HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-02-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - ZC 90 005 RESID LOTS (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented y: Aat
PUBLIC HEARING Lynn M. Harris
DATE: February 25, 1992
SUBJECT: Zone Change 90-005 from A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture Zone, minimum
lot size 1 acre) to RPD -1-6U (Residential Planned Development,
minimum lot size one acre, with 6 units per acre) over a 26.86
acre parcel located at the southern terminus of Isabella
Parkway, approximately 2,000 feet south of Soledad Canyon
Road. The project applicant is the First Financial
Corporation/American Beauty Homes.
Ordinance No. 92-2
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
The zone change, if approved by the City Council, would allow the applicant to
develop 90 single-family detached condominiums on five lots and one private
recreation lot on 26.86 acres of land in the Rainbow Glen area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission conducted the first in a series of four public
hearings on September 3, 1991. At the first three. hearings three speakers
were in opposition and two made general comments with the major issues being
aesthetics, viewshed, ridgeline preservation and project density.
At the direction of the Planning Commission, the applicant held a number of
meetings with the residents to mitigate their concerns over the views from the
condominiums to the north. The applicant agreed to install increased
landscaping on the open space of both the project and the existing
condominiums. The applicant redesigned the project to reduce the impacts to
the ridgeline and viewshed. The only issue that remained was that of the
project's density with staff recommending 79 units and the applicant
requesting a.minimum of 90 units.
On January 21, 1992, the. Planning Commission approved the project for 90 units
through adoption of Resolution P92-01 and contingent upon City Council
approval of Zone Change 90-005 and related environmental documents. The
Commission's vote on the project was 4-1, with Commissioner Woodrow dissenting
based on the project's density..
Agenda Item:
ANALYSIS
The density for the project is 3.35 units per acre which is below that of the
RS (Residential -Suburban, 3.4 to 6.6 units per acre with 5 units per acre the
midpoint) classification. The Zone Change from A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture. Zone,
minimum lot size 1 acre) to RPD -1-6U (Residential Planned Development, minimum
lot size one acre, with 6 units per acre), if approved by the City Council,
could be found to be consistent with the City's General Plan classification of
Residential -Suburban.
This 26.86 acre parcel consists of hillside area with the •following slope
calculations:
----------------------------
Slooes Area
0 - 25Z 8.02 acres
25 - 50Z 6.71 acres
Over 50Z 12.13 acres
In lieu of an adopted City Hillside Ordinance, staff incorporated the Los
Angeles County hillside guidelines into the project review. These guidelines
exclude all slopes over. 50Z when the site is located in an urban plan
classification. Using this formula, the density range for the area would be
from 49 to 97 units with the midrange being 73 units. The City's draft
Hillside Ordinance would allow for a maximum of 45. units on the site. The
Planning Commission's decision to approve a density in excess of that
suggested by the draft hillside guidelines was based on surrounding densities,
the affordability of the units, the responsiveness to the neighbors, and
because the project is an infill development.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council:
1. Approve the attached Negative Declaration with the finding that the
proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect;
2. Approve Zone Change 90-005 based on required findings; and
3. Introduce Ordinance 92-2, waive further reading, and pass to the second
reading.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance 92-2
Planning Commission Staff Reports
Resolution No. P92-01
Negative Declaration
FLF/394
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
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING
ZONE CHANGE 90-005, ON A 26.86 ACRE PARCEL
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET SOUTH OF
SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF
ISABELLA PARKWAY THE PROPOSAL REQUESTS TO CHANGE
THE EXISTING ZONE FROM A-2-1 HEAVY AGRICULTURE, ONE ACRE.
MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO RPD -1-6U (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ONE ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE 6 UNITS PER ACRE).
THE APPLICANT IS FIRST FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
AMERICAN BEAUTY HOMES
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held ,before the City Council of the City
of Santa Clarita regarding Zone Change 90-005 on a 26.86 acre
parcel, located approximately 2,000 feet south of Soledad Canyon
Road at the souther terminus of Isabella Parkway. The proposal
request to change the existing zone from A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture,
one acre minimum lot size) to RPD -1-6U (Residential Planned
Development, one acre minimum lot size 6 units per acre). The
applicant is First Financial Group, Inc., American Beauty Homes.
The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita,
the 25th day of February, 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: January 31, 1992
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk
PUBLISH DATE: February 3, 1992
ORDINANCE NO. 92-2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF. THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS -OF ISABELLA PARKWAY,
APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET SOUTH OF SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD
(ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-005)
(Master Case 90-100)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine as follows:
a. An application for a Tentative Tract. Map (TTM 44360) a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP 90-011) and a Zone Change (ZC 90-005) was filed with
the City of Santa Clarita by Santa Clarita Development Partners (the
"applicant") on May 4, 1990. The property, consisting of 26.86
acres, for which this entitlement has been filed, is located at the
southern terminus of Isabella Parkway, -approximately 2,000 feet south
of Soledad Canyon Road (Assessor Parcel Number 2836-018-039). The
applicable zoning for the property is A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture, one
acre minimum lot.size).
b. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the
application on September 1, 1991, October 1, 1991, November 6, 1991
December 17, 1991 and January 21, 1992. At .that time, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution P92-02 approving five single family
detached condominium lots containing 90 single family units, and one
private recreation lot, contingent on City Council approval of the
zone change.
C. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider this
ordinance on Tuesday, November 12, 1991, at the City of Santa Clarita
City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at
6:30 p.m.
SECTION 2. . Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at
the public hearing, and upon the study and investigation made by the.Planning
Commission and the City Council, and on their behalf, the City Council further
finds and determines as follows:
a. The recommended zone change of the 26.86 acre portion will not result,
in a significant negative environmental effect. Implementation of
this proposal will cause no adverse effects in the environment which
cannot be adequately mitigated through the application of available
controls. The change in zone will not cause substantial
environmental damage or substantial and avoidable injury to fish or
wild life on their habitat, since the project site is not located in
a significant ecological area.
b. Modified conditions warrant a change of zone in the Via Princessa
area because the applicant will construct a portion of Isabela
Parkway and initiate and contribute to a funding mechanism ensuring
that the construction of Via Princessa Road from the project site to
San Fernando Road and construcion of the Camp Plenty bridge occurs in
a timely manner.
ORDINANCE 92-2
c. The need for the proposed zone change exists within the Via. Princessa
area because of the developmental benefits the project is
contributing to the City of Santa Clarita (i.e., construction of a
portion of Via Princessa (a Master Planned Highway), Open Space Lots,
and natural hillside preservation).
d. The property is a proper location for the RPD -1-6U Zone (Residential
Planned Development, minimum lot size -one acre, six units per acre)
within the Via Princessa area because the project is proposing
single-family zoning in conformance to the draft General Plan
designation of RS (Residential Suburban: 3.4 - 6.6 units per acre)
for a portion of the site.
e. The placement of the RPD -1-6U Zone at the project location will be in
the interest of public health, safety, and general welfare, and in*
conformity with good zoning practice because all necessary utilities
will provide service and all applicable development standards will be
applied to the project.
f. The proposed zone change to RPD -1-6U over the. 26.86 acre site and
subsequent development are anticipated to be consistent with the
intent and objectives of the City's Draft General Plan.
g. In taking this action, the City Council has considered the effects of
the decision on the housing needs of the region in which the City is
located .and balanced those needs against the public service .needs of
the City residents and available fiscal and environmental resources.
SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarita City Council has reviewed and
considered the environmental information contained in the Initial Study, which
was approved by the Planning Commission, and determines that it is in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and that the proposed
project will not have a significant impact on the environment. A Negative
Declaration. was prepared for this project. Based upon the findings stated
above, the City Council hereby approves the Negative Declaration.
SECTION 4. Based upon the forgoing, the City Council does hereby
ordain that the application for a zone change, excluding the designated
reminder parcel, from A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture, 1 acre minimum lot size) to
RPD -1-6U Zone (Residential Planned Development, minimum lot size one acre, six
units per acre) is approved. The zoning boundaries shall conform to Exhibit
"A," which is the site plan for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 44360.
The Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings o
0 ATTEST:
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS _ DAY OF , 1992.
City Clerk
Jill Klajic MAYOR
L
ORDINANCE 92-2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) as
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I, , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 92-2 was regularly introduced
and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on
the _ day of 1992, that thereafter, said ordinance was duly
adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _ day
of 1992, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
0 FLF/395
11
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
Master Case 90-100
Zone Change 90-005
Tentative Tract Map 44360
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-011
DATE: December 17, 1991
TO: Chairman Cherrington and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development`"'rn ^ t�
w
CASE PLANNER: Fred Follstad, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: First Financial Group Inc., American Beauty Homes
LOCATION: The project is located approximately 2,000 feet south of Soledad
Canyon Road at the southern terminus of Isabella Parkway.
A P NUMBER: 2836-018-039 -
REQUEST: A Zone Change to change the site from A-2-1 to RPD -1-6U; and,
A Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 26.86 acres. to create five
lots containing 101 single family detached condominium units and
one private recreation lot; and; .
A Conditional Use Permit.. to ;.implement the RPD zoning and the
offsite transport of 164,000 cubic yards of earth.-.-
BACKGROUND
arth.-:
BACKGROUND
On .October 1, 1991 the -Commission opened the public hearing:on;this item and
received: public testimony. At. that . meeting . the_: Commission directed staff to
work with the applicant -to address the: Commission's: concerns, -and for staff to
return. to the November ..5, 1991 hearing. 'r: On. November .5;„ the Planning
Commission -received a presentation from staff and the developer: and directed
staff to.address or-re-evaluate.the Commission's concerns._: These concerns are
enumerated below. The,Commission continued the item to a dateuncertain.
I.R1.14*41V
Listed -below are the concerns that were raised by the Planning. Commission at
the November 5, 1991 public hearing. . In addition, staff .has included if
applicable, the applicant's mitigation and a staff analysis:
Agenda Item• (0-
1. Comment The Commission requested that the applicant eliminate the flag
lots.
Response The applicant has submitted a revised map which shows no flag
lots.
2. Comment The Commission directed the applicant and staff to prepare a
viewshed analysis from various locations including Soledad
Canyon Road.
Response The.applicant has prepared exhibits which will be presented at.
the public hearing showing cross sections from three -areas
selected by staff along Soledad Canyon Road. In addition, the
applicant has redesigned the site plan along the western
property line to lower the pad elevation of the units in this
area.
3. Comment The Commission directed the applicant to meet with the
homeowners of the condominium project to the north of the
project site.
Response The applicant has met with a number of the concerned homeowners
regarding the project. While some of the concerns were resolved
during the meetings, other concerns remain unresolved ,as
outlined in the attached letter. On page two, section two of
this letter, the homeowners requested --a landscaped berm be
constructed near "F° Street which the applicant depicts on the
revised site plan. -Staff has received -a verbal communication
that the Homeowners Association would.be-willing to maintain the
landscaping on their property once it is established.
4. .Comment The Commission:directed the .-applicant 'to•:reduce the density of
the project to:be within the'73 to 90:unit.range.:_
Response The current County Urban Hillside formula allows for a midrange
of 73 and a maximum of 97 units on this site. The. City's.,Drafti
Hillside Ordinance, currently under the Commission'sreview,
would -allow for:�a maximum'•density-=of' 45 -units.' ,The --,maximum
allowable density, for the' site using the- existing- A=1-1• zoning
would be 26 units. -.The City's + General =Plan land, use designation
(RS) would allow for a- .maximum of..134'units .(midpoint density of
5. units per:: acre times the. project> -acreage `of..26.86),-though'
this previous: calculation exclude -any any,: hillside'The
s
revised site -.plan:-submitted•..by>•the -`applicant illustrates 90
units, a reduction of eleven units from the original proposal of
101.
The subject project is proposed as the final phase of this
developer's five phase community. •..This property is the last
remaining parcel:that -isn't developed.or- approved. to develop in
the immediate -area. .Therefore ,itrcan be.consideredran urban
infill project. It should be noted that this property consists
of more rugged terrain than the earlier phases.
Staff believes that the applicant has made a good faith effort to address the
Planning Commission's concerns with the only unresolved issue being that of
density for the project. Staff believes that the project is still too -dense
for the site and would request that the commission direct the applicant to
further reduce the density.
On the other hand, the Commission may wish to approve the project recognizing
that the project is consistent with the previously approved projects in the
area and that the housing type proposed represents a higher affordability
factor than standard single-family projects. The Land Use Element of the
General Plan states:
"Continue to provide- for the development of new housing while ensuring
that the character, scale, and density of new residential, development is
sensitive, compatible and complimentary to existing residential
neighborhoods (Policy 5.2).
RECOKKENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Reopen the Public Hearing; and,
2. Direct the applicant to reduce the project density to 79 units; and,
3. To continue the public hearing to a date uncertain.
' ATTACHMENTS
1. Site Plan (Exhibit -A)
2. Previous Staff Reports
3. Letter from affected homeowners
FLF/388
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
Master Case 90-100
Zone Change 90-005
Tentative Tract Map 44360
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-011
DATE: November 5, 1991
TO: Chairman Cherrington and Members of the Planning Commission
� 2�
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Develop11(�,,(''
�
CASE PLANNER: Fred Follstad, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: First Financial Group Inc., American Beauty Homes
LOCATION: The project is located approximately 2,000 feet south of Soledad
Canyon Road at the southern terminus of Isabella Parkway.
A P NUMBER: 2836-018-039
REQUEST: A Zone Change to change the site from A-2-1 to RPD -1-6U; and,
A Tentative Tract Map to. subdivide 26.86 acres to create five
lots containing 101 single family detached condominium units and
one private recreation lot; and,
A Conditional Use Permit. .to implement the RPD zoning and the
offsite transport of 164,000 cubic:yards of earth.
BACKGROUND
On: October, l',.1991rthe Commission opened the., public, hearing -on this. item and
received=,public.: testimony. At that meeting -the Commission, directed staff to
work with the. applicant to address the Commission's concerns.; Those concerns
are enumerated below. The Commission continued the item to the November 5,
1991:hearing. _
ANALYSIS
Listed below are the concerns that -were. raised by the Planning Commission at
the October 1, 1991 public hearing. In addition, staff has included.if
applicable ;'.the applicant's mitigation and a staff analysis
7
1. Comment The Commission requested assurance that no homes would be
silhouetting the hillsides.
Response The applicant has submitted an exhibit which demonstrates that
by using one story units at specific locations along "A" Street,
only a possible maximum of four chimneys may be seen above the
existing ridgelines. In previous forums, the Commission has
required that the top of, structures be 30 feet below the
ridgeline. If the Commission were to. impose this condition on
this project, there would be a loss of approximately 18 units on
"A", "B" and "C" Streets, based on a quick review of the
materials received as this staff report was being drafted. The
submitted exhibit also depicts the height of the existing
electrical transmission tower which is located westerly of the
project site.
2. Comment The Commission directed the applicant to preserve a larger
6. Comment The Commission directed staff to address the number.of vehicles
that would travel north to the intersection of Rainbow Glen
Drive and Soledad Canyon Road.
Response The City's Traffic Engineering Section has determined that 440
vehicles would utilize this intersection. In addition, since
the project can not take occupancy until Via Princessa is open
to Sierra Highway, the Traffic Engineers believe that the number
Oh of vehicles at the intersection will be significantly reduced
over existing volumes.
portion of the ridgeline along the easterly property line.
Response
The applicant has redesigned the project to save an additional
130 feet of the ridgeline and has reduced the size of the cut
slope by 20 vertical feet. There was also a reduction of two
lots in this area.
3. Comment
The Commission directed the applicant to create a landscaped
buffer between the project and the existing condominiums on
Claudette Street.
Response
The applicant has submitted an exhibit showing the proposed 100
to 150 foot wide landscaped buffer located on both the project
site and on the existing condominiums 'open space. The applicant
is still, working with;'theaffected homeowners and their
Homeowners Association to establish maintenance for the
landscaping once it is :installed. The applicant will also build
one story homes on the lots .most visible from the condominiums.
4. Comment
The Commission requested the relocation of the recreation
facilities away from Isabella Parkway. --
Response
On, the revised'- site 'plan, the applicant has relocated --the"
recreation area southerly' adjacent to the proposed open space -
areas. :....
5. Comment
The Commission directed staff to remove two conditions: regarding
minimum lot frontages and clarify two others regarding the
offsite traffic mitigations.
Response
Staff hasincorporated this into the revised Conditions of
Approval which are attached:
6. Comment The Commission directed staff to address the number.of vehicles
that would travel north to the intersection of Rainbow Glen
Drive and Soledad Canyon Road.
Response The City's Traffic Engineering Section has determined that 440
vehicles would utilize this intersection. In addition, since
the project can not take occupancy until Via Princessa is open
to Sierra Highway, the Traffic Engineers believe that the number
Oh of vehicles at the intersection will be significantly reduced
over existing volumes.
7. Comment The Commission requested that the staff determine the amount of
units that would be allowed if the project utilized the City's
proposed hillside development ordinance.
Response Staff determined that the average slope for the parcel is
33.081, and the allowable density would be 1.7 units per acre.
Therefore the maximum units allowed would be 46 which is less
than would be allowed by the Los Angeles County Hillside formula.
8. Comment The Commission directed the applicant to review the density of
the project with existing densities in the area.
Response The surrounding.densities are depicted below:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Project, Units Per Acre
Subject Parcel 3.6
Tract 43116 County approved,(built condominiums) 16.0
Tract 43129 County approved `(built condominiums) 10.8
Tract 36685 County approved (built condominiums) 10.8
Tract 35984 County approved (built S/F condos) 5.0
Tract 44359 City approved (approved condominiums) 4.2
Tract 49549 City approved (approved single-family) 2.2
Tract 48108 City approved (approved single-family) 2.0
Tract 49647 City approved (approved single family) 1.7
-------------------------------------------------------------
The current County formula allows for a midrange of 73 and a maximum of 97
units on this site. The revised site plan submitted by the applicant depicts
97 units, a reduction of four units from the original proposal.
The subject project is proposed as the final phase of this developers five
phase community. This property is the last remaining parcel that isn't
developed or approved to develop in the immediate area. Therefore it can be
considered an urban infill project. It should be noted that this property
consists of more rugged terrain than the earlier phases. Therefore the same
density as exists .on the earlier phases may not be appropriate for the site.
Staff believes this revised project is still too dense for the site and would
request that the commission direct the applicant to further reduce the density.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Reopen the Public Hearing; and,
2. Direct the applicant to reduce the,project density to 79 units; and,
3. To continue the public hearing to a date uncertain.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Site Plan (Exhibit A)
2. Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B)
3. Previous Staff Reports
FLF/362
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
Master Case 90-100
Zone Change 90-005
Tentative Tract Map 44360
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-011
DATE: October 1, 1991
TO: Chairman Cherrington and Members of the Planning Commissssion� /
FROM: Lynn Lynn M. Norris, Director of Community Development
CASE PLANNER: Fred Follstad, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: First Financial Group Inc., American Beauty Homes
LOCATION: The project is located approximately 2,000 feet south of Soledad
Canyon Road at the southern terminus of Isabella Parkway.
A P NUMBER: 2836-018-039 '
REQUEST: A Zone Change to change the site from A-2-1 to RPD -1-6U; and,
A Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 26.86 acres to create five
lots containing 101 single family detached condominium units and
one private recreation lot; and,
A Conditional Use Permit to implement. the RPD zoning and the
offsite transport of 164,000 cubic yards of earth.
On September 3, 1991, the applicant requested that this item be continued to
the October 1, 1991 hearing to allow the applicant time. to meet with staff to
address issued raised in the staff report. The Commission granted the
continuance to the October 1, 1991 date.
Since that time the applicant has met with staff and resolved some of the
outstanding issues,. while others remain unresolved. The major issue that was
resolved is that of the significant ridgeline. The original staff report
incorrectly identified the ridgeline that is located along the eastern
property line as a Significant Ridgeline identified by GPAC. The ridgeline
identified by GPAC is located on the property to the southeast and is being
modified by Tract 44359. Staff still believes that the ridgeline is' worth
preserving due to its location and height.
The applicant and staff has come to a consensus on the issue relating to use
of the single family detached condominium classification. Vhile staff still
has concerns relating to this classification, staff recognizes that this
project is an infill project and the applicant has developed a number of
similar units adjacent to the site. Therefore, staff feels that reduced *lot"
areas may be appropriate for the site.
After meeting with staff, the applicant still has concerns with the staff's
recommendation of a reduction in units to 73. The applicant believes that the
101 units is comparable to the existing densities in the surrounding area.
Staff recommends that the Commission uphold the 73 units based on the allowed
units under the Los Angeles County Urban Hillside:
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Open the Public Hearing; and,
2. Direct the applicant to redesign the project to leave the ridgeline
in its natural state except the earthwork necessary for the
construction of Isabella Parkway and to -reduce the project density to
73 units; and,
3. To continue the public hearing to a date uncertain.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Tentative Tract Map (Exhibit A)
2. Conditions of Approval (Exhibit.B)
3. Negative Declaration
4. Staff Report dated September 3, 1991
FLF/353 .,.
a
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
Master Case 90-100
Zone Change 90-005
Tentative Tract Map 44360
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-011
DATE: September 3, 1991
TO: Chairman Cherrington and Members of the Planning Commission ,
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development%% �t'n
CASE PLANNER: Fred Follstad, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: First Financial Group Inc., American Beauty Homes
LOCATION: The project is located approximately 2,000 feet south of Soledad
Canyon Road at,the southern terminus of Isabella Parkway.
A P NUMBER: 2836-018-039
REQUEST: A Zone Change to change the site from A-2-1 to RPD -1-6U; and,
A Tentative Tract. Map to subdivide 26.86 acres to' create five
lots containing 101 single family detached condominium units and
one private recreation lot; and,
A Conditional ,Use. Permit to implement the RPD zoning and the
offsite transport of 164,000 cubic yards of earth.
BACKGROUND:
L,
This parcel of land has been before the Planning Commission on two previous
occasions.;.;.OnSeptember 6,.;,1988;..Conditional-,Use Permit.88-225 was., approved
to •allow;r:the importation ;ofr-158;000 cubic-. yards,, -.of .dirtI to ,the ..site.. In
addition, this .parcel,.vas: created;;by Parcel.,Map, 20028 which was approved by
the Commission: on August 7,,1990:;,.,,,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is proposing- t to�.change the, existing. zone from A-2-1 .(Heavy
Agriculture;•, one: acre, minimum::. lot size) to - RPD,71-6U (Residential ;Planned
Development,, one, acre; minimum lot„ size,; six ,units,per. acre -with -a Conditional
Use Permit as part, of a residential. planned development),. to subdivide a gross
total of ,26.86 acres of vacant land:. into five :lots ..containing 101 single
family detached condominiums.. and 1one private_ recreation ,lot. :The proposed
project has a density of 3.76. units per acre. The applicant is also
requesting a Conditional Use Permit to grade 381,000 cubic yards and.transport
164,000 cubic yards of dirt ,to a site adjacent to the project.
12
The .average amount of grading per unit is 3,770 cubic yards. The proposed
extension of Isabella Parkway would necessitate approximately 100,000 cubic
yards or 30 percent of the proposed grading. The fill site is located
immediately adjacent to the site on approved tract 44359. No public streets
are proposed to be utilized in the transportation of the material.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION, ZONING AND LAND USE:
Under the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan, the site is designated as
Residential Suburban (3.4 to 6.6 units per. acre). The mid-range for this
General Plan category is five units per acre. The project's density of 3.76
units per acre is consistent with the City's General Plan.
The subject site is a vacant 26:86 acre parcel. The existing zoning for.the
site is A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural, one acre minimum lot size). The applicant
is seeking to change the zoning on the site to RPD -1-6U (Residential Planned
Development, one acre minimum lot size, six units per acre with a Conditional
Use Permit as part of a residential planned development)
The following table summarizes information for the project and. surrounding
sites.
City General Plan
zoning Land Use
PROJECT Residential=Suburban Existing A-2-1 Vacant
Proposed RPD -1-6U
Surrounding area
South Residential -Low = R-1-6000 Vacant; Approved
Tract -49549
East Residential -Suburban. RPD -1-6U Vacant, Approved
Tract 44359
North Residential -Medium High RPD -5000-15U Apartments7'
Vest Business Park M-1.5 Vacant
:-'Thecaproposed'project-is' locatedimmediately'south of -':Zone -%Change 90-008 and
Tract'�Hap '49549 which were. approved' by -the Planning Commission''on- March 5,
" 1991:= The^City Council "approved the Zone'+Change; •to 'R-1=6000; on May 28,
1991. That project contains 55 single family -lots on`30.2`acres of land with
a density of 1.8 units per acre. Using the midrange of the General Plan
Category for the site the allowable density is 151 units, not considering
topography.
To=the east of'the 'proposed project is:Tract'Map 44359.and, Zone' Change 85-503,
consisting` of 183 single -`'family detached condominiums on'45.9 acres. The
'�densiiy'on' that•project-'is"4.3 units per acre. The midrange far the site is
229 units according to'the adopted General" Plan, not considering ;topography.
The Tract was 'approved -by the Commission on February 20;`1990 and the. Zone
Change was approved,'to RPD -1-6U; by the City Council on May 8, 1990.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:'
State law requires that all "projects" receive an environmental review and
determination. An "Initial Study" was prepared for this project which
identified possible impacts to the environment and mitigation measures. After
conducting the "Initial Study", staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission find that the project would not have a significant effect on the
environment, and a draft mitigated negative declaration was prepared for this
proposal subject to the attached conditions- of approval and, mitigation
measures'.
INTER DEPARTMENT/AGENCY REVIEW:
The -Community Development Department solicited comments and recommendations
from departments and agencies which would be affected by this project. A
comprehensive traffic study of the Via Princessa area was required. Based on
this study, the traffic division has recommended that the applicant
participate in the funding and establishment of appropriate mechanisms whereby
the City is assured of the construction of the extension of Via Princessa from
the project site to San Fernando Road in a timely manner. In addition, the
Traffic Division is also recommending the applicant be required to initiate
and participate in a funding mechanism whereby the City is assured of the
widening of the bridge on Soledad Canyon Road in the vicinity of Camp Plenty
Road. These funding mechanisms would have to be in place prior to the
issuance of any building permits. The Santa Clarita Water Company is
requiring the applicant to obtain service from Via Princessa whichcan be
accommodated through Tract 44359.
The applicant has entered into agreements with the William S. Hart Union and
Saugus Union School Districts. The Parks and Recreation Department is
requiring standard Quimby fees. The Fire Department and Engineering Division
are requiring standard subdivison requirements and fire flows. The staff has
not received comments or letters from the public as of the date of this staff
report.
ANALYSIS
Based upon a comprehensive review of this project,- staff has identified the
following comments:
Project Density: The General Plan designation for the entire site is RS
(Residential Suburban 3.4 - 6.7 du/ac). The applicant is proposing an overall
density of 3.76 units per acre. The allowable density range for the project
is between 91 and 180 units over the 26.86 acre development portion, if the
hillsides are not taken into account. This 26.86 acre parcel consists of
hillside area with the following slope calculations:
----------------------------
Slopes Area
0 - 25Z 8.02 acres
25 - 50Z 6.71 acres
Over 50Z 12.13 acres
In lieu of a completed City Hillside Ordinance, staff incorporated the Los
Angeles County hillside guidelines into the project review. These guidelines
-3-
exclude all slopes over 50Z when the site is located in an urban plan
classification. Using this formula, the density range for the area would be
from 49 to 97 units with the midrange being 73 units. The proposed project
exceeds the midrange by approximately 40Z or 28 units.
The project density is less than the projects to the north and east, and more
than the recently approved projects to the south. The following table
illustrates residential project densities in the Via Princessa area:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Project Units Per Acre
Subject Parcel - . 3.7
Tract 43116 County approved (built condominiums) 16.0
Tract 44359 City approved (approved condominiums) 4.2
Tract 49549 City approved (approved'single-family) 2.2
Tract 48108 City approved (approved single-family). 2.0
Tract 49647 City approved (approved single family) 1.7
-------------------------------------------------------------
RidQeline Preservation Practices: The.General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC)
has identified the north -south 'ridge in the easterly area of the project site
as a significant ridge. The applicant originally submitted a proposal that
would have removed this ridgeline. The applicant redesigned the project to
save the southerly portion of the ridgeline. A .portion of "E" Street,
Isabella Parkway and portions of lots 1. . 2; and 4 would impact this
ridgeline. The southerly portion of the ridgeline will remain as natural open
space to be owned and maintained by a future a Homeowners Association. The
applicant is proposing to implement contour grading throughout the development.
The recently adopted General Plan states in the Land Use element that:
"Allow only responsible and sensitive development on hillsides and
prohibit development on ridgelines designated as "Significant Ridgelines•
(policy 4.1).
Staff feels that the grading of this significant ridge.line associate&with the
project may not be in keeping with.this policy of the General.Plan.
Implementation` of --Single'' FamilyCoindominiumLots. - The applicant. is =proposing
a ;single'family[detached° condominium';project'--similar ito - the` approved tract
44359 adjacent to`the`site:' ' The -houses are 'similar: to 'traditional "single
family homes including minimum 204••foot,''1ong` driveways''` and �on- street '="parking.
The, submitted map depicts the' yard' areas''associated'with' each' home. "°Some are
as small as 3,000 square feet. If the applicant were to request traditional
single family lots the minimum lot size would be'5,000 square feet.
The condominium standards were based on a multiple family uses which are a
different housing type than what the applicant is proposing with this project.
Though staff has concerns with the narrow "lots" (less than 50 feet wide) the
Land Use Element of the General Plan states:-
1,5'
tates:—
l.S
"Continue to provide for the development of new housing while ensuring
that the character, scale, and density of new residential development is
sensitive, compatible and complimentary to existing residential
neighborhoods (Policy 5.2).
The Staff suggests the Planning Commission discuss what subdivison standards
should be used in the .development of detached single-family homes under
condominium ownership.
Implementation of Off Site Improvements Staff has included in the conditions
of approvala condition that the applicant acquire and construct Via Princessa
to its ultimate right of way width of 104 feet along the southern property
line of Tract 44359. When this Tract was approved the applicant was required
to give 80 feet of right of way and to only construct half of this width.
Off Site Transport of Materials. The applicant is requesting to transport
164,000 cubic yards of earth to a location immediately adjacent to the site on
approved Tract 44359. The applicant has stated that both tracts would be
graded as one unit and no public streets would be used. Therefore, Staff
feels that the off site transport of dirt is warranted.
The applicant has submitted an application for a Development Agreement for
both this tract and Tract 44359. Staff is currently reviewing the application
and it should be before the Commission later this year.
RECOMMENDATION -
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Open the Public Hearing; and,
2. Direct the applicant to redesign the project to leave the ridgeline
in its natural state except the earthwork necessary for the
construction of Isabella Parkway and to reduce the project density to
73 units (which may entail increasing the 'lot widths'); and,
3. To continue the public hearing to a date uncertain.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Tentative Tract Map (Exhibit A)
2. Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B)
3. Negative Declaration
FLF/330
-5-
VICINITY MAP
TTM 44360
CYN. RO.
SOLEppD
O�
G ANGLE Rp 9G
TR
ISABELLA
PKWY. a
SUBJECT N� o
SITE
O
r
104
R N• ssx _
v�pp
N.
l7
RESOLUTION NO P92-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, APPROVING
MASTER CASE 90-100, WHICH CONSISTS OF
-VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NUMBER 44360,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-011
AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF ZONE CHANGE 90-005,
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF ISABELLA PARKWAY APPROXIMATELY
2,000 FEET SOUTH OF SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD TO CREATE FIVE SINGLE FAMILY
DETACHED CONDOMINIUM LOTS CONTAINING 90 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS
AND ONE PRIVATE RECREATION LOT,
THE ZONE CHANGE IS FROM A-2-1 TO RPD -1-6U AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW OFF-SITE TRANSPORT OF GRADING MATERIALS.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF. SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby make the
following findings of fact:
a. An application for a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 44360) a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP 90-011), and a Zone Change (ZC
90-005) was filed with the City of Santa Clarita by Santa
Clarita Development Partners (the "applicant') on May 4, 1990.
The property, consisting of 26.86 acres, for which this
entitlement has been filed, is located at the southern terminus
of Isabella Parkway, approximately 2,000 feet south of Soledad
Canyon Road (Assessor Parcel Number 2836-018-039). The
applicable zoning for the property is A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture,
one acre minimum lot size).
b. The applicant has filed a Zone Change from the existing A-2-1
(Heavy Agricultural, one acre minimum lot size) to RPD -1-6U
(Residential Planned Development, one acre minimum lot size, six
units per acre); a Tentative Tract Map to create five single
family detached condominium lots. containing 90 single family
units, and one private recreation lot; and, a Conditional Use
Permit to allow for the off-site transport of 164,000 cubic
yards of.material.
C. Thesite consists of hilly terrain and native chaparral
vegetation exists over the site. The 26.86 acre site is vacant
with no oak trees on-site.
d. The subject parcel is zoned A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural Zone, one
acre minimum lot size) and is designated as RS (Residential
Suburban, 3.4 - 5.0 dwelling, units per, acre) by the City of
Santa Clarita General Plan. The proposed density. for the
project is 3.35 dwelling units per gross acre.
e. Access to the project will be from Isabella Parkway.
f. Utilities, water service, and sewage service are available to
the project.
g. A preliminary initial study was conducted for this project. As
a result, it was determined that the project would not have any
significant environmental impact because mitigation measures
have been included in the project design and conditions of
approval. Staff prepared a Negative Declaration for this
project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
provisions.
h. The surrounding land uses consist of vacant land with approved
tract maps, designated open space and vacant land.
L. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee (DRC) met
on June 21, 1990, and supplied the applicant with recommended
Conditions of Approval.
j. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning
Commission on September 1, 1991, October 1, 1991, November 6,
1991 December 17, 1991 and January 21, 1992 at 7:00 P.M. The
meetings were held at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita.
SECTION 2. Based .upon the above findings of fact, oral and
written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing held
for the project, and upon studies. and investigations made by the Planning
Commission and on its behalf, the Planning Commission further finds as
follows:
a. At the public hearings of October 1; November 6 and December 17,
1991, the Planning Commission considered the staff reports
prepared for this project and received testimony an this
proposal.
b. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan RS
designation for the project site because the project density of
3.35 units per gross acre is below the range of densities for
the Residential Suburban designation.
C . The design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are
consistent with the City's General Plan.
d. This project is compatible with land uses and densities in the
surrounding area. Lot areas are similar to surrounding single
and multiple family residential uses approved to the east and
south and existing multiple family units to the north.
e. The ides-ign and improvements of the proposed project will be
compatible with surrounding improvements.
f. The site is physically suitable for the type of development.
The site is a part of an.approved subdivision.
RESO 92-01
Page 2
g. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for
access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision.
h. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will
not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large,
for access. All easements and roads are indicated on the
proposed map and would not conflict with access or buildings.
i. The project design will not cause substantial environmental
damage to fish or wildlife because the project is located in a
developed residential area.
J. The project will not cause public health problems because .all
utilities and project improvements have been permitted and
available for the project. The proposed project would be
required to meet all applicable Federal, State and local
requirements for public safety and health.
k. The project design will not conflict with any natural water
course because none exist on-site. The project is not located
within a floodway.
1. The applicant shall transport the fill material to Tract 44359
located.adjacent to the site.
SECTION 3. Therefore, based. upon the facts and findings, the
City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission does hereby determine as
follows:
a. All associated project impacts have been deemed insignificant
because the Community Development Department and responsible
agencies have included all recommended project conditions into
the project. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared
pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines.
b. The project conforms to densities specified in the General Plan
and complies with the standards of the proposed RPD -1-6U zone.
The project is compatible to approved single-family residential
uses in the area and will not cause any health or environmental
problems.
SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission
hereby approves Tentative Tract Map 44360 and Conditional Use Permit
90-011, subject to the attached conditions ("Exhibit B").
SECTION S. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the
City Council approval of Zone Change 90-005
RESO 92-01
Page 3
SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution and shall transmit a copy/to the applicant, the Departments of
Public Works, Fire, and Parks and Recreation.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED thi$ 21st day of January, 1992.
l-Je ry D. Cherringto , Chairman
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
n M. Harr s, Director
ommunity Development
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Donna M. Grindey, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of
a Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of. Santa
Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 21st day of January,
1992, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: Commissioners: Brathwaite, Modugno, Doughman, & Cherrington
NOES: Commissioners: Woodrow
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAINED: Commissioners: / �f
onna M. Grindef
City Clerk
FLF:393 -
RESO 92-01
Page 4
EXHIBIT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 44360
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-011
(Master Case 90-100)
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. The approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use
Permit shall expire two years from the date of Planning Commission
approval.
2. The subdivider may file for an extension of the conditionally
approved map prior to the date of expiration for a period of time
not to exceed one year. If such an extension is requested, it must
be filed no later than 60 days prior to expiration.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Department of
Community Development in writing of any change in ownership,
designation of a new engineer, or a change in the status of the
developer, within 30 days of said change.
4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant"
shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or
other entity making use of this grant. The applicant shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents,
officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack,
set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Subdivision by the
City, which,action is provided for in the Government Code Section
66499.37. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim,
action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant,
or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify,
or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this Condition
prohibits :the City. from participating in the, defense of any claim,
action, or proceeding, if both the following occur: (1) the City
bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and (2) the City defends
the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to
pay or perform any settlement unless the entitlement is approved by
the applicant.
5. Details shown on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map are not necessarily
approved. Any details which are inconsistent with requirements of
ordinances, general conditions of approval, or City policies must be
specifically approved.
6. Easements shall not be granted or recorded within areas proposed to
be granted; dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets
or highways, access rights, building restriction rights, or other
easements, until after the final map is filed with the County
Recorder unless such easements are subordinated to the proposed
grant or dedication. If easements are granted after the date of the
tentative approval, a subordination must be executed by the easement
holder prior to the filing of the final map.
RESO P92-01
7. The Applicant is hereby advised that this project is subject to fees
at the time of building permit issuance which may include, but are
not limited to, the following as applicable: (1) Los Angeles County
Residential Sewer Connection Fee; (2) Interim School Facilities
Financing Fee; (3) Installation or Upgrade of Traffic Signals Fees
and/or Road Improvement Fees; and (4) Planned Local Drainage
Facilities Fee.
8. In lieu of establishing the final specific locations of structures
on each lot at this time, the owner, at the time of issuance of a
building permit, agrees to develop the property in conformance with
the City Code and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building
Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Ordinance, Highway Permit Ordinance,
Mechanical Code, Zoning Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities
Ordinance, Water Ordinance, Oak Tree Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and
Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and Fire Code.
Improvements and other requirements may be imposed pursuant to such
codes and ordinances.
9. A final tract map must be processed through the City Engineer prior
to being filed with the County Recorder.
10. A grading permit shall be required for any and all off-site grading
to occur for the purposes of this project.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Map Requirements
11. If all easements have not been accounted for on the approved
tentative map applicant shall submit a corrected tentative map to
the Planning Department for approval.
12. The owner, at the time of issuance of permits or other grants of
approval agrees to develop the property in accordance with City
Codes and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building. Code,
Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical
Code, Zoning Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance,
Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code and
Fire Code.
13. The applicant shall file a final map which shall be prepared by or
under the direction of a licensed land surveyor or registered civil
engineer. The map shall be processed through the City Engineer
prior to being filed with the County Recorder. The applicant shall
note all offers of dedication by certificate on the face of the map.
14. The applicant shall provide proof of access prior to final approval
and delineate on the final map.
15. The applicant shall quitclaim or relocate easements running through
proposed structures.
3WAM
!(i*1115il'II$1
16. If signatures of record title interests appear on the final map, the
applicant shall submit a preliminary guarantee. If said signatures
do not appear on the final map, a final guarantee will be required
showing all fee owners and interest holders.
17. The applicant shall place standard condominium notes on the final
map to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department.
18. The applicant shall dedicate to the City, the right to prohibit the
construction of structures within open space and common lots.
Road Improvements
19. Applicant's street and grading plans and all construction permitted
by such plans shall comply with the requirements of the approved oak
tree report.
20. The applicant shall design intersections with a tangent section from
"beginning of curb return" (BCR) to BCR.
21. The applicant shall` dedicate future streets beyond the turnarounds
on all streets to the tract boundary or extend the turnarounds
beyond the tract boundaries within the adjacent ownerships to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
22. The subdivider is required to install distribution lines and
individual service lines for community antenna television service
(CATV) for all new development.
23. The applicant shall place above ground utilities including, but not
limited to, fire hydrants, junction boxes and street lights outside
sidewalk.
24. The applicant shall install mailboxes and posts per City standards.
Secure approval of U.S. Postal Service prior to installation.
25. The applicant shall provide letter(s) of slope easement(s) and
drainage acceptance as directed by the City Engineer.
26. The applicant shall obtain approval of the Director of Community
Development and the City Attorney for proposed homeowners
association maintenance agreements prior to recordation of the final
map or a phase thereof.
27. The applicant shall include a disclosure in the CC&R's to comply
with the. Geologist's recommendations in the Geology Report for
restrictions on watering, irrigation, planting and recommend types
of plants.
28. The subdivider, by agreement with the City Engineer may guarantee
installation of improvements as determined by the City Engineer
through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or any other
acceptable means.
3
Ili4 150M
29. The applicant shall provide horizontal and vertical alignments to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Traffic Engineer.
30. The applicant shall provide for sight distance along extreme slopes
or curves to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Traffic
Engineer.
31. The applicant shall align the .centerlines of all local streets
without creating jogs of less than 150 feet.
32. The applicant shall construct drainage improvements and offer
easements needed for street drainage or slopes.
33. The applicant shall not construct driveways within 25 feet upstream
of any catch basins when street grades exceed 6%.
34. The applicant shall construct full -width sidewalk at all walk
returns.
35. The applicant shall provide and install street name signs prior to
occupancy of building(s).
36. The applicant shall dedicate and construct the following required
road improvements:
Street R/W Curb & Base & Street Street
Name Width Gutter Paving Lights Trees Sidewalk
Isabella Parkway
64-0
FT
XX
XX
XX
XX
5-0
0 Hare Drive
60-0
FT
XX
XX
XX
XX
5-0
Roberta Street
60-0
FT
XX
XX
XX
XX
5-0
Ages Court, Aida St
58-0
FT
XX
XX
XX
XX
5-0
My Day Street
58-0
FT
XX
XX
XX
XX
5-0
37. The applicant shall dedicate or acquire the offsite dedication
52'-0" from centerline on the north and south sides of Via Princessa
within the boundary of Tentative Parcel Map 20028.
38. This tentative map" approval is subject to the subdivider's
acceptance of the following conditions for acquisition of any
offsite dedications and easements:
a. Subdivider shall secure at the subdivider's expense sufficient
title or interest in land to permit the .construction any
off-site improvements including the additional dedication and
improvements along Via Princessa.
b. If the subdivider is unable to acquire sufficient title or
interest to permit the off-site improvements to be made, the
subdivider shall notify the City of this inability not less
than six months prior to approval of the final map.
- 4 -
RESO P92-01
C. In such case, the City may thereafter acquire sufficient
interest in the land which will permit the off-site
improvements to be made by subdivider.
d. Subdivider shall pay all of the City's costs of acquiring said
off-site property interests pursuant to Government Code Section
66462.5. Subdivider shall pay such costs irrespective of
whether the final map is recorded or whether a reversion
occurs. The cost of acquisition may include, but is not
limited to, acquisition prices, damages, engineering services,
expert fees, title examination, appraisal costs, acquisition
services, relocation assistance services and payments, legal
services and fees, mapping services, document preparation,
expenses and/or damages as provided under Code of Civil
Procedure Sections 1268:510-.620 and overhead.
e. At the time subdivider notifies City as provided in b.
hereinabove, the subdivider shall simultaneously submit to the
City in a form acceptable to the City all appropriate
appraisals, engineering specifications, legal land
descriptions, plans, pleadings and other documents deemed
necessary by City to commence its acquisition proceedings.
Said documents must be.submitted to City for preliminary review
and comment at least thirty days prior to subdivider's notice
described hereinabove at b.
f. Subdivider agrees to deposit with City, within five days of
request by City, such sums of money as City estimates to be
required for the costs of acquisition. City may require
additional deposits from time to time.
g. Subdivider agrees that City will have satisfied the one hundred
and twenty day limitation of Government Code Section 66462.5
and the foregoing conditions relating thereto when it files its
eminent domain action in superior court within said time period.
h. Subdivider shall not sell any lot/parcel/unit shown on the
final map until City has acquired said sufficient land interest.
i. If the superior court thereafter rules in a final judgment that
the City may not acquire said sufficient land interest, the
subdivider agrees that the City may initiate proceedings for
reversion to acreage.
j. Subdivider shall execute any agreement or agreements mutually
agreeable prior to. approval of the final map as may be
necessary to assure compliance with the foregoing conditions.
k. Failure by the subdivider to notify City, as required by b.
hereinabove, or simultaneously submit the required and approved
documents specified in e. hereinabove, or make the deposits
specified in f. hereinabove shall constitute subdivider's
- 5 -
RESO P92-01
waiver of the requirements otherwise imposed. upon City to
acquire necessary interests in land pursuant to Section
66462.5. In such event, subdivider shall meet all conditions
for installing or constructing off-site improvements
notwithstanding Section 66462.5.
Vater
39. The applicant shall file with the City Engineer a statement from the
water purveyor indicating that the water system will be operated by
the purveyor and that under normal operating conditions, the
necessary quantities of water will be available, the system will
meet the requirements for the land division, and that water service
will be provided to each lot.
40. The applicant shall serve all lots with adequately sized water
system facilities, including fire hydrants, of sufficient size to
accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for the land
division. Fire flows required are to be determined by. the Fire
Chief.
Severs
41. The subdivider shall install and dedicate main line sewers and serve
each lot with a separate house lateral or have approved and bonded
sewer plans on file with the Engineering Department.
42. The applicant shall pay ordinance frontage charges before filing
this land division map.
43. The subdivider shall send a print of the land division map to the
County Sanitation District, with the request for annexation. If
applicable, such annexation must be assured in writing.
44. The applicant shall pay sewer reimbursement charges to the County of
Los Angeles before the filing of this land division map.
45. The applicant shall pay a deposit as required to review documents
and plans for map clearance in accordance with Section 21.36.010(c)
of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Grading. Drainage & Geology
46. The applicant shall submit a grading plan which must be approved
prior to approval of the final map. The grading plan shall be based
on a detailed engineering Geotechnical report which must be
specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer and
show all recommendations submitted by them. It must also agree with
the tentative map and conditions as approved by the Advisory Agency.
RESO P92-01
47. Modifications to Hillside grading ordinance and grading within
parkway are not approved. These will be reviewed during Grading
plan check and shall only be as approved by the Planning Director
and the City Engineer.
48. The applicant shall eliminate all geologic hazards associated with
this proposed development, or delineate restricted use areas
approved by the consultant geologist to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection
of buildings or other structures within the restricted use areas.
49. The applicant shall submit drainage plans and necessary support
documents to comply with Engineering requirements. These must be
approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to filing of
the map.
50. The applicant shall establish a Drainage Benefit Assessment District
if drainage devices required by geologic conditions necessitate
maintenance. The district must be ratified prior to recordation of
the map to insure the continued maintenance of any drainage
improvements. The first years maintenance costs shall be paid by
the subdivider prior to approval of the final map.
51. The applicant shall provide for contributory drainage from adjoining
properties and return drainage to its natural conditions or secure
off-site drainage acceptance letters from affected property owners.
52. The applicant shall adjust, relocate, and/or eliminate lot lines,
lots, streets,easements, grading, geotechnical protective devices,
and/or physical improvements to comply with ordinances, policies,
and standards in effect at the date the City determined the
application to be complete all to the satisfaction of this
Department. .
53. Prior to final approval, enter into a written agreement with the
City of Santa Clarita whereby the subdivider agrees to pay to the
City a sum (to be determined by the City Council) times the factor
per development unit for the purpose of contributing to a proposed
Bridge and Thoroughfare Benefit District to implement the highway
element of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic
impact of this and- other subdivisions in the area. The form of
security for performance of said agreement shall be as approved by
the City.
The agreement shall include the following provisions:
Upon establishment of the District and the area of benefit, the
fee shall be paid to a special Department of Public Works fund.
In the event funds are required for work prior to formation of
the District, the Director of Public Works may demand a sum of
$2,650 (or greater as determined by the City Council), times
the factor per development unit to be credited toward the final
fee established under the District.
- 7 -
The subdivider may construct improvements of equivalent value
in. lieu of paying fees established for the District subject to
approval of the Director of Public Works.
The Director of Public Works may require the developer to
submit a traffic report periodically that addresses traffic
congestion and the need to mitigate the problems, prior to
issuing building permits.
Factors for development units are as follows:
Development Unit
Factor
Single Family per unit 1.0
The project is in the Via Princessa Bridge and Thoroughfare District
54. The applicant shall provide access, for maintenance purposes, to all
of the designated open space lots. This access shall be shown on
the final map, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
55. Applicant shall design the slopes to conform to the 2:1 building
code standard for slopes or shall provide a report from the soil
engineer which addresses slope stability and is approved by the City
Engineer.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
56. This property is located within the area described by the Forester
and Fire Warden as Fire Zone 4 and future construction must comply
with applicable Code requirements.
57.: Provide water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flows as required by
the County Forester and Fire Warden for all land shown on the map to
be recorded.
58. Provide Fire Department and City approved street signs, and building
address numbers prior to occupancy.
59. Fire Department access shall extend to within 150 feet distance of
any portion of structures to be built.
60. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted
prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and
maintained serviceable throughout construction.
61. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is
1,250 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a duration of 2 hours, over
and above maximum daily domestic demand.
62. Fire Hydrant requirements are to install public fire hydrants per
the Fire Department requirements..
RESO P92-01
63. All hydrants shall measure 6"x4"x2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming
to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal. All hydrants shall
be installed a minimum of 25 feet from a structure or protected -by a
two (2) hour fire wall. Location is as per map on filewiththis
office.
64. Access shall comply with Section 10.207 of the Fire Code which
requires all weather access. All weather access may require paving.
65. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted
prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and
maintained serviceable throughout construction.
66. The applicant shall pay fees, if established by the City, to provide
funds for fire protection facilities which are required by new
commercial, industrial or residential development prior to final map
approval or issuance of building permits. This fee shall not exceed
nineteen cents per square foot.
TRAFFIC DIVISION
67. The applicant shall participate, on a fair share basis, in the
funding and establishment of appropriate mechanisms whereby the City
is assured of the construction of the extension of Via Princessa
from the proximity of the project site to San Fernando Road in a
timely manner. This fee shall not exceed $360.00 per unit.
68. The applicant shall participate, on a fair share basis, in the
funding and establishment of appropriate mechanisms whereby the City
is assured of the implementation of the widening of Soledad Canyon
Road bridge project in a timely manner. This fee shall not exceed
$140.00 per unit.
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
69. The applicant will be required to pay an in -lieu fee to fulfill the
Quimby requirement. The fee will be based on the average fair
market value per acre for the planning area as contained in the
Subdivision Ordinance at the time the in -lieu fee is paid. This fee
is to be paid to the City of Santa Clarita Parks and Recreation
Department prior to final map recordation.
70. A homeowner's association (HOA) shall be formed to have
responsibility and authority of all slope maintenance, including,
but not limited to private recreation facilities, open space,
landscaping, irrigation, and street trees.
71. Street trees shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Parks and
Recreation Department. Use trees from the Master Street Tree List,
which can be obtained from the City.arborist.
fi1*L604'19"I
72. Provide final landscape and irrigation plans for review and to the
satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Department and Community
Development Department. These plans shall include the required
offsite landscaping required for tract 42129 to the satisfaction of
the directors of Community Development and Parks and Recreation.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
73. This grant shall not be .effective for any purpose until the
permittee and the owner of the property involved (if other than the
permittee) have filed with the Director of Community Development
their affidavit stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept,
all of the conditions of this grant.
74. All requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the specific zoning
of subject property must be complied with unless set forth'in the
permit and/or as shown on the approved plot plan.
75. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the tentative map.
76. Three copies of a landscape plan shall be submitted to, and approved
by, the Director of Community Development and the Director of Parks
and Recreation prior to the issuance of building permits. The
revegetation of the cut slopes shall use local, native plant
species, with holes drilled throughout the compacted dirt to allow
for proper penetration of the root systems of the plant species.
77. Within one year of the approval of this project, the applicant shall
pay a Transit Impact Fee of $200.00 per residential unit; provided
that the City has its Transit Impact Program in effect. These fees
shall be paid to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
78. The applicant shall obtain the proper zoning for the site prior to
the recordation of the map.
79. The applicant shall stop all work if any archaeological,
paleontological, or cultural resources are detected. The applicant
shall hire a qualified archaeologist, acceptable by the City, who
shall inspect the site and prepare a report and recommended
mitigation to the satisfaction of the City.
80. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures as
recommended by the noise consultant.
81. Within six months after the commencement of grading activities, all
graded areas not covered by impervious surface .shall be stabilized
with landscaping.
82. Landscaping coverage and stabilization of graded slopes shall be
selected and designed to be compatible with surrounding natural
vegetation or to replace removed natural vegetation and should
recognize climatic, soil, and ecologic characteristics of the region.
- 10 -
RESO P92-01
83. Where two cut or fill slopes intersect the natural grade, the
intersection of each slope shall be vertically and/or horizontally
rounded and blended with natural contours so as to present a natural
slope appearance.
84. Where any cut or fill slope exceeds one hundred feet in horizontal
length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be developed in
concert with existing natural contours.
85. All cut or fill slopes, except slopes less than five (5) feet in
vertical height shall be planted with adequate plant materials to
protect the slope against erosion.
86. No building permits shall be issued until Via Princessa is open for
public use from the project easterly to Sierra Highway.
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - LOS ANGELES REGION
87. The project must demonstrate that wastewaters from the project will
be adequately collected, transported, and that the receiving
treatment plant will have adequate capacity to treat, and dispose of
the wastewaters in a satisfactory manner.
88. The applicant shall prepare an analysis of the cumulative flows
generated by all proposed, pending and approved projects within the
service area of the designated treatment plant. If expansion of the
treatment plant facilities will be required to meet projected
wastewater demand, the applicant must demonstrate that additional
capacity at the time of connection will be available prior to new
connections for proposed development.
FLF:335
N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A
---- [X] Proposed [ ] Final
PERMIT/PROJECT: ZC 90-005, CUP 91-011, TTM 44360
MASTER CASE NO: 90-100
APPLICANT: American Beauty Homes
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: The project is located approximately 2,000 south
of Soledad Canyon Road at the southern terminus of Isabella Parkway.
A P NUMBER: 2836-018-039
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The applicant is proposing to change the
existing zone from A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture, one acre minimum lot size) to
RPD -1-6U (Residential Planned Development, one acre minimum lot size, six
units per acre with the inclusion of a conditional use permit), to subdivide
a gross total of 26.86 acres of vacant land into five lots containing 101
single family detached condominiums and one private recreation lot. The
proposed project has a density of 3.76 units per acre. The applicant is
also requesting a Conditional Use Permit to transport 164,000 cubic yards of
grading material to a site adjacent to the project.
Grading for the proposed project consists of 381,000 cubic yards of which
164,000 cubic yards would be transported off site. The average amount of
grading per unit is 3,770 cubic yards. The proposed extension of Isabella
Parkway would comprise approximately 30 percent of the proposed grading. No
public streets are proposed to be utilized in the transportation of the -
grading material.
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this
project, and pursuant to the requirements of .Section 15065 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita
[ ] City Council
[X] Planning Commission
[ ] Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or
effect upon the environment, and that
adopted pursuant to -Section 15070 of CEQA.
revised will have no significant
a Negative Declaration shall be
Mitigation measures for this project
[ ] are not required. [X] are attached. [ ] are not attached.
LYNN M. HARRIS,. DIRECTOR OF ,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT =
Prepared by: Fred Follstad. Associate Planner
(Sig Yure) (Name/Title)
Reviewed byi7a2t== Don M. Williams. Senior Planner
Sign re) ,� (Name/Title)
Approved by: ^ �s Kevin Michel, Senior Planner
P", I ._,.,_ ti c _.r [):] ii. ...L ;;s!ties.[;i) Written notice.
CERTIFICATION DATE:___
i
-19-
MINUTES OF THE
SANTA CLABZTA.PLANNING COMMISSION
September 3, 1991
ITEM 4 - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 44360. ZONE CHANGE 90-005,AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 90-011 - Located on Isabella Parkway
Director Harris presented a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance.
to October 1, 1991.
Commissioner Doughman motioned to continue this item to the meeting scheduled
for October 1, 1991. Commissioner Modugno seconded. The motion passed with a
5-0 vote.
MINUTES OF THE
SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION
October 1, 1991
ITEM 5 - ZONE CHANGE 90-005, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 44360, AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-011 - Located approximately 2,000 feet south. of
Soledad Canyon Road at southern terminus of Isabella Parkway
Director Harris introduced Item 5, and Associate Planner Fred Follstad gave
the staff report, which included a brief slide presentation.
The Commission then had questions of the staff.
The public hearing was opened at 8:25 p.m.
Those speaking in favor of the project were:
Mr. Jack Shine, 16830 Ventura Blvd., Encino, who is the applicant. Mr.
Shine's comments included a presentation of the proposed project, the
willingness to build Isabella Parkway all the way through, the understanding
of no occupancy of homes until the Via Princessa extension was complete, the
need to give these homes an alternate route in and out, in addition to Rainbow
Glen Drive, the desire to build the requested number of homes, and the
relocation of the recreation facility.
There were questions from the Commission at this time.
Speaking in opposition were:
Ms. Marty Bridgeforth,- 26746 N. Claudette Street, Canyon Country, whose
concerns included destruction of the ridgeline and increased traffic.
Mr. Tom Cobb, 26742 N. .laudette Street, 1454, Canyon C�_.ntry, who expressed
concerns of the increased traffic, the ecology, and the preservation of the
ridgeline.
Making general comments on the project were:
Mr. Kevin Knebel, 2677+6 Claudette Street, Canyon Country, who stated that
while the homeowners had met with American Beauty homes, there were still some
unanswered questions, in his mind.
Mr. Jack Ancona, 29552 Abelia, Canyon Country; whose comments included the
ridgeline.
Mr. Shine was then given the opportunity for rebuttal.
There were then questions from the Commission.
At 9:03 p.m., the public hearing was closed.
There was discussion among the Commission. Mr. Ed Cline; Traffic Engineer,
was called upon to answer some questions regarding traffi
approval. c, and conditions of
Commissioner Modugno motioned for a direction to staff to have the applicant
redesign the project, leaving the ridgeline in its natural state, except for
earthwork necessary for construction of Isabella Parkway; reduce project
density, including a buffer between adjacent properties; elimination of
conditions 21 and 22; more specifics in condition 69 and 70; return with the
traffic study, relocation of the recreation center; consider the Draft
Hillside Ordinance; and assurance there will be no silhouetting on any
hillsides.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite. With a 5-0 vote, the
motion was passed.
Mr. Shine requested clarification of the Draft Hillside Ordinance request, and
agreed to come back to the Commission.
Assistant City Attorney questioned Mr. Shine on his consent to a waiver of
time limits, which apply to the City. Mr. Shine consented to this waiver.
Item 5 was continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 5, 1991.
MINUTES OF THE
SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION
November 5, 1991
ITEM 7: ZONE CHANGE 90-005, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 44360, AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 90-011 (Continued from October 1, 1991)
Director Harris introduced the item, and staff report and slide presentation
was made by Fred Follstad.
Commissioners and staff discussed .the project.
Chairman Cherrington opened the public hearing at 9:15 P.M.
Speaking in favor of the project were the following persons:
Jack Shine, 16830 Ventura Blvd., Encino, commented on changes requested by the
Planning Commission at the October 1 meeting. He stated he had been unable to
meet with the homeowners, as directed by the Commission.
Speaking in opposition to the.project were the following persons:
Bonnie Oakleaf, 26746 N. Claudette St., #461, .Canyon Country, expressed
concerns about lack of notification from American Beauty on what was happening
with this project and density of the project? requested meeting with American
Beauty representatives.
Kevin Knebel, 26746 Claudette St., #464, Canyon Country, expressed_ concern
that American Beauty did not attempt to meet with homeowners_ at an earlier
time; requested that meeting be set for a week distant, with City staff
present. Mr. Knebel requested the Commission receive testimony from
homeowners after they have attended a meeting with American Beauty, at a
continued hearing.
Tom H. Cobb, 26742 N. Claudette St., #454, Canyon Country, expressed concerns
at lack of contact by. developer; requested meeting with developer prior to
Commission taking action.
Mr. Shine made rebuttal to persons in opposition, apologizing to homeowners
for lack of communication.
Chairman Cherrington closed the public hearing at 9:30 P.M.
Discussion ensued among the -Commissioners. At the end. of this discussion,
Chairman .Cherrington requested that a distinct proposal be brought to the
Commission that could be approved, denied, or modified, rather than acting as
negotiators between the parties. He stated that he thought the Commission had
directed the applicant and staff to come back with a greatly reduced proposal,
assuming the elimination of the flag lots. As a prerequisite to another
hearing, Chairman Cherrington directed that the applicant meet with
homeowners, that a viewshed analysis be.performed by staff from Soledad Canyon
and other staff, selected sites, reduction of units with elimination of flag
lots.
After further Commission discussion, Commissioner Doughman made a motion
directing staff to conduct viewshed analysis, directing the applicant to meet
with homeowners, reduce the number of dwelling units to a range of 73 - 90,
and to continue the project to a date uncertain. A second was made by
Chairman Cherrington, and the motion carried with a 5-0 vote.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday
December 17. 1991
7:00 p.m.
ITEM 6 - ZONE CHANGE 90-005, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 44360, AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -oil (continued from November 5, 1991)
Approximately 2,000 feet south of Soledad Canyon Road at the southerly
terminus of Isabella Parkway
Director Harris introduced the item, a zone change to change the site from
A-2-1 to RPD -1-6U; a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 26.86 acres to create
five lots containing 101 single-family detached condominium units and one
private recreation lot; and a Conditional Use Permit to implement the RPD
zoning and the off-site transport of 164,000 cubic yards of earth.
Associate Planner Fred Follstad gave a brief presentation and slide show of
the project.
Discussion ensued among Commission and staff.
Chairman Cherrington opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m.
The following persons gave testimony:
Jack Shine, 16830 Ventura Boulevard. Encino, CA, the applicant, spoke in favor
of the project and addressed concerns that Commission had at a previous
meeting. Mr. Shine feels they have redesigned the project per Commission's
request.
Marty Bridgeforth, 26746 N. Claudette Street, Canyon Country, CA 91351,
commented that if the developer sticks to the plans that they recently
presented to the homeowners, then she will join the others in her association
in reluctantly endorsing this project.
Tom Cobb, 26742 Claudette Street, 1454, Canyon Country, CA 91351, spoke in
favor of the project.
Discussion ensued among Commission, staff and Attorney McOsker regarding
landscaping.
Discussion then ensued among Commission and Mr. Shine, the Applicant.
Bonnie Oakleaf, 26746 N. Claudette Street, 1461, Canyon Country, CA 91351,
spoke in favor of the project and felt that the developer has made a reaL
effort to look at the.landscaping issues.
Further discussion ensued among Commission and Mr. Shine.
Chairman Cherrington closed the public hearing at 9:02 P.M.
Discussion ensued among Commission.
Commissioner Brathwaite made a motion to approve the project in concept,
directing staff to come back with Conditions of Approval, and a Resolution for
approval, Commissioner Modugno seconded the motion, and the motion was passed
by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Woodrow casting the dissenting vote.
N
MINUTES OF THE
SANTA CLARITA PLANNING CONNISSION
January 21, 1992
ITEM 3: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NAP 44360
Item 3 was removed from the Consent Calendar for. the purpose of discussion, at
the request'of Vice -Chairman Woodrow. After discussion, Resolution P92-01 was
approved with a 4-1 vote (Woodrow).
February 18, 1992
Honorable Jill Klajic
Mayor of Santa Clarita
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
G. H. Palmer Associates
Real Estate [Development
RECEIVED
,FEB 2 1 1992
CITY COUNCIL
C15V OF UNTA CLARITA
Re: Notice of Public Hearing Regarding Zone Change 90-005, F 3 � i i 1. .2
On a 26.86 Acre Parcel Located Approximately 2,000 Feet LYNN hi. HARR!S
South of Soledad Canyon Road at the Southern Terminus of Director Of Commnity Day.
Isabella Parkway the Proposal Requests to Change The Existing
Zone From A-2-1 Heavy Agriculture, (One Acre Minimum Lot
Size) To RPD -1-6U (Residential Planned Development One Acre
Minimum Lot Size 6 Units Per Acre). The Applicant is First
Financial Group, Inc. American Beauty Homes
Dear Jill:
Should a developer who has persistently refused to complete the City infrastructure he has
committed to provide be given further development approvals without fust taking care of the
unfinished business? We do not think so. Apparently, the Planning Commission disagrees. We
raised this objection in writing (see attached), prior to the aforementioned case being heard.
The Planning Commission ignored our objection and gave the developer another approval
anyway.
We re -affirm our objection. Do not allow this approval until the unfinished infrastructure is
completed to the complete satisfaction of your City Engineer. Ask Dick Kopecky about how
cooperative American Beauty is when asked to complete the work. You won't like the answer.
Best. regards,
25
axon�Jr.
DSP:=11is
EAcimm
11740 SAN VICENTE BLVO., SUITE 208 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90049 t2133207-3100 FAX (2137 207-2162
4567 TELEPHONE ROAD SUITE. 701, VLN111R/,
December 11, 1991
CIVIL ENGINEERING
AUTORNIA 93003
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Suite 300
City of Santa Clarita, California 91355
6(,V - ?a4)5,
LAND PLANNING
Attention: Mr. Richard Kopecky, City Engineer
Subject: American Beauty Homes Proposed Tract 44360
and Proposed CUP 91-011
Scheduled For Public Hearing on December 17, 1991
and
Unresolved Matters regarding
Tract No. 43116 & PD 1962 / Storm Drain
City of Santa Clarita
Finalization of Project - Notice of Completion
Exoneration of Storm Drain Bond
Dear Mr. Kopecky:
a=. 1;
The City, and our client's bond, are being held "hostage" by American Beauty, Homes
refusal to properly complete the Golden Triangle Road public infrastructure required of
them since 1989. This developer should not be granted any further approvals in this area
until they honor their past obligations to the satisfaction of the City and County. It is our
opinion, that for the City to approve new development south of the current terminus of
Isabella Parkway, which will increase traffic on Golden Triangle and increase the runoff
which is already causing a danger to the public, would be irresponsible and Inconsistent.
We urge. you to organize and implement the resolution to this longstanding irritant and
threat to public safety before even considering any further development proposals from
American Beauty Homes, the party responsible for the hazard.
Pursuant to my client's request, G. H. Palmer Associates, I have reviewed our files and
plans to aid the City in resolving heretofore the problems incurred due 'to County
requirements to PD 1962, seemingly beyond my client's control, which will not allow
release of the storm drain bond for their project. Said bond was Issued April 17, 1986,
No. 9307225, in the amount of $531,500.00.
1 have enclosed a letter dated April 20, 1990 to the Los Angeles Department of Public
Works, Drainage and Grading Seciton, requesting a solution to the situation. This letter
resulted from direction by the Los Angeles County Public Works Inspection Department in
Newhall and my discussions with the City of Santa Clarita. Also enclosed is a letter to my
client dated April 16, 1990 which gives you some additional history, and a copy of the
plan we revised, Sheet 6 of 10, PD 1962.
The April 20th letter details what occurred during construction of Tract No. 43116 and PD
1962. 1 was told by the County that Golden Triangle Road was constructed under Permit
and inspected by the County.
City of Santa Cladta
December 11, 1991
Page 2
As a result of the said letter, I discussed the particulars with the County Drainage and
Grading Section, who had no specific solution, but that we, as Engineer of Record; should
provide them with a plan for their review which would be acceptable, thus allowing
release of the bond after its construction.
We initially proposed an interim solution which would minimize any reconstructive work in
Golden Triangle Road. This effort was unacceptable.
We sent our client a proposal dated September 10, 1990 for the work required by the
Drainage Section in the-.amount of $6,250.00. We prepared a plan, utilizing a
topographic field survey, design; hydraulic calculations, etc., and submitted it for plan
We coordinated with the County, and made the plan check revisions as required. Also
needed for approval were requirements to vacate certain Flood Control District
easements, and the obtaining of additional easements from American Beauty Homes for
all areas not located in a dedicated road right of way, Including possibly the adjacent
railroad right of way. A letter dated October 16, 1990 was sent to our client stating those
requirements. As of this date, the easements have never been granted, and we were
forced to stop work.
It should be noted that the revised storm drain plan we prepared and finalized with the
County Drainage Section required removal of an existing 36" CM pie installed under
Permit by the County when the road was extended. This pipe was adequate at the time
for drainage purposes, but now my client is required to remove the existing 36" pipe and
install a 60" R C. pipe for flood protection on Tract No. 43116.
This implies that the existing 36" pipe Is undersized and could cause excessive flooding
under the right circumstances, yet it was installed and inspected with County approval
when the road was extended.
In other words, if ,my client does nothing and lets the storm drain bond remain in force, the
existing substandard pipe installation remains a potential flooding situation, and may stay
as such for years; or until the adjacent property to the west Is developed.
In summation, our client is in a "no win" situation. If they make the storm drain
Improvements as required by the County Drainage and Grading Section, the estimated
cost is between $55,000 and $60,000 plus engineering costs of approximately $6,000.
This does not consider the time and costs to obtain and/or quitclaim easements relating to
the LACFCD, the Southern Pacific Transportation Co., and American Beauty Homes for
the discharge of the storm waters.
All of this expense to exonerate their storm drain bond due to a situation which they did
not ask for or create.
If the information, as stated, is substantially correct, it seems only reasonable and fair for
you to consider one of the following:
1. Let the PD 1962 remain as it presently exists and request the County/City to
exonerate the storm drain bond,
2. If American Beauty Homes Is responsible for and/or benefitted from the
extension of Golden Triangle Drive, then they should pay for and construct the
60" P.C. pipe per the plan we processed with the County Drainage and
Grading Section. Our client should also be reimbursed for the engineering
costs they incurred from this office.
City of Santa Clarita
December 11, 1991
Page 3
As a result of the said letter, I discussed the particulars with the Count Drainage and
Grading Section, who had no specific solution, but that we, as Engineer of Record, should
provide them with a plan for their review which would be acceptable, thus allowing
release of the bond after its construction.
We initially proposed an Interim solution which would minimize any reconstructive work in
Golden Triangle Road: This effort was unacceptable.
We sent our client a proposal dated September 10,.1990 for the work required by the
Drainage Section in the amount of $6,250.00. We prepared a plan, utilizing a
topographic field survey, design, hydraulic calculations, etc., and submitted it for plan
check.
Please do not hesitate to contact myself or Dan Palmer (G.H. Palmer Associates) at
213-207-3100, If you have any questions and/or wish further assistance.
For both our client and this office, I respectfully thank you for your consideration of this
situation. Your earliest attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.
a?mki
Verytyours,
ART SHIRK
Project Manager
AS/cg
cc: Dan Palmer/G.H.Palmer Associates
Lynn Hards/Director of Community Development
Steve Gerjets
Enclosure
Ref: 159-13
City of
Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Suite 300
City of Santa Clarita
California 91355
January 28, 1992
Phone
(805) 259.2489
Fax
(805) 259.8125
CCV Partnership
11740 San Vincente Boulevard
Suite 208
Los Angeles, CA 90049
C
.L4.i PO Lei I >
!2
v
r_n71 /)0
I
Attention: Geoff Palmer and Dan Palmer
Subject: Storm Drain No. P.D. 1962 for Tract 43116
Location of Isabella Parkway and Golden Valley Road
Dear CCV Partnership:
This letter is in response to a letter we received from
Art Shirk of WJG Consultants on December 11, 1991 regarding
P.D. 1962. This letter is also to request that the storm drain
constructed for Tract 43116 be satisfactorily revised and
completed.
In the letter, your consultant states that the County, Jack
Shine and the Fire Department wanted the road to, extend
westerly. The letter also states that to the best of the
consultant's knowledge, the modification was instigated by the
County, not G.B. Palmer Associates.
Our files indicate the contrary. Enclosedare copies of
letters from our records which indicate that CCV Partnership
entered into an agreement with American Beauty regarding the
design and construction of the secondary access road and all
appurtenant structures such as drainage facilities. Regardless
of any agreements with other developers, CCV is obligated to
the City to construct the improvements necessary to mitigate
drainage issues associated with that development. These
improvements have been designed as shown on the approved plans
and now must be revised and approved to accommodate site
conditions based on the construction of the road.
This letter is to request that your engineer revise the storm
drain plans, have them approved, and construct the revisions
immediately upon approval.
CCV Partnership
January 28, 1992
Page 2
Our records show that Bond 99307225- for $531,500, which has
been pasted for storm drains, is still outstanding with
Developers- Insurance Company. Without. your cooperation, it
will be necessary for the City to use the bond and to perform
the necessary corrective measures. If you have any questions,
please contact Nancy Delange at (805) 255-4935.
Sincerely,
LYNN M. HARRIS
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/
T
ITY DEVELOPMENT
d Kopeck
y
Deputy -City Engineer
RR:ned/187
Enclosures
cc: Developers Insurance Company
Stan Dixon/Los Angeles County Land Development
Richard Seiden/Los Angeles County Flood Control District
WJG Consultants
cuo FT nd
kCCtSS
AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered
into at Los Angeles, California, this 10th day of December, 1987,
by and between FN PROJECTS, INC., a California corporation ("FNP")
which acquired title as 1ST NATIONWIDE NETWORK MORTGAGE COMPANY, a
California corporation, and CCV Partnership, a California limited
partnership ("CCV"). This Agreement is made with reference to the
following:
A. It is necessary to design, construct and maintain a
temporary access road between Rainbow Glen Drive and Golden
Triangle -Road southerly of Soledad Canyon Road (the "Road").
B. The Road will serve residents from subdivision
tracts developed by both FNP and CCV.
C. It is necessary that the Road be constructed as
soon as possible.
D. FNP and CCV have agreed to share the costs of the
design, construction and maintenance of the Road._
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
and agreements contained herein and for•other valuable consider-
ation, FNP and CCV agree as follows:
1. FNP shall be responsible for the design,
construction and maintenance of the Road and all appropriate
appurtenant structures_ such as drainage facilities, signage,
barricades, fences and the like.
2. All of the costs expended or incurred by FNP for
the design, construction and maintenance of the Road shall be.
shared equally between FNP and CCV. Such costs shall be'evidenced
by receipts, paid bills, cancelled checks or similar documentation
("Receipts"). FNP will render periodic statements to CCV for its
proportionate share of such costs, along with copies. of the
supporting Receipts.'
3. CCV's share of such costs shall be payable within
five (5) business days after it .has received a statement and
copies of the Receipts- from FNP. In the event CCV has not paid
its share of such costs within five (5) business days after it -has
received FNP's statement, CCV's obligation for such costs shall
thereafter bear interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per
annum.
4. Any notice or communication required or permitted
by this _Agreement shall be given in writing addressed as follows:
-1-
If to F •P:
FN Projects, Inc.
9800 South Sepulveda Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90045
Attention: Don Sarno, Senior Vice President
If to CCV:
CCV Partnership
11740 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 208
Los Angeles, California 90049
Attention: Geoff Palmer and Dan Palmer
Notices shall be served personally. or by first class
mail, postage prepaid •and, if mailed, shall be deemed delivered.
forty-eight (48) hours after mailing. Either party may give
written notification to the other party of any change of address
for the sending of notices.
5. This Agreement contains the entire agreement and
understanding of the :parties in respect to the subject matter
hereof, and the same may not be amended,. modified or discharged
nor any of its terms waived except by an instrument in .writing
signed by the party to be bound thereby.
6. The parties agree to execute such other and further
documents, and to perform such other and further acts, as may be
necessary or appropriate in order to consummate the agreements or
transactions contemplated by this Agreement.
7. In the event that either party is required to bring
or defend any action, arbitration or other proceeding against the
other by reason of an`alleged dispute or breach of this Agreement,
the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable
attorneys, fees•and cost incurred thar-;-
8. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed
in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this
Agreement as of the day and year first above written.
FN PROJECTS, INC.
By.
CCV
By:
Its General Partner
-2-
nttr�r II5�x�zi�tsars
1r! MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH
CHAIRMAN Of THE BOARD
December 4, 1987
Mr. Jack Shine
American Beauty Homes
1633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 711
Encino, Oalifornta 91436
Dear Mr.
I'm sofry I was unable to attend the meeting relating to the
I
lack of /emergency access for your developments near the Rainbow
Glen Zrive intersection with Soledad Canyon Road. I am .glad a.,
solution was worked out to provide the needed emergency access
and I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
As I understand the solution, you and Palmer & Associates
will share in the cost to construct a 24' -wide paved road
paralleling the railroad tracks to connect Rainbow Glen Drive
with Hope Way and you will then be allowed by the Fire
Department to obtain occupancy permits for. approximately 54 (32
units for Palmer & Associates and 22 units for American Beauty)
completed units. The appropriate signage and construction/
maintenance/hold harmless agreements will also be provided.
Construction permits. will also be released on 14 units (TR
34367) within the American Beauty subdivision.
A second road will also be upgraded with the appropriate road
section satisfactory to the Department of Public Works and the
Fire Department to provide a connection west to the Golden Oak
Road railroad crossing. The Fire Department will release the -
remaining 400-500 additional completed units as they are ready
for occupancy, when approval for this road is obtained from the
property owner. After approval is obtained, the road shall be
completed immediately and maintained to the satisfaction of the
Department of Public -Works and the Fire Department.
The Department of Public Works will consider the issuance of
an additional 220 building permits (TR 36686) depending on the
results of a traffic analysis of the Rainbow Glen - Soledad
Canyon Road Intersection.
December 4, 1987
Mr. Jack Shine
Page.2
It was also understood that this agreement is contingent upon
the prompt completion of each of these commitments by the
developers. It was understood that without the completion of
this work, the permits cannot be released.
With the construction of these additional roads, substantial
improvements will be made to the emergency access road system,
.-7 thereby reducing the risk factor to the neighboring residents.
So that I can keep current on the progress of this program, I
would appreciate receiving regular updates from you as well as
copies of your agreement with Mr. Shine.
Once again, I would like to thank each of you for your
cooperation. Have -a happy holiday. season!
Si'n ely .
l
MICHAEL D. NOVICH
Chairman of he Board
Supervisor, 'fth District
MDA:kdv
cc: D. Higuchi
D. Milne
A. Snyder
Dl'`'LICATE ORIVIAL I )!,}l 0_\4o SLE=
County of Los Angeles
Department of Public Works
P. 0. Box 1460
Alhambra, California 91802-1460
Attention: T. A. Tidemanson
Re: Temporary Roadway
Gentlemen:
In consideration of the County of Los Angeles'
acceptance of the dedication offered and that certain
Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate the easement for public road and
highway purposes recorded on February 5, 1985 in Official
Records Document No. 85-139579 in the Recorder's Office of the
County of Los Angeles and the issuance of a construction permit
("Permit") for the construction and maintenance of a 24 -foot
wide temporary paved road and certain appurtenant structures to
be located within that certain County of Los Angeles easement
described in Exhibit "A" ("Temporary Roadway"), FN Projects,
Inc., a California corporation which acquired title as 1st
Nationwide Network Mortgage Company, a California corporation,
and CCV Partnership, a California limited partnership
("Indemnitors") agree to indemnify, defend and save harmless
the County of Los Angeles, its Board of Supervisors, officers,
agents and employees from and against any and all liability,
expense, including defense costs and legal fees, and claims for
damages of any nature whatsoever, including, but not limited
to, bodily injury, death, personal injury or property damage,
arising from or connected with the design, construction,
maintenance and/or use of the Temporary Roadway and the
appurtenant structures.
Thisindemnity and hold harmless agreement shall be
limited to liabilities and claims resulting from injury, death
from injury and/or property damage which occurred from the date
of the issuance of the Permit until the Expiration Date, as
defined heyeafter. The Expiration Date shall be defined as the
earlier of (a) December 31, 1992, 6r (b) the 30th day following
(i) the opening to the public of either a two-way access
roadway with a minimum of two lanes (other than that portion of
Rainbow Glen Drive extending northerly to Soledad Canyon Road),
which extends easterly from Tract No. 38519 to -Sierra Highway
County of Los Angeles
Page Two
or Soledad Canyon Road, or any. other secondary two—way roadway
which contains a minimum of two 'lanes and provides access
between Tract No. 38519 and Sierra Highway or Soledad Canyon
Road ("Roadways"), and (ii) receipt by the County of Los
Angeles of a written notice from either of the Indemnitors
notifying the County of Los Angeles that one or more of the
Roadways is open to the public.
Dated:. 1 / , 1987.
FN PROJECTS, INC.
By
Its 1.1/
CCY PART NE IP
B
Its .�G
EXHIBIT "A"
That portion of the northwest quarter of Section 19, Township 4
North, Range 15 West, S.B.H., which lies within the northerly
77 feet of that certain parcel of land described as Parcel 1 in
deed to Tomal Development, recorded on May 17, 1979, as
Official Records Document No. 79-532868, in the office of the
Registrar—Recorder of the County of Los Angeles, State of
California.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA \)'
99•
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
. On December Ii , 1987, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared
T -r11 /-r 11-,)0 , personally, known_ to me or proved
to -me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person
who executed the within instrument as the [),en Tkc-SIdci I(-,
of FN Projects, Inc., the corporation that executed the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that such corporation
executed the within instrument.pursuant to its by-laws or a
resolution of its board of directors.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
On December, 1987, before.me, the undersigned, a
Notary Publifj in and for'said State, personally appeared
(zol fA- , personally known to -me or proved to
me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who
executed the within instruments as one of the partners of CCV
Partnership, the partnership that executed the within
instrument, and acknowledged to me that such partnership
executed the same.
WITNP8SZ]y�1hand a_gd official seal.
OFFICIAL SEAL
MARTA ZAARAGOITIA
io Notary W Nic-cauromia
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
--.. T . •. My Gam, E� S-0 29.1043 1
L SEALOWLERc-Carilornia
am
COUNTY.
Sea. 20. 1991
On December, 1987, before.me, the undersigned, a
Notary Publifj in and for'said State, personally appeared
(zol fA- , personally known to -me or proved to
me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who
executed the within instruments as one of the partners of CCV
Partnership, the partnership that executed the within
instrument, and acknowledged to me that such partnership
executed the same.
WITNP8SZ]y�1hand a_gd official seal.
OFFICIAL SEAL
MARTA ZAARAGOITIA
io Notary W Nic-cauromia
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
--.. T . •. My Gam, E� S-0 29.1043 1
I
G. H. Palmer Associates
Real Estate Development
31 January 1992
CITY OF SANTA CLARTTA
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, Ca 91355
ATTN: Mr. Richard Kopecky
Deputy City Engineer
ATTN: Ms. Lynn Harris
Deputy City Manager/Community Development
RE: Storm Drain No. P.D. 1962 for Tract 43116
Location of Isabella Parkway and Golden Valley Road
Dear City of Santa Clarita:
This letter is in response to the letter we received from Lynn Harris and Richard Kopecky dated
January 28, 1992..That letter in part reads, '. .. your consultant states that the County, Jack
Shine and the Fire Department wanted the road to extend westerly. The letter also states that
to the best of the consultant's knowledge, the modification was instigated by the County, not G.
H. Palmer Associates. Our files indicate the contrary. Enclosed are copies of letters from our
records which indicate that CCV Partnership entered into an agreement with American Beauty,
(sic) regarding the design and construction of the secondary access road and all appurtenant
structures such as drainage facilities."
The letters you attached do not support this statement. The first letter is an agreement between
FNP Projects, Inc. "FNP" (Shine) and CCV Partnership. It clearly states in paragraph 1 that
'FNP' shall be responsible for the design, construction and maintenance of the Road and all
appropriate appurtenant structures such as drainage facilities, (emphasis added) signage
barricades, fences and the like'. CCV Partnership obligations were limited to sharing costs.
This agreement also says in paragraph 6, "The parties agree to ... perform such other and
further acu, as may be necessary or appropriate in order to consummate the agreements or
transactions contemplated by this agreement' (emphasis added).
As you can see, this letter states explicitly that is shall be solely FNP's obligation to complete
the work and, take any further actions as may be necessary to consummate its obligations.
The second letter the City references is a letter from Supervisor Antonovich to Jack Shine. It
does not contradict the first letter. The only mention of CCV Partnership is in the context of
sharing costs.
The third letter is from FNP and CCV Partnership to the County. It is a standard hold harmless
letter and makes no reference to in any way obligate CCV Partnership to perform any work.
Continued .. .
111740 SAN VICENTE BLVD. SUITE 208 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90049 Q'IM 2073100. FAX (2131207-2162
ME
City of Santa Clarita
31 January 1492
Page Two
This letter was tendered by CCV and FNP in consideration of the County's acceptance of these
improvements.
To summarize:
1. FNP is obligated to design and complete the improvements.
2. The County accepted the improvements.
3. The City is claiming CCV has a responsibility to
a) redesign, and
b) modify the previously accepted improvements, and
4. CCV, per the City's letter and the public record, built the improvements
guaranteed by the bond per the approved plans.
S. The CCV bond did not initially, nor has ever guaranteed FNP's performance of
work.
6. The City is threatening 'CCV "use the (storm drain) bond to perform the
necessary corrective measures.'
The plain language reading of the letters, patently on their face, contradict the City's position,
not ours. The City has absolutely no right, explicit or implied, to withhold release of the bond.
The facts are that the improvements the bond guaranteed were built per the approved plan. The
improvements the City wants redesigned and re -build are unrelated to the CCV bond and were
built by others, after CCV had fully completed the work guaranteed by its bond.
please release the bond immediately.
Best Regards,
`1
Dan Son mer, Jr.
DSP.c0cCVB0ND
cc: Developers Insurance Company
Stan Dixon/Los Angeles County Land Development
Richard Seiden/Los Angeles County Flood Control District
WIG Consultant
Lee Silver, Esq./Ervin, Cohen & Jessup
KG. H. Palmer Associates
Real Estate Development
February 19, 1992
Ms. Nancy Delang
Assistant City Engineer
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Re: G. H. Palmer Associates' Unreleased Bonds
Dear Nancy:
Pursuant to our conversation last Thursday, you alleged that you had written "numerous
unanswered letters requesting payment of the 'past due' $200 per year fee on the unreleased
bonds older than two years," and "the failure to pay the fees is the reason why the bonds have
not been released." We disagree. We have not been advised by you or. anyone else at the City
of any unpaid fee amounts. If the City wants fees, write us a letter explaining and documenting
your demand. In fact, it is our opinion that this is just the latest gambit as the City plays games
withholding the releases of the bonds.
For example, the City's position with respect to the storm drain bond for Tract 43116 is
outrageous. The City has refused to partially release this bond since the City incorporated, in
an attempt to extort from us improvements not guaranteed by the bond. The work the bond
guaranteed was virtually completed before the City existed. Your bootstrap logic goes
something like this:
1. ' CCV is required to put in anoutlet structure to complete the storm drain system
guaranteed by the bond.
2. The County tells.CCV not to put in the outlet structure because it is requiring FN
PROPERTIES to construct a temporary road where the outlet structure was to be.
3. FN PROPERTIES designed, the County approved, FN PROPERTIES installed, and the
County accepted, a substandard tempgry road that includes an undersized drainage pipe that
did not tie in to the upstream PALMER tem,pgr= outlet of much larger dimensions just a few
feet away.
4. The City doesn't like the situation, doesn't know how or why the County allowed it, and
can't get FN PROPERTIES to fix it.
Continued...
11740 SAN VICENTE SLVO. SUITE 208 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90049 (2131207-3100 FAX(213)207-2162
Ms. Nancy, Delang
February 19, 1992
Page Two
5. So, the City attempts to pressure CCV by telling them it's an improvement guaranteed
by the bond, and refuse to release the bond guaranteeing the storm drain. And, for good
measure, the City refuses to release the other bonds on this tract and other tracts that obviously
bear no relationship to the FN PROPERTIES problem.
6. Due to CCV's refusal to be extorted, the city escalates by threatening CCV's bond
provider that you intend to call the bond.
The City of Santa Clarita is behaving in a renegade manner; malting up the rules as it goes
along. We will not sit idly by while the City attempts to abridge our rights. We will give you
five (5) business days to provide one of the following: (1) a written explanation of your legal
position which you feel gives you the right to behave in this manner, or (2) a partial release not
less than 90%. Otherwise, this will just become the next City of Santa Clarita matter we will
tum over to our attorneys.
Best regards,
I
D on Pal er, Jr.
DSP.=.&1Us
cc: Mr. George Caravalho
Mr. Ken Pulskamp
Mrs. Lynn Harris
Mr. John Medina
Mr. Richard Kopecky
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING
ZONE CHANGE 90-005, ON A 26.86 ACRE PARCEL
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET SOUTH OF
SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF
ISABELLA PARKWAY THE PROPOSAL REQUESTS TO CHANGE
THE EXISTING,ZONE FROM A-2-1 HEAVY AGRICULTURE, ONE ACRE
MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO RPD -1-6U (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ONE ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE 6 UNITS PER ACRE).
THE APPLICANT IS FIRST FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
AMERICAN BEAUTY HOMES
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A.Public Hearing will be held .before the City Council of the City
cf Santa Clarita regarding Zone Charge 90-005 on a 26.86 acre
parcel, located approximately. 2,000 feet south of Soledad Canyon
Road at the souther terminus of Isabella Parkvay. The proposal
request to change the existing zone from A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture,
one acre minimum lot size) to RPD -1-6U (Residential Planned
Development, one acre minimum lot size 6 units per acre). The
applicant is First Financial Group, Inc., American Beauty Homes.
The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., ist Floor, Santa Clarita,
the 25th day of February, 1992, at or after 6:30 p.m.
Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be
heardon 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: January 31, 1992
Donna N. Grindey
City Clerk
PUBLISH DATE: February 3, 1992
February 18, 1992
Honorable Jill Klajic
Mayor of Santa Clarita
CITY OF SANTA CLARI TA
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
M 01 G. H. Palmer Associates
Real Estate Development
RECEIV ED
[FEB 2 1 1992
CITv COUNCIL
CITU OF SANTA CLARITA
nECEIIIED
Re: Notice of Public Hearing Regarding Zone Change 90-005, FEB 2 If 1J'52
On a 26.86 Acre Parcel Located Approximately 2,000 Feet LYNN M. HARRIS
South of Soledad Canyon Road at the Southern Terminus of Dimetur of community o®v.
Isabella Parkway the Proposal Requests to Change The Existing
Zone From A-2-1 Heavy Agriculture, (One Acre Minimum Lot
Size) To RPD -1-6U (Residential Planned Development One Acre
Minimum Lot Size 6 Units Per Acre). The Applicant is First
Financial Group, Inc. American Beauty Homes
Dear Jill:
Should a developer who has persistently refused to complete the City infrastructure he has
committed to provide be given further development approvals without first taking care of the
unfinished business? We do not think so. Apparently, the Planning Commission disagrees. We
raised this objection in writing (see attached), prior to the aforementioned case being heard.
The Planning Commission ignored our objection and gave the developer another approval
anyway.
We re -affirm our objection. Do not allow this approval until the unfinished infrastructure is
completed to the complete satisfaction of your City Engineer. Ask Dick Kopecky about how
cooperative American Beauty is when asked to complete the work. You won't like the answer.
Best regards,
Ddtf Saxon PaTmr,Jr.
DSP.=.Majic
Eaclaeume
11740 SAN VICENTE BLVD. SUITE 200 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA S004S [213] 207-3'100 FAX [213] 207-2162
CIVIL
4567 TELEPHONE ROAD. SUITE 201. VLNTURn C:.ALIEORNIn93003
December 11, 1991
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia -Boulevard
Suite 300
City of Santa Clarita, California 91355
ENGINEERING
Attention: Mr. Richard Kopecky, City Engineer
a v- af✓,n
LAND PLANNING
DEC 1 2
Subject: American Beauty Homes Proposed Tract 44360
and Proposed CUP 91-011
Scheduled For Public Hearing on December 17, 1991
and
Unresolved Matters regarding
Tract No. 43116 & PD 1962 / Storm Drain
City of Santa Clarita
Finalization of Project - Notice of Completion
Exoneration of Storm Drain Bond
Dear Mr. Kopecky:
,.._. IgWL..g
The City, and our client's bond, are being held "hostage" by American Beauty Homes
refusal to properly complete the Golden Triangle Road public infrastructure required of
them since 1989. This developer should not be granted any further approvals in this area
until they honor their past obligations to.the satisfaction of the City and County. It is our
opinion, that for the City to approve new development south of the current terminus of
Isabella Parkway, which will increase traffic on Golden Triangle and increase the runoff
which is already causing a danger to the public, would be Irresponsible and inconsistent.
We urge you to organize and implement the resolution to this longstanding irritant and
threat to public safety before even considering any further development proposals from
American Beauty Homes, the party responsible for the hazard.
Pursuant to my client's request, G. H. Palmer Associates, i have reviewed our files and
plans to aid the City in resolving heretofore the problems incurred due to County
requirements to PD 1962, seemingly beyond my client's control, which will not allow
release of the storm drain bond for their project. Said bond was issued April 17, 1986,
No. 9307225, in the amount of $531,500.00.
I have enclosed a letter dated April 20, 1990 to the Los Angeles Department of Public
Works, Drainage and Grading Seaton, requesting a solution to the situation. This letter
resulted from direction by the Los Angeles County Public Works Inspection Department in
Newhall and my discussions with the City of Santa Cianta. Also enclosed is a letter to my
client dated April 16, 1990 which gives you some additional history, and a copy of the
plan. we revised, Sheet 6 of 10, PD 1962.
The April 20th letter details what occurred during construction of Tract No. 43116 and PD
1962. 1 was told by the County that Golden Triangle Road was constructed under Permit
and inspected by the County.
City of Santa Clarita
December 11, 1991
Page 2
As a result of the said letter, I discussed the particulars with the County Drainage and
Grading Section, who had no specific solution, but that we, as Engineer of Record, should
provide them with a plan for their review which would be acceptable, thus allowing
release of the bond after Its construction.
We Initially proposed an Interim solution which would minimize any reconstructive work in
Golden Triangle Road. This effort was unacceptable.
We sent our client a proposal dated September 10, 1990 for the work required by the
Drainage Section in the amount of $6,250.00. We prepared a plan, utilizing a
topographic field survey, design, hydraulic calculations, etc., and submitted it for plan
We coordinated with the County, and made the plan check revisions as required. Also
needed for approval were requirements to vacate certain Flood Control District
easements, and the obtaining of additional easements from American Beauty Homes for
all areas not located in a dedicated road right of way, Including possibly the adjacent
railroad right of way. A letter dated October 16, 1990 was sent to our client he
those
requirements. As of this date, the easements have never been granted, and we were
forced to stop work.
It should be noted that the revised storm drain plan we prepared and finalized with the
County Drainage Section required removal of an existing 36" CM pipe installed under
Permit by the County when the road was extended. This pipe was adequate at the time
for drainage purposes,.but now my client is required to remove the existing 36" pipe and
install a 60" R.C. pipe for flood protection on Tract No. 43116.
This implies that the existing 36" pipe is undersized and could cause excessive flooding
under the right circumstances, yet It was installed and inspected with County approval
when the road was extended.
In other words, if ,my client does nothing and lets the storm drain bond remain in force, the
existing substandard pipe Installation remains a potential flooding situation, and may stay
as such for years, or until the adjacent property to the west is developed.
In summation, our client is in a "no win" situation. If they make the storm drain
improvements as required by the County Drainage and Grading Section, the estimated
cost is between $55,000 and $60,000 plus engineering costs of approximately $6,000.
This does not consider the time and costs to obtain and/or quitclaim easements relating to
the LACFCD, the Southern Pacific Transportation Co., and American Beauty Homes for
the discharge of the storm waters.
All of this expense to exonerate their storm drain bond due to a situation which they did
not ask for or create.
If the information, as stated, is substantially correct, it seems only reasonable and fair for
you to consider one of the following:
1. Let the PD 1962 remain as it presently exists and request the County/City to
exonerate the storm drain bond,
2. If American Beauty Homes is responsible for and/or benefitted from the
extension of Golden Triangle Drive, then they should pa for and construct the
60" P.C. pipe per the plan we processed with the County Drainage and
Grading Section. Our client should also be reimbursed for the engineering
costs they incurred from this office.
City of Santa Clarita
December 11, 1991
Page 3
As a result of the said letter, I discussed the particulars with the Count Drainage and
Grading Section, who had no specific solution, but that we, as Engineer of Record. should
provide them with a plan for their review which would be acceptable, thus allowing
release of the bond after its construction.
We initially proposed an interim solution which would minimize any reconstructive work in
Golden Triangle Road. This effort was unacceptable.
We sent our client a proposal dated September 10, 1990 for the work required by the
Drainage Section in the amount of $6,250.00. We prepared a plan, utilizing a
topographic field survey, design, hydraulic calculations, etc., and submitted it for plan
check.
Please do not hesitate to contact myself or Dan Palmer (G.H. Palmer Associates) at
213-207-3100, if you have any questions and/or wish further assistance.
For both our client and this office, I respectfully thank you for your consideration of this
situation. Your earliest attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
a?X41le
ART SHIRK
Project Manager
AS/cg
cc: Dan Palmer/G.H.Palmer Associates
Lynn Harris/Director of Community Development
Steve Gerjets
Enclosure
Ret: 159-13
City of
Santa Clarita
January 28, 1992
CCV Partnership
11740 San Vincente Boulevard
Suite 208
Los Angeles, CA 90049
_ A!rYl
r�� � v
n �V
Attention: Geoff Palmer and Dan Palmer
Subject: Storm Drain No. P.D. 1962 for Tract 43116
Location of Isabella Parkway and Golden Valley Road
Dear CCV Partnership:
This .letter is in response to a letter we received from
Art Shirk of WJG Consultants on December 11, 1991 regarding
P.D. 1962. This letter is also to request that the storm drain
constructed for Tract 43116 be satisfactorily revised and
completed.
In the letter, your. consultant states that the County, Jack
Shine and the Fire Department wanted the road to extend
westerly. The letter also states that to the best of the
consultant's knowledge, the modification was instigated by the
County, not G.H. Palmer Associates.
Our files indicate the contrary. Enclosed are copies of
letters from our records which indicate that CCV Partnership
entered into an agreement with American Beauty regarding the
design and construction of the secondary access road and all
appurtenant structures such as drainage facilities. Regardless
of any agreements with other developers, CCV is obligated to
the City to construct the improvements necessary to mitigate
drainage issues associated with that development. These
improvements have been designedas shown on the approved plans
and now must be revised and approved to accommodate site
conditions based on the construction of the road.
This letter is to request that your engineer revise the storm
drain plans, havethemapproved, and construct the revisions
immediately upon approval.
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Phone
Suite 300
(805) 259.2489
n�
City of Santa Clarita
Fax
V
California 91355
(805) 259-8125
=c3 iJ 6 i?�7
January 28, 1992
CCV Partnership
11740 San Vincente Boulevard
Suite 208
Los Angeles, CA 90049
_ A!rYl
r�� � v
n �V
Attention: Geoff Palmer and Dan Palmer
Subject: Storm Drain No. P.D. 1962 for Tract 43116
Location of Isabella Parkway and Golden Valley Road
Dear CCV Partnership:
This .letter is in response to a letter we received from
Art Shirk of WJG Consultants on December 11, 1991 regarding
P.D. 1962. This letter is also to request that the storm drain
constructed for Tract 43116 be satisfactorily revised and
completed.
In the letter, your. consultant states that the County, Jack
Shine and the Fire Department wanted the road to extend
westerly. The letter also states that to the best of the
consultant's knowledge, the modification was instigated by the
County, not G.H. Palmer Associates.
Our files indicate the contrary. Enclosed are copies of
letters from our records which indicate that CCV Partnership
entered into an agreement with American Beauty regarding the
design and construction of the secondary access road and all
appurtenant structures such as drainage facilities. Regardless
of any agreements with other developers, CCV is obligated to
the City to construct the improvements necessary to mitigate
drainage issues associated with that development. These
improvements have been designedas shown on the approved plans
and now must be revised and approved to accommodate site
conditions based on the construction of the road.
This letter is to request that your engineer revise the storm
drain plans, havethemapproved, and construct the revisions
immediately upon approval.
CCV Partnership
January 28, 1992
Page 2
Our records show that Bond 9930722S for $531,500, which has
been posted for storm drains, is still outstanding with
Developers Insurance Company. Without your cooperation, it
will be necessary for the City to use the bond and to perform
the necessary corrective measures. If you have any questions,
please contact Nancy Delange at (805) 255-4935.
Sincerely,
LYNN M. HARRIS
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/
ZCOI:TY DEVELOPMENT
Richard Kopecky/
Deputy City Engineer�G�� V
RK:ned/187
Enclosures
cc: Developers. Insurance Company
Stan Dison/Los Angeles County Land Development
Richard Seiden/Los'Angeles.County Flood Control District
WJG Consultants
COPY hd s
anvvvweuM
This AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered
into at Los Angeles, California, this 10th day of December, 1987,
by and between FN PROJECTS, INC., a California corporation ("FNP")
which acquired title as 1ST NATIONWIDE NETWORK MORTGAGE COMPANY, a
California corporation, and CCV Partnership, a California limited
partnership ("CCV"). This Agreement is made with reference to the
following:
A. It is necessary to design, construct and maintain a
temporary. access road between Rainbow Glen Drive and Golden
Triangle Road southerly of Soledad Canyon Road (the "Road").
B. The Road will serve residents from subdivision
tracts developed by both FNP and CCV.
C. It is necessary that the Road be constructed as
soon as possible.
D. FNP and CCV have agreed to share the costs of the
design, construction and maintenance of the Road.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
and agreements contained herein and for other valuable consider—
ation, FNP and CCV agree as follows:
1. FNP shall be responsible for the design,
construction and maintenance of the Road and all appropriate
appurtenant structures such as drainage facilities, signage,
barricades, fences and the like.
2. All of the costs expended or incurred by FNP for
- the design, construction and maintenance of the Road shall be
shared equally between FNP and CCV. Such costs shall be evidenced
by receipts, paid bills, cancelled checks or similar documentation
("Receipts"). FNP will render periodic statements to CCV for its
proportionate share of such costs, along with copies of the
supporting Receipts.
3. CCV's share of such costs shall be payable within
five (5) business days after it has received a statement and
copies of the Receipts from FNP. In the event CCV has not paid
its share of such costs within five (5) business days after it -has
received FNP's statement, CCV's obligation for such costs shall
thereafter bear interest at the rate of ten percent (103) per
annum.
4. Any notice or communication required or permitted
by this Agreement shall be given in writing addressed as follows:
—1—
If to F 'p:
FN Projects, Inc.
9800 South Sepulveda Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90045
Attention: Don Sarno, Senior Vice President
if to CCV:
CCV Partnership
11740 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 208
Los Angeles, California 90049
Attention: Geoff Palmer and Dan Palmer
Notices shall be served personally or by first class
mail, postage prepaid and, if mailed, shall be deemed delivered
forty-eight (48) hours after mailing. Either party may give
written notification to the other party of any change of address
for the sending of notices.
5. This Agreement contains 'the entire agreement and
understanding of the parties in respect to the subject matter
hereof, and the same may not be amended, modified or discharged
nor any of its terms waived except by an instrument in writing
signed by the party to be bound thereby.
6. The parties agree to execute such other and further
documents, and to perform such other and further acts, as may be
necessary or appropriate in order to consummate the agreements or
transactions contemplated by this Agreement.
7. In the event that either party is required to bring
or defend any action, arbitration or other proceeding against the
other by reason of an alleged dispute or breach of this Agreement,
the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable
attorneys' fees and cost incurred therein.
8. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed
in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this
Agreement as of the day and year first above written.
FN PROJECTS, INC.
By:
T
CCV
By:
—2—
Its General Partner
Pvarb of t9;i, up.erixt%urs
Guuufu of1os �ueX�s
MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
December 4, 1987
Mr. Jack -Shine
American Beauty Homes
1633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 711
Encino, Oalifornta 91436
Dear Mr.
I'm sofry I was unable to attend the meeting relating to the
lack of /emergency access for your developments near the Rainbow
Glen Drive intersection with Soledad Canyon Road. I am glad a
solution was worked out to provide the needed emergency access
and I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
As I understand the solution, you and Palmer & Associates
will share in the cost to construct a 24' -wide paved road
paralleling the railroad tracks to connect Rainbow Glen Drive
with Hope way and you will then be allowed by the Fire
Department to obtain occupancy permits for approximately 54 (32
units for Palmer & Associates and. 22 units for American Beauty)
completed units. The appropriate signage and construction/
maintenance/hold harmless agreements will also be provided.
Construction permits will also be released on 14 units (TR
34367) within the AmericanBeauty subdivision.
A second road will also be upgraded with.the appropriate road
section satisfactory to the Department of Public Works and the
Fire Department to provide a connection west to the Golden Oak
Road railroad crossing. The Fire Department will release the
remaining 400-500 additional completed units as they are ready
for occupancy, when approval for this road is obtained from the
property owner. After approval is obtained, the road shall be
completed immediately and maintained to the satisfaction of the
Department of Public Works and the Fire Department.
The Department of Public Works will consider the issuance of
an additional 220 building permits (TR 36686) depending on the
results of a traffic analysis of the Rainbow Glen - Soledad
Canyon Road Intersection.
December 4, 1987
Mr. Jack Shine
Page 2
It was also understood that this agreement is contingent upon
the prompt completion of each of these commitments by the
developers. It was understood that without the completion of
this work, the permits cannot be released.
With the construction of these additional roads, substantial
improvements will be made to the emergency access road system,
a thereby reducing the risk factor to the neighboring residents.
So that I can keep current on the progress of this program, I
would appreciate receiving regular. updates from you as well as
copies of your agreement with Mr. Shine.
Once again,. I would like to thank each of you for your
cooperation. Have•a happy holiday season!
MICHAEL D.
Chairman of
Supervisor,
MDA:kdv
cc: D. Higuchi
D. Milne
A. Snyder
Board
.h District
WrILICATE ORIGINAL 04- �1�0
County of Los Angeles
Department of Public Works
P. 0. Box 1460
Alhambra, California 91802-1460
Attention: T. A. Tidemanson
Re: Temporary Roadway
Gentlemen:
In consideration of the County of Los Angeles'
acceptance of the dedication offered and that certain
Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate the easement
19for
inu0 is ithe
ad and
85
purposes recorded on February 5,
Records Document No. 85-139579 in the Recorder's Office of
highway c
Record D Los Angeles and the issuance of a construction permit
County("Permit") for the construction and maintenance to
wide temporary paved road and certain app
be located within that certain County of Los Angeles easement
described in Exhibit "A" ("Temporary Roadway"), FN Projects,
Inc., a California corporation which aacquiredtitle
corporation,
Nationwide Network Mortgage Company, partnership
and CCV Partnership, a California limited p
("Indemnitors ) agree to indemnify, defend and save harmless
the County of11Los Angeles, its Board of Supervisorliability.s�
agents and employees from and against any
and all expense, including defense costs and legal fees, and claims for
damages off-anp nature whatsoever, including, butnotlimited
to, bodily injury, death, personal injury or property
maintenancemand/or nuse tof the ed hTemporary the gRoadway construction,
t,
or and the
appurtenant structures.
This indemnity and hold harmless agreement shallbe
limited to liabilities and claims resulting from injury,
death
from injury and/or property damage which occurred from the date
of the issuance of the Permit until the Expiration Date, as
defined hereafter. The Expiration Dateshallbe
defined day as the
earlier. of (a) December 31, 1992, 6r (b )
the ing
(i) the opening to the public of either a two-way access
oition of
roadway with a minimum of two lanes (other than that p
whichoextends Deasterlyefrom gTracthNo.y39519to otodSierra ad pon )�
Rainbw Glen Highway
County of Los Angeles
Page Two
or Soledad Canyon Road, or any other secondary two—way roadway
which contains a minimum of two lanes and provides access
between Tract No. 38519 and Sierra Highway or Soledad Canyon
Road ("Roadways"), and (ii) receipt by the County of Los
Angeles of a written notice from either of the Indemnitors
notifying the County of Los Angeles that one or more of the
Roadways is open to the public.
Dated: / 1987.
FN PROJECTS, INC.
By /
Its !�
CCV PARTNE IP
By �v
Its-
EXHIBIT "A"
That portion of the northwest quarter of Section 19, Township 4
North, Range 15 West, S.B.M., which lies within the northerly
77 feet of that certain parcel of land described as Parcel 1 in
deed to Tomal Development, recorded -on May 17, 1979, as
Official Records Document No. 79-532868, in the office of the
Registrar—Recorder of the County of Los Angeles, State of
California.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
98.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On December 1i , 1987, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared
T1 -A'1 , personally known to me .or proved
to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person
who executed the within instrument as the 5enfn,- ilicn
of FN Projects, Inc., the corporation that executed the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that such corporation
executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a
resolution of its board of directors.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
i
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On December .14 , 1987, before me, the undersigned, a
Nar Publi* in and for said State, personally appeared
personally known to me or proved to
me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who
executed the within instruments as one of the partners of CCV
Partnership, the partnership that executed the within
instrument, and acknowledged to me that such partnership
executed the same.
IAL SEAL
MARTAfZZARPA OT1A
FQ@
Nmery PUjGC-C2lifpre�yLOS ANGELES COUNTY
MY Comm E,n 8-p 29. ,M 1
;_,
AL
L[R.m
s. f'NTYM.
=FOVVLE-,R
lifornia���
20. 1041
On December .14 , 1987, before me, the undersigned, a
Nar Publi* in and for said State, personally appeared
personally known to me or proved to
me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who
executed the within instruments as one of the partners of CCV
Partnership, the partnership that executed the within
instrument, and acknowledged to me that such partnership
executed the same.
IAL SEAL
MARTAfZZARPA OT1A
FQ@
Nmery PUjGC-C2lifpre�yLOS ANGELES COUNTY
MY Comm E,n 8-p 29. ,M 1
EliG. H. Palmer Associates
Real Estate oavelopment
31 January 1992 VIA FAX
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, Ca 91355
ATPN: Mr. Richard Kopecky
Deputy City Engineer
ATIN: Ms. Lynn Hams
Deputy City Manager/Community Development
RE: Storm Drain No. P.D. 1962 for Tract 43116
Location of Isabella Parkway and Golden Valley Road
Dear City of Santa Clarita:
This letter is in response to the letter we received from rLynn
consultas and nt states that County, Jack
January 28, 1992. That letter in part reads, ".. y
Shine and the Fire Department wanted the road to extend westerly. The letter also states that
to the best of the consultant's knowledge, the modification was instigated by the Count , no our
G.
H. Palmer Associates. Our files indicate the contrary. Enclosed are copies of letters
records which indicate that CCV Partnership entered into an agreement withoad nd all appurtenant rican Beaty
eauty
(sic) regarding the design and construction of the secondary
structures such as drainage facilities.”
The letters you attached do not support this statement. The first letter is an agreement between
FNP Projects, Inc. "FNP" (Shine) and CCV Partnership. It clearly states in paragraph
I that
'FNP" shall be responsible for the design, construction and maintenance of the Road and all
appropriate appurtenant structures such as drainage facilities, (emphasis added) signage
barricades, fences and the like". CCV Partnership obligations were limited
t sucsharing
other and
'This agreement also says in paragraph 6, Thepagree
further acts, as may be necessary or appropriate in order to consummate the agreements or
transactions contemplated by this agreement" (emphasis added).
As you can see, this letter states explicitly that is shall be solely FFNP's obligation its t om lete
the work and, take any further actions as may be necessary
to consummateThe second letter the City references is a letter from Supervisor Antonovich to Jack Shine. It
does not contradict the fust letter. The only mention of CCV Partnership is in the context of
sharing costs.
The third letter is from FNP and CCV Partnership to the County: It is a standard hold harmless
letter and makes no reference to in any way obligate CCV Partnership to perform any work.
Continued .. .
111740 SAN VICENTE BLVD. SUrrE 209 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90049 C2131207-3100 FAX (2133207-2162
Eli
City of Santa Clarita
31 January 1992
Page Two
i
This letter was tendered by CCV and FNP in consideration of the County's acceptance of these
improvements.
To summarize:
1. FNP is obligated to design and complete the improvements.
2. The County accepted the improvements.
3, The City is claiming CCV has a responsibility to
a) redesign, and
b) modify the previously accepted improvements, and
4. CCV, per the City's letter and the public record, built the improvements
guaranteed by the bond per the approved plans.
5. The CCV bond did not initially, nor has ever guaranteed FNP's performance of
work.
6. The City is threatening CCV "use the (storm drain) bond to perforin the
necessary corrective measures."
The plain language reading of the letters, patently on their face, contradict the City's position,
not ours. The City has absolutely no right, explicit or implied, to withhold release of the bond.
The facts are that the improvements the bond guaranteed were built per the approved plan. The
improvements the City wants redesigned and are unrelated to the CCV
built by others k after CCV had (fully completed thew guaranteed by its bond. and were
please release the bond immediately.
Best Regards,
`- I
,an S on mer, Jr.
DSFsdCCYHOND
cc: Developers Insurance Company
Stan Dixon/Los Angeles County Land Development
Richard Seiden/Los Angeles County Flood Control District
WIG Consultants
Lee Silver, Esq./Ervin, Cohen & Jessup
VIA FAX
February 19, 1992
i
Ms. Nancy Delang
Assistant City Engineer
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Eli G. H. Palmer Associates
Real Estate Development
Re: G. H. Palmer Associates' Unreleased Bonds
Dear Nancy:
Pursuant to our conversation last Thursday, you alleged that you had written "numerous
unanswered letters requesting payment of the 'past due' $200 per year fee on the unreleased
bonds older than two years," and "the failure to pay the fees is the reason why the bonds have
not been released." We disagree. We have not been advised by you or anyone else at the City
of any unpaid fee amounts. If the City wants fees, write -us a letter explaining and documenting
your demand. In fact, it is our opinion that this is just the latest gambit as the City plays games
withholding the releases of the bonds.
For example, the City's position with respect to the storm drain bond for Tract 43116 is
outrageous. The City has refused to partially release this bond since the City incorporated, in
an attempt to extort from us improvements not guaranteed by the bond. The work the bond
guaranteed was virtually completed before the City existed. Your bootstrap logic goes
something like this:
1. CCV is required to put in an outlet structure to complete the storm drain system
guaranteed by the bond.
2. The County tells CCV not to put in the outlet structure because it is requiring FN
PROPERTIES to construct a temporary road where the outlet structure was to be.
3. FN PROPERTIES designed, the County approved, FN PROPERTIES installed, and the
County accepted, a substandard temporary road that includes an undersized drainage pipg that
did not tie in to the upstream PALMER tempary outlet of much larger dimensions just a few
feet away.
4. The City doesn't like the situation, doesn't know how or why the County allowed it, and
can't get FN PROPERTIES to fix it.
Continued...
11740 SAN VICENTE BLVD. SUITE 208 IAS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90049 (--13)207.3100 FAX (21 31 207-21 62
Ms. Nancy Delang
February 19, 1992 El
Page Two
5. So, the City attempts to pressure CCV by telling them it's an improvement guaranteed
by the bond, and refuse to release the bond guaranteeing the storm drain. And, for good
measure, the City refuses to release the other bonds on this tract and other tracts that obviously
bear no relationship to the FN PROPERTIES problem.
6. Due to CCV's refusal to be extorted, the city escalates by threatening CCV's bond
provider that you intend to call the bond.
The City of Santa Clarita is behaving in a renegade manner; making up the rules as it goes
along. We will not sit idly by while the City attempts to abridge our rights. We will give you
five (5) business days to provide one of the following: (1) a written explanation of your legal
position which you feel gives you the right to behave in this manner, or (2) a partial release not
less than 90%. Otherwise, this will just become the next City of Santa Clarita matter we will
turn over to our attorneys.
Best regards,
1
D 2on Pal ter, Jr.
DSP:=.dC1=g
cc: Mr. George Caravalho
Mr. Ken Pulskamp
Mrs. Lynn Harris
Mr. John Medina
Mr. Richard Kopecky
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING
ZONECHANGE90-005, ON A 26.86 ACRE PARCEL
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET SOUTH OF
SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF
ISABELLA PARKWAY THE PROPOSAL REQUESTS TO CHANGE
THE EXISTING ZONE FROM A-2-1 HEAVY AGRICULTURE, ONE ACRE
MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO RPD -1-6U (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ONE ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE 6 UNITS PER ACRE).
THE APPLICANT IS FIRST FINANCIAL GROUP. INC.
AMERICAN BEAUTY HOMES
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City
of Santa Clarita regarding Zone Charge 90-005 on a 26.86 acre
parcel, located approximately 2,000 feet south of Soledad Canyon
Road at the souther terminus of Isabella Parkway. The proposal
request to change the existing zone from A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture,
one acre minimum lot size) to RPD -1-6U (Residential Planned
Development, one acre minimum lot size 6 units per acre). The
applicant is First Financial Group, Inc., American Beauty Homes.
The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita,
the 25th day of February, 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: January 31, 1992
Donna N. Grindey
City Clerk
PUBLISH DATE: February 3, 1992
Members ofthe City Council
City of Santa Clarita
CITY OF SANTA cebruary 20, 1992
Dear Members: FEB �� ^��~�� '� �� 1`11 '92
��
This letter is again being written to oppose the proposed `
splitting of Lot -No. 23 inTract NoRN7,47Mthe Crystal Springs-
o\/)� CI r
development that is being`applieo forrEVULF89je Thomas. If Mr"
Thomas is allowed to split the lot he bought, a precedent will be
set in the Sand Canyon area that will allow for higher density
development than has been pre -approved.
`
When the Crystal Springs subdivision was started, the Sand
Canyon Homeowners' Association met with the Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors and requested that they not allow he
density first asked for by the developer" Crystal Springs was
then cut back to the current number of lots. The San Clemente
Group Development Corporation signed the following statement:
, "We hereby dedicate to the County of Los
' Angeles the right to prohibit the construction
of more than one residential and related
accessory building within lots 3, 5, 10, 111
12, 13' and 23°11
Lot No. 23 belongs to George Thomas. Since there are other
tracts being developed in this area that have 4, 5» and 6 acre
parcels�designated for one r-esidence only, we are extremely
concerned that the granting of a split to Mr" Thomas will set a
precedent for others in the area to do the same, thus allowing a
higherdensity of homes in the area.
We urge you to deny Mr" Thomas' petition for a split of Lot
No 23��Tract N 37573
" n ac o° °
Thank you,
�
ton `
^ �
� �}V
~^~ /
RECEIVED
FEB 2 1 $592
LYNN M. HARRIS
mmtor ofmmmunify DIV.
�
� ��
.--.-- - " -1. �Fz -
... .- __ - , .. . .. . . .. . _=_1-____. ,- , . '. �11 - -1.7 �., ,� . v 7 , � ,-,-,r 'I - V�aj �Z��` ,��,�r 1�1 .1 � I � _1-1.1-.1. , . - I . ., .
--- ?-.^T'^ ,�,-___; , . . .,� �4 1. 1A . . .; ,- . "', 'I- -,;-; � .
� � .,. .. . AI �.,��:_1�1-_, �,� 1`1_1 r ?,-; - r - •,��,-A,,�fl. ... ..". �. . I . � � � � ., .., __�. I' -1- . , . �, . . . " � , _ -1 , . . ".� , ., ,m. 1� :��_
I . , I - . -�' - " : : . .1 .1 I ". ✓, , _. �, - ,; . .. I.z - - . . � , , . . - I � ." �(., I , - , , I - .. - . . . , ,,-,,-, , . , , " - 5 ,� - -, - ,� , , ,. , :-, , , , ..
, . , I � " . . , , . , , - - . , .1 , -.� I . ,:1 _ . I � . I . ,� , . " '. '. ., . . I I 11� . ., . I,- .. - - I .1 , . ., -1 . . I I 1. . . t - , 1, � � , ., _ ♦ . , � ". - I I... I 1. !.. � " - , . ,
. �.� _ . I I . , 3, � , - � I . .. � - ,;�;-< *� ��:� �, t-, , �,: ., � -4 . '. .I, 1;1'1� ,, � At,. - , . I , � I 1. - � .i �' �. , , ,
� . . I , . I '. �- , ,�, . -, , . I '. I ., _ �'. _ :� , . e'. !� . - , . : j I �, '. �. . I I . , . . I I � . - I �'. '. � �, I f. . - j -, . �rj�� -. , - . I- , I , �,, . , . , _.- . , r �_ - _ . ., m !. *- -�% i�. -
� �* '� *: ..-.. , ,;.. " �'.%'., - 1� ` J ,� I - - I . ". -1 . .."'.. �. � , , -, '. . � " - . Z� _-. , I - - , 11 . .1 . , � ;. _ � " ",
I , * � I 0� . . . . . � ,�? � :� � I . " , � r� , , 111� I I . � - . Am, _ . , , , � � . . . 11 :. � . . � .� -1 , , � �:.�',.
� ! , I . I : , . .- - , I .. . I , , � - ,: . I , - - , , , � . . " , " , 11 . . !. -��'%., - , 'i � ., 14, I . , � .j, . , I, Aj - - .,I- - ;� . - � - , �, -1 , ,I . - ., I . .1 " . I � , ', ., , " ,., . I ...".1 '. , .. I., .� . 1. I . ." - �1
� .- - ... I � �i . I . , � . . .. . ,. . . ... -1 -I, -1- - . I " :. I . I - -1, . _� � . . � - . ': . 1, - :�, I ,-'A - 1,�� ,,� , - . , - - 7� , � ,- , SLI I � I ... -1 . - -�, - .;, � 'm . . , ,
-il
, � , , , I I �� �� � - . . I I , . N " , _ �.. 1. " *. . . . --- - - � , . I., - * '; - . . . . 11 ,,� ." , , I ,,, , , . ", � " 11 I \./'- -, ,
- , I , , . . � � I ! . :�, �_, ,� � - _"..L��:.�,,� �, , . r 1, j , _ - I , % 4
�. I I ... , - . . I �;`. 1,,� � " : 1� . , . , - . .
. 11 I . .. 11 � . 11. I— - � I , - . . 1. 1, , : - -, " � - l' , , ., - 'i ,., .1 -I . '.... , %7� �:�, %,. . , " 7\1
. � , I I . I - . . - � .. :. - .. �, - , �y I ;-,--,S;'- - I -1. I '' - _1.- � ; . . 1. , , - 4. ,
. , I . . , , . t. - . , . . - � I . -11 Y. ';� . �-'. �4 �,� � - . , � , � I -- . ., . � .•
,. .
� i , , I . � . �1. .1, "-I . , , , I . I., .1 .,.. .". . " I : I .. ,
I, I I I � . ". Z I '. , . �? ! �� -a � , I �� , __ , .. '. I ,
, ,
-
.�' , ! 4,% , � . �, . , , , I � . � . . . . , � I :* , �, :7 � , : I �
I : , ,*:�.: � . . , . ,� .� S : ".
; . * . � % � '; � , , . . . � I 11. .xi , - - 'I .. , " ,,- -�-, .- " . ; ,, � - , , ,- I I -1 I I f .
� � - �_ , .�- : , w �, , . � '.. �,� . . I ♦- , ." I ,:,: ��, - . : :: - -, . � I - ; 1, � �_% - � .1 ,�� - , I " . , .-, - I - , -��, -11 ... �
I . , .. 4 , . . � . I I - . . . - . . -1 . � :"•
. � � . " - - : sr- I �� dfj'. ,!r', �. , ��,. '. � , ,�', , , ., . .- v, ;-,��,� '. �,. 11 I., .. .. . " � . , t
I , I I � I ,� , - , . . , - ,_ - , .,-.--. . .. . ,, .,. . , , — ____ � - �. - . ,- - � .�.._,� "� � �__ -_ � .1�7
. I , . , I � .
4 , , , - . , ,,��;. ;- - .- - - . I I -
I,.:.'
, I
I . I - \
" j , . ; , ,/ , , , ,_ / " - . �
.. I ( i . . _.L��
, ,
--,,
F� '_.-
. , -
,,�\�
. � �
--.-' 1�/
, / ,1�� �... �
I . , ,. I I I 11 §1 I -
I - I 1_. '�-� -,<Ll' . - 71---� ---
I ,. - _____ A� . -_ � ., .. � I N- ) J � dll�ll
zl�/
I / � .� - - ----- I �/� x_
. � - , <. I � " ,� , `0 - - , . � lc� � I
, * ,
•
.. , I . , I i - - I 1. . , I
�
, � I I \t, / ------ I " - � �� � _� - - 1� �. �� - I'll .. �� Y/ . j
/ __ �1� l_z . '. , -.-,
- -7, .E--,- -_ - I I , - , 1 1 -:.
� I . I 0 :::- �, / �, , - - : , , ,� , ." � ,,-,� I- �
1 -7, �-- , �-&"6- � I V\ I - �
,
�/ / � "; , . . I � -OV" t I .... -1 - �� � . rj __ _ �. - .1 7 , , I . -_ � - -_<• :- " - ", '� -.�,
,�� � � . v I I I , - I - 11 , _ ,�� - , 1. - , 0. I �,��__ I I I 11. I � I . ..... ;
. I . �
, I I m , I , . I - . - I. - / I - I . 1- - I . - ,- '� - , �p " � � .
� . , , ____A 'u,"r � ,,, � ",/ �c . . . I - -t \�,.', � � ::�__'. � r3a, , - � I . I � I � . 1. . I I . � �#
� , / i. �r I F�V7. � �1' I I �11 1'* 1 "
� �_/� I" '1/ / I _� 4 ,,'I I " �' _�— — , I , z ., .
,�, ; I . —_ I— 'r, . / I� v __�- \ 1- j'j, !-, I f _ . I
I . . (x CT, , Z� \ . ., , 11 . . - -, ;,:-_�
" , . - _�., I �111(1� / ,�, I.- - ; i - - '031,c ' 4 ��f ) .:�C, �.'t'�j
. *�)�I i /7- � ,-- !.I��/? I . __"____4 , i �\�l I •
, �\ X� * 11
I / � �, - - - � " _j :r,� ��r -:; �? �, �_ � . .x - I - - .� � 1: .71 �1\ __ -_z � 2 ', . ..*. "'.. v
M1931, cmn '-4-��f-)-'l
,
-
, , . _;�
I I I I 7 - I ..
. : I - -Zr--,�_� - � '�/ ,
I I � f O� I , �� �� . I . -
, . - \ . I .. �_�_�_1�11' \ % 71 ��55�
�_ ! j _j /x " I � �7
_,,, , 'z - , , . I - ,�:/ , -
, I ��-,, N , - - n,_,gz, � . � . ",
�," _;;�- . j I .; ;g � -_ 11 � - , I
I I - ___ - 11 /,
, I , " I _,__ , �_ , % . . . - 1� . _� - I � I . . ....... ..
,
. , /'//�111 . - - . . 1. � . I I \ -
,
-, �__� . . �11 I , -�.'J�,,, .�, I _�� �.�,:__�,,." , I , I : ,_ . . 11 :�, N:� ,� ,vz .
m ,"� 'N•
. ,
ul ICOR � I � r �/ ; - J, . ,�,:� . I - . . I _ ., -f �, I - , , . " 11 ?X11 . ��, lo
__ - I I\1 � �:�
, -
I .�,- -;,� ,_� - — i_�_�7_ �ot - - 71 . .. - - Z
5��/; _�,�, -_
� 'r � , . I / ,
. I �� 7�,�/�,//- ( , - I . . . , .
-,.I, , '-' ::� - I I _.. . 4
, I _j �, \\\ \ I � 1� I 1'�� 1(11;w-,- , 4, , , - 'I'l
-,// ;I� " X _ _� 7
- , .. -1 I ,o� -_ I .. . .
I - " ,�/ .. . - 1� I , - � ,.- I
- � ., . - _. � -1� - , \\, I _-� - � , " ,,
� , ,�
� �, J �� - N,f , 5 \ --, , .. . , m
__ � , � , A, - \ N � 1, el . . -
,_1 ��- �, _�/ I : - I7 - Y I - 1z L ,p+/
- ,.,m� '.\
� ,�� - I I . . - . � -� e %� I - - - - , . I , 0 , ,. ., �, ,
. , : 3. , , � . � ,-, c� I
I / '/. ,Jt%,�z - -- ! -. i , I•_� �� , wo il I - - I W - I .
----------- �� , !��i� ,
I � , , - � ; ; I , I - . I ,,�,, , - , , ". . ; ,,F,0.,
* I 11 I �:�Iv ) . 43 1 -` I � \ " , '� I oc� � _��W
I - I
��__� - - ,--�%,�� ;, �4 ", , , I I P, / . - ,_� �� , . , �� \.\ I , 1 ,,� . ,�,:,�,,4�
� ,� ;� _�� r !I 'I � �-�,.11, / � 41". " - .1 ,/ - , �� ,��,j ryll'/',�`, �1, .. v: J.':,.,,.; , �
I I I . , - . .1 -g-s: I 1�1 ,_,,-- I �V_-::_��-_ . V: Ill - , /�, I ",.
. /// ��, �/ 1, � ; , I- :I- I I 9 / /_- ;� _/111'v
. - - 1 - I , " - , ..,
P. , I , - � Y, -%I I II �! , � x - 1�r, r.\!
. !. '�'-,l
. ""I I / \ I �_, �•��. ,1\L. Z /1 / / , / \�zb,;. \ ,;. y �-��. � \ m - , 1.-,�� � -. � , , ..; , " -- ef
,/ I 1:, 11. " . 71
., / I I, , - -?tA / ._
" I 1p" _� X , :t. ", IJ:;` , .:7� .4,.:. ,:? "
.. � �_�r - ,%��_ I I _ ,
, , \ \ I , , � . ,
: . -I' / _ ,/ I I I :,� \ , -- P, " / - - ,., , , - I
� J � 1�1 I , I .. !<-
I_ 'i I , I e -, '. � � .-k ,;:r � ;a
� ,// , . e // I / ,p /, � � I . I �Ie.
., � --/ - ../�t , ,-;,�-^ 11 �
-, ,I
yam,' ..
. � .
. ,� I ;�,� I I � I .- � at, I I., .11 , .�, ii
1 '71" 1 "-IV AN I � , -, - , ,9
:�',', %�/ ,
..�'o / /"V i V / I . - \ , :, , . , � �\ �-,j , , .
. \ - , I I 1�1 ). / � , I k_ I ", . ...7. .z
'.
.. I L� �, I , I I;[ )l 11 ,///, I .1 . ---, "\4�� - I , \ ;: \\t \XN - �.,'; �,_ � '.,r L
.1 I r� I'(, - _�_�", I [c 0\ X, '� \ , . .), ,j
I .\ /,Zj " I / /! � � I i 7.. \ * m%\R�N, .q
\-1:, �
I � , 42 I 4 11b h'�\ T\i_
\ \ -.1 . ..� .11
I .1 � ,.\ I . 11 I I... . , ":
. I . - I , ,�t ;4 �. , ..;
.. �. . :�J / y, I/,/",!// i , ,\�, L,�_\< 1, 111,11i " : L\"\\ 1\,� �A.N1, �..
I . I " Ii ,i I . . A),
- �_ : �' , I I I -_ _� I, ei
\�z:�- I ,(,7 ,\
,
� \
\
�
�� �_ V�S.'� \\\
I �,�_ \, \. 11� ,,� \
..: I c 11i / , 11 A I I - / , Na��/F,;j \� - � ,�11,�,I1 �, / "4 I z � ,.w.
, , *
, . N - -
I , . . f, (T. \ tv --, !I � IN% ; � �j -,)) - \ �
� - "I ,��, I I Is 4 \\\\o
- I 1) i,.i I I ,- �o pj �\ , �-� i f, � \\A f
, \ .
\'\,, ,,��
I - / - �wr;, - !,'�` )\n- , \v �, ,,-�-N�, _`1 .. �_ `�' -� i �4!. - 7 \\\ VK
,
00= . 11 _ - >, ., 1 � .- .4'
. Z,-, �-- I I .,,'.-:�,_� ", .�;. '\ �\\ , \_ - - - . 7, P_ , " / ft f zr -/ - 11 ...\ , m I
--- j - i� , -pr t I \, - \�� ,
I � �,_, I �i - - - , , \, , \V- -_-_w��__ I I * I t . i
, - �:��"'_j N - \\Z , -7�j , I i 'N / kw \ I �� �
, It- � , .4)
. _�,_ �-_-',,?;:� ' � . . . I, - .�\ it \ , �>,. / /',, ,'�' ,� \ -, x n• -i ': ,� "
I
-_
, - I . 1, I
r , ,� �� . \�%\ ��- � �,�� �, I. �- Z/' z - .,- .- .��
. _1!4 1
_Z_Iil ,. I`'•_\\I :�� , - , I, __ ,
,
I -1 I . I
-
r � ,��- // , \k - _;, I , \, , - i t / 1�1 , -, ". _7,� . . . ...
.� L ) / , . - -
. � .. ._ _
.. - - ,/", �11__*t4 X / R-'- , ,
- - , . ,4 �_ *,- , , I I.- �12 ,_� / I - � -_ p I ig, ,4
9',�,,, -, � I - , \ I . Lc
-7 �% \\\:J` \zy I -"> I X N\\\ :> f \1 11�_ , i,.:, ��- ,",I
. �,_ � --,, ; 1;. �j 1
�_��zz-- < --� , _.J�,: 0�n�,Vld / ..."',
. � � .1 .- W D il:� I 1 - -
�
1, . 1_7.___�... // �,� � \ ,,-�r,-'�N _,7 'A. I �vl_ �. /' 4�_ 1 I , e
. . _-__ I .. � I , �. , - i
I �.. � .., . \1� VA. � ,�>- �, 4f, 1- _',
- _�1.1 �, 0, -N \, , , `'�:;,
�, E - ___K , _:% z . , 1�, f %\ �q`��-_ % ,
L�1. A,- ( �
, Z�� 11 � x - % �v -.,';
. ..... - - 144 z\ - - � I
. . __< . I' I I I
I �, ',- .. ,�
� . _--� -; - % '� ' rrr 1 �7`
---,-- -, - � - / 0 I 'I - -XIOT � I, ;
-1 __._�X,._,�, 11 __ - ,;;� � � .... .,...
� � I
� - -, , _ \ - / /Y 41 ( � \ ,go , 1\ I " I ,
- - I ,\ " . p% A X - ." -.�j
- - 1__------z;o- ----, ,,� \ ,�, .... �_� ,� , -� I 11, 1, 11�.; -
- , � '-.- I,
::.-_ I , I t \ %1� I �,.�'. - ��, 4":t-
, 71_4 - , / I I ---.-: X, �. I �. 7q �\, , • . . �_? \ � I - ... -^-
i
7� \ -
: � I �
,
- �1� . ---- * -: , 11) � _� I I , I
, -
.1 . � .1
�',�, �____. . . x loL \� ., � )), , ,.
- - _�, - I � -
/ ,____, . I I -, :� , 't".
��
x� I
- - _ . , ____ i * I
"
, - - �0 \ \ � � I I _;:�� -, . � " - ljr,_�Ilc �_ ,-,� � I � f
I - � .X� PlLp7- . �
� r , I , - .=� __•
�� IJ � . ( I . � * ;'� 'r, . `11 . , " - -4
�
:� � ') , � I' . � \ , - I I- , _T t-, '
- �-
-� , - -Iz� -_5L, � � \ .
- . I . .:, ,��
. _1 . .
t 5, --__-� , -1 * � I-
� I ..'; " � � ,
1, . � - I I - 11 I. p 11 I - , I
�. . . - N - I __�_�x 'Imt "_1�11 I \ �,
-
. 1 �4, _�_�� ." I, (-/ - ,�? - � t , , . 4 .
. � - . , k I " ,
- ,
,
I ,�
-
,
- - \ k-"
I . -�,--�K� :S� . I '; V, 3
---
I '\N�� /.-,�,
_� I
I-� --t,
� . � 1, 7 \ __-) �11 0, r � . I
� '�' ,,,__Z:�_Z�__� �- - ��,-�,�_7,-�7 �� /'0, , •
_,, I. � ,
""� �_� . �V,5 u, I ..
_1_ 1. . 7 __� 1�6� D�N 9 / �1�
. ; �,_ t � _em /_� -c% .- 1,
- -:�� , . _�' � - .� tf� .- , 1 4
". ---_ - ___:.� �, 11 N I 1\� I
-
. L�
-
. �_, t%D
. I I It!
- - - . - �0`, - 11, �- ! -� -.. ,� �
... I I . .. 1. I 'j I � '!;! I , - - , �, � 1, - .;,. �
.. _� --.- - � 1 1 � � Ai� �� . .
, W, �, , . . _�4
I � I . I . . , , , . �.. , '.
. - .- " I_.
' --?.i \-�� I� \. ,.: ._� . �� x�� � k . �\ i �� k, 4��! I % . r ,,�� � I I -1),- I r7; / , I .1 I .,V 1 L. n .. -111� 1 11 e -- , ..
, , . .- __ .:� C 5 .� �
� . �, � 0 .. � �, � "N' ( ��__ I \\if,-,, ilf,�".L. �_ �.
I . - " , " _7�.... _,<� - � . I �
, - � '. � � "� . / I . . 1. : �,:, �
, ,_., �, ,*' -I
.. .. . � �\ , //, 5 � I '\\ ; . \ , -
� � �1. I-- Ill- I . ." N3 - p
- _� ____ , I \ \ \-..5[,.\\ -, '�'; T -.7 X' � �111 I.. .1 . .
. I \\"\.,\\:,., ,7 ---,�, - ;� �� �? .k,) / r ;,.-- k'_'� , ,I I 1�1: . --�:-
�\ )� - //,A' ,:'t , � . .
. . - :��,� - ' 1: , 4. __ _�� ,� �\�\\ .-\ Ar N� . � L" - ;�
�. N�\� i/`\I .. ji!6" r� j I . �
" \_....�. I . .. . -, , ---�,��-- - __,��
, . 1��'�, ��_ �, ---=f �, I I � t � . . ,
.-",
II 1, � 11 � . — - !�, �� �j ___i� , v.� , . .
. .. I �, I , - . I �� . . -- 01
_�� I I I N � I I ; A r�l i� , 1 v: .11 , : *. . ,,.�. - �,
I _, 1 1\7- � I . � I.
� . I . __ I I � I I � . . .. �* .*��
- -,..z .77>� , '� . _1_\ I
. , , � �rrl , 3\
, ,
� : �� �_, � �o -\, - I -� �� �� �; T --� - 1�'�".' 9 A , - •, -)
I -
� ., � , ) I I , , �,' " � ------- Z_�, `� --j I
'k I illl�; ,;,�,- , :,�. I .
�
I . � , 1///7//
- - � - � \ �� '\, \ -,�� � __ . 2 1 -, � .. ,...'�
�'.
\ \ I .... , , �� I - I I . I , � '_ ��_ -4,4v
� �
I I I � i � I , /�15� I.-- , . , � S N - � �)
- . . I *
�r - i'- � _��'Ij -�
I _'� _ . , ') I " * e. I. - -` ", , , , ,
. --� - � _//,:�:,T � , -
I . \ \ � I - : _ .. __� I .1 . - .<1" / 1<1
\ I k � � �. � �;�� 11 - ,� __ - __ __ ___ '_ , - , � , - ... ". - - / � .
)� � - �Z__ �77 .- __�� I . � . \i. \ � - -:, .* 1j.
,_:_-�:::�� . ,,.- �77 - � ? - .t i ..
- ,., . . �1
, N, �"_ "", 1: ,,'P .�,,, I
�! � \-:,--= _-, �.�, ,_ . /,;] )\ I , ��_� '. I . N . r, "i
. . \ 11 � \ � � � I ., _. - " , f r , I 1��. I
1. -
.- __ : d � - �/,/,�, '. . / I - , " I *�,
\ \ ) I z .. " ...
.1 . � N \ .. , ..
I I , ,-- \ ,�- I -,
.., �.,.
- - � - �" �, \ �\ �_ " % , ; \ 7�-� ; .,
:--- -1 - '. \ .* . . '. , I Ir I I 11L _� I )��:/ � �' ---,�, ♦ .... %�' � / -1. I- � . . .
k\xl 1 - - " ." z (. I , '. �x - _0 ,% . - . I t
I L ", � I ,1-\ \ m , . , � , / "/;/, ,/1 , � I , -- NN ��, ,Il ..
I , , 111� " _..�� ".1 '�' -_ . ! �
, . � 11 - , .
... " 1, ,, , - /-�", �` �\ ��y \\\
,
. \\��,��_t:,-z-.-_-�� 11 ,�/ \_._. . , - I 1. .;- i - ..
r � , x -% , , 21 .�� ` "- _ ,. _ I I . , -. 1:* o----
. . - . A I : / _� . .. � I �' I I -
\ \., •
., � ,•
-��,
:.m \\ '\1,
, -,C, \, ✓��.-1 .- ; I I" - I \, - °� �/
% �, .. ; .1 fl"�; '/' '////" - --------' • I . j � , ,0�111 -,-- "
I , . ; . I ,; .- I ) ,,z-- ��, , .. - '. * ''
. e\ 11-1 , * I ,ii..." ,v, - - - `\�,:.`$ 1 , - k , I`
� V,1� I // --_.___-',:".., ji:� : ,�_ , I " I P E-) � '-'
1. . . ., . ,� . _�___ 1. -I-, � - "� \ \ , . . -1 . -;;, - 'N" ,
� / : 1� 11 __ � \ - -_, - "111 / , ��, -� 11, J, �._11 I f- i __'. �.:.
I �, i ., " , - , .. v 1, 11 fLml . . I
, -,..:�.:�, ", ,\ ,I , , I � �� , I .11 . , ,
, �.�� , '' / I *X ; Ill .— . ,".'/' , : I �N
, _. ,--/
,- /� ;01, It - �. .\ \�� - , \."' . ,.j. - . '. , , / , I 6 . \ I I -i, - . /
. /\ � . . : " I , _j: ". IN I 1_11 . I ___ 1, ., -1 . ,,1 ,� '11� - , \ ��_;�� it . - -�-.� I
� , , , , , , 1�
,
, % . \ , � � ... , . . , .2 �.., I - \" N�__, ... ��. . - , 'r .,
-
, . - - '.
I _ - , ;11
_
. ,
,
,
\ - I �__;. � .. " �� � I I � , . '. �
\d I\\\,\\ , I . , ) /", , , , �_
\ I . ,, , , , \�� 0�1'\ ) 114.: ,� - , k I
<�, \� , - 1"JU'. �, I , - . - . � ,�, I . \1 I . - � - 1 . I �
. I . � "- .
"
,
I ,., 1 %.'�\,'\�\�. \ z I I .f_CpNx �2� -, -."
\ � - _0 �
-,�\" , , * 'Z � V ftK 1� ., \ _ , pv�.__- . , v
1.�. I -'. - .,/ - - /, 11 viz�t��,✓
. .1/ - I \ , , * I . I % _,�, . ,
�r,, � _-, - �\'\
I � � ! - t i j!� ,'I,. ! / I I , � - , . �.,,_ 1 'N t .
. �
, � �e
\-
-
. '. ,%:*"
-, ,
/,' - �-�.-. 'N I
� . , _,\ - � . - , . / , , I 1 -1 Il� I
. � , . - - , , , r - - ,4. I\ � _.:�"_ , - , ,p \
. ) I " // , ��-,- - ' . -, � - , - , - \ _ �\ � ,
_MALL _.- ., ,. � . � , I :Z_ y ///
� 4", ,',-:' -I�. _ - � -- - -�.. - ��', I,: 11�.:�� �.,/ .� I \%,� k c2v� �
I /'. . -:' -.-,-_,.\\ , .":. '. i ,�-',\ , .�,N ,��\, / I . 1. I, . -.1 -
--I '. . �;, - .� I , ,.\ *,
� , , - - , .�; , �I \ k"� , -,-. - I k � Fl ;;
, , / -,
�
1- .-I I , ". I . I _��,,) i "
-4
1__ I /
I � \ , - —, , /, --v N;-, -. �
, . ., i� '
__ �� . I . . . \` pfl'4 , t 14M '_ . .
. � �/.,/"
, "
,:----- __. - -.,.--�-*�, � 1. :� I
W �
�: - ._ . - - 11. �_� - - � - �- . ,� * - , I A / 'I" � , , \` mv �--
I \ �', � 1" . I I . �
'
- � I �
. - - - .,.* ,
- �� \ , /'- �
_:-_�- --�- \)\- - , / ,��
I \�, � :! jit � _/ ., .
�/ , , - . - ,\. :. i;� .. _-_--� . � * - - '' '.
.,
/ /X/ "".. � _,� -, X , �� ,�
, \� . n,jl j
.- - - , ,r:5 ,\-\�,. \ � - WV
, -:,\ - - , I
, - - --,--\' . � - , , \ -:,x,', ----::*- .: .. .., \\
�
I/ �� _--7:� - - � �_ --:---_� , - -,--�,.,, �,- - - - - -._ , �.,, � _. \\,I\\� .i ( % V,> , .-
,
I ,\`- "'. " . . til ��t -"---- , � - , V." �
,, � . ,
�, -, , ..� , , q � VI(,
� _� . X, ,
- . I
I / � I ' . - -_ , \ , -- .� .�, _�n / : - - , : , -
/ I ��\ �' - - ", -_ ` \ . _� . - � � _16_� y" � . I - ". q
- . , 111-R, , a ...�
I . ._ - , -/ ,�,4_, \�, I f r; -1 . .
�, " I . �� , ..-,-,- - �1. I,z , , I
. _:�,�-7-�Ppojf CT-:5j� \ _�,,��, . , . I
. k , \ --- - � 1, . I E';'-�- - " . , � �, ,,\ " I , I. I,,,., , � . il �,,,, , --- - /. , . , c CA
I ,� , : -,_- I—- 1, i p; . �7 - . .V21" .1%'. I I _ . . 1, � I , ,'!,j'/1.j( :" .,,-- lf_.�,�', .", ,://�,-::�!p -, - - .1 - 1, --
� � 11 I\"- \,\.� , " , . , .1 fif � ,.� \ ,�_,/�-� - 1 17, \ 'I I __�, I I - - .* .: .*�,,,,
- \`\ , I - � .Z�., " /I .'.,�, - ";
- .. --- . I I I � % \ \ � " � , ) ) ! : . � , "I ,/''j//
, . / I/ I " - _� - I I :; - � i
I 1, % "I 11 '. :_ 7 '%\ / I , : k �
I
/,., .� . il I -,:�( 1;/ f .
".., �
, ,// / . . / ,� \,,//� �
. , , P�l - '�111
. I
I/, /i, \ �\Iy .
I , , � ': � :L - ,�, ,,i I, � . �. I �,. , " ..,! �//:, , I // - ,�- I L-, 'I',, . , I " I I I IX. . . - '' - , - .. -.�.,
. � . �__,_ , , \ . I \ `� �_ � �� .. , � : ,,_____� " ./ � I � 41 1j 1, � j �
\Ij % , _�:L . ,I �
'i - - - � �, I � z 1/, , ,,�� I . , ,
"
/� , , � - ;11 . .- I . 1. , ; �
�_� --=- . . ,,� , � � I '.,JM6
. - / 2 1 r�
-
-11� r ;
1'/
I � �Z7�1 I ,
.� , ,,-
. ' "I . � .. . -E , 7
. N I . 1 : - - .. - " r / , - I . �
__�z I III I : I \ '-- I----- --- \ , . - .. I . . 1 ,7- � ml/ � t o ?-10.6iI , - - �-
�,�, � "'11_ 11 Ii �, ,---��Z-L:ZL-, " J--/- �__ " --- 111, ,�-
I— , � I I II i I \" . . 1* I 1- � ./.�-14 ,._ -_ —
, . �. I � I - � ----:---_-L-_ _ � , >1 - - -I - i, 1, �i - - - -7 / � I /. i " !,..I. .. -_ I I 11
" N _� i % I . . - -- , 1\ , I , . _�-----��7-z,z_-_: � 11 "I \ I _ I -
� I 0 i i � \ 'I,- _ _ I - * . __ -.,. ," ( I , � �, —1 . � �\ N, \ I Al r�l'/
I . , ' ' I , � ..
- , - ' \ � *�'_ , , , % 'I,
. I ., � I I I .. I", 1.,<- 1, ..//" , . ,
- - - I I 11 .11 I x I N - 1.� ) , *
I , I \ .\. i . . \ . �� , ,_,�, 6��OS ' ". ,� - ...� �, `�". � i . / _ - � , - \i
*
, I I \ � , . _ V
\\, I - � , \--�� _- -,-,��-�� - -� , � � . � .... .. �-/ - t__7� ,
: .... ") COL , � I
�� ��' I I, \ _��' .. �y� " . o
) 1��, 1. , . I �i . � I J - --- -7 --_�!^, _ k . . , . % X � .,-. - I , -::' - _ '�). , � , , / / / I - - ". 1.,017 .�,. _,. 1 . . " -Ili .
-_ , ,:, \ I I I ,�)., - I - / - .
.. I //////-----,�"/, /
.
�X///
. I .�, . , __ ----), . I � / , �*,
. : __ \ . . - . . I f __ � � I v -
, , - T�-MAP- I �_ 1, I'll " . � �
� 1, ,, , I �, .. . I— � � .
- , ,p,/"/-', .mj,t. I ti J . 1, I_ 1-1 , , / =_ 7 -
L __-6) ), I , I " -,
. r . .•j I . __1 I \ I . / / __ " ) -��,;).
" I � -,. - � , . (1, I . "..-, - _:_1 I
1�/ , , - - i ; : ., , / , , I . . ,/ , ___r - I , : I
�xw � //, ,��-"`,::::��,� / I . .�, j � I
-1
" /, �� �
� , "
//
,�
�1/4) : \
- .\ - .
, �
_��:� 1�
6-1,_,__� � '11'/� -
/.
,
- ,
I
"
11� .
I �
�z ,
-
� � \
- � � "' ) ",,'. . -
41
--
;-��- - , i � - � f- .-----
--�- ,-----" yi� - I��x ,� , I
� ,��� , \ A,,,',:,\ - r
, " , --- T - 'j . I I
. ,/" � / , j I i "y"J'i ! � / / " , I I I I
) . \ . Y�� -f -
) �'", ..,
, �, �
. � , .
. " �, ., j )j !,/ � 1), " I I
. I " - �\ �l . � \� N. � ..,:�,Z; � � - , � 11", I I
, � - - ._o- .�
, " `�: �.�m'\�,X,��-,-�,_-_ , / , ` . " I . �/ A'/1 1 J-. /-.. 1 f, r- "-:
� /% = , I ; I
I V `,� , �. . - , I , . . I_- -1 I I � I -- ,%,r / ) \ \., \ ", I I 11
. - � � , , I ) )�,) ) I / / , / Y'� �
Izz - ------- , , . , , , . , . 1�/ / ", I ,
. '. ",/,,�,,.< ,,�.:: /, v,�- . - :, ; I , . , I / ///V, , L/I / - � 7 I � J;,
- - � ��, . le/,/,�"..-,"../, / 11 . , // ,- .- , // , - ",
. ;1, 1 ,)" " -, - , ,�,��', .�/ , 4/ - V -1 ; I I �_� - - \- � I ,f 11 ___1 I !
. I I I . ; Gz1Tj1AL_EQxr_1L - . � . I . . . , , " ,� , , . .", ,.�.':"✓ - , /I / I I _ Tl� ) j 1�i�
1 -)
I , - ��✓, � II
� . � , , " , , , -, -�-?-. ,�/ � , \ 7-
� � ;� I , "..- ,-- W ir_l - 1'-. - i i &
. , � 1. EXIST. LOCAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: U-2, HIM , " ,`I. ,-,�-,�,•
- , 1, ,?/ / " .
, / ,/ 1 - ,x-<�,--I , "// v,� -I I� 2 . . � 1 " / I / I/ , , I X�, ."� , , , , - -,t, " �4 . ,�I ,,,- - I k // �,�,.,1, I - . .*3. PROPOSED ZONIN ,. I -I�.,, \"' I . l,'� (" . � / / . 1. .
,EXISTING ZONING: A-2-1 . I I j I, , I �,�( -�,'-,, -,;;..-,: rll �4 ... I � N �. IC: RPD -1-6U - �. ,, /,/ , � ,I .!l�. t �"'I \ , II / -1 ) I
I , � - V 1.9 " ___.�
\\ . i�j 1 i-� , :--:al I 4 r I \ , ..t I
- - i � I \ ! \ I �_� I ,
4. EXIST. LAND USE: VACAKT.' . " �, , , , I � \ . . ,D_i_,� I . - . I_� (/G __/)
. IL . . . . . I . . � -, . \\, , - 1. . 51�- � -\ I - T "' , i I �
o, ,� ,� ,��_ " , �, \
. I I -.,, - - - I , \./ .�, \ ( i 1, 4V -/ I .
. , � : I I \ : I
- I-: .. 171 __ ,� . , . I
I 0 V Ili , , 11� /I/., '' . - -
� S. PROPOSED LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL- , ,�.111�"/ 11 �'Id �i - - �� ��... I ; >,I, jf___, r,
.. . . I . I,�/ � , ) -', , �
.,////,/.', - / _j- _-, 11 . �"
- i /1 -- , --- � � - - I ,4 1 I%" I I 31:-45wiruv I li, I � 1b z oi-`6 u I
I �
i . I . _� �_,�,, V_\%/
I , � ,
1!� LN Irr
6. :TOTAL TOTA NUMBER OF LOTS: (O (INCL. 1 RECPZATION LOT) : . Z, \.,��--�:,�/ " " I : 1� . I 1;� i -1 V. � �.,. . . t -Ioeg , "I
k -_ ,
I , . ---- . . ,
. . . . . , , (. ,, � I I ", - )� � \ % \'7•Il.
I . . : 17 01 � :I 1� � � * I, , riw- -is
. � 7. TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES: 26.86 (LOTS 1-6 ONLY) . \ i / I(- . - P i)kl , -I I -1 ozb15�1
. " �\ % " , \ 1� \ 'j � � -4 '.,�� __ N I ,
8. TOTAL NUMBER OF. UNITS: 50'- 1 1 \,\,\\\\�� N, �� \�, '. \ , , t , , f .�� , I It, I ;I \1 �
. � , . .. - k .ql .1 1�
I 11 1\1 ! -�, I I . II I . /itl I . -
. . .1 _. - �1'1 i � -1 . <�� � \'\_._(� _� 11 .\x�� \\\ \ I - ,,4 I 31 1
. I . . I —
� � . . I . � I / - < \\ , , I ,\ \
. I I , �,,�,,,, \ \�, " N � , � � � � 'I ! ,
. \\,. - A 11 1\
, ! . . � :\ \\\\\` , .�� ,,, � I I i
ENS 5.135, DU/AC . I � . 4- '- / .,
: 9.* cRoss rq I - ,,�\ , �,", - I \ ,�
�- . I .�-\ � �N •- p -
�
.1,10. -WATER SUPPLIER: SANTA CLXRITA WATER CO. : .�� -, , , , '- .\ as I\ . " �� I � ,� I;, �
. . I. . ., �� ��::�,
. � � ! \�. I I \ I I zt
.1 DIST ;26 � . . E_'___ ____ �
. -, 11 ��-,--,-<_ --:�-� -_ =t_ , )l / j - ;
I - . 11. SEWER DISPOSAL:, L.A. COUNTY SAN. � . .1 -.z-�_a � �, _1 - j I I � \� I **41b
.1 -2. _z 1 '1_7 , - - � 11 / I
- . i E I . -, ��z�, - - , __:��,-_
. � . .•; --- : --- 1
12. REQUEST SIR ET GRADES TO EXCEED 10% I . . . .1 _. __ " -,-, �N "\'11 � I "
--- - I " I♦ \� _ 1�1 I I \
� I ; �,\\ __�;
� .:\�-\,�%'k , *i,\ -, �-, - - � �;"/ N J \
. . . ' 13..'. 1 SUBDIVIDER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FILE MULTIPLE FINAL .MAPS PER . . � I - - .:%",� .,\' . - 1 , ,,,♦
N , I � I �� / \ I .\ � �
. . .I �Z�,Z\�� 1, I I 1, . , " \ I , , 1� ,( ,; 7, .,e
_. .
SECTION 66456.1 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. , -, .. I - \. �.t".-. , : I /" , .,e ll
I ._� . ", I- __ I I 1 CA MGET11:5
I- --- . Tyl r I . I
I . . . . ._� r - - 1111, - - I I
,
I . � � I . I ": ..�, I I � \ �. — - -
14. CONTOUR INTERVAL: 2 FEET. I I . . \\"\, . 1, ., N
. ! . I . � . . . . . I . IN I -It,\ ,\� I t, � 1� \� \I,. 1A -1(1 11 . �, .
\�,, 11 � �'. V�j . I , , \,\,\\\I . . . . . . (�( J. '(1 �'.\ . CA
. ! . � - *�,-.",V�,.�\�,\� � ,
. . I, I I � � ti I
. ! 5 ARE NO OAK TREES WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THIS PROJECT. .\" � \\-" \,.�\\",\\3�4-,)El,vl,Lg"",�,,,\\\\\
,� i � I
� . , \'. I ,, \ . � . � . , , , , _♦ . � - - / , . �
V�- ��::Z�� . �, � .. _� _�_, 1 I 11 __ i
- . \ , .` 1�� 1:,��., - I .
I . THERE ' ., ,� - � \\ , \�� �"� � �1 \, I, '. , , \ �, / - ("(, ,; � ,
. .16.
. TION TO BE USED PER TITLE 21, SEC -ION \ . , � �, '. . \�: ��...,.-
. 16. ALTERNATE STREET, SEC � � ., N 11 ,� , � � �ffii I ,
i . 1.7 ` \�. " , \„,�-��,:” '� ...
, '��
I `�
21.24�90 \\1 , ,
� I 1. I - �\, , \1 \ - \1 .
I
. I \ � .-Lt=tn\ N,��--- . .I - I ��[
'��' � \� , I , ,,� ♦M,�X sz *
I . -.1� , _�_
A, , � - - - F
I I * I . , _� ;4 =_4, '\ .\ I i.
I
-1 � N I I I, -
'-ENGINEERING.
17. TOP AND TOES OF SL40PES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN FINAL �. _\ I \ , ,
I . \ "\ ," �N�'N 11
� . I . -1 . , , ,�,��,,;;,�61 , � _� Z��,� '1\e�4�
' ENGINEERING. � I I : I �, , \ Ii, zr Ls�rl ,
. I , I/ �, � VRX(
. . : - � N� ALA,AberA. 1 � ORA . ,.V!6-15 ?i? ak. .
. I . I I I I I .. I �\ ",-,\ . 1\ - "I . \\ T- --�,, I, \\\ \ Y10. V 44 �
REQUESTS HILLSIDE MODIFICATION ORDINANCE TO GRADE , ,� " - - O'S595 01 �1. Re ,;Lr ,� 6-st I . -
. ". ilS. SUBDIVIDER . I I � .,\, ,\,.,:�\,,� \��, . , 11 \ , \1� \ \' I N\\ I \, '.. , 11 - fi �.%" - ,;
. , � � \. � �\ ,�,.:� .,\ I-.-- - - " - , _� �/ )_ 01 - __ I �tL;�EL__f_CLl
\
IN THE PARKWAY. I ,\,�""1. .
. t . . I �,Arv.,� . \ .
� I... � , . . I I .
I . _� 17 -179 *
...�1. �� � - ;
. . . . \ I I ,:\'`,.,.\ \.1, . v �;�� t� .. ., ) Y, - r- IWA !
'THIS TRACT IS APPROVED ASA 50 UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT I 0 . % \ \ - - , I r-1, ,,�! 6� 2 1 0
; CONSISTING OF 6 RESIDENTIAL LOTS (J THROUGH 5 ). . .��7 - j,\ -� , , ,.\ , , � � - I- I � I pe NO. fb - Notllglf -,
I -_ I
- I . I
I . . . INCLUSIVE, AND ONE (1) COMMON LOT (LOT(,) WHEREBY EACH OF THE . I . / -\ )a �__!\ - �, , \ - _T M ..... I - �_qL6*, il I , � - L-0 � ` �
11
. . , OWNERS OF A UNIT WILL HOLD AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE COMMON I . I ) I � I " � �, I - ., , It I I. � - R W
. - - - :, "", , ,
. I . . , � � "AREAS OF THE RESIDENTIAL LOT OR LOTS IN WHICH THEIR UNIT IS, . " i!11; \ �_ vt I , Fmo�.1�16 INN r,f �L'0014 AVL �
. .1 -LIDCATED WHICH LOT OR LOTS IS ARE COVERED BY A SINGLE , - /,7 7__� /J) / I/ -/ " " . <
. I - .. �_ t . . F5WIPT I � ) , q ( ( R1 f MO. of I ...,, cm . i
� .- -I— I .. Xf. -, - .
1, -
'Ik,�-,�� 7,� 4; .!I" I - r 3h 6b -59,\674---�- . I
: . CONDOMINIUM PLAN PREPARED AND RECORDED PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA-CALIFO 7 ul 1,
" COMMON LOT (o SMALL EITHER BE OWNED 4._�' f -
CIVIL CODE SECTION 1351. 1 - - — _. ��, I� ir , I - 0 .�l
-S I I I I
I . �_ - - - .ETIYJF � �)F/ , . I , I' I '_3
. BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR SUCH CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT' - I ,'\� -,, ��,-� I,.,- Z) o, , 5 ��\\ 5 t .
. � __::�_ - - \ , !�151 , I \ � , ,
OR SHALL BE OWNED BY CWNERS OF: CONDOMINIUMS WITHIN SUCH, I - - - -.� ,-. -N:: ...... __ -1, � 7�4 -H, , 1� � � t ,I\ " 19
. - �. _1 .11 - \ � , - . \ V � �
�_ v �(� . , - . �
- 1, ",�,11\\\_', __
- CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AS TENANTS IN COMMON - ',' , : . " r_ - - - __•
,\ _1� I ' MON I I 11 I ., , / i . ?I
. 1;1 ��\ ( - . . !\
� . I 1.�F� " * ", -✓I
� . . . L - M ____..__. - * I -_ . ,.. I , , \ � ) ; -_ I', \, Iti __ii�7 : �
-..-- � I'll � " / .
,
--
., I . � - ----.,-_� . " . . � .\ x
..
I" . I . Y. �P I.,, , , \ , � �, , \ I .1 " \ 1
I . . _� I , . , . . I \ - . :
I . � - - -� ... \ \.. I �•
A " I ,I _;
. , N -_-;��--n�,-Z� _-(r , . � N ,.\, " , a
REVISED . k . �1 . :
� I . . I . N I . . . . I I . _J
. .1 . ..
: . . VESTING, . . : -
I . . . a . . ! B&E ENGINEERS '
: . . i .8 �
. . . . . . ________j1�1-11r11 _.,�i.. - . — Aot. i �.j`_, 44 4 d�5uuv1v1ub,F-.--________CiVTi1 Eifg-i-ffe-e-rYng--SorMlrfg--tant--Planning ()
-,
�. X� \\
� ,
; , N
�
/I
U-
/
4
'I' i
'�"" ,
,
""'
�
\
\
N
I
11,
1\ 11)"
- I' --
I I -1 I
I \ tI\ ,
` I - -
,m\ _�"` I
, x ,�_ >
,
, ,
�
" ,�',
I
. TENTATIVE TRACT _,! I I - - I (j)
''
I . 3?-ir'. . " Vvffrfil(Ati B54UTY,q0ME.5 825 Colorado lll,*d.
�,. ,,,-* hiii,�_-., I,.- 1� " /I S.i,� No. 222 1� 2Q9 W. Drive .
I I I f - - - . to.
I : . N0,44360 lj_;"/ � ,-"/.* -I1.A;%L,, •'14,�i!. - !65.�fj VYFU]Vlat BLVD. STE. 600 . Los Angeles.'CA T004 f- ( ng- Th..Smdbaks.CA9l36O
� . .. � - . --.--- _ . . " (213) 254-5134 (805)496-0027
1. . �
C;14ZZ.A` p i;, -."'A.. 11'.*' ;L 01CH10 ,e -A.. 9!436 (818) 500-0217 a (818) 707-2523 .
. . . . CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES .. ',. FAX (213) 255-4351 .
.
.; I I
!IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA . . � ,�� ,,-C- �,�� :3�10 I
r I . . I , . I
. . . . . � . . � -_ - .AV175 T.EVFRSON RCE. 16�31 Dd T=
. I �
LA. i . . U - __ �
. . .
. .
. � I .
.-
__