The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-11-08 - AGENDA REPORTS - MODIFICATION CONST CONTR 94 02 (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented by: Anthony J. Nisich CONSENT CALENDAR DATE: November 8, 1994 SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO., 94-02 DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND On January 28, 1994; the City Council ratified Emergency Construction Contract, No. 94-02 between the City of Santa Clarita and Intertex of California, Inc. for the repair of the City Hall building, which was severely damaged by the January 17 earthquake. An amendment to this contract was subsequently ratified by Council on June 28, 1994, in order to cover the costs of additional unforeseen repairs and to facilitate the Emergency Operation Center's auxiliary power equipment. The estimated cost for the installation of an emergency generator and underground fuel tank, along with electrical work inside the City Hall Building, was originally set at $150,000.00. The estimated cost for this work has increased to $193,469.09. This increase is due to a change in the auxiliary power equipment location from the originally proposed site adjacent to the south side of the City Hall building to the landscape area along Valencia Boulevard east of the City Hall building. This relocation was necessary because the generator noise levels exceed the City standards for adjacent residential property, and the additional cost required to reduce the noise output at the original location is much greater than the cost to relocate the equipment to the proposed new siting. Staff has satisfied all CC&R requirements on the property for this new location. CONCLUSION The unspent portion of the Contract No. 94-02 budget to date is $67,593.15 with some restoration work still outstanding and some work yet to be invoiced to the City. This outstanding amount is estimated to be $30,156.00, leaving a balance of $37,436.55. The estimated expense to finish the emergency generator and fuel tank, finish interior electrical work for the auxiliary power distribution and the replanting of trees, shrubs and ground cover at the original site is $78,826.00. (See Attachment 1.) APPROWED Agenda Item: _ MODIFICATION TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. 94-02 November 8, 1994 - Page 2 Staff has estimated that an additional $41,500.00 will be needed to complete the construction phase of the City Hall restoration using the unspent balance of the contract budget. All costs associated with this project are being tracked in Account No. 90-59928-227. City staff is working with Federal and State Disaster representatives to fund this increase with FEMA grant monies. A portion of this budget increase is for work which will be reimbursed by the City's earthquake insurance carriers. The only other unfinished construction contract for City 'Hall repair work is Contract No. 94-04, between the City and Intertex of California, Inc. for the repair of the roof mounted HVAC equipment. All outstanding tasks are expected to be completed under the contract budget. (See Attachment 1.) Staff recommends that Council appropriate an additional $41,500.00 in Account No. 90-59920-227 for Contract No. 94-02 between the City of Santa Clarita and Intertex of California, Inc., and increase estimated revenues in Account No. 90-3597 for the same amount. ATTACHMENT City Hall Restoration Construction Contract Completion Budgets (Attachment 1) JD:hds MODIFICATION TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. 94-02 November 8, 1994 CITY HALL RESTORATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS COMPLETION BUDGETS Contract No. 94-02: City Hall Restoration Intertex of California, Inc. (not to exceed $3,919.734.28) Restoration work still outstanding (estimated) Restoration work complete, but not invoiced Emergency Operations Center Auxiliary Power Installation Estimated Completion Budget Unused Budget to Date Budget Increase Requested Contract No. 94-04: City Hall HVAC Repair Intertex of California (not to exceed $90,000.00) Budget Used to Date Work still Outstanding Anticipated Unused Budget at Completion JD:hds mune]\ha11jd $14,213.00 15,943.60 78,826.00 67,593.15 41,500.00 72,350.57 15,000.00 2,650.43 Valencia Company 23823 Valency Boulevard, Valenda. Carrfomia 91355-2194 • (805) 25.,-7000 805-2554069 November 8, 1994 Mr. George Pederson, Mayor City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Valencia, CA 91355 RECO. A PART OF .� ;;;"ORD AT 4 MEETING ITEM SUBJECT: PORTA BELLA SPECIFIC PLAN, DEIR AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP Dear Mayor Pederson: Valencia Company is concerned about the adequacy of the proposed roadway network in the Santa Clarita Valley. The Circulation Elements of the City and County General Plans are intended to meet the future traffic needs of the community. The success of the network hinges upon the capacity of the roads surrounding Porta Bella and the planned City Center, Unfortunately, the Porta Bella project is proposing changes to the master plan roadway network without an evaluation of the overall affect on the City's General Plan Circulation Element. We have the following specific concerns regarding the shortcomings of the Porta Bella project: SPECIFIC PLAN The specific plan proposes roadways which are not consistent with the City's existing General Plan Circulation Element.. Section 65450 of the Government Code sets forth the provisions for the preparation, content and adoption of specific plans. Specifically, Section 65454 requires that a specific plan cannot be adopted or amended unless it is consistent with the general plan. No such finding of consistency can be adopted without first amending the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. 2. DRAFT EIR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS A. Land Use The EIR traffic reports do not contain any information identifying the specific related proiects which were assumed to be developed with each phase of Porta Bella. There are no tables or charts which identify the land use type by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) beyond the Porta Bella project (Tables 4-6 DEIR). B. Network The traffic report assumes almost 6.5 miles of new roads are constructed on the west side of the Valley by Phase 1/1998. (A 4 -lane extension of Newhall Ranch Road from Tibbetts to I-5, 4-6 lanes of A OMy[y� CF TIE NE4V, W L IXO MJO FNMYNO GV I.iANY U CNFIFW VRIm PMff�E1El BVI George Pederson November 8, 1994 Copperhill Drive from Seco to Rye Canyon and 4 -lanes of Decoro from McBean west to Copperhill). In addition, Newhall Ranch Road is shown widened from 4 to 6 lanes from Bouquet to McBean and Magic Mountain Parkway is widened from 2 to 4 lanes from I-5 to McBean. This significant increase in roadway capacity allows traffic from upper Bouquet Canyon and Seco Canyons to take Copperhill over to the Industrial Center or our Newhall Ranch Road to I-5. Bouquet Junction is significantly relieved from congestion with these roadways, allowing Porta Bella traffic to load this currently congested intersection. Without those roadways in place Bouquet Junction will be severely impacted by Porta Bella. Traffic condition TE -1 as presently worded would allow Phase I to be developed before these roads are in place. Similarly, the year 2010 traffic model assumes over 9 miles of new additional roadway network. (An extension of Santa Clarita Parkway from Bouquet Canyon Road to SR -14, Newhall Ranch Road from Bouquet Canyon Road to Golden Valley Road and the completion of Golden Valley Road from Plum Canyon to SR -14.) Again, no related project list identifies what land use would likely be in place to build these roads. No analysis is included on the impact of Porta Bella traffic on Santa Clarita Parkway or Newhall Ranch Road (north of Soledad Canyon Road) which would be significant travel paths for residents of Porta Bella working in the Valencia Industrial Center or the Valencia Commerce Center. The EIR is deficient in its analysis of these roadway links and the project's impacts and mitigations. C. Intersection Impact Analysis Bouquet Junction is one of the two most critical intersections in the Valley. The traffic report (Table 12, page 59) identifies triple left turn lanes for the southbound and eastbound movements as existing in 1993. However, these do not currently exist and have not been conditioned to Porta Bella prior to Phase I occupancy, The EIR fails to identify specific mitigation measures that are the direct responsibility of Porta Bella to reduce its traffic impacts at the 36 intersections studied. Table 12, Page 58-62 of Appendix J summarizes mitigation measures at all study intersections at build out of each phase, but does not specify which of those should be conditioned to Porta Bella. Page 56 of Appendix J states for Phase I the provision of additional mitigation measures "is not feasible at this stagg" and were recommended for future phases "where applicable". "Mitigation for Phases II and III should be monitored". The analysis is not consistent with the methodology and format specified in the City's Traffic Impact Report Guidelines, nor with the rigorous review conducted for other large scale projects. Traffic condition TE -1 should be modified to require further traffic studies prior to recordation of each phase so intersection improvements assumed to be in place but not yet constructed are conditioned to Porta Bella. D. Magic Princessa Roadway Alignment Magic Princessa should be aligned within the Porta Bella property for the following reasons. An alignment more closely parallelling Main Street would eliminate the need for the Oakdale Canyon Bridge, significantly reducing the cost of this roadway. Also, the need for offsite right-of-way greatly increases the likelihood construction of Magic Princessa will be delayed. Page 10 of the ADEIR indicated "no 2 George Pederson November 8, 1994 geotechnical evaluation of the proposed alignment and construction methods has been performed". Approval of this alignment should not be granted without knowing it is geologically feasible. E. Wiley Canyon Bridge The DEIR estimated 26,500 trips would use Wiley Canyon Road Bridge in the year 2010. Tables 6, 7, 10, 10a, I1 and l la all refer to the 2010 network with and without Wiley Canyon Bridge, but the ADEIR does not contain any narrative analysis of the revised network with and without Wiley Canyon Bridge. The Wiley Canyon Bridge would significantly relieve congestion in the early phases of the project since the Lyons/1-5 interchange has been upgraded, and Porta Bella will provide a connection to Soledad Canyon Road just east of the Metrolink station. In addition, on Page 64 of the ADEIR, Magic Mountain Parkway between Bouquet Canyon and Rio Vista has a LOS F which can be mitigated with an 8 lane roadway section. However, no mitigation is provided in the ADEIR for this impact. Wiley Canyon Bridge would provide an alternative route diverting traffic off Magic Princessa, and improving its level of service. Opening Wiley Canyon Bridge in the first phase achieves a new connection to the I-5 freeway, bypassing Bouquet Junction while providing greater access to the Metrolink station for the Newhall area and southern portion of Valencia. 3. Vesting Tentative Map: Santa Clarita Parkway is described as a major arterial in the ADEIR but the radius shown on the Vesting Tentative Map south of the Soledad Canyon intersection is substandard at 500'. It should have a 1200' to 1500' radius which significantly alters its location and impacts to grading and biota/oaks. This is another reason why the amendment to the Circulation Element must precede the Porta Bella Specific Plan. The Santa Clarita Parkway/Soledad and Magic Mountain/San Fernando intersections are shown on the tentative map as having a skewed angle which does not meet City of Santa Clarita roadway standards which require 90° intersections wherever possible. D Street does not meet the minimum roadway radius requirements and is a substandard second means of access for Phase 1. The proposed alignment of Santa Clarita Parkway beyond Porta Bella as it exits the south side of the project is unknown. There is no assurance the location of Santa Clarita Parkway within the project will result in the least damaging environmental impacts as it proceeds offsite towards Placerita Canyon. The same can be said for the extension of Via Princessa easterly offsite from the project. Conclusion: Both the City and County have embarked upon a joint planning effort to develop a traffic model designed to analyze the traffic impacts of projects in the Santa Clarita Valley. The DEIR identifies significant adverse traffic impacts which have not been mitigated and necessitate a need for a statement of overriding considerations. This project should not be approved unless traffic impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels so a statement of overriding consideration is not required for the project. The EIR should contain a clear program for the roadway and intersection improvements that are to be in place with each phase and the proportionate share contribution of the Porta Bella project to mitigate its impacts. 3 George Pederson November 8, 1994 New roadways must be opened before Porta Bella traffic can impact the network. Prior to occupancy of Phase 1 the first roadway opened should be a full width connection of Santa Clarita Parkway, from Soledad Canyon Road to Via Princema.. This is consistent with the recommendations of CTAC and the results of the recent Strategic Planning session for early completion of the East-West roadway. Via Princessa should be connected to Wiley Canyon Road prior to Phase I so abypass to Bouquet Junction and a new I-5 freeway connection can be accomplished. Thank you for allowing us to comment on the proposed Porta Bella project and EIR. We continue to look forward to working with the City on developing a roadway system which best serves the needs of the entire Valley. Sincerely, Mark Subbotin Vice President Planning MS:dh cc: Carl Boyer, City Council, City of Santa Clarita JoAnne Darcy, City Council, City of Santa Clarita Jan Heidt, City Council, City of Santa Clarita Clyde Smyth, City Council, City of Santa Clarita George Caravalho, City Manager, City of Santa Clarita Lynn Harris, City of Santa Clarita Sam Veltri, Northholme Partners Brian Sasaki, County Department of Public Works Tom Dierckman, Valencia Company City of Santa Clarita City Council Meeting November 6 1994 � MEETING Members of the City Council ITEM N0._ My name is Ben Curtis, I reside at 21925 Placeritos Blvd. in Santa Clarita. I am here representing the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association, of which I am the president. There has been some correspondence to the council members from both Mr. Veltri and myself in regards to the position of our organization of property owners in Placerita Canyon with respect to Mr. Veltri's project. Mr. Veltri has NEVER received an endorsement for his project nor the proposed Santa Clarita Parkway from the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association. Any representation to the contrary by him is an unfortunate mis-statement of the facts. I am in receipt of a letter that Mr. Veltri has told you, the members of the council, was circulated to members of our association. The copy that I have, shows it being addressed to Mrs. Willett, as "President". Mrs. Willett has no recollection of ever receiving such a letter, and at the time the letter was supposedly sent, I was the President of the association and she would have forwarded it to me. I also have no knowledge of EVER receiving such a letter. Again, for Mr. Veltri to represent that he sent such a letter to us is but another mis-statement of the facts. If in fact Mr. Veltri had of asked for an endorsement of this project from our organization, he would not have gotten it. As a point of fact, I can report that the ENTIRE BOARD OF DIRECTORS of our organization are vehemently opposed to the project in its present form! This seems very far from any "endorsement" that Mr. Veltri might proclaim to have gotten. Mr. Veltri has lied to Mayor Pederson about his interaction with our organization. And for the Staff to indicate that his contact with us has been satisfactory causes us concern over the importance that the staff places on such contacts be it with our group or ANY such citizen group in our city. We have serious questions as to whether the letter which Mr. Veltri says was sent to our group was even written on the date at the top of the letter. At the time that letter was supposedly written, Mr. Veltri and his "Northolme Partners" were representing their address as being in Canoga Park on all public statements and other correspondence, and not the Marina Del Rey address shown on the letter supposedly sent to us. Could this be yet another slight mis-statement of reality by Mr. Veltri? We are not anxious to sit idly by and allow anyone to speak for our organization and its response to such a major project. Suffice it to say that the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association IS NOT NOW nor was it EVER in favor of this project. Thank you for your indulgence, and please receive a written copy of my presentation for your files. Terry Kanowsky 22518 Jeniel Ct. Saugus, CA REGI, ,_gy PART O= p D�0AT -�,q�% ITEM N0, MEETING Good Evening Council men and women. At your Last Study Session on Porta Bella I questioned why our city was not giving serious consideration to Alternative #4 in the FEIR. Again, at the last City Council meeting, no explanation for or against Alternative four was presented by staff and the only comment relating to al-ernative #4 came from the developer who suggested the reason it was not considered was because we in Circle J would not like the housing density location shifts required. I appreciated the information supplied by Mr Newton,our City Attorney,concerning the Dolan decision and thought perhaps he could provide the same research and analysis on the potential ramifications for Santa Clarita in light of recent court decisions if we don't SERIOUSLY consider Alternative #4? Specifically: Public Resources Code section 21002,which "declares it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives ... which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of said projects.,.... Sierra Club v.Contra Costa County, (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1212,1224 also has me worried. Because in tris recent court decision, it was found that if,a public agency fails to follow requirements of public Resources Code 21002 and a citizens group is successful in its challenge of this decision, then the public agency (City of Santa Clarita?) may be required to pay all the citizens groups' attorney's fees as well as fees required to represent the city on the issue. I look forward to Mr Newton's clarification on these decisions because I would like to see our available funds spent more productively on other issues such as the Elsmere Dump. Tnank you Ir w POLICY § 21002 Ch. 1 .artifacts on the land as part of the owners development of a project where no mitigating conditions had been laid down by any agency under the California Ennror.mental Quality Act,San Diego Countv lrchaeolrcucai Sc.c.. Inc. v. Compadres (1978) 136 Cal.Rptr, 786, St C.A.3d 923. 7, High-speed intercity .passenger rail project The creation of a nigh -speed intercity passen- ger rail project would not be exempt. in. its entirety from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality .Act (4 21000 et seq.). 66 Qps,Attv.Gen. 340, 117+83.. 8. Radioactive materials The Calliornla highway ;tatrol is required to prepare an'emironmentai assessment' under the California Environmental Qualitv Act (§.21007 et scq.) before adopting radioactive material transportation routes pursuant to Veh.C. § 3300. 66 ijps.Att7.Gen. 361, 92-I5-83. 21001.1. Review of public agency projects The Legislature further finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that projects to be carried out by public agencies be subject to the same level of review and consideration under this division as that of private projects required to be approved by public agencies. (.added by StatsA984,: c. 1514; § I.) Library References Health .and Environment e;-23.10(2). C.I.S. Health and Environment §§ 70 et scq.,. 119 et seq.: Notes of Decisions 1. In general Amendment [St.1985, c. 931, § 41 to statute [St.1983,c. 958, §.9, as amended] authorizing location of prison. near Avenal, California,. to exempt facility from requirements of. Caiifor nia Environmental Quality Act [West's .Ann. Cal.Pub.Res.Code § 21000 et seq.] was not nul- lifiedby subsequent adoption of statute [St. 1985, c. 933, § 1 et seq.] concerning expansion of other prisons under statute [West's Ann.Gov. Cal.Code § 9605], providing that statute enact- ed later in time will prevail over one enacted. earlier in same legislative session,: where there was no irreconcilable conflict between the two statutes. Sagaser v. McCarthy (App. 5 Dist.. 1986) 221. Cal.Rptr. 746. § 21002. Approval of projects feasible alternative or mitigation mea- sures The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects, and that. the procedures required by this division are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects. The Legislature further finds and declares that in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, indi- vidual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof. (.Added by Stats.1976, c. 1312, § 1. Amended by Stats.1980, c. 676, p. 1996, § ,277.) Historical Note Section 21 of Stats.1976, a 1312, provided:"The legislature declares that it makes no finding whether Sections 21002, 21002. 1. and 145 Planning Commission CITY OF SANTA CLARITA April 11, 1994 Page 3 Pasadena runs right through its center, that street being Colorado Boulevard. Also going through Old Pasadena are two other significant highways„ Fair Oaks Boulevard and Los Robles. The traffic volume on these streets and their configuration is quite similar to what has been proposed with the northerly alignment of the east/west corridor. In Claremont, access to the City is provided by both Foothill Boulevard (a six lane highway) and Indian Hill Boulevard, another major highway. Despite the presence of these thoroughfares in Old Pasadena and Claremont, they have retained their pedestrian quality and have utilized these main arteries to facilitate access to the area. This alignment allows Porta Bella to go back to its original plan on the positioning of Magic Mountain Parkway. Similarly, as this alignment does not impact any of the residential areas of Porta Bella, there is no need for the density to be effected. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this alignment is the Citizen's Alternative. This is the alignment that the citizens of Santa Clarita have said that they prefer. This alignment does not create noise and air 'pollution as well as glare in existing neighborhoods as does the proposed Magic/Princessa alignment. This alignment is straight and carries the residents efficiently through the City. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECT A. Consideration of Alternative 4 Ever since our involvement with this process, the residents of Circle J have vigorously urged consideration by this Planning Commission of Alternative 4 as outlined in the draft Environmental Impact Report. Public Resources Code §21002 requires that the City adopt any feasible alterative that has a less significant environmental impact. If_,a,,, public--agency—fails-to. -follow the requirements of,,Public.Resources.Code�§21002,and-.a.citizens groyp is. .successful•,_if",its challenge of 4this, decision,, then.-the,public agency- may.,.be.required-to pay. -the, citizens groups f -.attorneys I fees.4, See.,_Siera-Club.v:-,Contra Costa -County, 81992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1224. For some unknown reason, Alternative 4 has been ignored by the Planning Commission and the City Staff. We believe that the EIR's statement that Alternative 4 is the environmentally superior alternative mandates that the Planning Commission study this alternative and explain why it is either adopted or not adopted. CARL KANOWSKY 22518 JENIEL COURT SANTA CLARITA 254-8335 RE'ti PART OF AT ITEM No MEETING REMARKS TO CITY COUNCIL 11/8/94 RE: PORTA 1. CIRCLE J SUPPORTS DEVELOPMENT OF THE BERMITE SITE AS LONG AS IT ADHERES TO THE GENERAL PLAN, SUCH AS ALTERNATIVE 4 DOES. II. THE EIR SHOULD NOT BE CERTIFIED AS IT IS NOT COMPLETE - IT NEEDS TO BE RECIRCULATED A. 6/2/94 LETTER TO PLANNING COMMISSION RAISES ISSUES THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN ADDRESSED.. B. THE EIR FAILED TO CONSIDER ANY ALTERNATIVES TO THE MAGIC/ PRINCESSA ALIGNMENT FOR THE EAST/WEST CORRIDOR. C. THE EIR FAILED TO CONSULT WITH EITHER RESIDENTS OF' CIRCLE J OR THE BUSINESSES ON DRAYTON. D. THE TRAFFIC STUDY FAILED TO CONSIDER WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF SAI4TA CLARITA PARKWAY WAS NOT BUILT. E. THE MODEL FOR THE TRAFFIC STUDY WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC UNTIL SEVEN MONTHS AFTER THE EIR WAS ISSUED, THEREBY PREVENTING PUBLIC INPUT. F. THE EIR FAILED TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE TOXIC AREA. III. TIERRASAN'I'A - SANTA CLARITA'S CHANCE TO LEARN FROM SAN DIEGO'S TRAGEDY. A. 2 CHILDREN KILLED BY TOXIC WASTE B. BOTH THE DEVELOPER AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DENIED LIABILITY C. DON'T PASS THE BUCK - NOT A SPADE OF DIRT TURNED UNTIL THE ENTIRE SITE IS CLEANED, IV. CARL NEWTON'S LETTER SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC. LAW OFFICES TELEX 69T56 s1 KERN AND WOOLEY TEXAS TELECOPIER(310) 824-0892 FIFTEENTH FLOOR ARIZONA 10920 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024 (3101 824-1]]) June 2, 1994 VIA FACSIMILE Planning Commission 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Addendum to the EIR on Porta Bella Dear Gentlemen: In considering the Conditions for Conceptual Approval of the Porta Bella Specific Plan, please add these comments, especially as they relate to the Addendum to the EIR. We believe that these conditions outlined in this letter should be added to those already submitted to the Planning Commission. A geotechnical analysis of the proposed Magic/Princessa corridor should be accomplished. An analysis of the proposed alignment from a hydrology perspective should be prepared. The alignment calls for major grading in the Circle J area yet the Addendum does not address this issue. The Addendum does not address how the alignment will affect wildlife corridors in the area. Approval should be conditioned upon such an analysis being done. An acoustical engineering sound study should be undertaken to plot acoustical mapping as a result of the new alignment. Under CEQA, alternatives must be proposed and studied. This has not been done relative to alternative alignments for the East/West corridor. Approval should be conditioned upon such a study. An economic analysis of the Magic/Princessa alignment should be done. What is it going to cost, what are its costs as compared to alternative alignments, who is going to pay for it and how? These are all questions that should be answered before any alignment is approved. Planning Commission June 2, 1994 Page 2 A cultural resources study, especially as it relates to fossils and Indian artifacts, should be done before any construction is begun. Approval should be conditioned upon negative findings in such a study. It is our understanding that when the Circle J development was approved, that this .in effect provided that any oak trees in the development were then permanently protected. This issue should be addressed before any Approval is given. The open space in Circle J over the proposed Magic/Princessa road would travel was provided to give residents of Circle J recreational space. Now, with this alignment, that use will be taken away. This impact should be considered, but the Addendum does not do this. Additional conditions we suggest are that the public be allowed to participate and have input into the Development Agreement and its contents. Also, given very real and valid concerns regarding Santa Clarita Parkway, any approval must be conditioned upon it being completed by the end of Phase I. Additionally, property owners over whose property Santa Clarita Parkway will traverse should be contacted and their input solicited. Finally, any approval must be conditioned upon a complete clean-up of the toxic wastes with approval verified by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Respectfully submitted, Carl J. Kanowsky CJK/ 0049360.WP \.aalaW anl� '_ �\-SPC I'Mil RIAlk,NY,tJ AMMO be" "Oplaw thea the fthwl.�Meeunmt with A ,tAuMtheboYeireffUlM r beard, mem"Feceived wwmmwriw.l ml UI A, tP is" Dickinscut loWd the" PtdiMROS in tba" P'W at We Shif station ort. Park eoull� S&CMUCSMPWSMU ,_,.,.,.Nameqfp!urmqDog K Y how Who,'' &13i`Arne for l -' ..1 arm✓. T :1_-_Y,` �wir.Yii .-. I r .. aawtna t �rww�r. yry"leMW 1$ 4 TefnYanla areavcp:am.m ...y .... 1t 1 Ind. L UN a Y tm�ol"unN:..3i�udq l d�M't,rwnt_. �I';nsNai an: Perk. Boulevard.: InaMtteen,Nepklorom Nepaper•_, .en Ilree Nen tlroogprepv' ,around , i 'The SZ.000. question: _ -- -Am Veit MLUImi a tax dedretiom?' � ir.Irlil—�T4thHj7 Rt To --- .. - ; ; - . i- ssr1. ReL. — , I le- Tw,,,mota used to be th Came, WeaHaMft7,ImlI0-U I i'A .. a. Awksle- 7 A Inns &I raiserher hand in response to a elndion asked of her Tionrownte whwfbV a Flea "gag Cross-legged watdl[MWW vack oftlayedoel fo umhwdxm 11, t A NIK )ON, 7, pnhe 'le.ffly shell., let, lt,p h.11 I�maety aalm, NF4 2 '..d AMY. -ken In lmwh rapart'"e; of., pwmatt"sid. a team. rday .. TMerawnla CW`3 tkaminedni monandn 'UnlUmw' am rany"of7" muratywasbuilt AMil W&M -143-s swept' the ill .Jt act UFAW 17 mbdivisims Was, mamy old stuffix buneddeepintli .0 0 meal noteta Ikee and kn D I otl ir.Irlil—�T4thHj7 Rt To --- .. - ; ; - . i- ssr1. ReL. — , I le- Tw,,,mota used to be th Came, WeaHaMft7,ImlI0-U I i'A .. a. Awksle- 7 A Inns &I raiserher hand in response to a elndion asked of her Tionrownte whwfbV a Flea "gag Cross-legged watdl[MWW vack oftlayedoel sotAkertifte umhwdxm Theddicho Ing flarward f ry lK 46M .0 ir.Irlil—�T4thHj7 Rt To --- .. - ; ; - . i- ssr1. ReL. — , I le- Tw,,,mota used to be th Came, WeaHaMft7,ImlI0-U I i'A .. a. Awksle- 7 A Inns &I raiserher hand in response to a elndion asked of her Tionrownte whwfbV a Flea "gag F, 77> my as Ii bomb export, Edi Doiret lel IA tbe.YormW_TQIotlmrrreK 4 _ "Rwu erg xramm _.__ Snt clmplM�I13mR°•aelMeratedw'He7nerrt soul: Fund taeeneu..tW[,r-.�lcwor 'tnaahugen hbdUply2 uldtltls kn6bdttf Pam ]is* `� wt -: bombs.- "� }'n"., GrenlhWAbaseb ^arEM'tddpgndlY: wlNns .. . , tint Mar . PelaeipsC]gnea 1'foe[ YIdM"` tlrt Mehl anmher.. •Let mghC t ars a bood .Saida[rwa ,rurl m the Capon.' Tlefaamr are rheNarb borers Ute thia`eq_; rerearke ..._„ v ..:. do" e BOIV W.1Lawe1Y Glets U.S. Pledge to Sw� a i Ie)r b move aM deelett or brri6 U�em b r _thneatie ,i' CwdnNfneshpR :UtFMatlabdbnllgmhorltleolmdkWT"; `' 'WaWrori ' 1 -. added "We TAW to N rrterd.el!'!WL • magneedrecrmA:`:'"T", Th.lutarreh-m l9fd wY only Nrinri• intake NaelrlY. ':. / - MUmu m hear it w wtnn`4 �•hnpeNltG ., ur ��. Nre-roe !weep. Siaetlerr'.orMurrre egrets eid,a ; . the ground lux slow whys emmo!5 fes. audtheYtoheiteutof Ne gxeyerW rt ow •. Cdgkrsb IM daesttp'wnk lt,^'aaW Gay Be rs,:'hosenmlU ' sheilapoptolhemeert. The So � h ederkeeehNclln.+:''.'LLef' wudb, decWth" Rtelddlta9ukk as cameotheY �r Maul m t 4 ( s l• I.nnrliY rltl lttlrm:e he lw.N• ing hcMY" fee Old mudUtl Slrir. ' Itfi UM.arindNnbNeflre.atlontTh.Y''.kR-tYK6 wClb% Juetupr lore It easMlT whose lCtorid sow Y4 rd t 3 <a - 'otackk had nm immedeal'aommat WC, Donald A hole, mWMt dherorat the should Bob MOrge "I foe Nc' - J r+r 'T .:Gina of Emergency SWIRM PAW tll.rtua• Wreq'uld Ne'reapaalbmtT� u� be d ' pan would 6r lessee eWiT reaoiYCdHllre.. Accident dSMWWhUnelhetaYaeGwhoerw •, ndtltoryas t S . AmywouldhaanMrtNearreeR The serol Sotrdd9uperrbMTOMW h]Neeu 'hactuerdkinaY-ormedopa!apxeRba d1kIW'shrdd AR.'Lareq' ordered Cldef Adrnmkhattee Df lovrmard - Gmva b Minutes U=eMmd3' wIMhR - But federal , aRrNgm ee the federal government -had aAW. aaa aeprtedol :there M@ MUmd rtes In WeauntTwhete t moral br He oaM^nyWced that Nn7: -' tlC.Sit gtoetvsdeviceonlymhefamd�.,;; ..�mna lkk� and NAtlarl Gaud eampp, r• 1 _ 'NalrgauehgaswA .' :. peresmelberedtoo ,e 4 aesa : r cc '" P Ila bjeetltW4N.haudmaK twupe them .tushed Y cowl Y poabiec Gram '., AlwgyabAh..A, `r• 'tin gngCard butltalong .."Tw warm Media repmtbachbNebald7rC3 -. can Bever totally deu4eaMiner mmdtim unpsot arW Lowery aid adding UCSDpI r .. wilhthesMJnga. ydaD that habeeva tperanyaShAddbew.pt Ond that oNroncedetWhave bear BOOM wlNNto. ham rpldenu who ropatedrghUrig brabe; farNanc..utYthato taYus' rrdto.lSn"thesatrdaa Lorery-'use aaUed Nat -m tlMUole m: ; "At rhal Nleaya adeeWed It wtl Umebtrllm. mwmme found m Tlerramull berg rest .'hubealy MubMetiveeheW.mm Ut found In Ne "stony ma 1 aidavimtWhaheptus mirL MYin figmeD ind" up ibmt lR orae irlthtlalanrrofSYa NCOYomwhfeh eanaied the surely edge of the CRmp pliktt Madura r such devlcn Tuesday. bar of them Um in war spentbull addm a, to the II they picked up Uw,'bW" 'rm% of which were tivc Cray✓ shrew. 'tmgr "All this ordnadee has N"UMU. - terra hu g deputies fepaUed Nlding l6"borb derh:d' hem b Lkerde raetlWsoot khee-everyMff from tont arrdr W pins.. brut Roe tor b rmkry roura` . d Deytrl hetes ' ... L, E mnd[& , end sores of Nem live. The devtes here hose rrlall inrr rondo W Sim Cdglerdthe Shn fs Deparunmt arvan and MMU apk eves uuC "ATW MSS that the AMY' &MUrry n ranged. {woulduam theffeld harms ferroranorher fhedgmel np,"ke "'�.. nuvtoTfrrda Both depa mems aged redden. me to 1 At feat at level would be found m pktad up II e"n"It■ 4 :ax OZ y 4 \ncicacTuutn E . Y, Imo Hunt�jW Y MM set for p`. KtWeek IyTeams toUse " y, 6isticated Gear ,. weep Canyons Army to y aanN Gbrpe vumnF an¢r anv. r, artillery mnaedarmF World War '. te. Althee " have pe adcally mdaanta rr the 43 Kt muore mileW dYltfflOld ': .tamp„denitit 'te buteaayamme that t they, wu are hared cot eVW uur Merwould 'rte dilhndt rW The MC imajor weep d thehe free oeeartedd- W 19Th; eller fuel, "'1Yerneanb eutldirlaleN wele aV N .. :'Tneamwawall.lu.�.conw At WeMeaday's meewg NUe' Ark on Cowbl/awWn JI�e • .. ..�.•r�.•••••• --_, .; wun vn b lFrnlnmodata''Uem: so. ittled laaWa l6 4tmha'.'Abtw me iehneeboewUr . ' UeW C7lY dSat DleSa a1M 11u. rnuety. eaeewfaly neretlate a "Impatwfa Qeatwom*W. r.V Feud Threatens Pak . htt,aTaal w'nfannitlya- aIvedbyaeri al .'WfiWlenVw en Wt tIK' Cveb=b WndUemMFM�taW •.Ueehpmht. . . CI /.t CowidsMoantiiaDeveiopme Iflr.a.aors.rand ... .. ;...,. _ _. -. ......._. "Aa realdmt.l Warr It ,,CDUnt}rat:.Od&OVe[ 'i .: :: • -,.-. ; rawlea aeWYW a n., I area, Bd t dMn ,jutay whM tl'nWht Wt UeR.. there py7VItGRREELEf.'11aw3Wif WNn -. . . I _ rere 6dnF b W ehaUf ftelnl4" . and tMe111u.Soehawhou Nrl' muDlefnermonW dFedoUaUma"' '.9 9upmWrPaeki FafW __ n...et re. Uec�' mt ofthat par tpas kklud It thee .. :'Tneamwawall.lu.�.conw At WeMeaday's meewg NUe' Ark on Cowbl/awWn JI�e W fW— devempmeN a Lee Pear upatd UepinO�dlaae sten-- ..�.•r�.•••••• --_, .; wun vn b lFrnlnmodata''Uem: so. Wne. &n me" FIN �M *MAIN reposed that ® p1eM of UeW C7lY dSat DleSa a1M 11u. rnuety. eaeewfaly neretlate a dom bell aupervmem wants reWn the ' 4�'pm Sae l don't ale why: we, can't' make Uc dlataUeu cortin-. . •-tmapleded oNNnce have been Uee-Ynr tnae' iWfar aCox l""tcablem teteWbn trallnnWan agWpment ' Ree the Flu mmmuma• ' Vntupotl Ueluateadtha NFaU-'. lUmeptalllftM leue'w1U l�e6•• �:" Iflr.a.aors.rand ... .. ;...,. _ _. -. ......._. mthatNUntflntM, ,'.-<..... ..,,,elbN wkforte deems that nitee-.- Lion wk .. -,.., �-....,. rawlea aeWYW 0.01 � Mtl1.Yel0 W i."M m.n.l�a.wv 1 / I . Ought be mrluded a a new.element inthecuunty's emendplaIL a big thele:' 'MWmanbut Ned of thld e moM d iM CorrlN Nous- Y that Wedntede TNTC ere4 o4 about about 15 Puunde M TNT., . BMrinalt who Proposed the leek Bcallmua lum peek- At • recent 11bmd. of conWMd It was dlnrovertd by a biker inAhe forte. m}Inyme that MY comM<- baneNe communications Alen kation Supetvlar4 meeting Boorman the peak -no unanlikd W. e EwACountybnLL should include a to the .N celled !'I;t" TThwerNe2MWndsincedEy .. debate over the temmbdmoµ the tuk (Deet feehf we should. Nrr.Mwe a rM�M +" ••, the WWII pepwev ent since ve-. yeYewe}eked reetrid add"" n d equipment up these. then I'D go along with that' pleM cu ed by the handat dtaaw a°en1°they wea}thed a small. a s day he laid. '1�ytt kt'a give Nem a. thelove befoe we ti rr• o.... vv cony MfnMZ •-r �.� � . ' t '"C:.7 c to'nudy, Iran aM MY a M• 1teee°mme°epntwish the microwave Td dmtN levant. w behind a very Nle .,.. � ..: . .T + .�.Nsa.. ane .r/ wrtAwMr.am AwA. "M r military "Visa" devices mince' Shcutday. acmnp�g to a MMR+ . U• Nmdcn Trolls Park Took FWM member. have sold the City Council n al Wtboone•Yurmae• Wool On kptmmmplece Alr Pogullo/'ReporteanA F neeana __. _._.. ... •Ill Mrd aeon, m addiuenai de- vempmentathemmmWnrl.;z of the Wad. rMw'"�."••�jr^w•w••••'•+e..M mlmar.•w ..wro ,.e..a• oft meio-ownership ity has Me �w".ow Mry ew.....re..rw °gym �.iw.:.40. �" " ^--+--- M/wN-Masa ellNel.N WI0Mm1Y iww rw. M M..N".r..n.r.�eNtm IwmMM Nr .i n 1, erN.M .a �w�wr..w�rrwpp ii1 Iwv.... }/ .t 1.a0.� .al NI w"M 111 .. IaNM/.ON1N �yp MM•° �^"a M.N M a.wcN .II 11 MRr Yu N..[ww.Yw.. .11 }e .ld.y.w�Ma eaeand!dPweoceou Global Report i�•� /' ��rewrturueRal� rww... R.e e�N..n e. x.w�.ww.rti [.". �� a"..wws.ewren.... N/4 CM <wwnn Z, tn.F nN 1e ail n° Mdw N! M m,rwr. au N aM wv Jul w""'a'w' •}I }e Mw". .fY.w f. N...w o.". w.Mr..-eWw.r!', 1IFHwa.. eA1MMIeMINInMI Yelm}YIl MaM1 Mm.a � ev N = _ rray.M e�wr..w aI:�sn: �.`. V, Ya.w%Je ."ie'°'e'v..w"r"�' aellldrd/aaeama wnarw e.wnww AM.M'"'".+roe xe! �.�weNwsa, v..N�wae«.r..,av live !l\Iw.ONKM.r eNw MM Nr6 Nww wa Wr er Mp". tCr »lR.•M� ..r MI 1] tyyr MI r) YY)}IY. Mlfny.RMN—. MY eAnwaeNa Mrww.rre� NMeroV. OM N! cl -1 ar [r vela n.e.r a/.a e.•a.r [vr s!M 'sN>. .wrn.}"wwlw�i .ei x.l..Mewvr.�ww:rt�w.M..waarwd�., "wM. "sew ew.Ma. one.• °v w .I.rM"""+ tw re c.m. MI N torr MM M.M-: hR Mle.rM.r Y wM.ww.M�r wMM r+'^ Mlm rwa... t I.. [MiF b/ 11 R4+. put MIM 1"F 4N �w.11.a/./ •ww.M lMllgowryyw �M fVw ell N M.rnwr [M.. Iel M ) [M !i� M tay.�wM c. tl...w n[..MMM.weOe ".1.VwNn°VwR.w.N°.'m'dn.i^'°�'N �Mlry vviw nN' nw N 04 r..rr }ww louse v Z [trans 1w. MIM N..NI all M V [wN HI e 1y.�YN (welsh MRIIMry..MrreaPs.ese.9�wr. ter frwYP Moo rrN4t �' ]/! NwIW LbN N,- W..we YMIY .ate/ �e`�.4wlwwr.N.rr i1MreM.4 Mwe tMM1' }e - /�(%�� PARK: Renewal of Lease .1lndrlpiMr Threatens Funds Release .IlN}InNtil. InMtOnth and Lim lANN eQmp +noir dm en.ors MER WKINLEY UrAv ekesew tan Angel (se A(etewe Itlm/}M•a}w Mwe.a Meats} P. A Mmial kind of foulnallslrl. Every a" In Tru Times.. MN w IN. :li COAatM gheavv.ttolte 1w.M1 i� Y. U • �w veils wniO oirc i�� Hw n�1.�Re WtW10 Zo N'tM r...e.. e..nlr «. MfM fliml. Aflwanec _ ,__ 'Iftft }lu OWN Ma Mel OrN •. NwKtowraw�rsuawNa McMeaw leq/m}N IA.I MN t}]bl Ir4 }[410}Is •I IMIOf Ie ..M.! Bosh I.w! IaY. 111e� 1}N (Bush/ lose MlwrMell.�xareMa lush Bomb Unit Busy With Requests to PickUpExplosives aad(}ampaPi muton. ._ '•I live in gold. end thete'e The shummm h Bomb Unit Ought be mrluded a a new.element inthecuunty's emendplaIL a big thele:' 'MWmanbut Ned of thld e moM d iM CorrlN Nous- Y that Wedntede TNTC ere4 o4 about about 15 Puunde M TNT., . BMrinalt who Proposed the leek Bcallmua lum peek- At • recent 11bmd. of conWMd It was dlnrovertd by a biker inAhe forte. m}Inyme that MY comM<- baneNe communications Alen kation Supetvlar4 meeting Boorman the peak -no unanlikd W. e EwACountybnLL should include a to the .N celled !'I;t" TThwerNe2MWndsincedEy .. debate over the temmbdmoµ the tuk (Deet feehf we should. Tse Been the drawings in the Cod Md. and 1 thick m than the WWII pepwev ent since ve-. yeYewe}eked reetrid add"" n d equipment up these. then I'D go along with that' pleM cu ed by the handat dtaaw a°en1°they wea}thed a small. a s day he laid. '1�ytt kt'a give Nem a. thelove befoe we on enhanced W6"11neden a Wand Wee B -ort coon++ thadvap cdedsameYmmiinedit c to'nudy, Iran aM MY a M• 1teee°mme°epntwish the microwave Td dmtN levant. w behind a very Nle The bomb Yet has WeNvered b " city officials. Including cityu . Cn Muman Dick Murphy. who also �e�Rla�Mt}e}, the Sued a WednesdeY gemded•fl- military "Visa" devices mince' Shcutday. acmnp�g to a MMR+ . U• Nmdcn Trolls Park Took FWM member. have sold the City Council n al Wtboone•Yurmae• Wool On kptmmmplece apokesm le. ale mote ower Nb `ham •Ill Mrd aeon, m addiuenai de- vempmentathemmmWnrl.;z of the Wad. aamn equipment to the cmnpledm of the county�pe�y. dente+Mw, drACMd they: the bet Ndtithedehadtthe oft meio-ownership ity has Me That was dons iomaeei'me allowed We firms man sell' � o thcp�eoatlOnpme. ing ff Ind bad Uet'e because the mountain is within tiV dine w upmpNbd fS -r-i--d GrderBmdOnPermitamorst� house the and teally didn't. reagse me pieces, emu tollnma oapermit appga »° �P,pbkme,. cwlrmraaaatiea are in fate fa e5 days ale then • The hiker found the Ino reeouees mipseeda&M. muelbeePPNveda�andtlmeby Nie rounds (75-mlllimeler) in }a pllicammus undevmedby Coamm' ren, opY five beoatrwdai� ent lag dense bnwh Mar fake 140111111L The taken to •' would Mand the llannnnamon fe- duty an the mountain in meet the These pelween the aPinWtl of me oriel- tba V art nlw•nn wort . en end wedMMaY'f oe VS A}mybambdieposal unitm . neeyefpN}aple/taticnaandmha ce dintrMmon Inimeela such er ImMmu nsumusMlwosts such nal mOdAft a um Boamwm +aid. an appy- (Mint Loma. . tem, seemved diol%% Out W" Thebembumthan,.quedted Oat, a' p,gongmum it that plan that 91mo dted be considered by use Oe FBloWatin NeinvemtiryBaA was Immuoveror over, w ighuY trans- cPedw a eu/L .. BOMB: Canyon Sweeps Will Begin Next Week waambe he a" dumby Bed. elenww- mentcoulddetedmu• u fen! takes beneath N they left the meeting. Nele and amenTe1rtypt{IndM said they were pf eawd "Wihe latest hmd:;Utvlaent Md IYdeeputwo teetbe PIT' In setmgedwlth how thmgaart daubed the cleanup going, HN the fad that wets me till much. "fM einlg/a "thannd I.I. .t na oNr a aMn-tit m bola mng•term Dian."geld - pmceMmr" SDebnn RECD; PART O ,.;'c A ;/tat on Rank(R) s ,RI£CORDATuatabase Mode PH-CACORP 8726500026 R 1 OF 9 P 1 OF 2 / ��±± q[I-CACORFFP��Term California Secretary of 5t8ta-- MMcjqote and Limi.te.d Par nary Pilings Copyright .(C).1993'Prentice Hall. Legal � Financial arv;�-. Last updated: 10!29/93 <; This data is for informationpurposes only; certification can only be obtained through the office of the Secretary of State. LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Name: ANDEN GROUP, P CAI_IFORRNIm LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, THE Number: 8726500026 Data 091'22!?987 Curatiom lu/31/20 Status: ACTIVE RE615TERED A6ENT iN ORiNF+TfON Name MARVIN :SEARS. Address: 1900 AVENUE 0'F IHE . THR6. 'STE 50Q LOS r';46ELES CA 900'n'7 1+F=1U,.R%DIREC, R INr(J t. M. !T .r.'N PH-CACORP 67226500026 R I OF 9 P Z OF 2 PH-CACOR.P Page Address: 15260 VENTURA BLVD., STE. 1700 SHERMAN OAKS CA 91405 GENERAL PARTNER NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Name ESDEN PARTNERS, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Address 15260 VENTURA BLVD. SHERMAN OAKS CA 91403 Name:: MDG ASSOCIATES, LTD.. A CALIFORNIA UNITED PARTNERSHIP Address: 15.^.60 VENTURA BLVD., STE. 1700 SHERMAN OAKS CA 911403 OTHER INFORMATION Number of Partners Required to Sion Amendments 01 Nur�ber of Amendments= 12 `.{ To order a, copy of the document abstracted above, call 1-800-833-9848 (East coast).or 1-$00.- 2< "i2_.'W'est coa.1" ,. and identify yourself as -a WESTLAW user. END OF DOCUMENT Citation Rank(R) Page(P) Database Made PH-CACORP 90072011023 R 3 OF 9 P 1 OF 7 PH-CACORP Term California Secretary of pita e --Corporate and Limited Partnership Filings Copyright (C) 1993 Prentice Hall Legal & Financial Services bast updated: 10/29793 `! This data is for information purposes onlyt certification can only bo obtained through the office of the Secretary of State. -? LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Name: ANDEN SANTA CLARITA PARTNERS, L.P, Number: 9007200023 Date: 03/1.3/1990 Duration- PERPETUAL REGISTERED AGENT �'NFORMATION Meme= L. DAVID COLE Address= 9501 UILSHIRE BLVD., STE 600 BEVE=iLY 'HILLS CA 90210 OFFICER/DIRECTOR INFORMATION Address 15250 VENTURA BLVD., STE 1700 SHERMAN OAKS CA 91403 PH-CACORP 9007Z000173 R 3 OF `i F 2 OF 2 PH-CACORP Page GENERAL PARTNER NAME(S) AND AODRESS(ES) Name; THE ANDEN GROUP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Address' 15260 VENTURA BLVD., STE 1700 SHERMAN OAKS CA 91403 OTHER INFORMA ION Number of Pa tners Required to Sign Amendments. 01 Number of Am ndments. 01 To order COPY of the dpcument abstracted abov,, call 1-800-833-9948 (East coast) or 1-800-222-2122 (West coast), and identii'v yourself as a WESTLRW user. }} END OF DOCUMENT Citation. Rank( R'r Page(P) Database Mode PH-CACORP 0181811P, R 5 OF 9 P i OF 2 PH-CACORP Term California Secretary of State--Corporata and Limited Partnership Filings Copyright (C) 1993 Prentice Hall Legal C Financial Services Last updated 10/29/93 << This data is for, information purposes only; certification can only be obtained through the office of the Secretary of State. :1'11 ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION Name: BMC ANDEN GROUP CORP. Address: CO BANYAN MANAGEMENT CORP City/State: CHICAGO IL 60606 Number 01618116 Date: 03/27-i 1992 Duration:: PERPETUAL. State of Origin: CA Status ACTIUE Report Filed: 02/05/1953 Report Number 00SOS1.3 REGISTERED AGENT INFORMATION 150 S. WACI•:ER, #2900 PH-CACORP 0181GI18 R 5 OF 9 P 2 OF 2 PH-CACOP,P Page Name* C T CORPORATION S'Y001 Address` S13 W SEVENTH ST L03 ANGELES CA i0017 OFFICERIOIRECTOR INFORMATION PRESIDENTz LEONARD G. LEVINE Address; CO BANYAN MANAGEMENT CORP 150 S. WACKER, 12900 CHICAGO IL 60506 0 To order a ropy of the document abstracted above, call 1-300 0 :;-9348 (East coast? or 1-800-222-2122 fest coast), and identity yourself as a WESTLAW user. ., END OF DOCUMENT Citation \\ Rank(R) Fag& P) Database Mods PH-CACORP 9021400017 �,R 7 OF 9 P 1 OF 2 PH CACORP Page California Secretary of State --Corporate and L"iiited Partnership Filings Copyright !C1 1993 Prentice Hall Legal & Financial Services Last updated: 100E/93 This data in for information purposes only; certification can only be obtained through the office of the Secretary of State. LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Name! PALISADES SEASCAPES, L.P. Number; 9021400017 Date 08/0211990 Duration: PERPETUAL Status: ACTIVE REGISTERED AGENT INFORMATION Name> L. DAVID COLE Address; 9601 WILSHIRE BLVD., STE, 600 BEVERLY HILLS Ch 90210 OFFICER/DIRECTOR INFORMATION Addresw 15260 VENTURA BLVD., STE. 1700 SHERMAN OAKS CA 91403 PH-CACORP 9021400017 R 7 OF 9 P 2 OF 2 PH-CACORP Page GENERAL PARTNER NAMES) AND ADDRESSES} Name: THE ANDEN GROUP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Address= 15260 VENTURA BLVD., STE, 1700 SHERMAN OAKS CA 91403 OTHER INFORMATION Number of Partners Required to Sign Amendments: 01 <; To order a copy of the document abstracted above, call 1-600-833-9949 (East coast) or i-800 -_-2-2122 (West coast 7, and identify yourself as a END OF DOCUMENT Citation Ran'r.(R Page(P) Database Mode PH-CACCRP 0/485462 c OF 9 P 1 OF ? PH-CACORP 7arm _ali:fornia Secretary of State--Cor;orat2 and Lirgited Prtnersh:p Filings CQPvriaht (C) 195?ice Hail Legal L F"ninriai :ices List updated= i3i_4.•'9., This data is for information purposes only; cart ification can only be obtained through the office of the Secretary of State. :>- ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION Name= THE ANDEN GROUP REALTY CORP. Address= 21515 VANOWEN ST•, 4116 City/State CANOGA PARK CA 913633 Number: 014854 a'2 Date; 08/02/?990 QuraIi0n PERPETUAL State 4f Orioin- Cl, Status ACT1k)E Report Filed: 09/02/1993 Rep,Drt Numaer� 073,zlA= REGISTERED AGEiN7 1NFORM=TIOh PH-CACGRP 01485462 R. 8 nF 9 P 2, OF 2 PH-CACORP Page Name: MARVIN SEARS Address: 2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS, STE. LOS ANGELES CA, 90067 OFFICER/DIRECTOR INFORMATION PRESIDENT; EUGENE S. ROSENFELD Address 21SI5 VANOWEN ST., 4116 CANOGA PARK CA 8.1303 CORPORATE TAX INFORMHTION Corporation Tax Buse. STOCK Franchise Tax: Board Suspension Status; ACTIVE To order a copy of the document abstracted above, call 1-608-833-9848 (East coast? or 1--200-222-2122 (West coast), and identify yourself as a WESTLAW user. > END OF DOCUMENT 9 Citation Rark(P.! �,getP` Database T9oCie PH- CACORP 01,037451, R 1 OF 1 P 1 OF ?- (,'(.CORP Ter•^. California Secretary of State --Corporate and Lini'.ed Fjrknership Filings Copyright (C)-Ig93 Prenti;:e Hall Legal is Financial GO -Vi -'en Last upd;atadl 10/29/93 Th:s data is for inP,)rmaticn p_irposes cniyiti;f.catior! ca c 11; `e obtained through the office OF the Secretary of Stale. ARTIyLES OF INCORPORATION Name= BMC NORTHOLME CORP. Adrire55; CO BANYAN MANAGEMENT CORP ISO S WACKE; DRIVE #2900 City/S ate CHICAGO IL 60606 ".l"Mb e r- : 01837 462 Date: 43fCI;'199 Duration: PERPETUAL State cf Origin: CA S t at u5; r1 QCT f 0E Report Filed: 081/09,11993 Report i.;.,_mber: 0360x82 RE51S.TERED AGENT INFORMATION r. 1 _.7a^^. f r ❑ ale PH-�AuUkP 0.8 .n� R 0. 1 :: OF v h (tir ORP P Narae- C T C'ORPORATI)N SYSTEM fiddresel_13 WEST SEVENTH ST. LOS ANGELES CA 90017 OFFICER/DIRECTOR INFORMATION PRESIDENT: LEONARD G LEVINE Address= CO BANYAN MANAGEMENT CORP 150 S WrOPFR DRIVE 47500 CHICAGO IL 6060E TO, order a ropy of the document abs>rac ed above, call 1=0470 SV.-9848. least coast) Dr 1-306-222-2122 {West coast), and identify yourself as .,. WESTLAW user.) END OF DOCUMENT. CITATIONS LIST (Page 1) Search Result Documents 31 Database: PH-CAJGIMT I. ANOEN CORP Mate of California Civil' and Small* Claims lodgments PH-CAJGMT 46796 �. ANDEN CORP State of California Civil and Sna11 Claims.Judgments PH-CAJGMT 8710942705 3. ANDEN GROUP INC State of California Civil and Small Claims Judgments PH-CAJGMT 22.140, I 4.... F,NUEN GROUP 'j' f Cdi:Irrnid %.ivil and Small Clai'.s Iudrric;^Cu PHCAJGMT 10902010 S, A.INDEN GROUP Stat o` Ca I.fc,rn.ia C:viI :and Small Clai.ns du3gmeni; PH-CAJGMT 1034795C 6. ANDEN GROUP Si.a'se of California Ci:11 and Small Claime fudgments PH-CAJGMT 1949G3 7. ANDEN GROUP State of California Civil and 'Small Claims 'udgmenL!5 PH-CAJGMT 23054`SOF CITATIDfNS L'.S1 `(Page 41 Dataha9e= PH-CAJGMT aearc:h ReauI Cocumen t5 : 3I ZZ., THE ANDEN 6ROUP S'ta of iall fornia Civil and :Mail Cl aifis ,'udgmants FH-CAJGMT 91010745 23. THE ANDEN GROUP State of Cali"r_.rnia Civil and Small C'l_.,,e= :r(a.gmen'.= PH-CAJGMT 943.39 24. THE ANDEN GROUP State of California Civil. and Small Cl.imrs Tudemar,t; PH-Chi0i'iT 910,2424S 25. THE ANUEfN GROUP State of California Civil and Small Claims Judgments PH-CAJGMT 914.324265 2G. THE ANDEN GROUP REALTY CORP State of California Civil and Sm:,l! rllaim3 Judgment, PH-CAJGMT 4241S' 27. THE ANDEN GROUP State of CaliForn a Civil and Small Claims Judgments PH-CAJGMT 09782SC <c'. THE ANDEN GROUP' State of Ca'i. orr:ia ;Civil and SmalI C'i.a.i ms Judgments PH-CAJGMT 914889SC CITATIONS LIST (Page 5) Database, PH-OAJGMT Search Result Documente:31 2.9. THE ANDEN GROUP INC State of California Civil. and Small Claims Judgments PH-CAJGMT 337701 THE ANuEiJ l7ROl,'F 5r.ateof California Civil arid: 5ma11 Claims Judgments PH-CAJGMT 442525 31. YOUNG, D R State of California Civil and Small Claims Judgments PH-CAJGMT 891336:SC YOU ARE AT THE END OF THE CITATION LIST. PLEASE ENTER YOUR NEXT COMMAND. :Ryan Ran Gi me 6n f69asleaem Ee 9 « r; OF z c same Gusso Civil and Small Claims a«, Rea,G ( C}e» &,5x«32 Gyi:«axAt :r�EaRs 2D6sev Filing %iii1092&2 o « 907/9: Defendant: GROUP ,r « Address: 42: DEERE Q '4200 e9aG9 wml66 G s&u Plaintiff: , ERy 3aw9: N10FTH Q«v call E90s2:9842 Amount, £=xz »aG6 9xe s&sw Filed 2%, aGB9« ,« 32« COUR t PI OF Q2R5M! !e, LOS a»»;<«9« Q « To order ,copy of the document &5te«9 above, call Ta«aJ «. Citation ,G@=9 fa«0 6225 R 1 21 Ely= /\/ 13 10, T \\ State of a2exG Civil and Small««42 & se 2/3 g h It 2! Fig )pd e® ye eQaI «ac,a, L:« w,c <G a: »Ewen» G:> 996x® ea« - 2222 &leant, THE GD :42:2 hddressl ant d^ 6u ani 0 C') City/State! SAN m ,a 96x9@ eSm acG w!&:3 Amount « ga Filed With: LIVERMORE ma RCEse w9e&COUNTY, CA v4,order ,se a a«!%dauQ Q«v call E90s2:9842 Citation »aG6 9xe s&sw &a PH-CAJGMT 9100791S K s OF 9 PI OF Q2R5M! !e, �..�. . State of Lelia@» y61 and Small pam 5x65: era« (C) 1993 vatic 9& Legal. : Financial :l9, SMALL CLAIMS JUDGMENT Ree Number: 9100791S Date: 04/29a1 wae«e THE a,eGROUP w >aa«r s«:: as 6> «w GSaaG, 'JAN «s.9 e«r s««eG E&e9;9ESGCORP Gsw, Q,v: Filed With; EL»',I T1 >« « :J ANGELES Jnr , G « To order ± copy xle documen:Q«9ted above.wc1- - ctat ion y«et ewe> GGee x09 PH-CAJ5MT 3£:09: «?zm y PIx« z g9z lerm G««« aCcGa «Clan: nmsw<a Copy- 2tS,a93 c«2a &» Legal aeasalasIces SMALL CLAIMS snap! alis w»m,«dam; Date, 6 ai3i QG9mc THE,9w «z ",ddres« a;w JJ«::a, e93ee, 5HERMAN 9m.G 240= Plaint « p SES=Pee:R r�mwnt: !e; A SJ « a. 0966 zCIPAL :bd LOS a«%:Gw«,9 «<o order acopy of the document 9uoaQ wove, a« Citation ReR G«2i &team x» &2RaT942: &y. 2 fl7: 9-9&e, Term Aare Gn(o a Civil and Small Claims Judgments :9969 Slam Ra«w Hall Legal aFinancial E Sw SMALL CLAIMS JUDGMENT AOs Number; B , Date: 0961/87 Defendant: eE mo a,w Address e9PARK VIEW 9 26 G glia Az S2 9, S 5 v: %dean 9e«, 4 e!@«, #& Filed we. POMONA MUNICIPAL «a! gK were COUNTY, G « w order copy of the document aaoaa above, we 1 -80A93 -s48 Citation Ranb(R) Page(P) Database Mode PH-CAJGMT 91024245 R 24 OF 31 P 1 OF' 2 PH-CAJGMT Term State of CaLirornia i;ivil and Small Giro me Judgments Copyright (C) 1993 Prentice Hail Legal & Financial Servicea SMALL CLAIMS JUDGMENT Filing Number: 91024245 Date: 10/01/91 Defendant: THE ANDEN GROUP Address 1932 DEERE AV #200 City/State: SANTA ANA, CA 9270S Plain W P. i_IPIq IN Amount: 33,025 Filed With: PASADENA MUNICIPAL COURT LOS ANGELES COUNTY. CA << To order acopy of the document abstracted above, call 1-500-333-984$ Citation Rank(R) Page(P) Database Mode. PH-CAJGMT 91024265 R 2S OF 31 P .1 OF 2 PH-CAJGMT Term State of California Civil and Small Claims Judoments Copyright (C) 1993 Prentice Hail Legal & Financial Services SMALL CLAIMS JUDGMENT Filing Number: 91024265 Date; 08/12/91 Defendant; THE ANDEN GROUP Address: 1932 DEERE AV 8200 City/State SANTA ANA, CA 92705 Plaintiff: W R LIND INC Amount: $3,115 Filed With: PASADENA MUNICIPAL COURT LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CR << To order a copy of the document abstracted above, call 1-800-833-9845 Citation Rank,(R) Page(P) Database Mode PH-CAJGMT 424157 R 26 OF 31 P 1 OF 2 PH-CAJGMT Term State of California Civil and Small Claims Judgments Copyright (C) 1993 Prentice Hall Legal & Financial Services SMALL CLAIMS JUDGMENT Filing Number: 424157 Date: 06/04/92 Defendant; THE ANDEN GROUP REALTY CORP w. e• d Ga, «»«)BLVD #1700 . 5 &« 9 &, Gras 3G 9 1a»4. wy, 970E Rat M. \ As«= «JAN » «e4 we• 9, :m9c9E CQURT 3; 9<&J COUNTY, 9 D >; 07/OG/92 0@R« Rank'R Feqe P sGa3e «a a lQT,s2 c r s OF 2 xi OF 7 PH-CAJGMT !r: 9gza 9s@a cgland Smal I Clam axes 9,«G% «!a2 e«ua we G»l+easa1Sery Je« Is a a! I- Cam.,s: ac: G2&2 GGeve THEa<e GROUP del£ e Z Z : :d pa ««««a: »2, «6 9 ea: G « « R e A7; «« S INC r«»2 23 A&,«9; RGUNheC:M c»« COURT ORANGE COUNTY, y To x«r,copy of the document 46oaw above, call 23a2 Citation ««9, &w@, weGe Mode 9-a39 s«ee &» OF w flm: 9«9af as State of California Civil and Small Clam same+, Copyright !ole:2«na &u Legal »cmmalus«e, :wc w«« JUDGMENT ra:e +w«, saes: Date: as&& ee««e THE «sNGROUP 9xxz 2e »rte »Pawn £s aSaG6: »2:R £RK a za, Plaintiff; «&TON REED 4 CO INC Amount, AJe 92:«%; COSTA MESA eaSe6COURT ORANGE COUNTY, CA a S mGf:am of the document »gags above, call 1 -e04=3 -9g o [ Citation RankfR) Pa Lm(P) C t=�aase Mc de PH-CAJGMT 397701 R 29 OF 31 P 1 i)F 2 PH-CAJGMT 7arm Gta+,e r Calif rr, :?n m.. ai, ;en, s Copyright (C) 1993 Prent.ca Hall Lygal & Financial Services SMhLi_. CLAIMS JUDGr1ENT Filing Number: 397701 Date: 08/05/92 Cie Pendant: THE ,ANOEN GROUP INC Addy' ss< 1332 DEERE Ar! #200 City/St ate: SANTA. ANA, CA 9274',5 Plaintiff; MERIT ASSOCIAI ON SVCS Business Name. I'= Amaui:t = $I ,743 Filed With: SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL COl'RT ORANGE COIJ 1T'r, CA Citation Ran'r(R). Page:P) Datahase Mode PH-CAJGMT 402525 R 30 OF 31 P 1 OF 2 PH-CAJGMT Ter -m State of California Cavil and Small Clai'?s Judgments Copyright. (C) 1993 Prentice Hell Legal & Financial _�,wices SMALL CLAIMS JUDGMENT Filing Number= 402525 Data: 12/01/92 Defendant: THE ANDEIN RIUP Address: 1932 DEERE AV 1*200 City/State- SANTA ANA, CA 922705 Plaintiff: BRASHER CONSTRUCT! SVCS Amount $1,215 Filed With. SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL COURT ORANGE COUNT Y, CA << To order a copy of the document abstracted above, call 1 -30•a -2G? -9648 Citation Rank(R) Page(P) Database Made PH-CAUCC 91268563 R 1 OF 8 P 1 OF 2 PH-CAUCC Page California Secretary of State--Uniforr Commercial Codi Filinga Copyright {C) 1993 Prentice Hall Legal & Financial Service; Last updated: 101!26/93 << Thi; data is for information purposes only; certification can only he obtained through the office of the California Secretary of State. ORIGINAL FILING (UCC -ii Flim number.: Filing date, 12/15`'91 Debtor: Address: City/State Secured Party; Addres6: City/state: ANCEN :ROUP SANm •a,.w, cm WHTRLPOG!- CORP 917 E 14.,c ANAHEi^i, CA f To order a copy o; the I .i*.+: -c. abstracted:. above; cell 1-S00-8a'i-5848 Citii:i.on nanF.F`) -'a `.P. Dai11c , tba'3e d PH-CPiUCU 1 9205L>41 F - DF = 1 0L a PH I i` Te.rm Gal,f,vrnia _"„e;a;-y Cof^mec__.a Cade. r1ling,s Copyright (.` ,9513'a 2 Ma11. Le•ae.I. lu F i n a n 0 1 a 8ervice5 Li—:t ;updated 1`/2S 9" 0This pate 15 i`nf Gr m:..'_'n: {. i,ro a s es c n'_y,; certification can only be obtained through the office of "ie Califs,^nia. ;Se_re'arry of ORIGINAL FILING (UCO --1 Filing number:; 92051741 FiIiro date: 03/13/92 Debtor' Address: City/State! Secured Party: Address: City;State ANDEd "GROUP W .1.932 E DEERE m<2O �u SANTA 4iNA, CA WHIRLPOOL CORP P O Bol: Z16000 hMXVILLE, TN' � To order a copy of the l ::,m:•.ant. abstracted above, call 1-800-,933-9348 Citation :anP p6ge(r:' Database ;ode PH-Cr1UCC 57285117 7 OF P F 1 OF 2 PH-CAUCC Term California Secretary of State --Uniform. Commercial Code Filings. Copyright (C) 1393 Prentice Hal' Legal & Financial. Services. Last .updated:: 1'D/2. /53 C; This data is for infcrnat on purposes only; certification can: only be obtained through the offi„z cf the California Secretary of State. ORIGINAL FILING (UCC -1) Filing rumberi 8728S1!.7 Filing date 111'23/37 Debtor: THE ANDEd GROUP Taxpayer I0 953-f1155--72.49 Address: 15264'JENTURA 6H)D �:TE 1700 City/State= SHERMAN.OAKS, C:r Secured Party: XEROX CORP Address 2200 E NC FADDEN ".%E City/State' SANTA ANA, CA 23 Citation Rank(R) PagevP) Database Mode PH-CAUCC OZZ20124 2 1 To _ r ' OF 2 PH-CAUVC 70— California Secretary or State--UwParm Coymmerc o l Code, Fi' wq5 Copyright (Ci 093 Prentice Hill. Legal & Financial Services Last undated Q/26/93 This data is for information porpowos only; certif0akion can only be obtained through the office of the California Secretary of State. ORIGINAL FILING (UCC -1 Filing number-. 92229184 Filing dater 10%29192 Debtor: BMC NORTHOLM.E CORP Taxpayer 10: 363-84-3252 Address; 150 S WACKER OR 'STE 2900 City/State: CHICAGO, IL Secured Party: BANYAN STRATEGIC LAND FUND 11 iA DELAWARE CORP Andress: 150 S WACKER DR STE 22900 City/State! CHICAGO, IL Citation Rank,R) patge!P) Database Mode PH-CABKR 9324732ONSS P 1 OF 1 P 1 OF 2 PH-CARKR Term) State of Galirornia--BanP;rupicy Filings Copyright (C) 1893 F'rentoe Hall Legal & Financial Services VOLUNTARY Filing Number: 9324732ONSB Filing Data: 10/04/23 Debtor; THE ANDEN GROUP Address; 450 A,' =P: ST W City/State: UPLAND, CA 91?86 Debtor, STATE MASONRY CONSTRUCTION c' . Assets:; $12,563 Liabilities: s5U3,558 Filed With: SAN BERNARDINO BANKRUPTCY COURT SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA Trustee: 7 (Cl 1993 O&B Rank(R) Page(P)Database Mode R 6 OF 12 P 1 OF 3 DMI Page flnden Group, A California Limited Partnership \ 21515 Vanowen.St 116 Canoga Park, CA 91303-2715 TELEPHONE: 8IB-226-6060 COUNTY Los Angeles MSA. 4460 (Los Angeles -Long Beach, CA) REGION: Pacific BUSINESS; Lind Subdivid-,a and ❑eve cpers PRIMARY SIC: 6552 Subdividers and de,.eloper-a;. nee 65529902 Lend subdi✓iders and developers, residential LATEST YEAR ORGANIZED:_ 1974 OWNER CHANGE DATE* NA ANNUAL. SALES REVISION DATE 31,19;1993 LATEST FREND YEAR YEr;R (C) 1993 D&B P, 9 OF 12 F 2 OF 3 CMi ( 1991 1) SALES $ 227,300,300E � NA EMPLOYEES TOTAL: zc3, 3SDC EMPLOYEES HERE= 1)5 SALES GROWTH: NA.. NET WORTHS NA EMPLOYMENT GROWTH: -I' X SQUARE FOOTAGE= 11,100 RENTED NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS:. NA BANK; Continental Bank Naicnal. Assn. Ot)NK DUNS; 00-692-961, THIS IS: A HEADQUARTERS LOCATION AN ULTIMATE LOCATION A PARTNERSHIP DUNS NUMBER' 19-477-7SE;S (C) 199-7 D&B R "n OF 12 P 3 OF 3 OMT CORPORATE FAMILY GUNS. 19-477-7553 9ASE YEAR PARTNEP,r Associates, Mdg /Ltd, General Partner CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Rosenfeld, Eugene /Ceo Copyright 1993 Dun 6 Bradstreet Inca END OF DOCUMENT Page Page L"'TICPlS t_I3T {Paye t, L�atati_c. PH COO' Se, aroh !?c::suis PjurilmCnts: a0 9 8At1YAM ('if+PiAGLNrNT AS ?CIr1T's, 1NC: fe.:a.s ecretar•y 'of State Ccrrparate and Limited Pat, tnax- hip Fil.r']s PH EXC+ORP 0064677200 9. Bh10 ANDEN GROUP CORP. California $gpretary of State --Corporate and Limited Pertnersh'ip Filings PH-CACORP 01818118 10. BMC NORTHOLME,rORE. ;aIiE'w nia.`;acretary of State --Corporate and Limited Partnership Filings PH-CACORP 01837462 <, `i-) 11. BMC RANCUO MALIBU CORP. California Secretary of State --Corporate and Limited Partnershie Filings PH-CACORP 01819117 3-D'7-5;�_ 12, BMC SANTO BARBARA CORP." California Secretary of State --Corporate and '1 LimitedPartnership Filings PH-CACORP 01589181 F, fJ-.T i_Lrt.iiaS (p _, I ,- 9 f PI7rF'MONTERE"' COUNI't' LIMITC 0 r()r2TNER�HIP California $ecr�tary of St to Corpora e §nd emit..^ r',rinership Filirigs PH-CACORP 9123200005 P(i('.F tIGNEFPfr.+ Ol'N'(4 t -ORP. Cr+lj)rnia 'cretahy of State--(1nrp2rzte and Li ilted ! a tn--r-,iiip f i.1iiq P:y CACORP 01696070 f`ite+icn Rant OR? Pope (P nat,ahase Mode C'H- I CORP Sia] )1613. R C OF 30 P I" .CIF. 4 PH -CORP Tarm lllino;.s 5c retary of State.--Corporpte hilinga Ccc;r-ight: (C) 1993 PrFnts.a 11all Legal & F,rwncial Services l s:.t �wdoted lii'1/93 This data is for, a:nforprtinn liorpr,es in1v cert Yficat3.on can Orly be ohtaln<d through the offrsa of Ehe Secretary of State. DOMESTIC RCA N v roe. Corporate- Number; Incorporation Rate Duration Stake of Origin' Status- lax. ID: BANYAN MANAGEMalf CORP. .�r,9C^1G43 O;f�9i1990 FRP TUAL 11, IH GOOD SiANDIN6 "ib 56 97595 REGISTERED AGENT'INFORMnTTON :Hama'= ROBERT G HI6GIN5 Address: 1 iO 5 WALKER. OR #29061 CHICAGO 60606 Ass i.gned Uate, 02/19/1993 PH__ I 55301$4:1 :;aJnkv+ COOK R 6' OF ,';0 P 2 OF 4 PH -CORP O+=PICER/DIREGT0R INFORPiATION PRESIDENT LEONARD G LEVINEi Adjr:s.; 150 5 WACKT•R #2u.06 CHICAGO 60 606 FrP T Y: WILLIAM LARNE 7i dicas: SAME .,'11:1{ER 1fLi 0(7tATIt'+i r..fjor, no reg,iIi:t ed by ai . t.stde agents. !letter Involved r,0PF0RAITCN CAPITAL INFORM61-101 r":h.vnde ,:n Cop. pcF,urr r,1+ ,'air 'itarl ird C+cl',e;l 5'1,14)GL 0 --ran hi t; +o l:a3i'a 'S1 100 00. PusJ + n Slate: eu0 tl, h10 ol14. +"F't r+J,`.:S ri..3, I 2Y ;.. , tc I rl fin, 41 FJ,;101 ti r?'* t; IRIFf Fi L1A.IICIJ Page REC, L. "- 'c A PART OF "t "'*D .AT MEETING ITEM N0. BANYAN MANAGEMENT CORP. MULTI.LOCATION ANALYSIS AND ADVICE Atter Reiotery Serviart Banyan Management's under -performing assets included 16 geographically dispersed properties that were part of VMS -sponsored; publicly traded real estate mortgage limited partnerships and REITs. Cushman & Wakefield employed a ream of 41 appraisal, leasing, management and financial services professionals to evaluate the physical condition of each property, conduct in-depth analysis, and project future operating performance and potential sale proceeds.. We then defined strategies for enhancing value, and prepared business plans and recommendations for each property to help Banyan's independent trustees and directors realize maximum value from the troubled real estate portfolio. ASSET RECOVERY SERVICES Cushman 8 Wakefield provides comprehensive real estate recovery, restructuring and workout services for single properties as well as geographically dispersed portfolios. Teams of the firm's financial, marketing, appraisal, construction and building operations specialists coordinate efforts through a single point of contact to help clients meet regulatory require- ments, limit liabilities, manage assets, solve problems and realize the greatest possible value from troubled real estate. RECE ,; E A City Council MeetingC0 PART 0. � �,,,,•�.•D AT November 8, 1994 - `( t MEETING Subject: Porta Bella Development —�---- ITEM N0. Civil Sections 1940.7 Disclosure of former or nance ocatrons in neighborhood area (a) The Legislature finds and declares that the December 10, 1983, tragedy in Tierra Santa, in which lives were lost as a result of a live munitions exploding in a residential area that was formerly a military ordnance location, has demonstrated (1) the unique and heretofore unknown risk that there are other live munitions in former ordnance locations in California, (2) that these former ordnance locations need to be identified by the federal, state, or local authorities, and (3) that the people living in the neighborhood of these former ordnance locations should be notified of their existence. Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature that the disclosure required by this section is solely warranted and limited by (1) the fact that these former ordnance locations cannot be readily observed or discovered by landlords and tenants, and (2) the ability of a landlord who has actual knowledge of a former ordnance location within the neighborhood of his or her rental property to disclose this information for the safety of the tenant.. (b)The landlord of a residential dwelling unit who has actual knowledge of any former federal or state ordnance locations in the neighborhood area shall give written notice to a prospective tenant of that knowledge prior to the execution of a rental agreement. In cases of tenancies in existence on January 1, 1990, this written notice shall be given to tenants a soon as practicable thereafter. (c) For purposes of this section: (1) "Former federal or state ordnance location" means an area identified by an agency or instrumentality of the federal or state government as an area once used for military training purposes and which may contain potentially explosive munitions. (2) "Neighborhood area" means within one mile of the residential dwelling.. 1102.15. Disclosure of former ordnance locations within neighborhood area The seller of residential real property subject to this article who has actual knowledge of any former federal or state ordnance locations within the neighborhood area shall give written notice of that knowledge as soon as practicable before transfer of title. For purposes of this sections; "former federal or state ordnance locations" means an area identified by an agency or instrumentality of the federal or state government as an area once used for military training purposes which may contain potentially explosive munitions. "Neighborhood area" means within one mile of the residential real property. The disclosure required by this section does not limit or abridge any obligation for disclosure created by any other law or that may exist in order to avoid fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit in the transfer transaction. N:10-04-'91' 1E:53 ID:IJOFTHH321E FARTNEP.S TEL N_1;310P577F2.534 � City Council of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91350 NORTHROLME 330 Washingt Fourth FI Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Post -it- Fax Note 7671 De1P Ga, i� To - - from 4w •-,/� coloepl. CO. Phone N Pnone k FexM 31 v'I. 4 F..0 November 3, J994 Rtcr'.. . A PARTO ff ;0,/AT I 4:q 7 MEETING ITEM NO. RE: Porta Bella/Extension of Magic Mountain Parkway Honorable City Council Members: The extension of Magic Mountain Parkway is depicted upon the City's General Plan Circulation Element map, The implementation of this extension has been proposed in conjunction with the development of the Bermite site for the Porta Bella development program. Northholme Partners, the Applicant for Porta Bella, has met with the property/business owners along Springbrook Avenue to discuss the impacts of this extension. In addition to the input received from the property/business owners, the Applicant reviewed the methods proposed within the Civic Center blaster Plan to extend Magic Mountain Parkway.. The over -crossing of San Fernando Road appears to be the most feasible method to extend Magic Mountain Parkway. With that in mind, the Applicant's engineer has prepared an alignment of the over -crossing method. The Applicant's study of 10/19/94 is clearly the best overall solution. The study indicates that with the City's permission to the use of a crib wall and permission for the businesses to operate under the bridge few, if any, businesses would be forced to relocate. The precise placement of the support columns during final engineering of this structure would identify the few businesses which may be affected. Attached is the alignment of the Applicant's over -crossing study. This information has been made available to Hasa, Inc., Keysor-Century and Mr. Jan Kindy, the smaller property/business owners' representative, It is my understanding that this final alignment is acceptable to Keysor-Century and Hasa, Inc. We hope that this information is useful in Your evaluation of this important facility. Respectfully, Salvatore (Sam) J. Veltri encl. NORTHHOLK PARTNERS U WoWnplon Bl, d. ourth Floor 11rin del Rev. CA 90292 O.s77 97 RL PAIR -1 D AT q DonnGni_mdey, CMC, City Clerk ITEM NO. MEETING a. City o4 Santa Cka x i.ta , ^ City Hall, VaEemcia Blvd. Vatenaia, CaPL4. Nov. 2, 1994 Dean. Donna. G. i.n.dey; Th -i,6 letter, i -s REGARDING an APPEAL o4 MASTER CASE NUMBER 94- 006 (VehtLng Tentative T�ca.ct Map 51772, Oak, Thee Pe�cm-i-t 94-001 9 Hitt -side Review 94-002 - Located Southea.6-tetty o4 the Intenbectioa o4 La Rochette, Dr. £ Santa. CZaAUa, Rd., NorthwebteAty o4 Catato Dn.. 9 Adjacent to the Propo-sed PamptLco Pante, Project AppQ.ica.nt i -s SAUGUS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (A.K.A.: K £ R DEVELOPMENT and SUNNYGLEN CORPORATION £ NUMEROUS OTHERS - they change named tike you. would change clothed) When I &eceLved the notice o4 the above mentioned appeal, I waw deepty direappointed, ad the mee.tLmg iJ being held on ELECTION NIGHT, Nov. 8, E 1 wZU be wonhi.ng the Voting Pond " In.epector £ wit not be able to attend the meeting. I de4in.itely want my "VOICE" to be hecv d! ! ! ! ! At the laAt PubQZc. Hea. i,n.g concerning thio parkLcuE.a"s, piece o4 land (when I believe, they were K E R Co"t%U.atlom), the cou.nc.it voted down thew Appeal, with dtatement.b 4rom Cazt Boye,-L £ Jan Heidt, qu,"tionin.g whetho,�L, thLA project wi-U even, go away. It. kee.pd coming back under, a di44e,cent Co"tn,uction Co. pnopoding, agai-n., another. pntoject 4o& th," land. Now they an,e back, under, the name the, SAUGUS DEVELOPMENT CO. (How deceiving don a company that .i.-6 bailed in Newport Beach. ) My h"band £ I have been to a t the heaa.Lngd on th 4 prope, t.y, 4ight.Ln.g it all the way, going back, to when the County waw in cont col. (Which i4 one o4 the 2eaeond we 4ought do hand 4or Citykood, do we would have contjLot o4 oun own dunnou.nding3). A4teva the heaA-img be6o�ce the Planning Commi..adion, (pneeed.Lng th,i 5 appeal) , 1 beUeve the ONLY n.eadon 4o,,L th.Le paA;Ucutz-n p&oject ice6 do they can have, a CLOSE, CONVENIENT E INEXPENSIVE place. to DUMP THE DIRT 4rom anoth" pn.oject they ane doing 1/4 mile away. They certa.Lnty can't make enough money o44 o4 8 homed to make the project "F-Ln,an,c.i,a ty Fea-sZbte". They wilt be DISRUPTING, UNSTABLE LAND, (pnevtou,6ty stated), BUILDING ON MORE THEN A 10% GRADE £ ca.0 sZng a very UNSAFE £ UNHEALTHFUL s tuatLon 4o.L the STUDENTS o4 FOSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (d.mmed-i.ate2y adjoLnLng thi-e project) PLEASE "DENY" THEIR APPEAL £ do whatever iA NECESSARY to in-6uAe that thL-.s company w-ite not be /SACK with yet another, p&oject, under. another name. We 4oun.d out that, i,6 .it had been Mated on the very 4.i -".t map '(unde-t County juA-"dZction, when they w"e gn.an.te.d the ong-i.nae 472 homed, with 13 o4 tho-6e granted, a,6 we unde,x-stood to "FINALIZE" .the project), that the. &ema.ix g .land wou.2d have been decEaned OPEN LAND (unbuitdab2e)...... NONE OF THIS WOULD BE HAPPENING!!! I am Aoaty thZz 4-6 .6uch a.tong tetter, but this ham been „THE PROJECT (£ CONSTRUCTION CO. ) 4n.om HELL", £ I would t-Lke to thunk we can be "oven. £ done" with them, "once E 4oAo:,U" S-i.nce2ety You�pus, E-iteen M. KeatLng 27464 Seco Canyon Rd. !!! 1. J Santa C2aAita, Ca. 91350 805-296-7424 HILL, FARRER & BURRILL nr.nns wi.+u ooi.e rn o[ersm ee• con LDS ANGELES COUNTY wnw nous A.J.HILL 11881-19531 TELEPHONE 1213) 620-0460 ATTORNEYS AT LAW WM, M� FARRER (1894-19]1) ORANGE COUNTY THIRTY-FIFTH FLOOR UNION BANK SOUARE STANLEY S_ BURRILL 11902 1 9 511 TELEPHONE 11141 641-6605 445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET TELECOPIER LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90011-1666 1213) 624-4840 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER REt, „ _ (21.31 621-0815 w '�,��. A October 27,PART99r 6!1:;. .:�,DRDAT #—� -f C/ MEETING ITEM N0. �r Carl K. Newton, Esq. Burke, Williams & Sorensen 611 W. Sixth Street Suite 2500 Los Angeles, California 90017-3126 Re: Proposed Interface of Magic PrinAssa With Industrial Park --Santa Clarita Dear Mr. Newton: This letter is being sent to you in your capacity as City Attorney for the City of Santa Clarita. This firm and the undersigned represent Hasa, Inc. This letter is written with regard to the impact that the 'Magic Princessa bridge, which is currently being proposed by the developer pertaining the Porta Bella project, will have on Hasa's property and business. Last week, Hasa received from the developer or the developer's engineers a map which purports to set forth the currently proposed location of the Magic Princessa bridge. A copy of that map is attached hereto for your reference. As you should know, at least one of the prior maps distributed by the developer had indicated that the bridge would intersect with Hasa's main production building. Hasa therefore stated its objection to that alignment at the October 11, 1994 City Council Meeting, and the alignment set forth in the map attached hereto is -apparently the developer's attempt to alleviate Hasa's concerns. While we are relieved that the bridge, as proposed in the attached map, 'does not intersect with Hasa's building, it will nevertheless undoubtedly impact Hasa in that it will be constructed directly adjacent to that structure and would bisect Hasa's property. Following the construction of the 'bridge, Hasa would therefore either be left with two parcels (one of which would be inaccessible), or Hasa would be permitted to travel Carl.. K. Newton, Esq. October 27, 1994 Page 2 beneath the elevated roadway from North to South. The limited information we have and that has, to our knowledge; been considered by the developer and Planning Commission does not address these latter issues nor the issue of whether a business can operate so close to, or beneath, an elevated roadway. At a recent meeting between the developer, the city Planning Commission, and the Springbrook and Drayton Street property owners, the developer's representative, Sam Veltri, statedhis understanding or belief that businesses might be able to operate under such a roadway. As far as we know, that issue has not been specifically considered by the developer or the city. In connection with the continuing hearings held by the City Council on the Magic Princessa Roadway issues, including the upcoming meeting on, November 8, 1994; and in order to evaluate the effect of the proposed roadway on Hasa's property and business, we would request the following information, some of which was requested in our July 21, 1994 letter to you but which we never received: 1. Any proposed or existing rules, regulations, or limitations thataddress the issue of whether Hasa, or any other business, would be able to conduct its business immediately adjacent to and/or beneath the proposed elevated roadway. 2. Information, including engineering drawings or schematics, which reflect the elevation and clearance of, the proposed bridge as it crosses over Hasa's property. 3. Any proposed or existing rules, regulations, or limitations that address the issue of whether Hasa would be able to travel beneath the proposed elevated roadway. Obviously, obtaining and analyzing this information is as much in the City's interests as it, is in Hasa's, in that the City should want to know what it is getting itself into with this project. We would prefer to obtain these documents and information informally; but will file a Public Records request if necessary. Carl K. Newton, Esq. October 27, 1994 Page 3 Please advise, as soon as possible, whether the documents will be produced without such a formal request. We look forward to your timely response. Very ILL, FARRER & BURRILL KHB/PP Enclosure CC: Jonathan M. Brandler, Esq. Paul M. Porter, Esq. Donald Wilson City Council of the City of Santa Clarita F:%CLIENMHM21G5\013\NEWTON. LTR 10/27/94 CITY OF SANTA CI ARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Pederson and Councilmembers FROM: George A. Caravalho, City Niazi� DATE: October 27, 1994 SUBJECT: Porta Bella Information Needed for November 8, 1994 Council Meeting and Transmittal of Proposed Specific Plan Modifications per the Planning Commission's Recommendation. Please bring the previously distributed Porta Bella Specific Plan, Porta Bella EIR and Addendum and copies of Porta Bella -related City Attorney opinions to the November 8, 1994 Council meeting. Attached is a letter dated March 8, 1994 to Planning Commission Chairman Doughman describing the proposed modifications to the Porta Bella Specific Plan which reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation. This letter, when attached to the Specific Plan, EIR and Addendum, reflects the plan before the Council. Current\pb mem11.894 March 8, 1994 Northholme Partners 330 Washington Blvd, Fourth Floor Marina del Rey, California 90292 Mr. David Doughman, Chairman City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, California 91355 Subject: Porta Bella Honorable Chairman and Commissioners; During the past few public hearings the Planninng Commission has heard tesimony regarding the implementation of the Porta Bella Specific Plan and it's implications for the community. The following comments are intended to respond to several key issues raised at the hearings and to demonstrate that the Porta Bella proposal complies with the spirit and intent of the applicable ordinances and policies. This information is intended to expand upon the voluminous reports and testimony presented to the Planning Commission including the extensive analysis and favorable conclusions in the En Densitv: The project densities are below the General Plan minimum and are appropiately distributed in compliance with the Vallev Center Overlav and the Hillside Ordinance. As currently designed (including the revisions described at the end of this letter) and presented to the Planning Commisssion, the densities for Porta Bella are below the minimum densities which the General Plan permits for this property.The property is designated by the General Plan as RS 3.3-6.6 with a midpoint density factor of 5. The project proposes a density of 2.9 for the entire property. The property has a Valley Center Overlay designation upon approximately 246 acres (25%) of the property. Within this Vallev Center area, 1271 dwelling units (44%) are located at a density of 5.2. The remaining portion of the property consists of 751 acres (75%) upon which 1640 dwelling units are located. The density for this balance of property is 2.2. Consequently, the proposal faithfully serves the higher density dictates of the Valley Center Overlay in the northwest portion of the property and delivers lower density development in the southerly portion of the property. Magic-Princessa Ali"nment• The proposed alignment provides cross-town circulation, avoids neighborhood traffic disruptions utilizes landform to conceal the roadwav and optimizes views. This roadway is proposed as a six lane arterial for regional traffic circulation. The alignment provides cross-town circulation, neighborhood access within Porta Bella and minimizes through -traffic within Circle I and Valencia. The alignment accommodates the proposed CTAC recommendation and Main Street, a collector road designated in the General Plan. In contrast to 4 lanes depicted in the General Plan Circulation Element, attached as exhibit l; the Magic-Princessa alignment provides 10 lanes of roadway in this vicinity. The proposed alignment complies with highway design standards, provides the best opportunity to utilize the topography to conceal the road and maximizes views wherever feasible. Circle J Compatibility A sivnificant planning and desien buffer creates a compatible relationship to the few residents affected by the project. The location of the proposed road alignment is an appropriate delineation of the boundary between Circle J and Porta Bella and maintains the integrety of two seperately planned communities without seriously disrupting either. The location of the alignment is a minimum of 150 feet away from the rear property line of the nearest of the 8 residences in the Circle J Estate neighborhood affected by the planned road. The nearest dwelling unit is approximately 300 feet away. In addition to the existing and planned vertical seperation between the alignment and rear yards, the project offers, extensive landscaping and a sound wall within the setback, to buffer the 8 residences that border the property boundary. A monumented or gate -guarded secondary entry has also been offered to the residents to provide acess to this new cross-town road. Finally and equally important, immediately adjacent the opposite side of this right-of-way is the proposed new location of Porta Bella's largest lots at 10,000 square feet. The nearest residences in the Claiborne neighborhood to the alignment is over 500 feet away. The alignment will be screened by a berm and landscaping along its length except for the bridge which is proposed to preserve Oakdale Canyon. This can be accomplished by utilizing the existing landform. An addendum to the EIR will address all related environmental impacts of the alignment and will demonstrate that these impacts are properly mitigated.. EIR Alternative 4 and the Hillside Ordinance: The EIR Alternative 4 represents an inferior project in comparision to Porta Bella because Alternative 4 distributes densities to the southern portion of the site in conflict with the Vallev Center Overlav and intensifies densities in vehicular dependant, disiointed and isolated neighborhoods. The Porta Bella Specific Plan meets the objectives of the Hillside Ordinance in several ways. First, the Specific Plan clusters development on slopes of less than 25%. Second, it alters the ridgeline landform only as a consequence of remendial grading for previous site disturbance, for the installation of community facilities or due to geotechnical considerations. Third, it locates on the significant ridgeline community facilities which the Hillside Ordinance specifically identifies and permits. In so doing, Porta Bella preserves the significant ridgeline, maximizes contiguous open space, provides community facilities available for public use and maintains the landform. Alternative 4 would promote poorly distributed higher density development and a "leapfrog" neighborhood pattern by disregarding the unique characteristics of this property. Traversing the predominant developable areas are several swales with side slopes that exceed 25%. This creates narrow bands of alternating flat and hill terrain. If development were strictly confined to areas with less than 25% slope, narrow, segregated strands or isles of development would emerge. This disjointed development pattern would destroy the pedestrian quality of the proposed development and promote dependence upon vehicular useage. This would result in the installation of inefficient and prohibitively expensive infrastucture to serve and connect the segregated neighborhoods. A rigid 25% slope restriction would also promote poorly distributed, higher density development in conflict with the Valley Center Overlay. As currently designed Porta Bella clusters development so that development sometimes extends to contiguous areas that exceed 25%. Even though the imposition of a rigid slope restriction would remove density from these contiguous areas, the Hillside Ordinance and applicable General Plan elements would permit the transfer of the density to the remaining developable area. This transfer would intensify densities in those areas to as much as 10 dwelling units to the acre if the transfer took place in the southern portion of the property, If the transfer took place in the northern portion of the property, the limited amount of developable area under the slope requirement would vield excessivly high densities. In effect, Alternative 4 may decrease overall project density but it achieves this objective only by concentrating higher densities in many areas of the project. Under the most logical density transfer alternative, this alternative would distribute higher densities to the southern portion of the project in close proximity to Circle J (in contrast to Porta Bella). This effect directly conflicts with the Valley Center Overlay and with major statewide and local efforts to encourage utilization of commuter rail. Finally it should be pointed out that this particular property is characterised by significant amounts of highly disturbed terrain with marginal environmental appeal. Therefore, the application of a rigid 25% slope restriction to the unusual landforms of the property would merely serve to preserve a large amount of disturbed terrain at the expense of such objectives as the Valley Center Overlay, proper density distribution, accepted standards of good planning and design and pedestrian orientation. Rear Entry Access: This is a recognized approach to creating qualitv neighborhood character. The access to the paired single family dwellings in phases 4 and 5 (SF -P) will be designed to resemble semi-public driveways similar to those of multi -family projects rather than public alleys. The features of the Paired Single Family driveways will be similar to the character in lower density condominium developments. This is provided by the site development standards which include a 26 foot width between garages and the use of automatic garage door openers. Residents are provided side yard access to the front curbside to acommodate trash pick up and deliveries. A homeowners association will be obligated to provide maintenance and controlled access at the public street will limit entry to residents and their guests. Traditionally designed rear access has proven effective in enhancing residential street frontage by providing additional curbside parking, uninterrupted landscape parkways, safe walkways and the opportunity for architecturally interesting house facades that may include porches. Therefore, such diverse jurisdictions as Beverly Hills and Fontana have approved their use. In the Irvine community of Woodbridge, which possesses similar demographics as Santa Clarita, public alleys have been a positive contribution to community character. The semi-public driveways of the Paired Single Family will be better. Plan Modifications: A reduction in the total dwelling units is proposed to acommodate the concerns raised during public testimony. The inclusion of the potential Magic-Princessa alignment, a more direct access to the proposed civic center, objections to the "Z" Lot product and a desire for greater density in proximity to the commuter rail station have resulted in modifications in the town center residential areas. Incorporation of these concerns resulted in the elimination of the "Z" Lots a reduction of 50 dwelling units in the Single Family 4000 and 78 dwelling units in the Multi -Family 40; an increase of 107 dwelling units in the Multi -Family 12 and an increase of 56 dwelling units in the Multi -Family 22 category and the introduction of 204 dwelling units in the Multi -Family 18 category. The total dwelling units in the town center area has not changed and no revisions have ocurred to phase 2. In phase 3, a total of 129 dwelling units have been eliminated due to concerns of excessive grading. This entails the 122 dwelling units of the Multi -Family 22 product and 7 dwelling units in the Single Family 6000 category, In phase 4 and 5, 297 dwelling units have been eliminated as a response to the concerns pertaining to density distribution and proximity to Circle J. This modification entails the conversion of the Single Family 5000 lots to 10,000 square foot lots which resulted in the elimination of 158 dwelling units. The Multi- Family 18 has been reduced to 10 which also resulted in a loss of 133 dwelling units. In addition, 6 lots have been eliminated from the Single Family 10,000 adjacent to Circle J Estates. The inially proposed 3238 dwelling units are proposed to be reduced by 327 dwelling units (approximately 10%) to 2911. Total dwelling units in phases 1 and 2 would remain the same while phases 3,4 and 5 would be reduced. The revised residential land use would be composed of 1244 single family (434) and 1667 multi -family (+107) dwelling units.The attached exhibits 2a -f depict these revisions. The March 15,1994 public hearing will provide an opportunity to review the project, as revised, on an incremental basis. This response should help resolve the remaining outstanding issues raised during public testimony and further clarify the Environmental Impact Report's overall favorable representation of this project. Subject to the Planning Commission's incremental review of the project at the public hearing and in view of the foregoing comments, the Applicant urges the Planning Commission to grant conceptual approval, direct staff to prepare conditions of approval and the resolution for final approval. The Applicant is prepared to meet with Staff to facilitate this effort. Respectfully, �W✓n X�VT l Salvatore 1. Veltri Project Manager encl. ON POFD . go�pues GPNy STATE ROUTE 125 SOLEDAD CANYON 44% Mp�NTq/N m. O i O C y rp m O n a i o z D 0 Pg5 ['4(YFY P . y0� Gp� O;p ny 9,9 O L LYONS (`SCF `0 4LF F� Dockwel�fq 44;- '90 410 4'9O40 =ALGROVE NYd Py 51EPPpH1G J��1n Pp �P 5SP CITY GENERAL PLAN DECEMBER 1993 EXHIBIT 1 OP R � 'f— ir-4 J J M0 Z OP TC •��R� 7.13K 1704. TCN-`- mr— a�r� SF 4,000 MF -l2 ,o)ei 119 d = �MF-22 SF 4,000 D9 9.: a � ❑eu 11.W¢ \F -Z SF 4,000 ,).,sr I,W.c l SPECIFIC PLEA OS REVISED PLAN Exhibit 2a , TnT.^.7 CENTER. (,nmPARISntT PORTA BELLA LAND USE COMPARISON TABLE 3/4/94 Subtotal Specific Plan Revised Plan 211 Laud Use Area Target # Area Target # Difference Designation (Acres) of Units (Acres) of Units in Units— 21.50 222 107 MF -18 0.00 Single-Family Residential 13.70 204 204 MF -22 SF 4,000 46.75 261 35.40 211 -239 SF Z Lot 23.75 239 0.00 0 -50 Subtotal 70.50 500 35.40 211 -289 Multi -Family Residential MF -12 12.00 115 21.50 222 107 MF -18 0.00 0 13.70 204 204 MF -22 9.20 203 14.30 259 56 MF -40 4.20 170 3.30 92 -78 Subtotal 25.40 488 52.80 777 289 Total of Project Area 95.90 988, 88.20 988 0 Exhibit 2b TOWN CENTER C(-J_!n .^.ISnN I I UI I N I T PORTA BELLA LAND USE COMPARISON TABLE Specific Plan Land Use Area Target # Designation (Acres) of Units Open Space Perlrc R. Ro�raa Hnn Subtotal Schools Master Streets Subtotal Single -Family Residential SF 10,000 SF 8,000 SF 6,000 SF 5,000 SF 4,000 SF Z Lot SF Paired Subtotal Multi -Family Residential MF -10 MF -12 MF -18 MF -22 MF -40 Town Center Subtotal Commercial Town Center Comm. Soledad Comm. Nieghborhood Comm. Office Park Business Park Institutional Subtotal Total of Project Area 3/4/94 Revised Plan Area Target # Difference (Acres) of Units in Units 392.25 na 406.95 na 41.75 na 41.75 na 434.00 448.70 10.00 na 10.00 na 58.00 na 56.00 na 68.00 66.00 26.25 38 63.15 144 106 41.75 127 41.75 127 0 87.50 333 87.50 326 7 37.25 214 0.00 0 -214 46.75 291 35.40 211 -80 23.75 239 0.00 0 -239 72.00 436 72.00 436 0 335.25 1,678 299.80 1,244 434 0.00 0 17.50 175 175 12.00 115 21.50 222 107 17.50 235 13.70 204 -31 14.75 325 14.30 259 -66 19.50 610 18.50 532 -78 na 275 na 275 0 63.75 1,560 8550 1,667 107 24.75 na 24.75 12.50 na 12.50 8.50 na 8.50 18.00 na 19.00 27.25 na 27.25 4.00 na 4.00 95.00 na 96.00 996.00 3,238 996.00 na na na na na na na 2,911 -327 C0."1P2`RiSm4-Exhibit 2d LAND USE SUM: IARY TABLE Land Use Map Key Density Area Target# % of Total % of Total Designation Range (Acres) of Uuits Dwellings Area Open Space OS na 406.95 na na 40.9% Parks & Recreation P,R na 41.75 na na 4.2% Subtotal 448.70 45.1% Schools S na 10.00 na na 1.0% Master Streets na na 56.00 na na 5.6% Subtotal 66.00 6.6% Single -Family Residential SF 10,000 SF 10,000 2-4 du/ac 63.15 144 4.9% 6.317o SF 8,000 SF 8,000 3-5 du/ac 41.75 127 4.4% 4.2% SF 6,000 SF 6,000 4-6 du/ac 87.50 326 11.2% 8.8% SF 4,000 SF 4,000 6-8 du/ac 35.40 211 7.2% 3.6% SF Paired SF P 6-8 du/ac 72.00 436 15.0% 7.2% Subtotal 299.80 1,244 42.7% 30.1% Multi -Family Residential MF -10 MF -10 8-12 du/ac 17.50 175 6.07a 1.8% MF -12 MF -12 10-14 du/ac 2130 222 7.67c 2.2% MF -18 MF -18 16-20 du/ac 13.70 204 7.0% 1.4% MF -22 MF -22 20-22 du/ac 14.30 259 8.9% 1.49a MF -40 MF -40 38112 du/ac 18.50 532 18.3% 1.9% Town Center TC 6-8 du/ac na 275 9.4% na Subtotal 85.50 1,667 57.390 8.6% Commercial Town Center Comm. TC na 24.75 na na 2.5% Soledad Comm. SC na 12.50 na na 1.3% Nieghborhood Comm. NC na 8.50 na na 0.9% Office Park OP na 19.00 na na 1.9% Business Park BP na 27.25 na na 2.7% Institutional I na 4.00 na na 0.4% Subtotal na 96.00 na na 9.6% Total of Project Area 996.00 2,911 100.0% 100.00/0 - a Exhibit 2f Land use tabulations are approximate and subject to further verification REVISED PLAN r ^ r gaJ � ��.,.��9 _"r 1' �"�# Yh ��.,a� 'f� a.rc its t � �+,1! i •s•• _ IS ° p1 ' y v gpi3H'h�� t„ .�T•Sa^+Yn"� [ L �S�,z �.� r � f-��,.,�M r`I YV+�L 1 � � � ^u^^�rti aC c"."ix' rt i swF R � .�':.: ' yr •: —:.+Ta. '"a Y... . Y' `'i�CR(*.4 ema �•cxv va,� n � �� +'32Y n .. +, T , -qa h` 4'•h r?tt,�i ;r•s i" 5� r'yS .-C {A �- �f �j �� • '. ��tArn �4 e I Y �'� 5.r,�r r� }tS r �,�'4%� u: , Y -. Al 7 I ✓s-. �'✓r'�� i ,'[Y'�14L'}��{��1 'i. � � i _� � ��1.a��i'C�'�gf ' Y1i . , p � - „Gw � W n��( i +tl—+� v t•."s='yAc idrS,.ii'''t''�1 a 5 t :e VY't£tl r �E'Y�Y p,�tmnctne^^ .. h c sx r .,� ``3 {F^,f' rta ;•jck�: r� ^�+'�'.%.� .%�• Jn "'YtC ^;�t't t�"«A� «• r f�r��rTT �r�t� ,jgry r t S`�'L N �3,tii\' -,-D rr�•i:.�`- w � _y��iis yT i�° �a�� ! t t ,, .. > —.sr.. I -�� n•.;�as ^t'nzR y` � ,i o a`Y'• .>„, -ts`� v''$'Ptl CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Pederson and Membersof the City Council FROM: George A. Caravalho"Cit M aaii geY""9 DATE: November 7, 1994 SUBJECT: Transmittal of Responses to Carl Kanowski Letter re: Porta Bella A response to questions about the Porta Bella project raised by Carl Kanowski in his letter of August 4, 1994 is attached. Current\pbkanr s1hs 0 RESPONSES FOR COUNCIL TO CARL KANOWSKI LETTER DATED AUGUST 4, 1994 TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEANUP 1. There are currently identified 64 additional toxic sites. Cal -EPA's investigation of these sites has not even begun, much less than actual cleanup. Why are we considering development when we don't have any information about what is located in these sites or what it will take to clean them? The 64 additional sites represent a very broad identification of any location on the Bermite property where any solid waste or hazardous material was, or may have been handled. The re -identification of these locations assists Cal -EPA and Whittaker in their collaborative efforts to determine whether additional investigations of the Bermite property are even necessary, and to what extent. The 64 sites have been disclosed to governmental agencies in the past. Some of the 64 sites have been the subject of many investigations, including extensive soil and soil vapor sampling, as well as the subject of reports by Whittaker, by Cal -EPA, and by U.S. EPA as early as 1985. Several of the 64 sites were investigated and eliminated by Cal -EPA during the development of the Metrolink station. The 64 "additional" sites should not be confused with the 14 permit sites. The latter were active facilities which required permits in 1980 for their continued operation as active facilities for the storage and handling of hazardous materials. In contrast, the 64 sites are sites where historically there is some evidence that solid waste or hazardous material may have been handled. These sites were identified from time to time through timely searches and evaluations of numerous records and re-identified after additional searches and evaluations. 2. If the State of California doesn't know how long it will take to clean up the Bermite site, aren't we spinning our wheels in pursuing this approval process? Why don't we wait until the clean up is completed? Consideration of development on this site is not premature although cleanup efforts are ongoing. As is evidenced by the Metrolink Station, phased development on this site can be effective. Since timelines for cleanup are unknown the timelines for site development are unknown.. According to Ms. Carla Slepak, a representative of Cal -EPA who testified before the Council, Whittaker and Cal -EPA are working on the consent agreement between them which would provide for the comprehensive investigation of the entire site at one time. Whittaker has submitted a work plan to Cal -EPA on May 3, 1994. This work plan sets forth a proposed plan for the thorough investigation of each of those 64 additional work sites needing further action. The consent agreement will identify in detail the scope of the investigation and the time frame for the completion of the investigation. As noted previously by staff and Cal -EPA, the conditions of approval currently approved by the Planning Commission are consistent with Cal -EPA's jurisdiction regarding hazardous waste investigation and cleanup. What happens to the clean up process and fulfillment of Whittaker's promise of indemnification if Whittaker files bankruptcy, similar to what its original partner, Anden, has done? Look what happened to the asbestos litigation when a huge company, Johns -Manville, declared bankruptcy. What protection does the City have if Whittaker or the present developer, Northholme Partners, does the same thing? State law requires Whittaker to demonstrate its financial ability tot pay for the investigation and any project remediation. See confidential City Attorney letter on the subject. 4. Isn't it true that the Bermite site must be cleaned up regardless of whether the Porta Bella project is approved or not? If so, isn't there more incentive to speed the cleanup process if approval of Porta Bella is conditioned upon the cleanup of the entire site, rather than phase by phase? Yes, the Whittaker Corporation is responsible for cleaning the site. Due to the extensive cost associated with cleanup, phasing will allow Whittaker to fund cleanup efforts using funds from sales in earlier phases.. 5. Has City staff received and reviewed Whittaker's RCRA Facility Investigation Work Plan that has been filed with Cal -EPA? If not, why not? If so, has this report been shared with City Council members and the public? In November of 1993, Whittaker voluntarily provided Cal -EPA with a detailed report.. City staff has received a copy of Whittaker's RCRA Facility Investigation Work Plan draft which identifies the 64 sites that has been filed with Cal -EPA.. The City does not have a review authority since this falls under the jurisdiction and expertise of Cal -EPA since they are the responsible agency for hazardous materials investigation remediation. The City has considered Cal -EPA's comments and has developed conditions with Cal -EPA which satisfy their concerns with this development proposal. These conditions are predicated on prior Cal - EPA clearance prior to the start of phasing. 6. The developer has promised construction of numerous roads to obtain approval of the Specific Plan. What happens to these commitments if the entire project cannot be completed or is substantially delayed because of toxic cleanup issues? If toxic cleanup issues exist which cause the project to be incomplete or substantially delayed, then construction of roadways through the project site would be delayed as well. Constraints of development due to non -Cal -EPA approval apply to the City as well as to the developer, even if the roadway in question should be a General Plan roadway. 7. Doesn't a phase -by -phase approval process expose the City to tremendous liability? What happens if Phase I is allowed to go forward, but problems are then found in Phase II? Do we want a completed Phase next to atoxic site? A phase -by -phase approval process does not expose the City to tremendous liability if conditions are added and followed beginning with Cal -EPA's clearance of each phase. See confidential City Attorney letter on this subject. 8. Has the City encouraged the input of former Bermite employees to identify potential toxic sites? No. 9. What about a joint hearing by Cal -EPA and the City Council on the toxic issue? The City Planning Commission and City Council have both received testimony from Cal -EPA on the toxics issue during the hearing process. Disclosure information is also included in the EIR and Addendum which contain their comments. 10. Have core samples been taken throughout the site? If not, why not? During the period commencing in 1987, Whittaker conducted extensive testing and investigation of the Bermite Property under the supervision of Cal -EPA. These tests included soil borings, the installation of ten monitoring wells, ground water samples and soil vapor samples at may locations throughout the property. Hundreds of soil cores and thousands of soil vapor and water samples have been collected and tested to date. 11. Evidence has been presented to the City Council of off-site migration of toxic wastes into the Circle J area. What is being done to address this problem? If there is off-site migration in Circle J, isn't it safe to assume that these is similar migration in other areas? Have these been investigated? Off-site migration of toxic wastes is included in the Whittaker Work Plan for investigation and remediation of the Bermite site, This will be addressed as part of the consent agreement now under negotiation by Whittaker and Cal -EPA. The off-site investigation concerns all drainages from the site, including those on Circle J. 12. Why hasn't the City required completion bonds from the developer and Whittaker, as well as insurance for the City if problems develop because of the toxic issue? Also, why was such a weak indemnity agreement between the City and Whittaker allowed? The City indemnity agreement was prepared by the city attorney to his satisfaction. See confidential City Attorney letter addressing the subjects of insurance, indemnity and exactions. 13. What information do we have on the site pre -Whittaker? The site was in use for sixty (60) years before Whittaker, Shouldn't we investigate before approval is considered? Information on the site has been presented to Cal -EPA dating as far back as 1907. This information is what Cal -EPA is considering in development of the work plan. This is also the information considered in preparation of the EIR. See the discussion in the DIR beginning on page 6-205. 14. The developer told the Planning Commission that the site was cleaned up and that he could produce evidence to that effect. However, he never was able to do this because the site is not cleaned up. Can we trust what the developer tell us in the future? Comment noted. EAST/WEST CORRIDOR 1. Why isn't Magic/Princessa on Porta Bella property in its entirety? This question becomes especially relevant as it has been established that Magic/Princessa can be put on Porta Bella property, The alignment was shown where it is to protect the pedestrian integrity of the Porta Bella project. There are also additional grading impacts if the road passes directly through Porta Bella. 2. Why does the developer's proposed Magic/Princessa have substandard (R =1200') radii instead of the standard 1500' radius? The developer has been conditioned to provide the standard geometrics for roadways which vary depending upon the roadway classification. 3. Magic Mountain Pkwy is to "fly over' San Fernando Road and the railroad tracks. How will traffic turn from San Fernando Road onto Magic Mountain Pkwy? Specifically, how will northbound traffic on San Fernando turn on to Magic Mountain Pkwy westbound since no further right-of-ways are available due to the railroad on the east and the Saugus Cafe and other businesses on the west? Certainly the developer is not suggesting that San Fernando traffic go north and then west on Cinema Drive and then south on Valencia Blvd then west on to Magic Mountain Pkwy, is he? Access ramps will be designed either in the northwest or southwest quadrant of the San Fernando/Magic Mountain intersection to provide full access between the roadways. 4, What is the status of the developer's negotiations for off-site right-of-way for Magic/Princessa? These negotiations will be finalized once a final alignment has been approved by the City. 5. Shouldn't a geotechnical study of the developer's proposed alignment be done, especially in light of the earthquake and the site's proximity to a fault line? Geotechnical and soils studies will be done at the roadway design phase for this as is done for any other roadway. Bridges necessary for the roadway are also designed during the roadway design phase. 4 6. Why are we considering a proposal that impacts present citizens, when there are alternatives that would go onto Porta Bella property before any homes are built there? In that way, future home buyers in Porta Bella will know the road alignments before they buy. It is unclear as to which roadway and to which alternatives Mr. Kanowski is referring. Roadway alignments must be finalized prior to recording of the phases and roadways constructed prior to occupancy of each phase. Future home buyers in Porta Bella will know road alignments within their phase before they buy. 7. Why are we ignoring the CTAC proposed East/West Corridor? The CTAC proposed East/West Corridor is not being ignored. All the proposed roadways in CTAC's recommendation are included in the assumptions made for the build out of the Porta Bella project. Alternatives suggested in Porta Bella do not pose any conflict with CTAC's proposal, rather it complements their proposal. 8. If the CTAC proposal is used, couldn't Magic/Princessa be downgraded from a major highway and then more easily integrated into the Porta Bella development? CTAC's proposal only put a minimum of six lanes. The decision to make Magic/Princessa six lanes rests with the Porta Bella traffic study that requires Magic/Princessa to"be a minimum of six lanes. 9. Are Circle Js proposed alternatives being given serious consideration? They are being reviewed by the developer as these various alternatives impact the land use pattern of the project. Some of the grading impacts are more severe that those under the existing Porta Bella proposal. 10. What is the City's priority here is a road being built to satisfy a development or vice versa? The proposed arterials are consistent with the purpose of the major arterials shown on the City's General Plan roadways (Circulation ElementExhibit C-3). These differences were displayed in graphics and on a chart shown to the Planning Commission and City Council last year during discussions on the Center City Circulation Network. The roadways are being proposed to satisfy the General Plan. 11. The developer's proposed Magic/Princessa alignment is very close to and parallels both San Fernando Road and Main Street. Isn't this too redundant? No. The main purpose of Main Street is to fulfill the circulation, needs within the development. The traffic study substantiates the need for both roadways in this area to provide adequate circulation. 12. The proposed alignment leaves Porta Bella property after joining with Via Princessa, which is to then continue onto Hwy. 14, going through Rainbow Glen as a six -lane highway, Can the Rainbow Glen portion of Via Princessa become a six -lane highway without taking out existing homes? This is not correct. Via Princessa will not be going through Rainbow Glen as a six -lane highway although it will cross Rainbow Glen. Rainbow Glen will remain as is. Via Princessa will continue to State Route 14 as a major arterial. 13. The EIR suggests that the noise from the Magic/Princessa bridge will be at an acceptable CNEL (Community Noise Equivalency Level). To determine the CNEL, the existing ambient noise level of a community is measured to establish an average base level. The CNEL is the average decibel level anticipated to be experienced over and above the ambient base level. This is a 24-hour average where the dead of night is averaged with peak of the day. The question is what is the variance from average and what is the peak decibel level anticipated which will be greater than the CNEL. Shouldn't the City Council listen to both peak anticipated decibel levels as well as average CNEL? These measures have been prepared by the EIR consultant according to the industry standards. This noise study was done the same way it is done for all developments. As described in the EIR. and Addendum, noise levels are calculated based on the type of terrain and distance from the proposed roadway. There is no estimate of what the peak anticipated decibel levels are. 14: The completion and widening of Magic/Princessa is tied to the different phases of the Porta Bella development. What happens to this if Porta Bella is either significantly delayed or not completed at all? The developer has been conditioned to construct certain segments of the roadway which have been designed to support the development of that phase. If Porta Bella is not completed, then there will not be a need for additional infrastructure to support that traffic. 15. What is the status of the developer and/or the City obtaining the off-site property to build the developer's proposed alignment? What are the costs and who will pay for them? The developer must obtain the off-site property. The cost of improvements will be done in a more detailed study later, once a preliminary alignment has been approved. Who will pay and how much will be established later through a development agreement. 16. The alignment of the developer's proposed Magic/Princessa cuts Circle J's permanently dedicated open space in half. Is this a proper use of open space and are our priorities correct if we allow this to proceed? The developer could relocate Magic/Princessa outside of Circle J's open space, however, this would place the road at a higher elevation increasing visibility and would increase the amount of grading necessary to build the roadway. TRAFFIC 0 11 The traffic study done for the EIR based its conclusions on the assumptions that Santa Clarita Parkway, Magic/Princessa, and Via Princessa would be built and would be built to their full capacity. The developer has already indicated that the timetable for the beginning and completion of each phase will be governed by the economy. Also, this site has severe toxic problems. Finally, some or all of these will be difficult or almost impossible to build. Considering these factors, shouldn't we order a new traffic study that takes these factors into consideration and presents a traffic picture of what would happen if some or all of these roads are either not completed or substantially delayed? As with any other traffic study, certain assumptions are made based on our best estimates about what off-site roadways will be in place at certain times in the development of the project. The Porta Bella developer has been conditioned to provide studies in the future if the assumed roadways are not in place as assumed in the traffic study. 2. We don't know what the impact on traffic will be if some or all or the major roads in Porta Bella aren't completed. Why don't we? Shouldn't we? As with any other traffic study, certain assumptions are made based on our best estimates about what off-site roadways will be in place at certain times in the development of the project. The Porta Bella developer has been conditioned to provide studies in the future if the assumed roadways are not in place as assumed in the traffic study. The developer has been conditioned to construct certain segments of the roadway which have been designed to support the development of that phase. If Porta Bella is not completed, then there will not be a need for additional infrastructure to support that traffic. 3. Is Santa Clarita Parkway feasible from an engineering standpoint? If not, then what is there to replace it? Yes, the developer has already provided engineering plans for this roadway from Bouquet Canyon Road to Sierra Highway. These plans are sufficient to show that development of Santa Clarita Parkway will be feasible. 4. Santa Clarita Parkway is not to be completed until the development enters its last phase. The prior phases are the ones with the most density and most profit margin for the developer. If the developer does not build the last phase, then he is under no obligation to complete Santa Clarita Parkway. This being the case, where is the incentive for the developer to build Santa Clarita Parkway? The developer has been conditioned to construct certain segments of the roadway which have been designed to support the development of that phase. If Porta Bella is not completed, then there will not be a need for additional infrastructure to support that traffic. Specific sections of Santa Clarita Parkway will be built as needed to support Porta Bella. 5. According to the conditions approved by the Planning Commission, rather than build Santa Clarita Parkway, the developer could simply provide the funds for its construction based upon Porta Bella's need for the road. Thus, if the road costs $10,000,000 to initially construct (as opposed to the cost for final completion of the road, which is to grow from two to six lanes), but Porta Bella's need for the road is only 25% of that, then all the developer has to do is provide $2.5 million. If this condition is allowed to remain, then who would provide the additional funds to begin construction of the road? See confidential City Attorney letter re: Dedications and Exactions. In addition to the developer of Porta Bella, other developers in the future will also be conditioned to pay toward the cost of the roadway which benefits their developments. 6. Who is going to pay for the roads? Various developments will need to contribute toward the cost of roadways. The details of costs related to roadway development within this project will be established in the development agreement. Based upon the present alignment of Santa Clarita Parkway, it will require a bridge over Quigley Canyon. Have any feasibility studies been done to see if such a bridge could be built and its costs? The developer has provided an engineering plan that includes the location of various bridges. Detailed costs would be provided at the design phase, as is done for other roadway construction. 8.. Have the adjacent property owners over whose land Santa Clarita Parkway must traverse been contacted? What are their feelings about the alignment? How much will it cost to acquire their land to build the road? Who will pay for this? Have there been any negotiations to acquire the land? If so, what are their status? The developer has identified the owners over whose land Santa Clarita Parkway may traverse. A basic study has been done to show that a roadway is technically feasible however, no specific alignment has been chosen at this point. It is up to the developer to acquire and pay for the right-of-way once an alignment has been approved by the City. A preliminary cost estimate shows a cost of $43 million to construct Santa Clarita Parkway from Bouquet Canyon to State Route 14. No negotiations have occurred since, at this time, it is unknown where the exact location of the roadway will be and the extent of impacts to various land owners. 9. As Santa Clarita Parkway is the North/South corridor for the project and as the traffic study for the EIR states that the majority of the traffic will be going nortb/south, shouldn't it be built immediately? Without it, aren't the only alternatives San Fernando Road and Soledad? Aren't these streets already overwhelmed? Also, as Santa Clarita Parkway will probably be the most expensive road to build, shouldn't it be done now, while interest rates and inflation are favorable? The Porta Bella traffic study makes certain assumptions based on our best estimates about what off-site roadways will be in place at certain times in the development of the project including consideration as to when Santa Clarita Parkway would need to be constructed to handle the anticipated Porta Bella traffic volume. The roadways have been assumed to be built to support development before the occupancy of each phase. Phase 1 and 2 of Porta Bella are not dependent upon the construction in its entirety of Santa Clarita Parkway, ALTERNATIVE 4 1. Alternative 4 is the environmentally superior alternative to the Specific Plan that is found in the EIR and was drafted by the company who did the EIR.. As it has the following benefits over the proposed development, shouldn't it be the plan adopted? These benefits are: a. Smog would be reduced by 25%; b. There would be more open space and less injury to our biological resources; C. There would be less traffic and therefore less noise; d. Significant visual impacts would be eliminated and there would be no adverse glare impacts; e. It is more consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use policies and it provides the density require by the City while preserving the most sensitive land forms; £ It is substantially more job -intensive, as it will create more jobs in relation to housing than the proposed project; g. It will cut in half the amount of daily traffic trips as opposed to the proposed project; h. It will reduce by 60% the number of new school children keeping our schools from getting overcrowded; i. Hydrology will be improved because the need for storm drains will be greatly reduced; j. It will conserve energy because is will cut in half the amount of electricity, natural gas, and gasoline consumed; k. It will save 600 thousand gallons of water daily; 1. It will generate 80,000 pounds less of solid waste every day; M. It will save our ridgelines and oak trees. Comment noted. 2. Considering how much better Alternative 4 is, why is it being ignored? As presented in the EIR, Alternative 4 actually represents an inferior project in comparison to the Porta Bella proposal. Alternative 4 would use a rigid application of the Hillside Ordinance to restrict all development in the project to slopes of less than 25%. As a practical matter, Alternative 4 would distribute densities to the southern portion of the site in conflict with the Valley Center Overlay, and would intensify densities in vehicular dependent, disjointed and isolated neighborhoods. Particularly, Alternative 4 would conflict with one of the major changes made in the project to accommodate the concerns of residents of Circle J: the sienificant decrease in densities in the southern portion of the proiect nearest to Circle J. Alternative 4 would promote isolated 'leapfrog" communities which would be antithetical to 0 the pedestrian concept of the Porta Bella plan. It would promote poorly distributed higher density development and a discontinuous neighborhood pattern by disregarding the unique characteristics of the property. Traversing the predominant development areas are several swales with side slopes that exceed 25%. This topography creates narrow bands of alternating flat and hill terrain. If development were strictly confined to the areas with less than 25% slope, then narrow, segregated strands or isles of development would emerge. This disjointed development pattern would destroy the pedestrian quality of the proposed development and promote dependence upon vehicular usage. This would result in the installation of inefficient and expensive infrastructure to serve and connect the segregated neighborhoods. Porta Bella complies with the purpose and objectives of the General Plan and Hillside Ordinance. In conjunction with the General Plan, the Specific Plan for Porta Bella meets the objectives of the Hillside Ordinance. The Specific Plan clusters development on slopes of less than 25%. It alters the ridgeline landform only as a consequence of remedial grading for previous site disturbance, for the installation of community facilities or due to geotechnical considerations. Also, the Plan locates on the significant ridgeline community facilities which the Hillside Ordinance specifically identifies and permits. In so doing, Porta Bella preserves the significant ridgeline, maximizes contiguous open space, provides community facilities available for public use and maintains the landform. It should be pointed out that this particular property is characterized by significant amounts of highly disturbed terrain with marginal environmental appeal. Therefore, the application of a rigid 25% slope restriction to the unusual landforms of the property would merely serve to preserve a large amount of disturbed terrain at the expense of such objectives as the Valley Center Overlay, proper density distribution, accepted standards of good planning and design, and pedestrian orientation. Alternative 4 would actually conflict with the Valley Center Concept of the General Plan. A rigid 25% slope restriction would also promote poorly distributed, higher density development in conflict with the Valley Center Overlay. As currently designed, Porta Bella clusters development so that it sometimes extends to contiguous areas that exceed 25%. Even though the imposition of a rigid slope restriction would remove density from the contiguous areas, the Hillside Ordinance and the applicable General Plan elements would permit the transfer of the density to the remaining developable area. This transfer would intensity densities in those areas to as much as 10 dwelling units to the acre if the transfer took place in the southern portion of the property. If the transfer took place in the northern portion of the property the limited amount of developable area under the slope requirement would yield excessively high densities. In effect, Alternative 4 may decrease overall project density, but it achieves this objective only by concentrating higher densities in many areas of the project. Under the most logical density transfer alternative, higher densities would be distributes to the southern portion of the project in close proximity to Circle J (in contrast to what the Porta Bella project does.) The effect of this density transfer directly conflicts with the Valley Center Overlay and with major statewide and local efforts to intensify development adjacent to commuter rail facilities. 10 MAGIC MOUNTAIN FLYOVER Why are we spending millions of dollars now to build a Magic Mountain bridge over the Santa Clara River, only to have to tear it down and start all over again if this project is approved? The current Magic Mountain bridge widening project over the Santa Clara River was designed several years ago and must proceed as it was planned and funded. It is possible that the final design of the flyover for the extension of Magic Mountain could use portions of the roadway currently under construction. 2. Please see Question 3 in the EASTAVEST CORRIDOR section.. See response to same. 3.In the conditions approved by the Planning Commission, an at -grade crossing for Magic Mountain is allowed. If this is done, then, that means that Drayton will have to be closed. How will people have access to those businesses if Drayton is closed? This statement is incorrect. The Planning Commission required the crossing for Magic Mountain to be grade separated, not at grade, 4. What about a tunnel under San Fernando Road? The tunnel is not feasible due to the steep grades east of San Fernando Road. 5. Is the "flyover" economically feasible? Yes, the developer has been conditioned to construct this roadway. The cost details would be finalized in the development agreement. 6. Is the "flyover" feasible from an engineering standpoint? Yes. 7. Is the "flyover" feasible from a seismic standpoint? Yes. Engineering plans for the flyover would include the latest seismic standards in effect at the time of construction. The developer has agreed to the condition that all roadways, including bridges, will be engineered to the seismic standards in effect at the time of roadway construction. 8. Isn't this a deviation from the General Plan? If so, then what is the rationale for doing this? What are the alternatives? The extension of Magic Mountain Parkway beyond San Fernando Road exists on the General Plan as does Via Princessa. Only that portion of roadway connectingMagic Mountain Parkway to Via,Princessa is a deviation from the General Plan and is being presented to 11 Council for General Plan Amendment approval as part of the Porta Bella Project. LAND USE 1. Why are we considering approval of lots smaller that 5000 square feet, which is in violation of the General Plan and County Code? The City's Unified Development Code does not prohibit consideration of lots smaller than 5,000 square feet within a Specific Plan zone. The purpose of having a Specific Plan is to outline development standards within a specific plan area. The City's General Plan does not state a minimum lot size, however, the General Plan does call for the Bermite site to be appropriate for a Specific Plan and encourages higher density within the Valley Center, a portion of which is on the Bermite site. The County Subdivision and Zoning Code has no effect with regards to City development approvals. 2. Have conceptual layouts of the off-site portions of Santa Clarita Parkway and Via Princessa been prepared? I£ not, why not? What are the maximum height of cut and fills? Are additional bridges required? If so, what are their height and length? Are there geologic and environmental studies done for these off-site portions? If not, why not? An engineering plan for the entire length of the Santa Clarita Parkway has been provided to City staff to show that such a roadway is feasible. We do not have any preliminary plans for Via Princessa. Details such as height, length, size of cuts and fills for both roadways will be addressed during the design phase. 3. Lots 58 and 59 of the proposed project have fill depths of 100 feet. Are we filling a major canyon just to create a building pad? Isn't that inconsistent with the General Plan? Shouldn't the height of fill be limited to something less? Shouldn't these lots be redesigned to work more closely with the natural contours/ The Planning Commission found that Development may be allowed on the ridgelines because the construction of roadways and other transportation improvements proposed as part of this project promote the public health, safety and general welfare. 4. The area of lot 64 is the most prominent feature of the major ridge bisecting the entire site. A water tank site is being created on the east side of the ridge which accounts for some area of fill to create a large enough tank site. The rest of the grading and resultant manufactured slopes on this feature are cut slopes to merely create more pad for lots 18 and 61, How can we allow an approximately 140 foot high cut slope on the face of the significant ridgeline just to create a little more area for development? The Planning Commission found that Development may be allowed on the ridgelines because the construction of roadways and other transportation improvements proposed as part of this project promote the public health, safety and general welfare. 5. There are several other manufactured slopes exceeding 100 feet in height, especially 12 in Phases 3 through 5. This indicates that the design does not work in harmony with the natural topography. Shouldn't development be pulled back in these areas or better yet, shouldn't the design in these phases be made to conform with the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development ordinance? The Planning Commission found that Development may be allowed on the ridgelines because the construction of roadways and other transportation improvements proposed as part of this project promote the public health, safety and general welfare. 6. If the land has to be changed so drastically, doesn't that suggest that the proposed project is in contravention with the General Plan? Doesn't Alternative 4 seem a more reasonable approach? See answer to question # 2 Alternative 4. 7. Some of the justification for doing violence to the land is that the proposed project is "innovative". What does innovative mean? Where is it defined? Does this project fit that definition? If so, how? The concept of "innovative" design is found in the City's Hillside and Ridgeline Ordinance. The Planning Commission found that Development may be allowed on the ridgelines because the construction of roadways and other transportation improvements proposed as part of this project promote the public health, safety and general welfare. The proposal meets the innovative design criteria for encroachment upon significant ridgelines and for grading on hillside slopes in excess of 10% because: (a) The proposed use is in proper relation to adjacent uses, the development of the community and the various goals and policies of the General Plan, (b) Although the project will be visible, the use or development will not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the neighborhood or community, nor will it endanger the public health. (c) The appearance of the development will not be different than the appearance of adjoining ridgeline areas so as to cause depreciation of the ridgeline appearance in the vicinity. (d) The establishment of the proposed use or development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property, nor encourage inappropriate encroachments to the ridgeline area. (e) It has been demonstrated though precise illustration in the FEIR and Addendum for this project that the proposed development will not violate the visual integrity of the significant ridgeline area. (f) The hillside development plan is in substantial compliance with all 13 applicable provisions of the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance and Guidelines and standards for hillside development of the project shall be as identified in the Specific Plan for the site. 8. To create the super building pads, some of the ridgelines on the site will be reduced by as much as 100 feet. Is this in conformance with the General Plan? If not, then shouldn't it be prohibited? See question #7 above. The General Plan allows for development on hillsides and the Hillside and Ridgeline Development Ordinance provides a guide for such development. 9. By allowing such drastic deviations from both the General Plan and our ordinances, are we not setting a precedent that will come back to haunt us in the future? Do we want to see Porta. Bella replicated dozens of times over? The Bermite site is unique in its size, location, and development characteristics. Other developments in the City will not be able to compare to the scope of this development. It is unlikely to occur again in the life of this City. 10. This development will destroy over 100 oak trees, including several heritage oaks. Isn't the oak tree the symbol of the City? Is this how we protect it? Many of the oak tree removals associated with this project are related to development of roadways such as Magic/Princessa. Oak Tree removals are sometimes necessary to allow development to occur and allow reasonable use of the property. The EIR for the project identifies the oak tree removals and notes that the City's Oak Tree Ordinance allows for replanting of replacement oak trees as an appropriate mitigation measure. 11. Is the proposed development serving the existing community? I£ so, how? The proposed development is proposing to build portions of several General Plan roadways. The proposed development may also be an impetus to speed up site clean up efforts. The project also provides a jobs -housing balance. The project will offer new housing and job opportunities. 1. How can we as a City oppose Elsmere Dump, but not require innovative solid waste management from the developer of our largest developer? The developer has been conditioned to follow comprehensive solid waste management in his project covering commercial, industrial, single family residential and multi -family residential uses. During construction, the grading contractor will need to chip and mulch all greenwaste. Common recycling areas are required. Each residential unit shall have recycling facilities and the single-family residences shall have a backyard composting area. The developer is also required to provide the City's solid waste section with a fifteen year waste diversion plan prior to occupancy of commercial, industrial and office uses. Recycled material will also be 14 used in construction of roads, drainage improvements and public signage as identified in the EIR mitigation measures 6, 7, and 8 for Solid Waste Disposal. ESCALATOR AND THE METROLINK 1, Justin Farmer, the drafter of the traffic study, has testified that the escalator will only be slightly used. His traffic study says the same thing. If it won't be effective, then why is it being built? Public transportation is universally under utilized. A low projected use rate does not mean that an escalator will not be effective, merely not used to its fullest extent. Witness the number of sidewalks or buses in the City that remain near empty. No one is proposing to eliminate them due to under use because they serve a transportation function, as would an escalator connection between business and residential uses and Metrolink. 2. Where is there evidence that the escalator will increase ridership on Metrolink? There is no evidence that an escalator will or will not increase ridership on the Metrolink. An escalator will make it possible to go to and from the residences and work sites at the top of the hill directly to the Metrolink on foot, rather than necessitating a vehicle trip. 3. What is the projected cost for the maintenance of the escalator and who will pay for this? This escalator would be for public use and maintained at public expense. There are no cost estimates for its engineering and maintenance at this time. 4. Apparently the escalator is being used to justify increased density. If it is ineffective and ignored, how can it justify the increased density? The justification for increased density is not the escalator. Increased density is called for in the City's General Plan under the Valley Center concept. Increased density is also called for in areas in direct proximity to major transit centers, such as the Metrolink. The escalator makes available pedestrian access to the transit center and provides an opportunity to eliminate vehicle trips. 5. It is anticipated that the residents of Phase I will be low-income as the housing will be very dense and inexpensive. Can the projected resident afford to use the Metrolink? There is no evidence that the residents of Phase I will low income or unable to afford Metrolink. 6. As it is anticipated that the majority of people who use the escalator will drive to it on Porta Bella property, where will they park? An expansion of parking for Metrolink would be considered when there is parking demand. 15 7. Who will carry liability insurance for personal injuries that will occur on the escalator? How much will this cost? Who will pay for this? The escalator would be operated as part of the Metrolink which is operated by the City. There are no cost estimates at this time. THE DEVELOPER 1. Who are the partners of Northholme Partners? What is their source of funds? See the Confidential City Attorney letter on the subject of Northholme Partners. 2. What is the track record of the developer? What past projects has the developer done and what were the results? See the Confidential City Attorney letter on the subject of Northholme Partners. 3. What are the developer's references? See the Confidential City Attorney letter on the subject of Northholme Partners. 4. Is the developer being given any special consideration because of any promises to help build the new Civic Center? If so, what is the special consideration and who authorized it? No. The developer is not helping to build the new Civic Center and is receiving no "special consideration". 5. What happens to the development if the developer sells to another party? In order to use the entitlement, the new owner must agree in writing to adhere to the conditions of approval or the new owner would have no right to develop under that approval. 6. If the right to develop this area can be sold, does the City have any input as to whom it can be sold to? No. However, the City must be notified of the sale and the new owner must agree in writing to adhere to the conditions of approval or the new owner would have no right to develop under that approval. 7. Who is providing the indemnity for the City - the developer or Whittaker? Why not both of them? See the Confidential City Attorney letter on the subject of Northholme Partners. 8. Who owns the site now? Whittaker. 16 9. Have there been any negotiations as to who will actually build the homes? If so, are any detail available? No. SEISMIC 1. Has consideration been given to the safety of fill versus cut? If so, what are the results? A geotechnical and soils report has been prepared for the project which directs measures to be taken to ensure slope stability for development. Grading plans are subject to engineering review and approval. This review includes checking to ensure slope stability. 2. Has anyone looked at the wisdom of constructing the various bridges from a seismic point of view? If so, what are the results/ Yes. The developer has agreed to the condition that all roadways, including bridges, will be engineered to the seismic standards in effect at the time of roadway construction. At this time, bridges have yet to be designed. 3. Why are we considering a major development near a major fault? What mitigation measures can be taken? Any development in southern California is development near a major fault. For this reason there are specific setback and building code standards dealing with faults in the building code. The developer would need to adhere to these standards. Since the type of mitigation and standards would vary based on the type of use and structure proposed and on the location of development on this site, it is impossible to say at this time what the specific mitigation measures would be. 4. What is the City doing to address the seismic issues? The City will follow the Unified Building Code to ensure seismic standards for setbacks and construction are met. 5. If either the Magic Mountain "flyover" or the bridge in the developer's proposed Magic/Princessa were to collapse because of an earthquake, have contingency plans been developed as they are near chemical plants? R an 6. Alan Seward made an oral presentation to the City Council in June, 1994. He indicated that his report had not been accurately presented to the City Council. What was his report? Was it accurately presented? If not, why not? Alan Seward's presentation was made as part of the Civic Center Council Study Session. At that meeting, he stated that, as a result of the January earthquake, there are traces of 17 additional seismic fault lines in the area. With the occurrence of the last earthquake, there may be new design standards applicable to construction projects. It should be noted that geotechnical and soils reports, that address seismic and other geologic issues, will be required for review by engineering staff prior to approval of grading and other construction plans. The applicant has already agreed to a condition that he will construct to the seismic standards in effect at the time of construction. Thus staff and the developer are aware of Mr. Seward's concerns and they have been addressed.