) 1 do not especially feel concerned about what you are doing and therefore do not feel it necessary to participate further or to complete this questionnaire. 1. 1 have wined property in the Sand Canyon area for. (please cheek only one) 14 years 25 yens 10.15 years 1520 years 2. 3. d. S. During the last ninety days, 1 lett Send Canyon to purchase the *Alwang goods and services: (Please ad twee) 7. 2 3. 5-10 years More than 20 years During the Inst ninety days, l left Santa Giants Valley fo purchase the following goods and services: Maase list thee) 2. S My favorlle three restaurards In Santa C REM Valley are; Name Tyne of Food 7. A My opinion of the appearance of the new Center Is: Tease dmeck only one) 1. Ettramely attractive 2 Very attractive 3 Attractive 4. Acceptable SAND CANYON AREA AFFILIATIONS: Very Active Member (Pay dues, attend meetings regularly) Inactive Member (Pay dues or attend meetings only ocoaslom&M Not a Member (Do not attend meetings or pay dues) This grWP has my permission to say " represent mfr views: (Please deck only one) _ Anytime, with or without my specift Permission _ Only on specific Issues , K 1 ghre advance written or verbal Permission Does not have my Permission to speak for me Paps Two of TWO S Plain Y. Veryunattractive 7. EmemNy unattractive Sand Canyon Homeowners Assoc. Oak Siorkms Canyon Homeomms Assoc. Very Active Member (Pay dues, attend meetingsfewAal9 Inactive Member (Pay dues or attend meetinp only tel') Not a Member (Do not attend mauling+ or pay dues) This group las my permission So salt try represent my views (Please deck only one) Anytime, with or without my specific Permission Only on specific Issues, If I give advance written or verbal Permission Does not have my permission b speak for me Very Active Member (Pay dues, attend meetings ►egg Inactive Member (Pay dues Or attend meetings only occasionally) Not a Member (Do not allaW meetings Or pay dues) This group las my permission to say they represent my views: (Plesse deck onlY one) Anydnmk with or wiUeut my Specific Permission Only on speeiee We- es, K I give advance vwbtten or verbal permission Does not have my permission to speak for me I have read, examined and thoroughly ravmwed ALL the Information you have sed to am TherMore, on the basis of tits thorough knowledge of your Proton and companion Programs. 1 have the foibwing position on the harvest protect (Please check only ons araarar-) 1 wry strGWlY Support this. I strongly Support this. 1 mildly support this. 1 am neutral about this. I mildly oppose this. I strorgy_oppose this. I very strongly oppose this. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION (Please keep the yellow copy pages -far your records) i Ouestirinaaba j 6 .. MY optrdmt of the appearance of the new Canter Is: (please cheek only one) 1. • Extremely attractive S 2 Veryanneedve 6 S. Attractive - 7. 4. Acceptable 7. SAND CANYON AREA AFHLIAT10NS: Crystal Springs Homeowners Assoc. Very AcVva Member (Pay dues, attend meetings reWjLwW Inactive Member (Pay dues or attend meetings only occoslonaM Hot a Member (Do rat attend meetings or pay dues) This group has my Psion to say they represent my views: (Please check Drily one) AnYtlme, with or without MY specific permission Only on specific tasues, K 1 give advance written or verbal Permission Does not have my permission to speak tow me Plain Vary unattractive Extremely uuttraetive Sand Canyon Homeowners Assoc. Very Active Member (Pay dues, attend meetings rogwww (active Member (Pay dues or attend meetings only occasbnalM Not a Member (Do not attend meetings or pay dues) This gneP has my pemdssbn 10 say"represend my view (Please check only one) Anytime, with or without my specific permission Only on specific issues, H 1 give advance ■mitten or verbal Does not have my permission to speak for me !71 P"a Two of TWO Very Active Member (Pay dues, attend . meati gs.roYala" Inactive Member (Pay dues or attend meetings only oceastonalw Not a Member (Do not attend memigs or pay dues) , This group has my Permission fo W they represent MY views: (Please check only one) Anydme, with or wtilmd MY specific Permission Only an specific .. A 1 have read, usamined and thoroughly reviewed ALL the Mtomation you have sent to me. Mwetoro, on the bash of this timmgh knowledge of Your Project and companion Programs. l have the totiowhg position on the Hawed Project: (Please cheek only ons I very strongly support tkia. - 1 strongly support lila I Inuit support this. am neutral about ads. 1 anIdly oPPoae urh. I atrOnWy oppose this. 1 very strmgly oppose 19s. - THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARh1CIPATHM (Please keep the yellow CM Pages for yoer records) HDMYR PLACE MAP SHOWING MEETING LOCATION: FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH- 27'191 CANYON COUNrAy WHITES NYo ROAD UlTHER DRIVE FIRST MUGU -� LA CHR I ST I A N - oalvr CHURCH I I '' SIERRA HIGMAY HOMYR PLAE r S OFA %MKIN ROB&!NS ICE CKMA STORE Homyr Place is located between Sierra Highway on the east, and Whites Canyon on the west. Crossglade Streetisthe street immediately to the west. Shangri-La Drive is the street located immediately to the east. Homyr Place -is located only north of Soledad Canyon Road, and is only about 150 feet long. Drive north on Homyr Place from Soledad Canyon Road. Turn left behind the Baskin Robbins Ice Cream Store into what appears to be an alley/drive way. The Church is about 100 feet up the driveway. Park anywhere in the area, as long as the driveway is kept clear so that cars may pass through. . The meeting will take place in the main Sanctury Hall in the largest building you see. Please enter via the main doors. MAP N T DRAWN TO 5CgLr_ T a Facts, Questions and Answers * * * * The New Proposed Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade Community Shopping Center To Be Built At the Northeast Corner of Lost Canyon Road And Sand Canyon Road In the City of Santa Clarita * * * * A Dramatic Step Launching the Public Ownership of the Santa Clara River and Its Streams and Creeks * * * * The Proposed "Sand Canyon Special Standards Entryway Beautification and Redevelopment Committee" Presented by The Harvest Corporation September 1991 Table of Contents -- Basic Facts About the New Community Shopping Promenade........................................................................................................ 1 2. Appearance of the New Shopping Promenade ............................... 2 3. Description of the Type of New Community ShopperPromenade................................................................................... 3 4. Public Ownership of the Santa Clara River ..................................... 5 5. The Proposed "Sand Canyon Special Standards Entryway -Beautification and Re -development Committee"........................................................................................................ 6 6. Traffic and Roads........................................................................................... 8 7. What Kind of Projects Could Be Built on this Site .......................11 8. The New General Plan and Its Relationship ToOur Project...............................................................................................13 9. Utilities, Water and Sewage...................................................................15 10. Law Enforcement....................................................................................... 16 11. Fire Protection and Fire Hazards.......................................................16 12. Flood Protection, Storm Drains and Water Run -Off ................17 13. Environmental Concerns........................................................................18 14. How the New Shopping Promenade Will Be Built and How It Affects You............................................................................ 22 15. Geological Stability of Your Area; Earthmoving and the New Shopper Promenade............................................................ 24 16. The Effect of the New Shopping Promenade on Property Values in Sand Canyon........................................................ 25 17. How This Project Came to be Proposed and the Project ApprovalProcess......................................................................................... 26 18. Should We Have More Development in Our Valley At ThisTime?........................................................................................................28 19. How Am I Better Off? Am I Better Off If Things Stay As They Are Now? Or Am I Better Off If the Shopping Promenade Is Built, and the River Donation and the Entryway Beautification Programs Are Implemented? .........30 20. How and Why This Report Was Compiled and SenttoYou...................................................................................................... 33 21. Information About the Developer, The Harvest Corporation.................................................................................................... 38 22. Information About Leasing Shops in the New Promenade..................................................................................................... 40 1. Basic Facts About The New Community Shopping Promenade Question A: Where is the location of the new shop 'Vince Promenade in relation to our residential community? Answer A: Please refer to the enclosed map which shows the center on the Northeast corner of Lost Canyon and Sand Canyon Roads. The map will assist you in answering this question precisely. Question B: What is the size o, f the new Promenade? Answer B: The new Promenade will occupy 2.26 acres of our 4.75 acre site. Our design indicates a rentable area of about 40,000 square feet. The balance of our property located in the river will be donated, as part of our project approval, to the City of Santa Clarita. Please refer to Section 4 of our report. As a point of comparison, Von's retail shopping center at the corner of Soledad and Sand Canyon Roads (which is a very different retail complex from the one that we propose) is about 90,000 square feet in size. Question C. What kind of tenants, -goods and services will be in the Promenade? Answer Our research indicates that there is a wide range of high quality services and goods missing from the luxurious community which Sand Canyon has become. We anticipate the Promenade will be extremely successful simply by filling this void. For obvious economic reasons, we will not be duplicating any of the goods and services already present in the area, but will be providing new ones not currently available. For a more thorough answer, please refer to Section 3, Question "A". Question D: 'What is the ,iust&ation and why do you see the need for Building this 'Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade'? Answer D: The reasons are several. First, our property is zoned for commercial use. Any other type of use requires that we seek a change of zone, which has been strenuously resisted by the active residents of Sand Canyon. Second, we have long recognized that the Sand Canyon residential community is very unique and quite special in greater southern California. There are only four or five other communities in all of greater southern California that can be compared to Sand Canyon. All of them have high quality, neighborhood -serving commercial centers available close by to enhance their quality of life. Our studies indicate that fulfilling this unmet need in Sand Canyon would result in a highly successful project. Third, the appearance of the entryway to Sand Canyon needs to be improved to the same standards as the residential sections. Our project is designed to be a substantial visual enhancement of the rustic, rural flavor of Sand Canyon. Fourth, there are many goods and services clearly missing to fully serve the existing population, however, Sand Canyon is going to expand dramatically. More than 700 new estate homes have already been approved for construction which will increase the number of dwelling units and the population by about 80%. For your convenience, we are including a map of the Sand Canyon area, showing the location of all of these new, approved estate homes. This significant population base virtually guarantees the success of a unique project such as ours. 2. Appearance Of The New Shope Promenade Question A: What wiff the new Promenade look Ctke? Answer A: The Promenade will have a rustic look in an American Heritage theme. The most prominent finish materials we chose are shake siding, wood siding and brick. This architectural theme and these materials were carefully chosen after extensive research about the style of architecture that is most commonly requested by the majority of Sand Canyon residents who have addressed this question to date. Question B: How wiff this particufar stale either con fict or the many st,yles available? Answer B: One of the charming aspects of the residential portion of the Sand Canyon community is the tremendous diversity of architectural themes and styles that prevail throughout the area. One can find outstanding architectural examples of English Tudor, Italian Mediterranean, Norman French, New England Cape Cod, Ponderosa/Bonanza log cabin, traditional Spanish and many others. Of these various styles, the advocates of the "Western" style seem to be the most vocally enthusiastic. People with outstanding homes of differing architectural styles seem to be comfortable with the overall character of the community having a definite Western, rustic style. For this reason, among the many options available to us, we chose the Western, rustic theme. Question C. Where wiff defivery entrance locations be pfaced? Answer Deliveries to the building will be made to the North (facing the river) and on the East side of the building next to the sound control wall. The deliveries will be made during the day. 3. Description of the Type of New . Community Shopping Promenade Question A: Isn't this just another mini-mafl? Answer A: No. Defining our Promenade as a "mini -mall" would be a completely incorrect characterization of the project. To do so would be the same as referring to McMillan Ranch, Sand Canyon Woodlands, and Crystal Springs as "tract housing". By some definitions, Two Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, the Upper Village Center in Montecito, and the retail center in Rancho Santa Fe (San Diego) might be termed "mini - malls". As you will see after you have reviewed the balance of this report, our center is not in any way a "mini -mall" as the term is usually defined. Question B: Answer B: We intend to provide needed goods and services that are presently not available in the commercial areas of Sand Canyon which will complement the unique nature of the area. This Promenade is intended to primarily serve the Sand Canyon neighborhood. As such, it is our intention to try to provide the types of services which Sand Canyon residents would like to see. If the services offered are not patronized by Sand Canyon residents, it is unlikely that the various shops or the center itself will be a commercial success. For a neighborhood center of this type, it is not our intention to try to draw extensively from areas other than the immediate neighborhood. We have been speaking to various Sand Canyon residents to elicit their suggestions about what services and facilities they would like to see. As is evident, we continue to seek your input in this regard. It is our hope that the owners of the various stores in our center will get to know.their neighbors and recognize them as friends and repeat customers, rather than as the nameless faces that customers tend to become in larger shopping centers. Question C. Are there any special or unusual features that make this center different - n others? 3 Answer : Yes. It is important that this center truly serve the neighborhood. -In an attempt to do so, the project has been designed in a U shape so as to enclose a park area. Within this park, The Harvest Corporation intends to create a childrens' playground protected by the stores and shops. This park/playground area will contain such equipment as swings, teeter totter, jungle gym, water fountain and play modules that children can climb in, on and around. The play equipment will probably be set in sand surrounded by grassy areas with benches where adults can sit. Large trees will be planted so as to provide shade, particularly in the summer months. It is the intention to try to provide a safe play area for children, coupled with a pleasant, park -like rest area for parents and grandparents so as to encourage family utilization of the center. This is the "Promenade" part of the project. In order to encourage shops whose owners will be onsite often, the building is designed to provide separate office sites in a small mezzanine area at the back of the shop area so that accounting, staff and/or storage functions will not detract from the main service areas. It is the intention of The Harvest Corporation, by facilitating shop owner involvement in the stores, that a higher, more personal level of service will develop. Overall, the concept is to create a visually stunning, inviting place for people to spend time leisurely. It will be a community focal point, and will be one of the most unique centers in all of southern California. Question D: Wiff there be. a restaurant located in the Promenade, and ilso, wiffit be licensed to serve liquor? Answer D: The Promenade is designed so that some of the space could be used for a restaurant. The intent is to create a superb dinner restaurant serving fine cuisine. There are already plenty of Denny's and other chain restaurants and there is no interest in trying to compete directly with those types of eating establishments. Rather, the intention is to create something unique. This type of restaurant would serve wine, beer and mixed drinks as an accompaniment to the dining activity, but the focus would be on the dining activity, rather than on a bar. Question E:. What wdf the hours o{ the Promenade be P Answer E: This will ultimately be decided by the tenants, but probably from 9-10 AM though 9 or 10 PM for some stores. A restaurant would probably remain open until ll-IBPM. a] 4. Public Question A: 'What do !Lou mean when !Lou re er to jublic ownership o f the Santa Clara River'? Answer A: Recently, the City of Santa Clarity announced that it intends to seek the ultimate ownership of the Santa Clara River. Many people do not realize that the entire Santa Clara River is part of individual ownerships of property and individual lots. At any time, any of the owners of the River could seek to develop their property and "channelize" the River as it flows through their property. Placing the riverbed in public ownership will protect this precious, environmental resource but is an extremely difficult undertaking. Question B: What is the benefit to the Sand Canyon communipi and to the City gfSanta C.larita from this proposed public ownership' a the River? Answer B: The benefits of public ownership are numerous and quite profound in their potential effect on everyone. Public ownership will prevent the concrete channelization of the beautiful, natural streambed. Retention of the natural beauty of the riverbed will be a beautiful, visual amenity for everyone now and for countless generations in the future. It is the intention of the City's Park and Recreation Department to use the unchannelized riverbed for natural equestrian trails, bicycle trails and pedestrian trails for the use and enjoyment of everyone. One half of the drinking water supply of the Santa Clarity Valley comes from underground water sources. These underground water sources receive substantial replenishment from rain water as it enters and moves down the Santa Clara River. If this water is permitted to remain slowly moving in its natural state, it has the opportunity to slowly seep into the soil of the riverbed and gradually recharge Santa Clarita's underground water. supplies. Artificial channelization, however, substantially increases the velocity by which the water flows. This rapid water flow, concentrated in a narrow area, does not permit water the opportunity to gradually infiltrate the natural sands of the river basin. This prevents the underground water supply from being properly replenished. Complete channelization of the present, privately owned Santa Clara River basin would substantially threaten half the drinking water supply of the Santa Clarita Valley. This is one of the most important reasons for the City to be able to obtain public ownership of the Santa Clara River. 0 The proposal of The Harvest Corporation to donate roughly two acres of its 4.6 acres (the property located in the riverbed) as a condition of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade offers a tremendous benefit to the Sand Canyon community. The substantial retention of the Santa Clara River in this critical location, in its natural width will make it very difficult for any upstream or downstream property owners to attempt to channelize their portion of the River. The benefit to Sand Canyon is that this beautiful section of the Santa Clara River will be retained in its natural state for the enjoyment of everyone now and in the future. Preserving the riverbed in its natural state presents a substantial challenge to the City and its residents. Many developers strongly feel that they have inherent rights based in law to be able to channelize and develop the portions of the river that they own. It will be very difficult for the City to attempt to prevent the development (and thereby the destruction) of the river. It is our hope that this initial dramatic step will help to start a trend wherein the City's goal of owning the Santa Clara River will be much more rapidly realized. This is another substantial benefit to everyone from our proposed project. 5. The Proposed "Sand Canyon Special Standards Entryway Beautification and Re -development Committee" Question A:What is this committee and what does it propose to do? Answer A: The Harvest Corporation is proposing to assist in the formation of this committee so that a heartfelt desire of the Sand Canyon residents with whom we have been in contact can finally be realized. Many Sand Canyon leaders have said that they wish that somehow the entire entryway to the residential part of the community from Sole -dad Canyon Road all the way to the railroad tressel could be totally remodeled, re -developed, and / or beautified so that its character would finally be harmonious with the beautiful residential areas. The committee that we are proposing should be able to make this desire a reality. There are many precedents for such a committee throughout not only the Santa Clarita Valley, but greater southern California. In other parts of Santa Clarita there are so called "landscape maintenance districts". There are also "bridge and thoroughfare road benefit assessment districts", and "Mello Roos community facilities districts". C:1 All of these districts were formed and exist to create special community benefits. Our concept for the committee's formation is that it be comprised of ourselves, the other owners of property along the Sand Canyon entryway, City staff, and Sand Canyon area homeowner leaders. We suggest that the committee create short term, medium term and long term goals for the beautification and remodeling of the Sand Canyon entryway. Once these goals are established, we will suggest that the committee immediately finance its work through property assessments, the sale of bonds, or a combination of both. In this way, the long sought beautification of the entryway to Sand Canyon can finally be accomplished in a fairly rapid manner. The Harvest Corporation hereby commits, as part and condition of the approval of its project, to invest its time and resources towards the establishment of this committee. In addition, once the appropriate funding mechanism is in place, we commit, as a condition of our project, to pay our fair share of the beautification costs of the entire Sand Canyon entryway, above and beyond the substantial costs already contained in the beautification of our project. Question B:Whose idea -is this? 'What are the bene its? Answer B: The idea for the remodeling and beautification of the entryway to Sand Canyon has. been expressed many times by many homeowners for several years. What has been lacking is an implementation and potential financing mechanism to put the concept into practice so that it could be made real. The idea to actually implement the beautification on a rapid time schedule is that of The Harvest Corporation. We see the complete beautification of the entire entrywayas a natural evolution and extension of the contribution our project will make to this very important cause. The benefits to the beautification of the entryway are numerous. First, everyone's quality of life will be enhanced from looking at something beautiful instead of something shabby. Second, many people in Sand Canyon have investments of hundreds of thousands and in some cases, millions of dollars in their homes. There is no question that the value of these investments has been compromised by the unattractive character of the entryway to the community. When (not if) the entire entryway is brought up to the same standard of appearance throughout the commercial areas as prevails in the residential neighborhoods, there should be a noticeable increase in the worth and the property value of the entire Sand Canyon area. This is a substantial direct benefit to every Sand Canyon resident, and will be a direct result of the building of The Harvest Corporation Sand Canyon Gateway promenade. 7 6. Traffic And Roads Question A: What will the traZc be like in mrd immediate neighborhood? e Answer A: The analysis of our traffic situation was performed for us by the Barton-Aschman Company, one of the most respected traffic engineering companies in the world. The results of their analysis have been audited and verged by the traffic engineers and Public Works technicians of the City of Santa Clarita. As a result of this extensive analysis, several conclusions are possible. Traffic throughout the purely residential sections of Sand Canyon, south of the railroad tracks will not be effected in any way by the project. The traffic conditions on roads closest to the project, as a result of the traffic generated by the subject site is projected to experience an insignificant change. The volumes along Lost Canyon Road and north along Sand Canyon Road (south of Soledad Canyon Road) will increase in traffic by fewer than 20 vehicles during the weekday commuter evening peak hour (5:00 to 6:00 P.M.). The traffic conditions in the neighborhoods south of the site are projected to experience an increase of 40 to 45 vehicles along Sand Canyon Road during the commuter P.M. peak hour (or less than one vehicle per minute). The entire traffic analysis was based on an ultra conservative, "worst case" scenario. The very significant, but difficult to quantify aspect of "capture ratio" was not factored into the traffic study. "Capture ratio" is very significant in assessing the traffic patterns associated with this project. Because of the wide range of goods and services that will be made available in this new location, traffic flow that already exists along Sand Canyon Road will be "captured" and removed from the circulation pattern in the area by the project. This reduction in traffic volume will actually reduce traffic congestion at the most critical and congested intersections in the area. Because of the difficulty in determining the exact numbers of vehicles that will be part of this capture process, credit for this reduction was not included in our traffic study. We deliberately wish to see the worst possible scenario. Even under the most extreme worst cases, the traffic effect from our project is insignificant. Question B: What will the tra�{ic de Like on Sand Cani on Road? Answer B: As indicated in Response A, as a result of the development of the subject site as proposed, the traffic conditions along Sand Canyon Road south of Soledad Canyon Road will experience an increase in traffic of fewer than 20 vehicles E:] and an increase in traffic of 40 to 45 vehicles along Sand Canyon Road south of Lost Canyon Road. The capacity analyses indicate that the adjacent intersections along Sand Canyon Road operate at an acceptable level of service with the additional traffic generated by the subject site. Question C: What effect u iff the tra is from the new Promenade have on the already existing dad conditions? .answer Please refer to Answer A in this section. As you will see, the development of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade in this location will serve to reduce traffic congestion in the areas that presently constitute the "existing bad conditions". Question D: What will the turning patterns be like in and out of the 'Promenade' from Sand Canyon Road? Answer D: As recommended in the traffic impact report prepared by the Barton- Aschman Company, as audited by the City, the proposed access drive from Sand Canyon Road will allow for right -turn movements in and out, and left -tum movements in only. Question : 'What will the turnip -patterns be tike in and out of the 'Promenade' from Lost Cannon Road? Answer E: Lost Canyon Road in the area of the project will be improved, and left tum and right tum access in and out of the Promenade will take place at the driveway location specified Question T. Why should any eL the residents of Sarut Cann believe any d the so-caffed 'expert analysts' about traffic conditions? Aren't these so-called 'experts' the same people whose planning ej Rave us the mess we live with now? Answer The people in charge of the traffic planning in Sand Canyon now are not the same people who created the problems you see today. Until three and one half years ago, Los Angeles County was in charge of traffic planning in the Santa Clarita Valley. Starring three and one half years ago the new City of Santa Clarita took over that responsibility. Anyone studying the differences between the way the City plans now compared with the way the County used to operate can see that the differences are dramatic. P Because of the tremendous lead time between when a project or a traffic improvement is planned and when it is implemented, very few of the positive changes in traffic planning created by the City are yet evident. The most dramatic improvement created by the City are the so-called "quick fix" traffic improvements. These have made substantial improvement in traffic conditions throughout the City. Major improvements, however, created by the City, will be coming on line over the next several years. Elsewhere in our report we have mentioned that more than 700 new estate homes are approved for construction in the Sand Canyon area. A dramatic improvement in Sand Canyon area traffic was required by the City as a condition for several of these new housing projects. An entire new "second access" road, paralleling Sand Canyon will be built to the east. Even though these new homes will introduce between six and seven thousand new vehicle trips per day into the area, this new secondary access, plus additional roadway improvements planned by the City, plus our project, will result in an overall improvement in traffic conditions in Sand Canyon, compared with present day conditions. A whole new, highly professional, very concerned group of people are now in charge of the affairs of the Sand Canyon area, and the City of Santa Clarita. The "experts" in charge of traffic today are not at all the same people who created the problems we see today. The new people in charge are devoted to improving the current situation. Question : Does this yroiect create a need for a stogy fight at theLost and Sant Canyon Road intersection? Answer : By itself, the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade does not create the need for the installation of a traffic light signal at the intersection of Lost and Sand Canyon Roads. As mentioned elsewhere, however, more than 700 luxury estate homes have been approved for the area and are awaiting construction. The traffic generated by these new residential projects does indeed create the need for the installation of a traffic light at this intersection. By coincidence, a traffic light will indeed be installed within a short time before or after our project is completed. Question H. flow will we be able to het in and out of the Promenade? Answer H: There will be a driveway entrance on Sand Canyon Road. There will be a driveway entrance on Lost Canyon Road. The Promenade will be connected to the bicycle/horse trail systems being created for the area. 10 Question I: construction or actuaffu under construction? Answer I: Yes. The traffic studies we conducted were especially rigorous. and thorough in cumulative impact analysis of all the approved or potentially approved projects in the area. We always do cumulative analysis for all of our projects. Even if we had not volunteered to do this kind of analysis, the City would have required that we do so since they performed a thorough and complete audit and verification of all the potential traffic impact of our project. 7. What Kind Of Projects This Site Question : What is the current zoninA? Answer A: The property is 4.75 acres in size. 2.68 acres is zoned "Commercial 2" and 2.07 acres is zoned .'Agricultural". The portion of the property zoned "C2" is located right at the intersection of Sand Canyon Road and Lost Canyon Road. The portion of the property zoned "Agricultural" is the section of the property located in the riverbed. Our project building is located only on the commercial portion of our property. Please refer to Section 4 of this report to learn more about our plans for the river portion of our property. Question B: How fonq has this pro_yertu been zoned commercial? Answer B: The property has been zoned commercial for 25 years and was already commercial when Los Angeles County approved its General Plan in 1977. Question C. What is the zoning d the site under Cita ffSanta Clarita zonin c'� odes•? Answer Under City of Santa Clarita zoning codes, the site is also C2 and Agricultural. Question D: Among the manUol2tions available under C2 zoning, why have You chosen a community center retail r orecta Answer D: Among our options, this type of center clearly has the highest probability of success. Sand Canyon is missing many types of desirable goods and services, such as a fine restaurant. Other types of usages permitted in this zone are either already found in the area, wouldn't fit in well in this community or would be undesirable in terms of their impact on the community. Question D: Would it be desirable to build homes on this site? Answer E: No. A residential proposal would require a change of zone. In addition, because of the more. than 700 estate homes already approved for the area, a traffic light signal is already scheduled to be built at the intersection of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road, regardless of what is built on our property. The intersection of Sand Canyon Road and Lost Canyon Road is formed by what are known as "major" and "secondary" highways. Locating a "Sand Canyon quality" type of home at the comer of a busy signalized intersection would be very poor planning. Question T. Why not build a park on the site? Answer Much to our surprise, vocal opposition to a park in Sand Canyon has prevented such a park from being built up until now. Other people, however, in the community indicated a strong desire for a community center, horse and bike trails, and a place for people to gather while they are doing their shopping. Because of our careful design, we feel we have been able to combine all of these elements in our project. Question G: flow does the Sand Canyon gateway Promenade compare with other retail compfexes? Answer : As you will see, this shopping Promenade is completely unique and is not comparable in any way to any other retail center in the Santa Clarita Valley or frankly, most of southern California. Please refer to Section 2 and Section 3 of this report. FA 8. The New General Plan and Its Relationship to Our Proi ect Question How does this proposal can to the new Santa Clarity Ch C3eneraf Pfan? Answer A: Taken in its entirety, our proposed Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is in complete conformance with the new Santa Clarita City General Plan. The General Plan of the City of Santa Clarity is one of the most comprehensive and well designed general plans that we have ever seen. The City's plan goes far beyond the state mandated legal minimums. The Plan consists of 12 "elements". Under community development, there are the land use, housing, design, and economic development and community revitalization elements. Within the section devoted to infrastructure and community services, there are the circulation (roads and traffic), human resources, public services -facilities -utilities, and parks and recreation elements. Under the section devoted to resource management, there are the open space and conservation, and air quality elements. In the section devoted to hazard management, are found the noise and safety elements. One of the critical tests for the overall viability for a general plan is the "consistency" test. To meet the consistency test each of these plan elements must be consistent with all of the others. As an example, for instance, you cannot have a policy in the noise element stating that residential usages are to be prohibited in inherently noisy areas, and then have a section in the land use element placing residential usage at the comer of a busy signal light controlled intersection. You cannot have a section in the economic development element that mandates the retention of sales tax revenue within the City and then have a section of the community design element that takes away needed neighborhood commercial usages from an area that does not have them. When examined for consistency, with all the goals and policies of all 12 of the elements of the new Santa Clarita General Plan, the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade actually implements the new General Plan of the City. were examined in isolation from the other 11 elements of the General Plan? Answer B: The land use element cannot, of course, be isolated, but if it were, we believe based on the evidence that our project is in complete conformance with the land 13 use element of the General Plan, but the issue is somewhat more complex. The City of Santa Clarita undertook one of the most ambitious general plans in California state history. The Plan takes in not only the approximate 43 square miles of the City itself, but covers the nearly 200 square miles of virtually the entire Santa Clarita Valley. It is our understanding the City did this in an attempt to guarantee the orderly and unified growth and design of all parts of the Valley. Because of the immensity of this undertaking, the General Plan is not yet finished. Because of the enormous size of the undertaking, the City deliberately removed all proposed "implementation" sections of the General Plan. The "land use map" included in the General Plan has been specifically designated as not being "parcel specific". It is drawn as a policy statement and is not to be confused with a "zoning map". A brand new zoning ordinance will be presented to the public by the City sometime in the future. It is this zoning ordinance that will be a "parcel specific" document. On the "policy statement" land use map, our property is shown as "blue line stream, S.E.A. riverbed". Since the map is not "parcel specific", this is not relevant to the zoning we have on our property. The land we intend to use is presently commercial. The rest of our site that we do not intend to use is indeed located in the riverbed, and we intend to leave it as it is. In the present, incomplete state of the land use element we looked for guidance to the other 11 elements of the Plan to see if our zoning is consistent with those 11 elements. It is consistent. There is another "general plan" that is useful in verifying the appropriateness for our land use and zoning. This other general plan is the one created for the Santa Clarita Valley in 1977 by the County of Los Angeles. Many of the Santa Clarita Valley's leading citizens, many of them still active in the community today, were. a part of the advisory committee that helped to draft this plan. We have been told that this plan is very highly regarded by its creators and the community. Many of Santa Clarita's present problems seem to stem from the fact that this plan was inappropriately amended more than 60 times between 1977 and the formation of the City in 1987. One of the plan changes regarded by the plan creators as being the most damaging to the intent of the plan involved changes in land use from commercial to residential. This highly thought of Los Angeles County Santa Clarita Valley area wide general plan was updated in 1984, about six years after its 1977 creation. Both when the plan was created in 1977 and when it was updated in 1984, the commercial usage of our property at the corner of Lost and Sand Canyon Roads was validated and retained 14 For all of these many reasons there is no question that the kind of project we propose is consistent with the intent of the land use element of the General Plan. 9. Utilities, Water And Sewage Question A: flow will our own residential community water sy,ppf y be impacted by this new shopping Promenade? Answer A: Unlike a residential project; water usage in a commercial center is minimal by comparison. No one bathes, showers, washes their car, fills the swimming pool or engages if any of the other intensive water uses that characterize a residential project. Landscaping is the only significant water usage. Through the use of drought - tolerant plantings in accordance with the new City of Santa Clarita's water use guidelines, our overall project will be the least intensive use of water for our particular site. As we study the project further, we fully intend to conserve water in every possible manner. Question B: Will a new sewage system need to be built to accommodate this new center's requirements? Answer B: This development will use the existing sewer system located in the intersection of Lost and Sand Canyon Roads. The minimal, additional sewage generated by this project is not expected to impact the existing sewer system nearly as much as any of the existing residential projects. The minor sewage generated by a commercial project is easily within the sewage treatment capacity of the present system. Question C: `Will the utilities be located underground? Will our community utility usga be impacted by the extra electricity and as being drawn by the center? Answer All of the normal utilities; electrical, gas, telephone, and cable TV will be located underground throughout the site. It is anticipated that this project will not have any significant impact on these existing utilities and, therefore, on the existing residential community. Question D: Where will the Promenades water lines be located? Will this a{ect our own water pressure? Answer D: The project's water will come from the existing lines in Sand and Lost Canyon Roads and will be located on the site as necessary. It is anticipated that 15 the water usage for this site will be significantly less than other kinds of land usage such as single family homes, apartment buildings, convalescent homes and the like. Existing water pressure will not change. 10. Law Enforcement Question A: How will this new center aect law enforcement and the local crime rate? Wiff we be either more or less saLe because oL this proiect? .Answer A: Exposure to crime is partially dependent on exposure in general. The more you travel, the more you are exposed to automobile accidents, car vandalism, robberies, and the like. Having much needed services available close to home will mean a significant reduction in travel time and exposure for everyone in Sand Canyon. The high visibility of the center and its overall design preclude any use of the project as a shield for any kind of criminal activity. The type of expensive goods and services that will be located in the center are not the kind to attract loitering youth gangs. Overall, people's safety and exposure to risk will. be much improved over present conditions as a result of this project. Question B: Is local law enforcement adequate to Vatrof this Promenade if reauired ? .Answer B: Yes. One of the benefits from the incorporation of the new City of Santa Clarita was the substantial increase in law enforcement provided by the new City, compared with that previously available from the County. Therefore, there will be more than sufficient law enforcement resources to more than adequately patrol the new Promenade. 11. Fire Protection And Fire Hazards Question A: Is there enough -protection to cover this new. shoppjag Mpfex, -fire as weft as our existing homes? Answer A: Yes. Fire safety for the surrounding neighborhood should be improved after our Promenade is built. We will be installing water mains throughout the entire project which will be terminated in fire hydrant connections within the project. These hydrants will be available to supply water to the surrounding neighborhood if necessary. 16 In addition, the dry brush and weeds which currently cover much of the site and which constitute a fire hazard at certain, times of the year will be replaced by the building and the landscaping of the project. This will result in an increase in overall fire safety because of the completion of this project. Question B: Is the water system Manned ,for this new Promenade ging to be adequate . to provide for good ,fire {i h�ttnR adit'ity for this area? Answer B: Yes. Question C. 7,W( there be a greater or lesser fire hazard when the sWRigg Promenade is compfeted? Answer Overall fire safety will be improved. Please refer to Question and Answer "A" in this section. 12. Flood Protection, Storm Drains And Water Run -Off Question A: Answer A: Compared with many of the residential projects. that have been approved nearby, our project is quite small. We will not, therefore, have a major positive or negative effect on the large, regional questions regarding flood control in Sand Canyon. Question B: Wiff the water run-aff from our project make the drainage situation better or worse at the corner a Lost Cany 7toad and Sand Canyon Road? Answer B: All storm water that falls on the property will be directed away from the comer of Lost and Sand Canyon Roads and will be deposited via a storm drain system on the project into the Santa Clara River wash nearby. 17 Question C. YOU2 Answer No. We will be directing all of our water away from surrounding property owners so our project will be a benefit instead of a detriment to our neighbors. Question D: Me river? Answer D: Unlike many of the residential projects approved and built under County jurisdiction, we do not intend to make any significant use of the river portion of our lot. Per the directives and policies of the City, we may possibly park on some sections of our property that is designated as floodway. We do not intend to enlarge our lot or "channelize" the riverbed. "Channelization" refers to a land -enhancement technique that builds up level land and narrows the water course of a stream or river. We will raise up the existing high portion of our building site, but we will not enlarge it or extend it into the natural streambed pathway where the water flows for 99 out of 100 years of typical river flow. Because of our sensitivity and concern for the riverbed, our design prevents any detrimental effect on the Santa Clara River. Part of our project, of course, involves the implementation of a public ownership program for the Santa Clara River. Please refer to Section 4 of this report for details. Question E: Answer E: Since we are not proposing to "channelize" the riverbed or alter the stream course in any significant way, the conditions for our neighbors in both directions will not change in any significant way. 13. Environmental Concerns Question A: How about air Luafitu? How wiff the new. Promenade aect air quatitu in Sand Cannon? Answer A: Because the new Promenade will allow local residents to do significantly less driving to obtain many necessary goods and services, the net effect on air quality in the area will be positive. Question B: What is the environmental determination or ry o�jecta Answer B: The City of Santa Clarita has created a most rigorous method of assessing the environmental impact of any proposed development. An extensive process known as an "initial study" is presently underway on our project. Because of the relative small size of our project, we would expect that of the three categories of environmental review, ours would qualify for the "mitigated negative declaration" category. A straight "negative declaration" would seem to be inappropriate for our project given its proximity to the river, even though it is relatively small. On the other hand, a full "environmental impact report" as described under CEQA ("the California Environmental Quality Act') is not appropriate either. Under a "mitigated negative declaration" we will, in cooperation with the City, provide for outstanding environmental design in every phase of our project. We would have it no other way. In addition, there are seven separate public agencies or branches of city government, all of whom have jurisdiction over our project because of its location. They are: a) The Santa Clarita City Planning Department, b) The Santa Clarita City Department of Public Works, c) Santa Clarita City Department of Parks and Recreation, d) The Santa Clarita City Council, e) The Los Angeles County Flood Control District, f) The California State Department of Fish and Game, and g) The United States Army Corp. of Engineers. All or most of these bodies must give approval to our project design before a building permit is issued Question C: Are there any archeological, historical or yafeontological relies on the property that might be llama eg d by the new shovvina Promenade? Answer No. 19 Question D: Are there any rare or unusuaf pfant or animal species, oak trees or any trees on the property? Answer D: The savings of such precious resources are strictly monitored by the City and the state. As you can see, we also have a genuine concern for the environment. This project shall meet and surpass those guidelines. There are no oak trees on the property. We intend to save the existing mature trees on the site. Question 'LVifl the project be harmfif or heant fife? Answer E: Hundreds of new drought -tolerant plants and shrubs will be installed in the project. The net effect will therefore be substantially healthier plant life than exists at present. Question F. How about soils and Aeofoo ygestions? Are there anti conditions on this site that woufd either help or hurt the surrounding communitu? .answer The site is substantially level and there are no landslides or faults present that would have any affect on the surrounding community. Since the site is adjacent to a riverbed, appropriate construction techniques will be employed if any questions arise about water permeability or liquefaction. When building permits are issued, these kinds of soils questions will be fully answered. In no case, however, will any aspect of our soils condition have an effect on our neighbors or the community as a whole. Question : Are there any unusual LyCt enous animals on the site that would be harmed by the project? Answer : No. The animal species found on the project are ground squirrels, rabbits and plentiful varieties of birds. These animals will continue to thrive in the natural riverbed portion of the property that we intend to leave in its natural state. Question H.• Does the City consider a proiect such as this in 20 Answer x One. of the many significant changes instituted by the City in comparison with the practices of Los Angeles County is that full, cumulative impact analysis of all pending and proposed projects is taken into account. At the present time, we know, of no other commercial projects of a retail nature proposed for this area. Question 1. a this shopping Promenade is built, does that mean that mann more retail centers will be proposed and bicilt in and around Sand Cannon? Will this Promenade set a precedent that will make it easierfor still others to be built in the,flIture? Answer T. It is the clear mandate of the City that land use planning reflect common sense and the wishes, needs and desires of all parties concerned. At present, the Sand Canyon community is clearly lacking in many services that are desirable for a residential community of this type. Once these needs have been satisfied, however, the law of supply and demand would clearly tend to limit the number of additional retail centers that could be shown to thrive and prosper. This is the most important "brake" on the possible volume of future retail complexes. There are many more important factors and constraints, however. The first of these is good zoning practice. This comer has been zoned commercial for many years. It is only one of two commercial properties left in the Sand Canyon area that have yet to be developed.. Any additional retail or commercial complexes would have to receive a change of zone in order to be built. In the City of Santa Clarita, any proposed zone change is scrutinized with extreme care. Sound business judgement, community needs, infrastructure impacts, environmental concerns and many more issues all have to be shown to be more beneficial under a new proposed zone compared to an existing zone. All of these issues would be fully explored in legal public hearings before both the City Planning Commission and then the City Council. Unless all of these many tests could be successfully met, no change of zone would be permitted. Even with the approximate seven hundred luxury homes currently already approved for the Sand Canyon area, it appears that the addition of our community commercial center will strike the perfect balance of needed additional retail services. For all of these reasons, the construction of our project has no automatic effect on future development of any kind throughout Sand Canyon. 21 14. How The New Shoeing Promenade Will Be Built And How It Affects You Question A: What is the timetadfe ,for earthmoving ancf answer A: The construction and leasing timetable is dependent upon many variables. Subject to change, the tentative schedule is as follows: Project grading should begin in late spring of 1992. Grading should be completed by early summer 1992. Construction on the buildings should begin by fall of 1992, and occupancy of the project should occur early in 1993. We will be happy to discuss preliminary inquiries regarding leases at any time. Question B: Answer B: All earthmoving and construction equipment will reach the site directly from Sand Canyon Road. No equipment will be driven anywhere throughout the Sand Canyon area beyond the location of the project at the corner of Lost Canyon and Sand Canyon Roads. Question C. What kind of noise can I earect white they are doing their eartkmovinA work? Answer Compared with many residential projects with which Sand Canyon area residents are familiar, the amount of grading and earthmoving on this site will be quite modest. The noise generated will be inaudible to all but the immediate neighbors within a few hundred feet of the project. The noise will be audible, of course, to those people who five close by. For our immediate neighbors, special care and consideration will be taken as follows: -No construction work will occur before 7:00 am in the morning or after 5:00 pm in the evening, Monday through Friday without the express consent of our immediate neighbors. -No loud sirens or whistles, unoiled machinery or other irritants will be permitted. -The earthmoving work will be done very rapidly and should consume no more than 22 two to four months of time, depending on weather conditions. Question D: Can I eaect a lot eprodlems with dust and dirt? Answer D: Because of the very small relative size of the project, dust and dirt will be a concern only to those people immediately adjacent to the property. For these immediate neighbors, we will invest a tremendous amount of effort to insure that dust and dirt's intrusion is kept to a level of insignificance. During all earthmoving activity, large trucks containing thousands of gallons of water will follow each earthmoving crew. Their sole task will be to steadily and continuously douse all of the dirt being movedwith water. The purpose of this steady application of water is for the express purpose of keeping dust and dirt from being blown off of the site onto any properties nearby. In addition to our sincere desire to be an outstanding good neighbor, the new City of Santa Clarita (unlike the County), is extremely vigilant and protective of its citizens. Even if we were not committed to preventing the dust and dirt problems, the building code enforcement personnel of the city would require us to keep complete control of any potential dirt problem. Question E: such as, ences, pool plants, etc.? Answer E:. As a practical matter, the substantially level nature of our site makes it very easy to protect our surrounding neighbors. Most of the problems with construction work damage to neighboring properties occurs on projects located in hillside areas. It is our practice to hire and work with only the most outstanding professionals in their field. Their ability to work with us in the future has always been predicated on their outstanding performance in the past. Because of this, accidents almost never occur. Human nature, however, sometimes results in accidents. For this reason, every single subcontractor we hire, as well as our company itself, is completely and fully insured and is bonded for all liabilities. If in the highly unlikely event that any damage occurs to any of our neighbors, however slight, the damage will be promptly repaired and the property restored to its original condition. We intend to personally meet with all of our immediate neighbors so that they are fully comfortable with our commitment in this important area. We will take photographs and write a report to which all parties can agree about the exact condition of the properties that surround us. In this way, there will be absolutely no confusion or dispute in the unlikely event that any accident takes place. 23 Question T. Answer The focal point of the building is a central playground/courtyard. By design, this "Promenade" of the center will contain the building generated noises as the building wraps around the courtyard in a U shape. The West and South property lines front a major and secondary highway so there are no noise control problems. To the North is the Santa Clara River which again alleviates noise control problems. Finally, on the East property line we will be constructing a decorative, masonry sound control wall as part of the landscaping plan for that portion of the center. Question G: Will an d the residentiaf areas in the vicinity have to be concerned about br*Tht lights.? Answer : No. All of the lighting in the complex will be architecturally themed to harmonize with the rustic, Western character of the Promenade. All lighting will be directed towards the interior and the park playground in the Promenade. Any lights on the outside of the center will be for the landscaping, walkways and parking lot. The parking lot lights will be mounted.on low standards and will be directed downward so as to not shine outside the boundary of the complex. 15. Geological Stability Of Your Area., Earthmoving And The New Shopping Promenade Question A: Answer A: Because of the small, relative size of the project, especially compared with some of the better known residential projects in the area, nothing that we will be doing will have any effect on the soils or geology conditions of our neighbors or the community in general. Question B: wash through our streets? 24 Answer B: Because of the relatively modest amount of earthmoving work required, it will be quite easy to complete all grading in a relatively short time during the summer months. We have, however, made provisions for unexpected delay. If for any reason our earthwork is not complete by the time the rainy season begins, or even if an unexpected summer storm should create muddy conditions, our technicians will be prepared. In a matter of only a few hours, a complete sandbag barrier will be constructed to contain any potential run-off from the site. Because of the design of our project, however, all run-off will be directed towards the Santa Clara River basin and even under the worst circumstances, mud and water run- off should never be a problem. 16. The Effect Of The New Shopping Promenade On Property Values In Sand - Canyon ion Question A: home? answer A: Because of its design and the unfulfilled needs that the Promenade will answer, the project will have a positive effect on property values and the sales prices of homes in the area. Question B: Won't this retail promenade compromise the rustic and Tura! character of our area and thereby reduce the attractiveness and value dour homes? Answer B: Our research indicates that our promenade will enhance rather than detract from the rural atmosphere in Sand Canyon. Sand Canyon is unquestionably one of the most unique and desirable areas in Southern California. There are only a handful of other rustic residential areas in the west that are comparable. Montecito, Rancho Santa Fe (located in San Diego, not related in any way to the proposed Santa Clarita area project), and Rancho Palos Verdes are three of the better known communities of this type that are somewhat comparable to Sand Canyon. All of these world-class communities have outstanding community retail centers as an integral part of their community design. These centers enhance the overall quality of life and desirability of these communities. 25 Frankly, we have learned from these other cities and have planned ours to be superior. Once Sand Canyon has a similar community retail center available to its residents, Sand Canyon will become a much more complete community. It .will then take its rightful place compared with the other communities previously mentioned. The rustic charm of Sand Canyon will therefore be enhanced by a properly designed community Promenade such as ours. Question C. Isn't there enough commercial. area in Sana Canyon now and wouldn't a prosect that wasn't successful,L close down and detract,from ourprTa values? Answer C: Our research on the existing commercial areas has shown that even with the existing population, the area commercial centers have had one of the lowest vacancy factors we have ever seen for commercial projects. Even if the area population were to remain the same, there is a tremendous unmet demand for goods and services. The area will not remain the same. It will grow by a minimum of 80% (please refer to the enclosed map showing 700 luxury homes approved for construction). This will therefore be a highly successful project that will only enhance property values. 17. How This Project Came To Be Proposed And The Project Process_ Question A: Why does this developer want to build a neighborhood communitg sh�T� Promenade in the Sand Canyon area o{ Canyon CquntM in the City o{Santa Cfarita? Answer A: A tremendous amount of research and thought has gone into our project to date. Within the confines of the zoning we have on our property there are a surprisingly wide variety of development possibilities. Among these options, we chose our proposed project for the following very specific reasons: -Through many of our contacts in the Sand Canyon area, we became aware sometime ago that many of the existing residents in the area would feel much better served if they didn't have to drive so far away from home for many of the special goods and services they want. We plan for our Promenade to fulfill this unmet demand. -The Sand Canyon area is truly beautiful. Frankly, the aesthetic character of the entry doesn't match the aesthetic standards of the residential part of the community. Sand 26 Canyon deserves an entryway that matches its beautiful character. We have learned that many Sand Canyon residents tell their visitors from the south to exit Highway 14 at Placenta Canyon Road, instead of entering the community via Sand Canyon Road and Highway 14. This is a reflection of the fact that the Sand Canyon entryway truly does not match the beautiful character of the residential part of the area. Our project is designed to be a step in the right direction towards the goal of beautifying ALL of Sand Canyon. -We realized that we could offer a significant benefit to area residents by providing missing services close to home. In this way, we can noticeably improve traffic conditions in the area. Traffic that presently must drive down Sand Canyon Road, over the river bridge, over the freeway bridge, and then onto either Soledad Canyon Road or Highway 14 will now be able to make a much shorter journey that ends at Lost Canyon Road, completely avoiding the heavily congested streets that are now everyone's only choice. -Of all the many options available to us with our zoning, it became clear through our research that our type of extremely high quality community retail center was the one use that was most needed and wanted by most people in the community. -We are in this for the long term and are determined to build a project that will be successful. Only by being very careful and by providing exactly what people need and want will that goal be realized. We are quite certain that by providing a full range of needed goods and services that Sand Canyon currently lacks, we will be rewarded with a stable, flourishing project in the area for many years to come. Question B: What is the approval process, or this pro e� ct a rA11SWer B: The approval for a land use proposal in the City of Santa Clarita is relatively simple and is designed for maximum participation by the public for all land use proposals. First, the proposed project is thoroughly reviewed by all departments in the City. Second, projects are typically heard in a legally noticed public hearing before the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission. Third, depending upon the complexity of the project, land use proposals are heard in an additional public hearing before the City of Santa Clarita City Council. Our project is relatively simple and it is presently unclear how many hearing dates we may need before our project is approved. Obviously, we have elected to establish a very close relationship with the community we intend to serve. We want to benefit from your thoughts, feelings and ideas about our project. It is our intention to fully resolve any concerns people in the area may have prior to any hearings that take place before the City. 27 Question C. Why does Sand Cannon need anymore commercial` Answer The.Harvest Corporation has a history of building highly successful projects. Our research on the viability of this project type sited in this location has been extensive. As we mentioned, Sand Canyon is definitely a unique area, but there are a few other areas throughout greater southern California that are comparable. We studied all of them. Among these are Rancho Santa Fe in San Diego county (this is a mature, forty year old community. It has absolutely no relation with the Santa Clarita area proposed project of similar name), Montecito in the Santa Barbara area, and Rancho Palos Verdes. All of these rustic, upscale, equestrian areas have ultra high quality, neighborhood -serving commercial centers, offering unique goods and services that are an integral part of their communities. The centers are all beautifully landscaped, architecturally harmonious with their residential counterparts, and offer goods and services especially tailored to the community's needs. All of these centers have been valued parts of their respective communities for many years, and are thriving commercial projects because of the loyal, continued patronage of the residents of their communities. There is a good sized commercial shopping center at the entrance to Sand Canyon. It is completely lacking in a wide range of goods and services that would clearly be needed and appreciated by the residents of Sand Canyon. Our research has indicated that fulfilling these unmet needs will result in a highly profitable project for us that provides genuine service to the residents of Sand Canyon. 18. Should We Have More Development In _ - Our Valley At This Time? Question A: Wasn't the new Citti 9J Santa Clarita fomwd so that development coufd be slowed or even stopped? How can we permit any more devefolzment to occur Given the problems that we have? Answer A: As best we can determine, the City of Santa Clarita was formed for a long list of very good reasons. Among the reasons was a realization that good quality planning and development were largely missing from the Santa Clarita Valley. The problem in the Santa Clarita Valley is not "growth" or "development", but is a lack of infrastructure. Unfortunately for the development industry, much of the development in recent years has been of a poor variety. "Growth" is very much like food. "Food" is neither inherently good or bad. Too much of the wrong kind of food will make you ill and may kill you. Not enough of the right kind of food will deprive you of what you need and may starve you to death. "Bad growth" in the Santa Clarita Valley is easy to define. It has consisted of mediocre architecture, a lack of school facilities, poorly planned roads, inadequate jobs/housing balance, insufficient parks, and insensitivity to existing residents. "Good growth" of the kind that takes into account all of these and more requirements has only become standard since the City of Santa Clarita was formed Because of the long lead time between approval and construction, none of the new growth policies that the City has put in place can yet be seen in effect. The challenge in the Santa Clarita Valley is that the City needs more of the growth that solves existing problems and none of the growth that makes the problems worse. Because none of the new positive growth has yet taken place, some citizens in the Valley have come to the conclusion that any growth can never be positive and therefore, all growth must necessarily be damaging and negative. With the positive effect our project will have on traffic congestion, the aesthetic quality of the Sand Canyon entry, the jobs/housing balance and the overall convenience to the community, we feel that we are on the leading edge of the new "good growth" policies of the City of Santa Clarita. Question B: Hasn't there been a request ;from some of the members of the community that no more commercial Izroiects be located south of the river in Sand Canyon? n? athis is so, why are you rogoskq this project? Answer B: To our knowledge, there has been a request given to the City by a group of very active members of the Sand Canyon Homeowner's Association that there notbeany more commercial projects located south of the Santa Clara River. Frankly, based on the type of commercial projects that the people in Sand Canyon are used to seeing in Santa Clarita, we can well understand the reason for this request. Our research has indicated that this group of active residents is deserving of the .thanks of the majority of their neighbors for having tirelessly worked for the betterment of the community for many years. As unpaid volunteers, they have time and again responded to threats to the well being of Sand Canyon and have successfully fought many battles for the community's betterment. Another equally strong request made to the City by this same, very active group was that there be no more changes of zone in Sand Canyon. Our property is zoned for 29 commercial usage. Attempting to change our zone contradicts the request made by the active group that there be no zone changes. We have listened very attentively to the thoughts and feelings of the active members of the community, and it is in response to their thoughts and values that we have presented the carefully designed and quite unique project, beautification committee, and river donation program, described herein. We are very confident that when everyone in the Sand Canyon area understands how different our project is from the kinds of commercial usages with which they are more familiar, and the tremendous benefit to everyone's quality of life created by our project, that we will have the support and cooperation of the majority of the active members in the community. Our project truly does not fit the description of the type of commercial usage that prompted the concern of many of the active members in the community. 19. How Am I Better Off? Am I Better Off If Things Stay As They Are Now? Or Am I Built, and the River Donation and the Entryway Beautification Programs Are Implemented? Question A: How wiff the new shopping Promenade and park reaffil and true{ affect my neighborhood? Woufd I be better t?ff it it is built, or wiff I bebetter off if the land is used-& some other purpose? Answer A: Very few things in life seem to be either all good or, all bad for everyone. However, on balance, the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade shopping center should be a huge plus for the community. Let's examine all aspects of how things are now verses how they will be when the shopping Promenade is completed REGIONAL TRAFFIC CONGESTION Traffic at the entryway to Sand Canyon is presently very congested. At first glance, it may be surprising, but our new shopping Promenade will actually serve to reduce congestion at the Sand Canyon entryway. 5fl Presently the most congested parts of the area are the intersections of Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road and the on and off ramps to Highway 14. In addition, as we have mentioned, there are more than 700 new homes approved, but not yet built in the area. If our shopping Promenade is not built, all the present and future home owners of Sand Canyon will have to leave the Sand Canyon area either by Soledad Canyon Road or the Highway 14 freeway to obtain goods and services presently missing. All of these additional vehicle trips to obtain these missing goods and services will substantially add congestion to the already congested road systems around Sand Canyon. After the shopping Promenade is built, however, Sand Canyon residents will be able to drive a very short distance to Lost Canyon Road to obtain many of these needed goods and services. All of these vehicle trips will thereby be removed from the northerly section of Soledad Canyon Road, Highway 14 on and off ramps, and the Soledad and Sand Canyon Roads intersection. The apparent volume of traffic in the area of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road will appear to be higher. In truth, however, the capacity of this intersection will easily handle the traffic volume. This volume of traffic will be removed from the busy intersections mentioned above, thereby substantially reducing traffic delays overall. For these reasons, as verified by our traffic studies, the overall regional traffic congestion in the Sand Canyon area will be reduced by the construction of our new shopping Promenade compared with conditions that would prevail if it were not built. AESTHETIC QUALITY The appearance of the Sand Canyon entryway is in complete contradiction to the beautiful character of the residential part of the community. Presently, the appearance of the comer of Lost Canyon and Sand Canyon Road detracts rather than enhances the overall beauty. and rustic charm of Sand Canyon. After the project is built, Sand Canyon will benefit from one of the most unique and beautifully designed specialized shopping centers in southern California. This one project will go a long way towards giving the Sand Canyon community an entryway statement that is in keeping with the character of its residential neighborhoods. Therefore, the aesthetic quality, rustic charm, flavor and unique character of Sand Canyon will be much better off after the shopping Promenade is completed compared to the present situation. PROPERTY VALUES At present, the Lost and Sand Canyon site has a detrimental effect on the property values of Sand Canyon because of its appearance. While the rustic character of Sand Canyon is still being maintained, the newest homes in the area have definitely emphasized the luxury estate aspects of living in Sand Canyon. As we have shown, all the other rustic, world class communities throughout 31 southern California that are comparable to Sand Canyon have commercial centers of outstanding design that serve the special needs of each of these communities. Sand Canyon is presently missing this kind of special center. Luxury estate home buyers (as well as many current Sand Canyon residents) truly miss having high quality goods and services conveniently close to home. For this reason, property values in the Sand Canyon area will be enhanced over present conditions when the beautiful, new Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is built. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CONGESTION Traffic congestion on the neighborhood streets throughout Sand Canyon is quite low. The new shopping Promenade will not have an effect in any way on traffic flow on all of the neighborhood streets in the area. There is, however, a definite regional traffic benefit. Please refer to the section that covers this topic. FLOOD HAZARD Presently, the intersection of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road becomes covered with water when heavy rains occur. Because of the extensive storm drainage system that will be built on our site, a substantial improvement of this flooding condition will occur. Therefore, flood hazards in the immediate area of Lost and Sand Canyon Roads will be better after the project is built compared with present conditions. TAX REVENUE SAVINGS At the present time, Sand Canyon residents must actually leave the Santa CMta Valley to find many high quality goods and services. All the money spent represents a loss of sales tax revenue to the City of Santa Clarita. When the new shopping Promenade is completed, all of this lost sales tax revenue will remain in the City of Santa Clarita for the betterment of the entire community, including of course, all of Sand Canyon. QUALITY OF LIFE A high quality of life is sometimes difficult to define. Appreciation of beauty and the savings of one's precious time are certainly two aspects of life that most people can agree contribute to a high quality of life. Most Sand Canyon residents see the entry to the community many times per week. In addition, everyone. in the community has become used to spending many minutes, if not hours per week, driving out of the area to obtain things that they need and want. When the shopping Promenade is completed, the entryway that everyone sees daily will be enhanced by a beautifully landscaped, unique community shopping center that will be a joy to look at every time someone sees it. The benefit to quality of life that comes from seeing ones' neighborhood beautified is difficult to quantify, but is undoubtedly there. In addition, the many minutes if not hours that each person will save in being able to stay close to home can be used for many more worthwhile pursuits. For these reasons, the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade will have a much more positive effect on people's quality of life compared with existing conditions. WA TRAFFIC SAFETY Because of the approximately 700 new homes that will be built in Sand Canyon, the intersection of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road will be controlled by a signal light. This will substantially increase the overall safety of what is now a somewhat dangerous intersection. The installation of this traffic light will allow very safe entry and exit into the shopping Promenade. Therefore, traffic safety in the area of Lost Canyon and Sand Canyon Roads will be improved after the shopping Promenade is built, compared with existing conditions. RIVER PRESERVATION If things remain as now, and the project is not constructed, two acres of Santa Clara riverbed that could begin a trend towards public ownership of the River, will remain in private hands. It is of vital interest to the City and its citizens to obtain public ownership of the River. Since public ownership of a portion of the River is an important part of this overall project, everyone will be much better off as far as this critical issue is concerned when the project is built. ENTRYWAY BEAUTIFICATION For years, Sand Canyon area residents have long wished for a mechanism to put in place the remodeling and beautification of the Sand Canyon entryway to bring it into harmony with the residential areas. If things stay as they are, no such mechanism will quickly be put forth. As part of the project, Sand Canyon area residents will finally be given a mechanism so that the long awaited beautification program can finally get underway. Therefore, the property values, aesthetic values, pride of ownership, and everyone's quality of life will be substantially improved with the construction of the project. 20.How And Why This Report Was Compiled And Sent To You Question A: Where does a!C the in in this report come rom? Answer A: The information in this report is a summary of numerous documents, many of them highly technical that comprise the basis upon which new commercial projects such as ours are built. Extensive surveys of all aspects of our project are compiled by all of the public and private organizations that must be concerned. For our particular project, they include the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department, the City of Santa Clarita Department of Public Works, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. (traffic engineering), JK Civil Engineering and Feola, Deenihan, Archuleta Architects. 33 In addition, prior to the obtaining of building permits, our project will have to be approved by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, the City of Santa Clarita Department of Public Works, Soils and Geology, and Building and Safety Department and more. In addition, we have had extensive dialogue with many individuals throughout the Sand Canyon area which have been extremely helpful to us in steering us in the right direction. To date, this process has taken approximately one year. Piled one upon the other, all of the technical reports on this project are about six inches thick. All of these sources of information have been consulted to produce the information which you see contained in this summary report. Question B: Mau I see and examine the odginaf documents that were used to Rreyare this reyort? Answer B: Yes. • Copies of all the documents in their complete and original form will be brought to the meeting we are holding to which you are cordially invited. You are welcome to examine them at your leisure in this setting. In addition, should additional questions come to mind, we will be happy to consult the documents and answer any questions for you if you wish to call us. You are more than welcome to examine any and all of the documents and the plans we have -on this project and are welcome to question us or any of the experts we retained about anything you wish. Question C. 9Nhy are you sending aCl , this information? Answer There are several reasons. First, people in the Sand Canyon area have been indicating for a long time that they want more information and more care taken when any new real estate projects are proposed and built in the area. The people at The Harvest Corporation are very sensitive to this desire and are happy to make complete information available to all of our new neighbors. Second, we are happy to see an emphasis upon high quality planning and development taking place in the new City. We know that the more closely people question and scrutinize our project, the more that they will come to appreciate the high quality of our project and its benefits to the community. We want more scrutiny, not less. We feel that the more community input we receive the better the project will become. 34 It is very easy to misunderstand or improperly judge a subject as complex as a new, proposed real estate development. Unless people have full and complete information, it really isn't possible to make an accurate assessment of a project such as ours. We strongly believe that the more people get to know us, the better they will like our project and our company. Third, people in the Sand Canyon area have long expressed a desire for the most convenient way possible to understand and become involved in the process of real estate development, growth, and construction as it takes place in the community. By providing a comprehensive amount of information about a subject so.technical as the development as a new real estate project, we hope we are providing a genuine service to people in Sand Canyon who wish to know more about change in the area. Based on our research, we feel that people will understand that our kind of project will help the area change for the better rather than for the worse once they understand it thoroughly. Fourth, we strongly believe that people's feelings are veru important. Our project represents change. Even though our project is designed to be beneficial and constructive in nearly every respect, change is sometimes stressful. Some people in the Sand Canyon area have resided in the area for decades. Change has only taken place dramatically over about the last five to ten years. Change can be either negative or positive. Change can represent a source of negative stress, or be a positive real adventure. We intend that the change taking place with our project be regarded as a positive adventure that will result in real benefits for everyone. Fifth, lack of information, rumors, or incorrect information can be very distressful, frequently very frightening, and can lead to misjudgement about a project that is as different from the "norm" as ours is. Under the best of circumstances in the past, a complex subject such as a real estate project has occasionally been discussed in a public meeting that lasted from one half hour to two hours. In almost every instance, no information about the project was provided to anyone in advance so that a high level of information could be brought into the setting for everyone's benefit. We obviously are attempting to correct that situation. Sixth, in response to our extensive involvement with individuals in the community to date, we have discovered a high degree of interest in our project throughout the entire Sand Canyon community. Since it is our desire to be the best of possible neighbors, we are happy to make this information available to as many people as possible. Seventh, we are confident that if you take the time to review all of the information you 35 have received about our project, or after you have called us or met with us and had all of your possible questions completely answered, you will actually be an active supporter of our new Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade. We sincerely believe that, on balance, our project will be a huge, overall benefit for the community. We are so confident of this that we want all of our new neighbors to receive all of the information that they might need or want so that everyone may share what is happening and understand that their feelings are truly respected. It is our sincere wish that the community feel as good about our project as we feel about the community. Question D: vud lic hearinff conducted 6, the City of Santa Clarita? Answer D: No. Our meetings are not designed in any way to take the place of any hearing conducted by the City of Santa Clarita. Our meetings are designed for your convenience and so that extensive information you may wish to receive can be given to you in as thorough a manner as you may wish. Because of the high volume of critical matters handled by the City of the Santa Clarita Planning Commission and the Council of the City of Santa Clarita, public hearings are restricted to one hour and five minutes total time for public testimony. The format is quite formal. Should you attend a Council hearing, it is usually impossible to ask extensive questions of all the technicians who designed a project such as ours. Even though they may be in attendance, it is not possible to ask a question of the City Traffic Engineer, the City Civil Engineer, the Community Development Department technicians or any of the other staff. In the public hearing setting, it is simply not possible to ask detailed questions, follow-up questions and get detailed, thorough answers. The public hearing format is usually divided into 30 minutes total time for a project's proponents and supporters, 30 minutes total time for any project opponents and detractors and a five minute summary rebuttal time of the proponent. Our project is quite technical in many.ways and we felt it would be most helpful for people to have leisurely, extended, informal dialogue with us so that everyone's questions can be fully and completely answered to their satisfaction. It is for this reason that we are inviting people to review our material and call us or meet with us. We want to make sure that everyone's concerns about our project are fully satisfied. Question E: Are ,rLtWnA to discourage -me from attendiuS 36 Answer E: No. We encourage participation by everyone in government. We felt it was important to point out that Planning Commission and City Council hearings are not informal meetings where questions can be asked and answered, and a single issue discussed. Our meetings and the information we are sending you are designed to fill this need. We hope that, after everyone's questions are fully resolved, all of our new neighbors will join us at our City hearings to see our project approved. Question T. Why have you requested an opinion survey me and what do you intend to do with the answers? Answer There are several answers. We intend to make many uses of your opinions and answers. -We will use your answers to help select goods and services for our Promenade that will be most desirable to the community. -Should any of our prospective tenants ask if there is any support for their kind of business, we will look to our survey as an indicator as to whether the business will do well or otherwise. We wanted to make it as easy as possible for people to be able to communicate with us in any manner available. You are welcome to telephone us, meet with us, certainly write a letter to us, or to simplify things for you, fill out our form and send it to us. We have even arranged for your return postage. -We have been as careful as possible in the design of our project. If the opinion surveys we receive contain suggestions or improvements that we have missed, we will incorporate them into our project to make it better. -We will show the results of our survey to any and all people who are interested in our project and are interested in the reception it has received by the people who contact us. -We really wish to know everyone's opinion. Quest: how do I know that mu answers wiff be included in your summam gf the opinions v you receive? AnswerG.* As you may have noticed, our opinion survey form is printed on "NCR" paper that provides an automatic copy as you write on the original. Please keep the copy of your opinion survey for your records. Please also feel free to contact us to 37 make sure that we have received your opinion survey and that it has been included in our totals. In addition, you are more than welcome to examine all of the opinion surveys we receive. Via any of these methods, you can rest assured that all opinion surveys we receive will be included in our analyses and summary. We are quite hopeful, however, that anyone's concerns or criticisms will be successfully resolved in the final design of our project. We hope to .earn and deserve your trust. 2 1. Information About. The Developer, The Harvest Corporation The Harvest Corporation has developed more than two hundred million dollars worth of projects in Southern California, Arizona, and Hawaii. Without exception these have been upscale, area landmark, high end, high quality, "pride of ownership" type projects. The President and sole stockholder of The Harvest Corporation is Dr. Dom L. Schmidt. By education, Dr. Schmidt has been trained in the field of Engineering and Applied Sciences and holds a Ph.D degree from the University of California. For the past twenty years, Dr. Schmidt has been involved in more than two hundred million dollars worth of development projects. Dr. Schmidt is acutely aware of how important aesthetic and property values are to people in neighborhoods such as Sand Canyon. His acute interest in the environment and the unique, high quality design aspects of his projects combine to ensure that The Harvest Corporation projects are indeed one of a kind landmarks. These projects have included commercial, industrial and high-end residential developments. A central theme in the vast majority of projects has been a genuine concern for the preservation of the environment and extensive landscaping wherever possible. Following is an example of some of the projects in which Dr. Schmidt has been involved On the Hawaiian island of Kauai, Dr. Schmidt was the developer of the Seacliff Plantation. This property, which consisted of approximately 400 acres of oceanfront land, was divided into a total of only twenty-five homesites, ranging in size from five acres up to 20 acres. Dr. Schmidt donated more than 100 acres of property, including more than 7,500 feet of ocean frontage to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as a wildlife sanctuary, now known as the National Kilauea Wildlife Refuge, a portion of which includes the largest breeding bird population in all of the inhabited Hawaiian islands. The donation of this wildlife sanctuary was not a condition imposed by the subdivision process, but rather it was a voluntary gesture undertaken several years after the subdivision itself had been approved Dr. Schmidt and his wife were also responsible for the acquisition of an adjacent 5,000 feet of ocean frontage plus five hundred feet of river frontage on the Kilauea stream. This adjacent property historically had been an M. operating oceanfront gravel quarry and was owned by an investment partnership intent upon its development. Dr. Schmidt oversaw the termination of the quarry operation, the restoration of the land, the buyout of the investment partnership, and the subsequent bargain sale to the United States government at a fraction of the true market value of the property. This property has now been included in the National Kilauea Wildlife Refuge, however a portion of the property at one end controls the access to more than one half mile of beach frontage. Dr. Schmidt has made available a one and one half mile gravel road access which bypasses the wildlife sanctuary to permit public access to the sandy beach at the mouth of the Kilauea river. In another project on the island of Kauai, Dr. Schmidt is currently working with the newly established Kauai Public Land Trust to make available an approximately 65 acre agricultural park to be administered by.the Trust. Because of its beauty and development potential, except in remote areas, this land is far too expensive to be feasible for small farmers to undertake any economical fasting operation unless their families happen to be fortunate enough to have owned their land for generations. For this agricultural park, Dr. Schmidt's company will donate the 65 acres, plus two two -acre residential parcels to the Trust. The residential part will be sold by the Trust to provide the money necessary to install an irrigation system and to administer the park which will, in turn, provide .small farm parcels to local residents who could not otherwise afford to buy or lease farmland. On the island of Hawaii, Dr. Schmidt was involved in development and restoration of the world's largest macadamia nut orchard and processing facility on more than 4,000 acres of the 15,000 acres of land he and his two partners owned in the south Kona area. At the time, this area had very high unemployment. Once the farming and processing operation was up and running, it became the largest employer in that part of the island. As a part of the farming operation, a variety of employee benefit and housing programs were implemented to the substantial benefit of a community which considered agricultural business as a style and way of life. In New Zealand, Dr. Schmidt and his same partners were involved in the development of two large sheep stations (ranches). In this project, all commercial and residential development was concentrated on fewer than 500 acres, while more than 30,000 acres have been established in a ranch preserve which will forever preclude development for other than ranching type of operations with some supplemental use by tourists who might fish the rivers or hike/horseback ride through the ranching areas. In residential development, Dr. Schmidt has built a number of custom homes, including one residence in Malibu which was ultimately sold to The Tonight Show host, Johnny Carson, who currently resides there. As a part of the development process here, Dr. Schmidt installed more than a million dollars worth of mature landscaping on what had been a completely barren, two -acre oceanfront site on the Malibu bluffs. Although the house is large, it cannot even be seen from the street and for those persons walking or 39 22. driving by the house, the property looks like grassy parkland, interspersed with trees, hills, and rock outcroppings. Other residential projects of Dr. Schmidt's have also made use of extensive landscaping to soften the visual effects of new construction. In another project in Malibu, Dr. Schmidt took a six and one half acre site which had been previously been master planned to allow for up to fifty-four (54) units, and after extensive community meetings initiated by Dr. Schmidt, it was determined that the property be developed into six, one -acre plus estate sites with extensive landscaping. Successful efforts are being made to preserve view corridors wherever possible by conforming the architecture and siting of the homes to the topography of the land itself. At the present time, Dr. Schmidt is also involved in negotiations to persuade another developer to donate to the public a 2,000 feet long beach parcel in Hawaii. Dr. Schmidt and The Harvest Corporation have many other projects planned in the Santa Clarita Valley and have a long term commitment to the well-being of the entire community. It is the intention of The Harvest Corporation to create an area landmark so acutely tuned to the needs of the Sand Canyon residents that it- will be an outstanding commercial success for many years to come. New Promenade We would be delighted to discuss leasing space in the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade. We will build the interior space to suit the needs of tenants who contact us while the center is being planned. In addition, if you have a favorite type of store or service and know of someone that you would like to see located in our center, we would very much like to discuss this with you. Please address these suggestions to Ms. Julie Koblin at The Harvest Corporation, Post Office Box 4265, Malibu, California 90265. Ms. Koblin can be reached at (213) 457-3631. For more specific information as to how the rentable space can be configured, you are invited to contact the project architect, Mr. Jeff Kipp of Feola, Deenihan, Archuleta at 116 East Broadway in Glendale, California 91205. Mr. Kipp's telephone number is (818) 247-9020. Please advise the receptionist that you are calling regarding The Harvest Corporation's project at the comer of Lost and Sand Canyon Roads. .N The City of Santa Clarita General Plan .M The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade (a Harvest Corporation project) A STUDY IN CONSISTENCY An Analysis and Exact Quotation of the Santa Clarita City General Plan, Proving the General Plan Consistency of The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade Project February 1992 Presented by The Harvest Corporation The City of Santa Clarita. General Plan and The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade (a Harvest Corporation project) "A STUDY IN CONSISTENCY" The Harvest Corporation: President Dr. Dorn Schmidt Vice President and Legal Counsel Sherman Stacey Chief Administrator Julie Koblin Project Architects Feola, Deenihan & Archuletta Civil Engineering J & K Engineering Traffic Engineering The Barton Aschman Company Project Consultant Allan Cameron Prepared in response to and based upon the Santa Clarita City General Plan ' as adopted in June, 1991 and issued in October, 1991. '1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1. General Plan Introduction 2 sections quoted, showing project consistency 2. Land Use Element 40 sections quoted, showing project consistency 3. Housing Element 3 sections quoted, showing project consistency 4. Community Design Element 64 sections quoted, showing project consistency 5. Economic Development Community Design Element 19 sections quoted, showing project consistency 6. Circulation Element 14 sections quoted, showing project consistency 7. Human Resources Element 6 sections quoted, showing project consistency 8. Parks and Recreation Element 18 sections quoted, showing project consistency 9. Open Space and Conservation Element 43 sections quoted, showing project consistency 10. Air Quality Element 15 sections quoted, showing project consistency 11. Noise Element 8 sections quoted, showing project consistency 12. Safety Element 1 section quoted, showing project consistency (A total of 233 sections show consistency) Page a 1 2 19 21 46 54 61 63 70 84 90 95 INTRODUCTION In the Fall of 1990, the Harvest Corporation submitted a request for the simplest land use entitlement approval necessary within the City of Santa Clarita. The request was for a plot plan approval for a very unique ultra -high-end shopping center to be constructed on the commercially zoned (G2) property owned for many years by the Harvest Corporation. The project is located at the northeast comer of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road in the Sand Canyon community, in the Canyon Country area of the City of Santa Clarita. Prior to the final adoption of the General Plan by the Santa Clarita City Council in June of 1991, the Community Development Director of the City of Santa Clarita denied the Harvest Corporation's request for approval of its plot plan based upon the premise that the project was "inconsistent" with the General Plan. This opinion was rendered prior to the final hearings, during which the Plan received substantial modification. The General Plan in its complete final form was not available for scrutiny or review until the middle of October of 1991. As the General Plan itself clearly states, a critical test for its' legal validity, as well as planning integrity, is the internal consistency of the document. All elements of a General Plan must support and reinforce the other elements. It is not possible for one section of a General Plan to indicate one direction for the City's growth and development, only to have that message contradicted in one of the other General Plan elements. The document you hold in your hand will finally resolve any question about the Harvest Corporation Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade, as far as its consistency with the Santa Clarita City General Plan is concerned. The project as proposed is consistent. No section of the Plan is inconsistent with an accurate assessment of our project. The support for the Harvest Corporation Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade, as shown in the General Plan itself, is not subtle. Two hundred thirty-three sections of the General Plan clearly and unequivocally show that a commercial use on the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade site is completely consistent with the entirety of the General Plan. This same number of General Plan sections also quite clearly demonstrate that a proposed residential downzoning of the site would cause the entire Plan to be completely inconsistent with the Land Use Element. Of course, the Land Use Element is not "parcel specific". For the convenience and clear understanding of all parties involved, the General Plan was not cited or referred to in the text of this document. Rather, the entirety of the applicable General Plan sections has been reproduced word for word so that no confusion about the positive conclusions regarding the project's consistency might color the staff recommendation regarding this important issue. ' What follows is the word for word proof that the Sand Canyon Gateway. Promenade is entirely consistent with the Santa Clarita City General Plan. This analysis and quotation also ' clearly demonstrates that any proposed residential downzoning of the property would render the Plan internally inconsistent, and thus, invalid. The proof that follows is the General Plan itself. -a- CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN INTRODUCTION In the section devoted to implementing the General Plan is the section entitled Jobs - Housing Balance. This is located on page 1-6 of the Introduction to the General Plan. This section states as follows: "Jobs -Housing balance is the ratio of jobs to dwelling units. The stated goal is to balance jobs and housing. People who live in the Valley should be able to work in the Valley. Although the City's General Plan projects more jobs than housing at build -out, the results are beneficial. The ratio will give the City added revenues to maintain and improve the quality of life andprovide improvements for much-needed street improvements, road widenings and extensions, park improvements, public buildings and other ■ public services." ' It is clear that down -zoning eidsting commercial property from commercial to residential would be inconsistent with this section of the General Plan. Denying Harvest Corporation the use of its commercial property would violate the goal of ' achieving a positive Jobs -Housing Balance, and remove revenue producing land. The clear intention of this section of the General Plan would be destroyed. 1 On page 1-8 of the Introduction to the General Plan is a page titled "Organization". At the bottom of page 1-8 and continuing on to page 1-9 are the following phrases describing the critical issue of internal General Plan consistency. They read as follows: 'As you read through the General Plan, you will find similarities in some of the goals, policies and implementations. State law requires that all elements in a General Plan must be 'internally consistent' with one another. What this means is that one element cannot supersede another through its policies; each element must build upon the others or add to ' the overall General Plan without conflicting with .any other elements." The retention of the Harvest Corporation property as commercial property will make the Land Use -Element map consistent with all the other elements of the General Plan. A residential designation on the Harvest Corporation property, however, would ' make the Land Use Element map completely inconsistent with all the other elements of the Plan, therefore rendering the Plan itself inconsistent internally. II CONSISTENCY WITH THE LAND USE ELEMENT On page Ul and Irl of the Introduction to the Land Use Element, there are "land use objectives to be achieved' listed. The fust such objective listed on page L-2 reads as follows: "...the reduction of the potential for loss of life, injury; and property damage, that might result from flooding, seismic hazards, and other' natural and manmade hazards that need to be considered in future land ' use planning and decision making." ' The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project results in a substantial increase in the safety margin from losses that might occur from flooding. This increase in safety is directly associated with the construction of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, and is possible only because of this commercial project. Since a residential use of the land is completely infeasible, designating the land for residential uses would eliminate this increase in safety benefits. ' Therefore, a residential usage proposed for the Harvest Corporation commercial property would be inconsistent with this land use objective listed on page U2 of the General Plan. The second land use objective listed on page U2 of the Land Use Element reads as follows: "The preservation of undeveloped natural and cultural resource areas in and around the environs of the City." A critical part of the benefits from the commercial usage of the Harvest Corporation land is the associated donation of two acres of. Santa Clara riverbed to the City of Santa Clarita. This donation of land will only take place in conjunction with a viable land use and associated project. If the commercial designation for the Harvest Corporation project is retained, the donation of the riverbed land will take place. Any designation other than commercial will render this donation impossible. Therefore, a commercial designation of the Harvest Corporation project is consistent with the second land use objective listed in the Introduction. A residential usage would be inconsistent with this goal. 2 The third land use objective listed reads as follows: "The preservation and maintenance of the existing character of. the individual communities that comprise the planning area." As we have shown, the commercial usage of the Harvest Corporation property definitely implements the goal of preserving and maintaining the existing character of the Sand Canyon community. This is dramatically demonstrated when the other communities in greater Southern California that are similar to Sand Canyon are used as reference points. The Upper Village commercial center in Montecito is known and valued in the Montecito community as an integral and critically important part of their overall rural community. Any attempt to close the Upper Village community shopping center in Montecito would be regarded with extraordinary hostility in the Montecito community. The beautiful, luxurious retail center in the Rancho Santa Fe community in San Diego (not in any way related to the proposed Santa Clarita project of similar name) also demonstrates how important a properly designed retail center is to the preservation of the character of beautiful, rustic, rural, luxurious areas such as Sand Canyon. The proposed Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, therefore, clearly implements the third listed land use objective on page L-2 of the Land Use Element. Any residential usage would be inconsistent with this same section. ' On page L-22 of the Land Use Element is a section titled "Statement of Issues and Constraints". On page L-23 of the Land Use Element, under Issues and Constraints, is a section called "Significant Ecological Areas". Contained within the text, the Santa Clara River is identified as Sensitive Ecological Area No. 23. At the end of the Significant Ecological Areas description is this sentence: "While development is not prohibited within SFA's, it should be designed in order to preserve the SEA and assure its ongoing viability. SEA's should be considered prime candidates to be acquired for public open space." rBecause of the riverbed donation associated with the commercial use of the Harvest Corporation project, the Harvest Corporation development proposal is consistent with this section of the Constraints portion of the Land Use Element. No riverbed donation is possible with any other development, other than the commercial project proposed by Harvest. Therefore, the commercial usage for the Harvest property is ' consistent with this section of the Land Use Element.. Any other proposed land use, especially including residential usage, would be inconsistent with this section of the Land Use Element. 1 3 I On page L-24 of the Land Use Element under the Statement of Issues and Constraints is listed the final section known as "Other Constraints". Contained within ' this section are the following sentences: 1 "Other development constraints include erosion contro4 fare protection, and potential for liquefaction. Erosion control and fire protection are largely a direct function of slope gradient. Damaging effects from liquefaction may be minimized through adherence to existing code requirements regarding foundation design. Liquefaction zones in the Santa Clarita Valley coincide with the identified flood plains." A commercial project such as the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade shopping center proposed by the Harvest Corporation can easily afford to comply with the liquefaction foundation requirements necessary for a project adjacent to the Santa Clara River. A residential project, however, of the modest size that this lot would permit would present costs that would be infeasible for compliance with liquefaction protection. In addition, the marketing barrier presented by a liquefaction -reinforced foundation to a residential project would render the Harvest Corporation's property unusable. Therefore, a commercial usage is consistent with the constraints on the property, but a residential usage would be inconsistent with this listed constraint. The last section listed under "Other Constraints' reads as follows: 'Additional development constraints include accessibility, existing developed patterns, noise, traffic, facilities, and utilities." As we will show, the noise, developed patterns, and traffic constraints on the Harvest Corporation site preclude any residential usage. A proposed residential usage on the site would render that land use inconsistent with the constraints listed in this section. A commercial usage, however, which is consistent with the existing zoning, would also be consistent with the constraints listed in this section. The goals and policies of the Land Use Element are listed beginning on page L-25. On page L-26 is a section listed as 'Types and Mix of Land Use to be Designated in the Planning Area". Goal 2 reads as follows: "GOAL 2. To Achieve the Development of a Well Balanced, Financially Sound, and Functional Mix of Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Open Space, Recreational, Institutional and Educational Land Uses." Policy 2.2 reads as follows: "Promote the development of service and neighborhood commercial activities to meet existing and future needs. These centers must be non- intmsive, sensitive to surrounding residential land uses, and should be located adjacent to arterial roadways." The Harvest Corporation Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is non -intrusive, sensitive to surrounding residential land uses, and is indeed located adjacent to arterial roadways. The project as proposed is absolutely consistent with Goal 2 and Policy 2.2 of the General Plan. A residential usage on this site would be inconsistent with this Policy. On page L-27 is listed Policy 2.3, which reads as follows: "Establish a hierarchy of commercial centers, including neighborhood, community, and regional serving centers, together with appropriate and compatible levels of use to serve the population. The center should be located on arterial thoroughfares, and be non -intrusive and sensitive to residential land uses so as to provide both convenience and compatibility." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is located on two arterial thoroughfares, is non -intrusive and sensitive to residential land uses, and does provide both convenience and compatibility. It is, therefore, entirely consistent with this Land Use Element Policy. Policy 2.3 goes on to state: "Note. this policy is intended to encourage unified commercial theme centers and assembly of properties, and shall not be construed to encourage small, multi -tenant and convenience centers located on comers or in a strip fashion along commercial streets." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade, at 37,000 square feet, is not a small strip center. Because of its outstanding architectural design and its careful sensitivity to the equestrian, western theme of the Sand Canyon community in which it is located, it is not a small, multi -tenant, mini -mall. Any reference to the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade as a "strip center" or "mini - mall" represents a significant misunderstanding of the nature of the project. 5 �1 Taken in its entirety, the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is entirely consistent with Policy 2.3 of the Land Use Element goals. A residential use would be inconsistent with these goals and policies. Policy 2.9 of the Land Use Element reads as follows: "Encourage the development of equestrian -oriented housing in areas that are presentlyequestrian-oriented, and ensure that other surrounding land uses are compatible with the adjacent equestrian zones." Because of the donation of two acres of Santa Clara riverbed, and because of the specification of an equestrian, bicycle and pedestrian trail from Lost Canyon Road into the Santa Clara River trail area, and because of the nature of the project itself, the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is fully compatible with the surrounding land use areas in Sand Canyon, and actually enhances the adjacent equestrian zones. The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is therefore entirely consistent with Policy 2.9 of the Land Use Element. Policy 2.14 states the following: "Promote the development of commercial and industrial activities in all communities of the planning area." Because the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade introduces many new commercial services presently lacking in the Sand Canyon area, the commercial land use for this property implements this Policy of the Land Use Element. A residential usage on this site would be inconsistent with this goal. Policy 2.15 of the Land Use Element reads as follows: "Discourage the development of additional strip commercial centers and corner mini shopping centers." Since the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is neither a strip commercial center nor a corner mini shopping center, but is in fact an extremely high-end neighborhood commercial serving shopping center, the development of this project implements Policy 2.15 in its intent, which is to discourage the development of mini -malls. On page L-28 of the Land Use Element is a section titled "Distribution and Intensity of Land Use Development". In this section is listed: "Goal 3. to achieve a balanced physical environment through sensible land use planning and urban design, while establishing the City's role as a regional center." 59 The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade provides a wide range of needed commercial services in an area where they are presently lacking. Since it accomplishes this, it implements Goal 3 in its intent, which is to "achieve a balanced physical environment through sensible land use planning and urban design". On page L-29 is found Policy 3.3, which states: "Identify a primary town center and other centers which encourage a pedestrian orientation and can accommodate a clustered mix of commercial, entertainment, recreation, town squarelmeeting place(s), multi -use complex, and multi -modal transportation activity opportunities." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is indeed one of the "other centers" specified in Policy 3.3. As such, the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is consistent with this Land Use Element Policy. A residential designation, however, would be inconsistent with Policy 3.3. Policy 3.7 states: "Continue the established pattern of attractive greenbelts, golf courses, open space (including the protection of adjacent significant ecological areas), and entertainment/recreational amenities along Interstate 5, and promote a similarpauem along State Route 14 to strengthen and enhance the image of the City as a pleasant and fun place to live, work, visit, and play.11 The entire Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, along with the "Sand Canyon Special Standards Entryway Beautification and Remodeling .Committee", and the dramatic first step committing the donation of a two -acre parcel of the Santa Clara riverbed clearly implements Policy 3.7. A residential designation, which would render all of these programs infeasible, would be completely inconsistent with Policy 3.7. On page L-29 of the Land Use Element is found a section entitled "Quality and Maintenance of Development". In this section, Goal No. 4 states: "To ensure that development in the City is consistent with the overall community character, and that it contributes in a positive way towards the City's image." 7 II As we have repeatedly shown, our kind of low -intensity, highly landscaped, ultra luxurious commercial center enhances the character of equestrian estate areas such as Montecito, Rancho Santa Fe, and Carmel. Since the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade center clearly accomplishes the goal of enhancing the rural community character of Sand Canyon, it is entirely consistent with Goal No. 4. Again, a residential project on this site would not have this same positive effect, and would therefore be inconsistent with Goal 4 of the Land Use Element. Policy 4.1 states: "Establish a land use pattern that is constructed around a framework of established greenbelts and a linear system of equestrian, pedestrian and bike trails tied to the primary network of the river corridor." The commercial usage of the Harvest Corporation project, with its associated trails and donation of Santa Clara riverbed property implements Policy 4.1. A residential usage, and its associated economic infeasibility, would preclude the implementation of the riverbed donation and trail designations on the property. As such, the commercial designation on the property as it exists, is compatible with Policy 4.1, whereas a residential usage would be inconsistent with this same policy. ( Policy 4.2 states: "Promote the development of key gateway design identification measures that will promote a positive community image and implement community design themes where appropriate." The Harvest Corporation project is titled '"The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade". It is a western themed, highly luxurious, equestrian -oriented, neighborhood commercial center, which clearly implements Policy 4.1 in that the center promotes the development of key gateway design identification measures, and promotes a positive community image and implements community design themes where appropriate. rAssociated with the project, of course, is the Entryway Beautification Committee, which will further enhance this policy. Again, a residential usage on the site would preclude these benefits and would be inconsistent with Policy 4.2. I I II ' Policy 4.3 states: "Encourage setbacks, landscaping, or other measures to provide physical and visual buffers between land uses to minimize potential land use conflicts between dissimilar uses." The project has extensive landscaping, is surrounded by compatible land uses, and is not immediately adjacent to dissimilar land uses. The only dissimilar land use nearby is separated from the project by a major secondary highway, but is itself a non- conforming land use, because of its location directly bordering rail lines. Again, the commercial usage of the project implements Policy 4.3, whereas a residential project, because of its economic infeasibility, would be incompatible with ' this policy. Policy 4.5 states: "Promote the preservation, rehabilitation, and/or upgrading of older, established centers, including downtown Newhall, Canyon Country, and Saugus, where appropriate." Sand Canyon is indeed an established center. As the photographs of the entryway corridor clearly show, the existing entry area is completely inconsistent and incompatible with the luxurious residential community nearby. The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade clearly constitutes an "upgrading of this older, established center". As such, the proposed commercial project is consistent with Policy 4.5. A residential usage, with its associated infeasibility, would not be able to implement Policy 4.5, and therefore is inconsistent with it. Policy 4.12 states "Maintain and enhance the desirable rural qualities found in the certain existing neighborhoods which are rural in character, such as Placerita, Sandy and Hasley Canyons." As we have shown and demonstrated, in the reference rural communities of Montecito and Rancho Santa Fe, our type of extremely high quality, upscale, neighborhood serving commercial center enhances the desirable rural qualities of these extremely luxurious and rural communities. 9 II Since this is true, the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is shown to "maintain and enhance the desirable rural qualities found in the certain existing neighborhoods which are rural in character, such as Placenta, Sand and Hasley Canyons." Again, our commercial existing usage enhances and is consistent with Policy 4.12, whereas a residential usage and its inherent infeasibility on this site would be inconsistent with Policy 4.12. Policy 4.14 states: "Regulate lighting in new and existing development so that it does not unduly contribute to nighttime visual pollution and glare, and is ' compatible with surrounding land uses (tailor standards for lighting so they are compatible with the setting)." The Harvest Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project intends to implement highly - themed, carefully designed lighting that is fully in compliance with, and implements Policy 4.14. As such, the commercial usage for the site is completely compatible with Policy 4.14 of the Plan. Policy 4.15 states: "Maintain and/or enhance the character of the various communities through compatible land use standards and design guidelines, while promoting an overall identity for the Santa Clarita Valley." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project is completely unique. There are no commercial centers similar to it anywhere within the Santa Clarita Valley, nor are there any similar centers anywhere in Greater Los Angeles County. In all of Greater Southern California, from Santa Barbara to the Mexican border, there are only two other centers comparable. Because of the unique character of the project, it will unquestionably enhance the character of the Sand Canyon community. Because of this enhancement, the commercial designation is fully compatible with Policy 4.15. Again, because of the infeasibility and incompatibility of a residential designation on this site with the rest of the Plan, a residential usage is inconsistent with Policy 4.15. On page L-31 of the Land Use Element is listed a section entitled "Preservation of Natural Resources". 10 Under this section is listed Goal 5. Goal 5 states: "To provide protection of the environmental setting and habitat through the location of land uses and the use of sensitive design." Policy 5.3 under Goal 5 states: "New development must be sensitive to the significant ecological areas (SEA'S) through utilization of creative site planning techniques to avoid and minimize disturbance of these and other sensitive areas." Not only is the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project sensitive to adjacent SEA's, but it plans to donate two acres of this critical habitat area to the City of Santa Clarita. Because of this donation of river land, the commercial usage with its extraordinarily sensitive design, is fully compatible with Goal 5, and Policy 5.3 of the Land Use Element. Policy 5.5 states: "Follow the recommendations of the Santa Clara River Study." The proposed project, implementing the existing commercial zoning, indeed follows the recommendations of the Santa Clara River Study. The commercial usage thus is fully compatible with Policy 5.5. Policy 5.6 states: "Preserve and protect oak and mature specimen sized trees and other 1 endangered indigenous plant and animal communities from excessive and incompatible development." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project has no oak trees, but proposes to preserve all the mature specimens on site, and in addition, as a result of the proposed donation of two acres of Santa Clara riverbed, will help preserve the area's indigenous plant and animal communities, particularly the three-spined unarmored stickleback fish, which dwells much further down in the river. The proposed commercial usage on the existing zoning is thus compatible with Policy 5.6 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Policy 5.9 reads: "Promote the public acquisition. of significant ecological areas with the Iintent of preserving them as natural open space." 1 11 I Since the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade proposes to actually donate, free of charge to the taxpayers, two acres of Significant Ecological Area, the project is unquestionably compatible with Policy 5.9. The economic infeasibility of a residential project on this site would therefore render the donation of the SEA riverbed impossible. Therefore, a residential usage is inconsistent with Policy 5.9 and its "promotion of the public acquisition of these areas". Policy 5.11 states: "Preserve and protect .endangered fauna and flora species, and their habitats." The donation program of the riverbed clearly implements Policy 5.11. The residential project, with its associated infeasibility, would not permit the donation, and therefore the preservation, of this habitat. A residential usage is therefore inconsistent with Policy 5.11. ' On page 1x32 is located the section titled "Housing Distribution and Maintenance and Provision for Affordable Housing". In this section is the following: "Goal 6. To protect and enhance the integrity of existing residential neighborhoods and to provide for affordable housing." It would be impossible to provide affordable housing located at the corner of Lost Canyon and Sand Canyon Roads, so a residential usage designation on this property would be inconsistent with Goal 6 of the Land Use Element. The first part of the goal that states "to protect and enhance the integrity of .existing ' residential neighborhoods" is, however, successfully met by the proposed Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade in that the project enhances the integrity of the existing neighborhood. On page Lr34 of the Land Use Element is found the section .entitled "Land Use Plan". This section reads as follows: "The land use concept for the City of Santa Clarita and the Santa Clarita Valley envisions community centers for each of the identified communities of Valencia, Newhall, Saugus, Canyon Country, Placerita and Castaic." (The Other sections of the Land Use Element separately mention Hasley Canyon and Sand Canyon as well. It is most probably an 1 12 omission that the Sand Canyon and Hasley Canyon areas were not included here, since Placerita was . included.) "Each of these communities are defined by ridgelines or other topographic features, and traditional travel and shopping patterns. The community centers help to further define and strengthen the sense of community within Santa Clarita. Tite centers are not intended to be of high intensity, but rather to reflect the suburban or rural lifestyles characteristic of the community and neighborhoods which they serve." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is exactly reflective of this section of the Land Use Element. The proposed project "helps to further define and strengthen the sense of community within Santa Clarita". Further, the Gateway Promenade project is "not intended to be of high intensity, but rather to reflect the suburban or rural lifestyles characteristic of the community and neighborhoods which it serves". The commercial project as proposed is consistent with the Land Use Plan as described on page Lr34. A residential downzoning would be inconsistent with this clear intent. On page Lr35, the third paragraph of the Land Use Element states: "The preservation and enhancement of the Santa Clara River is a major III feature of the Land Use Plan. The Plan directs enhancement of portions of the river, where appropriate, for park and natural preservation purposes." The proposed donation of approximately two acres of Santa Clara riverbed, which is a companion program to the adoption of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade proposal is a direct implementation of this section of the Land Use Plan. By contrast, a zone change to residential on the Harvest Corporation property, with its attendant economic inviability, would directly prevent the riverbed acreage donation. Therefore, the preservation of the Harvest property as commercial land is directly consistent with this portion of the Land Use Element. A residential downzoning, however, would be completely inconsistent with this section of the Land Use Element. On page L-36 of the Land Use Element, there is the following language referring to development in and around sensitive ecological areas (SEA'S). 1 13 "Overlaying land uses are also used to designate areas of environmental significance, such as significant ecological areas (SEA'S), and mineral and oil areas (MOCA's)". In cases where these overlays are utilized, development of the base land use must take into account the preservation, continued viability, usage, ownership, maintenance, or in the case of mineral and oil, the termination of that land use. If it it determined, through a site-specific land use study approved by -the City of Santa Clarita, that the boundaries of the SEA or MOCA do not affect a particular property, then the designation will have no affect on the development of the base land use." Since the commercial usage of the Harvest Corporation property in the proposed Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade shopping center offers to not only preserve the sensitive ecological areas of the Santa Clara riverbed, but actually donate it for public use and preservation, the commercial use of the property is entirely consistent with this section of the General Plan. Again, because of the economic inviability of a residential land use, a downzoning of the Harvest Corporation property to residential would render that residential usage inconsistent with this critical section of the Land Use Element. On page Lr37 of the Land Use Element are the following policy statements listed as "Objectives": "Land use policy, as it is depicted in graphics and discussed in narrative, seeks to achieve a number of community objectives related to land use. These objectives are to be accomplished in several ways: Where appropriate, land use designations and their corresponding standards generally reflect the density and intensity of existing development and the community character." As we have shown with our reference communities of Carmel, California; Rancho Santa Fe in San Diego County; -and Montecito in Santa Barbara County; our proposed Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade shopping center, along with the attendant river donation programs and the Entryway Beautification Committee directly enhance and solidify the identity of the surrounding Sand Canyon area community. 14 The second luted Objective states. "- The land use categories do not differ greatly from those previously used under the County Plan, which also reduces the number of inconsistencies." The Harvest Corporation property was designated and zoned commercial in the mid - 1960's. The Los Angeles County Area -wide General Plan for the Santa Clarita Valley was created and designed in 1977, utilizing a General Plan Advisory Committee, staffed by citizens from the area, many of whom are still active in the community today. Two members were former City Planning Commissioners, Connie Worden and Rita Garasi. The Lost and Sand property commercial usage was retained and validated in the Plan of 1977. When the Plan was updated again in 1984, the commercial designation for the Harvest property was again validated and retained. Retaining the commercial designation on the Harvest property is then clearly consistent with this section of the Land Use.Element on page L-37. Again, a residential change would clearly be inconsistent with this section of the Land Use Element. On page L-39 of the Land Use Element, there is this language: "The surrounding characteristics, preservation of neighborhood integrity and compatibility with existing uses shall also be taken into consideration in connection with new development proposals." When the land use that surrounds the Harvest Corporation commercial property is properly studied and the role of this unique shopping center in the preservation and enhancement of the character of Sand Canyon is understood, it clearly shows that the Harvest Corporation proposal is entirely consistent with this section of the Land Use Element. The Harvest property is bordered on the north by commercial office, on the east by a commercial nursery, on the west by an industrial water pumping plant,. on the southwest by an industrial diesel gas station and bus repair shop, and a commercial private school. On the south are homes hemmed in by the rail lines. Careful attention to the "surrounding characteristics", as indicated in this section on page L-39, would clearly prevent any zone change into a residential usage of the Harvest Corporation property. On page L-44 is found the text describing the "residential low" land use designation. 15 This text reads as follows: "Residential low (RL) is a single-family detached category with a mid- range density of 2.2 dwellings per gross acre. The density range for this category is from 1.1 to 3.3 units per gross acre." Further on in the paragraph is found this language: "Homes developed in this category are expected to be single-family detached homes in a tract setting, and larger lot homes which may be built to suit or semi -custom tract homes." This kind of residential development has been rigorously opposed by the several active homeowners associations in the Sand Canyon area. Residential development of this type in the Sand Canyon area has been found to be incompatible with the overall community character desired in this area. This residential low designation on the Harvest Corporation property would be inappropriate under any circumstances when compared with the community standards often expressed as being desired by the residents of the area. This downzone designation for the Harvest Corporation property is clearly incompatible with the site, and would render the Plan internally inconsistent. The appropriate General Plan designation, in keeping with the Harvest Corporation's existing C-2 commercial zoning would be commercial neighborhood. On page L-48 of the Land Use Element, the following description of commercial neighborhood is found: "Commercial neighborhood (CN) category designates areas for small neighborhood slopping centers of five to ten acres in sue located in close proximity to residential areas. Uses usually found in such centers generally area supermarket, super drugstore, restaurants, and related retail shopping to serve the neighboring residents. More intensive commercial uses such as bars, dinnerhouses, automotive repair uses, and many commercial uses requiring outdoor storage or display are generally not permitted, or permitted only upon approval of a conditional use permit. The description of the neighborhood commercial category shall not be construed as an encouragement for the establishment of smal4 multi -tenant, convenience shopping centers located on isolated corners or individually developed along commercial streets. The intent of this category is to provide for a M. cohesive and independent commercial center serving the immediately surrounding neighborhood. Neighborhood centers are generally located at the intersection of arterial roadways, and are generally located in small centers. Development intensity for this category will be governed by four area ratios ranging between 0.25 to 0.5.1." The Harvest Corporation Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is so unique that it does not clearly fit into the generalized categories of any of the commercial General Plan descriptions. Were a category to be created for the Harvest Corporation Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade center, it would be appropriately called "Neighborhood Theme Center". It is the intention of the Harvest Corporation, with the construction of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade, to bring to Sand Canyon the same kind of cohesiveness and strong community identification found in Carmel, California; the Upper Village Center in Montecito in Santa Barbara; and in the Rancho Santa Fe Equestrian Estate community in San Diego County. The Harvest Corporation project is completely unique, and is totally unlike other commercial centers found throughout the Santa Clarita Valley, and is somewhat dissimilar from the kind of center described in the commercial neighborhood designation. The Harvest Corporation use is entirely consistent with its erdsting zoning, of course, and does provide consistency with the commercial neighborhood designation as listed in the General Plan. As such, the Harvest Corporation proposal does have a sound foundation in the commercial neighborhood designation of the General Plan. The non parcel -specific nature of the General Plan Land Use Element precludes there being any inconsistency with the Harvest Corporation proceeding with its project, as long as it is consistent with all the other eleven elements of the Santa Clarita General Plan. On page L51 of the Land Use Element is found the description of 'overlay designations". The text of this designation reads as follows: "In addition to the Land Use categories which describe the type, intensity tand density of development throughout the planning area, the Land Use element contains overlay designations which identify additional potential for development andlor preservation. The overlay land use will be added to a base land use. In some instances, as with the SEA overlay, the constraints of the SEA are immediate and must be met at all times. The 17 overlays will be indicated on the Land Use map by the use of parentheses located under the base land use. Overlays are designated based upon a determination of land use suitability defined in terns of environmental constraints/resources and manmade resourceslopportunities. In some instances, more than one overlay may be designated." Since the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade/Harvest Corporation project proposes to donate. the Sensitive Ecological Areas of its property, located in the Santa Clara River, to the City of Santa Clarita, its commercial project is entirely consistent with this section of the Land Use Element. An economically infeasible residential designation, however, would preclude this donation, thereby rendering this kind of land use designation for the Harvest Corporation property incompatible with this section of the General Plan. On page L-52 of the Land Use Element is found the section entitled "Significant Ecological Area Overlay". In part, the text of this section reads as follows: "Significant Ecological Area Overlay (SEA) category is used to designate areas of prime importance to the City and the Valley for protection and preservation. It consists of the Santa Clara River..." 'Development in these areas is severely limited. Specific environmental studies must be performed to assess the potential for damage or destruction of an SEA prior to approval of any plans for development in an area identified with an SEA overlay. The intent of the SEA designation is to ensure the continued viability of the biota contained within the SEA. It is the City's desire that the SEA's eventually be acquired and protected as a public tntst." Since the Harvest Corporation intends to donate its two acres of SEA property to the City, its commercial designation and project are entirely consistent with and actually implement this important section of the Land Use Element. A residential downzoning would be entirely inconsistent with this section of the Plan. W CONSISTENCY WITH THE HOUSING ELEMENT The next element of the General Plan is the "Housing Element". On page H-46 of the Housing Element is listed a section entitled "Land Use Controls". Paragraph two of this section reads as follows: "The zoning ordinance for the City shall be formulated after the General Plan has been adopted, and shall be made consistent with the General Plan. In the meantime, the City uses the Los Angeles County Zoning ordinance. This ordinance regulates minimum lot sizes and densities." The meaning of this section of the Plan is quite clear in that it indicates that prior to the implementation mechanism that the City develops itself, that land use proposals and development proposals will proceed under the Los Angeles County Zoning Ordinance. This indicates that the Harvest Corporation proposal with its commercial C-2 zoning designation should be approved by the City of Santa Clarita if the City's policies are governed by its own General Plan language as demonstrated on page H- 46 of the Housing Element. On page H-58 of the Housing Element, paragraph two, the following language is found: "The proximities of schools and commercial and service establishments to residential areas determine travel patterns which may increase gasoline consumption. The City's Draft Land Use Plan provides a balance of residential and non-residential areas within separate areas of Santa Clarita to help provide the required support services and achieve jobslhousing balance. Likewise, it will lessen commute distances and help save energy resources." This commentary clearly indicates the intent in the General Plan that each of the communities identified have its own commercial services contained within each community. Since the Harvest Corporation proposal on its existing commercial zones provides a wide range of goods and services clearly missing from the immediate Sand Canyon area community, it clearly is consistent with this section of the Housing Element of the General Plan. 19 Again, this demonstrates that a downzoning of the Harvest Corporation property from its commercial zoning to residential designation would be inconsistent with this section of the Plan. On page H-69 of the Housing Element are found programs which will implement Goal 5. Program 5.0 reads as follows: "Balance employment opportunities with housing supply. Balance appropriate employment opportunities in the City with the supply of housing to ensure that people who live in the City have a reasonable opportunity to work there, and do not have to commute long distances and contribute to regional traffic congestion and air pollution. Investigate programs which balance the employment opportunities with housing, such as phasing housing development with the development of infrastructure, offices, industrial, commercial and retail uses." The implementation of the existing zoning and the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project clearly implements this program of the Housing Element. Since the project provides goods and services missing from this community, any other usage for the Harvest Corporation's presently existing commercial property would clearly be inconsistent with the meaning and intent of this section of the Housing Element of the Plan. On page H-72 of the.Housing Element is found the section entitled "Development and Natural Resource Areas". Policy 7.5, which implements Goal 7, reads as follows: "Designate areas of restricted development due to their highly sensitive natural characteristics, such areas include Significant Ecological Areas, mountain ridgelines, and water resources." Whereas it is economically feasible to fully protect the commercial usage from any incursion by the adjacent floodway, housing would be economically infeasible in such a location. In addition, development of housing and any kind of residential usage in an area adjacent to the Santa Clara river basin and a floodway would clearly be inconsistent with Policy 7.5 of the Housing Element. This again clearly shows the consistency of the commercial usage with the General Plan of the City, and the inconsistency of any proposed residential usage on this site. 20 CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT The "Community Design Element" contains an introduction which is found on page CD -1. In the .third paragraph of this introduction is found the following language: "The Santa Clarita Planning area contains several distinctive communities, each with its own visual characteristics. Maintaining and enhancing these characteristics, preventing haphazardgrowth patterns, and preserving the natural environment are issues which are addressed in a Community Design Element of a General Plan. The Santa Clarita Community Design Element builds upon and reinforces the basic form established by the Land Use Element." Because of the critical role that the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade plays in "enhancing" the rural, rustic and luxurious nature of Sand Canyon, and because of the role the project plays in "preserving the natural environment", the commercial usage of the property as proposed is entirely consistent with the intent expressed in the Community Design Element on page CD -1. Again, any residential usage on the site would be remarkably inconsistent with this same sentiment. On page CD -2 of the Community Design Element is found a section entitled "Existing Conditions, Visual and Aesthetic Resources." In the second paragraph of this section is found the following text: "The dominance of the Santa Clara River, traversing the City and Valley, provides a significant opportunity to tie the communities of Santa Clarita together through a river -oriented recreational greenbelt." Because of the riverbed donation program, which is an integral part of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, the commercial usage of the Harvest Corporation property is entirely consistent with the intent of this section of the Community Design Element. Again, because of the infeasibility of a residential usage on this site, a residential proposal for the Harvest Corporation property would completely frustrate the river donation program. 21 A residential usage proposal for the property is thus inconsistent with the Community Design Element as expressed on page CD -2. On page CD -3 of the Community Design Element is listed a section entitled "City and Community Gateways". In this section, all the major gateways into the City are listed. Appropriately found on the list is Sand Canyon Road. The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project obviously capitalizes upon and enhances the function and role of Sand Canyon Road as a gateway into this part of the entire community. As such, this commercial usage proposal, especially coupled with its "Sand Canyon Special Standards Entryway Beautification and Remodelling Committee", clearly enhances the role of Sand Canyon as an entryway to the community, and is consistent with this section of the Plan. The "City and Gateway Communities" section goes on to include the following language: "Little consistency has been established with the development of gateways, primary or secondary. The best examples in the Valley are the treatment of Valencia Boulevard, and McBean Parkway exits The gateways are well marked, the signuig is not overpowering and the landscaping gives a sense and feel of what is to be expected in the community. The gateway gives the visitor and resident alike a feeling of welcome without overstatement. Other gateways within the City are undistinguished in design from those gateways within the unincorporated areas. Trews of commercial development, large and unattractive commercial signing and undeveloped and vacant land predominate all other existing gateways." This section of the General Plan clearly identifies the inadequacy of the gateway and entryway statements and themes currently to be found throughout all areas of the community, with Sand Canyon being notable among them. The implementation of the Entryway Beautification and Remodeling Committee is an integral part of the commercial usage proposed by the Harvest Corporation on their property. This clearly implements the need pinpointed in this section of the Community Design Element. This clearly demonstrates once again the complete compatibility and consistency of the Harvest Corporation proposal with the intent of the Community Design Element of the General Plan. 22 II Again, a residential usage on the site would be inconsistent with this Element, since the amenities and redevelopment plans proposed by the Harvest Corporation would be infeasible with any residential usage. On page CD -4 of the Community Design Element is found a description of the various communities within the General Plan. Listed as a separate "subcommunity" is Sand Canyon. On page CD -7 is found this description of Canyon Country: "The Santa Clara River is a dominant feature in Canyon Country as it parallels large reaches of Soledad Canyon Road. The riverbed provides natural open space, andpresents a major opportunity for enhancement of the area and the ability to create a greenbelt connecting the community with other areas of the Valley." It is again abundantly clear that the riverbed donation program which is part of the Harvest Corporation's commercial proposal clearly implements the intent of the City to acquire the Santa Clara River for the use and enjoyment of the public. On page CD -8 is found the following description of the Sand Canyon community: "The subcommunity of Sand Canyon contains many of the Valley's most expensive homes on large lots with a rural and equestrian character. The area, which borders on the Angeles National Forest to the east, contains many flood plains and drainage courses from the San Gabriel Mountains. The low density area (minimum one and two -acre lots) has developed in a manner that is relatively compatible with its natural oak woodland setting. In fact, it is this woodland setting that lends the area such natural beauty and charm. It is the intent of the Plan to maintain the natural and rural setting of the Sand Canyon area through the incorporation of unpaved paths and trails to unchannelized river and stream beds, low level rural street lighting standards, protection of the oak . woodland resources, and sensitive grading requirements." As is clearly indicated in the citing of our reference communities of Carmel, California; Rancho Santa Fe in the San Diego area; and Montecito in the Santa Barbara area; our kind of extremely high-quality, heavily landscaped, relaxed, elegant, upscale community serving shopping center implements and enhances the character of communities such as Sand Canyon. 23 'I Since our project clearly implements the goals described in this section of the Community Design Element, our project is completely consistent with and actually implements this section. A residential usage, .however, would not be consistent with this section of the Community Design Element, and does not provide the enhancement and enrichment of the community available through the development of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade center. On page CD -9 of the Community Design Element is located a section titled "Statement of Issues". The text reads as follows: "The challenge to the City of Santa Clarita is to create a sense of City identity, while maintaining each individual community identity. From a physical design standpoint, this can be done through a variety of means, including but not limited to gateways, open space connections, controls on ridgeline development, preservation of significant community features, streeiscapes, quality of development design, and a host of other means. Raising the level of beautification of the City will provide the residents a sense of place, a. sense of pride and belonging, and reinforce the identification of the communities and the cities as a whole." This section in its intent and wording clearly describes the goals and policies of the Harvest Corporation in its development of its commercial property. It is clear that the commercial usage of the property is completely consistent with this section of the Community Design Element. Again, because of the financial inviability and planning inconsistency of the proposed downzoning of the Harvest Corporation's property to a residential usage from a commercial usage, the clear intention under the Statement of Issues section on page CD -9 is not consistent with a residential usage on this property. On page CD -10 is found the sections known as Gateways and Parkways. The text of this section reads as follows: "Gateways within the Valley should reflect the surrounding natural and built environment as much as possible. The gateways to the Valley provide the visitor and resident alike a sense of entry and exit. 71ze gateways should have a visual and design connection to what is to come next.. Gateways are the beginning point of a network of parkways along 24 the major roads leading to the Santa Clara riverbed, parks, commercial, industrial, and residential development. The gateways, along with a system of parkways, will provide the thread that connects the Santa Clarita Planning area visually and physically." The Sand Canyon community has a western and equestrian design theme, combined with the emerging aspects of an elegant estate home area. The highly unique, upscale shopping center proposed by the Harvest Corporation, combined with the Entryway Beautification and Remodeling Committee and the Riverbed Donation Program, clearly implement the full intent and specific meaning of this section of the Community Design Element. As such, the commercial usage is entirely consistent with the Community Design Element. A residential usage of the property, with its attendant planning inconsistency and economic infeasibility, would render a residential usage on the property entirely inconsistent with this section of the Community Design Element. The Gateways and Parkways text goes on to read as follows: "Specific design of each gateway should include, at a minimum, signage identifyb:g the City and the community. Landscaping and a variety of approved street trees should be used at the gateway and continued throughout the community. The design of the gateway should be open and inviting, with sufficient land area so that vision is not restricted." Again, the design of the proposed Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade actually implements the full intent and clear language of this section of the Community Design Element. As is certainly clear by now, a residential usage on the site would not provide this consistency. The text goes on to read as follows: "Parkways consisting, of ground cover, street trees, shrubs and fencing where appropriate, hardscape (rocks and architectural paving), and other items should be located along all of the major roads and along the interstate and state routes. Sidewalks in new developments along major roads should meander in a landscaped parkway wherever possible. At each of the intersections of the major roads, there should be a secondary - gateway with a downscale design from the primary gateways. If this secondary gateway is also an entry to a community, the design may be 25 more elaborate, but consistent with the existing or desired character of the community." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade commercial proposal is completely consistent with the intent and the meaning of this section of the community design element. It is clear that the project as proposed actually implements the clear meaning and intent of this section. IA downzoning of the Harvest property to residential, however, would completely preclude the implementation of the Harvest Corporation programs and as such would render a residential usage completely inconsistent with this section of the community design element. On page CD -11 is found the section entitled 'Pedestrian/Equestrian/Bike Trails". The text reads as follows: 'A system of planned pedestrianlequesuian/bike trails is needed in order to traverse the Valley. Toward this goat; the City adopted a master plan of trails in early 1989. In Valencia, the use of paseos works well in providing a network of pedestrian access. The Santa Clarita planning area should expand upon the network established in Valencia by taking advantage of the existing easement land within the area, creating a connection of trails for pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists connected to major activity centers like parks and commercial centers, where I appropriate." II The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade, with its trail easement and access into the Santa Clara River basin, its proposed donation of two acres of Santa Clara River Basin land to the City, and its providing for a needed commercial center which can be accessed by pedestrians, equestrians and bicycles, all clearly implement the clearly stated language and intent of this section of the Community Design Element. As such, the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade proposal is entirely consistent with this section of the Community Design Element. A residential usage, however, would destroy this attractive feature of the proposed project and deprive the City of its benefits. A residential usage, therefore, is inconsistent with this element of the General Plan. On page CD -11 is the section entitled "Landscaping". 26 This section of the Community Design Element describes the clear intention of the City to establish abundant and luxurious landscaping throughout all of the General Plan area. The establishment of the "Sand Canyon Special Standards Entryway Beautification and Remodeling Committee", which is a condition and corollary benefit to the commercial usage of the Harvest Corporation project is a clear implementation of the language and intent of this section of the Community Design Element. Again, this renders the commercial usage completely compatible with the General Plan, and renders any residential usage completely incompatible because of the inviability of these programs if a residential zone change is imposed upon the property. On page CD -12 is the section titled 'Buffers". The text of this section reads as follows: "Most land uses can be compatible when adjacent uses are taken into consideration in the process of design. In many cases, commercial and industrial uses adjacent to residential development can be made to be compatible when appropriate setbacks, landscaping walls, and building and parking placement are employed. The same is true for other land uses. In order to create a well planned community, there must be a balance of all land uses. There must be an appropriate amount of residential, enough commercial to service the residential, and enough industrial and commercial to have a reasonable jobs to housing balance throughout the City. The balance of commercial to housing is imperative for fiscal purposes in order that the City be financially viable. If buffers between land uses are planned ahead of time, reductions and/or elimination of land use conflicts are achievable. Buffers can be in the form of setbacks, landscaping walls, berms or combination of some or all. Buffers should also be incorporated between development and Sensitive Environmental AreaslHabitat such as significant ecological areas and important river and riparian habitats." ' This section of the Community Design Element is a virtual word for word description of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project. This section describes the ' sensibilities that were clearly used in the design of the project, pinpoints the appropriateness of the project in its ability to provide clearly-lacldng commercial goods and services to the Sand Canyon area, clearly supplies a "appropriate amount 1 1 27 II On page CD -14 are listed the following policies which implement Goal 1. They are as follows: "Policy 1.1 --Maintain or enhance the character of existing neighborhoods with policies and regulations that emphasize compatible architecture and landscaping." As can be seen from the renderings of our project, our project is completely harmonious with the equestrian, upscale, western -oriented theme which is prevalent in Sand Canyon. As such, it is clearly consistent with Policy 1.1. II 1 28 of commercial' to an area that does not have it, helps ensure that the "balance of commercial to housing is imperative for fiscal purposes in order that the City be financially viable", etc. This section of the Community Design Element clearly shows the absolute l compatibility, appropriateness and suitability of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade commercial proposed project. A downzoning of the Harvest Corporation property from commercial to residential would be completely inconsistent with this section of the Community Design Element. On page CD -14 is listed the section of the Community Design Element entitled "Goals and Policies". Under the section entitled "Protection of Neighborhood Identity" is listed Goal 1. Goal 1 states: "To protect and preserve the scale and character of existing neighborhoods, while providing for new development which is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan." ' As should be clear from the reference communities we have cited in Carmel, California; Rancho Santa Fe; and Montecito; our type of extremely luxurious, high- end neighborhood commercial center serves to both protect and preserve the scale and character of upscale, equestrian -oriented, estate home areas such as Sand Canyon. ' As such, our commercial usage, which is consistent with our existing zoning, is also entirely consistent with this goal of the Community Design Element. On page CD -14 are listed the following policies which implement Goal 1. They are as follows: "Policy 1.1 --Maintain or enhance the character of existing neighborhoods with policies and regulations that emphasize compatible architecture and landscaping." As can be seen from the renderings of our project, our project is completely harmonious with the equestrian, upscale, western -oriented theme which is prevalent in Sand Canyon. As such, it is clearly consistent with Policy 1.1. II 1 28 Policy 1.2 states: "Ensure that clustering of new development is compatible with the character of the existing surrounding neighborhoods." As we have shown in our description of the development that is immediately adjacent to our project, we are entirely consistent with the usages that surround us. Because of this, we are entirely consistent with Policy 1.2. Policy 1.3 states: "Consider all design elements, including building size, height, mass and architectural design in the design review process so that new development does not conflict with the character of the neighborhoods." Because of the unprecedented community outreach program that involves our mailing a one-half inch thick packet of information to all 813 of the property owners in the Sand Canyon area, combined with our extensive research with individual active members of the community, we have indeed considered all the elements of appropriate design for our project. This is reflected in the majority support that our project has received from the residents in the area to date. As such, we are entirely consistent with Policy 1.3. Policy 1.4 states: "Work with the residents of Placenta and Sand Canyons to develop special standards which reflect the lifestyles and character of these areas." Since we have been working extensively with our Sand Canyon area neighbors for nearly a year, have had nine. meetings to which area residents were invited to dialogue with us, and since we continue to seek additional opinions and contributions to our project, we are entirely in accord with Policy 1.4. On page CD -15 is found the section entitled "Design Concepts and Quality for the Community". In this section is listed Goal 2, which states: "To encourage design excellence in the development of all public and private projects in the City." 29 ' The design excellence of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is self-evident. In conjunction with the river donation program and the Entryway Beautification ' Committee, this project unquestionably exemplifies outstanding design excellence. As such, it is completely consistent with Goal 2 of this Plan Element. Because a residential usage on the Harvest Corporation's commercially zoned site would be completely inconsistent with all of the other Elements of the General Plan, a residential usage on the site would be specifically inconsistent with Goal 2. 1 30 Policy 2.1 states: "Identify important design and aesthetic attributes that contribute to the ' unique character of the City." The complete redesign of the shabby entryway to Sand Canyon, combined with the donation and preservation of the Santa Clara riverbed, combined with the extraordinary architectural beauty and landscaping of the Promenade center itself all clearly implement Policy 2.1. A residential usage on the Harvest Corporation property would be completely inconsistent with Policy 2.1 because of the inviability of such a proposal, combined ' with its inconsistency with all of the other Elements of the General Plan. Policy 2.2 states: ' "Provide for residential uses in proximity to business/commercial centers in a manner which promotes the neighborhood/village/town center planning concept and maintains the hierarchy of community centers and the concept of the Valley center." Whereas the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project is surrounded by commercial usages or industrial usages on three sides and by the completely dominating constraint of the railroad tracks on its fourth side, it. does have some proximity to existing, historically -inappropriate residential usages across the street on Lost Canyon ' Road. Since it is in close proximity to these residential usages, and more importantly, provides ready access via automobile, equestrian trail, bicycle trail, and proposed pedestrian train, the usage is completely consistent with Policy 2.2. Again, a residential usage would be completely inconsistent with Policy 2.2. 1 30 Policy 2.3 states: "Promote opportunities for greater pedestrian orientation and lifestyles." Since the Gateway Promenade provides for outstanding trail opportunities, it is completely in accord with Policy 2.3. Again, a residential proposed usage, with its destruction of the viability of this property. and its resultant inconsistency with all the other goals and policies is specifically inconsistent with Policy 2.3. Policy 2.4 states: "Encourage key gateway design themes to the City's major communities consistent with the overall community image." The Gateway Promenade project, the river donation program, and the Entryway Beautification and Remodeling Committee, which will be implemented as part of the project, all implement this precise policy and are entirely consistent with its language and intent. A residential usage on the property, which would destroy its use, would render the Harvest Corporation property completely inconsistent with this key policy. Policy 2.5 states: "Encourage the establishment of design themes, while avoiding monotony within the individual developments in the City." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is a shopping center completely unique within the Santa Clarita Valley, and quite unique within the entirety of Greater Southern California from Santa Barbara to the Mexican border. As such, it is completely consistent with the language and intent of Policy 2.5. Since a residential project would not be viable on the site, such a usage would be inconsistent with the meaning and intent of Policy 2.5. Policy 2.7 states: "Promote opportunities for greater bicycle orientation and lifestyles." Since the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project provides for the donation of approximately two acres of Santa Clara River Basin for implementation of the City's river study program, and the resultant bicycle trails, equestrian and pedestrian trails, the project is totally consistent with Policy 2.7. 31 Since the trail usages and the donation of the river property are not available with a residential usage, a proposed residential usage for this site is completely inconsistent with Policy 2.7. Policy 2.8 states: "Develop performance and design standards for buffer areas at the interface between uses." Since the Sand CanyonGateway Promenade pioneers, in its extensive use of landscaping, innovative and sensitive designs carefully attuned to the values of the Sand Canyon community, it is on the cutting edge of the language and intent of Policy 2.8. An inconsistent residential usage on this property would not allow for the implementation of the programs and design standards necessary for the implementation of Policy 2.8, and are therefore inconsistent with it. Policy 2.11 states: "Encourage public art as an on-site amenity for large scale commercial, industrial and mixed land uses." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project cannot be considered a large scale commercial project, but the remodeling and beautification of the entire entryway is definitely a large scale undertaldng. We intend to encourage and introduce the idea of public art in and around and on the entryway land uses as part of the design criteria for the "Sand Canyon Special Standards Entryway Beautification and Remodeling Committee". As such, this important part of the overall Harvest Corporation proposal definitely implements Policy 2.11. Again, since this Entryway Beautification Program is not available should a residential usage be.imposed upon the site, a residential usage will not implement Policy 2.11, and is therefore inconsistent with it. On page CD -16 is found the section entitled 'Treatment of Commercial Districts". In this section is listed: ' "Goal 3. To Promote Design Excellence in the Development of Business/Commercial Centers". Because of the extraordinary high quality of design evident in the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade, a design that is unique not only in the Santa Clarita Valley, but in all of Greater Southern California, with the exception of two or three other unique ' settings, the commercial project as proposed is entirely consistent with Goal 3 of the Community Design Element. 1 32 A residential usage proposed for commercially zoned property would be, of course, completely and oddly inconsistent with Goal 3 of the Community Design Element. Under Goal 3, the policies that are pertinent to this project are as follows: Policy 3.1 states: "Improve the appearance and function of business and commercial centers within the planning area through architectural form, landscaping, parking and signage schemes." Since, as part of the commercial project we propose, we are not only implementing an improvement in the appearance in the area in our own project, but are pledging to form a committee to design, finance, and build a redesign of the entire commercial Sand Canyon entryway, we are clearly in accord with the language and intent of Policy 3.1. Again, any proposed residential usage would be entirely inconsistent with the meaning and intent of this policy, and would deprive the City of the extraordinary benefits from this project. Policy 3.3 states: "Encourage the establishment of mixed use and village commercial centers throughout the planning area, and provide opportunities forplazas, urban open spaces, and the effective use of street furniture in downtown areas." Since the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project is clearly a "village commercial center", and since it will provide an internal plaza within the project for the community's use and enjoyment, it clearly implements the meaning and intent of Policy 3.3. Again, any proposed residential use for the Harvest Corporation commercially zoned property would be completely inconsistent with Policy 3.3 of the Community Design Element. Policy 3.4 states: ' "Encourage design and uses of commercial districts and related housing that add pedestrian orientation and that provide for safe and secure daytime and nighttime activities, i.e. the Newhall historic area and the City Center." 1 33 I Since the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project will be served by pedestrian, equestrian, bicycle, and vehicular roadways and trails, and since it provides for an internal plaza and park for the use and relaxed enjoyment of people visiting the restaurant and high-quality goods and services available in the shops in the center, the project definitely encourages pedestrian orientation in accord with the clear meaning and intent of Policy 3.4. Since a residential usage would destroy this entire concept of making this corner of a major intersection available for these kinds of community usages, a residential use on the Harvest Corporation project would be totally inconsistent with Policy 3.4. Policy 3.5 states:. "Encourage the provision of on-site employee recreation and open space." Since the Harvest Corporation project proposes to donate approximately two acres of Santa Clara riverbed for use as open space and environmental preserve, and for the siting of trails, this two acres of land provides a perfect opportunity for employee on-site recreation. As such, the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project is completely consistent with the language and intent of Policy 3.5. A residential usage for the property would be completely inconsistent with this very important policy. Policy 3.6 states: "Encourage the provision of buffering in areas near commercial centers and residential neighborhoods to help separate and delineate business and residential districts, and to create visual diversity." The design of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade located at the corner of Lost and Sand Canyon Road absolutely implements the clear language and intent of Policy 3.6. A residential usage on the property would provide no such buffering, nor would it provide the visual beautification and "visual diversity" clearly described in Policy 3.6. As such, a residential usage is completely inconsistent with Policy 3.6. Policy 3.7 states: "Discourage the development of small, multi -tenant -shopping centers which occupy comers or sections of blocks in favor of larger planned commercial and retail developments exhibiting consistent and uniform quality design themes which contribute in a positive way to the area." 34 '1 At approximately forty thousand square feet, or nearly one acre under roof, the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is definitely not a small, multi -tenant shopping center. It is indeed a larger planned commercial development which does exhibit consistent and uniform, and quality design themes which contribute in a positive way to the area. As should be clear, the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade implements both the clear intent and the specific language of Policy 3.7. Any residential usage on the commercially zoned Harvest property would.be clearly inconsistent with Policy 3.7. ' On page CD -17 is found the section entitled "Natural Resources Preservation". In this section is listed: "Goal S: To Preserve and Integrate the Prominent and Distinctive Natural Features of the Community as Open Space for the Use and Visual Enjoyment of all City Residents." Since the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project proposes to donate approximately two acres of Santa Clara riverbed to the City of Santa Clarita, the project clearly implements the language and intent of Goal 5 to preserve and integrate the prominent and distinctive natural features of the community as open space for the use and visual enjoyment of all City residents. Under Goal 5 are a number of policies. Policy 5.1 states: "Retain designated major land forms, such as ridgelines, natural drainage ways, streams, rivers, valleys, and significant vegetation, especially where these features contribute to the overall community identity." Since the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade proposes to donate approximately two acres of Santa Clara riverbed as a condition of its unique upscale commercial shopping center, the.project as proposed clearly implements the meaning and intent of Policy 5.1.. A residential usage, with its complete inviability and planning inconsistency with the rest of the Plan Elements, would destroy this major contribution to Santa Clarita, and as such would be completely inconsistent with Policy 5.1. Policy 5.3 states: 'Where possible, incorporate attractive natural amenities, such as rock outcroppings, vegetation, streams, and drainage areas into the development of future projects to protect the environment and provide 35 I landscape opportunities, visual biterest, scale and/or recreational opportunities." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project does indeed plan to "incorporate attractive natural amenities" such as "vegetation, streams and drainage areas" into the development of the project. In fact, we intend to donate the pristine natural Santa Clara riverbed property to the City of Santa Clarita for its eternal protection and use and enjoyment by the public for trails and habitat protection. In addition, we intend to provide an extraordinary degree of landscaping, a unique shopping center unlike anything else in Santa Clarita or Greater Southern California, and the recreational opportunities present in our plaza/promenade/park. It is clearly evident that we are a complete implementation of Policy 5.3 in its language and intent. The destruction of the use of our property through a residential designation would r render a residential designation completely inconsistent with Policy 5.3. On page CD -18 is the section entitled "Open Space Areas/Park Design". In this section is listed Goal 6. This states: "Goal 6. To Protect and Enhance Open Space Areas that Provide Visual and Aesthetic Character and Identity to the Community." The donation of our approximately two acres of riverbed, plus our commitment to remodel the entire Sand Canyon entryway clearly implements the meaning and intent of Goal 6. The destruction of the use of our property through a downzoning of its present commercial designation to residential would be completely inconsistent with Goal 6. Under Goal 6 are the following policies: Policy 6.1: "Establish programs and ordinances that will be effective in providing visual relief and separation between development and parks" The Santa Clara riverbed acreage that is to be donated in conjunction with this project is noted as a passive use natural park, and the landscaping and design of the project certainly provide buffering between the development itself and the natural use parkland which we ourselves are donating as a condition of the project. This clearly implements the meaning and intent of Policy 6.1. Wr Policy 6.2 states: "Promote open: areas such as plazas, interior arcades, galleries, rooftop gardens, and scenic viewplaces within intensive urban developments." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project is far from an intensive urban development. Nonetheless, it does include an interior plaza, an interior arcade, rooftop landscaping and gardens, and scenic viewplaces. It our gentle suggestion that these kind of visual amenities are very much welcome in far less intensive developments located in suburban as well as in urban development areas. As such, our project has an expansion upon the clear intent to beautify Santa Clarita, as exemplified in Policy 6.2. A-residentialdownzoning of our property would be completely inconsistent with Policy 6.2. Policy 6.3 states: "Establish recreational areas for both passive and active activities." The usage of the two acres of Santa Clara riverbed to be donated as part of our commercial project is designed to be a recreational area for both passive enjoyment of the Santa Clara River itself, and the muchmore active activities involved in jogging, horseback riding, and bicycling. It is clear that the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade commercial usage is completely in accord with the language and intent of Policy 6.3. A residential usage, with its destruction of the viability of the property, would be completely inconsistent with the intent of Policy 6.3. Policy 6.4 states: "Develop a park classification program (regional, community, neighborhoodflocal, special use parks) which conforms to. community recreation needs and encourages community identity throughout the planning area." In the Sand Canyon, there is a very active community of residents who enjoy horseback riding and other equestrian activities. They. have been campaigning extensively for the expansion and preservation of trails throughout the Sand Canyon and entire Santa Clarita Valley area. The donation of our approximately two acres of Santa Clara riverbed, and the associated trail installation which this ensures, certainly qualifies as providing a special -use park for the enjoyment of the equestrian enthusiasts in Sand Canyon. This certainly means that the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade "conforms to community recreation needs" and as such is in complete conformance with the language and intent of Policy 6.4. 37 Since the riverbed donation and the trail installation through the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project would be rendered impossible should a residential designation be imposed upon the property, such a residential designation would be completely inconsistent with Policy 6.4. Policy 6.5 states: "Promote the concept of a network of neighborhood parks and open space areas, where possible integrate neighborhood parks with a larger community -wide system, incorporation jogging and hiking trails, bicycle paths, and equestrian trail lurks wherever possible." The trail to be installed across the shopping center, combined with the donation of approximately two acres of Santa Clara riverbed absolutely implement the clear language and intent stated in Policy 6.5. A residential usage, with the destruction of the viability of the property and its associated planning inconsistencies with all of the other Plan Elements would render a residential usage on the property absolutely inconsistent with Policy 6.5. Policy 6.6 states: "Promote the preservation and enhancement of open space and recreational uses tied to the Santa Clara River corridor as identified in the Land Use Element." The donation of the approximately two acres of Santa Clara riverbed absolutely implements the meaning and intent of Policy 6.6. As such, the commercial usage of the Harvest Corporation project as proposed is completely consistent with this Policy of the Community Design Element. A residential usage, however, would destroy the viability of the property and the attendant community benefit programs, and would thus be inconsistent with the meaning and intent of Policy 6.6. Policy 6.8 states: "To the extent possible, promote the development of equestrian trails in river and stream channels and other open space areas away from urbanization, and to connect with trails in the National Forest in addition to locations within and adjacent to road easements." r 38 The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade commercial project, with its donation of riverbed land, clearly implements the language and intent of Policy 6.8. As such, the commercial designation of the Harvest Corporation project is completely consistent with this Element of the General Plan, and with all other eleven Elements of the General Plan. Conversely, a residential use proposed on this property would completely destroy the viability of the site, and more importantly, would be inconsistent with the rest of the General Plan policies, and certainly with the meaning and intent of Policy 6.8. On page CD -19 is found.the section entitled "Circulation System Design". Under this section is listed Goal 7. Goal 7 states: "To develop a safe and efficient circulation system that protects and enhances the overall community character." Under Goal 7, the policies are as follows: Policy 7.1: "Develop design principles for major roadway types which are consistent with roadway function, and which address roadway improvements, landscaping, aesthetics, roadway signage, lighting, and pedestrian enhancements." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade, with its pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trails, as well as its contribution to the improvement of the intersection of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road implements the meaning and intent of Policy 7.1. None of these improvements are available should a residential designation be placed upon the property. A residential designation thus destroys the viability of the property and the attendant benefit programs, rendering such a designation inconsistent with Policy 7.1. Policy 7.2 states: "Encourage and enhance identifiable entryways forthe overall community, ' individual residential neighborhoods, and unique or principle business/commercial districts of the City." Because of the unique nature of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade center itself, plus its location at the corner of Lost Canyon and Sand Canyon Roads, combined with its commitment to create the Sand Canyon Beautification District, which will 39 1 further enhance and preserve the elegant/rural equestrian nature of the Sand Canyon area, the project as proposed with its commercial designation is entirely consistent with Policy 7.2. A residential usage proposed for. the property, which would be economically inviable, and inconsistent with all the other goals and policies of the Plan, would destroy the viability of the property and the programs would be inconsistent with Policy 7.2. Policy 7.6 states: "Encourage the design and development of multi -use trails and pedestrian ways as an alternative transportation mode and to reduce tra&." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade specifies multi -use trails as part of the project, and ensures the perpetuation and extension of the Santa Clarita trail system as part of its donation of approximately two acres of Santa Clara riverbed. Taken in its entirety, the project, with its commercial designation, completely implements the clear language and intent of Policy 7.6. The residential usage, which would destroy the viability of the project, and which would be clearly inconsistent with the other goals and policies of the Plan, is inconsistent with Policy 7.6. On page CD -19 is located the section of the Community Design Element titled "Signage and Billboards". Under this section is listed Goal 8, which states: "To ensure that signage throughout the City is visually attractive and minimizes distraction." Policy 8.3 states: "Encourage distinctive signage which identifies principal entries to the City, unique districts, neighborhoods, public buildings, and parks." One of the several benefits from the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade commercial project is our commitment to form the "Sand Canyon Special Standards Entryway Beautification and Remodeling Committee". The Committee will be committed to creating a distinctive entryway theme architecturally and through landscaping and signage to identify both the commercial and residential parts of the unique Sand Canyon area community. Because of this program, we are actually implementing the meaning and intent of Policy 8.3 and are entirely consistent with it. 40 Lj A residential usage on our property would destroy the viability of this particular program, and would therefore be inconsistent with Policy 8.3. On page CD -20 is found the section of the Community Design Element entitled "Landscape Architecture". Under this section is listed Goal 9. Goal 9 states: "To promote superior landscape design which emphasizes aesthetics, function, and water conservation." One of the outstanding hallmarks of all Harvest Corporation projects is their award winning, lavish use of appropriate, drought -tolerant landscaping. The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade will be one of the most heavily landscaped projects ever constructed in the Santa Clarita Valley, if not in all of Southern California. As such, it will be an outstanding asset to the entirety of Santa Clarita, and to the Sand Canyon area in particular. The project, as such, will be completely consistent with the meaning and intent of Goal 9. A residential project on this site, with its inviability and inconsistency with other Elements of the Plan, plus its unattractiveness located at the intersection of major highways would render the project impossible, and therefore completely inconsistent t with Goal 9. Under Goal 9, there are a number of appropriately cited policies. Policy 9.2 states: "Utilize landscaping techniques to screen incompatible land uses and create transition and buffer zones between conflicting use areas." There are no incompatible land uses immediately adjacent to the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, but we will install extensive landscaping and landscaped buffer zones between ourselves and the commercial nursery immediately to our east, between ourselves and the Santa Clara River Basin land that we intend to donate to the City, and between ourselves and the usages across the street from us on Sand Canyon Road and on Lost Canyon Road, which constitute a commercial/industrial water well, and residential area on Lost Canyon Road, bordered in turn by the Southern Pacific Railway. We are, therefore, completely consistent with the meaning and intent of Policy 9.2. Again, since a residential project would be completely inviable upon our site, the landscaping benefits we intend to implement would be destroyed, rendering a residential proposal for our site completely inconsistent with Policy 9.2. 41 li II Policy 9.4 states: 'Develop landscaped themes to accentuate the major public gateways to the City." Sand Canyon Road is not a major gateway to the City of. Santa Clarita in the direction of our project, but it is a major gateway to the identified subcommunity of Sand Canyon. Since we intend to heavily landscape our project and, as part of our I project, implement the remodeling of the entire entryway, our commercial project as proposed is entirely consistent with the meaning and intent of Policy 9.4. Policy 9.5: "Encourage incorporation of indigenous landscape materials, such as native stone, river rock and Bouquet Canyon stone into landscape themes." These materials are specified in all areas of the project where they are appropriate. We are thus completely compatible with our commercial proposal and with the meaning and intent of Policy 9.7. On page CD -21 is found the section of the Community Design Element labeled "Architecture". In this section is Goal 10, which states: "To achieve architectural themes in form which promote human scale and provide a comfortable human interaction with buildings." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, with its very relaxed, comfortable, elegant feeling, accented by its internal plaza/park/children's play area/promenade is definitely in accord with, and actually implements the clear intent of Goal 10. Under Goal 10 are a number of policies. They are: Policy 10.1: "Provide design flexibility for urban design and architectural concepts in order to avoid architectural monotony and lack of design innovation." The unique design of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade, combined with its outstanding architectural design, is in complete accord with the meaning and intent of Policy 10.1. 42 Policy 10.2 states: "Encourage the use of materials that complement adjacent buildbtgs and their surroundings." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project specifies outstanding colors and materials that are completely in accord with their natural surroundings. As such, the project is completely compatible with this section and Policy 10.2. Policy 10.3 states: "Encourage design solutions that consider the physical scale of the area and adjacent buildings." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade has been especially sensitive to this consideration. Immediately adjacent to the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is the newly approved Ungar Sand Canyon Professional Center office building. This structure is thirty-five feet high, and sits on a hill somewhat higher than the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade. In addition, directly across from our project is the Sand Canyon area liquor store shopping center, which is even higher than the Ungar Project. We will be one of the lower structures in the immediate area and, combined with our landscaping and our low -profile relationship to the bridge over the Santa Clara River Wash, we are definitely in accord with this Policy 10.3. Policy 10.4 states: "Examine potential opportunities for community theme elements within individual residential areas, neighborhood centers, recreation centers, landscaped street medians, and other community facilities." An important part of the three elements of our commercial proposal is the Sand Canyon Special Standards Entryway Beautification and Remodeling Committee. This Committee will be charged with creating a Sand Canyon entryway theme design. As such, our project, with its associated benefit programs, is completely in accord with the language and intent of Policy 10.4. Since the Sand Canyon Entryway Beautification Remodeling Committee would not be viable if a residential usage were imposed upon our property, this proposed residential usage is completely inconsistent with Policy 10.4. On page CD -21 is the section of the Community Design Element labeled "Infrastructure". 43 u IIn this section is listed Goal 11, which states: "To achieve a coordinated and efficient infrastructure system which is visually unobtrusive while designed to meet the current and future needs of the planning area." To implement this Goal, Policy 11.7 states: "Encourage design solutions that reduce impacts/constraints from railroad right of ways within the planning area." It is the clear intention of the City of Santa Clarita to prohibit the future abusive placement of residential usages within the noise corridors created by the existing railroad right of -ways. The commercial zoning on our property, combined with our commercial proposal for the property's use is entirely consistent with Policy 11.7, which definitely reduces the constraints from the railroad right of way within this particular planning area. A residential usage, however, in this highly noisy major and secondary highway intersection, located near the railroad right of way, would not reduce the constraint from the railroad right of way, but would actually increase the * impact of this railroad constraint. Our commercial usage for our commercially zoned property is, therefore, entirely consistent with Policy 11.7. A proposed residential usage for this property, however, would be highly inconsistent with Policy 11.7. Policy 11.10 states: "Encourage a community design: relative to housing, commercial and industrial uses that provides convenience and fiscal stability." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade community neighborhood shopping center has been very carefully researched, and is an outstandingly viable proposal from a fiscal stability perspective. A housing proposal on this property is tantamount to economic suicide. The property is located at the corner of a major and secondary highway directly on a signalized intersection. In addition, it is within the noise corridor of both the Antelope Valley Freeway and the Southern Pacific Railway railroad tracks. It is surrounded by an office building usage on one side, a commercial nursery on another side, a commercial/industrial water well on another, and diagonally across the street by a commercial private school and an industrial diesel gas station and school bus maintenance yard. On the fourth side is a residential area, which is in turn bounded by the Southern Pacific Railway. Attempting to sell anything but the most high density and low cost housing on this site would be tantamount to fiscal suicide. Conversely, the extremely upscale and beautifully designed Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade center that we propose to build provides the height of fiscal stability for ourselves and for the community. 44 As such, our commercial proposal is absolutely consistent with the intent and language of Policy 11.10. The proposed residential designation for our property, however, is absolutely inconsistent in every way with Policy 11.10. On page CD -23 is listed the section of the Community Design Element entitled "Implementation of the Community Design Element". This section of the Element indicates that there are no present implementation mechanisms for this section of the General Plan. The section does state that in the future the section shall be implemented through a number of mechanisms. Two of the mechanisms which are specified are listed as 1) "Special Standards Districts" and 2) "Street Median and Parkway Landscaping Programs". The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, with its proposal for an entryway special standards district, and its donation of the Santa Clara riverbed property, and extensive landscaping to be installed in conjunction with its project, is completely in accord with and on the cutting edge of, and in anticipation of, these implementation programs. As such, the project itself, with its associated projects, can definitely be seen as an early phase of the implementation of the very intent and language of the Community Design Element of the Santa Clarita City General Plan. The commercial usage on the site is thus entirely consistent with this important Element. Again, because of the lack of planning consistency and the inviability and infeasibility of the idea of residential on the site, any residential use as proposed for this site is inconsistent with the Community Design Element as a whole, and with the proposed implementations mechanisms in particular. 45 I CONSISTENCY WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION ELEMENT On page ED -1 of the Economic Development and Community Revitalization Element, in the Introduction section, occurs the following text: "This Element addresses the planning factors which or improve or retard the City's ability to meet economic development objectives. These would include such issues as. city identity, aesthetic quality of the city, cost and availability -of infrastructure and public services, availability of a wide range of housing types and prices, and availability of supporting f commercial, such as shopping, hotels, restaurants, etc. Also important are the factors over which the City has the most direct control. These would include City environmental and permitting processes, and the fees and exactions that business and employees who reside in the City will be subject to." As is plain upon examination of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, the aesthetic quality of the City, and the availability of supporting commercial, such as shopping and restaurants, is definitely enhanced because of this commercial project. Therefore, the clear intent of the Economic Development and Community Revitalization Element, as expressed in the Introduction to this Element, is met successfully by the Harvest Corporation commercial project. Conversely, a proposed residential usage for the property would be in direct contradiction to, and completely inconsistent with, the intent of the Economic Development and Community Revitalization Element of the General Plan. On page ED -13 of the Economic Development and Community Revitalization Element is located Table ED -6, which is entitled "1988 Taxable Transactions". This important Table compares the per capita retail store taxable transactions for.ten cities in Southern California that are comparable to Santa Clarita in either population or in their rate of overall growth for the last decade. The City of Santa Clarita ranks number eight on the list of ten cities, in terms of per capita retail store taxable 1 46 transactions. Number one on the list is the city of San Buena Ventura in Ventura County, which has a per capita taxable transaction number of $10,721 per resident. By comparison, the City of Santa Clarita's number is $4,423. The city of Lancaster, which is an area where the per capita income is demonstrably lower than Santa Clarita, has a per capita income expenditure of $7,886. On page ED -14, there is the following text: 'As a point of comparison, Table ED -6 contrasts Santa Clarita's current per capita level sales with other rapidly growing communities in Southern California. This comparison indicates that there is a good possibility for a significant expansion of retail sales activity within the City area." Santa Clarita suffers drastically from a phenomenon known as "leakage". The provision of goods and services that are currently lacking and missing from the Sand Canyon area will serve to help solve the problem pinpointed in this section of the Economic Development and Community Revitalization Element. The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, by providing missing goods and services to the Sand Canyon area, will help to address the imbalance in per capita sales tax revenue clearly demonstrated in this portion of the General Plan. The increase in sales tax revenue provided by the project, therefore, shows that the project is completely consistent with this section of the General Plan. A proposed downzoning of the Harvest Corporation property from commercial to residential, however, would be completely inconsistent with this section. of the Plan. A proposed residential usage on the site represents a drain on City tax revenue resources. Therefore, a proposed residential downzoning on the Harvest Corporation property would be completely inconsistent with the Economic Development and Community Revitalization Element of the General Plan. On page ED -17 is found the following text: "The areas in .need of revitalization in the City of Santa Clarita are a series of corridors and linked districts, however, and they can best be defined by providing a general listing as is done below." There follows a listing of eleven of these districts/corridors. Three of these are as follows: 1) The Southern Pacific Railroad alignment corridor. The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is within the noise corridor of the Southern Pacific Railroad alignment. It therefore is affected by and is a part of this identified revitalization area. 1 47 Fl � A 2) The Soledad Canyon Road corridor, from Magic Mountain Parkway to Sand Canyon Road, particularly the Honby Industrial/Commercial area. The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is located between this Soledad Canyon Road corridor and the Southern Pacific Railroad alignment corridor mentioned previously. ' 3) The Santa Clara River Channel portions which lie currently within the City. The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project directly borders the Santa Clara River Channel. The project, of course, proposes to donate its Santa Clara riverbed land to the City for its benefit. The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, therefore, is clearly next to or actually a part of three areas that are identified in the General Plan Economic Development and Community Revitalization Element as being targets for needed revitalization. The project will certainly accomplish this clearly -stated intent of this section of the General Plan. The shopping center usage of the Harvest Corporation is therefore entirely consistent with this Element of the General Plan. A proposed residential downzoning, however, would be completely inconsistent with this section of the General Plan, unless this section were somehow amended to exclude the Harvest Corporation proposal. Between pages ED -18 and ED -19 is found Exhibit ED -2, which is entitled "Examples of Areas in Need of Revitalization". The corner of Lost and Sand Canyon Road, where the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project is proposed, is clearlyshown as being an area in need of revitalization on the map contained as part of Exhibit ED -2. This again clearly shows that the proposed commercial project is actually implementing the General Plan as it currently exists. Again, a residential usage on the property would be completely inconsistent with the intent of this section of the Plan. In addition, a residential downzoning of the property would also be inconsistent with the map that is part of Exhibit ED -2. On page ED -21 is found the following section listing the appropriate series of "Issues, Goals and Policies" for the Economic Development Strategies. The third item in this list reads as follows: 1 48 I "For the most part, the use of redevelopment and revitalization techniques in Santa Clarita, as defined in this revitalization component, primarily should deal with non-residential properties" Since the Harvest Corporation property is clearly identified on the map as being an area in need of revitalization, this section of the General Plan can only appropriately apply to the property if the commercial zoning presently on the property is retained. Again, a downzoning of the property to residential would render it inconsistent with the map in this Element which identifies it as an area in need of revitalization. On page ED -23 of the General Plan is found Goal 1, which reads as follows: "Goal 1, to achieve a balanced mix of manufacturing, commercial, retai4 cultural, entertainment and service uses that result in a diversified, stable, and environmentally sound local economic base." The development of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade on its presently zoned commercial property clearly implements Goal 1. Again, a downzoning to residential would be inconsistent with this Goal of the Economic Development Element. Policy 1.2 states: "Determine a desirable business diversification profile for the City of Santa Clarita." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, by providing goods. and services currently missing from the Sand Canyon area, clearly implements Policy 1.2 by providing desirable business diversification for the area. A residential downzoning of the property would clearly be inconsistent with Policy 1.2. Policy 4 states: "Encourage business opportunities in the eastern portion of the planning area, in addition to known new commercial and industrial centers along Interstate 5, and especially in the community of Canyon Country and in proximity to SR -14." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project clearly implements Policy 1.4 in that the building of the project would be an example of "encouraging business opportunities in the eastern portion of the planning area.... especially in the 49 community of Canyon Country and in proximity to SR -14". The project clearly implements this section. A residential use for the property would clearly be inconsistent with this portion of the Plan. Policy 1.9 states: 'Actively pursue hotel and major business development city-wide." By providing a restaurant and goods .and services in an area where they are not to be found clearly implements the intent of Policy 1.9. Again, a residential downzoning would be inconsistent with this section of the Plan. Policy 1.10 states: "Monitor and assess the City fiscal position relative to the land use miY, and any changes associated with the land use m&" In attempting to deny the Harvest Corporation's use of its commercially zoned property, no monitoring or assessment of the City's fiscal position relative to the land use mix that would be created by any change in the existing zoning was performed. Therefore, the Harvest Corporation's use of its commercially zoned property is consistent with this section of the Plan. However, the City's failure to monitor and assess its fiscal position relative to the land use mix change proposed for Harvest is in direct violation of this section of the Plan. On page ED -24 is found the section of the Economic Development and Community Revitalization Element known as "Growth Guidance". Under this section is found Goal 2. Goal 2 states the following: "Goal 2. To ensure adequate infrastructure and economic base support, the City should seek to stimulate simultaneous development of businesses and housing occurring within its boundaries and within the planning area." There are approximately seven hundred residential dwelling units approved for the Sand Canyon area. There have been no complementary approvals of any retail businesses within the area to serve this eighty percent increase in the housing stock 50 of Sand Canyon. Therefore, the Harvest Corporation's commercial usage of its commercially zoned property implements the clear meaning of Goal 2. Again, a proposed residential downzoning would be in complete violation of this goal. On page ED -28 is found the section headlined "Fiscal Balance". Goal 5 under this heading reads as follows: "Goal S: To ensure the City's present and future fiscal balance of municipal revenues and expenditures is maintained." The proposed Harvest Corporation project produces revenue. The proposed downzoning to residential consumes revenue. Therefore, the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project as proposed implements Goal 5, and the proposed downzoning to residential is inconsistent with Goal 5. Under Goal 5 is found Policy 5.1. Policy 5.1 states: "Seek a mixture of land uses, and the progressive and concurrent development of such uses, so that service costs are provided for in the Municipal Budget, the General Fund, Capital Improvement Program, Enterprise Funds, and other financing mechanisms." The growth and development that has occurred in Sand Canyon under the City's administration has not provided for a mixture of land uses. The Harvest Corporation project, on its existing commercial zoning, clearly implements the Policy in providing a mixture of land uses. Again, this section of the Plan is implemented by the Harvest Corporation commercial proposal, but a residential usage would be clearly inconsistent with Policy 5.1. On page ED -28 is found the section of the Economic Development Element headlined "City Marketing". Under this heading is found Goal 6. Goal 6 reads as follows: "Goal 6: To market and promote the City's available resources as necessary to encourage further expansion of its economic base." Under this Goal is found Policy 6.4. 51 Policy 6.4 reads as follows: "Be proactive in stimulating and attracting new business to locate in Santa Clarita." Approving the Harvest Corporation's commercial usage. of its existing commercial zoning would be clearly consistent with Goal 6, and Policy 6.4. Again, a downzoning to residential would be inconsistent with Goal 6, and Policy 6.4. Policy 6.6 reads as follows: 'Attract the development of community and regional serving retail and commercial services, promote the City as a retail and service center, and capture sales tax revenue currently being lost to other communities" The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade clearly is consistent with Policy 6.6. Again, the downzoning of the site to a proposed residential usage, with its attendant loss of sales tax revenue, would clearly be in violation of and inconsistent with Policy 6.6. On page ED -29 is found the section headlined "Revitalization". Under this section is found Goal 7, which reads as follows: "Goal 7.• To promote revitalization for the City's long-term economic stability." The corner of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road is identified in the Economic Development Element as an area in need of revitalization. Therefore, the development of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is entirely consistent with Goal 7 of this section of the Plan by providing economic revitalization of this area. Again, a residential usage on the property would be completely inconsistent with this section of the Plan. Under Goal 7 is found Policy 7.3. Policy 7.3 states: "Determine which major rights of way are likely to change in character in the near future, and the degree to which right of way improvements can stimulate adjacent private land assembly and reuse." 52 The intersection of Lost Canyon and Sand Canyon Road are designated as major and secondary highways in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and the intersection itself is conditioned for signalization as the result of any one of three Sand Canyon area residential projects. Therefore, the Harvest Corporation proposal at this intersection clearly implements the intent and the requirements outlined in Policy 7.3. Again, a residential usage would be inconsistent with the clear direction of Policy 7.3. i s' I I I I J I I 1 53 CONSISTENCY WITH THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT The next section of the General Plan is the "Circulation Element". On • page G2 ` of the Introduction to the Circulation Element is contained the following language: "Due to the physical location of the City within the Valley, the intersection and roadway system is further subjected to a substantial amount of regional cross traffic. Consequently, mechanisms for the maximization of existing and projected intersection and roadway capacities, alternative transportation modes, alternative work programs (Le. staggered work hours), and the approval and placement of alternative land uses must be investigated for their potential impacts in the planning area." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, located at the signalized intersection of a major and secondary highway, clearly implements the intent of this section of the Introduction in that it provides a substantial mechanism for capturing traffic which is already causing congestion in the area of the project further along Sand Canyon Road near Soledad Canyon Road and the Antelope Valley Freeway. The downzoning of the Harvest Corporation property to residential would clearly frustrate the intent of this section of the Circulation Element. On page C-6 of the Circulation Element is found a description of the types of highways described within the General Plan. Found on page C-6 is the following text: "The existing circulation system for the planning area is the transportation backbone of the internal and through traffic circulation network. This system consists of five roadway types, which include major highways, secondary highways, limited secondary highways, collector and local streets. ire major and secondary highways provide through access to large volumes of traffic between. major activity locations and generators while direct and indirect access into residential and community areas is provided from limited secondaries, collector and local streets." 54 II ' As this description clearly shows, there are five major types of highways. The type ' which is designed to carry the highest volumes of traffic is defined as a "major highway". The section then goes on to describe which are the major highways in the planning area. 55 Sand Canyon Road, in the area of the Harvest Corporation project, is defined in the Circulation Element as a "major highway", the most intensive, high traffic type of roadway to be found. It is quite clear that residential usages located on major ' highways are inconsistent with the intent of all the elements of the Plan. Commercial usages, however, are entirely consistent with this kind of high traffic roadway. ' The commercial usage for the Harvest Corporation property is therefore entirely consistent with its location at the intersection of a major and secondary highway. It ' is entirely inconsistent to attempt to downzone the property for residential use. Between pages C-7 and C-8 is found Exhibit Gl, which is a map of the "existing network of arterial highways and road system". On this map, Sand Canyon Road is identified as a major highway. Lost Canyon Road is identified as a secondary highway. The project is, of course, located at this intersection of a major and a secondary highway. On page C-29 are contained the following lists of guiding principles and objectives for the Circulation Element. iContained on page C-29 is the following language: "Examine all major,, secondary, and limited secondary highways for the creation of bus turnout areas to. increase the flow of traffic." ' A bus turnout already exists on Sand Canyon Road at the intersection of Lost Canyon Road. This is entirely consistent with the commercial zoning on the property, but would be entirely inconsistent with a downzoning to a residential use. Another of these listed objectives reads as follows: ' "Explore the potential for restriping of major, secondary and limited secondary highways to increase traffic capacities." Rural, rustic residential areas are not supposed to have their roads restriped to ' permit "increased traffic capacities". This section of Sand Canyon is not, of course, a primarily rural or even residential area, so this objective of the Circulation Element ' is entirely consistent with the commercial usage proposed by the Harvest Corporation. ' Again, a residential usage would be inconsistent with this section of the Circulation Element. 55 I [1 J 7 11 L C I On page C-32 is found Policy 1.12 of the Circulation Element. This Policy reads as follows: "Policy 1.12. Adopt a program of street and highway landscaping (Le. median planting and street trees) to enhance the appearance of the City's circulation system." The willingness of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project and the Harvest Corporation to implement the "Sand Canyon Special Standards Entryway Remodeling and Beautification Committee", which will involve the adding of extensive landscaping to the Sand Canyon entryway clearly implements the intent of Policy 1.12. Therefore, the project, with its associated benefit programs, is entirely consistent with this section of the Plan. A proposed residential usage for the property, which would be completely impossible from an economic perspective, would destroy the ability of the project to provide this benefit, and therefore would render that usage for the land inconsistent with the intent of.Policy 1.12. On page C-34 of the Circulation Element is the section entitled 'Transportation Alternatives". Under this section is found Goal 3. The language of Goal 3 is as follows: "Goal 3. To promote safe and effective alternatives to the personal automobile that willmeet the needs of all planning area residents." Under Goal 3 is listed the Policies which will implement it. Policy 3.1 states: "Establish a masterplan of bikeways that is coordinated with the County plan for the Santa Clarita Valley and regional network including Ventura County, in order to provide an adequate system for the safe and efficient movement of cyclists." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is consistent with this Element in two ways. First, a trail from Lost Canyon Road for bicyclists will be provided all the way along the project into the masterplan of trails located in the Santa Clara River. In addition, the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade proposes to donate two acres of its property to the City of Santa Clarita for the implementation of a wide-ranging series of public benefits. Among these is the unimpeded construction of all of the various trails that the City has identified as being a benefit to the public. 56 Therefore, the project as proposed is entirely consistent with Policy 3.1. Again, a residential usage, because of its economic infeasibilitywould be entirely inconsistent with this policy. On page C-35 is found Policy 3.2. Policy 3.2 states: "Provide a system of sidewalks or pathways, tunnels and bridges in residentia4 commercial and industrial areas that feature a safe environment, integrating pedestrians and bicycles in a manner harmonious with the surrounding neighborhoods." The commercial project as proposed is entirely .consistent with this policy. A residential downzoning, with its economic infeasibility, would be entirely inconsistent with this policy, since providing the pathways associated with the project would then become impossible. Policy 3.3 states: "Promote bicycle accessibility to all public facilities, including parks, schools, and centers of civic activity." The project as proposed, because of its provision of trails within the project and its donation of Santa Clara riverbed property, is entirely consistent with this policy. And again, a proposed residential downzoning would make the provision of these facilities impossible, and therefore a residential usage would be inconsistent with Policy 3.3. On page C-35 is found the section of the Circulation Element devoted to "Parking Facilities". Under this section is found Policy 4.4. Policy 4.4 states: "On -street parking should generally be eliminated from all major, secondary and limited secondary roadways" The commercial project at the comer of Lost and Sand Canyon Road is entirely consistent with the City's new parking ordinances. A proposed residential downzoning for the Harvest Corporation project would, however, result in a residential usage from which any on -street parking for guests or residents would be prohibited if this policy is to be obeyed. 57 This again shows that the Harvest Corporation commercial usage is entirely consistent with the General Plan, whereas a residential usage would be inconsistent with the General Plan. I' Between pages C-37 and pages C-38 is found Exhibit C-3, entitled "Proposed Masterplan of Arterial Highways". This map shows the future roadways to be built as the implementation of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. This map of future conditions shows that Sand Canyon Road is identified as a major highway of six lanes or greater, and that Lost Canyon Road where it enters Sand Canyon is also shown to be a major highway of six lanes or greater. It is clearly not the intent of the General Plan to locate residential usages at the intersection of major highways which are signalized. A commercial usage at such a location, however, would be entirely consistent with the intent of all of the Elements of the Plan. As mentioned, the future roadway map of the General Plan identifies both Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road as being major highways. On page C-39 is the definition of what constitutes a major highway. This definition reads as follows: "Major highways roadways, the City's and planning area main commuter links, are intended to provide for the movement of large volumes of traffic between major traffic generating land uses, and between cities. Major highways should be designed to cany a minimum of six lanes of traffic at relatively high speeds On -street parking along the major highways should be prohibited to maximize traffic flow. Curb outs, driveways and other intersections should be limited wherever possible to also maximize traffic flow." On page C-39 is found the list of major highways identified in the General Plan for the City of Santa Clarita. The eighth highway listed is "Lost Canyon Road from Via Princessa to Sand Canyon Road". The sixteenth major highway listed is "Sand Canyon Road from Placerita Canyon Road to Siena Highway." The Circulation Element on C-40 continues to describe the characteristics of major highways. W The section reads as follows: 'As proposed, -these streets are designated as six lane, divided roadways with no parking or bike lanes provided on street. The standard design width of a major highway is usually 104 feet to 114 feet from edge of right of way to edge of right of way. 77tere are only two exceptions to this condition. The first is Sand Canyon Road, south of Lost Canyon Road, where trail easements and related circulation conditions warrant additional travel lanes, but where only two lanes will be considered, and Bouquet Canyon Road (Soledad Canyon Road to Seco Canyon Road) where eight travel lanes will be considered." As is clear from this section of the Circulation Element, Sand Canyon Road in the area of the Harvest Corporation project north of Lost Canyon Road is considered to be a full major highway. It is only south of Lost Canyon Road, away from the project where Sand Canyon Road is to be considered an exception to its major highway designation. In addition, it is clear from this list that Lost Canyon Road where it adjoins Sand Canyon Road is also a major highway. This intersection is slated for signalization, and it is quite clear that a residential usage at this kind of intersection is completely inconsistent with all the goals and policies of the General Plan. A commercial project, as proposed by the Harvest Corporation on its commercially zoned property, is entirely consistent with this Element as well as the others of the General Plan. On page C-46 of the Circulation Element is found the description of "Limited Secondary Highways". Lost Canyon Road, east of Sand Canyon Road, becomes a limited secondary highway on the masterplan of highways. The project is thus located at the intersection where Lost Canyon Road goes from being a full major highway to a limited secondary highway. Contained in the description of what constitutes a limited secondary highway is this text on page C-46: "Residential units should not take direct access from these streets where possible. Limited secondary highways have a right of way to right of way width of eighty to eighty-four feet." This clearly indicates that it is the intent of the Circulation Element that new residential usages not be placed directly on limited secondary highways. Should a residential use proceed on the Harvest Corporation property, its only access would be either to Sand Canyon Road or to Lost Canyon Road. Clearly, from the sentence just quoted, a residential usage of the Harvest property would have to have access onto Lost Canyon Road, which would directly violate the clear; language in this section of the Circulation Element. 59 Once again, the commercial usage for the Harvest Corporation is shown to be consistent with the General Plan, whereas a residential downzoning would be inconsistent with the General Plan. On page C-47, Lost Canyon Road east of Sand Canyon Road is listed as the seventh limited secondary highway identified in the General Plan. On page C-49 is found the 'Bikeway Masterplan". The text of this section reads as follows: "It is the policy of this Plan that bicycle trails link schools, park facilities, major civic uses and employment centers whereverpossible. Bicycle trails should not be formally established on local streets (e.g. painted lanes with no par)dng). Rather, trails should takeadvantage of off road paths and flood control channels as appropriate." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade proposes to install multi -use trails through its project from Lost Canyon Road to the Santa Clara River, and to actually donate its Santa Clara River property to the City for its use and preservation. The project, therefore, is entirely consistent with the intent of this section of the Circulation Element. Again, an infeasible residential usage would destroy the ability of the project to make this significant contribution to the implementation of this part of the Circulation Element, and therefore is inconsistent with it. II II I LJ I 1 60 CONSISTENCY WITH The next Element of the General Plan is the Human Resources Element. On page HR -15 of the Human Resources Element is the section entitled "Cultural Opportunities". Under this section is listed Goal 3. The text of Goal 3 reads as follows: "Goal 3. To encourage the development of a wide range of community and cultural activities throughout the planning area." Under.this goal is listed Policy 3.1. Policy 3.1 states: "Encourage the establishment of community based organizations and develop community gathering areas which promote a variety of cultural activities in the planning area." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade may well have an art gallery, a musical instrument shop, and other goods and services which will promote cultural enrichment. In addition, the project proposes a beautifully -designed children's play area, which will allow for family gatherings to occur while goods and services needs are fulfilled. The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade, therefore, is clearly consistent with the intent of Goal 3, and Policy 3.1. A residential downzoning, however; is inconsistent with and does nothing to contribute towards the implementation of this goal and policy. Policy 3.3 states: "Encourage and support, where practical, community -wide cultural programs for all ages, such as. Cultural education programs Art in Public Places programs, funding from one percent of the estimated value of new non-residential development Art programs and classes in schools." 61 The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade volunteers to contribute its fair share of the funding towards the Art in Public Places program for the City. As a non-residential project, it is entirely consistent with this section of the General Plan. Again, a residential proposal which would downzone the property would be completely inconsistent with and make no contributions to this worthy program for the betterment of the City. On page HR -18 is found the section of the Human Resources Element entitled "Community Maintenance". Under this heading is listed Goal 7, the text of which reads as follows: "Goal 7. To stimulate pride in the appearance of our community, and improve the quality of life." As a condition of its project, the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade proposes to refurbish the extremely shabby entire entryway corridor to Sand Canyon. This will certainly increase the pride of all the residents in their community. It will also certainly improve the perceived quality of life of the area residents. The project thus is entirely consistent with Goal 7 of this General Plan Element. Again, a residential usage on the property would do nothing to enhance the implementation of this goal, and the economic infeasibility of a residential project renders the implementation of this goal infeasible. Policy 7.1 states: "Continue to support the upgrading of neighborhoods through rehabilitation programs." Since the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade proposes to upgrade its surrounding neighborhood, it is entirely consistent with this Policy of the Plan. The denial of the project, however, is in itself an act which is inconsistent with this requirement of the General Plan. The City, by denying the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade, violates the clear intention of this General Plan directive, which is to "continue to support the upgrading of neighborhoods through rehabilitation programs." Policy 7.7 states: "Promote neighborhood cooperation to clean up areas through neighborhood meetings and contact from the City." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, through its intention to volunteer to create the Sand Canyon Entryway Beautification and Remodeling Committee, is clearly implementing Policy 7.7. Therefore, the commercial usage on the Harvest Corporation property is clearly consistent with this section of the Plan. A residential downzoning, however, with its resultant economic infeasibility, would be inconsistent with the intent of Policy 7.7. 1 62 CONSISTENCY WITII THE PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT The next section of the General Plan is the Parks and Recreation Element. On page PR -9 of the Parks and Recreation Element is the section entitled 'Trails" Part of the text under the Trails heading reads as follows: "The trails system as proposed will be accessible to equestrians, hikers, joggers and bicyclers. The backbone system is proposed along the south fork of the Santa Clara River, Bouquet Canyon, Sand Canyon and Placenta Canyon areas." Since the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project as proposed will include a trail across its property for all of the uses mentioned in the trails section, and since it further proposes to donate two acres of its riverbed property to the City for multiple benefits to the community, including the use of this property to implement the trail network as described in this section of the Plan, the project as proposed is entirely consistent with this section of the Parks and Recreation Element. Again, any proposed residential downzoning of the property would prevent the trail dedication and riverbed donation offers from being implemented and would be inconsistent with this section of the Plan. Between pages PR -9 and PR -10 of the Parks and Recreation Element is found Exhibit PR -3, which is entitled "Regional Trails Map." , This map clearly shows that the Santa Clara River Trail is proposed to cross the Harvest Corporation property. Since the Harvest. Corporation is fully cooperating ' with the City in its desire to implement this trail, and since the City has clearly indicated that it would like to receive the donation of the riverbed property, the Harvest Corporation proposal is thus entirely consistent with the Trail section of the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. Again, a residential usage for the property would destroy this offer, and would thus be incompatible with the Trails part of the General Plan. ' On page PR -20 is found the section of the Parks and Recreation Element entitled 'Development of a Comprehensive System of Parks and Recreational Facilities to Meet Existing and Future Needs of Residents". 63 ' The first Goal under this section reads as follows: r"Goal 1: Provide, develop and maintain parks with quality recreational facilities dispersed throughout the area." Under this Goal are listed a series of Policies. Policy 1.6 states: "Use every opportunity to obtain land and facilities as it becomes ' available and/or ahead of need and hold or landbank for subsequent improvement to meet future park and recreation needs. Establish an open rspace district for the purpose of acquiring park and open space land." As a condition of the approval of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project on its existing commercial zoning, the project has made an offer to donate two acres of Santa Clara riverbed to the City of Santa Clarita. iHarvest Corporation is the first developer to make such an offer to the City of Santa Clarita. As such, its offer is entirely consistent with Policy 1.6, which indicates that the City is to use every opportunity to obtain land and facilities as it becomes available." By denying the Harvest Corporation project and its attendant offer, the City itself is violating Policy 1.6 of the Parks and Recreation Element, because it has turned down an offer to obtain necessary park and recreation facilities, as well as an environmental preserve in the Santa Clara riverbed. The Harvest Corporation proposal is thus entirely consistent with Policy 1.6 of the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. The denial of the project as proposed is in itself an act that renders the General Plan inconsistent, as would the attempted downzoning of the property from commercial to residential usage. On page PR -20 is found the section entitled "Park Standards". Under this section is found Goal 2, which reads as follows: "Goal 2. To establish standards and implementation measures to guide future parkland development throughout the area, as provided in this Element." Under this Goal, on page PR -20, is found Policy 2.4. 64 Policy 2.4 states: S'Aggressively seek and attain land for parks in all areas where available." The offer of the Harvest Corporation to donate two acres of land in the Santa Clara riverbed for the protection and use as a recreational asset by the City, plus its offer to build a trail across its project to this land, is entirely consistent with the intent of Policy 2.4. ■ A residential use proposed for the site, which is economically infeasible, as well as being extremely poor planning, would render this offer void, thereby offering additional proof that any residential proposal for the Harvest Corporation property would be inconsistent with the General Plan. On page PR -21 is found the section entitled "Parks Acquisition". Under this section is listed Goal 4, which reads as follows: "Goal 4. Aggressively pursue acquisition of future parkland." By denying the Harvest Corporation proposal, with its attendant offer of dedication of Santa Clara riverbed land, with its attendant offer of a trail easement, the City has violated Goal 4 of the Parks and Recreation Element. ■ On page PR -22 is found Policy 4.1. Policy 4.1 reads as follows: "Encourage the use of developer fees and land dedication incentive programs." The denial of the Harvest Corporation proposal does not encourage land dedication to the City. Therefore, the denial of the Harvest Corporation commercially zoned project is in violation of this section of the General Plan. On page PR -22 is found the section entitled "Recreational Use of the Santa Clara River and Other Natural Features" In this section is found Goal 5. Goal 5 states: "Goal S: Utilize the Santa Clara River as a central recreational corridor and identify other significant natural features to be designated as open spaces, parks, and recreational opportunities." r� 1 65 I The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, with its attendant offer of a trail easement and two acres of Santa Clara River property, is entirely consistent with the intent of Goal 5. Since this offer is only available with the commercial usage of the Harvest Corporation's epsting commercial zoning, any residential proposed use of the property will destroy the offer Harvest has made to the City of Santa Clarita. Therefore, the proposed residential imposition on the Harvest Corporation property places the City in a position of being in violation of Goal 5 of the Parks and Recreation Element. Under Goal 5 is Policy 5.1. Policy 5.1 states: "Establish the Santa Clara River as a major recreational focal point within the Valley." The Harvest Corporation offer clearly inaugurates the program of establishing the Santa Clara River as a major recreational: focal point within the Valley. By denying the Harvest Corporation commercial proposal, the City is in violation of Policy 5.1 of the Parks and Recreation Element. Again, a residential proposal for the Harvest Corporation property will kill any possibility of attaining the two acres for the City's use and benefit. Therefore, a residential usage in the Harvest Corporation property is entirely inconsistent with Policy 5.1. Policy 5.2 states: "Encourage multiple uses of public easements and public lands such as theflood food inundation areas of the Santa Clara River and its tributaries for recreational purposes." At the present time, the Harvest Corporation property is not public land; though, upon approval of its project, Harvest Corporation's riverbed property will indeed become public land, and it will be available for the uses described in this policy. Therefore, the Harvest Corporation commercial usage of its commercially zoned property is entirely consistent with Policy 5.2 of the Parks and Recreation Element. Again, the proposed residential downzoning would be entirely inconsistent with this Policy, and would place the City of Santa Clarita in the position of violating its own General Plan. it 1 66 Policy 5.5 states: ` "Encourage the development of compatible uses next to the Santa Clara River, and the inclusion of development features which provide for public access and use of the River." The Harvest Corporation proposal includes a trail across the project to the Santa Clara River, and of course offers to donate two acres of Santa Clara River itself for public use and enjoyment. Therefore, the Harvest Corporation proposal is entirely consistent with the clear intent of Policy 5.5. A residential downzoning, which will destroy this offer to the City, is entirely inconsistent with Policy 5.5. On page PR -23 is found the section entitled "Establishment of a Comprehensive Trails System". 11 Under this section is listed Goal 7. Goal 7 states: "Goal 7.Provide an efficient public trails system linking public space and adjacent regional system to meet transportation and recreational needs of the area." Since the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project provides a trail across its property to 'link public space and adjacent recreational systems", the project as proposed is entirely consistent with Goal 7. A residential downzoning, which will destroy thisoffer, is therefore entirely inconsistent with this Goal of the Parks and Recreation Element. On page PR -24 is found Policy 7.1. Policy 7.1 states: "Establish a Valley -wide regional trail system complete with staging areas and trailheads which link Cityparks, wilderness open space areas, regional parks, and the trail system." The commercial project as proposed does exactly what Policy 7.1 requires. Therefore, the project as proposed is entirely consistent with Policy 7.1. 67 II Again, a residential proposal for the Harvest property, which will destroy the offer Of the trail easement and the dedication of the two acres of riverbed land, would render such a proposal entirely inconsistent with Policy 7.1. Policy 7.8 states: "Utilize the Sawa Clara River as a focal point for development of an integrated system of trails, parks, and open space." The project as proposed implements Policy 7.8. Therefore, the commercial project as proposed is entirely consistent with Policy 7.8 of the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. Again, a residential downzoning of the property, which would destroy the offer of the trail easement and two acres of riverbed, would render the residential usage completely inconsistent with Policy 7.8. ■ Policy 7.9 states: "Provide equestrian, bicycle, and pedestrian trail developments along routes which are viable to the health and safety of horse and rider." The dedication of the riverbed property and the trail easement as a. condition of the commercial Harvest Corporation project are entirely consistent with Policy 7.9. Again, a residential proposed usage for the Harvest Corporation property would ' destroy this offer, thereby rendering a residential usage inconsistent with Policy 7.9. ' Policy 7.10 states: "Provide equestrian and pedestrian trails and bikeways which are separate from vehicular traffic and provide maximum safely when the crossing of streets or highways is necessary." As a condition of the commercial Harvest Corporation proposed project, trail easements and riverbed dedications are being made available to the City which are in complete conformance with Policy 7.10, and do indeed provide safe crossings and safe trails for equestrians, pedestrians and bikeways. Therefore, the commercial usage of the Harvest Corporation property is entirely consistent with Policy 7.10. Again, a residential usage for the Harvest Corporation property, which would kill the trail easement and riverbed dedication offer, are entirely inconsistent with this Policy 7.10. 1 68 I IPolicy 7.11 states: "Emphasize trail design in the Sand Canyon and Placenta Canyon areas, and other rural areas, which can accommodate both pedestrians and equestrians." The Harvest Corporation ultra -upscale, rustic and rural shopping center proposal provides trails for the Sand Canyon area in complete conformity with Policy 7.11. Therefore, the Harvest Corporation proposal is entirely consistent with Policy 7.11 of the Parks and Recreation Element. A residential usage, as proposed by the City, would be completely inconsistent with Policy 7.11, because it would kill the offer of the trail dedication, and the riverbed donation. Policy 7.15 states: "Public open space acquisitions shall be designed to provide trail segments to accommodate public access." The Harvest Corporation commercial shopping center proposal provides public open space acquisition, and provides trail segments which accommodate public access to its open space property. Therefore, the Harvest Corporation commercial proposal is entirely consistent with Policy 7.15. A residential downzoning, however, which would kill this offer, would render any residential usage on the Harvest Corporation property inconsistent with Policy 7.15. M CONSISTENCY WITH THE OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENTS The next section of the General Plan is the Open Space and Conservation Element. On page OS -5 of the Open Space and Conservation Element is a list of significant ecological areas to be found within the Santa Clarita planning areas. The first sensitive ecological area to be identified is the Santa Clara River. Further on in the Open Space and Conservation Elements, on page OS -8, is found a listing of "Important Habitats and Biological Resource Areas Within the Santa Clarita Planning Area, As Listed Below". The third area listed is the "Habitat for Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Plant and Wildlife Species Associated with Riparian Woodlands in the Santa Clara River." The next important biological resource listed is number 4, which states: "State listed endangered plant and wildlife species associated with riparian woodlands in the Santa Clara river." The next important biological resource identified is number 5, which states: "Open water habitat provided by Castaic Lake, Castaic Lagoon, and isolated locations along the Santa Clara River." The eighth listing is: "Habitat and Associated Biological Resources in Five Significant Ecological Areas (SEA) designated by the County of Los Angeles. Santa Clara River SEA, etc." The Santa Clara River is clearly designated for protection and preservation in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. The Harvest Corporation Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, with its commercial usage of its property, actually maintains and enhances the environment of the Santa Clara River. A proposed residential downzoning of the Harvest Corporation property, however, would nullify the offer of the donation of the riverbed property to public ownership by the City. 70 The Harvest Corporation commercial project, therefore, is completely consistent with the Open Space and Conservation Element. A proposed residential downzoning, however, would be completely inconsistent with the meaning and intent of the Open Space and Conservation Element. On page OS -25, is found the section of the Open Space and Conservation Element entitled "Goals and Policies". Goal 1 under this Element states as follows: "Goal 1: To preserve the special natural features which define the.Santa Clarita planning area and give it its distinctive form and identity." Since the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project puts forth the first program offered by a developer to preserve the Santa Clara River, the commercial land use proposed by the Harvest Corporation is entirely consistent with Goal 1 of this Plan Element. On page OS -25, under Goal 1, is found Policy 1.1. This Policy. reads: "Policy 1.1: Utilize major environmental features (significant land forms, significant ridge lines, significant vegetation, ecologically significant areas, other natural resources) as open space within the planning area." The Harvest Corporation Gateway Promenade project is entirely innovative in its sensitive use of the Santa Clara River Significant Ecological Area by offering it for public ownership to the City of Santa Clarita. The project is thus entirely consistent with Policy 1.1 of the Open : Space and Conservation Element. A residential downzoning, however, which would nullify the offer of the dedication of Santa Clara riverbed property, would be entirely inconsistent with this policy. On page OS -25 is found Policy 1.5. Policy 1.5 states as follows: "Policy 1.5: Investigate, develop and prepare along term plan to consolidate and acquire open space, using one or more of the following options to maintain viable natural ecosystems in conjunction with the orderly development of the planning area: open space easements; dedication of development rights; joint powers authority; open space district; City ownership and management by the Parks and Recreation Department, homeowners associations; and/orland scapemaintenance districts." 1 71 I On page OS -26 is found Policy 1.8, which states: "Policy 1.8. Identify and prioritize open space lands, which should be held in the public trust, and seek acquisition and the means to gain control of such land, including Santa Cladta Woodlands State Parks." The Santa Clara River is one of the open space areas identified in the Open Space and Conservation Element as being one of the areas which should be held in the public trust. The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, with its offer of riverbed donation, is entirely consistent with this section of the Open Space and Conservation Element. Again, a residential downzoning would not be consistent with this section of the General Plan. On page OS -26 is found Policy 1.9, which states: 1 "Policy 1.9: Establish the Santa Clara River and its tributaries, when appropriate, as a major centralized open space corridor linking a variety of public recreation and open space uses" The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade, with its open space dedication of its riverbed property, clearly contributes to the implementation of Policy 1.9. A residential downzoning would be entirely inconsistent with this section of the Plan, since it would nullify the offer of the open space preservation. On page OS -27 is found the section of the Open Space and Conservation entitled "Sensitive Habitat Areas". Under this section is found Goal 3. Goal 3 states: "Goal 3: To protect significant ecological resources and ecosystems, including, but not limited to, sensitive flora and fauna habitat areas." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project as proposed implements the clear intent of Goal 3. A proposed residential downzoning, however, would be entirely inconsistent with the intent of Goal 3, since it would destroy the project's ability and intent to preserve the Santa Clara River ecosystem. I - 72 With its offer of public dedication of Santa Clara riverbed property, the Harvest Corporation proposal is completely consistent with Policy 1.5. A residential downzoning, however, with its nullification of the riverbed donation offer, is entirely inconsistent with this section of the Open Space and Conservation Element. On page OS -26 is found Policy 1.8, which states: "Policy 1.8. Identify and prioritize open space lands, which should be held in the public trust, and seek acquisition and the means to gain control of such land, including Santa Cladta Woodlands State Parks." The Santa Clara River is one of the open space areas identified in the Open Space and Conservation Element as being one of the areas which should be held in the public trust. The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, with its offer of riverbed donation, is entirely consistent with this section of the Open Space and Conservation Element. Again, a residential downzoning would not be consistent with this section of the General Plan. On page OS -26 is found Policy 1.9, which states: 1 "Policy 1.9: Establish the Santa Clara River and its tributaries, when appropriate, as a major centralized open space corridor linking a variety of public recreation and open space uses" The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade, with its open space dedication of its riverbed property, clearly contributes to the implementation of Policy 1.9. A residential downzoning would be entirely inconsistent with this section of the Plan, since it would nullify the offer of the open space preservation. On page OS -27 is found the section of the Open Space and Conservation entitled "Sensitive Habitat Areas". Under this section is found Goal 3. Goal 3 states: "Goal 3: To protect significant ecological resources and ecosystems, including, but not limited to, sensitive flora and fauna habitat areas." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project as proposed implements the clear intent of Goal 3. A proposed residential downzoning, however, would be entirely inconsistent with the intent of Goal 3, since it would destroy the project's ability and intent to preserve the Santa Clara River ecosystem. I - 72 On page OS -25 is found Policy 3.3, which states: "Policy 3.3: Identify and protect areas of significant ecological value, including, but not limited to, significant ecological habitats such as the wildlife corridor between the Santa Susanna Mountains and the San Gabriel Mountains; and preserve and enhance existing Significant Ecological Areas (SFA's)." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project fully protects the Significant Ecological Area of the Santa Clara River. As such, the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade commercial project is entirely consistent with Policy 3.3. A residential downzoning would be entirely inconsistent with this policy. On page OS -28 is found Policy 3.7, which states: "Policy 3.7. Preserve to the extent feasible natural riparian habitat and ensure that adequate setback is provided between riparian habitat and surrounding urbanization." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project clearly preserves the existing natural riparian habitat in the area. As such, the commercial uses proposed for the site is entirely consistent with Policy 3.7.- A proposed residential downzoning, which will nullify the offer of riparian riverbed preservation, would be entirely inconsistent with Policy 3.7. On page OS -28 is found Policy 3.9, which states: "Policy 3.9. Promote the implementation of the Santa Clara River study." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project is entirely consistent with, and actually implements, the Santa Clara River study. The project as proposed is therefore consistent with Policy 3.9. A residential downzoning, however, would be entirely inconsistent with the intent of Policy 3.9. On page OS -28 is found the section of this Element entitled "Open Space Areas for Outdoor Recreation Uses". Under this section is found Goal 4, which states: "Goal 4. To preserve open space areas for recreational use as a natural buffer to more intensive land uses." The proposed project clearly does preserve open spaces for recreational use. As such, it is entirely consistent with this section of the General Plan. 11 1 73 A residential downzoning, however, which voids the open space dedication offer, is entirely inconsistent with this section of the General Plan. On page OS -28 is found Policy 4.1, which states: "Policy 4.1: , Identify potential sites for parks and recreational open space within the city, including the Santa Clara and South Fork Rivers." The proposed Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade clearly preserves the Santa Clara River as park and open space area. As such, it is entirely consistent with Policy 4.1 of this section of the Plan. A residential usage, however; would be entirely inconsistent with Policy 4.1, since a residential usage will not have the riverbed donation program available with it. On page OS -28 is found Policy 4.2, which states: I "Policy 4.2. Facilitate the acquisition of park and open space sites through grants, budget allocations, exactions, and other innovative techniques." The proposed project clearly implements the intent of Policy 4.2, since it actually provides for the acquisition of open space property. The project is therefore entirely consistent with Policy 4.2. A residential downzoning proposed usage is entirely inconsistent with this section, since it nullifies the acquisition of the open space site from the owner. On page OS -28 is found Policy 4.4, which states: "Policy 4.4: Encourage the cohesive development of trails and open space as a unified system, contiguous throughout the city and planning area, with linkages to county, state, federal and other parklands and trail systems." The proposed commercial project clearly is consistent with Policy 4.4, because the project provides for the installation of trails, and the preservation of open space. The project is entirely consistent with Policy 4.4. A residential downzoning usage, however, is specifically inconsistent with Policy 4.4, because of its neutralization of the open space acquisition. On page OS -28 is found Policy 4.5, which states: "Policy 4.5: Utilize the Santa Clara River as a focal point for development of an integrated system of bikeways, trails, parks, water features, and open space." 74 The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade clearly is consistent with Policy 4.5, since it indeed uses the Santa Clara River as a focal point for trails and open space. A residential downzone proposal, however, would be inconsistent with Policy 4.5, since the development of the trails and open space would therefore not be possible. On page OS -28 is found Policy 4.6, which states: "Policy 4.6: Promote the development of equestrianlbike/pedestrian trails along routes which are viable to the health and safety of horse and rider." Safe equestrian, bike and pedestrian trails are specified as part of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project. Therefore, the project is entirely consistent with Policy 4.6. A residential downzoning, however, violates the intent of Policy 4.6, since the trail developments referred to will not be possible. On page OS -28 is found Policy 4.7, which states: "Policy 4.7. Promote the extension of the County trails system within the planning area in accordance with the Los Angeles County Master Trails Plan, and as specifically tailored to the Santa Clarita Valley." The proposed project is entirely consistent with Policy 4.7, since it does indeed promote the extension of the County trails system. A proposed residential downzoning, however, which does not have the possibility of any trail donations, is entirely inconsistent with Policy 4.7. On page OS -29 is found Policy 4.9, which states: "Policy 4.9. Actively seek opportunities to obtain easements, dedications and acquisition of land for new trails." A proposed residential downzoning is specifically inconsistent with Policy 4.9, since it would destroy the ability of the City to actively seek opportunities for new trails, as clearly indicated by the language of this policy. The commercial usage proposed by the Harvest Corporation is, however, entirely consistent with the intent of this section. On page OS -29 is found Policy 4.12, which states: 'Policy 4.12. Protect adjacent neighborhood areas from noise, visua4 and traffic impacts of new active recreational areas through such measures as the use of 75 LE buffer zones, landscaping and walls as mitigation." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project will provide for noise buffering from the recreational trail usages of the Santa Clara riverbed property as proposed. Should the commercial usage somehow not be permitted, the Harvest Corporation will let the property stand in its present category, since any residential development for the site is entirely infeasible, given the constrains in the area. Therefore; if the City of Santa Clarita proceeds with the development of the river trail system, the adjacent areas will not be protected from the noise of the trail usage, since no project will exist to provide the sonic protection. The. proposed Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade is, therefore, entirely consistent with Policy 4.12. Again, a residential usage, since it will not provide for noise protection if it is not built, is entirely inconsistent with Policy 4.12. On page OS -29 is found Policy 4.14, which states: "Policy 4.14: Promote a coordinated public system of hiking, bicycle, pedestrian and equestrian trails." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project does indeed provide for the public system of trails mentioned in Policy 4.14. Approving the project, therefore, is in accord with the intent of this policy of "promoting" a public trail system. The commercial usage of the property is therefore entirely consistent with Policy 4.14. A residential downzoning, however, would frustrate the intent of acquiring this public trail system, and therefore would be entirely inconsistent with Policy 4.14. On page OS -29 is found Policy 4.16, which states: "Policy 4.16: Seek park sites and open space areas having areas of natural scenic beauty which can be conserved and enjoyed by the public, as well as areas having recreational opportunities." The proposed project is entirely consistent with Policy 4.16, since it conserves the beautiful Santa Clara River property, as well as providing that property for recreational opportunities. The proposed project is thus entirely consistent with Policy 4.16. A residential downzoning, however, would be entirely inconsistent with the intent of Policy 4.16, since no open space preservation would be possible with such a proposed usage. 76 II On page OS -29 is found Policy 4.18, which states: ` "Policy 4.18: Maintain public access to open space areas, where appropriate." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project contains trail usages across the property and into the Santa Clara River open space area, all designed as part of the project. The project as proposed is thus entirely consistent with Policy 4.18. A residential downzoning, however, would frustrate the clear intent of Policy 4.18, and therefore would be inconsistent with this section of the General Plan. On page OS -29 is found the section of this element entitled "Open Space Designation as Protection Against Natural Hazards." Under this section is found Goal 5, which states: "Goal 5: To use the open space designation to ensure the public health, safety and welfare in areas subject to natural hazards." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, through a combination of its dedication of the Santa Clara riverbed in its natural state combined with drainage improvements to be installed to correct the flood hazards and flooding found at the comer of Lost and Sand Canyon Road clearly implement the intent of Goal 5. A residential usage, however, which will not permit the flood hazard improvements at the intersection of Lost and Sand, or the dedication of the open space in its natural state, would be entirely inconsistent with the meaning of Goal 5. On page OS -29 is found Policy 5.1, which states: "Policy 5.1: Integrate natural hazard areas, such as floodways, seismic fault zones, and unstable soils into the open space network" The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project clearly does integrate the floodway into the open space network. The project is thus fully compatible with the intent of Policy 5.1. Since a proposed residential downzoning does not permit the open space donation, such a downzoning would be entirely inconsistent with Policy 5.1. On page OS -30 is found Policy 5.2, which states: "Policy 5.2. Provide adequate flood hazard measures to protect residents, employees and buildings from flood hazards by restricting development in areas which may be significantly impacted by flooding, within -major flood zones or below large dams and reservoirs." 77 II The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project clearly implements the intent of the language of Policy 5.2, since no development is proposed to occur in the floodway portion of the project located in the Santa Clara riverbed. In addition, the project proposes to increase the safety and welfare of the adjacent area residents, and the entirety of the Sand Canyon population by providing for drainage of the flood hazard at the Lost and Sand Canyon Road intersection. The proposed project is thus entirely consistent with Policy 5.2. A residential downzoning would be entirely inconsistent, since no development of the property could occur, and the public safety improvements would, therefore, also not occur. On page OS -30 is found Policy 5.3, which states: "Policy 5.3. Prevent public exposure to flood hazards in recognized floodways, consistent with Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements." The proposed project is entirely consistent with this section of the General Plan. A. residential downzoning would not decrease public exposure to flood hazard, since none of the improvements associated with the project would be constructed. A residential downzoning is thus entirely inconsistent with Policy 5.3, in that the improvements associated with the commercial project would never be built. On page OS -30 is found Policy 5.4, which states: "Policy 5.4. Protect public health and safety by designating areas of significant unmitigatable environmental hazards for less intensive uses or permanent open space areas." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project does indeed provide for no development in the Santa Clara riverbed basin portion of its property, and actually proposes to donate this for public benefit. The project as proposed is thus entirely consistent with Policy 5.4. A residential downzoning, since it would prohibit the donation of the riverbed property and the associated public works floodway improvement programs, would thus be entirely inconsistent with Policy 5.4. On page OS -30 is found Policy 5.5, which states: "Policy 5.5: Incorporate the use of flood control measures which maximize ground water recharge and the use of floodways as natural habitat." YI 11 The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project does indeed "incorporate the use of flood control measures which mardmize ground water recharge and the use of floodways as natural habitat", through the donation of the Santa Clara riverbed property to the City of Santa Clarita, combined with the construction of a significant drainage system for the intersection of Lost and Sand Canyon Road. The project is thus completely consistent with Policy 5.5. jA residential downzoning, which prohibits the donation of the riverbed property and the construction of the flood control improvements, is thus entirely inconsistent with Policy 5.5. On page OS -31 is found the section of the Open Space and Conservation Element entitled "Water Resources Preservation". Under this section is found Goal 7, which states: "Goal 7• To protect the quality and quantity of local water resources, including the natural productivity of all surface and ground water, and important watershed and recharge areas." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project clearly meets the intent of Goal 7, since it actually donates into public ownership Santa Clara riverbed property. The proposed commercial usage of the property is thus entirely consistent with Goal 7, whereas a residential downzoning would frustrate the donation of the riverbed property, and would therefore be inconsistent with Goal 7. On page OS -31 is found Policy 7.1, which states: "Policy 7.I: Protect and preserve the supply and quality of water resources in cooperation with Federal, state, and regional water resource planning programs and regulations." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project does indeed protect the important rwater resource of the Santa Clara River basin. The commercial project as proposed is thus entirely consistent with Policy 7.1. ' A residential downzoning, which would prevent the donation of the Santa Clara riverbed. property, is entirely inconsistent with the implementation of Policy 7.1. On page OS -31 is found Policy 7.3, which states: I"Policy 7.3: Maintain the natural productivity of streams, rivets, and other water bodies by supporting regulatory practices which prevent erosion and minimize pollutant content in surface runoff from major development." I� 1 79 I The present condition of the drainage pattern down Sand Canyon Road, as it has affected Lost and Sand Canyon property owned by the Harvest Corporation, has caused a significant amount of soil erosion into the Santa Clara River basin itself. This is a direct violation of the intent of Policy 7.3, which will be corrected by the f development of the project. The commercial project as proposed is thus entirely consistent with the intent of the language of Policy 7.3 A residential downzoning, which will prevent the improvements which would implement the meaning of Policy 7.3, would thus render any residential downzoning entirely inconsistent with Policy 7.3 On page OS -31 is found Policy 7.4, which states: "Policy 7.4: Prohibit the flow of polluting chemicals or sediments into ground rwater recharge areas." The current conditions on Sand Canyon Road allow a heavy silting and inflow of sediment from surrounding areas into the Santa Clara River basin. This uncorrected condition is in clear conflict with the intent of Policy 7.4. The project will correct the sedimentary flow into the Santa Clara River from the Lost and Sand Canyon property. The commercial usage.of the property is thus clearly consistent with the intent of Policy 7.4. A proposed residential downzoning, however, would prohibit the implementation of the improvements on the site, thereby frustrating the goal of removing excessive sediment from flowing into the Santa Clara River. This residential downzoning would thus be entirely inconsistent with Policy 7.4 of this section of the General Plan. On page OS -31 is found Policy 7.5, which states: MW "Policy U Identify and protect groundwater recharge areas and encourage the development of spreading and impoundment areas." The Harvest Corporation project does indeed provide for the development of a spreading area where the Santa Clara River presently is narrowed by the bridge abutment of the Sand Canyon Bridge across the Santa Clara River. As such, the project provides for a major improvement in the flow characteristics of the Santa * Clara River, which will be completely with the clear intent of Policy 7.5. Since a residential proposed usage of the property is not feasible, the public works improvements and the preservation of the Santa Clara River would not be possible, thereby rendering a residential usage of the property clearly inconsistent with Policy 7.5 of this part of the General Plan. 80 On page OS -31 is found Policy 7.6, which states: "Policy 7.6: Require storm control systems where necessary to conform with the natural drainage patterns of the area." Nature has clearly indicated that a major water channel has been carved across the Lost and Sand Canyon area property. A major public works and public safety improvement with the construction of the project will install a storm drain that will prevent the erosion of Sand Canyon Road and the Sand Canyon area bridge, and the further siltation of the Santa Clara River itself. The commercial project is thus entirely consistent with the language of Policy 7.6. A residential downzoning, which would render impossible the improvements just described, would thus be entirely inconsistent with Policy 7.6. On page OS -31 is found Policy 7.7, which states: "Policy 7.7.• Utilize f loodways for the purpose of recreation, scenic relief, ground water recharge, wildlife protection, and other compatible uses." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project conforms to each and every one of the listed uses suggested for floodways in Policy 7.7. The project as proposed is thus 1 entirely compatible with and consistent with Policy 7.7. A residential downzoning, which would prohibit the implementation of any of the described usages, would therefore be entirely inconsistent with this section of the General Plan. On page OS -31 is found Policy 7.8, which states: "Policy 7.8. Protect watersheds that represent significant components of local and regional waterways and/or which contribute to the integrity of surrounding associated habitats." ' The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project does indeed protect watersheds that comprise significant parts of regional waterways, and is thus entirely consistent with this policy of the General Plan. A residential downzoning, however, which would frustrate this waterway protection, would be entirely inconsistent with Policy 7.8. 81 On page OS -32 is found Policy 7.12, which states: "Policy 7.12: Encourage the use of native and drought -tolerant plant species for revegetation and landscaping." The proposed commercial project from the Harvest Corporation will indeed make use of drought -tolerant plant species, and thus is entirely consistent with Policy 7.12. On page OS -34 is found the summary of the Open Space and Conservation Element, entitled "Implementation of the Open Space and Conservation Element". This section makes clear that there do not exist at present any mechanisms for implementing the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. The section goes on to state that those will be forthcoming in the future. A list of these future implementation mechanisms include the following: The third listed item reads: 'A Sensitive Ecological Area (SEA) overlay zone for the continued preservation * of the five existing County SEA's and the establishment of criteria for additional ■ areas." .The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project anticipates this implementation mechanism by preserving the Sensitive Ecological Area portion of its property, i.e. the Santa Clara riverbed, as part of its development proposal. The fourth listed potential implementation mechanism reads: - "Zoning regulations and accompanying submittal requirements that specify items such as slope analysis; identification of significant, threatened, and endangered species of flora azul fauna; floodplain areas and areas subject to inundation; and significant ridgelines." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project anticipates this implementation mechanism as well by providing for significant public works benefits that improve the safety and well being of all Sand Canyon residents through the removal of the flood hazard at the intersection of Lost and Sand Canyon Roads, plus the protection of the Santa Clara riverbed property. The proposed project is thus entirely consistent with the future implementation mechanism outlined in this part of the General Plan. On page OS -34, the sixth future implementation mechanism listed reads as follows: "Provisions for access to public lakes, waterways, rivers and streams." 1 82 li The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project completely anticipates this implementation mechanism, since trail access for horses, walkers and runners, and bicyclists is provided to the trail system located in the Santa Clara River basin. The proposed project is thus consistent with the intent of the proposal for future General Plan implementation. A residential downzoning, which would prohibit the implementation of these benefits, would be entirely inconsistent with this future implementation goal. The seventh listed future implementation mechanism on page OS -34 reads as follows: 'An open space acquisition fund for the purchase of privately held parcels that are located on or within areas of significant ridgelines, ground water recharge areas, or areas of endangered flora and/or fauna." The proposed Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project provides an important groundbreaking precedent for the City of Santa Clarita in that the project proposes to donate free of charge, without cost to the City, valuable Santa Clara riverbed property. This donation renders unnecessary the idea of implementing an acquisition fund for the purchase of these kinds of properties, since the acquisition of the property will take place free of charge to the taxpayers as part of the commercial r project. A residential downzoning of the property would be inconsistent with the intent of this future implementation goal, since the acquisition of the property in the Santa Clara River basin would be impossible. l 1 I I 1 83 CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIR QUALITY ELEMENT The Air Quality Element is the next listed Element within the Santa Clarita General Plan. On page AQ -11 is found the following significant comment: "Locally generated air pollutants are also a cause for concern in the Santa Clarita area, where increased growth has led to increased automobile traffic. Highly localized carbon monoxide concentrations can be expected at congested intersections, especially in winter." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, as a function of its capturing of Sand Canyon area traffic that presently enters the congested traffic patterns at Highway 14 and at Soledad Canyon Road, will be very positive in its influence on air quality in the immediate Sand Canyon/Canyon Country area. This will occur both as a function of reducing the vehicular miles Sand Canyon area residents presently must drive to obtain needed goods and services, and also by keeping these automobiles out of the congestion patterns at the aforementioned intersections, where they sit in congested traffic patterns and generate the high levels of pollutants known to occur in congested traffic. Therefore, the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project as proposed will be a significant benefit to the reduction of air pollution in the Sand Canyon, Canyon Country, and overall Santa Clarita Valley area. A residential downzoning of the property, however, would not present the opportunity for this significant reduction in traffic congestion and air pollution, and would therefore be inconsistent with the Air Quality Element of the General Plan. On page AQ -16 is found Table AQ -4 of the Air Quality Element. This shows a table of "air quality management plan control measures to be implemented by local governments". This shows measures within the control of local governments that will bring the area under that local government agency's control into compliance with the AQMD Air Quality Control Plan. Item four in the list of improvements to be implemented is an item listed 'Traffic Flow Improvements". This is listed as an administrative action available to the local agency. M The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, by providing for a reduction in traffic congestion at the intersections of Sand Canyon and Soledad Canyon Roads, and at the intersections of Highway 14 and Sand Canyon Roads automatically provides for traffic congestion reduction, and for traffic flow improvements in the immediate area. The construction of the project, therefore, is entirely consistent with this important requirement of the AQMD Plan as it used to be administered by the local government agency; namely, the City of Santa Clarita. A residential downzoning of the project, however, with its attendant slight increase in vehicular traffic, coupled with no reduction whatsoever in traffic flow in the immediate area of Sand Canyon and in Canyon Country in general, is entirely inconsistent with the objectives of this section of the Air Quality Element of the Plan. On page AQ -19 is the section of the Element entitled "Goals and Policies". In this section is found the following language: "The CCA (California CleanAirAct) requires that regional emissions be reduced by five percent per year, averaged over three year periods, until attainment can be demonstrated. Each area that does not currently meet a national or state ambient air quality standard is to prepare a plan which demonstrates how attainment will be reached." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, by offering a significant reduction in vehicle trips for the attainment of needed goods and services to Sand Canyon area residents, will be a significant contributor to the successful attainment of this five percent reduction goal by the City of Santa Clarita. A downzoning of commercial property which reduces vehicular air pollution to a residential status which does nothing to reduce vehicular air pollution, but in fact creates such pollution, is clearly in violation of this section of the Air Quality Element. On page AQ -20 is found the following text: 'All proposed uses must be considered consistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. Accordingly, existing inconsistent uses must be corrected or eliminated. Potential uses to be located in or near the City must not provide new sources of pollutants or increase beyond acceptable levels existing emissions that are considered problematic in meeting the goals and objectives of the AQMP." 85 I� The downzoning of a commercial land use which reduces air pollution by providing jobs and needed commercial services close to a population base that does not have them would clearly be in violation of this section of the Air Quality Element, as mandated by the AQMP. On page AQ -20 of the Air Quality Element is found the following text: "Goal l: To minimize conflicts between city and other governmental agency air quality policies, plans, and programs." One of the clear mandates of the other governmental agencies involved in air pollution reduction is for the provision of jobs, and commercial services close to the population bases that need.them and that do not have them. The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project clearly meets the objectives of Goal 1 as it is understood by the other government agencies involved in air pollution reduction. Since the project will provide a reduction in traffic, pollution, and jobs closer to the homes of those who would wish to hold them, it clearly meets the intent of Goal 1. A residential downzoning, however, would be in clear conflict with the intent and the language of Goal 1. On page AQ -20 is found Policy 1.1, which reads as follows: "Policy 1.1: Coordinate the planning and implementation of land use, transportation, housing, energy, and other Elements of the General Plan with the Air Quality Element." The non -parcel specific Land Use Element contained in the General Plan would be consistent with the clear intent of the Air Quality Element if the commercial designation of the Harvest Corporation property is retained. If, however, a residential downzoning were to actually be implemented, it would create a clear inconsistency with the Air Quality Element, as expressed in Policy 1.1. On page AQ -20 is found the Air Quality Element headlined'Transportation Demand Management". Under this section is found Goal 2, which reads as follows: "Goal 2: To reduce emissions resulting from work and non -work vehicle trips by private and local government employees" Since the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project will provide jobs that are close III to the residents of Sand Canyon, it is clearly in line with the intent of Goal 2. A residential downzoning, however, would totally frustrate the clear intent of Goal 2, and would be inconsistent with it. 1 86 It On page AQ -20 is found Policy 2.3, which states: t"Policy 2.3. Develop in the City and promote in the planning area alternative transportation systems, including but not limited to, comprehensive bus service, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and associated support facilities." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project, through its implementation as part of the project of bicycle and pedestrian trails, as well as equestrian trails, is clearly consistent with and in compliance with Policy 2.3. A residential downzoning, however, which would not provide. any of these transportation improvements, would clearly be inconsistent with the goal of implementing Policy 2.3. On page AQ -21 is found Policy 2.4, which states: "Policy 2.4: Promote programs which reduce vehicle emissions, including walking, bicycling ride sharing, transit subsidies, staggered work schedules, public transit enhancement, telecommuting, tele -education, and park and ride facilities." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade, which clearly reduces overall vehicular emissions in the Sand Canyon/Canyon Country area, and which provides facilities for walking; bicycling, and horseback riding; clearly implements the intent of Policy 2.4, and is thus consistent with it. A residential downzoning of the property, which would preclude the improvements in alternative transportation that are part of the commercial project, would thus be inconsistent with Policy 2.4. On page AQ -21 is found the section of the Element entitled '"Traffic Flow Improvements". Under this section is found Goal 5, which reads as follows: "Goal S: To reduce vehicle emissions through traffic flow improvements." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project does reduce vehicle emissions through traffic flow improvements by capturing traffic which enters the congested intersections at Soledad and Sand, and Sand Canyon and Highway 14. The project also reduces vehicle emissions by substantially shortening vehicle trips which presently begin in Sand Canyon and terminate far across the Santa Clarita Valley, or far across the South Coast Air Quality Management basin itself to obtain needed and wanted goods and services which are unavailable close to home. The project, as proposed, is therefore entirely consistent with the intent of Goal 5. A residential downzoning would be entirely inconsistent with Goal 5, since a residential usage would do nothing to reduce vehicular emissions in any part of the General Plan area. 87 On page AQ -21 is found Policy 5.1, which reads as follows: "Policy 5.1: Develop and implement traff is flow improvements in order to reduce congestion, conserve energy, and improve air quality." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project does indeed develop and implement traffic flow improvements that reduce congestion and improve air quality. As such, the project is entirely consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Plan. A residential downzoning, however, would be entirely inconsistent with Policy 5.1 of the General Plan. On page AQ -22 is found Policy 8.3, which states: "Policy 8.3.. Promote the use of landscaping especially trees, to reduce heat build up, save energy, and help cleanse the air." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project will be far more extensively landscaped than any unfeasible alternative residential usage. As such, the commercial usage of the site will be in complete accord with the goal of Policy 8.3, which says that the use of landscaping, especially trees, should be promoted. A residential downzoning, however, would not be feasible, and therefore would not provide for the promotion of landscaping. Thus, it would be inconsistent with the clear intent of Policy 8.3. On page AQ -23 is found the section of the Air Quality Element entitled "Land Use". Under this section is found Policy 10.1, which states: "Policy 10.1: Contribute to the reduction of vehicle miles traveled by achieving a more reasonable job/housing balance." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project does indeed contribute to a reduction in vehicular miles traveled by people in Sand Canyon, and it also creates a more reasonable jobs/housing balance for youth and potential part-time workers in the Sand Canyon area. The project as proposed, therefore, is entirely consistent with Policy 10.1 of the Air Quality Element. A residential downzoning of the property, however, would do nothing to reduce 1 vehicular miles traveled by Sand Canyon area residents; nor would it do anything to achieve a more reasonable jobs/housing balance; nor would it provide local job opportunities for Sand Canyon area residents. Thus, a residential proposed usage on the Harvest Corporation property would be entirely inconsistent with Policy 10.1. I I - 88 On page AQ -23 is found Policy 10.2, which states: "Policy 10.2: Develop and encourage efficient transportation systems and land use patterns which minimize total trips and vehicle miles traveled" The land use pattern proposed by the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenadeproject does indeed minimize total trips and vehicle miles traveled. It is therefore entirely consistent with this section of the Air Quality Element of the General Plan. A residential usage for the property would be completely inconsistent with this Policy, in that it would do nothing to minimize vehicular trips or vehicle miles traveled. On page AQ -25 is found the list of proposed implementation mechanisms for the Air Quality Element of the General Plan. The first of these listed implementation mechanisms is: Comply with South CoastAir Quality Management District rules and regulations." The South Coast Air Quality Management District rules and regulations clearly call for reductions in vehicular trips, and the location of needed goods and services closer to the population centers which would use them, and the improvement of the jobs/housing balance, causing obvious improvements in air quality. The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project clearly complies with all of these requirements. A residential downzoning of the property, however, would not be in compliance with these same requirements, and would thus be inconsistent with the Air Quality Element of the General Plan. The eighth listed implementation mechanism reads as follows: Landscapingltree planting guidelines." The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project will implement an extensive landscaping and tree planting program, not only on its own property, but all throughout the Sand Canyon entryway, as part of the Sand Canyon Special Standards Entryway Remodeling and Beautification Program. The project as proposed is thus consistent with the intent of the future implementation mechanisms of the Air Quality Element. A proposed residential downzoning, however, would not be able to provide. these landscaping and tree planting improvements, and would thus be inconsistent with the Air Quality Element of the Plan. W- II � CONSISTENCY WITH THE NOISE ELEMENT 41 On page N-1 of the Noise Element is found the following introductory text: "State law, government code section 65302(t) requires that the General Plan shall include a Noise Element (NE) which identifies and appraises noise problems in the community. It must recognize the guidelines adopted by the State Office of Noise Control Finally, it must analyze and quantify the current and projected noise levels for all of the following. Highways and freeways Primary arterials and major local streets Passenger and freight on-line railroad operations andground rapid transit systems" (The subsequent three listings do not pertain to the Harvest Corporation property) At the time the administrative action taken by the Director of Community Development was issued, there was no corroborative analysis of the Noise Element of the General Plan available. Had it been so, a denial of the Harvest Corporation Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project on the basis of the proposal that it was not consistent with the draft of the General Plan would have been impossible. The Noise Element clearly indicates that low-density residential usages on property as noisy as the Harvest Corporation property is, is entirely unsuitable for low-density residential housing. Conversely, the Noise Element and the newly available Noise Contour Maps clearly show that, while the property is unsuitable for residential use, it is within the clear guidelines presented in the Noise Contour Map and in the Noise Element itself for commercial usages. The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project is thus entirely consistent with the Noise Element as originally passed, and especially as amended. A residential usage, however, is clearly inconsistent with the Noise Element of the General Plan. The first identified noise source mandated for analysis by State law are the highways and freeways. W The Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project is located at the intersection of a major and secondary highway, as designated in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. It is also approximately six hundred yards from the Antelope Valley Freeway. Thus, the property is far too noisy for any proposed residential use, especially a "residential low" proposed usage. The second identified noise. analysis required by State law is of the noise generated by "primary arterials and major local streets". The intersection of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road, where the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project is located, is designated for signalization by any one of the three residential projects already approved for construction. These are, in the order in which they were approved, the "Hunters Green" project, the "Prime West (or Batta)", and the "American Beauty Oak Springs Canyon" project. Any one of these three projects would have generated sufficient traffic to require that the intersection of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road be controlled by an electronic signal light. The traffic is already heavy enough so that the slight incremental increase from any one of these three projects increases the traffic level sufficiently to warrant the installation of a traffic signal light. There are over seven hundred luxury estate homes currently approved or pending for construction in the Sand Canyon area. It is for this reason that the intersection of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road is designated as the intersection of a primary, or major, and secondary major highway. The noise levels from this amount of traffic alone negate any potential residential usage on the Harvest Corporation property. The last constraint listed for analysis under State law is the noise produced from passenger and freight railroad operations. The Harvest Corporation Lost and Sand Canyon property is located approximately two hundred fifty feet away from the Southern Pacific Railway tracks. The noise generated by these trains is high enough to boost the noise level of the intersection of Lost and Sand far above the thresholds acceptable for residential low usage. For all of these reasons, as further analysis of the Noise Element shall demonstrate, a commercial usage on the Harvest Corporation property is consistent with the Noise Element; whereas any proposed residential usage would be inconsistent with the Noise Element. In the Noise Element is found Exhibit N-2, entitled "Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines". This chart showsthe amount of noise that is acceptable with varying kinds of land uses. The chart clearly shows that a residential low usage on the Harvest Corporation property is unacceptable. The precise noise levels were revealed only subsequent to the adoption of the General Plan, via the mechanism of the General Plan Amendment that included Noise Contour Maps, that residential usage of any kind on 91 I the Harvest Corporation property is either normally unacceptable. In particular, low density single-family homes are "normally unacceptable" in a location as noisy as is ` the Harvest Corporation property. The noise designation on the Harvest Corporation property has this indication next to it on the chart: "Normally unacceptable, new construction or development should generally be discouraged." i The Harvest Corporation property is so noisy that even commercial property such as office buildings and retail stores are listed as being only "conditionally acceptable". This means, according to the text on the Noise Chart, that "New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made, and needed noise insulation features included in the design." This section of the Noise Element of the General Plan further shows that any residential usage on the Harvest property is incompatible and inconsistent with this section of the General Plan. On page N-9 is found the following text: "In 1976, the State Office of Noise Control (Department of Health) published a recommended noiselland use compatibility matrix. This matrix (Exhibit N-2) indicates that residential land uses and other noise sensitive receptors generally ` should locate in areas where outdoor ambient noise levels do not exceed 65-70 dBA (CNEL or Ldn)." The measured noise levels, as shown on the General Plan Amendment Noise Contour Maps, show the noise at the Harvest Corporation property to exceed these guidelines for residential land use. Thus, the Harvest Corporation property is inconsistent and incompatible with the General Plan if it is indeed designated somehow as being a residential land use. It is, however, entirely consistent for a property with this level of ambient noise to have a commercial usage placed upon it, as the Harvest Corporation proposes to do in accordance with its existing C-2 zoning. On page N-14 of the Noise Element is found the following text: "Exhibit N-2 indicates that sixty DB is the maximum noise level normally acceptable for low density single-family homes and mobile home parks." 92 Again, the measured noise level on the Harvest Corporation property indicates noise levels of far greater. than this sixty DB maximum level mandated for low density single-family homes. This shows, again, that a residential usage on the . Harvest Corporation property is inconsistent with the Noise Element of the General Plan. Again, the commercial usage is entirely consistent with the Noise Element of the Plan. On page N-15 of the Noise Element, there is a description of the measured noise levels at various locations throughout the . City of Santa Clarita. As part of the description of these findings, there appears the following text: "The residents of the condominiums are exposed to levels below sixty-five DB, while the residents of the apartment are exposed to a level of sixty-six DB. In addition, the apartments are located close to the Southern Pacific Rail Lines, which subjects them to even higher noise levels at times." The Harvest Corporation property is located within the noise corridor of the Southern Pacific Railway, which makes it an even noisier site than indicated in the charts and exhibits contained within the Noise Element. Again, this clearly shows that a commercial usage on the Harvest property is consistent with the Noise Element, whereas a residential usage would be entirely inconsistent with the Noise Element of the General Plan. On page N-17 of the Noise Element is found the following text: 'As previously discussed the noise level of sixty-five DB for residential and other noise -sensitive land uses is generally the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable noise environments. CNEL levels along all these roadways are above sirty-five DB, with some exceeding seventy DB. Very few residential land uses exist along these roadways." The denial of the Harvest Corporation commercial project would be a clear violation of a goal outlined in this section of the General Plan. As stated above, 'very few residential land uses exist along these roadways". It is the clear intent of the General Plan to discourage and outright prohibit residential usages located in close proximity to noise sourcesof any kind, particularly noise produced by major and secondary highways and railways. It would be a complete anomaly to downzone commercial property and attempt to insert a residential usage into a noisy environment as is clearly prohibited by the Noise Element of the General Plan. 93 On page N-18 is found Policy 1.2, which reads as follows: "Policy I.2: Include noise impact considerations inland use planning decisions." The denial at the Staff level of the Harvest Corporation commercial usage is clearly inconsistent with this section of the General Plan. No Noise Contour Maps were available to the Staff to evaluate when considering the impact of noise on the land use of the Harvest Corporation property, as to whether it should be commercial or residential. Since no Noise Contour Maps were available, no noise impact considerations were included in the land use decision that affected the Harvest Corporation project. The Harvest Corporation project is indeed compatible with this section of the General Plan. Had the proper Noise Contour Maps been available, however, they would have shown that any residential usage on the Harvest Corporation property would have been clearly inconsistent with the Noise Element of the City General Plan. On page N-19 is found Goal 3, which states: "Goal 3. To prevent and mitigate significant level noise levels in residential neighborhoods above 60-65 DBA." Since the Harvest Corporation noise levels are greater than 65 DBA, this section of the General Plan clearly indicates yet again that a residential usage on the Harvest Corporation site is incompatible with the General Plan, whereas a commercial usage is entirely consistent with this goal as well as the others in the Noise Element of the General Plan. 94 CONSISTENCY WITH THE SAFETY ELEMENT The Safety Element is designed to create goals and policies to ensure the well being of the people of the City of Santa Clarita so that everyone may be protected from the various manmade and natural disasters to which the area may fall prey. With the exception of one Policy,. the requirements of the Safety Element apply to any land use that would take place on the Harvest Corporation property. The one exception is Policy 1.10, found on page S-25 of the Safety Element. The text of this Policy reads as follows: ' "Policy 1.10. Promote open space and recreational uses in designated flood zones, unless the hazard can be adequately mitigated." In the case of the Harvest Corporation property, all hazards associated with construction in and around flood zones have been preempted because of the donation of the riverbed property for preservation and protection as open space and recreation land. Because of the additional stringent design criteria for the construction of the commercial project, there are no associated hazards with the use of the property. The commercial usage of the Harvest Corporation property allows the open space to be donated to the City of Santa Clarita for recreation usage, as clearly indicated in the intent of Policy 1.10. The commercial usage is thus compatible with this policy. A residential downzoning of the property; however, would preclude the donation of the open space, thereby preventing the "recreational uses in designated flood plains" that is indicated as being a policy of the Safety Element of the General Plan. A residential usage is therefore inconsistent with this property, and would render the General Plan internally inconsistent. THE END OF "A STUDY IN CONSISTENCY" I I 1 95