HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - GATED ROADS (2)NEW BUSINESS
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT:
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager
Item to be presented by:
Lynn M. Harris
/-H#
June 27, 1995
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL POLICY DIRECTION ON GATED ROADS
Community Development
The goal of improving circulation was one of the primary motivations for incorporation and has
been a continuing source of concern to the City Council ever since. The Council has taken
numerous steps to improve circulation, including the two "quick fix" programs, roadway and
bridge improvements, and the aggressive pursuit of transportation grants and funding. A
related concern is the placement of gates in roadways, including existing gates and any that may
be proposed in the futw e.
At their regular meeting of June 20, 1995, the Planning Commission received and discussed a
report concerning the proposed placement of an electromechanical gate on Placerita Canyon
Road by the Placerita Canyon Corporation. This gate is being constructed on the private portion
of Placerita, approximately 3,000' west of its intersection with Sierra Highway. Traffic Division
staff estimate that approximately 7000 vehicle trips are diverted from Placerita to Sierra
Highway and San Fernando Road; a traffic study examining approximately 15 intersections
would be required to verify this estimate. The Commission ultimately directed staff to prepare
an environmental assessment of the gate, at the proponent's expense. Additionally, the
Commission supported Recommendations No. 1 and 3, which appear at the end of this report.
Currently, there are gates on several public as well as private streets, including Rainbow Glen,
Valley/Calgrove, Sultus, and Maple, La Salle Canyon, and other locations.
Ager Item:
ANALYSIS
The issue of improving circulation, including the removal of gates, has been an ongoing concern
in several of the City's strategic planning efforts. In the Community Strategic Plan, "Share the
Vision II" (1994-1997), though gates were not specifically mentioned, "New Roads" was the top
issue in the Action Program Similarly, in "Taking the Best and Making it Better" (1994-1997),
which is the overall Strategic Plan for City staff, Action Item No., 24 was, "Open roads that are
not open." Lastly, the issue of gates and closed roadways was of sufficient concern to the
Community Development staff to be identified as an action item in the Department's Strategic
Plan for 1995-99. The purpose of the item was to, "Develop a strategy to remove gates that
inhibit through traffic Citywide."
Staffs primary concerns with gates are: 1) diversion of traffic, 2) emergency access, and 3)
maintaining or creating barriers on roads that could be open for through travel. Brief
discussion summaries of these and other policy issues follow:
A. Diversion of Traffic: Often, this amounts to burden shifting from one neighborhood to
another. The area that loses traffic is relieved, but another is impacted. Persons closest to the
gates are often the most impacted, as backtracking is required for what could have been a short
trip. Typically, the trips that are diverted are not eliminated, and other neighborhoods and
roads are impacted by drivers who would have actually preferred a shorter, more direct route.
The travel behavior of most people requires access to numerous areas of the City for business,
services, recreation, socializing, commuting, education, and parenting. To limit this ease and
freedom of movement with an ever increasing number of gates may impact the feel of the City,
its neighborliness and openness, and encourage isolated and privileged enclaves disassociated
from and unconcerned with the fabric of the overall City.
B. Emergency Access and Disaster Impacts: Even with pre -arrangements, gates can slow
response times for localized emergencies of short duration, including fire and medical
emergencies. Following major disasters with longer impacts, such as the Northridge
Earthquake, alternate routes may be necessary because of breakdowns in the overall circulation
network, such as freeway and arterial closures. Gates on local roadways limit our flexibility and
available alternatives. Earthquakes, floods, hazardous waste spills, and traffic accidents have
all significantly impacted the City's network and entailed prolonged closures. Each of these
incidents is a testament to the need for circulation alternatives and maximum flexibility.
C. Creating Barriers: In part, this issue can be analyzed by comparing natural versus grid
circulation networks. Theoretically, a grid system may be preferable because numerous
alternates are provided by the placement of parallel east -west and north -south routes.
However, our valley is characterized by ridge lines, canyons, and stream beds, all of which are
valued by the Community, and which render the implementation of a simplified grid system
technically and aesthetically infeasible and undesirable. Since the City seeks a road system that
is compatible with the natural system, it is of paramount importance to fully utilize both
existing and planned roadways. Because of the limited opportunities to add new roadways,
gating any existing street simply shifts impacts to other streets and arterials: A policy direction
that creates barriers on an incremental basis may feed on itself by encouraging more
neighborhoods to isolate themselves from the network of city streets, particularly when a nearby
neighborhood has already done so.
D. Neighborhood Preservation: Neighborhood preservation is a multi -faceted issue, and
staff has been provided with no compelling evidence that the imposition of gates improves
neighborhood quality and much experiential evidence that neighborhood quality is maintained
without gates. The overwhelming majority of residents in Valencia, Saugus, Canyon Country,
and Newhall live on and take access from public streets. Neighborhood preservation may have
more to do with good school systems, active homeowner associations, quality law enforcement,
crime prevention, traffic enforcement, gang and graffiti prevention, recreation programs,
enforceable CC& Ws, code enforcement, quality construction, planned neighborhoods,
neighborhood watch, infrastructure maintenance, free-flowing circulation, and healthy
businesses. Gates may play a part in the quality of life for a limited number of residents, but
it is just as likely that a substantial increase in the number of gates could be detrimental to the
City's quality of life.
E. Air Quality Issues: While the Air Quality District used to give primary emphasis on
adjusting the jobs -housing balance, the current focus is on reducing the number of vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and the number of trips. Gates force drivers to lengthen trips because they are
required to make a detour from a logical travel route. The longer trip results in greater air
quality impacts. In addition, another area must absorb the traffic and the air pollution of the
diverted trips. To the extent that we all share the benefits and costs of an open network, we are
equal, both reaping the reward of convenience and sharing the impacts of dispersed traffic.
Staff is concerned that this shared social contract is being eroded on an incremental basis for
the benefit of a few.
F. Speed Limits and Enforcement: Gating streets may cause traffic to divert to other
streets, overburdening them, and diminishing travel times. Furthermore, the gated street loses
its utility as a through travel route, becoming back-to-back cul-de-sacs instead. The City is in
the process of measuring average speeds, and there is the concern that traffic diversions will
reduce travel speeds, with concomitant impacts on air quality, travel times, and level of service..
The enthusiasm for gates can result from neighborhood concerns regarding speeding, accidents,
school children, and road characteristics. Though an equally or even more effective solution
could be obtained with improved signage, crossing guards, increased traffic enforcement, and
student/ parent education, a gate has immediate emotional appeal because of the perceived
finality and completeness of the solution.
From staffs perspective, other techniques should be tried prior to the closure of a public right-of-
way, which should only occur as a last resort, and only when it can be proved that the situation
is unique from other neighborhoods and situations. Just as often, the unintended consequences
of a gated street may create effects in other locations that exceed or duplicate the original
problem. Each gate approved on an incremental basis invites and encourages similar
approaches based on the precedents set and further limits the City's ability to implement less
extreme solutions.
In summary, staff believes that the following options are available for the City Council and
Planning Commission to address the issue of gates and gated communities:
1. Direct staff to research and report to the Commission and City Council about the effects
of gated communities on municipalities at large, particularly the impacts to circulation
and to emergency services, but also the effects on neighborhood safety, marketability,
and appearance.
2. Direct staff to draft a revision to the Unified Development Code regarding the permits
required, the location, installation, construction, type, and appearance of privatetraffic-
control gates, and to proceed to the Planning Commission and City Council.
3. Direct staff to bring any future requests for gate installation before the Commission and
City Council, and to treat each request on an individual basis, pending establishment' of
City policy on gates.
Receive report, discuss options, and direct staff to proceed with one or more of the options stated
above.
LMH:KJM:lep
file:s:\cd\current\gateccol.kjm
FREDRICK J. WEITKAMP
JOHN F WEITKAMP
LAW OFFICES
T
'Veit amp sc Weithamp
10724 WHITE OAK AVENUE
C7raaada Hies, Ciali%caia 9L344
June 27, 1995
Mr. Richard Henderson,
City Planner
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196
RE: Comet Way
Dear Mr. Henderson:
TELEPHONE: 818 363-3144
TELECOPIERI 818 363-3270
RECE h.7) 17,7 "!ADE A
PART OF THEL RECORD AT _ , -
7 - 9S' WETING'
(TEM NO. %
It was a pleasure to speak with you on June 8, 1995. You
telephoned me in response to my letter to you of June 7, 1995
which was a follow-up to your letter of May 25, 1995.
During our aforesaid telephone conversation, you indicated that
the City of Santa Clarita was not the appropriate entity to be
obtaining an easement from the MTA over the trestle area over the
Oak Spring Canyon Road because of the private nature of that
road. However, you did indicate that you would be more than
happy to assist to the extent that you could, private individuals
or entities in attempting to secure such an easement.
At this time, it would be appreciated if you could provide the
games, addresses and telephone numbers of the employees of MTA
with whom you have discussed the matter of an acquisition of such
an easement.
Also during our aforesaid telephone conversation, you indicated
that there was another area that needed clarification. You
indicated that there was an error in the City's letter to Mr.
George S. Gruber, dated August 18, 1994. In the second paragraph
of said letter, it states: "You and your neighbors are assignees
and therefore beneficiaries of that private easement." You
indicated that this assertion by the City was incorrect and that
the proper statement that should have been contained in said
letter was as follows: "If you and your neighbors are assignees
then you are beneficiaries of that private easement." A copy of
the letter in question is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
If any part of my memorialization of our aforesaid telephone
conversation is incorrect, please notify me immediately in
writing along with any clarification thereof. If I do not
receive such correspondence within ten (10) days of this letter,
then it shall be assumed that my memorialization is accurate.
Mr. Richard Henderson
June 27, 1995
Page 2 of 5
As you know from my May 10,: 1995 letter to you, the City of Santa
Clarita granted a permit for the private extension of Comet Way
to parties who have no rights to an easement or other access over
and across my clients' respective properties. However, in your
letter of May 25, 1995, the City continues to maintain both that
"the developer" had "a previous commitment to provide an access"
and that "the developer reserved an easement for ingress and
egress...."
This misconception is particularly disturbing since it dates back
to a time when the City ordered my clients to withdraw their
vehicles that were parked across their property for the purpose
of blocking the commencement ofconstruction of the asphalt road
thereon. We further note that the City Council for Santa
Clarita, at an open meeting, even disapproved "the developers"
locked gate.
we respectfully request the legal basis and/or authority upon
which the City is relying in making its determinations that
gates, locked or otherwise, may not be placed by owners to bar
access to their private property. In particular, we would like
to know the City's authority for this most obvious demonstrated
preference of the "private" rights of Oak Spring residents over
that of the private rights of Comet Way residents.
We once again wish to make an attempt to correct the
misinformation concerning the parties' interest in the Comet Way
"extension". We take this action because we presume that the
City will rightfully exercise its powers to fulfill its
obligations to correct the damage created by its involvement in
this entire matter of the improper and dangerous extension of
Comet Way. We do expect, of course, that you will reciprocate by
informing us of the evidence of an easement that was presented to
the City at any time that documented the persistent conclusion
that "the developer reserved an easement for ingress and egress
for himself and assignees when he sold the two effected lots..."
Preliminarily, it would be of assistance if you would attempt to
identify and distinguish between the "developer(s)" that is used
interchangeably, even though they are not the same entities.
Of course we are familiar with both of our client escrows and all
of the escrows for the purchase of Comet Way residences and "the
two affected lots". As stated in our earlier letter and
enclosure, you should also be interested since such correctly
decides the easement interest in those "two affected lots". We
have enclosed a copy of a page of the escrow instructions for the
Riddles' purchase of Lot 11 of the Comet Way tract. As indicated
therein, "Buyer is aware that Seller has reserved the easement
which lies within the future right-of-way" which clearly makes
Mr. Richard Henderson
June 27, 1995
Page 3 of 5
reference to either the City of Santa Clarita's future
"rights-of-way" for a public street dating all the way back to the
filing of the subdivision map or the limited access by locked
gate for emergency purposes only easement provided in the escrows
of purchasers of other residences along Comet Way prior thereto.
Attached hereto is a copy of the page of the escrow instructions
of Stephen Biafora, for the purchase of his Comet Way residence
which states: "Buyer is hereby made aware that Comet Way will
connect to Oak Springs Canyon with a gated driveway limited to
emergency use and hereby accepts same." Also attached hereto is
a copy of the escrow instructions of Mr. and Mrs. Weir who
purchased a Comet Way residence which states therein: "Seller has
hereby informed Buyers that Comet Way will connect to Oak Springs
Canyon with a gated driveway limited to emergency use. Buyer
hereby accepts same." As these escrow provisions indicated, as
early as 1990 the Comet Way "developer" (not to be confused with
the Oak Park "developer") conveyed a pertinent easement right to
"...gated driveway limited to emergency use..." to the Comet Way
purchasers. Also enclosed is the Comet" Way developer's letter of
December 18, 1994 to Joseph Schulman, another Comet Way resident,
which acknowledges this restrictive easement and promises to
install the gate "in full compliance with escrow instructions".
In further "compliance", the developer installed the gate within
fifteen (15) days after the letter, executed the 2 "Easement
Deeds", and thereafter caused same to be recorded in the Los
Angeles County Recorder's Office, creating constructive notice of
the easement.
It appears that these "Easement Deeds" have been persistently and
continuously misread and/or misconstrued by the City of Santa
Clarita. Except for a description that omits much of the
right-of-way necessary to extend Comet Way to the Oak Springs
Canyon Road, they are completely consistent with the rights
provided in the escrows for the purchase of Comet Way residences.
Any attempted inconsistent interpretation of such Easement Deeds
is strained and, moreover, tardy and contrary to the rights of
the Comet Way residents, which rights were earlier established as
to "locked gate" escrow conveyances. Further, please take notice
that these recorded Easement Deeds are remote in time to the
"Agreement" which the City asserts between yet another
"developer" and the City.
The dominant easement holders are clearly only those owners of
residences along the Comet Way tract. By comparison, these
recorded Easement Deeds do not reference any such "agreement" nor
identify any Oak Springs property as a dominant tenement easement
holder.
Mr. Richard Henderson
June 27, 1995
Page 4 of 5
Finally, even the development contemplated by American Beauty
Homes, Inc., Oak Park Estates, and the Oak Springs Canyon
Homeowners Association has been abandoned. With that
abandonment, under basic contract law, any conceivable obligation
of even this remotely interested "developer" or of the Comet Way
"developer" ceases for lack of consideration among other reasons
relative thereto.
All Comet Way residents have patiently, but apparantely naively,
waited for the City of Santa Clarita to take the appropriate
action to protect their rights. They fear danger to their
children and themselves and their guests due to the vastly
increased traffic flow which now travels along Comet Way and the
extension thereof. They also fear the consequences of the City
approved, but severly deficient construction of the extension
across Comet Way that crosses a flood plain beneath which there
are two thinly buried 36" high pressure gas lines.
We note that in your most recent correspondence, you attempted to
excuse the City's approval of a permit for this construction
below public street standards. Your sole stated reason for such
excuse is less than satisfactory: ...because its construction
was only prompted by the developer's previous commitment to
provide an access, not a public street." Whoever the "developer"
is or was, he, she, or it has never so reserved such an
obligation and his "commitment to provide (only) an access"
hardly explains the reason for the deficient,unsafe
construction. Lastly, it does not address the responsibilities
of anyone, whether the City of Santa Clarita or any of the
property owners as to each party's respective rights and
obligations with regard to the use and maintenance of such
"private" road.
As you know, that portion of Comet Way which is a public street
is hilly, narrow, and windy, without sidewalks. Nonetheless, the
City of Santa Clarita has approved the extension of this street
across our clients' properties resulting in a congested flow of
vehicles, including heavy trucks that would otherwise have been
barred therefrom by Comet Ways' earlier termination in a
cul -d -sac. This same increased traffic is now traversing a
roadway constructed to far less standards than the remainder of
Comet Way which is public street and which was constructed in
accordance with the standards attributable to public streets in
the Santa Clarita.
My clients are at a loss as to why such anticipated "use in fact"
of Comet Way as a public street should have prompted the City's
permit that allowed for far less than a "public street standard".
Is the need for such standards any less over private property?
Or is it only that the City intended to save the costs of
condemnation and thereafter maintaining to a "public street
standard" both the extension of Comet Way and "improving Oak
Mr. Richard Richardson
June 27, 1995
Page 5 of 5
Springs Canyon to the tresle"? Have the Comet Way residents'
safety and enjoyment of their properties fallen victim to the
City of Santa Clarita's economizing and/or manipulation by false
claims of "developers"? We would certainly appreciate your
response to these inquiries.
At present, only the Riddles and the Bandos are enjoined by the
existing preliminary injunction in their litigation with certain
of the property owners of the Oak Springs Canyon area. The
remaining Comet Way residences are not barred by any court order
or City restriction at present. They, as the dominant tenements
to the servient tenements of my clients, have the right to
install a locked gate barring traffic across this extension.
This being the case, we would appreciate your response to the
following two questions:
(1) Should the remaining Comet Way residents elect to
install a locked gate across the easement over the Riddles and
Bando's property in the immediate future, what would the response
of the City of Santa Clarita be and why?
(2) If it is established to the satisfaction to the City of
Santa Clarita that the permit granted for the extension over the
properties of my clients was without easement or other rights
over said properties, what action should, and what action would,
the City of Santa Clarita take?
As you can determine from this letter, we are taking considerable
efforts to encourage the City of Santa Clarita to "do the right
thing" for the residents of Comet Way.
As always, your expeditious response to our inquiries would be
very much appreciated.
JFW/sk
Encl.
Very truly yours,
WEITKAMP & WEITKAMP
MR. AND MRS. S OYL-
MR. AND MRS. DAVID
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Scot Riddle
Mr. and Mrs. David Bando
Southern California Gas Company
City of
Santa Clarita
cS![V vamrx3a twcL
Supe 300
city or Uft c wft
caBfmr la 91356.2196
August 18, 1994
Phone
(805)259.2489
Fax
(805) 25"125
'�rg'e_S'. �Graber
$'lbfi3✓Oe)t Spring Canyon Road
V-ffiT0n--Cddntrp; CA 91351
Subject. COMET WAY
inThank
o k you for
owyourhich event Litter Clerk�eompComet Way.
hope you find the
correspondence touches on the helpful.Some to the
questions you raised, but I would like to take
this opportunity to directly answer your questions.
Comet Way is a dedicated public road from Sand Canyon Road to
approximately the last-drivewav which fronts on Comet Way. Then it becomes
a Private road which is c-0&7tr7cT6d within an area offered to the City (but not
accepted for dedication). The Portion of the paving which was constructed in
the past two years also lies partially within this area of "future dedication".
'n'etv.Wa'vuig then veers to the right of the original "fntuie dedication" and
jwithia`a'private easement reserved b E & S Develo' ... -inc ,for itself
s9ssi ees. Yon and your iter ors are assignees therefore
es o that private easement. ) " �o
The only role the City has played in: this private easement has been the
requirements that the developer build it as he promised the Oak Sp.-ia;
ty, first the City Engineer review the plans and inspect the paving for
community,
proper construction, and a City Council directive that no gates should be
installed. Since all of this has been accomplished, the City has no further role
in this private easement.
The City has never given permission to close the easement. Mr. David Bando
informed the City that his attorney had advised him to close it off for one day
Per year to ensure that no claim could be made that the easement is o public
road City staff informed Mr. Bando that although the City plays no role in
Private easements, any closure for more than one day or during inclement
weather' could result in city involvement to force te easement
hopen. This was
based on previous direction from the Council that no gates be installed.
The City is not involved in decisions to place mail boxes. The Postmaster did
® LXHIh111'
Mr. George 3. Gruber
. August 18, 1994
Page 2
\ call City staff to determine the stn
that the easement is private. status
val
P e.
Of the Comet Way extension.'He learned
y �
1';, The decisions as to what Y Po athe Oak Spring homeowners would
5 l� a=change for not o g Proposed development receive in
1 0 L f 1 south and east of your communityP ent on 160 a
�( Q developers and man o°� made in nes lYmg to the
1 t� 0� water lines from Comet Wapringresidents. The developers agreed tings with the
Way, and to route their future roads y, to Pave Oak Spring and a connection to Comet
�r'j/ nrailroadrtrestle and improved developers'
O original
Propround osal would havee Oak
y the
0��'� 0 ��, A v" m�dards. The residents of Oak SprinCanyon eed the Canyon Road to Public street
/ f community,
propossing the
his Proposed roads were outsiddevele their
Y �% r therebyre
A �� ad. Private road status of Oak Spring Can
i7
��, c
IY
12
you
V hope this answers you, questions. Please feel free to call me at 255-4345.
G Sincerely,
Ynn M. Harris
Deputy City Manager
Community Development
LMH:RAHlep
cc City Council
and awful detainer action, (c) the filing or enforcement of A mechanir's lien, (d)
action matter
for bodily i injuryori wrongful death, orate tor r $,alltent p�laims court, or (e) an
which Code of Civil Procedure 337.1 or 337.15 applies, the fll�n°t defects to
action to enable the recording of a notice of Pending action, forgoOf a rder of
judicial
attachment, receivership, injunction, or other provisional remedies, shall not
constitute a waiver of the right to arbitrate under this Provision. Any dispute or
claim by or against broker(s) and/or assoc late Iicensee(s) Participating Sha in this
transaction shall be submitted to arbitration consisent with the provision above
only if the broker(s) and/or associate licensee(s) making the claim or against whom
the claim is made shall have agreed to submit to arbitration consistent with this
provision.
(5) All parties are aware Realty
Executives Real Estate.. Executives Escrow is affiliated with Realty
(6) Buyer and Seller are aware of and hereby agree to the original deposit receipt
and purchase agreement and any addendums or counter offers
thereto. All parties understand that'the escrow holders obligations are limited to
jnly those provisions contained in. these written escrow instructions.
(7) Buyers acknowledge receipt from Seller of the "Topanga Las Virgenes Resource
Conservation District Paper on the Care of Native Oaks," and has been advised by
Seller that oaks are protected by county and city ordinances and accepts same.
(8) Buyer acknowledges receipt of an insulation dlsclosure statement fro, Hope
Ranch which is applicable to the subject property and accepts same.
(9) Buyer to receive a copy of the "Homebuyers information Guide" with warranties
and rules stated therein and hereby agrees to accept same.
(10) Buyer acknowledges that Comet Nay is a future right of way and accents same.
(11) In and for consideration of reduced prices and othersubsidies Buyer herein
agrees that all contents in this escrow especially the price and subsidy as
concession is to be respected and treated as professionalajr revealed to any of
nd confidential
Propritary information and is not to be discussed, disclosed
the homeowners, employees, associates, contractors or coop et itors as Per purchase
contracts and counters,
(12) Purchase Contract per trade in property to follow within 3 days of acceptance.
(13) Buyer is aware that Seller has reserved the easement which lies within the
future right of way. -
(14) Seller agrees to landscape front yard prior to close of escrow.
(15) Seller agrees to exchange front door of subject property with door an Lot 1B
Prior to close of escrow.
SNa OW" IEVF A- M, A JOINT Vamp, OWUSrl)
Or E.S. LEVFLcngQIl'. INC.
by:
EL@E 93 LAPPA AND ALMN SILVANA MMVPA TRt614yS SCO�o
or 7NE SOttAM F"'M Tr&rT D"M SEPIE! R 17, 1985 -P— /,`
b" �RIIONDA N. RIDDLE
EUGENE SCHIAPPA, TRDSTC
bv:
ALIDA SILVANA SCHIAPPA, TRUSTEE
F,9e 3• _ 3
KN?ntl M SAWN AM EDAN ASSCMTUN .
Escrow No. 99210053-0
Escrow officer JON D. STVMES -
Date, 12-5-90
{
. ADDI'f1OPAL PSCI�1 IISTlZLTtCrg �� .. ..
11. Buyer to haw. 7
A current search�to�ba� receipt Of sono to aPDrDva
Any Oi+' aPl roval to be made in writ �ide. at mar' a expense.
appy period as8+ritrated herein, � to "ter within the same
approval of. herein. ehervis,e silence shall be deyrod .
12. AS A KMM of M=M CNLY Wn% MUCH F�fl=R IS = SO � RffM7i
A. Buyer
obnAUVAt�ion district
and m the pt of a ,pryga.�y yds Resource e
and hereby acknowledges that he/she hay' Care of mLive O� fawn the Sellers
Protected by City and that Ordinances.been '-'hoadvisedr. mer the YStam
guy
B. an insulation d�tt?Y agrees that has read, receiv*-and approved
C. Duyw ishereby rade aware that Cant Slay will oonsaect to Oak
Springs
Canyon with a gated driveway lirdtod to exrgaxy use, and hereby accepts saw.
D. euyaz
title staal�.lrba 3made aware
ed to thth t the. representations of Seller ..
title report. condition o! Iltle as stet forth regarding
E. Wyer and Seller hereby agree that all Parrw4nt�yinstalled fixtures and
gsn Raare inced in the purchase price as per Sten No, 11 of the
Orig,tichasle tdContzact dated 11-25-90.
F.
K.
L.
Buyer and S11er have agreed to item It. B regarding condition of
Property of the original purchase contract, and that
carpets and floors, and prior . close
garage door openers to be installed.
Wryer and Seller agree to item No. C. regarding Seller's representation.
e� and Seller agree to item No, E and F regarding Flood hazard area disclosure
Special studies zone disclosure respectively.
Buyer and S r agree to Stan No. K regarding Arbitration of disputes.
Seller to install front landscaping with sprinklers and sod and autanatic
timer with 12 stations.
Buyer to have walk through Prior to Close with C stwer Service.
Buyer is a licensad Broker acting as a Principal herein.
13. Buyer is aware that Buyer of Lot 11 has been given an easertent to landscape,
install seeurity and conrunication system on portions of Lot 13. Buyer is
already in receipt of Map showing proposed easerents and hereby accepts sore,
to Sans.
Buyer and Seller hereby relieve Escrouholder from any liability with regards
S a CWiCN eymrn
u"Dz . A ]OWf yFMytdi
STERIEN MV CIS BLA —UM
KADUMN LYMI mm MM
'67;
tan1qi
Of E.S. 6 e omm '
t, ,Inc: , A Calif.. Corp..
Sch'nPPa Family Trust dated 9-17.05.
Dy.SCRiappeSchnap�ae Trustee by Luig
torrey in fact.
• _ - .....,. f-- a case 0
. ,wstrucuons, instruments of record, or .,lose han
/ » I,artscs further agree, jointly and severally, to pay on demand, as well as to indef"ily apu ❑uiw )vu .....,,,.„ ,
against all costs, damages, judgments, atv' 'Vy's fees, expenses, obligations and liabilil,_ te.,ccpl such liability as stay be sut.
feted or incurred by you by reason of your moss negligence or willful ntiscovduct) of every kind or nature suffered or incurreJ fit
connection with or arising out of this escrow.
it is further agreed that if any controversy arises between the parties hete10 or with any third Pelson, you shall not be rc-
quired to determine the same or take any action in the premises, but you rely n,wait the settlement of any such controycrsy by
final appropriate legal proceedings or otherwise as you may require, nota it h, in ad ills anything in the folloe•ing instructions to lite
contrary, and in such evcnt YOU shall not be liable for interest or damage,
If suit is brought by or against you, the parties hereto jointly and sr.cra!ly agrcc to pay yvu all costs, expenses. and
reasonable attorney's fees, expanded or incurred by you in eonnectivn thoCk%ith, whether or nut said suit proceeds to judgment.
1 /We herewith hand you $1,000.00 check for deposit into escrow: and prior to the
Close of escrow vie will hand you an additional arrnunt of $63,000.00 plus closing costs n
cash or cashier's check, plus the equity in 24442-C Nalpton Drive in the afrount of $60,000.0
we will also execute a Note and Deed of Trost in the arn01211t of $196,000.00 in favor cf
Lender of Buyer's choice, thereby making a total cor leration of $620,000,00
and will deliver to you any notes, instruments and additional funds rcquir-,! from me to enable jou to comply with these irlstt u:-
tions. all of which you are authorized and instructed to us9 and ds1.0 Wo.idcd imrruments have been filed fur record cwilhug
you to procure assurance of title in -the 10 i5 of a CLTA O.-MER's/AL I'A L,.tfder's Pulicy ut'I ide Insurance issued by
WORLD TITLE CCtipANY
in its usual form, with a liability of S 620,000.00/$496,000.00 or as required by Lender.
covering property in the City of Santa Clarits Cuunty of Los P.ctg:les Slate of California
as per map recorded in Book 1097 Page s 27 thru 29// of i Jun Rccmds of sai6 Couiuy,
described as follows: in_lusive
Lot 15 of Tract No. 42254
Also known as 16060 Cornet way Santa Clarita, CA 91351
showing tide vested in: DWIGtfr M. WEIR and DORATIIPA L. 1;'E1R, Husband and I•life as Joint 1'enarits.
subject to (1) ALL General and Special taxes for the fiscal year 1990 19 91/a lien not yet due and Faye`
INCLUDING DISTRICT LEVIES, PAYMENTS FOR WHICH ARE INCLUDED THFRCIN AND COLLECTED TH[ EN � (;ECTAL
(2) Assessments and Bonds, not delinquent, unpaid balance lone
(3) Any covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, rights, right, of way and casements of record, or deed to file.
(4) Red of Trust to file in favor of Lender of Buyer's choice in the zu,tount of $496,000.
Buyer's signature on loan documents designates their approval of sale.
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Buyers shall have the right at Buyer's expense to select a licensed contractor and ;or
other professional to make insepetions of t1-= subject prcperty inclLding but not
limited to structural, plumbing, set:--er/septic system, tell heating, electrical, built-
- appliances, roof, sgilsfout3datyaa,-�eeenassica3 systrltis pool, pool. heater, pool filter
`caiditioner, if any, possible enviratental hazards air] geological certditiens. BUyL
to have 10 days to approve said inspections, way disapproval to be aide in u:riting to
Escrowholder within sarre,l0 day period, otherwise silence 'vrill be deetttad approval of
Sarre. Buyer herein hereby agrees to pay for city ilssp r_ticns at his o -.-,n expense cutsid.
of escrow. Escrowholder is hereby relieved from any liability with regards to sane.
2. Escrowholder is hereby authorized and instructed Chit Salrl Cariyun Lk�velol:vrnt and/or
Assignee will purchase the Buyer's proporty lucatud at 2•Id•12-C Ilattpton Drive, Valenci<.
CA currenity in escrow with Ruth Altman Escrow. Beth estrays to close concurrently..
Escrow No. 50174. Phone No. 805-259-8700, attention: Anita.
/ As a matter of record the purchase price for Hampton property is $365,000.00
3. As a matter of record only with which Escro:rholder is not to be further concerned:
Sellers hereby inform Buyers that Cont tray will connect to Oak Springs Canyon with a
gated driveway limited to ennrgency use. Buyer's hereby accept stares.
:ember 18, 1991
Comet Way Homeowners Association
Mr. Joseph Schulman, President
16050 Comet Way
Santa Clarita, Ca. 91351
Dear Mr. Schulman:
I'm in receipt of your letter dated December 15, 1991
requesting that we install a gate across the private
and future right of way which is located on lot 11 and
12 of tract 42254 and between the terminus at.�gget_,ga�r._,__,
and revTousip's-Caie3 "rn "B -
Escrow Instructions we have agreed to install a gate
across the access at the terminus of Comet Way. Please
be advised that within 30 days of this letter the work
will be contracted out and completed in accordance to
the above mentioned escrows.
Furthermore, upon installation of gates I wish to go on
record that we are in full compliance with the Escrow
Instructions. It is here understood that upon
installation of emergency gates, the Comet Way
Homeowner's Association will assume all
responsibilities and expenses in maintaining the gate.
Sincerely,
Sjand Canyon Devel
• S. Dev o me
�y
Eugene Schiff a
opment, A Joint Venture
oint Venturer
ccs Judith L. Grange, Attorney
City of Santa Clarita
F c Tn.-